translated by Michael L. Rodkinson

The Babylonian Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism, a vast compendium of legal discussion, ethical teaching, folklore, theology, and practical wisdom compiled over seven centuries. The Mishnah, its core, was redacted by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi around 200 CE; the Gemara, the extensive commentary and elaboration that surrounds it, was developed by generations of scholars (Amoraim) in the great academies of Babylonia and completed around 500 CE. Together, they form a work of approximately 2.5 million words across sixty-three tractates.

Michael L. Rodkinson's translation, published in its second edition in 1918, remains the only extensive English rendering of the Talmud in the public domain. Rodkinson translated approximately one-third of the total work, covering the 'Festivals' section (Moed) — which treats the Sabbath, holidays, and sacred time — and the 'Jurisprudence' section (Nezikin) — which covers civil and criminal law. He also included the philosophical tractate Aboth (Ethics of the Fathers) and concluded with a substantial History of the Talmud.

Rodkinson's approach was to present the essential arguments and conclusions while abridging the most technical and repetitive passages of legal debate. His translation conveys the intellectual vigor, humor, and spiritual depth of the original, and his work has introduced more English-speaking readers to the Talmud than any other source. The tenth volume, the History of the Talmud, provides invaluable context on the text's composition, transmission, persecution, and enduring influence.

Book 1: Tract Sabbath (Vols. I and II)

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles:

1. Tenan of the original—We have learned in a Mishna; Tania—We have learned in a Boraitha; Itemar—It was taught.

Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately followed by the answers, without being so marked.

When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase, Lisna achrena or Waïbayith Aema or Ikha d'amri (literally, "otherwise interpreted"), we translate only the second.

As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation from the latter.

Words or passages enclosed in round parentheses ( ) denote the explanation rendered by Rashi to the foregoing sentence or word. Square parentheses [ ] contain commentaries by authorities of the last period of construction of the Gemara.

COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

TO

EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

IN RECOGNITION OF

HIS WARM INTEREST AND VALUABLE SERVICES IN PROMOTING THE STUDY OF LITERATURE, AND HIS GREAT INSTRUMENTALITY IN ASSISTING YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO BROADEN THEIR MINDS, AND REACH A HIGHER SOCIAL PLANE, AND FOR HIS MANY WORKS FOR THE COMMUNAL WELFARE, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN BEHALF OF THE

EDUCATIONAL ALLIANCE

THIS VOLUME IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR AND TRANSLATOR

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

June 15, 1901.

New York City.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION vii
EDITOR'S PREFACE ix
BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD xv
INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH xxi
SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS OF VOLUME I.—TRACT SABBATH xxix

CHAPTER I.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING TRANSFER ON SABBATH

1

CHAPTER II.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND 'HANUKAH LIGHT

31

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING STOVES, HEARTHS, AND OVENS

63

CHAPTER IV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPOSITING OF VICTUALS ON THE SABBATH

83

CHAPTER V.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING GEAR WHICH MAY AND MAY NOT BE WORN BY ANIMALS ON THE SABBATH

91

CHAPTER VI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHAT GARMENTS (SERVING AS ORNAMENTS) WOMEN MAY GO OUT WITH ON THE SABBATH

107 CHAPTER VII.

THE GENERAL RULE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL ACTS OF LABOR ON SABBATH

127

CHAPTER VIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITY OF VICTUALS AND BEVERAGES WHICH MUST NOT BE CARRIED ABOUT ON THE SABBATH

143

CHAPTER IX.

RABBI AQIBA'S REGULATIONS ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS

154

CHAPTER X.

FURTHER REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITY OF THINGS TO BE STORED

171

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

THE translator of the Talmud, who has now reached the thirteenth volume of his task, covering twenty-one tracts of this great work, certainly cannot point with any great pride to the fact that this is the second edition of his translation which first appeared in 1896, for he believes that the opening and bringing to light of a book so long withheld from the gaze of the curious, and even the learned, should have attracted more attention and deserved greater consideration than it has received. However, he is glad to see that thousands of readers have at last taken advantage of the opportunity of looking into the "sealed book," and to such an extent that second editions have become necessary, both of this volume and of the Tract Rosh Hashana of the fourth volume, which he has reëdited and enlarged upon, adding many historical facts and legends, so that they now appear as practically new works.

This is certainly an encouragement to him to continue his work, with the hope that in time it will gain the proper recognition and proper attention which he thinks this great work of the sixth century should receive at the hands of all scholars and even laymen.

In revising this volume the translator had in mind the many criticisms which have been passed upon his effort and which have appeared in various papers throughout different countries, but he gave his attention to those only which were not prompted by animosity and jealousy. He begs to call the attention of all critics to the dictum of the Talmud, "Kal Hat'haloth Kashoth" (all beginnings are difficult); for, bearing this in mind, they would no doubt have been more moderate.

The translator will be very grateful to critics who will call his attention to any mistakes made in the translation of the original text. However, he will positively ignore criticisms of the kind described above.

The translator further hopes that this and the succeeding volumes will meet with the favor and approval of the public, which will be sufficient reward to repay him for his efforts.

M. L. R.

NEW YORK, June, 1901.

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

[To the first edition.]

THE Hebrew edition of Rosh Hashana contains an elaborate introduction in three chapters, the translation of which does not appear as yet. Its contents include many important rules which we have followed in the entire work, but we do not feel called upon at this time to engross the time of the English reader by reciting them. We, however, deem it a duty to say a few words, so that the reader may understand our position and the reason why we have undertaken a work which will probably be productive of much adverse criticism in certain quarters.

The fate of the Talmud has been the fate of the Jews. As soon as the Hebrew was born 1 he was surrounded by enemies. His whole history has been one of struggle against persecution and attack. Defamation and deformation have been his lot. So too, has it been with the Talmud. At the beginning of its formative period, viz., the development of the Mishna, it was beset by such enemies as the Sadducees, the Boëthusians, and other sects, not to mention the Roman Government. 2 When its canon was fixed, the Karaites tried to destroy or belittle its influence, and since that time it has been subjected to an experience of unvarying difficulty. Yet, with remarkable truth, the words of Isaiah [xliii. 2] may be applied to both: "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee; when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." There is, however, one point concerning which this simile is not true. The Jew has advanced; the Talmud has remained stationary.

Since the time of Moses Mendelssohn the Jew has made vast strides forward. There is to-day no branch of human activity in which his influence is not felt. Interesting himself in the affairs of the world, he has been enabled to bring a degree of intelligence and industry to bear upon modern life that has challenged the admiration of the world. But with the Talmud it is not so. That vast encyclopædia of Jewish lore remains as it was. No improvement has been possible; no progress has been made with it. Issue after issue has appeared, but it has always been called the Talmud Babli, as chaotic as it was when its canon was originally appointed. 1 Commentary upon commentary has appeared; every issue of the Talmud contains new glosses from prominent scholars, proposing textual changes, yet the text of the Talmud has not received that heroic treatment that will alone enable us to say that the Talmud has been improved. Few books have ever received more attention than this vast storehouse of Jewish knowledge. Friends and enemies it has had. Attack after attack has been made upon it, and defence after defence made for it; yet whether its enemies or its defenders have done it more harm it would be hard to tell. Not, forsooth, that we do not willingly recognize that there have been many learned and earnest spirits who have labored faithfully in its behalf; but for the most part, if the Talmud could speak, it would say, "God save me from my friends!" For the friends have, generally, defended without due knowledge of that stupendous monument of rabbinical lore; and the enemies have usually attacked it by using single phrases or epigrams disconnected from their context, by which method anything could be proven. In both cases ignorance has been fatal. For, how many have read the whole Talmud through and are thus competent to judge of its merits? Is it right to attack or defend without sufficient information? Is it not a proof of ignorance and unfairness to find fault with that of which we are not able to give proper testimony?

Let us take the case of those persons in particular who attacked the Talmud and made it the object of their venomous vituperation. Is it possible that they could have believed it a work capable of teaching the monstrous doctrines so frequently attributed to it, when that work says, among other things, "When one asks for food, no questions shall be asked as to who he is, but he must immediately be given either food or money"? Could a work be accused of frivolity and pettiness that defines wickedness to be "the action of a rich man who, hearing that a poor man is about to buy a piece of property, secretly overbids him"? (Qiddushin, 59a.) Could there be a higher sense of true charity than that conveyed by the following incident? Mar Uqba used to support a poor man by sending him on the eve of each Day of Atonement four hundred zuz. When the rabbi's son took the money on one occasion he heard the poor man's wife say, "Which wine shall I put on the table? Which perfume shall I sprinkle around the room?" The son, on hearing these remarks, returned with the money to his father and told him of what he had heard. Said Mar Uqba: "Was that poor man raised so daintily that he requires such luxuries? Go back to him and give him double the sum?" (Ketuboth, 7a.) This is not recorded by the Talmud as an exception; but it is the Talmudical estimate of charity. The Talmud is free from the narrowness and bigotry with which it is usually charged, and if phrases used out of their context, and in a sense the very reverse from that which their author intended, are quoted against it, we may be sure that those phrases never existed in the original Talmud, but are the later additions of its enemies and such as never studied it. When it is remembered that before the canon of the Talmud was finished, in the sixth century, 1 it had been growing for more than six hundred years, and that afterward it existed in fragmentary manuscripts for eight centuries until the first printed edition appeared; that during the whole of that time it was beset by ignorant, unrelenting, and bitter foes; that marginal notes were easily added and in after years easily embodied in the text by unintelligent copyists and printers, such a theory as here advanced seems not at all improbable.

The attacks on the Talmud have not been made by the enemies of the Jews alone. Large numbers of Jews themselves repudiate it, denying that they are Talmud Jews, or that they have any sympathy with it. Yet there are only the few Karaites in Russia and Austria, and the still fewer Samaritans in Palestine, who are really not Talmud Jews. Radical and Reform, Conservative and Orthodox, not only find their exact counterparts in the Talmud, but also follow in many important particulars the practices instituted through the Talmud, e.g., New Year's Day, Pentecost (so far as its date and significance are concerned), the QADDISH, etc. The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud, which we shall find is a work of the greatest sympathies, the most liberal impulses, and the widest humanitarianism. Even the Jewish defenders have played into the enemy's hands by their weak defences, of which such expressions as "Remember the age in which it was written," or "Christians are not meant by 'gentiles,' but only the Romans, or the people of Asia Minor," etc., may be taken as a type.

Amid its bitter enemies and weak friends the Talmud has suffered a martyrdom. Its eventful history is too well known to require detailing here. We feel that every attack on it is an attack upon the Jew. We feel that defence by the mere citation of phrases is useless and at the best weak. To answer the attacks made upon it through ludicrous and garbled quotations were idle. There is only one defence that can be made in behalf of the Talmud. Let it plead its own cause in a modern language!
What is this Talmud of which we have said so much? What is that work on which so many essays and sketches, articles and books, have been written? The best reply will be an answer in negative form. The Talmud is not a commentary on the Bible; nor should the vein of satire or humor that runs through it be taken for sober earnestness. 1 Nor is the Talmud a legal code, for it clearly states that one must not derive a law for practical application from any halakhic statement, nor even from a precedent, unless in either case it be expressly said that the law or statement is intended as a practical rule [Baba Bathra, 130b]. Further: R. Issi asked of R. Jo'hanan: "What shall we do if you pronounce a law to be a Halakha?" to which R. Jo'hanan replied: "Do not act in accordance with it until you have heard from me, 'Go and practice.'" Neither is the Talmud a compilation of fixed regulations, although the Shul'han Arukh would make it appear so. Yet, even when the Shul'han Arukh will be forgotten, the Talmud will receive the respect and honor of all who love liberty, both mental and religious. It lives and will live, because of its adaptability to the necessities of every age, and if any proof were needed to show that it is not dead, the attacks that are with remarkable frequency made on it in Germany might be given as the strongest evidence. In its day the Talmud received, not the decisions, but the debates of the leaders of the people. It was an independent critic, as it were, adapting itself to the spirit of the times; adding where necessary to the teachings of former days, and abrogating also what had become valueless in its day. In other words, the Talmud was the embodiment of the spirit of the people, recording its words and thoughts, its hopes and aims, and its opinions on every branch of thought and action. Religion and Ethics, Education, Law, History, Geography, Medicine, Mathematics, etc., were all discussed. It dealt with living issues in the liveliest manner, and, therefore, it is living, and in reading it we live over again the lives of its characters.

Nothing could be more unfair, nothing more unfortunate than to adopt the prevailing false notions about this ancient encyclopædia. Do not imagine it is the bigoted, immoral, narrow work that its enemies have portrayed it to be. On the very contrary; in its statements it is as free as the wind. It permits no shackles, no fetters to be placed upon it. It knows no authority but conscience and reason. It is the bitterest enemy of all superstition and all fanaticism.
But why speak for it? Let it open its mouth and speak in its own defence! How can it be done? The Talmud must be translated into the modern tongues and urge its own plea. All that we have said for it would become apparent, if it were only read. Translation! that is the sole secret of defence! In translating it, however, we find our path bristling with difficulties. To reproduce it as it is in the original is in our judgment an impossible task. Men like Pinner and Rawicz have tried to do so with single tracts, and have only succeeded in, at the best, giving translations to the world which are not only not correct but also not readable. If it were translated from the original text one would not see the forest through the trees. For, as we have said above, throughout the ages there have been added to the text marginal notes, explanatory words, and whole phrases and sentences inserted in malice or ignorance, by its enemies and its friends. 1 As it stands in the original it is, therefore, a tangled mass defying reproduction in a modern tongue. It has consequently occurred to us that, in order to enable the Talmud to open its mouth, the text must be carefully edited. A modern book, constructed on a supposed scientific plan, we cannot make of it, for that would not be the Talmud; but a readable, intelligible work, it can be made. We have, therefore, carefully punctuated the Hebrew text with modern punctuation marks, and have reëdited it by omitting all such irrelevant matter as interrupted the clear and orderly arrangement of the various arguments. We have also omitted repetitions; for frequently the same thing is found repeated in many tracts; while in this translation each statement is to be found only once, and in the proper place for it. In this way there disappear those unnecessary debates within debates, which only serve to confuse and never to enlighten on the question debated. Thus consecutiveness has been gained, but never at the expense of the Talmud, for in no case have we omitted one single statement that was necessary or of any importance. In other words, we have merely removed from the text those accretions that were added from outside sources, which have proven so fruitful a source of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

We continue our labors in the full and certain hope that "he who comes to purify receives divine help," and that in our task of removing the additions made by the enemies of the Talmud we shall be purifying it from the most fruitful source of the attacks made on it, and thereunto we hope for the help of Heaven. As we have already said, we feel that this work will not be received everywhere with equal favor. We could not expect that it would. Jewish works of importance have most usually been given amid "lightning and thunder," and this is not likely to prove an exception.

We are always ready to accept criticism, so long as it is objective, and we shall gladly avail ourselves of suggestions given to us, but we shall continue to disregard all personal criticism directed not against our work but against its author. This may serve as a reply to a so-called review that appeared in one of our Western weeklies.

At the same time we deem it our duty to render to Dr. Isaac H. Wise, the venerable President of the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati, our heartfelt thanks for the several evenings spent in revising this volume, and for many courtesies extended to us in general.

THE EDITOR.

CINCINNATI, May, 1896.

Footnotes

ix:1 Vide Genesis, xliii. 32. ix:2 In our forthcoming "History of the Talmud" the reader will find all details of the persecution, until the present time, in twenty chapters. x:1 Vide Brief Introduction. xi:1 According to others, in the eighth century. See our "History of the Talmud." xii:1 See our article, "What is the Talmud?" in the prospectus. xiii:1 In others of our works we have named some of these interpolators.

BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION

TO THE

BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

ON this, the appearance of our latest literary undertaking, we deem a few explanatory remarks necessary. The brief outline of the origin of the Talmud that follows may suggest the thought that we have departed from the usual manner of dealing with the questions here discussed, the more so since we have, for the sake of brevity, refrained from citing the authorities on which our statements are based. We wish, therefore, to declare here that we do not venture to make a single statement without the support of authorities well known in Hebrew literature. Our method is to select such views as seem to us the best authenticated in the historical progress of Judaism. As we have taken our choice from the numerous works on our subject, the student is entitled to adopt or to reject the views that we represent.

Most of the Mishnayoth date from a very early period, and originated with the students of the Jewish academies which existed since the days of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah [II Chron. xvii. 9].

The rabbinical students of ancient times noted the essence of the academical teachings in brief form, and, as a rule, in the idiom in which it was spoken to them, so that they could afterward easily commit it to memory. They have sometimes, however, added comments and extensive explanations in the form of notes, so that the mass of their learning, embraced in course of time, according to some authorities, as many as six hundred divisions.
The source of the Mishnayoth was the customs and regulations practised by the authorities in their administration of religious and civil affairs: such as the Sabbath, Prayers, Cleanliness (considered actually Godliness), Permitted and Forbidden Foods, and controversies arising concerning Slavery. Indebtedness and corporal punishment are subjects of academical discussion, conducted with the aim of perfecting them into national statutes enforceable in all Jewish communities alike.

In course of time, however, when those Mishnayoth were noted down from earlier existing copies, many additions were made. Finally Rabbi Jehudah the Prince, generally called Rabbi, concluded to collect all the Mishnayoth in his college for proper arrangement. From these he selected six divisions, called according to the subject they deal with, viz.: Seeds, Feasts, Women, Damages, Sacrifices, and Purifications, and he proclaimed them holy for all Israel. Of the Mishnayoth so treated by Rabbi some were left entirely intact, and were reproduced in their original form. To others he parenthetically added brief comments of his own, and there are still others that he changed in form completely, because already in his day old customs had changed and taken new forms.

Such of them as he desired to make final and indisputable national laws he incorporated into the Mishna without mentioning the names of their authors. Where, however, he could formulate no definite decision himself, or where they were well known to the public, he gave full information of their authors as well as the names of those opposed to their conclusions, without any decision on his part. In still others he mentioned no names, but contented himself with saying "A'herim," i.e., "Anonymous teachers say," not wishing to specify their authority for certain reasons.

Rabbi did not seek the compliance and agreement of all his contemporaries in his arrangement of the Mishna, and many differed from his conclusions and even arranged Mishnayoth in accordance with their own views. Being, however, a man of great prominence, influence, and wealth, Rabbi succeeded in quelling opposition and in making his conclusions as acceptable as the Mosaic law itself; and his great pupils, seeing that his intentions were only to prevent dissensions and his only aim the public weal, supported him nobly, until his teachings were accepted as the law of the nation.

Many Mishnayoth were rejected and destroyed by Rabbi, but, not being in possession of all those he wished to destroy, he went in search of them to colleges outside of his jurisdiction. There, however, he met with great opposition. Some of the Mishnayoth were hidden beyond his reach, others were secretly preserved and arranged within the very limits of his domain and promptly brought to light after his death. But Rabbi's pupils did not dignify them with the name MISHNA, implying "next to Mosaic law," 1 but called them TOSEPHTOTH, meaning "additions of a later period," or merely additional, not principal, matter. Some of them were also named BORAITHOTH (outsiders), i.e., secondary, not academical matter. They spread, however, very rapidly after Rabbi's death, and to such an extent as to threaten the Mishnayoth of Rabbi with entire extinction.

Such would actually have been the result, had not the pupils of Rabbi organized again colleges whose aim was to perpetuate the Mishnayoth of Rabbi, which they also accomplished. Colleges of that character were those of Rabh and Samuel in Babylon and Rabbi Janai and Rabbi Jo'hanan in Palestine. These colleges made strenuous efforts to explain and harmonize the Mishnayoth of Rabbi with the teachings of the Boraithoth, generally regarded as those of Rabbi Hyya and Rabbi Oshia, who were greatly admired by the public. At times the Mishna of Rabbi was abbreviated and replenished with the text of the Boraitha, or explained with an opposing opinion, so as to harmonize it with the latter or suit the new conditions and consequent changes of the custom that originally caused the conclusion of the Mishna.

Where, however, they found no other way to suit their purpose, they inserted a new Mishna of their own composition into the text of Rabbi. 2 The teachers mentioned in the Mishna of Rabbi or in the Boraithoth and Tosephta were called Tanaim (singular Tana) signifying Instructors, Professors. The teachings of the colleges, covering a period of some centuries, which also found adherents and became the traditional law, were called GEMARA, signifying "conclusion." The intention was to harmonize Mishna and Boraitha, and, in most cases, to arrive at a final decision as to the theory of the law (as Rabbi the proper interpretation or Jo'hanan prohibited compliance with the Halakha unless it is mandatory). These Gemara teachers were called AMORAIM (interpreters), i.e., they interpreted to the public the difficult passages in the Mishna.

Being classified as interpreters only, they had no authority to deviate from the spirit of the Mishna unless supported by another Tana opposing the Mishna, in which case they could follow the opinion of the Tana with whom they agreed. Rabhina and R. Ashi, who lived at the end of the fifth century (third century of Amoraim), began to arrange the Gemara, but without success, and commenced a second time to arrange it.

Unfortunately they died before accomplishing their task, and the Gemara had to undergo the chances of transmission from hand to hand until the appearance upon the scene of Rabana Jose, president of the last Saburaic College in Pumbeditha, who foresaw that his college was destined to be the last, owing to the growing persecution of the Jews from the days of "Firuz." He also feared that the Amoraic manuscripts would be lost in the coming dark days or materially altered, so be summoned all his contemporary associates and hastily closed up the Talmud, prohibiting any further additions. This enforced haste caused not only an improper arrangement and many numerous repetitions and additions, but also led to the "talmudizing" of articles directly traceable to bitter and relentless opponents of the Talmud.

The time (Rabana Jose conducted his college only seventeen years) being too short for a proper and critical review of each and every subject, many theories were surreptitiously added by its enemies, with the purpose of making it detestable to its adherents. Of such character is the expression, "That of R. Ashi is a fabrication," which is repeated numerous times throughout the Talmud and which could by no means have originated with the Amoraim, which as a rule were very guarded in their expressions and would never have dreamed of applying it or similar expressions to such Talmudical authorities as R. Ashi and Mar, his son, much less to the Patriarchs or the Prophets. This closing up of the Talmud did not, however, prevent the importation of foreign matter into it, and many such have crept in through the agency of the "Rabanan Saburai" and the Gaonim of every later generation.

The chief aim of the authors of the Gemara being to perpetuate the Mishna as the sole source of the Jewish religious and civil code after the Mosaic laws themselves, they not only directed all their energy to the discussion and perfecting of its deductions, but treated its very words and letters as inspired and as holy as the Bible itself, forming at times conclusions from a superfluous word or letter. Oftentimes, when they found the Mishna differing with an established custom in their days, they resorted to subtle inquiry and minute discussion, until they succeeded in establishing harmony between the differing points. All these efforts were directed to refute and disprove the assertions of the different sects who opposed the oral law and who were inclined to adhere to the written law solely. Therefore the Rabbis of the Gemara said "MINALAN?" (Wherefrom its source?) or "MINOH HANNE MILI?" (which means "Whence is all this deduced?") in the treatment of a subject not plainly specified in the Bible; and also the exclamatory remark "PESHITA!" (It is self-evident!) as regards subjects plainly enumerated in the Scriptures which do not admit of any other interpretation. Of the same origin is the question "LEMAI HILKHETHA?" (For what purpose was this Halakha stated?) with reference to an obsolete custom. So much for the general history of the Talmud.

Footnotes

xvii:1 See Mielziner's "Introduction to the Talmud," page 6. xvii:2 This was done by Rabh and R. Jo'hanan, the heads of the colleges in Babylon and Palestine; and in many passages of the Talmud the latter exclaims: "This Mishna was taught in the time of Rabbi!" which means that Rabbi himself was not aware of it. See Weiss' "Traditions of the Oral Law," under the head "Mishna and Rabbi."

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.

WITH this tract we commence the translation of the section of the Talmud called Moed (Festivals), containing the following tracts: Sabbath, Erubhin, Rosh Hashana, Yuma, Shekalim, Sukkah, Megillah, Taanith, Pesachim, Betzah, Hagigah, and Moed Katan. All these tracts are entirely devoted to precepts pertaining to the observance of the festivals and Sabbath, such as the performance of the different ritual ceremonies on feast-days, the manner of sanctifying the Sabbath, and the ordinances relating to mourning for the dead both on Sabbath and week-days.

The commandments on which these precepts are founded, or from which they are derived, are contained in various portions of the Pentateuch. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue enacts (Exod. xx. 8-11 and Deut. v. 12-15): "The seventh day shall ye keep holy." In various other parts of the Pentateuch the due observance of the Sabbath is repeatedly ordained; in some instances merely mentioning the day as one to be kept inviolate and holy; and in others employing greater emphasis, referring to the history of creation, and establishing the observance as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and Israel. Such texts are Exod. xiii. 12; xvi. 15; xxxi, 13-17; xxxiv. 21; xxxv. 1-3; Lev. xix. 29; xxiii. 32; Num. xv. 9, etc. While the general principle is thus frequently inculcated, its special application, however, and specific enactments as to what constitutes a violation of the Sabbath, are nowhere fully carried out in the Pentateuch, and thus but few texts of the Scriptures serve as a direct basis for the minute and numerous enactments of the rabbinical law.
The Mishna enumerates thirty-nine "Abhoth" or principal acts of labor, the performance of any one of which constitutes a violation of the Sabbath. Every other kind of work becomes illegal only if it can be classified under one or any of these principal acts of labor. Thus, for instance, under the principal act of ploughing, every analogous kind of work, such as digging, delving, weeding, dunging, etc., must be classified. In addition to these thirty-nine principal acts and their accessories and derivatives, there are other acts which are especially prohibited by the rabbinical law as tending to violate the Sabbath rest (Shbhuth). For the violation itself various degrees of culpability are established, and various degrees of punishment awarded. All these subjects relating to the due observance of the Sabbath, and pointing out its violation in every possible way, form the contents of the treatise Sabbath.

In order properly to understand the Mishna, and to avoid tedious repetitions, it is necessary to commence with the explanation of certain general principles and technical expressions predominating in the text.

Wherever throughout the Mishna the expression guilty, culpable (Hayabh), or free (Patur) is used, the meaning of the former (guilty) is that the transgressor acting unintentionally must bring the sin-offering prescribed in the law; of the second expression (free), that the accused is absolved from punishment.

If through the performance of an unprohibited act some other (prohibited) occupation is inadvertently entered upon, it constitutes no offence, providing the latter is not done intentionally nor the lawful occupation entered upon with the covert purpose of making it serve as a subterfuge to do that which is prohibited.

In the degrees of violation the nature of the occupation must be considered, as various kinds of labor may be required to perform and complete one act, and thus the offender may become amenable to several penalties. On the other hand, the rule is laid down that such occupations as only destroy, but do not serve an end in view, do not involve culpability (in the rigorous sense of the word); nor yet does work which is but imperfectly or incompletely performed involve culpability.
The prohibition to carry or convey any object from one place to another, which in Chap. I., § 1, of this treatise is called "Yetziath (Ha) Shabbath" (which means transfer on the Sabbath) and forms the thirty-ninth of the principal acts of labor, requires particular attention and explanation from the complexity of cases to which it gives rise. All space was by the Tanaim divided into four distinct kinds of premises, explained in the Gemara of this chapter. When in the text of the Mishna the question is about carrying and conveying from one place to another, it does not apply to the "free place," as that is subject to no jurisdiction. Moreover, the open air above private property has no legal limitation, whereas that over public property or unclaimed ground (carmelith) only belongs thereto to the height of ten spans (see explanation of the Gemara). The carrying or conveying from one kind of premises to another does not constitute a complete or perfect act, unless the same person who takes a thing from the place it occupies deposits it in another place.

The tracts Sabbath and Erubhin will contain the laws for the observance of rest on Sabbath, and these laws can be divided into two separate parts. Firstly, the part prohibiting labor on the Sabbath day, at the same time defining what is to be termed labor and what does not constitute an act of labor; and secondly, the part ordaining how the day is to be sanctified and distinguished from a week-day in the manner of eating, drinking, dress, lighting of candles in honor of the Sabbath, and incidentally the lighting of candles in honor of the festival of 'Hanukah (the Maccabees).

It has been proven that the seventh day kept holy by the Jews was also in ancient times the general day of rest among other nations, 1 and was usually spent by the people of those days in much the same way as it is spent now, wherever local laws do not restrict buying and selling, namely: In the forenoon prayers were recited and the necessities of life for the day were bought, while the afternoon was devoted to pleasure-seeking, merrymaking, visiting, and so forth. The Jews living prior to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and even during the latter's régime, were wont to spend the Sabbath in the same manner as their pagan neighbors. It was this fact that caused the sages of Nehemiah's time to fear that should the Jews, who were always in the minority as compared with other nations, continue this method of keeping the Sabbath and join in the merrymaking and pleasures of their neighbors, mingling freely with their sons and daughters, assimilation was almost inevitable, especially as the Jewish race was scattered over all the known world and was nowhere in very large numbers.

The sages then devised means to keep the Jew from mingling with the Gentile and from participating in the pleasures and carousals of his neighbors. This can be seen from Nehemiah, xiii. 1-26: "In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath," etc. "In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab," etc. "Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves." Thus we see that Nehemiah began by prohibiting traffic and the carrying of burdens on the Sabbath [ibid. xiii. 19] and ended by prohibiting intermarriage with foreign women. About this time also another prophet, the second Isaiah—who, though not possessing the temporal power of Nehemiah, was gifted with that persuasive eloquence that appealed to the heart—preached against indulging in pleasures on the Sabbath day. He says [Isaiah, lviii. 13-14]: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath" (meaning if thou keep away from drinking-places, dancing-houses, etc., on the Sabbath and follow not the custom of other nations), "and call the Sabbath a delight" (meaning the rest on the Sabbath shall constitute thy pleasure), "the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words. Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (The inference is very plain. The prophet wishes to impress the Jew with the fact that the Lord will reward those with the heritage of Jacob who have kept away from mingling with the pleasures of other nations. Read ibid. lvii., especially verses 10, 11, and 12.)

After the establishment of a permanent government among the Jews, however, it was found that the exhortations of the prophets after the manner of Isaiah were of no avail; the people still continued seeking pleasures on the Sabbath, after the manner of other nations, and were still wont to enjoy the pastimes of their neighbors. The enforcement of the prohibition of carrying burdens was then decided upon to act as a check upon the people by defining minutely the meaning of burdens, and the prohibition was interpreted to include not only heavy burdens, but all portable articles, such as money, trinkets, eatables, etc., while only necessary articles of clothing and apparel were permitted to be worn. To such an extent was the matter carried that even the wearing of rings, with the exception of such as had the name of the wearer engraved upon them, was not permitted. In fact, everything that could be converted into money was included in the definition of burdens. Beggars were not permitted to solicit alms on the Sabbath, contrary to the customs of other nations, so as not to afford any one an excuse for carrying money on that day.
The enforcement of such a law, however, was practically impossible in the case of people who remained in their houses, and certain modifications were made. These modifications were as follows: The laws were made to apply only on public grounds but were not valid on private grounds, so that in a private house a person was permitted to carry whatever was necessary. Private grounds were also established by the institution of Erubhin, i.e., where a street or a public place was inhabited by Jews alone a small amount of meal was collected from each household; from the meal a cake was made and hung conspicuously in that locality. The point where the street inhabited by Jews alone commenced and the point where it ended were joined by a piece of twine, and thus definitely marked. Thus public grounds were turned into private grounds, from the fact that each household contributing a share of meal made them all in a manner copartners in one object. The walking of more than two thousand ells outside of the city limits was also prohibited. Within the city limits, be the city ever so large, walking was permitted.

The possibility of confinement in the house on the Sabbath becoming conducive to the performance of labor was offset by the establishment of a law prohibiting all the different modes of labor used in the construction of the tabernacle, besides all manner of agricultural labor. This again brought about the detailing of all the different modes of labor employed in the construction of the tabernacle and in agriculture, all of which is discussed in these treatises of Sabbath and Erubhin.

Naturally the institution of laws carries with it provisions for the penalties attending their infraction, and these penalties were divided into three classes:

First, the penalties for unintentional infractions.

Secondly, for intentional infractions.

Thirdly, for intentional violations where the violator had been previously forewarned of the penalty by two witnesses.

The penalty for the first class of infractions was simply the sacrificing of a sin-offering, which, however, involved a great many hardships, as the culprit had to bring the sin-offering to the temple in Jerusalem in person, and was frequently compelled to travel quite a distance in order to do so, besides sustaining the loss of the value of the offering.
For the second class, if two witnesses testified before the tribunal that the culprit had labored on the Sabbath, and the culprit admitted that he had done so intentionally, no penalty was inflicted by the tribunal, but the person was told that he would be punished by the heavenly power with the curse of Karath (shortening his allotted time of existence on earth). No penalty was inflicted, for the reason that, the culprit having made himself liable to severe punishment from superhuman sources, it served as an excuse to absolve him from human punishment. 1 For the third class, however, when the culprit openly defied the existing authority and in spite of forewarnings; persisted in violating the law, he was considered a traitor to the government, to be sentenced to death by stoning, as was the wood-gatherer [Numbers, xv. 32].

It is upon these laws that the discussions in the treatises Sabbath and Erubhin are based, and in addition the reader will find many ethical laws, legends, and the enumeration of such enjoyments as are permitted on the Sabbath day and the festivals.

In addition to the above we would make the following citations from the text of the Talmud, as a necessary feature of the introduction:

I. We find in the Tract Sabbath, 61b and 96b, the story of the mysterious scroll which Rabh claimed to have found in the house of his uncle, R. Hyya. This scroll referred to the principal acts of labor prohibited on the Sabbath, which were forty less one. Rabh discovered in this scroll the statement of R. Issi b. Jehudah to the effect that although thirty-nine principal acts of labor are enumerated, only one of them makes a man actually culpable. The Gemara then amends this statement and declares that it should read: "One of the thirty-nine does not involve culpability," but does not mention which one it is. Consequently it remains doubtful which act it is that does not involve culpability, and where a doubt exists as to whether an act is prohibited or not no punishment can be inflicted for its commission. From this, two things may be inferred: First, that these acts of labor were prohibited for political reasons, because the mystery was extant, and we find the term mystery applied to political cases only; and second, that the Gemara declares in the same passage that the carrying of an object from public ground into private ground is not one of the doubtful acts and a penalty is prescribed in the event of its being committed. Hence the object was to prevent the assimilation explained above.
II. We find in Yebamoth, 90b: "R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: "I have heard that a man was found riding a horse on Sabbath in the time of the Greeks, and being brought before the tribunal for the crime was stoned to death.' This man was punished, not because his crime merited the penalty, but because the times made it necessary." The inference is therefore clearly established that the man was punished for political reasons, and that the violation of the Sabbath laws did not involve capital punishment.
III. In Yoma, 85b, it is written: "R. Jonathan b. Joseph said, 'The Sabbath is holy unto you,'" implying that the Sabbath is handed over to you and not you to the Sabbath. 1 IV. R. Johanan states elsewhere that in Palestine, where the Jews were together, no public ground existed.

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

CINCINNATI, March, 1896.

Footnotes

xxiii:1 In a table compiled by Rev. A. H. Lewis, Alfred Centre, N. Y., 1884, in his work entitled "Biblical Teachings, concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday," it is shown that among nearly all nations the Sunday is the first and the Sabbath the seventh day of the week. xxvi:1 Because it is a rule of rabbinical law that, of two punishments incurred by one act, the severer one is meted out Qâm lêh bid'rabba minêh. xxviii:1 This is taken from Mechilta, an authority older than the Talmud, and stands in no connection with the Halakha. Furthermore, the mystic scrolls may in some instances have had reference to political necessities of the day, but by no means in all cases.—The Reviser.

SECTION MOED (FESTIVALS).

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

OF

VOLUME I.—TRACT SABBATH.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

SEVERAL requests have been received by the translator that an index should be made to the volumes of the Talmud, as is customary with all modern works. It would be an utter impossibility to give a complete index of everything contained in the Talmud. Were it like other scientific works, which treat each subject separately, this could easily be done; but with the Talmud it is different. On one page many different subjects may be discussed, and again a single subject may occupy several pages. The Talmud, therefore, has never had an index, not even the portions which have been translated.

After careful examination of the volumes, page by page, it has been decided to make a synopsis, i.e., to give briefly the heads of the discussions and conversations upon each Mishna, indicating the page where the Mishna is to be found, and the Gemara of each one, which serves as a commentary. By this the reader should be able to refer to what he desires to know.

A synopsis is therefore given of every Mishna which discusses a single subject, with its accompanying Gemara; but when several short Mishnas cover the same subject, a single synopsis is given of the whole, including the Gemara of each one; and where a chapter is short and has but one subject, a synopsis of the whole chapter is made, without dividing it into Mishnas.

This is the best that can be done, and it is hoped that readers will find it satisfactory.

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA I. Regulations concerning prohibited and permitted acts of transfer over the dividing line of adjoining premises and the area of such premises; the classification of premises; in which premises transfer is permitted; laws of transfer of labor, when committed by the joint efforts of two persons; transfer from and to doorsteps, 1-13 MISHNA II. Whether work may be commenced at the approach of the time for afternoon prayer; what kind of work is referred to; how a man should pray; what he must wear; when he may eat his midday meal; the informing of the bestowal of gifts; Sabbath as a valuable gift of God and its origin; various legends of Rabha bar Ma'hassia in the name of Rabh, 13-19 MISHNA III. Tailors and other artisans are not permitted to go out with their tools on Friday near eventide. Treats also on whether one may read by lamplight on the Sabbath; the laws of visiting the sick; what prayers may be offered for the sick, 19-22 MISHNAS IV. TO VI. How the eighteen famous ordinances were instituted in the attic of Hananya ben Hyzkiyah ben Gorion, and by whom the Roll of Fasts was written. Which acts of labor may be commenced on Friday eve; concerning labor which is accomplished without assistance of man on Sabbath; laws concerning labor which is accomplished without assistance of man on Sabbath; laws concerning work given to Gentiles. Narrative of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel concerning how his father's house dealt with Gentile clothes-washers. On transmission of letters and journeying on ships on the Sabbath. Regulations pertaining to the roasting of meats and baking of bread before the Sabbath; the sacrifices at the Temple on the Passover. Appendix to p. 8, 22-30

CHAPTER II.

MISHNAS I. AND II. Permissible and non-permissible oils and wicks for lamps on the Sabbath and 'Hanukah (feast of Maccabbees); the law of the 'Hanukah lights; 'Hanukah and the miracle; the duration of 'Hanukah; benedictions to be said on that festival; the reward of those who keep the Sabbath-light commandment; the reward of those who esteem scholarship, The second Mishna treats on: What balsams may and may not be used both for light and for the person on the Sabbath; a narrative of a woman who hated her daughter-in-law; who may be called a rich man, 31-42 MISHNAS III. TO V. What wicks made from parts of trees may be used; whether broken vessels may be used for fuel on a biblical feast clay; what may be done with the residue of oil left in a lamp; practical laws of egg-shells and whether chairs may be dragged on the floor on Sabbath.

The different opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba concerning the defilement of a piece of cloth, and if it is allowed to make a wick of it. What happened with R. Jehudah in the Hall of Beth Nitza and with Abhin of Ziphoris, who committed certain acts which were not allowed, in the presence of the sages, 42-49 MISHNA VI. Whether a light may be extinguished on Sabbath either for fear of accident or to afford rest for the sick; the question asked R. Tan'hum of Nav and his replying sermon; the soul being called the "Light of God"; the intended concealment of the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; the Shekhina (divine presence) not resting with a man except through his joy of having performed a good deed; Rabha's custom when commencing his lectures to his disciples. R. Gamaliel's sermon and answers to the disciple who derided him.

The story of the three proselytes rejected by Shamai and accepted by Hillel. "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy neighbor, that is the law. All else is but a commentary." The six sections of the Mishna are inferred from a biblical passage. The first thing asked of a man when standing before the divine judgment is, "Hast thou traded in good faith?" The "Fear of the Lord" is the chief principle. The wicked fear death, although mentioning it every day, 48-53 MISHNAS VII. AND VIII. The sins of women are passed upon when confined in childbirth, the sins of men while in danger, A good deed is committed through the agency of a meritorious person and a bad deed through the agency of the wicked; all who are about to die must repent of their sins; the defenders of man before divine judgment are repentance and good deeds.

A thousandth part of one defender saves a man from the danger threatened him by a thousand accusers. The penalties imposed upon man for hating without cause; for robbery; for perverting or procrastinating justice; for destroying the law; for murder; for adultery; for idolatry; for using obscene language. The story of R., Simeon ben Johai, who remained in a cave for twelve years. The causes leading up to his concealment in the cave; his adventures after leaving the cave. The three things to be said by a man in his house on Friday eve; how they are to be said; when twilight takes place; how many signals of the horn were blown to remind the people of the advent of the Sabbath. Is there a difference between a shophar and a fife?, 53-62

CHAPTER III.

MISHNAS I. AND II. In which hearths or ovens victuals may be deposited on the Sabbath. The opinions of the school of Hillel and the school of Shamai concerning the same; the different opinions upon the teaching of the two schools. Victuals having once been taken out of an oven, would it be allowed to replace them? The law concerning a pot of victuals which had been forgotten and was thus cooked on the Sabbath. Usages of R. Jose on his way to Zipporah, and of R. Jehudah Hanassi when travelling. A narrative of R. Ishai while in the presence of R. Hyya the Great. The difference in law between an oven and a hearth; also, difference arising from an oven or a hearth being heated with straw or with wood, etc., 63-67 MISHNAS III. TO VII. Customs of the people of Tiberias relative to the heating of a pitcher of cold water.

Is it allowed to place a pitcher of cold water into one filled with hot water in order to heat the water; or, vice versa, in order to heat the water? May one wash his body in the warm water of the Tiberius springs or in water warmed on the Sabbath eve? May the entire body be washed at once or each member separately? Customs in a bath-house. Are sweat-baths permitted on the Sabbath? Incidents occurring in the bath-house of the city of B'ni Brak. Why sweat-baths were prohibited. May one warm himself by a hearth-fire? Is bathing one's self in a washtub and anointing one's self with oils permitted on the Sabbath? Usages of Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi in this matter. Is swimming in a lake permitted on the Sabbath? Incidents attending R. Zera's witnessing R. Abuhu's swimming in a lake on a Sabbath.

Concerning the permissibility of pouring cold water in a muliar or antikhi, the fuel of which had been removed; or in a kettle, the hot water of which had been poured out, and the prescribed quantity of such water. Concerning the addition of spices to a pot of victuals. Concerning the permissibility of placing a vessel under a burning lamp to receive its dripping oil or falling sparks, and the placing of a vessel under a hen to receive the egg. Ordinance relating to a corpse lying in the sun. If it is allowed to save a corpse from fire. Prayers to be offered on Sabbath over the dead. The accordance of permission to save a corpse from conflagration on the Sabbath, 67-74 MISHNAS VIII. AND IX. Concerning the handling of new and old lamps on the Sabbath. Ordinances relative to a bed which had been designated for the purpose of holding money on the Sabbath.

The permissibility of handling a burning 'Hanukah lamp for fear of the Persians. The law of Muktza. The ordinance relative to handling a lamp on Sabbath and the dictum of Resh Lakish in Zidon. The ordinance concerning the nuptial couch. Action of R. Malkia while the guest of R. Simlai and R. Abuhu at the house of R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Johanan. The experience of R. Avia, who came to the house of Rabha and sat on Rabha's bed without removing his dirty shoes. Questions put to him by Rabha, and his replies. The law of a principal prohibited act. What R. Hanina did with a folding-bed that had become unfastened on a feast day, 74-82

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNAS I. TO IV. What substances may be used for the preserving of victuals. Rabba's and R. Zera's upbraiding of a slave of the Exilarch, while sojourning in the latter's house. Concerning the replacing of feathers in a pillow. Concerning the opening of a bunghead in a barrel and the making of a neckband in a shirt. Concerning the permissibility of depositing victuals in cloth and shorn wool intended for market. The derivation of the thirty-nine principal acts of labor on the Sabbath from the thirty-nine times "work" is mentioned in the Pentateuch. The law concerning branches of trees which were bound together to be used for fuel and were subsequently intended for sitting upon. R. Hanina ben Aqiba's action in such a case. The ordinance relating to the use of soap-powder and soap on the Sabbath. The necessity of washing one's hands and feet for the sake of the Creator. What is to be done with a pot that had not been covered on the eve of Sabbath? The decision of Ishmael in the matter in the presence of Rabbi. The mutual respect of the sages for one another. R. Na'hman's statement to Doen his servant, 83-90

CHAPTER V.

MISHNAS I. TO III. What gear animals may go out in on the Sabbath. Levi the son of R. Huna bar Hyya and Rabbi the son of R. Huna, occurrence on the road. A bridle may be worn by an ass whose behavior is bad. A bridle is allowed as a guard but not as an ornament. An ass may go out with a rug, but what is the law concerning a saddle? Ordinances relative to a feed-bag. The decision of Arioch of Babylon (Samuel) in the matter. Concerning bags tied around the udders of she-goats. The miracle that was wrought for a man whose wife died and left him a nursing child. The discussion of the rabbis about such a miracle. Narrative relating to a man whose wife was maimed. Concerning gear which may not be worn by animals on Sabbath. Peculiarities of the Hanun tree and where it may be found.

The wealth of R. Eliezer ben Azariah. Penalty for the failure to warn one's family against evil. The different signs on the foreheads of the righteous and the wicked. The seal of God. Derivation of the merits of the fathers. Is death possible without sin? Defence for Reuben and others who are mentioned in the Bible as sinners. Rabbi Hanassi's justification for David. Was David guilty of listening to slander? Consequences of David's sin. King Solomon's sin. The Archangel Gabriel's act at the time of King Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. The most fervent penitents, 91-106

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNAS I. TO III. What garments a woman may go out in. Definition of totaphoth. Concerning the garb of slaves. May the rabbis wear their insignia of office on Sabbath? Effect of a sermon on the women of the city of Mehuza concerning ornaments in the shape of a crown. Ordinances concerning nose-bands, earrings, and finger-rings. What garments a man must not go out in. Consequences of wearing iron-bound sandals. The law of majority. How shoes are to be put on. Why one when anointing himself should first anoint the head. Law concerning amulets, both tried and untried. Ordinances concerning hairpins and perfume-bottles. Causes of poverty. The trees of Jerusalem, 107-117 MISHNAS IV. TO IX. Concerning bows, swords, and shields. Are they considered ornaments or is the wearing of such things degrading? Interpretation of biblical passages. Are they to be taken literally or figuratively. Rewards emanating from the proper study of the Law. Customs of scholars when discussing the Law. God's blessing upon scholars who mutually instruct one another. Regarding a man who keeps a vicious dog about his premises. Why the children of Israel were in need of forgiveness upon their return from the war with the Midianites. What garments women, young girls, and boys may go out in on Sabbath. References to cripples and to children of princes. Concerning the danger of imitating the customs of the Amorites. Occurrence at the feast given by R. Aqiba, 117-126

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNAS I. TO III. The principal rule concerning the Sabbath. Regulations regarding children in captivity among idolaters and converts. Remaining with idolaters. Rules concerning one who was ignorant as to what labor was prohibited on the Sabbath but was conscious of the Sabbath, and vice versa. Concerning a man who, while travelling in a desert, had forgotten which day was Sabbath. How labor may be distinguished. Different instances of forgetfulness regarding Sabbath and the performance of labor on the Sabbath. Instances of forgetfulness in dietary matters. Instances of intentional and unintentional performance of labor, and their distinction. Enumeration of the forty, less one, acts of labor. Principal and incidental acts. The degree of guilt involved in learning magic arts. Condemnation of one who is able to acquire astronomical knowledge and neglects to do so. Another rule was laid down. Discussions concerning the carrying out of necessary things on the Sabbath and the limitation of quantity. Different kinds of food may be counted together, 127-142

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNAS I. TO V. The prescribed quantities of wine, honey, and milk that may be carried out on Sabbath. The strength of different wines. In stances of stronger creatures fearing weaker ones. Why goats precede sheep in a flock. Why are she-goats not covered with a tail like sheep? Why has a camel a short tail? Why has an ox a long tail? Why are the feelers of a locust soft? What is the reason that the lower eyelids of a hen turn up? Three creatures grow stronger, etc. The quantity of rope, paper from which writing has been erased, skins, parchment, bones, loam, etc., which may be carried out on the Sabbath. Honor of man supersedes a biblical commandment. What is magic? The explanation of the verse Isaiah, xxxv. 14, 143-153

CHAPTER IX.

MISHNAS I. TO VII. Sayings and deductions of R. Aqiba. The day of the week and the month on which the Law was given to Israel. Assumption of authority by Moses and God's acquiescence. The name of the month on which the Israelites left Egypt, and was it an intercalary month? The compulsory acceptance of the law by the Israelites and their subsequent voluntary acceptance in the days of Xerxes of Persia. Israel's readiness to obey even before hearing. The publication of every word spoken by God in seventy languages. Comparison of the sayings of the Torah with a nobleman. The understanding of the Law is healthful, its misinterpretation is poisonous. Every word leaving the mouth of the Lord filled the world with aromatic odors. Complaints of the angels upon the ascension of Moses to heaven. Moses' answer. Satan's search for the Torah. Concerning the bearing of a slave toward his master. Rabha's lecture upon the patriarchs and their answers to the complaints of God concerning the children of Israel. Isaac's defence of the children of Israel upon the Lord's telling him that they had sinned. The quantity of spices, dyes, metals, pedler's boxes, and seeds which may be carried out on the Sabbath, 154-170

CHAPTER X.

MISHNAS I. TO VIII. Rules pertaining to one who carries out things valuable to him. The quantities in which they may be carried out. The quantities in which they may be carried out by one to whom they are not valuable. Concerning eatables which are carried out of the house and left on the doorstep, and things that are carried in the left hand, on the shoulder, on the head, or in the bosom. Concerning one who, while intending to carry a thing in front, accidentally carries it on his back, or vice versa. Concerning the case of two men carrying out a burden which one alone was not capable of carrying. The law in that case. Concerning the case of one who carries out eatables in quantities less than the limit in a vessel. Is he culpable for carrying the vessel or not? Concerning the permissibility of paring the finger-nails of one hand by means of those of the other hand oil the Sabbath. The case of one tearing off flowers from a plant in an unperforated flower-pot, 171-182

TRACT SABBATH.

CHAPTER I.

REGULATIONS REGARDING TRANSFER ON SABBATH . MISHNA I.: There are two acts constituting transfer 1 of movable things (over the dividing line of adjoining premises, based on biblical statutes). The two acts are, however, increased to four on the inside and to a like amount on the outside of the premises (by the addition of rabbinical statutes). How so? A mendicant stands outside and the master of a house inside. The mendicant passes his hand into the house (through a window or door) and puts something into the hand of the master, or he takes something out of the master's hand and draws it back (toward him). In such a case the mendicant is guilty (of transfer) and the master of the house is free. If the master of the house passes his hand outside and puts a thing into the hand of the mendicant, or takes something out of the mendicant's hand and brings it into the house, the master of the house is culpable and the mendicant is free. 2 If the mendicant extends his hand into the house and the master takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the outside by the mendicant, they are both free. If the master of the house extends his hand outside and the mendicant takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the inside by the master, they are both free.

GEMARA: We were taught (Shebuoth, IV. 2): "The acts of transfer on the Sabbath are two, respectively four." Why is this teaching here specified as two respectively four on the inside, and two respectively four on the outside, and there no such specification was made? Said R. Papa: Here the special subject of treatment is the Sabbath, and the Mishna enumerated the cases which involve guilt and those which do not involve guilt; while there the principal subject of treatment is a different one, and he mentions only the cases that involve guilt, leaving the cases that do not involve guilt untouched. But the cases that involve guilt are those by which acts of transfer are committed, and such are only two? Nay, there are two acts of transfer from within and two from without. But the Mishna says, "Yetziath" (which in a literal sense means transfer from within)? Said R. Ashi: The Tana calls transfer from without by the same term. And for what reason? Because every act of removing a thing from its place is called Yetziah. Said Rabbina: The Mishna also bears out this sense; for it speaks of Yetziath and immediately illustrates its remark by citing a case from without. This bears it out. Rabha, however, says: He (the Tana) speaks about divided premises (whose line of division is crossed), and in this case there are only two (in each of which there may be four acts of transfer).

Said R. Mathna to Abayi: Are there not eight, even twelve (instances of transfer over the line of division)? 1 And he rejoined: Such transfers as involve the obligation of a sin-offering are counted; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not counted. "They are both free." Was not the act (of transfer) committed by both? Said R. Hyya bar Gamda: The act of removing the thing was committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis) said: "It is written in the law, when a person did it" 2—i.e., when one person commits the act he is culpable, but when an act is committed by the joint efforts of two persons, they are both free.

Rabh questioned Rabbi: If one were laden by his friend with eatables and beverages and carried them outside (of the house), how is the law? Is the removing of his body tantamount to the removing of a thing from its place, and therefore he is culpable, or is it not so?
Said Rabbi to him: He is culpable. And this case is not like the case of removing his hand. Why so? Because (in the latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the body (before and after removal) was entirely at rest. 1 Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh: Descendant of nobles! Did I not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged with a certain tract ask him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he may not have that subject in his mind! And if Rabbi were not a great man thou mightest cause him shame, for he would give thee an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however, he gave thee a correct answer; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one was laden with eatables and beverages while it was yet light on the eve of Sabbath, and he carried them outside after dark, he is culpable; for his case is not like that of removing the hand mentioned above.

Abayi said: From all that was said above it is certain to me that the hand of a man (standing on the street) is not treated as public ground. 2 And I also see that (if a man stands on private ground) his hand is not to be treated a-, private ground. Would it be correct, then, to regard the hand as unclaimed ground? If so, would the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case, namely, that one should not move his hand (containing a movable thing) back (during the Sabbath day), apply in this case or not?
Come and hear the following Boraitha: If a man has his hand filled with fruit and he extends it outside (of the premises where he stands), one said he is not permitted to draw it back, and another Boraitha says he is allowed to do so. May we not assume that this is their point of dispute: the former holds that the hand is treated as unclaimed ground, and the latter thinks that it is not like unclaimed ground? Nay, it may be that both agree that the hand (as spoken of in our Mishna) is like unclaimed ground, and yet it presents no difficulty. One of the Boraithas treats of a man who had extended his hand unintentionally, and the other one treats of a man who had put forth his hand intentionally. In the former case the rabbis did not fine him, and in the latter case they did. And if you wish, it may be said that they both speak of a case when the act was done unintentionally, and their point of differing is as to the varying premises, whether the hand may be drawn back to the ground where the man stands, or to other (private) ground that adjoins it? As Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: If the hand of a man was filled with fruit, and he extended it outside, may he draw it back to the same ground where he stands? And he answered: He may. (And may he remove his hand) to other (private) ground? Nay. And to the question, "What is the distinction?" he said: If thou wilt measure a whole kur of salt and present me with it, I shall tell thee the answer. (See footnote, Erubin, p. 79.) In the former case his design was not accomplished; in the latter, however, his design was accomplished (and it is prohibited for fear that it should be repeated).

R. Bibi bar Abayi questioned: If one has put bread into the oven, is he allowed to take it out before (it is baked and) he becomes liable to bring a sin-offering, or not?
Said R. A'ha bar Abayi to Rabhina: What does the questioner mean? Unintentionally and without remembering (that it is Sabbath), then what does the expression "allowed" mean? To whom? He is still not aware of it. On the other hand, if he did it unintentionally and afterward he remembered of the Sabbath, how can he be liable to a sin-offering; did not a Mishna state that the liability to bring such a sacrifice applies only when the failing was begun and accomplished unintentionally? Should it be understood that the act was done intentionally, then it would not involve the liability of a sin-offering, but it would constitute a crime that involved capital punishment. 1 Said R. Ashi: Say, then, it is a crime that involves capital punishment. R. A'ha, the son of Rabha, taught so plainly. R. Bibi bar Abayi said: If one put bread into the oven, he is allowed to take it out before it may involve a case of capital punishment. "The mendicant extended his hand," etc. Why is he culpable? (To complete the act) there must be a transfer from a place that is four ells square and a depositing into a place of the same area, and such was not the case here. Said Rabba: Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba's opinion, who holds that as soon as the air of a place surrounds a thing it is equal to the thing being deposited in that place. But may it not be that depositing does not require four ells, for the reason stated above, but removing does? Said R. Joseph: The teaching of this paragraph agrees (not with the opinion of R. Aqiba), but with that of Rabbi, as we have learned in the following Boraitha:

If one threw an object from one street into the other, and there was a private ground between them, Rabbi declared him culpable, and the sages freed him. Hereupon R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: Rabbi declared the man guilty of two offences: one for having removed the thing from its place, and one for having deposited it in another place. Hence in both, the four ells in question are not required.

But with reference to this it was taught that both Rabh and Samuel said that Rabbi's declaration of culpability treated of a case where the private ground (that divided the two streets) was roofed, for the assumption is that a house must be regarded as a solid object that fills out all the space it occupies, but not when it was unroofed?

Therefore said Rabha: (All these views can be dispensed with, as) the hand of a man (because of its value) is considered as a piece of ground four ells square. And so, also, was declared by Rabin, when he came from Palestine, in the name of R. Johanan.

R. Abhin in the name of R. Ila'a, quoting R. Johanan, said: If one threw a thing and it rested in the hands of another man, he is culpable.

Why the repetition—has not R. Johanan declared above, already, that the hand of a man is considered as a space of four ells square? Lest one say that this is only when he intended to put it into his hand (and the intention makes it valuable as the space in question), but not otherwise. Therefore the repetition.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: If one remains standing in his place when he receives a thing, he is culpable; but if he was moving away from his place when he received it, he is free. And so also we have learned in a Boraitha in the name of the anonymous teachers.
R. Johanan asked the following question: If one threw a thing and then moved from his place and caught it, is he culpable or not? How is this question to be understood? Said R. Ada bar Ah'bah: The difficulty is concerning the exercise of two forces by one man, and the question was thus: If two forces were exercised by one man (in committing a prohibited act), should both parts of the act be accounted to the same, so that he should be declared culpable, or should each part of the act be considered separately, as if there were two individuals concerned, and then he is free? This question is not decided.

R. Abhin in the name of R. Johanan said: If one put his hand into the yard of his neighbor, got it full of rain water, and withdrew it, he is guilty. But to make one guilty of the act, it must consist of removing a thing from a place of four ells square, which is not the case here. Said R. Hyya b. R. Huna: It means that he took the water as it was running down a slanting wall, as Rabba taught elsewhere that removing a thing from a slanting wall made the man culpable. But (in speaking of removing an object from a slanting wall) Rabba treated on the question of removing a book, which is a stationary thing. Is it analogous to removing water that can never become stationary?

Therefore said Rabha: Our case treats when he dipped the water out of a cavity (in the wall) in question. Is not this self-evident?

Lest one say that water standing upon water is not considered stationary,, he comes to teach us that it is. And this is in accordance with his theory, as follows: Water standing upon water is considered stationary; a nut, however, lying upon the surface of water is not considered so.

The same said again, in the name of the same authorities: One who was laden with eatables and beverages, entering and going out the whole day, he is not culpable until he rests. Said Abayi: And even then only if he stops for the purpose of resting; but not when he stops merely to adjust his burden on his shoulders. Whence is this deduced? From what the master said: "he stopped within the limit of four ells to rest he is free, but if he stopped to adjust the load on his shoulders he is culpable. Beyond four ells, if he stopped to rest he is culpable, but if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder he is not culpable. What does this imply? It implies that one cannot be culpable unless his intention of removing was before he stopped.
The rabbis taught: If one takes anything from his store into the market through the alley-way (where the benches of market-men are situated), he is culpable; it makes no difference whether he carries, throws, or pushes it with his arm. Ben Azai, however, said: If he carries it in or out he is not culpable, but if he throws or pushes it in or out he is culpable. The same we have learned in another Boraitha.

The rabbis taught: There are four kinds of premises as regards the Sabbath—viz.: private ground, public ground, unclaimed ground, and ground that is under no jurisdiction. What is private ground? A ditch or hedge that is ten spans deep or high and four spans wide—such are absolutely private grounds. What is public ground? A country road or a wide street, or lanes open at both ends—such are absolutely public grounds. [So that in these two kinds of premises nothing must be carried from one to the other; and if such was done by one unintentionally, he is liable to a sin-offering; if, however, intentionally, then he is liable to be "cut off," or to suffer the extreme penalty (at the hands of human justice).]

A sea, a valley of fields, the front walk (before a row of stores), and unclaimed ground are neither like public nor like private ground. [Nothing should be carried about there to start with; but if one has done it, he is not culpable. Nor should anything be taken out of these grounds into public or private ground, or brought in from the latter into these grounds; but if one has done so, he is not culpable. In adjoining courtyards of many tenants and alleys that are open at both ends, where the tenants have made it communal property, 1 carrying things is allowed; however, it is not allowed when such is not done. A man standing on the door-step 2 may take things from or give things to the master of the house; so also may he take a thing from a mendicant in the street or give it to him; but he must not take things from the master of the house and hand them over to the mendicant in the street, nor take from the latter and transmit to the former. Still, if this was done, all the three men are not guilty. Anonymous teachers, however, say that the door-step serves as two separate grounds: when the door is open it belongs to the inside, and when the door is closed it belongs to the outside. But if the door-step is ten spans high and four spans wide, it is considered as a premises in itself.]

The master said: "Such are absolutely private grounds."
What does he intend to exclude (by this emphatic declaration)? To exclude that which R. Jehudah taught about Erubhin (p. 25). "These are absolutely public grounds." What does it mean to exclude? To exclude another instance of R. Jehudah's teaching, concerning the enclosure of wells. (Ibid., p. 40.)

Why does not the Boraitha count the desert also, for have we not learned in a Boraitha: Public ground is constituted by public roads, wide streets, alleys that are open at both ends, and the desert? Said Abayi: It presents no difficulty. There the law was expounded as it existed when Israel dwelt in the desert; here, however, the law is taught as it prevails at the present time.

The master said: "If one has brought in or taken out a thing unintentionally," etc. Is not this self-evident? He means to say that if the culprit did it intentionally, "he is liable to be cut off," etc. Also this is self-evident? He comes to teach, because of the following statement of Rabh, who said: "I found mysterious scrolls in the possession of my uncle, R. Hyya, which read: Aysy ben Jehudah says: There are forty less one principal acts of labor. A man, however, cannot be guilty of performing but one. And to the question, How is this to be understood? the answer was: It should be corrected and read: There is one of those acts of labor for which a man is not guilty. (In consequence, however, of the omission just what particular act of labor is excluded, all of the thirty-nine remained doubtful); and the Boraitha teaches that the labor mentioned is not one of the doubtful."
Again, the master said: "A sea, a valley of fields," etc. Is that so? Have we not learned (Taharoth, VI. 7) that a valley is, in summer time, to be regarded as private ground with reference to the Sabbath, and as public ground with reference to defilement; in the rainy season, however, it is private ground in all respects? Said Ula: As a matter of fact it is unclaimed ground, but by calling it private ground the Boraitha only means to distinguish it from public ground. R. Ashi, however, said: He speaks of a valley in which there are partitions. 1 "And unclaimed ground." Are not all the above-mentioned unclaimed ground? When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Johanan: The mention of "unclaimed ground" in this case is required merely to imply a corner (of a private plot) that adjoins public ground; for although at times (when the street is crowded) many people are forced into this corner, it is considered as unclaimed ground, as the public use of it is not regarded with favor. He said also in the name of the same authority: The space between the pillars and the buildings (on the side of the street) is considered by the law as unclaimed ground. Why so? Because although many walk there, still, since one cannot make his way in such space freely (the row of pillars being irregular or in a broken line), it is like unclaimed ground.

R. Zera in the name of R. Jehudah said: The benches in front of pillars are regarded as unclaimed ground (even if they are ten spans high and four spans wide). The one who holds that the space between the pillars is considered as such, will so much the more agree that the benches in front of the pillars are considered such; but he who says that the benches are so considered, may hold that this is so because the encroachment upon them is not regarded with favor. The ground between the pillars, however, which is usually trodden by many people, is like public ground.
Rabba b. Shila in the name of R. Hisda said: If one throw or plaster (an adhesible) thing against the side of a brick that is standing up in the street, he is culpable; but if he throw or plaster a thing on top of it, he is not. Abayi and Rabha both said: Provided the brick is three spans high, so that people do not step upon it; with bushes or briars, however, even if less than three spans high, one is not culpable. And Hyya bar Rabh said: Even a bush or briar must be three spans high. 1 Rabba, of the school of R. Shila, said: When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: No space can be considered unclaimed ground unless it has an area of four spans square, and R. Shesheth added that it holds good up to ten spans square. What does it mean? Shall we assume that only if it has a partition of ten spans it is unclaimed ground? Has not R. Giddell in the name of R. Hyya bar Joseph, quoting Rabh, said: A house that is not ten spans high, but which is raised to that height by the ceiling, one may handle on the roof over its entire area; inside of the house, however, only within four ells square? Therefore we must say that the statement: "It holds good up to ten spans," implies that the law of unclaimed ground is valid when the height does not exceed ten spans. As Samuel said to R. Jehudah: "Ingenious scholar! treat not on laws of the Sabbath exceeding ten spans in height." And to what does it apply? To private ground it could not apply, as it is known that private ground is so considered to the sky; hence it is only to unclaimed ground that above ten spans does not exist, as the rabbis have invested unclaimed grounds with the lenient regulations pertaining to private ground—viz.: If the place have an area of four spans square, it is unclaimed ground; if it has a lesser area, it is not subservient to any jurisdiction. And with the lenient regulations of public ground—viz.: The place is regarded as unclaimed ground only to the height of ten spans; beyond that it ceases to be unclaimed ground.

The text says: "In a house the inside of which is not ten spans high," etc. Said Abayi: If, however, one has cut in it an excavation four ells square, so as to complete the height of ten spans, one may handle things freely in the whole house. Why so? Because in such a case the entire space of the house (around the excavation) would be considered like holes on private ground, and it has been taught that such holes are regarded the same as the private ground itself. As to holes on public ground, Abayi said: They are like public ground. Rabha, however, says that they are not. Said Rabha to Abayi: According to your theory, holes on public ground are to be considered the same as the ground itself. In which respect, then, does this case differ from what R. Dimi said above (p. 8) in the name of R. Johanan? Let, according to thy opinion, such a corner be considered as a hole in public ground. Nay, the use of the corner is not considered favorable by people, while no one objects to the use of a hole in the street.

R. Hisda said: If a person erected a pole on private ground and threw something at it, if that thing rested on top of the pole, and be that pole a hundred ells high, the person is culpable, for private ground is absolutely unlimited in height. Shall we assume that R. Hisda holds in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: "If one threw a thing (in the street) and it rested upon the smallest cornice 1 (of a house), according to Rabbi he is culpable, and the schoolmen say that he is not." Said Abayi: In private ground all admit the decision of R. Hisda. The case, however, in which Rabbi and the sages differ was a tree that stands on private ground with its branches reaching out into public ground, and one threw a thing which rested on a branch. Rabbi holds that the branch is part and parcel of the root, but the sages opine that we need not assume such to be the case.

Abayi said: If one threw a bee-hive which was ten spans high, but not six spans wide, into the street, he is culpable; if, however, the bee-hive was six spans wide, he is free (because it is considered a piece of private ground in itself). Rabha, however, said he is not, even if it be less than six spans wide. Why so? Because it is impossible for twined reed not to exceed the given height. 2 In case he threw the bee-hive 3 with its mouth down, even if the hive is a trifle over seven spans high, he is culpable; but if it is seven and a half spans high, he is not. R. Ashi, however, said: He is, even if it is seven and a half spans high. Why so? Because the enclosing rim of the bee-hive is made for the purpose of containing something within, and not to be attached to the ground; hence it is not included in the Lavud class. 4 Ula said: A post nine spans high, which stands in the street, and people use it to shoulder (their burdens) on, if one threw a thing and it rested on the top of it, he is culpable. Why so? Because a thing that is less than three spans high is stepped upon by many; a thing between three and nine spans high is not used either to step or to shoulder a burden on; but if it is nine spans high, it is surely used to shoulder burdens on.

Abayi questioned R. Joseph: What is the law of a pit (of similar depth)? Said he: The same (as of the post). Rabba, however, said: A pit of similar depth is not governed by the same law. Why so? Because the use (which is made of a thing) through compulsion is not called (a customary) use.

R. Adda bar Mathna objected to Rabha from the following Boraitha: If one intended to keep the Sabbath on public ground and deposited his Erubh in a pit less than ten spans (below the ground), his act is valid. "If he deposited it more than ten spans below the ground, his Erubh is of no value." Let us see how was the case. If the pit was more than ten spans deep, and by the saying "he deposited it less than ten spans below the ground" is meant that he raised the Erubh to a higher place, and by the saying "more than ten spans" is meant on the bottom of the pit, then, at all events, the Erubh could not be of any value; as he is in public ground, and his Erubh is in private, therefore we must say that the case was of a pit less than ten spans deep, and nevertheless the Erubh is valid; hence we see that the use of a place through compulsion can at times be considered as customary use.

The answer was that the Boraitha is according to Rabbi, who says that against things which are prohibited only rabbinically because of rest (Shebuoth) no precautionary measures are taken when they are to be done at twilight, and the prescribed time for depositing an Erubh is twilight; therefore, although the use of the pit which was less than ten spans deep was compulsory, the Erubh was nevertheless valid, because respecting twilight the rabbis are not particular.

R. Jehudah said: If one moves a bundle of reeds by raising one end and throwing it over, then raising the other end and throwing it over, he is not culpable, unless he lifts the entire bundle off the ground.

The master said: "A man standing on the door-step," etc. What is that step? If it is the step of the street, how may he "take from the master of the house"; does he not transfer from private ground into public ground? If it is the step of the house, how may he "take from the mendicant (standing in the street)"? Does he not transfer from public into private ground? And if it is unclaimed ground, how may he "take and give intentionally," since a direct prohibition to that effect exists?

Nay, the door-step is a place concerning which the law has no provision; as, for instance, it is not four spans square. It is said elsewhere by R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan that such a thing is not under the jurisdiction.

The master said: "All three are not culpable." Would this not be an objection to Rabha, who said if one transfer an object (in public ground) from one to the other limit of four spans, even if he moves it over his head (i.e., above ten spans from the ground), he is culpable? In the above-mentioned case, however, he is not.
Anonymous teachers say "a door-step," etc. Is such the case even if there is no side-beam to it? Has not R. Hamma bar Gorion in the name of Rabh said that if it is inside the door, and not even four spans square, there must still be a side-beam to make it a free place? Said R. Judah in the name of Rabh: Here the doorstep of an alley is treated of, the half of which is roofed, and the other half not roofed, and the roofing is toward the inside. In this case when the door is open it is considered like the inside, when it is closed it is like the outside. R. Ashi, however, said: The case was of a door-step of a house, but the door was topped by two beams, each of which was less than four spans wide, and between them the space was less than three spans wide, the door itself being in the middle, so that the law of Lavud applies only when the door is open, and not when it is closed; therefore when it is open the door-step is considered as the inside, and when it is closed the door-step is regarded as the outside. "If the door-step is ten spans high," etc. This supports the theory of R. Isaac bar Abbimi, who said that R. Mair used to say: Wherever thou findest two distinct grounds belonging to the same premises (i.e., to which the law of premises regarding the Sabbath applies equally), like a post in private ground, that is ten spans high and four wide, it is prohibited to shoulder (a burden) on it. As a precautionary measure (enacted by the rabbis), for fear that the same would be done with a rock of the same size that may be found in the street, and it is biblically prohibited to shoulder upon it.
MISHNA II.: One shall not sit down 1 before the hair-cutter at the approach of the time for afternoon devotion, 2 before reciting his prayers. Nor shall he enter a bath-room or a tannery (the same is the case with any factory or large business), or sit down to eat, or start pleading a case (before a judge). But if he has started, he need not be interrupted. One must quit his work to read Shema, but he need not stop working in order to pray.

GEMARA: What time of Min'ha does the Mishna mean? Does it mean the high afternoon 1 time? Why should a man not be allowed, since the day is still young? Does it mean the lesser time, and still hold that (if the man had started the work) he need not discontinue it? Shall this be taken as an objection to the opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi, who said: "When the time of afternoon prayer draws nigh, one must not partake of anything before performing his devotion"? Nay, he speaks here of the high time, and yet one shall not begin cutting his hair, as a precaution against accidents, lest his scissors break; a bath to sweat, lest he grow exhausted; a tannery, lest he notice some damage to his wares and become confused; nor shall he sit down to eat lest the meal be protracted; pleading a case of justice, lest argument be advanced that overthrows all previous arguments, and until all this is settled the. Min'ha prayer will be forgotten.

From what moment does the act of hair-cutting begin? Said R. Abhin: From the moment the barber's cloth is spread over him. The act of bathing begins from the moment the coat is pulled off; tanning begins from the moment the working-apron is tied around the shoulders; a meal begins from the moment the hands are washed, so said Rabh; but R. Hanina said, from the moment one takes off his girdle. And they do not differ. Rabh spoke of the custom of his country, and R. Hanina spoke of the custom of his country.
Abayi said: According to him who holds that the evening prayer is discretionary, our Babylon colleagues, as soon as they take off their girdle for the meal, they must not be troubled to pray before meal; however, according to him who holds that even this prayer is obligatory, they must be troubled. But is not the afternoon prayer obligatory by all means, and nevertheless our Mishna teaches that "if he began (his meal) he need not be interrupted," to which R. Hanina said that the loosening of the girdle (is the beginning)? In the case of the afternoon prayer, since the time for it is fixed, (we assume) that the man will hasten and will not fail to pray in time, while for evening prayer, the time for which extends through the entire night, it is feared that he may not hasten, and neglect it.

R. Shesheth opposed: Is it so much trouble to put on one's girdle? Furthermore, cannot one stand up (without a girdle) and pray? Nay! As it is written: "Prepare thyself to meet thy God, O Israel!" [Amos, iv. 12]; and as Rabha b. R. Huna used to put on stockings when he stood up to recite prayers, saying: It is written: "Prepare thyself," etc. Rabha, however, used to throw off his mantle and fold his hands when he prayed, speaking as a slave before his master. R. Ashi said: I have observed R. Kahana. In times of trouble he threw off his mantle and folded his hands when he prayed, speaking like a slave before his master. In times of peace he dressed and fitted himself up carefully, saying: "It is written, Prepare thyself to meet thy God, O Israel." Rabha noticed that R. Hamnuna spent much time at his prayers. Said he: "Thus they quit eternal life and busy themselves with transient life." 1 He, R. Hamnuna, however, thought that the time spent in prayer is a thing by itself, and the time devoted to study is also a thing by itself. R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera discussing a Halakha. The day was breaking and time for prayer came, and R. Jeremiah hastened for the purpose of praying. Said R. Zera to him: "When one turneth away his ear so as not to listen to the law, even his prayer becometh an abomination" [Prov. xxviii. 9].

At what moment does the work of dispensing justice commence? R. Jeremiah and R. Jonah—one said: "From the moment the judges put on their mantles"; the other said: "From the moment the litigants begin pleading." And they do not differ. The former speaks of the instance of opening court; the latter of the instance when the court was in session and the judges were engaged in deciding other cases.
Up to what time should court be in session? R. Shesheth said: "Up to meal time." Said R. Hama: From what scriptural passage have we this? From "Happy art thou, O land! when thy king is noble-spirited, and thy princes eat in proper time, for strengthening and not for gluttony!" [Eccl. x. 17]; i.e., for the strength of the law and not for indulgence in wine.

The rabbis taught: The first hour (of the day) is the time the Lydians eat (the Lydians were cannibals); in the second hour robbers eat; in the third hour (rich) heirs eat; the fourth hour is eating-time for the people in general; in the fifth hour laborers eat; in the sixth hour scholars eat; from the last hour onward, eating is like throwing a stone into a barrel (rather injurious than beneficial). Said Abayi: This is the case only when one has tasted nothing in the morning; but if he did so, it does not matter.

R. Ada bar Ahba said: One may say his prayers in a new bath-room, which has not been used. R. Hamnuna said in the name of Ula: One is not permitted to call Shalom to another man in a bath-room, for it is written: "He called the Eternal Shalom" [Judges, vi. 23]. 1 If so, the saying of the word "faith" should also be prohibited, for it is written, "the faithful God" [Deut. vii. 9]. And lest one say so it is, has not Rabha bar Mehassia said in the name of R. Hama bar Gorion, quoting Rabh, that "faith" may be mentioned? In the latter case the name itself is not so designated, as it means as it is translated above. But in the former case it (Shalom) is a designation of the name itself.

The same says again in the name of the same authority: If one bestows a gift on his friend, he should let him know it; as it is written: "To know that I, the Eternal, made you holy" [Ex. xxxi. 13]. And there is a Boraitha which states as follows: "The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto Moses, I have a good gift in my storehouse; its name is Sabbath, which I wish to bestow on Israel; go and announce it to them." From this R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: One who gives a child some bread should announce it to its mother. How shall he do this? Said Abayi: He should put some ointment around its eyes and stain it with dye.
Is this so? Has not R. Hama b. Hanina said: He who bestows a gift on his friend need not announce it to him, for it is written: "Moses knew not," etc. [Ex. xxxiv. 29]. This presents no difficulty. The latter instance represents a thing that is to become known by itself; the former instance treats of a thing that cannot become known by itself.

But was not the Sabbath a thing that was to become known? Aye, but the reward (for keeping the Sabbath holy) that attends it was not to be known.
R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohayi said: All the commands that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave unto Israel, were given with publicity, excepting the Sabbath, which was given in privacy, for it is written: "Between me and the children of Israel it is an everlasting sign" [Ex. xxxi. 17]. If such is the case, the idolaters need not be punished for its sake. The Sabbath was made known, but the additional soul (a new impetus of life) which comes with the Sabbath was not made known to them. Thus R. Simeon b. Lakish said: "The Holy One, blessed be He, bestows an additional soul on man on the eve of the Sabbath, and takes it back again when the Sabbath departs." 1 R. Hisda held in his hand two gifts 2 from the flesh of an ox, and said: "I will give this to the man who will tell me some new teaching in the name of Rabh." Said Rabha b. Mehassia to him, thus taught Rabh: "He who bestows a gift on a friend should let him know it." And R. Hisda gave him the meat. Said the former again: Art thou so fond of the teachings of Rabh? "Aye, aye," he answered. Said he: This is like that which Rabh said: A silk garment is precious to the wearer. Rejoined R. Hisda: Did Rabh indeed say so? This second thing is even better than the first; if I had other gifts I would bestow them too.

Rabha b. Mehassia in the name of the same said again: One should never show preference for one child above his other children, as for the sake of two selas' weight of silk, which Jacob bestowed on Joseph in preference to his other sons, the brothers became jealous of Joseph, and the development brought about our ancestors' migration into Egypt.
Again he continued: One should always endeavor to seek a dwelling in a city of recent settlement, for the settlement being recent, the sins are few. As it is written: "Behold, this city is near to flee thereunto, and it is little" [Gen. xix. 20]. What does it mean, it is near and small? Could not he see this himself? But it means its settlement is recent and therefore its sins are not many.

The same said again: A city whose roofs are higher than that of the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed, as it is written: "To raise high the house of our God," etc. [Ezra, ix. 9]. However, this refers only to the roofs of the houses, but as to the tops of towers and palaces, it does not concern them. Said R. Ashi: I have prevented Matha Mehassia from being destroyed (as he had made the prayer-house and the college higher than other houses). But was it not destroyed later? Yea, but not for this sin.

He also said: 1 It is better to be dependent on an Israelite than on an idolater; on an idolater than on a Persian; on a Persian schoolman 2 than on a scholar; on a scholar than on a widow or an orphan.

He also said: Rather any sickness than sickness of the bowels; rather any pain than pain of the heart; rather any disorder than a disorder in the head; rather any evil than a bad wife.
Again he said: If all the seas were ink, if all the swamps were producing pens, if the whole expanse of the horizon were parchment, and all the men were scribes, the (thoughts that fill the) void of a ruler's heart could not be written in full. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Mesharsia: "The heavens as to height and the earth as to depth, and the hearts of kings cannot be fathomed" [Prov. xxv. 3]. "To read Shema," etc. Was it not stated before that they need not be interrupted? This sentence applies to study, as we have learned in a Boraitha: "Scholars that are engaged in studying the Law must stop for the reading of Shema, but they need not stop for prayer." Said R. Johanan: Such is the case with men like R. Simeon b. Yo'hai and his colleagues, for learning was their profession; but men like ourselves must stop for prayer also. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: "As (students) need not quit (their studies) for prayer, so they need not stop them for Shema"? This applies only to the study of the establishment of leap year; as R. Ada b. Ahba, and so also the sages of Hagrunia in the name of R. Elazar b. Zadok, declared: "When we were engaged in fixing a leap year at Yabne, we did not quit (our work) either for Shema or for prayer."

MISHNA III.: A tailor shall not go out with his needle when it is nearly dark on Friday, lest he forget and go out (carrying it about with him) after dark; nor a scribe with his pen; nor shall one search for vermin in his garments or read before the lamp-light (Friday night). Of a verity it is said, an instructor may follow the children when they read, but he shall not read himself (before the lamp-light). In a similar manner it is said that one afflicted with gonorrhœa should not eat from the same plate with a woman that has the same disease, lest they become accustomed to one another and come to sin.

GEMARA: "A tailor shall not go out," etc. Does not the Mishna mean when the needle is stuck in the garment? Nay, it treats of the case when (the tailor) holds it in his hand.

Come and hear. "A tailor shall not go out with the needle sticking in his garment." Does this not treat of the eve of the Sabbath? Nay, it treats of the Sabbath itself.

But is there not another Boraitha: "A tailor shall not go out with the needle sticking in his garment on Friday when it is nearly dark"? This was taught according to R. Jehudah, who holds that a laborer (carrying a thing) after the manner of his profession is culpable; as we have learned in the following Tosephtha: "A tailor shall not go out with his needle sticking in his garment; nor a carpenter with his ruler behind his ear; nor a cloth cleaner with the spanning cord behind his ear; nor a weaver with the stuffing cotton behind his ear; nor a dyer with samples around his neck; nor a money changer with the dinar in his ear. If, however, they did so, they are free, though they ought not to start it; so is the decree of R. Mair. R. Jehudah, however, says: The laborer only (going out) after the manner of his profession is culpable; but not common men."

In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: "One may go out with the phylacteries on his head at twilight on the eve of Sabbath." Why so? As Rabha b. R. Huna said: One must feel the phylacteries on his head at all times, and in consequence he will be reminded, through feeling the phylacteries, that he must remove them before the Sabbath.
There is a Boraitha: A man must examine his garments on Friday evening, when it is getting dark, to see whether there is anything in them that must not be carried about on the Sabbath. Said R. Joseph: This is an important ordinance concerning the Sabbath. "One shall not search for vermin," etc. Does it mean one shall not search for vermin in the day-time (of a Sabbath) lest he destroy any; and he shall not read before a lamp-light lest he snuff (the wick); or are both ordinances connected with each other so as to make the ordinance prohibiting the snuffing of the wick binding? Come and hear. "One shall not search for vermin nor read before the lamp-light." What can we understand from this Boraitha better than from our Mishna? Come and hear another Boraitha: "One shall not search before the lamp-light; also, one shall not read before it." These two ordinances are among the other established Halakhas in the attic of Hananiah b. Hyzkiyah b. Gorion. From this is to be inferred that both cases were prohibited for the same reason, that they may entail snuffing the wick.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: One must not try to distinguish even between his own and his wife's garments (before the lamp-light). Said Rabha: This is said only for the inhabitants of Ma'hoza, 1 but among the dwellers of rural places the garments can easily be distinguished. And even among the inhabitants of Ma'hoza, only the garments of old women cannot easily be distinguished from those of the men, but not of young women.

The rabbis taught: One shall not search for vermin in the street out of self-respect. In the same wise, R. Jehudah or R. Ne'hemiah taught that one shall not vomit in the street out of self-respect. The rabbis taught: One who searches his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it with his fingers and throw it away (on the Sabbath). Says R. Huna: This should also be done even on week days, out of self-respect.

We have learned, R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "One shall not kill vermin on the Sabbath." So said Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allowed this. R. Simeon b. Elazar used also to say in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: "One is not allowed to negotiate marriage engagements for children, nor to engage teachers or artisan masters for children, nor to pay visits of condolence to mourners, nor to visit the sick on the Sabbath. Such is the decree of Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allows all this.

The rabbis taught: If one comes to visit the sick on the Sabbath, he shall say: "It is Sabbath and we are not to cry, but relief is drawing nigh." R. Mair said, one should say: "The Sabbath (if respected) may bring mercy." Rabbi Jehudah said: "May the Omnipotent have mercy with thee and toward the sick of Israel." R. Jose said: "May the Omnipotent bestow mercy on thee amongst the sick of Israel." Shebhna the Jerusalemite when he entered (a sick-room on the Sabbath) said, "Shalom"; on leaving he said: "To cry! it is Sabbath; nevertheless, relief is nigh As His mercies are great," and "Rest ye in peace."
According to whom is what R. Hanina said: "He who has a sick person in the house should include him (in his prayers) amongst the sick in Israel"? It was in accordance with R. Jose. R. Hanina also said that it was with difficulty that the rabbis allowed visits of condolence to be paid to mourners and to visit the sick on a Sabbath. Rabba b. b. Hana said: When I accompanied R. Eliezer while visiting the sick, I sometimes heard him say (in Hebrew): "May the Omnipotent mind thee in peace," and sometimes (in Aramaic): "May the Merciful remember thee in peace." How could he do this? Did not R. Jehudah say: "One should never pray for what he needs in the Aramaic language"? And also R. Johanan: "The angels of service do not listen to one's prayer in the Aramaic tongue, for they know not that language." The case of a sick person is different, as Shekhina itself is with him. (This will be explained in Tract Nedarin in the proper place.) "One shall not read before the lamp-light." Rabba said: It is the same even if the lamp is placed two (men's) heights (from the ground); even two stories high, or even if it is on top of ten houses, one above the other. "One shall not read," but two may? Have we not learned, "Neither one nor two"? Said R. Elazar: This presents no difficulty. Our Mishna treats of two reading one subject; and there it treats of two reading different subjects. Said R. Huna: Around the hearth-fire even ten persons shall not read together. Rabba, however, said: A prominent man may read, as he would not degrade himself by stirring the fire.
An objection was raised from the following: One should not read before a lamp-light, lest he snuff the wick. Said R. Ishmael b. Elisha: "I will read and not snuff it." Once he actually read and was tempted to snuff the wick. And he exclaimed: "How great is the saying of the sages, that one should not read before a lamp-light." R. Nathan said: He actually snuffed the wick and noted in his diary: "I, Ishmael b. Elisha, have read before the lamp on Sabbath, and have snuffed the wick. When the holy temple shall be rebuilt, I will bring a fat sin-offering." Said R. Aba: With R. Ishmael b. Elisha it is different, for while studying the Law he always considered himself common.

There is one Boraitha: A servant may examine cups and dishes (to see, if they are clean, before the lamp); and another, that he may not. This presents no difficulty. The former treats of a servant in permanent engagement; 1 the latter of one who performs occasional service. And if you wish, it may be said that both Boraithas apply to a permanent servant: the latter in the case of a lamp which is fed with oil, the former in the case where it is fed with naphtha. (Naphtha emits a bad odor; he will therefore not be tempted to touch it.)

The schoolmen propounded a question: May a servant that is not permanently engaged (examine his utensils) before a lamp fed with oil?

Said Rabh: The rule is laid down (that he may), but we do not practise it. R. Jeremiah b. Aba, however, said: So is the rule, and so we practise.
Once R. Jeremiah b. Aba took (his Friday night meal) at the house of R. Assi. His servant (R. Jeremiah's retainer, who was at the time doing occasional service in R. Assi's house) proceeded to examine (the dishes) before the lamp. Said the wife of R. Assi (to her husband): "You, my master, do not approve of this." "Let him be," answered R. Assi; "he acts according to the opinion of his master." "Of a verity they said, an instructor," etc. Was it not said, "He may see"? For what purpose should he do this but to read? Nay; he should see in order to watch the sequence of paragraphs. So also said Rabba b. Samuel: "He may arrange the sequence of paragraphs." Consequently, may he not read the paragraphs through? Would this not oppose the statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said: "Children in their rabbi's house used to arrange their paragraphs and read before the lamp-light"? With children the case is different; out of fear for their master they will not be led to adjust.
MISHNA IV.: And these are some of the regulations enacted in the attic of Hananiah b. Hyzkiyah b. Gorion, when the rabbis came to visit him. They called the roll and found that the disciples of Shamai were more numerous than those of Hillel, and they enforced eighteen regulations on that day.

GEMARA: Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Does the expression "and these," etc., refer to the things that were mentioned, or is "these" used with reference to things to be mentioned farther on? Come and hear. "One shall not search for vermin or read before a lamp-light; and these are some of the regulations," etc. From this it is obvious that "and these" is the correct version.
The rabbis taught: The "Roll of Fasts" was written by Hananiah b. Hyzkiyah and his company, for they thought with fondness of the troubles (which their race had experienced). Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: We also think with fondness of the troubles; but what shall we do? If we were to record (all the troubles our race has experienced since that time) we would never finish. It may also be said: A fool never feels trouble, or (more pointedly) a dead member on a living body feels not the lancet. 1 MISHNA V.: The Beth Shamai said: Ink, dye material, or fodder (for animals) shall not be put into water (on Friday) unless there is still time for them to soak through while it is day. The Beth Hillel, however, permits this. The Beth Shamai prohibits putting bundles of linen thread (to bleach) into the oven unless there is sufficient time left for them to become heated through while it is yet day, or wool into a dye-kettle unless there is still time for it to be soaked through the same day. The Beth Hillel permits this. The Beth Shamai says: Traps shall not be set for animals and birds, or nets for fishes (on Friday), unless there is still time for them to be caught before sunset. The Beth Hillel permits this. The Beth Shamai says: One shall not sell anything to a Gentile (on Friday) or help him load his animal, or help him shoulder a burden unless he (the Gentile) can reach (with his load) the nearest place while it is yet day. The Beth Hillel permits this. The Beth Shamai says: Hides shall not be given to a tanner nor clothes to a Gentile washer (on a Friday) unless there is still sufficient time left for him (the Gentile) to finish it while it is day. The performance of all these acts of labor heretofore mentioned was permitted by the Beth Hillel (on Friday) while the sun was still shining. Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said: At my father's house it was the custom to give out white clothes to a Gentile washer three days before the Sabbath. Both schools, however, agree that the presses may be put on olives and grapes in the press-pits (as long as it is still daytime).

GEMARA: Who is the Tana that maintains that putting water on ink constitutes the final work on it? Said R. Joseph: (It is Rabbi of the following Boraitha: "If one put flour (in a vessel) and another one put water on it, the latter is culpable (of the act of kneading); so is the decree of Rabbi." R. Jose, however, says that one is not culpable until he kneads it.

The rabbis taught: At twilight on the eve of Sabbath one may make an opening in a spring, so that the water run into the garden the whole day (of the Sabbath). He may also put smoking incense underneath garments, so that they hold the fragrance the whole day. It is also allowed to put burning sulphur under enamelled vessels, so that its smoke work on the paints the whole Sabbath day. It is also allowed for one to put a balm on the eye and a plaster on a wound, so that the healing process continue throughout the Sabbath; it is prohibited, however, to put grain into a water-mill, unless there is yet enough daytime left for it to be ground. Why so? Said R. Joseph: Because one is obliged to give rest even to tools on Sabbath.

Now since it was said that the resting of tools is obligatory according to the decision of the Beth Hillel, why did they permit putting sulphur and incense to smoke, or linen thread to bleach during the Sabbath? Because no act was being done, and (the tools were practically) at rest. But do not traps set for animals, birds, and nets for fishes work? Why, then, did they allow these? Here, too, they treated only of fishers' rods and traps, which do no work (but into which animals work themselves).

Now, as R. Oshia has declared in the name of R. Assi, that only the Beth Shamai holds that there is a biblical obligation for the resting of tools, but not the Beth Hillel, all the acts enumerated above are permitted by the latter, even in the event of the tools performing work.

Who is the Tana of what the rabbis taught anonymously as follows: "A woman shall not put dried lentils and peas into the oven on Friday when it is getting dark and leave them there (to get soft); and if she needs them for after the Sabbath she shall not use them, unless she waits the length of time required to cook them afresh. In the same wise a baker shall not put a vessel with water in the oven on Friday when it is getting dark; and if he needs (the hot water) for after the Sabbath, he shall not use it unless he waits the length of time it would require to boil it afresh." Shall we assume that this is in accordance with the Beth Shamai, but not with Beth Hillel? It may also be in accordance with the Beth Hillel, as the prohibitions were made as precautionary measures lest one stir the coals. If such is the case, the burning of incense and sulphur (as mentioned in our Mishna) should also be prohibited for the same reason. There is to be feared that the coals might be stirred, while here is no fear of that, as when the coals are stirred smoke may arise and injure the enamel or the garments. In the case of the linen thread also, no precautionary measure was necessary, because the draught caused by the admission of air into the oven would prove injurious to the thread, and therefore one would not open the oven to stir the fire. Then let the placing of wool into a (dye) kettle be prohibited as a precautionary measure? The Mishna treats of a kettle that stands at some distance from the fire; so says Samuel. Still, the apprehension exists that he may stir the dye. Nay, we speak of a kettle whose cover is sealed with clay.
Now that the master said that the prohibitions (of the Boraitha) are only precautionary measures, to prevent one from stirring the coals, a cold pot may be put in the oven on Friday when it is getting dark. Why so? Because the victuals in it cannot be used the same evening, and he (the cook) will never think of stirring the coals. "One shall not sell a thing to a Gentile," etc. The rabbis taught: The Beth Shamai said: One shall not sell a thing to a Gentile, nor lend it to him, nor help him carry it, nor lend him nor present him with any money on Sabbath eve unless there is time enough for the recipient to reach his house before night comes on. The Beth Hillel said (all this may be done) if there is time enough to reach his house at the wall of the city where he lives. R. Aqiba, however, says: It is sufficient if there is time enough for the Gentile to leave the house of the Jew.

Said R. Jose b. Jehudah: "R. Aqiba contends that his teaching does not contradict that of the Beth Hillel, but merely explains the latter's real intent."

The rabbis taught: One may put down eatables on his own grounds for a Gentile (on the Sabbath). If the latter takes the eatables and carries them off, he need not prevent him.

The rabbis taught: One shall not hire out his tools to a Gentile on Friday, but he may do so on Wednesday or Thursday (even if he knows positively that the Gentile will use them on Sabbath). In the same manner, it is prohibited to transmit a letter by a Gentile on Friday, but it may be sent on Wednesday or Thursday. It was said of R. Jose the Priest, according to others the Pious, that his handwriting was never found in the hands of a Gentile (for fear that it might be carried on the Sabbath).

The rabbis taught: One shall not send a letter by a Gentile on Friday unless he stipulated a certain sum for the delivery. If such a stipulation was not made, the Beth Shamai says it must not be delivered, unless the messenger has time to reach the house in which it is to be delivered (before sunset); the Beth Hillel, however, maintains: He may do it if the messenger has time to reach the house nearest to the wall of the city where the letter is to be delivered. Was it not taught at first that "one shall not send" at all? This presents no difficulty. In the first part the case treats of a town which has no post-office; in the latter part the Boraitha speaks of a town which has one.

The rabbis taught: One shall not embark on a vessel less than three days before the Sabbath. This is the case if one goes (to sea) on private business, but if he goes for a meritorious act, he may do so. He may make a stipulation with the owner of the boat that it shall rest on Sabbath, although he is aware that he will not do so; so is the decree of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that such a stipulation is not necessary. To travel from Tyre to Zidon (a journey of a few hours) one may embark even on Friday.
The rabbis taught: Siege shall not be laid to Gentile cities less than three days before the Sabbath, but when the siege is laid it need not be interrupted. So also Shamai used to say: It is written, "until it is brought down" [Deut. xx. 20], i.e., even on a Sabbath day. "R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said," etc. There is a Boraitha:
R. Zadok said: "It was the custom at the house of Rabban Gamaliel to give white clothes to the washer three days before the Sabbath, but colored clothes even on a Friday." From this we have learned that it is harder to wash white clothes than colored ones. Abayi gave colored clothes to the washer and asked: How much wilt thou take for washing them? "As much as for white clothes," answered the washer. Said Abayi: "The rabbis have preceded thee with their declaration" (that white clothes are harder to wash). "Both schools agree," etc. Why did the school of Shamai enforce precautionary measures in all the previous cases, but in the case of wine and oil presses they did not do so? They prohibited the performance of such labor as involves the obligation of a sin-offering, if performed (unintentionally) on the Sabbath, or on a Friday when approaching darkness; but for the putting of press beams on grapes or olives, which does not involve the obligation of a sin-offering even if done on the Sabbath, the precautionary measure was not necessary.

From this it may be inferred that work which continues by itself may well be started (late on Friday). 1 Who is the Tana that holds so? Said R. Jose: R. Ishmael of the Mishna (Ediath, II. 7): "Garlic, unripe grapes, and green grain-stalks which were crushed (on Friday) while yet day, may be put under pressure at sunset; so is the decree of R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, says: "It must not be done.'' R. Elazar (b. Pedath), however, said that the Tana in question is R. Elazar (b. Samoa) of the following Mishna: "Honeycombs that were crushed on Friday shall not be put in the press (at sunset), so that the honey run out by itself; R. Elazar, however, permits it." R. Jose b. Hanina has practised in accordance with the theory of R. Ishmael.

The oil and the covers of the small oil-presses Rabh prohibits to handle on the Sabbath. Samuel, however, permits it. The same is the case with reed-cloth; Rabh prohibits, and Samuel permits (to handle). Covers that are used on board of a vessel to cover the deck Rabh prohibits, and Samuel permits the handling of.
R. Na'hman said: "A goat that is kept for its milk, a sheep that is kept for its wool, a hen that is kept for its eggs, an ox that is kept for the plough, and dates that are put up for the market, are prohibited for use at a biblical feast," according to Rabh; Samuel, however, said it was permitted. The point of their differing is the law of Muktza, in which R. Jehudah and R. Simeon differ. (It is explained farther on that, according to the latter, no Muktza exists.)

A disciple in 'Harta of Argis 1 decided cases according to R. Simeon's teaching, and R. Hamnunah put him under the ban. But have we not adopted the opinion of R. Simeon? Yea, but 'Harta was within the jurisdiction of Rabh, and he (the disciple) should not have done as he did against Rabha's teaching.

MISHNA VI.: Meats, onions, and eggs shall not be put to roasting on the eve of Sabbath, unless they can be done while it is yet day.

Bread shall not be put in the oven or a cake upon live coals, unless the crust can be formed while it is yet day. R. Elazar says it is enough if the bottom crust is formed. The Passover sacrifice may be turned around in the oven (on Friday) when it is getting dark. In the heating-house of (the sanctuary) the fire was fed at eventide. The fires in the rural districts may be fed until the flames envelop the greatest part (of the fuel). R. Judha says: "Where coals were already burning more fuel may be added, even when Sabbath is quite near at hand."

GEMARA: When should such victuals be considered done? Said R. Elazar in the name of Rabh: "When they are done like the victuals of Ben Drostai." 2 As we have learned in a Boraitha: Hananiah says all victuals that are done like the victuals of Ben Drostai may be left upon the hearth, even if the fire in the hearth is not stirred up and full of ashes. "Bread shall not be put," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: ("Does R. Elazar speak of) the crust that is formed near the wall of the oven, or the crust formed (on the side of the loaf, that is turned) to the fire?"

Come and hear. R. Elazar says: "It is sufficient if the surface is crusted, which lies close to the wall of the oven." "The Passover sacrifice may be turned," etc. Why so? Because a company (when preparing a sacrifice in the temple) is very cautious.

But if this were not the case, would it not be allowed? Has not the master said: A (sacrificial) kid may be used, well done or not well done? Aye, but in that case it is cut in pieces; in our case it could not be cut in pieces. 1 "The fire in the heating-house," etc. Why so? Whence is this deduced? Said R. Huna: It is written [Ex. xxxv. 3]: "Ye shall not kindle any fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day." Your habitations excluded the sanctuary. R. Hisda opposed: If it is so, then they may do so on Sabbath itself; therefore he explains thus: The cited verse excludes only the parts of the members which are already upon the altar, and the reason of our Mishna is because priests are very careful. "In the rural districts," etc. What does "the greatest part" mean? According to Rabh: "The greatest part of each piece"; and according to Samuel: "Until no more small wood is needed to make the heap burn." R. Hyya taught the following Boraitha in support of R. Samuel: "The flame should continue rising by itself, and not by the assistance of anything else." And to only one log of wood? -until the fire catches most of its thickness; and according to others, the most of its circumference, was the decision of Rabh. Said R. Papa: To comply with both views just mentioned it is right that the fire should catch both, the most of its thickness and the greatest part of its circumference. However, regarding this law Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ. R. Hyya says: Until it is so burned that it is unfit for any carpenter's work. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Until the fire catches both sides. And although this cannot be substantiated by evidence (from Scripture), there is a hint of this—viz.: "Both ends are consumed by the fire and the inside is scorched; is it fit for any work?" [Ez. xv. 4].

It was taught: R. Kahana said: Reeds, if they are tied together, must (have enough daytime on Friday) to burn over half; if not tied together, less is sufficient. Granum must have enough time for the fire to catch their greater part; if they are put in a fire-pot, they need not. R. Joseph taught four substances (used as fuel) need not (have time until the fire catches) the greater part—viz.: pitch, sulphur, cheese, and running fats. In a Boraitha it was taught that straw and (wood) shavings belong to the same category. R. Johanan said that the same is the case with fuel in Babylon. What does it mean? According to R. Joseph hast, and according to Rami b. Aba branches.

APPENDIX.

[Explanatory to p. 8, line 2 (Erubhin, p. 25).]

There is a Boraitha in addition to the last Mishna of Chap. IX., ibid., p. 226, as follows: "More than this said R. Jehudah: 'He who has two houses, one on each side of public ground, may add to each a beam or a side beam (for a sign), and this allows him to carry things from one house into the other.' To which the rabbis answered that such an erubh does not suffice for public ground." (The reason of R. Jehudah's statement is that biblically two partitions suffice to turn premises of public ground into private ground, with which the rabbis do not agree.) 1

Footnotes

1:1 See Jer. xvii. 21, 28, and Neh. xiii. 19. This Mishna treats of the prohibition, so strongly inculcated by the prophets, of transferring things over the line of division between various grounds or premises.

1:2 The difference between the violation of the biblical statutes and that of the rabbinical statutes is marked by the prescription of the penalties of sin-offerings, shortening of life and capital punishment for the first-named violation, while no penalties are attached to a violation of the last-named statutes. (See Introduction.)

2:1 Rashi explains at length how eight or even twelve instances of transfer could occur, but, not being essential to the subject, we omit the explanation.

2:2 Lev. iv. 27.

3:1 Students of the Talmud will remember that while it) the act of walking a man cannot be guilty of the transgression of carrying movable property. The body must be at rest. The removal of a thing by means of the hand implies a disturbance in the rest of the body.

3:2 As illustrated in our Mishna; for if he did not deposit the thing that he had passed from the street into the house, he was not culpable.

4:1 All the labors that were performed at the construction of the tabernacle in the desert, as is taught in a Mishna farther on, if done on the Sabbath intentionally, involved capital punishment. The intention becomes apparent when there are witnesses to warn the perpetrator of his wrong and he does not heed them.

7:1 The technical expression is "to make an Erubh," i.e., to mix their possessions as if they were partners, as explained in Tract Erubin, I. 2.

7:2 A door-step is regarded as ground of which the religious law takes no cognizance.

8:1 According to Rashi, R. Ashi means to state that even when the capacity of the valley was more than two saoth and no dwelling was near, which is always considered as unclaimed ground in regard to this, nevertheless it is considered as private ground, and whoever carries from it into public ground is guilty.

9:1 Any space that is less than ten spans high from the ground is considered by the law as unclaimed ground, and there things may be handled on the Sabbath only as above, while on private ground things may be handled freely within the whole area over which it extends.

11:1 The cornice which is spoken of above should be like the branch in this instance.

11:2 The space above ten spans does not enter within the jurisdiction of public ground.

11:3 Here a bee-hive is spoken of which is not six spans in circumference, i.e., less than four spans square.

11:4 There is a law of Mosaic origin determining that every object that is not farther from the ground than three spans must be considered "Lavud," i.e., attached to the ground. In the above case, when a bee-hive seven spans or a trifle over seven spans high is thrown to the ground, it does not become positively "Lavud" when within three spans from the ground, and is thus considered ten spans in all. The margin is too small. It must be seven and a half spans high, and when reaching the ground within three spans the hive becomes "Lavud," and being positively over ten spans high is treated as a piece of private property.

13:1 The reference made here, that one should not sit down before the hair-cutter near the time for the afternoon prayer is a simple precaution. The exact specification for the time is to be found in Berachoth, Perek IV., M. 1.

13:2 The following discussions may seem to have no direct connection with the ordinances pertaining to the Sabbath; however, they are included in the tract on account of their connection with the succeeding Mishna, which commences: "A tailor shall not go out with his needle when it is nearly dark on Friday." Incidentally, the injunctions concerning the time for the Min'ha are given, in order that prayer time shall not be forgotten.

14:1 High afternoon (Min'ha) was the time when the regular afternoon sacrifice was offered at the temple, about an hour after midday. The lesser afternoon time was about an hour before sunset. Because the time for afternoon devotion was calculated by the offering of the "gift-sacrifice," the name of that sacrifice, "Min'ha," is used by the rabbis as a technical term to designate both the afternoon devotion and the time when it is to be performed.

15:1 The rabbi thus regarded prayer as a thing belonging to transient life, because it benefits only the individual. Study, on the other hand, is regarded as an object that concerns eternal life, for by its results future generations may be benefited.

16:1 Translated literally. Leeser, however, translates differently according to the sense, but his translation is not correct.

17:1 Transposed from Tract Betzah, p. 16b.

17:2 He was an Aaronite, and in his time they used to give the Aaronites their meat-offerings. In the time of R. Hisda the descendants of the priests still received their titles.

18:1 These somewhat abstruse distinctions are made for the reason that a dependent of a scholar, orphan, or widow is liable to incur greater punishment for an injury done his master than were his master an Ishmaelite, Persian, etc.

18:2 The title "Habher" is the exact equivalent of "fellowship" as a college position in our time; we translate it "schoolman."

20:1 Large cities where the men are effeminate and wear garments like the women.

22:1 A servant in permanent engagement is more careful about his dishes, for fear that he may lose his position. He is therefore more apt to adjust the wick.

23:1 The Gemara discusses here the eighteen precautionary measures which were enacted in the attic referred to, and tried also to find them out, as what they were is not mentioned in the Mishna at all. As none of them, except the two mentioned in the Mishna (which is not discussed at all), belong to Sabbath, we have omitted the whole discussion. However, we have named all of them in the appendix to this tract [Vol. II., pp. 381-390, q. v.], and we have shown that all of these enactments were political and of great necessity at that time.

27:1 Without requiring the labor of man when once started, as is the case with wine and oil presses, in which case the beams, once put on grapes or olives, force the fluids to run down of their own accord.

28:1 Argis was the man who built the city of 'Harta and R. Hamnunah lived in that city. The cave in which he is buried is still in existence there. So I have found written in an answer of a Gaon. (Rashi.)

28:2 A notorious highwayman, who could never stay in one place long enough to cook his meals, and was wont to do only the third part of cooking they required.

29:1 See Ex. xii. 9, 46, where it is explicitly ordained that the paschal lamb should not be dismembered, and no bone should be broken.

30:1 This Boraitha was omitted in Tract Erubhin. Here, however, to render the above-mentioned passage clearer for the reader, we deem it necessary to translate it.

CHAPTER II.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND 'HANUKAH LIGHT . MISHNA I.: What shall and what shall not be used for lighting (the Sabbath light)? The light shall not be made with (wicks of) cedar hast, raw flax, silk fibre, weeds growing upon the water, and ship-moss. 1 Nor shall pitch, wax, cotton-seed oil, oil of rejected heave-offerings, 2 fat from the tail of a sheep, and tallow be used.

Nahum the Modait says melted tallow maybe used for lighting; the schoolmen, however, prohibit melted and raw tallow alike.

GEMARA: Rabbin and Abayi were sitting before Rabbanah Ne'hemiah, the brother of the Exilarch (after the death of his brother he became Exilarch under the name Ne'hemiah the Second), and they saw that he was dressed in a mantle of μεταξα (raw silk). Said Rabbin to Abayi: "This is called in our Mishna khlakh." 3 And he answered: "In our city it is called Shira Peranda (ferandinis)." The same (Rabbin and Abayi) happened to be in the valley of Tamruritha, and they saw a kind of willow, and Rabbin said to Abayi: "This is edan mentioned in our Mishna"; and he rejoined: "This is only common wood; how could a wick be made of it?" He peeled off one of them and showed him a kind of woolly substance between the bark and the stem.

The rabbis taught: All that which was prohibited for the Sabbath lamp may be used in fires that are kept up for heat or even for constant light, whether (such fires are built) upon the ground or in the hearth; as the materials are prohibited only for use as wicks for the Sabbath lamp.

Rabba said: The wicks which the rabbis forbade the use of in the Sabbath lamp are prohibited because they give a flickering light. The oily substances were prohibited because they do not adhere to the wick.

Abayi questioned Rabba: Would it be permitted to mix oil with these prohibited fats and then use them for the Sabbath lamp? Or is even that prohibited as a precaution lest one use those fats without the addition of oil? Rabba answered: It is prohibited. Why so? Because they do not give a right light.

Abayi objected to him from the following: "R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'In my father's house they wound the wick around a nut and lighted it'; hence you see that it may be lighted." Said Rabba: "Instead of contradicting me with the saying of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, support my view with the decision of the first Tana" (of our Mishna). This would not do, as the record of an act is incontrovertible. Still the record of the master remains contradictory. The Mishna is not complete, and should read thus: "If one has wound a thing that may be used (as a wick) around a thing that may not be used, be is not permitted to light it. This is the case when the two (substances) are to serve the purpose of a wick, but if the prohibited substance is used merely to support the permissible (the combination) is allowed, as so said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, 'In my father's house,'" etc.

But, after all, it is not so. Did not R. Beruna teach in the name of Rabh: To melted tallow or fish fat one may add some oil and use it for the Sabbath lamp? These substances adhere to the wick in themselves. But the rabbis had prohibited melted tallow or fish fat as a precaution, lest (if the melted substance be allowed) one use it raw also for light. Why did they not enact the prohibition to use these substances with the admixture of some oil as a precaution lest they be used without the admixture of oil? This itself is a precautionary measure; shall we enact another as a safeguard to it?
R. Huna said: The wicks and fats which the sages have prohibited for the Sabbath lamp cannot be used for the 'Hanukah lamp either on the Sabbath night or on week nights. Said Rabba: The reason of R. Huna's theory is because he holds that if the ('Hanukah lamp) is extinguished (by accident) it must be relighted, and also that its light may be used to work by. R. Hisda, however, maintains that it can be fed (with these fats) on week nights, but not on the Sabbath night. Because he holds that if it is extinguished, one is not in duty bound (to light it again), and as long as it burns it may be used to work by.

R. Zera in the name of R. Mathna, according to others in the name of Rabh, said: The wicks and fats which the sages prohibited for the Sabbath lamp may be used for the 'Hanukah lamp, both during the week and on the Sabbath night. Said R. Jeremiah: The reason of Rabh's decision is because he holds that if it is extinguished he need not relight it, and its light is prohibited to be used." The rabbis declared this before Abayi, in the name of R. Jeremiah, and he would not accept it; when Rabbin came from Palestine he declared the same before Abayi in the name of R. Johanan, and he accepted it and said: "Had I been worthy, I would have accepted this teaching before."
It is said in the name of Rabh: "If it is extinguished, it is not needed to relight it." Is this not contradicted by the following: "The proper ordinance is for (the 'Hanukah light) to last from sunset until footsteps are no longer heard in the street"? 1 Does this not mean that if extinguished it must be relighted? Nay, the time appointed is only for the purpose of determining when the light is to be lit, or a light should be made which will last for the appointed time. "Until footsteps are no longer heard," etc. Up to what time is this? Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "Up to the time when the steps of the Tarmudites 2 are heard no more."
The rabbis taught: The law of 'Hanukah demands that every man should light one lamp for himself and his household. Those who seek to fulfil it well have a lamp lit for every member of the household. Those who seek to fulfil the law in the best possible manner should light according to Beth Shamai the first night eight flames, and every following night one flame less. And according to Beth Hillel the reverse—the first night one lamp, and be increased by one on each succeeding night. Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "There were two sages in Zidon; one did according to the decision of Shamai's school, and gave the reason that the 'Hanukah lamp is to be lit in the same manner as the sacrifices of the feast were offered, 1 and the other according to the school of Hillel, with the reason that holy actions should show (emblemize) increase and not reduction.

The rabbis taught: It is a merit to put the 'Hanukah lamp on the outside door of the house; and he who lives in an attic puts it in a window that opens into the street. In time of danger, however, 2 it is sufficient if the lights are on the table. Said Rabha: In the latter case another light is required to work by; but if there is a hearth-fire in the house, it is not necessary. However, if the man is of high standing (and not in the habit of working by the hearth-light) he must have another lamp.

What is 'Hanukah? The rabbis taught: "On the twenty-fifth day of Kislev 'Hanukah commences and lasts eight days, on which lamenting (in commemoration of the dead) and fasting are prohibited. When the Hellenists entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oil that was found there. When the government of the House of Asmoneans prevailed and conquered them, oil was sought (to feed the holy lamp in the sanctuary) and only one vial was found with the seal of the high priest intact. The vial contained sufficient oil for one day only, but a miracle occurred, and it fed the holy lamp eight days in succession. These eight days were the following year established as days of good cheer, on which psalms of praise and acknowledgment (of God's wonders) were to be recited.

R. Kahana said: R. Nathan b. Manyomi in the name of R. Tanhum lectured: "A 'Hanukah lamp becomes disqualified if it is put higher than twenty ells (from the ground), just like a Sukkah (booth) and like the side beam of an alley."
Rabba said: The merit of the 'Hanukah lamp is that it be put within a span of the house door. And on which side? R. A'ha b. Rabha said to the right, R. Samuel of Diphti said to the left (of the entrance). And the Halakha prevails that it should be placed to the left of the entrance, so that the 'Hanukah light be on one side and the Mezuzah 1 on the other side of the door.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Assi said: It is not allowed to count money by the 'Hanukah light. When this was cited before Samuel, he said: "Is there any holiness in the light?" R. Joseph retorted: Is there any holiness in the blood of an animal? and yet have we not learned in a Boraitha: It is written: "Then shall pour out the blood . . . and cover it" . . . [Lev. xvii. 13]. From this we infer that he must cover it with the same hand it was shed with, but not with his foot, in order that the fulfilment of the commandment should not be treated with lack of reverence. In our case, too, the light must not be used for anything, in order that the compliance with an ordinance should not evince a lack of reverence.

R. Joshua b. Levi was questioned: May the fruits, hung up in the Sukkah for ornamentation, be used during the seven days of the feast? He answered: Even to the 'Hanukah light a law was passed prohibiting the counting of money. Said R. Joseph: "Lord of Abraham!" Here he connected a law that was enacted (by the ancient masters) with one that was not discussed by them. The law concerning the Sukkah was biblical, that concerning 'Hanukah was not biblical but rabbinical. Therefore said R. Joseph: The precedent of all these cases is the law concerning the blood (which was cited above).
It was taught: Rabh said,: It is not allowed to light one 'Hanukah light with the other; Samuel permits this. Rabh prohibited Tzitzith (show-threads) to be taken out of one garment and put into another; Samuel permits also this. He also said that the Halakha does not prevail in accordance with R. Simeon regarding dragging across the floor (which will be explained farther on); and Samuel maintains it does. 2 Said Abayi: "My master followed the decisions of Rabh in all questions except the three mentioned above, which he decided according to Samuel."

One of the rabbis in the presence of R. Ada b. Ahba said:

Rabh's reason for prohibiting these acts was to prevent irreverence in the compliance with the law." Said R. Ada to the scholars present: "Hear him not; Rabh's reason was to prevent stinginess in the fulfilment of laws." And what is the difference between the two? It is in the lighting of one 'Hanukah lamp with another. He who says that irreverence was the reason cannot prohibit this; but he who holds stinginess to be the reason, prohibits even this rightfully.

How is this question to be decided? Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua: "Let us sec whether the act of lighting the lamp constitutes merit, or whether it is the act of putting it in its proper place"; this question having been already propounded by the schoolmen (the answer, when given, will serve for the above also).

Come then and hear the following: R. Joshua b. Levi says: "A lantern (that was lit for 'Hanukah on Friday night) and kept burning the whole following day must, at the close of the Sabbath, be extinguished and then relighted." Now if we say that the lighting constitutes compliance with the commandment, this teaching is correct; but if we say that the placing of the lamp in its proper place constitutes the merit, it should be said: "It should be extinguished, raised up, put in its proper place, and then lit." And also, since we pronounce the benediction, "Blessed art Thou, etc., who hast commanded us to light the 'Hanukah lamp," it becomes clearly apparent the lighting constitutes compliance. And so it is. Now that we come to the conclusion that the act of lighting constitutes the merit, it is understood that if this was done by a deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor, the act is not valid; a woman, however, may surely light it, as R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Women are in duty bound to light the 'Hanukah lamp, for they were included in miracle."

R. Shesheth said: A guest (at a stranger's house) is obliged to light the 'Hanukah lamp. Said R. Zera: When I was studying at the school of Rabh, I contributed my share towards maintaining and lighting the lamp with mine host. Since I am married, I say, I surely need not light it now, for it is lit for me at my house.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: "All fats are good for the 'Hanukah lamp, but olive oil is the best." Abayi said: "My master always sought for poppy-seed oil, because, said he, it burns slowly (and the light lasts longer), but when he heard the saying of R. Joshua b.. Levi, he sought for olive oil, for that gives a clearer light."

Hyya b. Ashi in the name of Rabh said: He who lights the 'Hanukah lamp must pronounce a benediction. R. Jeremiah said: He who perceives it must pronounce a benediction. R. Jehudah said: He who perceives a 'Hanukah lamp on the first day must pronounce two benedictions, and the one that lights it on the first day, three; 1 after the first day, the one that lights it must pronounce two benedictions and the one that perceives it one.

What benediction would he omit? The benediction of time. But why not omit the benediction of the miracle? Because the miracle was continued every day (of the eight). And what is the (special) benediction? "Blessed be, etc., who hallowed us with His commands and ordained that we shall light the 'Hanukah lamp." But where did He ordain this? Said R. Avya: (This command is included in) "Thou shalt not depart," etc. [Deut. xvii. 11]. R. Nehemiah, however, from the following said: "Ask thy father and he will tell thee; thine elders, and they will inform thee" [ibid. xxxii. 7].

R. Huna said: A house that has two doors must have two lamps. Said Rabha: This is only in case when the two doors are in two different sides of the house; but if they both open on the same side it is not necessary. Why so? Because the townsmen may pass by the side which has no lamp and suspect the owner of the house of not having lit any at all. And where is it taken from that one must endeavor to avoid suspicion? From a Tosephtha in Peah, Chap. L, which states plainly that every one must do so.

R. Isaac b. Rediphah in the name of R. Huna said: "A lamp with two mouths (so that two wicks can be lit in it) is sufficient for two men."

Rabha said: If one has filled a dish with oil, put wicks all around the brim, and covered it with a vessel (so that each wick yields a separate flame), it is sufficient for many persons; but if he has not covered it, he makes it appear as one flame of fire, and it is not valid, even for one person.
The same said again: If one (possessing only means enough to light one lamp) must choose between using this light for a house-light 1 (on Friday night) or a 'Hanukah light, he should use it for a house-light in order to preserve his domestic peace. If, again, his choice must be between (purchasing) the house-light and (the wine necessary for the celebration) of the holiness of Sabbath, the house-light is to be preferred and for the same reason; however, it is doubtful to me what must be chosen between the 'Hanukah light and the goblet for qiddush. When one cannot afford both, which must he prefer?" "Is the latter to be preferred because it is of regular occurrence. 2 or is the 'Hanukah light preferable, in order to proclaim the miracle (which it commemorates)?" After deliberating he decided himself that the proclaiming of the miracle has the preference.

R. Huna said: he who makes a practice of lighting many lamps (which the law requires for festive occasions) will be rewarded with scholarly sons. He who is particular about his Mezuzah will be blessed with a fine dwelling. He who is particular about his show-threads (Tzitziths) will be blessed with fine garments. He who is particular to pronounce the benediction of Sabbath over a goblet of wine shall live to have his cellar well stocked.

R. Huna was wont to pass by the house of R. Abbin, the carpenter. He noticed that the latter lit a great many lamps on the Sabbath night. Said he: "Two great men will come forth from this house." And they were R. Jidi and R. Hyya b. Abhin.

R. Hisda was wont to pass by the house of the master (father or father-in-law) of R. Shezbi; he noticed many lights every Sabbath. Said he: "A great man will come forth from this house." This great man was R. Shezbi.
The wife of R. Joseph was accustomed to light her (Sabbath) lamp late. Said he unto her: There is a Boraitha: It is written: "The pillar of cloud did not depart by day nor the pillar of fire by night" [Ex. xiii. 22]. From this we infer that the two pillars always closely followed each other. She then wanted to light up too early. Said a certain old man to her: "There is another Boraitha, however, that (whatever is to be done) should be done neither too early nor too late."
Rabha. said: "He who loves scholars, will have sons that are scholars; he who respects them, will have scholarly sons-in-law; he who fears scholars, will become a scholar himself, and if he is not fit for this, his words will be respected like those of an ordained scholar." "Oil of rejected heave-offering," etc. What is that? Said Rabba: It means oil of heave-offering which became defiled. It is called oil for burning, because it must be destroyed in fire, and the Mishna speaks here of a Friday that happens to fall on a feast day, and the prohibition to light (the Sabbath lamp) with it is because consecrated things that have been defiled must not be burned on a feast day. Said R. Hanina of Sora: "This should be corrected in our Mishna: Why shall one not make a light with the defiled oil? Because defiled things must not be burned on a feast day. And so also we have learned in a Boraitha: All material which must not be used for lighting, on the Sabbath, may be lit on a feast day, save the oil for burning."

The schoolmen propounded a question: Should the 'Hanukah incident be mentioned in the benediction after meals? Shall we assume that because it is rabbinical it is unnecessary? or, for the sake of the proclamation of the miracle, it should? Said Rabba in the name of R. S'haura, quoting R. Huna: "It is not necessary; however, if one wishes to do it, he should incorporate it in the thanksgiving part."
R. Hunah b. Jehudah visited the house of Rabha. He was about to mention it in (the prayer part under the heading of) "the One who builds up Jerusalem." Said R. Shesheth: Nay; it should be mentioned in the thanksgiving part of the benediction after the meal, as it is mentioned in the same part in the prayer of the eighteen benedictions. 1 The schoolmen propounded a question: Should the New-Moon day be mentioned in the benediction after meals? Shall we assume that the New-Moon day is more important than Hanukah because its observation is enjoined in the Scriptures, or need it not be mentioned because manual labor is not prohibited on that day? Rabh maintains it may; R. Hanina maintains it may not. Said R. Zerika: "Hold to Rabh's opinion, for R. Oshia holds to the same; as R. Oshia taught: On the days on which additional sacrifices (Musaph) are offered in the sanctuary, like New-Moon days and the middle days of a feast, one must at evening, morning, and afternoon services recite the regular eighteen benedictions and insert in the thanksgiving part of the day's service a passage referring to the subject of the day. And if he has failed to do so, he should be made to repeat them; however, no benediction over a goblet of wine, though a remembrance of their significance must be made in the prayer after meals. On days requiring no additional sacrifice, like the first Monday, Thursday and Monday (after a biblical feast), fast days, and the days (devoted to prayer by) commoners, 1 one must recite the eighteen benedictions at evening, morning, and afternoon services, and insert a paragraph referring to the subject of the day in the prayer division; and if he forgot the latter he need not repeat them, nor any remembrance of them in the benediction after meals. The Halakha, however, does not prevail with all that was said above. It remains as decreed by R. Joshua b. Levi: If the Day of Atonement happens to fall on a Sabbath day, mention of the Sabbath must be made even in the Neilah prayer (the last of the four different prayers of the Day of Atonement). Why so? Because the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are now one, and four prayers are indispensable to the services of the day.

MISHNA II.: The lamp used on a (biblical) feast-night shall not be fed with oil of rejected heave-offerings. R. Ishmael said: The Sabbath lamp shall not be fed with tar, out of honor for the Sabbath. The sages, however, allow all fatty substances for this purpose: poppy-seed oil, nut oil, fish oil, radish oil, wild-gourd oil, tar, and naphtha. R. Tarphin said: It shall be lighted with nothing but olive oil.
GEMARA: "R. Ishmael said, "etc. Why so? Said Rabha: Because it emits a bad odor (and the Tana prohibits it) as a precaution, lest one light it and leave the house. Said Abayi: Let him go (what harm is there in that?). Rejoined Rabha: Because I hold that the Sabbath light is a duty, as R. Na'hman b. R. Zabda or b. Rabha said in the name of Rabh. The (enjoyment of) Sabbath light is an obligation. The washing of hands and feet in warm water toward evening (on Friday) is optional. And I say it is a meritorious act. Why so? Because R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "It was the custom of R. Jehudah bar Ilayi to bathe his face, hands, and feet in warm water, that was brought to him in a trough every Friday toward evening; after that he wrapped himself in a pallium with Tzitzith (show-threads) and thus assumed an angelic appearance."

It is written: "My soul was deprived of peace" [Lam. iii. 17]. What does this mean? Said R. Abuhu: It means (being deprived of the pleasure of) lighting the Sabbath lamp. "I forgot the good." [ibid.]. What does this mean? Said R. Jeremiah: This refers to (the deprivation of) a bath. R. Johanan, however, said: It refers to the washing of hands and feet with warm water. R. Isaac of Naph'ha said: It refers to a good bed and comfortable bedding. R. Aba said: It refers to an arranged bed and an elegantly robed wife for scholarly men.
The rabbis taught: "Who may consider himself rich?" One who enjoys his riches, is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Tarphon says: He who has a hundred fields, a hundred vineyards, and a hundred slaves at work in them. R. Aqiba said: He who has a wife adorned with good virtues. R. Jose said: He who has a place for man's necessity in his house. 1 We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "The Sabbath lamp shall not be fed with aromatic balsam." Why so? Rabba said: Because it yields a fine fragrance, it was feared lest one use it (taking it out while the lamp is burning). Said Abayi to him: "Why does not the master say because it is volatile?" Aye, he means this and the other also; the balsam is prohibited because it is volatile, and also for fear lest it be used.

There was a mother-in-law who hated her son's wife, and told her to perfume herself with aromatic oil. When the daughter-in-law had done this, she ordered her to go and light the candle. While complying with this order, she caught fire and was burned.
The rabbis taught: A lamp shall not be fed with defiled "Tebhel" 1 even on week days, and the less so on the Sabbath. In a similar manner, white naphtha shall not be used to feed a lamp with on week days, much less on Sabbath, because it is volatile.

In the Boraitha it was said that aromatic balsam shall not be used; so also did R. Simeon b. Elazar teach: Aromatic balsam is nothing but resin, that comes forth from aromatic trees.

R. Ishmael said: The (Sabbath) lamp shall not be fed with anything that comes from the trunk of a tree. R. Ishmael b. Beroqa said: It shall be lighted only with such substances as come from fruit. R. Tarphon, however, said: It shall be fed only with olive oil. R. Johanan b. Nuri then arose and said; "What shall the people of Babylonia do, who have nothing but poppy-seed oil? What shall the people of Media do, who have nothing but nut oil? What shall the people of Alexandria do, who have nothing but radish oil? and what shall the people of Cappadocia do, who have no oil of any kind, nothing but tar?" Nay; we have no choice but to accept the decree of the masters as to substances which should not be used. Even fish oil and resin maybe used. R. Simeon Shezori said: Oil of wild gourds and naphtha may be used. Symmachos said: No animal fat save fish oil may be used.

MISHNA III.: No substance that comes from a tree shall be used (as a wick) save flax. In like manner no substance that comes from a tree becomes defiled when serving as a tent (in which a dead body lies) save flax.
GEMARA: Whence do we know that flax is called a tree? Said Mar Zutra: From what is written: "She took them up to the roof, and hid them in the flax trees" [Josh. ii. 6]. "No substance, etc., save flax." Whence is this deduced? Said R. Elazar: From the analogy of expressions "tent," which is mentioned in the case of the tabernacle, and in the case of death [Ex. xl. 19 and Numb. xix. 14]. As the tent of the tabernacle was made only of flax, so also in our case, if a tent is made of flax only, it is also called a tent, and is liable to become defiled.
MISHNA IV.: A piece of cloth that was rolled together, but not singed, said R. Eliezer, becomes defiled (when it is in the same tent with a dead body), and shall not be used (as a wick) for Sabbath. R. Aqiba, however, said: It remains pure and may be used.

GEMARA: What is the point of their differing? Said R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshia, and so also said R. Ada b. Ahba: The piece of cloth in question is exactly three fingers square, and the lighting is to be done on a feast day, which happens on a Friday. All agree with the opinion of R. Jehudah, who said that (on a feast day) fire may be made with good cloth (or vessels), but not with such as have been spoiled (the same day). Again, all agree with the opinion of Ula, who said that the lighting must be on the largest part of the wick that protrudes from the lamp. Now R. Eliezer holds that the rolling up (of the piece of cloth) does not improve the position (i.e., it is still an object to which the term "cloth" or vessel applies); as soon as it is slightly burned it becomes spoiled material; fire, being applied further, is naturally generated with spoiled material (which is prohibited). R. Aqiba, on the other hand, holds that folding does improve the condition and the cloth is no longer a vessel; hence he puts fire to a simple piece of wood (which is allowed).

Rabha, however, said: The reason of R. Eliezer's (prohibition) is that the Sabbath lamp is not allowed to be lighted with a wick or rag that has not been singed.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: Fire may be made (on a feast day) with vessels, but not with broken vessels. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon permits it. Fire may be made with dates, but after having eaten them fire is not to be fed with their granum. A fire may be made with nuts, but after having eaten the kernel one must not feed the fire with the shells, according to R. Jehudah; R. Simeon, however, permits both.
The statement credited to Rabh in the foregoing paragraph was not made by him plainly, but was merely implied from the following act. While in Palestine, one day Rabh was eating dates and threw the pits into the fireplace, upon which R. Hyya said to him: "Descendant of nobles, on a (biblical) feast day this would be prohibited!" Did Rabh accept this or not? Come and hear. While in Babylonia, one feast day Rabh was eating dates and threw the pits to some cattle (for food). Must we not assume that these dates belonged to the class known as "Parsiassa" (a ripe, delicious, free-stone fruit), and if Rabh fed cattle with the pits of this fruit, it was because they may be used for fuel also, and thus the statement of R. Hyya is contradicted? Nay; it may be the pits that fed the cattle by Rabh were from dates known as "Armiassa" (an inferior fruit, the pits of which cling to the meat). The pits of this latter class of dates, in consequence of the meat still clinging to them, are regarded as dates themselves, and may be handled on the Sabbath. Hence it is obvious that they may also be fed to cattle, and Rabh therefore does not contradict R. Hyya.

MISHNA V.: One shall not bore a bole in an egg-shell, fill it with oil, and put it upon the (Sabbath) lamp, so that the oil drip into it; and even if it was a clay one. R. Jehudah permits it. If, however, the potter had attached it to the lamp when he made it, it is allowed to do this, for (together with the lamp) it forms one vessel. A man shall not fill a dish with oil, put it beside the lamp, and dip the (unlighted) end of the wick into it, in order that it should draw. R. Jehudah permits also this.

GEMARA: "If the potter had attached it," etc. A Boraitha in addition to it states: If he himself has attached it with mortar or clay, it is allowed. Does not our Mishna say "the potter" (from which it may be inferred that if the owner did it, is it not allowed for use)? Nay; "the potter" means in the manner of the potter.

We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Jehudah said: "Once we kept Sabbath in the attic of Beth Nitza in Lydda. We procured an egg-shell, filled it with oil, and placed it on the lamp. R. Tarphon and the aged scholars were there, and they made no objection to our action." They answered him. "Wilt thou prove by this (that this is allowed)? Beth Nitza is quite a different case, for the men there were very careful."

Abhin of Ziphoris dragged a chair (along the floor on a Sabbath) in the marble hall in the presence of R. Itz'hak b. Elazar. Said the latter: "If I should be silent toward thee (although this floor being marble, no depression can be made by the chair, and thou art not guilty of wrongdoing) as the colleagues were silent toward R. Jehudah, my silence might be misconstrued (and people might think that this can be done on any floor; therefore I say that) this is prohibited in the marble hall as a precautionary measure, lest one do it in any other hall." The head man of the assembly room of Bazra dragged a chair in the presence of Jeremiah the Great. Said the latter to him: "According to whose decision dost thou this?" "According to R.

Simeon." "R. Simeon, however, allowed large things only (to be dragged) if they could not be lifted; but we have never heard from him that he would allow this also with small ones?" This teaching, however, differs with Ulla's theory, who says the dispute was only concerning small things, for as to large ones there was no objection from any one.

MISHNA VI.: If one extinguishes a lamp because he is afraid of the officers of the government, 1 or of robbers, or of an evil spirit, 2 or in order that a sick person may be able to sleep, he is free. If he does this, however, to prevent damage to the lamp, or to save the oil or the wick, he is culpable. R. Jose declares the man free even in the latter cases, excepting (if he extinguished the lamp to save the wick), for in that case he caused a cinder to be formed.

GEMARA: From the fact that the second part of the Mishna declares the man (who had extinguished the lamp to prevent damage, etc.) culpable, it is evident that this regulation was made by R. Jehudah. 3 Now, how is the first part to be understood? If it speaks of a sick person, whose illness is dangerous, it should not say (that the man who extinguishes the lamp to afford him rest) is "free," but should say that he is "allowed to do it" (even intentionally). And if it speaks of one whose illness is not dangerous, (the one who extinguished the lamp for him) ought to be declared in duty bound to bring a sin-offering? Of a verity, the Tana speaks of a case of dangerous illness, and should have said "it is allowed to do so," but he used the term "free" merely (for the sake of euphony), because in the latter part (of the Mishna) the expression "culpable" was necessary; therefore he taught in the first part of the Mishna, also free. But have we not learned, R. Oshia said, that "in order that a sick person may be able to sleep, one should not extinguish (the lamp on the Sabbath); and if he did so he is not held culpable, though it is not allowed (to be done intentionally)"? The teaching of R. Oshia refers to sickness that is not dangerous, and is in accord with the opinion of R. Simeon.

The question, "Is it allowed to extinguish a lamp for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath?" was propounded to Tan'hum of Navi.

He began thus: 1 "O thou Solomon! Where is thy wisdom? Where is thy folly? Thy words contradict not only the words of thy father, but also thine own utterance. Thy father David said, 'The dead do not praise God' [Ps. cxv. 17], and thou sayest, 'I praise the dead that died long ago' [Eccl. iv. 2] and then again, 'A living dog fareth better than a dead lion' [ibid. ix. 4]. [This presents no difficulty. That which David said, 'The dead do not praise God,' means this: One must always occupy himself with study and with meritorious acts before his death; for as soon as he dies he is free of both, and the Holy One, blessed be he, receives no more praise from him. And the saying of Solomon, 'I praise the dead,' etc., means: When Israel sinned in the desert, Moses stood up before the Lord and offered many prayers and propitiating invocations; but he received no answer.

As soon, however, as he said: 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants' [Ex. xxxii. 13], he was answered forthwith. Now did not Solomon say well: 'I praise the dead that have died long ago'? In another way (this can be explained as follows): The custom is, if a man of flesh and blood issues a decree, it is doubtful whether the people will comply with it or not. If they comply with it while he lives they may disregard it after his death.

Moses, our master, on the other hand, has issued many decrees and established many enactments, which stand unshaken forever and aye, Now, did not Solomon say well: 'I praise the dead,' etc.? Another explanation to the above verse may refer to the following legend, which was told by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It is written [Psalms, lxxxvi. 17]: 'Display on me a sign for good, that those who hate me may see it, and be ashamed.' So said David before the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Lord of the Universe, forgive me the certain sin (with Bath-Sheba', II Samuel, xi. 3).

And the Lord said: 'It is forgiven.' He prayed again: 'Display on me a sign to make it known.' And the Lord said: 'This will not be done while you are alive, but it will be made known in the time of your son Solomon.' After Solomon had built the Temple and was about to enter the ark into the Holy of Holiness, the doors shut. Solomon had prayed twenty-four prayers with song, and was not answered. He then began [Psalms, xxiv. 7]: 'Be raised wide . . . and let the King of Glory enter!' The doors then ran after him and wanted to swallow him, saying: 'Who is the King of Glory?' And he said: 'The Lord strong and mighty.' He then said: [ibid., ibid. 9, 10]. And still was not answered.

Then he said [II Chron. vi. 42]: 'O Lord God! . . . remember the pious deeds of David thy servant'; he was answered at once, and the faces of his enemies became as black as the outside of a pot; and Israel and all the people were then certain that the above-mentioned sin was forgiven to David. Hence did not Solomon say well: 'I praise the dead,' etc.? And this is what is written [I Kings, viii. 66]: 'On the eighth day . . . and they went unto their tents joyful,' etc.] And as to the above question, 1 I say this: A lamp is called 'Ner,' and the soul of man is called 'Ner.' 2 Let rather the Ner which man has made (the lamp) be extinguished, than the 'Ner' (the soul) which belongs to the Holy One, blessed is He."

It was said in the name of Rabh: The sages wanted to conceal the Book of Ecclesiastes because of its contradictory sayings. And it was not so done, because it begins with sound religious teachings and ends with similar teachings. It begins with the words: "What profit hath man by all his toil under the sun?" [Eccl. i. 3]. Whereupon the school of R. Janai said, "Under the sun" there is no profit, but there surely is "beyond the sun." And it ends with the words: "The conclusion of the matter is, Fear God and observe his commands, for this is all (there is) for man" [Eccl. xii. 13]. What does it mean? Said R. Elazar: (It means) the whole world was created only for the sake of his fear of God. R. Aba b. Kahana said: The God-fearing man outweighs (in importance) the whole world. Simeon b. Azai, others say b. Zoma, said: The whole world was created only to provide him with assistance. "I praise mirth" [Eccl. viii. 15]. This means the righteous man rejoices when he performs a meritorious act. "And of joy, what doth this do?" [Eccl. ii. 2] alludes to rejoicing that comes not through a Heaven-pleasing deed. This teaches that the divine presence (Shekhina) comes not by sadness, by indolence, by hilarity, by levity, by gossip, or by senseless talk, but through rejoicing in a meritorious deed; as it is written: "Now bring me a minstrel; and when the minstrel played, the power of the Lord was upon him" [II Kings, iii. 15]. Rabba said: The same (should be done) in order to enjoy good dreams. R. Jehudah says: The same (should be done) to predispose one's self for legislative work, as Rabba did: Before commencing to expound a Halakha he introduced it with a simile and caused the masters to become joyful; afterward, he sat down in the fear of the Lord and began to expound the Halakha.

It was taught that in the same time they also wanted to conceal the Book of Proverbs on account of its contradictory sayings. And it was not done, because, they said: "Have we not scrutinized the Book of Ecclesiastes and found the meaning (of its contradictory sayings)? Let us then search deeply here (in the Book of Proverbs) also."

Which are the contradictory sayings? It says: "Answer not the fool according to his folly" [Prov. xxvi. 4]; and then again: "Answer the fool in his folly" [ibid. v. 5]. Yet this is no contradiction; the latter refers to a subject of learning, the former saying to a subject of indifferent talk. How is the subject of learning here to be understood? In the following manner. R. Gamaliel lectured: In the future, woman will bear a child every day, for thus it is written: "She conceived and gave birth at a time. [Jer. xxxi. 7]. A disciple laughed at this and said: "There is no new thing under the sun" [Eccl. i. 9]. Said R. Gamaliel: Come, I will show thee such a thing in the world; and he showed him a hen. The same rabbi lectured: In the future trees will bear every day, for it is written: "It will produce branches and bear fruit" [Ezek. xvii. 231. "As branches are produced for every day, so also will fruit be brought forth every day." Again the disciple laughed and said: "There is no new thing under the sun." Said the master to him: "Come, I will show thee a thing of this kind in the world; and he showed him a caper tree." He lectured also: "The land of Israel will in the future produce ready cakes and garments," explaining the first part of verse 16 of Psalm lxxii. to that effect.

The disciple again laughed at him; but he showed him that ready meats are produced in the shape of mushrooms, and ready garments grow in the shape of many-colored fibres that cover the young date trees.

The rabbis taught: A man should always be as modest as Hillel, and not as impulsive as Shamai. It once happened that two men laid a wager of four hundred zuz, which would be won by him who could provoke Hillel to anger, but lost if he failed in the attempt. This happened on Friday, while the sage was bathing his head. The man who undertook the task went to Hillel's door and cried: "Who is Hillel here? Who is Hillel here?" 1 The rabbi threw a mantle over his shoulders and went out to meet him. "What desirest thou, my son?" he asked. "I have a question to ask," the man replied. "Ask, my son, ask," said the rabbi. "Why are the Babylonians round-headed?" asked the man. "This is an important question, my son. The reason is that they have no skilled midwives in Babylon," answered Hillel. An hour later the man came again calling: "Who is Hillel here? Who is Hillel here?" The rabbi came out again and said: "What desirest thou, my son?" "I have a question to ask," the man said. "Ask, my son, ask," said Hillel. "Why have the Tarmudites oval eyes?" "This is a very important question, my son. (The Tarmudites) live in a sandy land and must always keep their eyes half closed." An hour later the man came again in his insolent manner, and said again that he had a question to ask. Hillel in his quiet manner again encouraged him. "Why do the Africans have large feet?" he asked. "Because they live in a swampy land," answered Hillel. "I have many more questions to ask, but I am afraid lest thou get angry," continued the man. Hillel wrapped himself in his mantle and sat down, saying: "Ask, my son, all the questions thou desirest." "Art thou Hillel, who is titled a prince in Israel?" asked the man. "Yes, my son," answered the rabbi. "If thou art the man, may there not be many like thee in Israel?" "Why so, my son?" "Because thou makest me lose four hundred zuz." Said Hillel to him: "Take care of thy temper. A Hillel is worthy that twice that amount be lost through him; a Hillel must not get excited."
The rabbis taught. A Gentile once came before Shamai and asked: "How many laws have you?" "Two laws: the written and the oral law," answered Shamai. "I believe thee as regards the written law, but I do not believe thee as to the oral law," said the Gentile. "I will be converted to Judaism on condition that thou teach me the written law." Shamai rebuked him and drove him away.

He then came to Hillel with the same plea, and Hillel accepted him. He began teaching him the alphabet in regular sequence. The next day he taught him the letters backward. "You did not teach me so yesterday," the man objected. "Aye, aye, my son; must thou not repose confidence in me? Thou must likewise repose confidence in the oral law (which appears at first sight different from the written law)."

Another Gentile came to Shamai saying: "Convert me on the condition that thou teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Shamai pushed him away with the builders' measure he held in his hand. He thereupon came to Hillel, and the latter accepted him. He told him: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow; this is the whole law. All the rest is a commentary to this law; go and learn it."

Another Gentile once heard a Jewish teacher instructing his class about the vestments of the high priest. He took a fancy to that, and thought he would accept Judaism in order to be made a high priest. Thus he appeared before Shamai and said: "Convert me on the condition that I be made a high priest." Shamai pushed him away with the builders' measure he held in his hand. He came to Hillel (with the same request), and the latter accepted him. Said Hillel to him: "Do people select a king unless he knows the laws of their government? Thou must study the laws of our government (if thou wilt become a high priest)." The convert began studying Torah. When he came to the passage: "A stranger who comes near (to the vessels of the sanctuary) shall die" [Numb. i. 51], he asked: "To whom does this passage refer?" Hillel answered: "To any one (who is not a descendant of Aaron the high priest), even if he would be David, the king of Israel." Then the proselyte made the following deduction: If the people of Israel, who are called the children of the Lord, so that out of love to them the Omnipotent said: "My first-born son is Israel" [Ex. iv. 22]—if of them it is written, "a stranger that comes nigh shall die," the more so must it be with an insignificant stranger, who is come (within the pale of Judaism) merely with his staff and his bag. He went before Shamai and said: "Am I qualified to become a high priest? Is it not written [Numb. iii. 10]: 'A stranger that comes nigh shall die'?" He then appeared before Hillel and said: "For thy equanimity of temper, O Hillel! may blessings be upon thy head, for thou hast gathered me in under the wings of the Shekhina." The three converts met some time later, and said: "The impulsiveness of Shamai came near sending us adrift in the world (outside of the pale of religion); Hillel's equanimity of temper gathered us in under the wings of the Shekhina.

Resh Lakish said: What does the verse, "The trust of thy times shall be the strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge," etc. [Isa. xxxiii. 6]—what does this mean? (I think that this can be a biblical support to the six divisions of the Mishna which we possess. 1) "The trust" comes within the section of "Zeraim" (seeds); "thy times" in "Moed" (festivals); "strength" in "Nashim" (women); "salvation" in "Nezikin" (jurisprudence); "wisdom" in "Qodoshim" (holiness), and "knowledge" in section "Taharith" (purity). And yet "the fear of the Lord is his treasure"(i.e., all these do not avail where there is not the fear of the Lord). 2 Rabha said: When a man comes before the (divine) judgment, he is asked: "Hast thou traded in good faith? Mist thou apportioned regular times for study? Hast thou produced children? Didst thou hope for salvation? Hast thou discussed subjects of wisdom? Hast thou formed (logical) conclusions from the things thou hast learned?" After all this (if he can affirm all these questions), if he possessed the fear of the Lord, it was well; if not, it was not so. This is like a man who ordered his agent to store a measure of wheat in the attic. The agent did so. Then the man asked him whether he had mixed some dry dust with the wheat (for protection against weevils), and he answered nay. "It were better," said the merchant, "if thou hadst not stored it."

Rabba b. R. Huna said: "A man who possesses learning, but has no fear of Heaven, is like the manager (of a palace) who has the keys to the inside apartments, but lacks the one which opens the outside gate. How can he enter?"

R. Janai proclaimed: "Alas for him who has no dwelling, yet strives to make the door of a dwelling!" R. Jehudah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world only for the purpose that man should fear Him, for it is written: "God hath so made it, that (men) should fear him" [Eccl. iii. 14].

R. Simon and R. Elazar were sitting together as R. Jacob b. Aha came passing by. Said one of them: "Come, let us arise before him, for he is a man that fears sins." Said the other: "Aye; let us arise before him, for he is a son of enlightenment (a scholar)." Said the former: I tell thee that he is a man that is afraid of sins, and thou sayest he is a scholar. Thou shouldst be mindful of what R. Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing better in the world than (men who possess) the fear of Heaven, for thus it is written: "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God" [Deut. x. 12].
R. Ulla lectured: What does the passage mean, "Be not wicked over much" [Eccl. vii. 17]. Is it allowed to be wicked at all? Nay, but the passage means this: If one has eaten garlic and has acquired a bad odor, he must not eat more garlic because the bad odor is (about him) already. Rabba b. R. Ulla lectured: It is written: For there are no fetters in them, but their strength is firm [Psalms, lxxiii. 4]. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "It is not enough that the wicked do not trouble for nor fear the day of their death, but that their heart within them is as strong as a strong fortress." Which is similar to Rabba's explanation of the passage: "This is their way; their folly" [ibid. xlix. 14]. The wicked know that their manner (of living) leads them to death, and still their kidneys wax fat (implying their blindness to the fact). Perhaps thou wilt attribute this to their forgetfulness? Therefore it is written: "What will happen after their lives is the subject of their sayings," whence we conclude that while they do not repent, they continually speak of their death. "To spare the lamp," etc. With whom does R. Jose agree? If he agrees with R. Jehudah, he should declare culpable even these; and if he agrees with R. Simeon, he should declare free even (the man who extinguishes the lamp) for the purpose of saving the wick. Said Ulla: By all means R. Jose agrees with R. Jehudah, but he holds that if one destroys in order to rebuild in the same place, he is guilty (of the act) of breaking; but if one destroys, not intending to rebuild in the same place, he is not (guilty of) breaking. R. Johanan, however, maintains that he holds as R. Simeon; but in the case of this wick it is different, as R. Hamnunah or R. Ada b. A'haba interpreted our Mishna that it reads "from a wick which needs singeing," and it is such a case. R. Simeon also agrees that it is prohibited because it is considered that he repairs a vessel. Said Rabha: It seems that this explanation is right, as the Mishna states "to be formed," and not a cinder is formed (already).

MISHNA VII.: For three sins women die of childbirth: for negligence (of the laws) during their menstruation, neglect of separating the first dough, and for neglecting to light the (Sabbath) lamp.
GEMARA: Why so? Thus a Galilean master lectured before R. Hisda: The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I have created you with power of blood; I have warned you concerning blood; I have called you "the first produce" [Jer. ii. 3], and charged you to sacrifice the "first of your dough" [Numb. xvi. 21]; the soul that I gave you is called a light, and I have charged you concerning the (Sabbath) light. If you observe these things, it is well; if not, I shall take your souls. But why should this happen at the time of childbirth? Said Rabha: When the ox falls or is felled, it is time to sharpen the knife. 1 And when are the sins of men passed upon? Said Resh Lakish: When they pass a dangerous place that is like a bridge (which is unsafe). Rabh would not embark on a ship that carried an idolater. Said he: "His time to be punished may come, and I (being on the same vessel) may have to suffer with him." Samuel, however, would go to sea only on a vessel which carried idolaters, saying: "Satan hardly ever metes out punishment to two people" (of different beliefs). R. Janai always examined a vessel before he embarked. This he did in conformity with his own theory elsewhere, for thus he taught: "A man should never place himself in danger, expecting that a miracle will be wrought for him; for it may be that no such miracle will be wrought, and if a miracle is wrought for him, it will be deducted from the reward due his merits in the world to come." And R. Hanin said: "Where is this to be found in the Scripture?" From the verse: "I am not worthy of all thy kindness and of all thy truth" [Gen. xxxii. 11]. R. Zera would never walk under date trees in stormy weather. R. Itz'hak b. R. Jehudah said: A man must always pray that he should not become sick, for if sickness befall him, he must be possessed of special virtues in order to get well again. And to the question of Mar Uqba: Is this to be found in the Scripture? He was told that the school of R. Ishmael maintains the passage in question is to be taken from Deut. xxii. 8—viz.: "Peradventure one may fall down from there." The word "Hanofel," which is in the past tense and implies that he has fallen down, although such a case had not happened as yet, is simply a matter of conjecture on the part of this school, which considered a predestined thing as a matter that had already occurred, because the fall was already predestined for the guilty person; as it is said: The reward of virtue is, however, brought about by a meritorious person, while the chastisement for sin is dealt out through a sinner (and his not making a railing around his roof constitutes him a guilty person). [See Deut. xxii. 8.]

The rabbis taught: He who becomes sick, death approaching should be told to confess his sins, for all those who are to suffer the death penalty must make a confession. When a man goes out to a market (where there are always dangerous people in the crowd), he should consider himself like one arrested by a sergeant. When his head aches, he should consider himself as one put in prison. If he cannot rise from his bed, he should consider himself as one indicted before Gardom (a criminal court); if be has good advocates to defend him, he may go free; if not, he cannot be saved. The defending attorneys of a man (before divine justice) are penitence and good deeds. If there should be nine hundred and ninety-nine accusers against him and only one to plead in his favor, he is saved, as it is written: "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand to show unto man his uprightness, then He is gracious unto him," etc. [Job xxxiii. 23]. R. Eliezer b. R. Jose the Galilean said: Even if only one thousandth part of one advocate out of a thousand plead in the man's favor, although the rest speak against him, he is saved; because it is said "one" defender out of a thousand suffices.
There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: "The laws of holy offerings, heave-offerings, and tithes are integral parts of the Torah, and yet their observance was intrusted to the common people."
There is another Boraitha: R. Nathan says: For the sin of vows one's wife dies, as it is written [Proverbs, xxii. 27]: . . . why should he take away thy bed from under thee?" 1 Another Boraitha states: R. Nehemiah said: The penalty for the sin of hating without cause is strife at home, the wife (of the sinner) gives birth before her time, his sons and daughters die young.

R. Elazar b. Jehudah says: The penalty for the sin of neglecting the first dough is: no blessing in the harvest, high prices (for necessities), the consumption of the seed by strangers; but if this portion is given, blessings will surely follow, as it is written: "The first of your dough shall you give to the priest, to cause a blessing to rest on thy house" [Ez. xliv. 30]. The penalty for the sin of neglecting heave-offerings and tithes is: the sky withholds rain and dew; dearth comes on, there are no profits, and men run about to earn a livelihood, but they do not succeed. But if these offerings are given, blessings will come, as it is written: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, etc., and prove me but herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until there be more than enough" [Mal. iii. 10]. The penalty for the sin of robbery is: locust pestilence, famine comes, and the people feed on the flesh of their children, as it is written [Amos, iv. 1-7, q. v.] For the sins of curbing, perverting, and polluting justice, and of neglecting the law, the sword comes on, (enemies take) much spoil, the people eat and are never satisfied, and they must weigh the bread they eat (i.e., eat in small portions, for fear that nothing be left for the next meal), as it is written [Leviticus, xxvi. 25]: "Avenging the quarrel of my covenant," and covenant is synonymous with the Law, as it is written [Jeremiah, xxxiii. 25]: "Thus hath said the Lord," etc. For the sins of unnecessary and false swearing, perjury, blasphemy, and desecration of the Sabbath, many wild beasts come and domestic cattle are destroyed, the population decreases, and the roads are bare (without travellers), as it is written [Lev. xxvi. 18 to the end of the paragraph].

For the sin of bloodshed the sanctuary is laid waste and Shekhina departs from Israel, as it is written [Numbers, xxxv. 34]: "And ye shall not render unclean the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I, the Lord, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel"; which signifies that if ye render it unclean, the Shekhina will depart from the land. For the sins of adultery, idolatry, and disregard of (the laws of) the Sabbatic and jubilee years exile comes, and (other nations) take up the place (of the exiles), as it is written [Lev. xviii. and xxvii.]. For the sin of defiling the mouth (speaking indecent things), great oppressions and evil decrees are (constantly) renewed, young men die, orphans and widows cry (for help), but are not answered, as it is written [Isaiah, ix., end of verse 16]: "For all this his anger is not turned away and his hand still remaineth stretched out," which is explained by R. Hanan b. Ahba as follows: "All know for what purpose a bride marries; still, he who defiles his mouth (by speaking of its details), even if a happy life of seventy years is decreed for him, the decree is turned aside." Rabba b. Shila in the name of R. Hisda says: Gehenna is made deep for him who defiles his mouth, as it is written [Proverbs, xxii. 14]. R. Na'hman b. Isaac says: It is made deep even for the one who listens to (indecent talk) and does not protest against it [ibid. 15]. R. Oshia says: He who abuses himself (by masturbation) becomes afflicted with wounds and boils; not only this, but he is punished with dropsy. 1 R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak says dropsy is an evidence of sin. Samuel the Little took sick with it, and he said: "Lord of the Universe! Who will prove (that I am not guilty, of immoral conduct)?" Hereupon he got well again. Abayi took sick with it. Said Rabha: "I know that the Nahmanite (son of Na'hman) starves himself."

The rabbis taught: There are four evidences: an evidence of sin is dropsy; an evidence of hate without cause is jaundice; an evidence of pride is poverty; an evidence of calumny (spreading evil reports about others) is croup. The sickness of croup becomes epidemic for (the sin of neglecting to give) tithes; but R. Elazar b. Jose said, only for the sin of calumny.
R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting and Jehudah, the son of proselytes, sat before them. R. Jehudah opened the conversation, saying: "How beautiful are the works of this nation (the Romans). They have established markets, they have built bridges, they have opened bathing-houses." R. Jose said nothing, but R. Simeon b. Johai said: "All these things they have instituted for their own sake. Their markets are gathering-places for harlots; they have built baths for the purpose of indulging themselves in their comforts; they have built bridges to collect tolls from those who cross them." Jehudah, the son of proselytes, went and reported this conversation, and it came to the ears of the government. Said (the rulers): "Jehudah, who has praised (our doings), shall be promoted; Jose, who said nothing, shall be exiled to Sophoris; Simeon, who spoke disparagingly, shall be put to death." R. Simeon and his son then went and hid themselves in the college, and their wives brought them every day some bread and a pitcher of water, and they ate. When the decree became imperative, he said to his son: "Women are of a pliant disposition. They (the government agents) will perhaps trouble them, and they (the women) will reveal our whereabouts." They then went and hid themselves in a cave. A miracle occurred, that a date tree and a spring of water came out for them. They stripped themselves naked and sat down covered with sand up to their necks.

Thus they sat all day studying; only at the time of prayer they put on their garments, and after performing their devotion they took them off again for fear they might wear them out. In this wise they spent twelve years in their cave. Elijah then came to the opening of the cave and said: "Who will inform the son of Johai that the Cæsar (governor) is dead and his decree is annulled?" Hereupon they left the cave. They then went forth and saw men who were ploughing and sowing grain. Said R. Simeon: "These people leave the works which lead to everlasting life and occupy themselves with worldly things."
After this every place where they chanced to turn their eyes was burned. Suddenly a "Bath-kol" (heavenly voice) was heard, which said unto them: "Have ye come to destroy my world? Go, return to your cave." They returned and stayed in the cave another twelvemonth, saying the punishment of the wicked in Gehenna only lasts twelve months. At the end of that time came again the heavenly voice and said: "Go out of the cave," and they came out. And R. Simeon said to his son: "It is enough for this world that I and you are occupied with the study of the Torah and with good deeds." This happened on a Friday near sunset. They saw a man hurrying with two bunches of myrtle in his hand. "What are they for? they asked him. "To honor the Sabbath," was the reply. "Would not one bunch be enough?" "Nay; one is for the command 'remember,' 1 the other for the command 'observe,'" said the man. Said R. Simeon to his son: "Behold, how Israel loves the commands (of God)." This reassured them.

R. Simeon's father-in-law, R. Pinhas b. Yair, heard (that they were coming) and went to meet them. He took them to the bath-house. While R. Simeon was cleaning his (own) body, R. Pinhas noticed that it was full of blisters; tears ran from his eyes when he saw this, and (the tears falling upon the flesh of his son-in-law) caused R. Simeon pain. Said R. Pinhas: "Woe unto me, that I see thee in this state." R. Simeon rejoined: "Well unto thee, that thou seest me so, for if thou hadst not seen me in this state thou couldst not find in me (all the learning) that thou canst find in me now."

MISHNA VIII.: One must say three things in his house on Friday, when it is getting dark.—viz. "Have you set aside the tithes (from the fruit, which is to be eaten on the Sabbath)?" "Have you put up the Erubh?" and "Light ye the lamp." When one is in doubt whether darkness has set in, he must not separate tithes from (fruit of which he is) certain (that tithes had not been set aside), and he shall not put vessels under process of lavation, 2 and he shall not light a lamp any more. But he may set aside tithes from (fruit of which he is) not certain (that tithes have been set aside), and he may put up the Erubh and also put his victuals into the stove for the purpose of keeping them warm.
GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Joshua b. Levi: from [Job, v. 24] "Thou shalt know that peace is in thy tent, and shalt examine thy dwelling, that thou mayest not sin." Rabba b. R. Huna said: Although the masters have taught that "one must say three things," etc., yet he ought to say them quietly, in order that (his family) should accept them from him (in good grace). Said R. Ashi: "I have not heard of this saying of Rabba b. R. Huna before, yet I have always done so as a matter of common sense."

Does not the text contradict itself? It states: "One must say three things, etc., when it is getting dark." This implies that if he is in doubt whether it is getting dark or whether darkness has already set in, he cannot say it any longer. In the latter part, however, it says "if he is in doubt, etc., he may put up an Erubh."

Said R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting Rabh: "It presents no difficulty. In the first part it speaks of an Erubh of Techum (that marks the boundary of two thousand ells around the city, where it is allowed for one to walk on Sabbath); in the latter part it speaks of an Erubh by which the neighbors of adjoining courts make common cause."

Rabba said: The rabbis have prohibited putting victuals among things (that preserve but) that do not increase the heat after dark, for fear lest one find them too cold and be tempted to make them boil. Said Abayi to him: "If such is the case, why did they not enact the same prohibition for (the time) when it is twilight also?" Answered Rabba: "At that time the pots are generally boiling hot."

Rabba said again: "Why was it said that one must not put victuals among things that increase the heat, when it is yet day, for fear lest one put them in cinders where there are yet live coals?" Said Abayi to him: "What harm is there? let him do so." And he answered: "It may be feared lest he be tempted to stir the burning coals." The rabbis taught: "Which is the time of twilight?" When the sun sets and the eastern sky is red; when the lower (edge of a cloud) is dark, while the upper part is not yet dark; but when the upper edge (of such a cloud) is as dark as the lower, night has set in. So says R. Jehudah. R. Nehemiah says: (The duration of twilight) is the time one takes to walk half a mile from the moment the sun sets. R. Jose says: Twilight is like the twinkling of an eye; the one (day) goes out, the other (night) comes in, and it is impossible to determine it. And each of them is in accordance with his theory elsewhere; as it was taught: What is the duration of twilight? Rabba in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: (The time it takes to walk) three-quarters of a mile; and R. Joseph said in the name of the same authority: Two-thirds of a mile. The difference between them is half a danka. (The contrary is the case when a bee-hive is concerned; in that case Rabba said: A bee-hive of two kurs 1 one may move on the Sabbath; of three, one shall not. R. Joseph, however, said that one may move even a hive of three kurs, but one of four is forbidden. Said Abayi: I have inquired of the master at the time of the deed, and he did not even permit me to move one of two kurs.)

Rabha saw that Abayi was (one Friday) looking toward the east (to calculate the duration of twilight). Said he to him: "Dost thou think the masters spoke of the sky in the east? They spoke of an object in the east that reflects the red sky (of the west), like a window (placed eastward of the setting sun). "It takes one to walk half a mile." Said R. Hanina: "If one wishes to know the time according to R. Nehemiah's calculation, he should leave the sun (see it set) on the top of Karmel (a certain mountain peak on the sea-coast), go down, dive into the sea, and go up (the mountain) again; this will give him the exact time." R. Jehudah, however, in the name of Samuel said: (To know the exact time of twilight may be fixed thus:) "If only one star (can be seen in the sky), it is yet day; if two stars, it is twilight; three stars, it is night." And so also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha with the addition: Said R. Jose: The stars mentioned do not mean the big stars, that can be seen in daytime, and not the small stars, which cannot easily be seen at night, but stars of medium size.

R. Jose b. R. Zebhida said: If one (unintentionally) performs work on both times of twilight (Friday and Sabbath), he must certainly bring a sin-offering (because at one of both times it was certainly Sabbath).

Rabba said to his servant: "You, who are not an expert in the scholarly calculation of time, must light the Sabbath lamp when you see the (last rays of the) sun on top of the trees. In cloudy weather how shall it be? (The lamp must be lit) in the city when the hens go to roost; in the field, when the ravens fly to roost or when the mallow shrub 2 (inclines its head to the west).
The rabbis taught: Six times was the signal blown on Friday: the first time to stop work in the field, the second to stop it in the city and in the stores, the third time to light the lamps. So said R. Nathan. R. Jehudah the Prince says that the third time is sounded to take off the phylacteries. Then (the beadle) waits about as long as is required to bake a small fish, or for bread to cleave to the oven, and he sounds again the three tones 1 of the signal in succession for the Sabbath (that is already come). R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: "What shall we do with the Babylonians? They sound the signal first, and then blow the trumpet; from the moment the trumpet is sounded they cease work." They do so because it is with them a matter of inherited custom.

R. Jehudah taught his son, R. Itz'hak: "The third (sounding was a signal) to light the lamp." This agrees with the ruling of R. Nathan.

At the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Six times the signal is sounded on Friday. When the first sounding begins, those who are in the field stop ploughing and harrowing and all field work. At the entrance to the city those who are near must wait until the distant (farmers) come, so that they enter the city all together. The stores are yet open, and the stalls (upon which wares are laid out) are as yet in their places. As soon as the second sounding begins, the stalls are cleared and the stores closed. The warm victuals (prepared for the Sabbath) and the pots are as yet upon the hearth. As soon as the third sounding begins the pots are taken off the hearth, the warm victuals are put in the stove, and the lamps are lighted. Then (the beadle) waits about as long as it is required to bake a small fish or for bread to cleave to the oven, and he sounds trumpets and sounds the signal again and rests. Said R. Jose b. R. Haninah: "I have heard that if one wants to light up after the six signals he may do so, for the rabbis have allowed some time to the beadle to take his Shophar (horn) to the house (after the six signals). Said the schoolmen to him: "If such were the case, the subject would depend on various measurements of time." Nay, but the beadle has a concealed place upon the roof (where he sounds the Shophar) and puts away his instrument (as soon as he has used it); because neither a Shophar nor a fife may be handled (when the Sabbath is come).
But have we not learned that a Shophar may be handled, but a fife may not? Says R. Joseph: This is not contradictory. Our case is that of a Shophar belonging to the community; the case adduced treated of one that belongs to a private party (therefore it is permissible).

Said Abayi: "Why may a Shophar that is private property be handled? Because it is sometimes used for taking up water, to give a child drink; let one that is public property also be allowed to handle, because it may be used in the same manner." Furthermore, was it not taught: "As a Shophar may be handled, so also may the fife be handled?" According to whose ruling is this? There is no contradiction in all this. The one (that a Shophar may be handled, but not a fife) is according to the ruling of R. Jehudah. The other (that both may be handled) is according to the ruling of R. Simeon. The third (that neither should be handled) is according to the ruling of R. Nehemiah. "And what is a Shophar?" The same as a fife, as R. Hisda says: "Since the sanctuary was destroyed the names have become changed; a Shophar is called a fife, and a fife is called a Shophar."

Footnotes

31:1 Moss springing up on the hulk or boards of a ship.

31:2 The text reads "oil for burning," the full explanation of which is given in the Talmud farther on. We have paraphrased the term to convey the sense to the English reader.

31:3 The terms in the Mishna, with which it must not be lighted, are expressed in a mixture of Hebrew, Greek, and Roman names. The Gemara then discusses what is meant by the names, and, probably, some of the Babylonian Amoraim did not understand Greek or Roman, as is seen from the fact that Rabbin did not know of the name metaxa when he saw it on the body of Ne'hemiah, and exclaimed only, "This is meant by the expression khlakh"; and Abayi answered in broken Roman, Paranda. We, as we have translated the names into English, have omitted the whole discussion in the first edition. In this second edition, however, we are disposed not to omit ant least the historical facts.

33:1 The ceasing of footsteps in Talmudical language implies the time when people have already retired.

33:2 Vendors of shavings and small wood, which are bought for the hearth-fire in the evening.

34:1 The sacrifices of the Feast of Booths were decreased in number each succeeding day. See Numbers xxix. 13, 17, 23, 25, 29, 32.

34:2 Time of danger is used here to designate the time when a prohibitive order against lights is issued by the local government.

35:1 "Mezuzah," door-post, technical name for the writing which was to be placed on the door-post by the command of Deut. vi. 9 and elsewhere. The rabbis decreed that this was to be placed to the right of the entrance.

35:2 The different contentions given above may seem somewhat out of place; however, they are cited merely to show the differences of opinion existing among the different schools and sages.

37:1 The three benedictions here referred to are: 1st, for the privilege of lighting the 'Hanukah lamp; 2d, for the miracle which the lamp commemorates; and 3d, for the continuance of life until the season of 'Hanukah. The second benediction is technically designated as that of the "miracle" and the third as that of "time."

38:1 "The light for a house-light." The text does not specify on what night, but Rashi's commentary adds Friday night, i.e., Sabbath eve. In our opinion that is not the intent of Rashi; for even on workdays the light used by the household should have preference. Proof is: the reason given is for the sake of domestic peace; were it only to apply to Sabbath eve, the reason given would have been in honor of the Sabbath.

38:2 In all the ordinances to be observed, the rabbis have adopted the rule that if the choice stands between one that recurs at short intervals and one that occurs more seldom, the former is always to be preferred. ("Tadir, vesheaino tadir, tadir kodom.")

39:1 The principal elements of all Hebrew prayers are: 1st, Shebhah, i.e., praise; 2d, Hodayah, i.e., thanksgiving; 3d, Tephilah, i.e., prayer; and 4th, Ta'hanun, i.e., propitiation.

40:1 A division of the people had always to be present at the temple to witness the services. The men of such a division were called "commoners" because there was a special place assigned to them in the temple. All of them not being able to attend, they sent their delegates to represent them, but they assembled in their various cities and villages to perform their devotion. The days on which this was done were designated as those of "commoners "—"Ma'amadoth." See Mishna, Ta'anith.

41:1 Toilet rooms were not in vogue at that time, and for their necessity they had to go far out into the field or forest.

42:1 "Tebhel" is the designation of the produce of the field and the garden from which the Levitical gifts or tithes were not separated.

45:1 Like the Persians, says Rashi, who had certain nights on which they allowed no lights to burn anywhere but in their sacred shrines.

45:2 The evil spirit here referred to is explained by the commentators to mean "melancholia."

45:3 The inference is made on the strength of a rule laid down by R. Jehudah elsewhere, that every unintentional breach of the Sabbath, which is made not out of personal necessity or habit, must be atoned for by a sin-offering. (Rashi.)

46:1 This apparently far-fetched introduction to an answer to a question of religious legalism illustrates most beautifully how the ethical principle predominated in the rabbinical discussions.

47:1 The liberality of the rabbinical law is evinced by the fact that it regards an act done for the sake of alleviating sufferings on the Sabbath day not wrongful. Every comfort may and should be provided for the sick on the Sabbath day.

47:2 "Ner" is the Hebrew word for candle; the soul is the candle of God.

49:1 Hillel, being the president of the Sanhedrin, should have been addressed according to his rank, but by addressing him thus, it seems, the man thought he could provoke him to anger.

51:1 The six departments enumerated here are those of the Mishna, into which the rabbis have divided all the subjects touched upon in the Bible.

51:2 "Trust" comes within the department of "Seeds" because the tithe due the priests and Levites by the farmers was not fixed legally as to quantity, but was trusted to the honesty of the donor. "Thy times" comes within "Festivals" for self-evident reasons. "Strength" comes within "Women," for the reason that the Hebrew word, "chosen," also means inheritance, and heirs are naturally produced by women (this is the opinion of Rashi). "Salvation" in "Jurisprudence": all laws pertaining to the saving of life and property. "Wisdom" in "Holiness": the holy sacrifices requiring the exercise of much wisdom. "Knowledge" in "Purity": the determining of pure and defiled things necessarily demanded thorough knowledge of the subject.

53:1 When the ox is felled the knife should be ready, lest he rise again and cause more trouble; thus it is stated that women die at time of childbirth because, while they are in danger, the punishment for transgressions is also inflicted!

55:1 The text continues with the punishment of death for different sins, which are repeated in other tracts, but we have omitted them here, as they will be translated in the proper place.

56:1 The text refers also to verses in the Scripture, but as there is no direct proof, we have omitted them.

58:1 In the Decalogue of Exodus the fourth commandment begins with the word "Zakhor" (remember); in Deuteronomy it begins with the word "Shamor" (observe).

58:2 All new vessels must undergo a process of lavation before they can be used [Num. xxxi. 23].

60:1 Kur was an ancient measure and cannot be determined at the present time; it may have been about three gallons. See Schoenhak's "Hamashbir." A danka is a twelfth or a half of a sixth part.

60:2 The mallow (Adana or Harna, see Arukh), more than any other plant, was believed to incline its head toward the sun, like our own sunflower.

61:1 The three tones of the Shophar are technically designated a "Tekyah" (a long simple note): "Teruah" (a slow trill), and "Tekyah" again. See note to Rosh Hashana, p. 63, first edition.

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING STOVES, HEARTHS, AND OVENS . MISHNA I.: Cooked victuals may be put on a stove that was heated with straw or stubble. If the stove was heated with the pulp of poppy seed (i.e., poppy seed from which the oil was pressed out) or with wood, (cooked victuals) may not be put upon it, unless the (live) coals were taken out or covered with ashes. Beth Shamai says: (The latter instance) is permissible only in the case of victuals that are to be kept warm, but not of such as are improved by continued cooking. Beth Hillel says: Both alike are permitted. Beth Shamai says: (Victuals) may be taken off the stove, but not put back upon it; Beth Hillel permits it.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: "As for the expression 'shall not be put,' does it (referring to a pot that has been taken off the stove) mean 'one shall not put it back,' but if it has not been taken off, it may be left there, even if the live coals were not cleared away or covered with ashes? Or does it mean that the pot should not be left there (even if it was standing there before) unless the live coals have been cleared out or damped, so much the more should it not be put there if it was once taken off?" Come and hear. There being two parts in our Mishna, if the point of controversy is the leaving (of the victuals on the stove, if they were there before), the Mishna is to be explained thus: On the stove that was heated with straw or with stubble the victuals may be left; on a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or with wood, the victuals may be left only if the live coals were taken out or covered with ashes. What kind of victuals may be left there? According to Beth Shamai such as are to be kept warm, but not such as improve by cooking. And according to Beth Hillel both. Thus the point of controversy is the leaving of the victuals (that had been on the stove before). And as the (two schools) differ in this matter, so do they also differ in their opinions concerning putting them back upon the stove if they were once taken off. But if you interpret the Mishna to make the returning of the victuals to the stove the point of their differing—viz., what kind of victuals should be returned (to the stove), according to the former such as are to be kept warm, but not such as improve by cooking, and according to the latter, both. (If you put such a construction upon the text of the Mishna,) to what purpose is it repeated? "Beth Shamai says," etc. It may be said even that they differ concerning putting back, and nevertheless there is no difficulty, as the Mishna is not complete, and should read thus: "If the stove was heated . . . but if they stood there before, they may be left there, even if the live coals are not taken out or covered with ashes." And what may be left? Beth Shamai says only such as are to be kept warm, and Beth Hillel says even victuals requiring cooking; but even in the case of returning (the victuals to the stove, if they have been removed) there is still a difference of opinion between the two schools, for according to the former they may be only taken off, and according to the latter they may be returned also.

Come 1 and hear. R. Helbo in the name of R. Hama b. Gorion, quoting Rabh, said: "The Mishna speaks only about putting the victuals upon the stove, but as to putting them into the stove it is surely prohibited." Now, if thou sayest the dispute is about returning (the pot to the stove), this remark is correct, for there is a difference to what place it is returned, whether into the stove or upon it; but if the question were about keeping it on the stove while it is there, what difference would it make?

Do you think R. Helbo's report refers to the first part of the Mishna? It refers to the second part, in which Beth Hillel allows it to be returned; and to this he says, even in this case, upon the stove it is permissible, but not into the stove.
The schoolmen propounded a question: "May (a pot with victuals) be placed so as to touch the side of the stove? Does the prohibition which holds good for putting it into or upon the stove apply also here, or is touching its side a different case?" Come and hear. "A stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or wood may (be used) to put a pot alongside of, but not on, unless the live coals were taken out or covered with ashes." If the coals get dim or fine hurds were put upon them, they are considered as if their fire was damped with ashes. R. Itz'hak b. Na'hmani in the name of R. Oshia says: If the fire was damped and still it got a-glowing, victuals that are sufficiently warm, and cooked meats that require no more cooking, may be left standing upon it.

Is it to be inferred from this that, if victuals are improved by shrivelling (upon the fire), they may be left there? This is a different case, for the fire was damped. If such is the case, what came R. Itz'hak to teach? "Lest one say that if the fire got to glowing again, it is to be considered as a fire originally started?" R. Itz'hak lets us know that, when once a fire has been damped, we need have no further scruples about letting the victuals remain on it.

R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Johanan: Victuals that require additional warming or additional cooking may be left upon a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or with wood; but if they were once removed, they shall not be replaced unless the live coals were taken out or covered with ashes. He was of the opinion that our Mishna (treats) of replacing (a removed pot), but allows (a pot that was not removed) to be left on the stove, even if the live coals are not taken out or covered with ashes. Said Rabha: "Were not both (propositions) expounded in the Boraithoth (that were cited)?" Aye, but R. Shesheth merely, wishes to exhibit his construction of the text of the Mishna.

R. Samuel b. Jehudah in the name of R. Johanan said: Upon a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or wood, victuals may be left standing, if they are sufficiently warmed and sufficiently cooked, even if shrivelling improves them. Said one of the schoolmen to him: "Did not Rabh and Samuel both say that if shrivelling improves them, it is not allowed? And he answered: "I said this in the name of R. Johanan and not in the name of the above mentioned, as I am aware of it." R. Uqba of Mishan said to R. Ashi: "You, who cherish the teachings of Rabh and Samuel, may follow their regulation, but we will follow the regulation of R. Johanan."
Abayi questioned R. Joseph: May victuals be left (on the stove)? And he answered: Did not R. Jehudah leave (victuals on the stove), and eat them afterward? Rejoined Abayi: The case of R. Jehudah cannot be taken into consideration. He was stricken with a dangerous disease, and for him even (the cooking of victuals) on the Sabbath was permitted; but I ask about (healthy men like) you and me. R. Joseph answered: "In Sura they do leave. As R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak, who was exemplary in following religious ordinances, was wont to leave and to eat."

R. Ashi said: "I was standing before R. Huna and observed that fried fish was kept (warm) for him and he ate it; but I know not whether (he did it) because he thought that victuals which improve by shrivelling are allowed, or whether he thought that, because there was flour on his fish, continuous warming did not improve it.

R. Na'hman said: (Victuals) that improve by shrivelling must not (be left on the stove); such as deteriorate may. The rule is that all victuals which contain flour deteriorate by continuous warming.

R. Hyya b. Ahba was questioned: "If one forgot his pot and left it upon the stove, and the victuals were thus cooked on the Sabbath, may he eat them or not?" The master gave no answer. The next time he lectured: Victuals cooked on the Sabbath unintentionally may be eaten; intentionally not, but (as regards the pot that is forgotten on the stove) it makes no difference.

What does (the phrase) "it makes no difference" mean? Rabba and R. Joseph both say that the phrase implies that it may be eaten, for one who cooks acts intentionally; but when forgotten there was no act, and therefore he may eat it. But R. Na'hman b. Isaac says the above phrase of "it makes no difference" implies a prohibition. In the case of cooking there is no fear of craft; therefore if he has done it unintentionally, he is not fined; but in the case of forgetting (the pot in the fire) craft may be feared (it means that he may put it in intentionally saying that he forgot), and therefore even if he actually forgets he is not allowed to eat the victuals.

The schoolmen propounded a question: "What about one who had intentionally left (his victuals upon the stove)? Do the rabbis fine him or not?" Come and hear. Samuel b. Nathan in the name of R. Hanina said: "When R. Jose went to Ziporis, he found warm meats that had been left upon the stove, and he did not prohibit their use, but shrivelled eggs that had been left upon the stove he prohibited. Shall we not assume that he forbade their use even on that Sabbath as a fine? Nay, he forbade their use for the following Sabbath."
From this is to be inferred that shrivelled eggs improve by continuous heating. As R. Hama b. Hanina said: "Rabbi and I were once stopping at a certain place. We were treated with eggs shrivelled like wild pears, and we ate many of them." "It may also be put back." R. Shesheth said: The Tana who holds that the pot may also be put back (upon the stove) allows this (to be done) even on the Sabbath. R. Oshia is also of the same opinion, for thus he said: "We were once standing before R. Hyya the Great; we served him with a bowl of warm (soup), which was brought from the lower floor (of the house), and we mixed a cup of wine for him, and (afterward) we returned it (the bowl) to its place, and he said nothing." And R. Hyya in the name of R. Johanan said: Even if (the warm pot taken off from the stove) was put upon the ground, it may (still be put back on the stove). Said Hyskiyah in the name of Abayi: "According to them who hold that if he puts it on the floor it may not be returned, it is said only when it was not his intention to return it. But if it was, he may. And from this it is to be inferred that if it was still in his hand, although his intention was not to place it again, he may do so on reconsideration."

MISHNA II.: (Victuals) shall not be put either inside or on top of an oven that was heated with straw or with stubble; a firing-pot that was heated with straw or with stubble is (considered by the law) as a stone, but if it was heated with pressed poppy seed or with wood it is considered as an oven.

GEMARA: A Boraitha teaches: If an oven was heated with straw or with stubble, (a pot with victuals) shall not be put close to it (so that it touch the oven), the less so upon it, and still less so into it; so much the less shall (a pot) be put (alongside of an oven) that was heated with poppy-seed pulp or with wood. If a firing-pot was heated with straw or with stubble, (a pot) may be put close to it, but not upon it; with poppy-seed pulp or with wood it must not be put close to it. Said R. Aha b. Rabha to R. Ashi: "How shall the firing-pot be considered? If it is like a stove, even if heated with poppy-seed pulp or with wood (a pot shall be allowed to be put close to it); and if it is like an oven it should not, even if it is heated with stubble or straw?" Answered he: It contains more heat than a stove and less heat than an oven.

What is a firing-pot and what is a stove? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: "A firing-pot has an opening on the top upon which only one pot can be set; a stove has openings upon which two pots can be set at a time."
MISHNA III.: An egg shall not be put close to a boiler to get it settled, nor must it be wrapped in a hot cloth. R. Jose permits it; also it must not be put into hot sand or in the (hot) dust of the road that it be roasted (by the heat of the sun). It once happened that the inhabitants of Tiberias had laid a pipe of cold water through the arm of their hot springs. But the sages explained to them that on the Sabbath this water is considered like any other warmed on the Sabbath, and must not be used either for washing or drinking; and should this be done on a feast day, it is like water heated by fire, which may be used for drinking only, but not for washing.
GEMARA: The schoolmen questioned: How is it if one has done so with an egg? Said R. Joseph: He is liable for a sin-offering. Said Mar b. Rabhina: This is to be understood also from the following Boraitha: Everything that was in hot water before the Sabbath may be soaked in hot water on the Sabbath; things that were not in hot water before the Sabbath may only be rinsed in it, excepting old herrings and Spanish (salted) fish, because with these, rinsing completes their preparation. (The same is the case with an egg; the settling completes.) "Nor shall it be wrapped," etc. Now, the Mishna which states: "Cooked victuals may be put into a pit for preservation; drinking water into cold bad water to cool; cold victuals in the sun to warm." Shall we assume that it is in accordance with R. Jose and not with the sages? Said R. Na'hman: As to the heat of the sun, all agree that it is allowed; the outcome of heating by fire, all agree that it is prohibited. The point of their differing is the outcome of sun-heating. The one master holds that the use of such heat is prohibited for fear lest one use also the heat that is generated by fire; the other master does not impose such a precautionary measure. "It happened that the inhabitants of Tiberias," etc. R. Hisda said: With the prohibition by the rabbis of the act of the Tiberians they have also abolished the permission to heat on Friday, even when it is yet day, in such places as increase heat. Said Ulla: "The Halakha prevails according to the Tiberians." Rejoined R. Na'hman: "The Tiberians themselves have already destroyed their pipes." "Washing with warm water," how is this to be understood? The whole body? Is this prohibited only with water that was warmed on Sabbath? Is it not the same even when it was warmed on the eve of Sabbath? As the following Boraitha states: "With water which was warmed on the eve of Sabbath, on the morrow one may wash his face, hands, and feet, but not the whole body. And if it means the face, etc., how is the latter part to be understood? If it was warmed on a feast day," etc.

Shall we then assume that our Mishna states in accordance with Beth Shamai, as they so state plainly elsewhere, to which the Beth Hillel opposed and permitted? Said R. Iyqa b. Hanina: Our Mishna treats of washing the entire body, and it is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: "One shall not rinse his entire body (on the Sabbath) either with warm or with cold water." So is the decree of R. Mair, but R. Simeon permits this. R. Hisda says their dispute concerns only (water that is) in the ground; but water contained in a vessel is strictly prohibited.

Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah." Said R. Joseph to him: "Didst thou hear this explicitly, or dost thou derive it by inference (from a similar teaching)?" "I have heard it explicitly," he answered.

It was taught: If water was warmed on Friday, Rabh said one may wash his entire body in it on the next day, every member separately (i.e., not plunge into it at once). Samuel, however, said: It was not allowed but of the face, hands, and feet. And the following Boraitha supports Samuel: "If water was warmed on Friday, one may wash his face, hands, and feet with it on the following day, but not his entire body, even member by member; and so much less with water warmed on a feast day."

Said R. Joseph to Abayi: "Did Rabba not act according to the decisions of Rabh?" "I know not," he answered.
The rabbis taught: A bath-house, the openings of which were stopped up on Friday (so that the heat should not escape), may be used for bathing immediately after the Sabbath is over. If its openings were stopped up on the eve of a feast day, one may, on the next day, enter it to have a sweat, but he must leave it and rinse his hands in an adjoining room. R. Jehudah said: It happened in a bath-house of the city of B'nai Beraq, that its openings were stopped up on the eve of a feast day. The next day R. Eliezer b. Azariah and R. Aqiba entered it and took a sweat; then they left it and rinsed their bodies in the adjoining room; but the warm water in it had been covered with boards. When the report of this reached the masters they said, even if the warm water had not been covered with boards, they were also allowed (to do so). However, since transgressing began to increase, they began to prohibit. In bath-houses of large cities one may walk about without fear of people's saying that he went to take a sweat.

What does the expression "transgressing" mean? As R. Simeon b. Pazi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, quoting bar Qapara, said: In former times the people were accustomed to bathe (on the Sabbath) in water that was warmed on Friday. The bath-keepers then began to warm the water on the Sabbath, and to tell the people that it had been warmed on Friday. Hereupon they prohibited bathing in warm water, but still they placed no restriction upon taking a sweating (in the bath-room). The people then would come and bathe, but pretend to merely take a sweating. Then sweating was also prohibited, but washing in the hot spring water of Tiberias was still allowed. The people, however, would come and wash themselves in water that was warmed by the fire and say that they washed in the hot spring water. Subsequently warm water was prohibited for bathing altogether, but bathing in cold water was allowed. Seeing that people could not stand the last prohibition, it was therefore revoked, and bathing in the hot spring water of Tiberias was allowed. The prohibition of the sweating bath, however, remained. The rabbis taught: One may warm himself by a hearth-fire and afterwards rinse himself with cold water, but not bathe first in cold water and then warm himself by a hearth-fire, because he warms the water that is on him.

The rabbis taught: One may warm a sponging-cloth and put it upon his bowels (on the Sabbath), but he must not do so with a boiling hot vessel, for this is dangerous even on week days.

The rabbis taught: One may put a pitcher of water before a blazing fire, not to warm it, but to temper the coldness of the water. R. Judah said: A woman may put an oil flask before a blazing fire, not to boil it, but merely to temper it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: A woman may unhesitatingly put oil on her hand, warm it before the fire, and anoint her little son with it without any fear.

Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel: Whether it be oil or water, if the hand is spontaneously withdrawn from it (feeling the scald) it is prohibited, but not otherwise. And what extent of heat is meant by it? Said Rabba: If the belly of a child is scalded by it.

R. Itz'hak b. Abhdimi said: "I once followed Rabbi into the bath-house (on the Sabbath). I wanted to put a bottle of oil for him into the tank (that contained hot spring water). Said he unto me: "Take out some warm water from the tank and put it into another vessel (to warm the oil in). From this we have inferred three things—viz.: First, that oil improves by warming, and it is a prohibited act; second, that if anything is put into a second vessel (not directly into the boiling vessel) it is not considered cooking; third, that the mere tempering of oil is analogous to cooking it.

Said Rabhina: From this story it may be inferred that if one cooks in the hot spring water of Tiberias on the Sabbath he is culpable, for the case happened after the rabbis had imposed the precautionary measure, and yet Rabbi would not allow him (R. Itz'hak) to put the oil directly into the tank. Is that so? Did not R. Hisda say that he who has cooked in the hot spring water of Tiberias is not culpable? The culpability to be inferred (from the case of Rabbi) extends only as far as blows of correction 1 are concerned.
R. Zera said: "I have seen R. Abuhu swimming in a tank, and I know not whether he raised (his feet from the ground) or not. Is it not self-evident that he did not raise them, as there is a Boraitha: One shall not swim about in a pond, even if (that pond) is stationed in a yard. This presents no difficulty. In a pond it is prohibited, because it is similar to a river, while in a tank it is allowed, because it is similar to a vessel. 2 R. Zera once found R. Jehudah in the bath. He (R. Jehudah) ordered his servant (in the Hebrew Aramaic tongue): "Bring me the comb; hand me the soap; open your mouths, and exhale the warm air from within you; drink of the (warm) water of the bath." Said R. Zera: "If I had not come but to hear this, it were enough for me."
It is correct that he ordered things in the Hebrew language, as private affairs may be said in the same language. The same is with the second order, for Samuel said that heat (from without) drives out heat (from within). But what good is in the order, "Drink of the water of the bath"? It is also correct, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "If one washed himself with warm water and did not drink of it, he is like an oven that was heated from without but not from within."

MISHNA IV.: The hot water contained in a "Muliar" (caldron), the live coals of which have been cleared away before the Sabbath set in, may be used on the Sabbath; but the hot water contained in an "Antikhi" (another kind of kettle), even if cleared of live coals, is not to be used on the Sabbath.

GEMARA: What is a Muliar? A Boraitha states: "It is a vessel provided with an attachment for live coals, used for keeping water"; as for an Antikhi, Rabba says it is a Bekiri (a vessel similar to a Muliar, but of heavier construction and continually in use). R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak says: It is a Bedude (a large kettle with an attachment underneath for live coals). There is a Boraitha in support of the opinion of R. Na'hman: "The hot water in an Antikhi, even if the coals thereof are cleared away or damped, is not permitted to be used, for the heavy bottom keeps the heat."

MISHNA V.: Into a kettle, the hot water of which has been spilt out and which has been removed from the fire, cold water is not permitted to be poured, for the purpose of heating; but it is permitted to pour water into the kettle, or into a cup, for the purpose of making such water lukewarm.

GEMARA: How is this to be understood? Said Abayi: It means thus: "Into a kettle, the fire of which has been removed, which still contains hot water, a small quantity of cold water may not be poured, for the purpose of warming; but a large quantity, to make the hot water lukewarm is, however, permitted. Into a kettle, the hot water of which has been entirely removed, no cold water at all may be poured, because it tempers the vessel. And it is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that an act which pleases one, if done even unintentionally, is prohibited.

Said Rabh: "Even the above-mentioned large quantity is allowed only to make the water lukewarm; but not such a quantity as will entirely neutralize the hot water and tend to temper the vessel." Samuel, however, permits any quantity.
Shall we assume that Samuel is in accordance with R. Simeon (who opposes the above theory of R. Jehudah), but did he not say that it is permitted to extinguish live dross on public ground (to prevent injury), but not charcoal? And if he agrees with R. Simeon, this also should be permitted? As regards labor tending to the accomplishment of a work (prohibited on the Sabbath), he holds with R. Simeon; but as to the performance of labor, not for its own sake, he sides with R. Jehudah. Said Rabina: "Since it is permitted to perform labor (prohibited by rabbinical law), in order to prevent injury, it is also permitted to remove thorns from public ground, little by little, in distances of less than four ells at a time (in order to prevent injury); but upon unclaimed ground it may be done in greater distances." "But it is permitted," etc. The rabbis taught: One may pour hot water upon cold, but not cold upon hot water, so is the decree of Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allows both ways, provided a cup is used; but in a bathing-tub hot water upon cold is permitted, but cold water upon warm is not. But R. Simeon b. Menassiah forbids it. And Na'hman said that so the Halakha prevails. R. Joseph was about to say that a bucket is under the same ruling as a bathing-tub. Said Abayi to him: "So taught R. Hyya, that a bucket is not in this category."

Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua: "I observed that Rabha was not scrupulous with regard to the use of vessels, because R. Hyya taught, one may put a pitcher of water into a bucket of water; it makes no difference whether it be hot water into cold o r vice versa." Said R. Huna to R. Ashi: "Perhaps this was a different case altogether, it being that there was a vessel within a vessel!" But the latter retorted: "It says: 'To empty'; as it was taught: It is permitted to empty out a pitcher of water into a bucket of water, be it either warm water into cold or vice versa."

MISHNA VI.: In a saucepan or a pot that was removed from the fire, no spices shall be put after dusk (on Friday); but spices may be put into a plate or a bowl. R. Jehudah is of the opinion that spices may be put in all vessels or cooking utensils except in such as contain vinegar or fish brine.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded the following question: Does R. Jehudah refer to the first part of the Mishna, which is lenient, or does he refer to the latter part, which is rigorous? Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Jehudah says: "One may put (spices) into all saucepans and cooking-pots, except such as contain vinegar and fish brine."
R. Joseph was about to say that salt comes under the same ruling as spices, because in his opinion salt becomes cooked in a first vessel (i.e., the vessel used for cooking), but not in a second vessel. Said Abayi to him: R. Hyya distinctly taught that salt does not come under the ruling applicable to spices, because it does not become cooked, even in a first vessel. This is corroborated by R. Na'hman, who said: There is a saying that the dissolving of salt requires thorough boiling, the same as beef.

MISHNA VII.: It is not permitted to place a vessel under a lamp so that the oil of the lamp drip into it. If a vessel was placed under a lamp before the Sabbath set in, it may remain there; but the use of such oil on the same Sabbath is not permitted, as it was not previously prepared.

GEMARA: Said R. Hisda: "Although it was said that the placing of a vessel under a hen (laying on sloping ground) to receive the egg is forbidden, yet to cover the egg so as to prevent it from being crushed is permitted."

Said Rabba: The reason of R. Hisda is because he holds that hens being in the habit of laying eggs on level ground, in order to prevent the egg from being stepped upon, it is permitted to cover it with a vessel; but as liens are not in the habit of laying eggs on sloping ground, the placing of a vessel under the hen to receive the egg was not allowed.

Abayi objected to this, stating: "Were we not taught in the Mishna that it is permitted to place a vessel under a lamp in order to take up the (dropping) sparks?" (This seldom occurs and therefore it is permitted.) He was told that the dropping of sparks by a lamp is also of frequent occurrence.

R. Joseph, commenting on the statement of R. Hisda, gave another reason—viz.: That the vessel (placed under a hen to receive an egg) is made useless for that same Sabbath.

Abayi raised the same objection, (intending to) prove by it that the vessel placed under a lamp is also made useless on that same Sabbath, and R. Huna b. R. Joshua answered: "Sparks have nothing substantial about them (therefore the vessel containing them is not made useless on the same Sabbath)."

R. Itz'hak said: In the same manner as it is not permitted to place a vessel under a laying hen, so is it also not permitted to cover the egg laid; for the reason that a vessel must not be handled on the Sabbath except for the use of such things as are themselves permitted to be handled on the Sabbath.
All the objections of Abayi being raised against R. Itz'hak's statements, he answered: "In that case there was a lack of space." (If the space occupied by a vessel is needed, that vessel may be removed, and while being removed may be used for any purpose.)

Come and hear (another objection). An egg laid on the Sabbath or a festival, to prevent it from being (accidentally) cracked, may be covered with a vessel? Here the case is, also, when the space where the vessel is placed is needed.

Said R. Shesheth (to his disciples): Go ye and tell R. Itz'hak that the above doctrine has already been interpreted by R. Huna in Babylon as follows: It is permitted to make a partition on the Sabbath, to (isolate) a corpse for the sake of the living, but it is not permitted to make a partition for the sake of the corpse. How is the latter clause to be understood? R. Samuel b. Jehudah and also Shila Mari taught: In the case of a corpse lying in the sun (on the Sabbath), (to prevent the corpse from decomposing) two persons are brought to sit on the floor, each on one side (in order to bring about the making of a screen). When the ground underneath them becomes hot, each of them is to bring a cot bed to sit upon, and when the heat above them becomes excessive, they are to bring a sheet and spread it over their heads (leaving part of the sheet loose); both now raise their cots (which take up the loose part of the sheet) and move to their former positions; thus a screen (canopy) is formed of itself.

It was taught: "A corpse lying in the sun." R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel says: The same must be turned over from one bed into another, until it arrives at a shady place. R. Hinna b. Shalmi in the name of Rabh said: A loaf of bread or an infant should be put on the corpse and then the corpse may be moved. There is no difference of opinion as to the removal of a corpse (on the Sabbath), which is permitted when a loaf or an infant is put upon it; they differ only where there is none. One holds that indirect transportation must be considered transportation, and the other opines that indirect transportation is not transportation (and therefore permitted).
Shall we assume that on this point the following Tanaim differ? "It is not permitted to save a corpse from a fire." R. Jehudah b. Lakish, however, says: "I have heard that it may be done." How is the case if there was a loaf of bread or an infant? Why should the first Tana prohibit it? And if there was none, what is the reason of Lakish's decision? Do they not differ in the point of transportation stated above? Nay; all agree that such a transportation is considered; the reason, however, of Ben Lakish is that usually one is concerned about his dead, and if it would not be permitted to remove it, he will extinguish the fire. Said R. Jehudah b. Shilah in the name of R. Ashi, quoting R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails according to Ben Lakish concerning a corpse.

MISHNA VIII.: A new lamp maybe handled on the Sabbath, but not an old one; R. Simeon, however, says all lamps are permitted to be handled except such as are still burning.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: A new lamp may be handled, but not an old one; such is the decree of R. Jehudah.

R. Mair, however, says that all lamps may be moved, except a lamp which was lit for the Sabbath (though the light is extinguished); but R. Simeon says, except a lamp which is still burning. If extinguished, it may be moved; but a goblet, bowl, or lantern (used as lamps, must not be removed from their respective places). R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, says: It is permitted to make use of an extinguished lamp and of the oil dripping, from it, even while the lamp is burning.

Said Abayi: R. Eliezer b. Simeon holds in one case to the opinion of his father, but differs with him in the other. He holds with his father in disregarding Muktza (designation), 1 and differs with him in the other case, for his father is of the opinion that when a lamp is extinguished it may be moved, but not while it is burning; but he is of the opinion that even a burning lamp may be moved. "But a goblet, bowl, or lantern must not." Wherein do these things differ from the others? Said Mar Zutra: R. Simeon allows a small lamp (to be handled), because one will wait until it is extinguished (and then it may be used for another purpose); but these are large, and not apt to become extinguished for some time. R. Zera said: All the schoolmen agree on prohibiting the handling of a candelabrum which had been lit up on Sabbath, but the handling of the candelabrum which was not lit up on the Sabbath is unanimously permitted.
R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: "It is not permitted to handle a bed that has been designated as a place to put money in, if the money had already previously been placed upon it (on Friday during twilight even if on the Sabbath no money was on the bed). If the money, however, had not previously been deposited on the bed, the handling is permitted. If a bed was not designated for the keeping of money, but contained money, it must not be handled. If it contained no money, it may (providing no money was deposited on the bed during twilight of the preceding Friday). And Rabh says this because he holds with R. Jehudah concerning Muktza.

And it seems that so is the case, as Rabh said one may place a lamp upon a palm tree at any time while it is yet day on Friday, in order that it may burn on the Sabbath; but one may not put a lamp upon the same on a biblical feast day. (It is permitted to place a lamp on a palm tree on the Sabbath because there is no fear of the tree, which is Muktza [designated], being used; but on a biblical feast day it is prohibited for fear that one while depositing or removing the lamp will also use the palm tree; and that is prohibited.)

And this is correct only in accordance with the theory of R. Jehudah; but should Rabh hold with R. Simeon, why does he make a distinction between the Sabbath and a biblical feast day? The law of Muktza does not exist at all according to R. Simeon.

Is that so? Did not Rabh decide, when he was questioned whether one may remove an extinguished 'Hanukah light on the Sabbath for fear of the Magi (this has already been mentioned in a previous connection), that it may be done? The time of danger is different. 1 R. Kahana and R. Assi then questioned him: "Does the Halakha so prevail?" and he answered: "R. Simeon is worthy to be relied upon in times of danger."

Resh Lakish questioned R. Johanan: "May wheat that has been sown but that has not yet sprouted, or eggs that are still under the hen, be eaten on the Sabbath? Does he (R. Simeon) disregard the law of Muktza only in such cases where the objects were put aside with no intention of ever being used again, or does he disregard Muktza under all circumstances?" He (R. Johanan) replied: "There is no Muktza in his theory but the oil in a burning lamp, because if poured in a lamp for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath-light commandment it is designated for that express function, and as it is not permitted to extinguish that light, the intention not to use the oil for any other purpose is self-evident. But does not R. Simeon hold that the same is the case with other things which were designated for their religious purposes? Is it not a fact that the ornaments of the tabernacle on that festival must not be used, even in accordance with R. Simeon's theory? As R. Hyya b. R. Joseph taught in the presence of R. Johanan: "One must not remove wood from a booth on any biblical feast day, but he may remove it from any place near by? R. Simeon, however, permits this to be done. Still, they all agree that wood must not be removed from a booth built expressly for that feast, on all the seven feast days.

However, if there was a stipulation it may be done accordingly" (because the wood is set aside for the ritual purpose). Hence even according to him the designation for ritual purposes must not be used. Why, then, is this different from the oil in question? The Boraitha is to be understood thus: All the ornaments of the booth in question are prohibited so far as all things bearing similitude to the oil in the burning lamp are concerned. And so also it was taught by R. Hyya b. Ahba in the name of R. Johanan, that there is no Muktza in the theory of R. Simeon, but in cases which are similar to the oil of the lamp while burning, being designated for the ritual purpose, they are also designated not to be used. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "In the opinion of R. Simeon no law of Muktza exists except in the case of raisins and dates which were placed on the roof to be dried." (In such a case there certainly was no intention to use them on the same Sabbath.) Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "It was said the law remains in accordance with R. Simeon. When R. Itz'hak b. R. Joseph, however, came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan that the law (of Muktza) according to R. Jehudah prevails, and R. Jehoshua b. Levi said the law prevails with R. Simeon. Said R. Joseph: Now is understood what Rabba b. b. Hana said in name of R. Johanan, it was said that the Halakha. prevails according to R. Simeon, which means that R. Johanan himself did not agree with their decision. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "Didst thou not know before this that R. Johanan holds with the opinion of R. Jehudah? Is it not a fact that when R. Abba and R. Assi met in the house of R. Abba of the city of Heifa, and a candelabrum fell upon the coat of R. Assi, he (R. Assi) did not remove it? Was it not because he was a disciple of R. Johanan and acted according to the opinion of his master?" Answered R. Joseph: "Thou art speaking of a candelabrum. A candelabrum is a different matter altogether, for R. Ahai b. Hanina in the name of R. Assi said: Resh Lakish has decided in Zidon, a candelabrum which can be removed with one hand may be handled, but if it has to be removed with both hands it may not; and R. Johanan said: We only hold with R. Simeon in the matter of a lamp; but as for a candelabrum, whether it can be removed with one or both hands, it is prohibited. And why so? Both Rabba and R. Joseph said: Because a separate place must be designated for it.

Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "Have we not observed the case of a baldaquin prepared for a bride and groom, for which a place must be designated? And yet Samuel said in the name of R. Hyya that such may be put up and taken apart on the Sabbath." Said Abayi: The prohibition to handle the candelabrum holds good only in a case where the same is made of several parts. If this be the case, what reason has R. Simeon b. Lakish for allowing this? Say: Not a candelabrum made of various parts, but if it looks like a candelabrum of various parts. Therefore a candelabrum made of several parts, be it large or small, must not be handled. The handling of a large candelabrum, even if not made of several parts, is also prohibited on account of its marked lines, for fear one may handle such as are made of several parts. And the point of their differing is: With a small candelabrum which looks as if made of several parts, one takes the precautionary measure lest one handle that which is really made of several parts, while the other does not care for such a precaution.

R. Malkia chanced to be in the house of R. Simlai and handled a candlestick, the light in which had been extinguished, and R. Simlai became angry on that account. R. Jose the Galilean happened to be in the town of R. Jose b. Hanina and did the same, whereupon R. Jose b. Hanina became angry. R. Abuhu, however, when he happened to be in the place of R. Jehoshua b. Levi, handled, but when he came to the place of R. Johanan he did not handle a candlestick in question out of respect to R. Johanan. R. Jehudah said: A lamp which has been filled with oil may be handled after the light has been extinguished (because it emits no bad odor), but one which contained naphtha may not be handled (on account of its bad odor). Both Rabba and R. Joseph also permit this.
R. Avia once came to the house of Rabha with muddy shoes and sat on the bed in the presence of the latter. This made Rabha angry, and he tried to disconcert R. Avia with questions. Said he (Rabha): "Can you tell me why Rabba and R. Joseph both said that a lamp filled with naphtha may be handled?" Answered R. Avia: "The reason of their decision is because the lamp is fit to cover a vessel with after being extinguished." And he rejoined: "If this is so, one may also handle shavings scattered in the yard, because they also can be used to cover a vessel with." Answered R. Avia: "A lamp, being a vessel itself, can be used to cover other things with, but shavings are not vessels in themselves and therefore cannot be used singly as covers" (and brought a Boraitha which states that nose jewels, rings, etc., are considered among the vessels which may be handled on Sabbath, and Ulla explained the reason why, because they are considered as vessels). Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "Praised be the Lord that Rabha did not put R. Avia to shame."

Abayi pointed out to R. Joseph the following contradiction: "Did R. Simeon say that a light may be handled only when extinguished, but if burning it must not be handled? For what reason? Because there is a chance of extinguishing it while it is being handled?" Have we not learned that R. Simeon said: "An act which is committed unintentionally is permissible." Such is the decision of R. Simeon? (This presents no difficulty.) One must not take chances with an act which, if done intentionally, would cause a violation of a biblical ordinance; but if the violation would be only that of a rabbinical ordinance, chances may be taken.

Objected Rabha: "We have learned: Dealers in clothing may sell clothes made of wool and cotton mixed. They are permitted to try on such clothes or to carry them (temporarily) on their shoulders, provided the intention to use them as a protection against the sun and rain does not exist. Now, the wearing of a mixture of wool and cotton is biblically prohibited, still R. Simeon permits it to be done temporarily. Therefore said Rabha: "Discard the case of the lamp, oil, and wick; there is another reason entirely—viz., because one becomes a basis of a thing the handling of which is in itself prohibited (i.e., the light in itself cannot be handled)."

Said R. Zera in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, who said in the name of R. Hanina that he was told by R. Romnas: "Rabbi permitted me to handle a pan containing glowing ashes."

And R. Zera himself was deliberating: Did indeed R. Johanan say so? Have we not heard that Rabba b. b. Hana said in his (R. Johanan's) name, referring to our Mishna, which states that a man may handle a box containing a stone: "He may do so providing the box also contains fruit." "How, then, could R. Johanan permit a pan with glowing ashes to be handled?" R. Assi was astounded for some time, but finally answered: "The pan referred to still contained some grains of incense."

But Rabha said: While we were in R. Na'hman's house we handled a fire-pot on account of its ashes (the ashes were needed for some purpose, therefore the pot was allowed to be handled), although there were some broken sticks of wood upon it.

The schoolmen raised the following objection: R. Simeon and R. Jehudah agree that if there are broken pieces of wick in a lamp, it is prohibited to handle the lamp. Said Abayi: "This was taught in Galilea" (Galilea is a state where linen cloth is scarce, for which reason the broken pieces of wick are valuable, and the lamp, being the receptacle of prohibited valuables, is not permitted to be handled on the Sabbath).

Levi, the son of Samuel, met R. Abba and R. Huna the son of Hyya standing at the entrance of R. Huna's house; and Levi questioned: "Is it allowed to fold the beds of travelling coppersmiths on a Sabbath?" They answered: "Yea." In allowing this the two rabbis held with (the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in a) following Boraitha: It is not permitted to put together a bed which has been taken apart; but if one did so, he is not culpable. One must not fasten the bed with pegs, but if he did so he only lays himself liable to bring a sin-offering. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, said: "If the bed was loose it may be fastened."

R. Hama had a folding-bed in his house. He put it together on a biblical feast day, and one of the young rabbis questioned Rabha: "What reason is to be found for this act? Is it because of indirect building; granted that there is no biblical prohibition to this effect, there surely is a rabbinical?" Answered Rabha: "I think that the reason is the decision of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (with whom I agree) that it is permissible to put a bed together if the bed is loose."

MISHNA IX.: One may put a vessel underneath a lamp for the purpose of receiving the sparks falling from the lamp, but he shall not put water into the vessel, because thereby the sparks would become extinguished.
GEMARA: Would this act not render the vessel useless? Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: "The vessel is not made useless, because sparks do not amount to anything." "He shall not put any water into it," etc. Shall we assume that this anonymous Mishna is in accordance with R. Jose, who said that it is prohibited even to cause light to be extinguished? How can you explain this in this way? R. Jose spoke of the Sabbath itself; have you heard him saying so about the eve of Sabbath? And should you say that here is also meant on Sabbath itself, there is a Boraitha which states plainly: A vessel may be put under the lamp to receive sparks on Sabbath, and so much the more on the eve of Sabbath; but water must not be put in, even on the eve of Sabbath, and much less on the Sabbath itself. Therefore said R. Ashi: "It may be said that it is in accordance even with the rabbis, who do not mind the causing of light to be extinguished through indirect means on the Sabbath. In this case, however, the sparks are extinguished (through direct means, i.e.) by placing water underneath the lamp."

Footnotes

64:1 Here the disciple who advanced the later construction of the Mishna turns the tables on his interlocutor and brings forward an argument in favor of his suggestion, introducing it with the same words as the previous speaker in his argument.

71:1 "Blows of correction" were inflicted by the rabbis not for an actual sin, but for disobedience to the laws enacted.

71:2 We have translated in accordance with Rashi's second view, as it seems to us to be correct.

76 :1 Muktza (designation) refers to such objects as are set aside and designated for non-use on the Sabbath. Thus, all materials that are used in the performance of manual labor (prohibited on the Sabbath) are called Muktza. R. Simeon, however, holds there is no such thing as Muktza.

77:1 The Talmud here refers to Persian festivals, when the burning of lights was prohibited except in sacred shrines.

CHAPTER IV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING VICTUALS, WHERE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE DEPOSITED TO RETAIN THEIR HEAT FOR THE SABBATH . MISHNA I.: Wherein may hot vessels be deposited (to retain the heat) and wherein may they not? Depositing in Gepheth (olive waste), dung, salt, lime, and sand, either wet or dry, is not allowed. In straw, grape-skins, wool-flocks, or grass it is permitted, provided they are dry, but not when they are still wet.

GEMARA: A question was propounded: "Is the use of olive waste only prohibited, but the use of the oil-cakes allowed; or does the Mishna allude to oil-cakes and still more so to olive waste (for it produces more heat)?" For the purpose of depositing in, both kinds are not allowed; (but if the victuals have been deposited in a permissible thing and were subsequently placed on oil-cakes no wrong was done, because) oil-cake does not produce heat; olive waste produces heat.
Rabba and R. Zera once met at the Exilarch's house; they saw there a servant putting a can (with warm water) on top of a kettle (containing cold water), and Rabba rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him: "In what particular does this case differ from that of putting one pan on top of another?" Answered Rabba: "Here heat is produced, but there it is only preserved." Another time they saw (the servant) spreading a turban over a pitcher and putting a cup on top of it. Again Rabba rebuked him. R. Zera asked for the reason, and Rabba answered: "You will soon see him wringing 1 the turban," which he did. R. Zera again asked: "In what particular does this case differ from that of a spread cloth?" Answered Rabba: "Here he is particular (lest it become wet and he will wring it), while there he is not." "In straw." R. Adda b. Masna questioned Abayi: "May wool-flocks, in which (victuals) were deposited, be handled on Sabbath?" Abayi answered: "Because of a lack of straw, would a man sacrifice a valuable lot of wool-flock?" (When placing victuals in straw no intention to make further use of the straw exists, and it becomes part of the pot itself; with wool-flocks the case is different, for they are intended for further use and therefore must not be handled on Sabbath.)

R. Hisda permitted the replacing of waste (fallen out) of a pillow on Sabbath.

R. Hanan b. Hisda objected to him from the following: "Untying the opening (for the neck) of a shirt is permitted on Sabbath, but cutting it is prohibited, and waste must not be placed into a pillow or bolster on a biblical feast day, much less on a Sabbath."

This presents no difficulty. Placing new waste in a pillowcase is not allowed, but replacing old waste is allowed. And so also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha, that when they fall out they may be replaced even on Sabbath, and much the more on a feast day.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: "Whosoever makes an opening (for the neck in an unfinished shirt) on Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering."
R. Kahana opposed, saying: What is the difference between an opening for the neck and a bunghead (in a barrel)? Rabha answered: A bunghead is not attached to the barrel (i.e., it forms no part of it), but an opening for the neck is made by an incision in the shirt, and hence is part and parcel of same. In Sura the following doctrine was taught in the name of R. Hisda, and in Pumbeditha the same was taught in the name of R. Kahana or Rabha: "Who was the Tana in whose name the sages taught that the part and parcel of a thing is on a par with the thing itself?" Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "It is R. Meir (of the Mishna, Kelim, VIII.) who holds that the attachment built on a hearth is on a par with the hearth itself and becomes unclean when touched by an unclean thing." "When wet." A question was propounded: Naturally or artificially wet? Come and hear. The Mishna says: "Not with straw, nor with grape-skins, nor with wool-flocks, nor with grass when wet." It is right only if we accept the theory that they became wet, but should we venture to think them naturally wet, how is this to be imagined? Can wool-flocks be naturally wet? The sweaty wool under the hips may be meant. Did not R. Oshia teach we may deposit in dry cloth and dry fruit, but not in wet cloth or wet fruit? How is naturally wet cloth to be imagined? This may also mean cloth made from the sweaty wool under the hips of the sheep.

MISHNA II.: It may be deposited in cloth, fruit, pigeon feathers, shavings, and fine flaxen tow. R. Jehudah forbids the use of fine, but permits the use of coarse flaxen tow.

GEMARA: "Shavings." A question was propounded: Does R. Jehudah forbid the use of fine shavings or fine flaxen tow? Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Jehudah says: Fine flaxen tow is the same as dung, which increases heat; therefore the conclusion is that he means flaxen tow.

MISHNA III.: It may be deposited (wrapped) in skins, and they may be handled; in shorn wool, and must not be handled. How can this be done? The lid is raised and it (the shorn wool) falls down. R. Elazar b. Azarya says: The vessel is bent sideways lest it be taken out and cannot be replaced, but the sages say it may be taken out and replaced.

GEMARA: A question was propounded by R. Jonathan b. Akhinayi, R. Jonathan b. Elazar, and R. Hanina b. Hama: Does the Mishna allude to skins belonging to private men only, hence skins belonging to an artisan, who is particular with them, may not be handled under any circumstances; or perhaps the Mishna allows even an artisan's skins? Answered R. Jonathan b. Elazar to them: It is reasonable to accept that it applies only to those belonging to private men but not to artisans, because they (the artisans) are particular. Said R. Hanina b. Hama to them: Thus said R. Ishmael b. Jossi: "My father was a tanner, and he said, 'Bring some skins here to sit on.'"

An objection was raised: Boards of private men may be handled, but not those of artisans (if, however, the intention is to serve a meal on them for guests both kinds may be handled)? With boards it is different. Even private men are particular with boards.

On this point the following Tanaim differ: Skins belonging to private men may be handled, but not those of artisans. R. Jossi says both kinds may be handled.

While they were sitting together another question was propounded by them: The forty less one principal acts of labor on Sabbath, where are they taken from? Said R. Hanina b. Hama: "From the acts of labor performed at the tabernacle." R. Jonathan b. Elazar, however, said: Thus said R. Simeon b. Jossi b. Laqunia: From the thirty-nine times the words "work," "his work," and "work of" are to be found in the Pentateuch.

R. Joseph questioned Rabba: Is the term "his work" which is found in the passage "and Joseph came into the house to do his work" [Gen. xxxix. 12] also of the number or not? Abayi answered him: "Let us bring the book and count," and he rejoined: "I am in doubt whether the verse 'and the work was enough' [Ex. xxxvi. 7] is of the number, and the former verse is to be explained 'he came in to do his business,' or whether the former is of the number and the latter is to be explained 'the task was completed.'" (Both verses cannot be counted among the thirty-nine, because if they are there will be forty in all.) This question remains unanswered.
It is proven by a Boraitha that the adduction of the thirty-nine acts is made from the acts performed at the tabernacle, for we were taught: One is culpable only for the performance of such work as was done at the building of the tabernacle. They have sown, but ye must not sow; they have harvested, but ye must not; they have loaded the boards from the ground upon wagons, but ye must remove nothing from public into private ground; they have unloaded from the wagons to the ground, but ye must not remove from private into public ground; they have transferred from one wagon into another, but ye must transfer nothing from private into private ground. "From private into private ground." What wrong is committed by that? Both Abayi and Rabha, and according to others R. Adda b. Ahabha, said: "From private into private ground by way of public ground." "In shorn wool and may not be handled." Rabha and Rabhin in the name of Rabbi (Jehudah Hanassi) said: "It is only taught, when not designated for the purpose of depositing in them, but if designated for that purpose they may be handled." Rabhina says that the teaching of the Mishna is applicable to shorn wool taken from stock (of a store).

The following Boraitha is in support of this: Shorn wool taken from stock is not to be handled, but if prepared by a private man for a purpose it may be handled.

Rabba b. b. Hana taught before Rabh: Palm branches, if cut off for use as fuel and finally intended for sitting purposes, must be tied together (before the Sabbath). R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said it needs not tying. He who taught this has himself declared that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
It was taught: (In relation to sitting on palm branches cut off for use as fuel) Rabh said (it must be) tied. Samuel said: The intention on the eve of Sabbath suffices; and R. Assi said: Sitting (on them before the Sabbath), even if not tied nor previously intended for sitting purposes on the Sabbath, is sufficient. It is clear that Rabh holds with the first teacher and Samuel holds with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but whom does R. Assi's opinion agree with? He is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: It is permitted to go out (on Sabbath) with a flax or wool plaster (on a wound) when dipped in oil and tied with a string, but it is not permitted when the plaster is not dipped in oil or tied with a string; but if one went out with it only a little before the Sabbath, even if not dipped in oil and tied, it is permissible. Said R. Ashi: "We were also taught in a Mishna in support of this; but who is the teacher that does not agree with R. Simeon, b. Gamaliel?" It is R. Hanina b. Aqiba, for when R. Dimi came from Palestine he said in the name of Zera, quoting R. Hanina: R. Hanina b. Aqiba once went with his disciples to a place and found some palm branches tied together to be used as fuel; he said to his disciples: "Make up your minds to sit on them tomorrow." I do not know whether there was to be a wedding or a funeral that following day, but the inference from this narration is: Only in the case of a wedding or funeral, when people are busy (and could not tie them up), the intention is sufficient, but otherwise tying together is necessary.

R. Jehudah said: "One is permitted to carry in a box of sand on the Sabbath for the purpose (of covering up an unclean place) and use the remainder for any purpose whatever. Mar Zutra, in the name of Mar Zutra the Great, interpreted this—providing he singled out a corner for it. Said the rabbis before R. Papa: "Is this teaching (of the great Mar Zutra) in accord only with the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but not with that of the rabbis who require action rather than intention?" R. Papa answered: It may even be in accord with the rabbis, who require action only where it is possible, and this action (tying together or sitting on sand) is impossible (as reserving a corner for them is not considered an act, but an intention only).
R. Jehudah permits the use of the dust of incense on the Sabbath. R. Joseph permits poppy-seed waste. Rabha permits pepper dust and R. Shesheth Barda, to wash the face with. What is Barda? Said R. Joseph: A powder of one-third aloe, one-third myrrh, and one-third violet. R. Nehemiah b. Joseph also permits Barda, provided it does not contain more than a third part of aloe.

R. Shesheth was asked if it was permitted to crush olives on Sabbath? He answered: "Is it permitted on week days?" He is of the opinion that the spoiling of food is not allowed.
Barda was brought to Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and R. Ashi. Ameimar and R. Ashi washed themselves with it, but Mar Zutra did not. They asked him: "Do you, Master, not hold with R. Shesheth, who permits the use of it?" Said R. Mordecai to them: Leave out the master in this question, for he does not even use Barda on week days. He holds with the following Boraitha: "One is permitted to scratch off crust of excrement and of wounds only for the purpose of relieving pain, but not for the purpose of beautifying the person." And the above-mentioned rabbis agree with the teaching of the following: One should wash his face, hands, and feet daily out of respect for his Creator, as it is written [Prov. xvi. 4]: "Every thing hath the Lord wrought for its destined end." 1 "The vessel is bent sideways," etc. Said R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting Rabh: If the cavity formed by the vessel got out of shape it is not permitted to replace (the vessel). There is an objection from our Mishna: "And the sages say it may be taken out and replaced." How shall this be understood? If the cavity remained intact the rabbis did well by telling us that the replacing of the vessel was allowed; but if the cavity got out of shape, is it not self-evident that replacing is not permitted? Nay; they still maintain that the cavity did not get out of shape, and the controversy (in the case) is as regards precaution. One maintains that this precaution is to be taken (lest we replace the vessel when the cavity is out of shape), while the others contend this is not necessary.
R. Huna said: "A fragrant plant used after meals in place of burnt spices, if it was taken out of and replaced in the flower-pot before Sabbath, it may be taken out, used, and replaced on Sabbath, but not otherwise. Samuel said that the same is the case with a knife that was preserved between the bricks. Mar Zutra, according to others R. Ashi, said that a knife may be preserved between the branches of the root. And R. Mordecai said to Rabha that R. Qatina has objected to the above rabbis, who said that if it were not replaced before Sabbath it must not be used, from a Mishna (Kilaim, I. 9), which states plainly that it may be taken out on Sabbath. This question remains.

MISHNA IV.: (A vessel) not covered during daylight must not be covered after dark. If, after having been covered, it became uncovered, it is permitted to cover it again. A pitcher may be filled with cold victuals and put under a pillow (to keep it cool).

GEMARA: R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "It is permitted to store cold victuals (to protect them from the sun)." Said R. Joseph: "What news came he to teach? Have we not learned this in the above Mishna?" Abayi answered: "A great deal! From the Mishna I would infer that only such things as are not usually stored are permissible (for in that case no precaution lest one put warm victuals under a pillow or bolster for the purpose of generating heat is necessary); he informs us, however, that even such things as are usually stored are permissible also." R. Huna in the name of Rabbi, however, says: "It is prohibited." Were we not taught that Rabbi has permitted this? This presents no difficulty. In the former instance he did so when he was not as yet aware of the following decision of R. Ishmael b. Jossi. Rabbi at one time decided that it is forbidden to store cold victuals. Said R. Ishmael b. Jossi to him: "My father permitted it," whereupon Rabbi said: "If this sage has once permitted it, so shall it be done." Said R. Papa: Come ye and note the mutual respect: Had R. Jossi been alive, he would have had to show respect to Rabbi; as R. Ishmael, who succeeded his father in every respect, also has acknowledged Rabbi's superiority. Still Rabbi accepted his decision.
R. Na'hman said to his slave Doru: "Store some cold victuals for me and bring me warm water from a Gentile cook-shop." R. Ami heard this and was angry. Said R. Joseph: "What was the reason of his anger? Did not R. Na'hman act in accordance with the teachings of the great masters, Rabh and Samuel?" R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: It is permitted to store cold victuals, and R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak said in the name of Rabh: Anything that may be consumed raw is not included in the prohibition relating to cooking by a Gentile; he (R. Ami), however, was of the opinion that, although it is allowed, a man of note should not practise it (because the layman seeing such things of the scholar he might allow himself still more).

The rabbis taught: "Although the sages said it is not allowed to deposit (warm victuals) after dark, even in such receptacles as do not increase the heat, still, if already deposited, it is permitted to add more cover. How can this be done? R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: "In cold weather the covering sheet may be taken off and a blanket substituted; in warm weather the blanket may be taken off and a sheet substituted." Furthermore said the same: "The sages prohibited (to deposit warm victuals) only in the same pan in which they were cooked, but if emptied into another pan it is permitted; and there is no fear of one coming to cook (on the Sabbath); for (the act of) emptying (the victuals) from the cooking-pan (into another) proves (that there is no such intention).

If one deposited a pot (containing victuals) in material that may be handled on the Sabbath, and covered it with the same, or even deposited it in non-permissible material, but covered it with permissible, he may take out the pot and replace it; but if he deposited it in non-permissible material and. covered it with the same, or even deposited it in permissible, but covered it with non-permissible material, he may take out the pot, but can replace it only if the pot was but partly covered. Otherwise, he must not replace it at all.

It is permitted to put one cooking-pan upon another, and also one earthen pot upon another, but not an earthen pot upon a cooking-pan, or a cooking-pan upon an earthen pot. (Even on Sabbath) the cover of a pot may be fastened down with dough (kneaded on Friday before dusk). In the case of putting one pan or pot upon another, this may be done only to preserve the heat, but not for the purpose of heating the upper pot by means of the lower one.

The same as it is forbidden to store warm (victuals), so it is also forbidden to store cold (victuals) on the Sabbath; but Rabbi permitted the latter to be done. Even so is it prohibited to chop ice on Sabbath in order to obtain cold water, but ice may be put into a vessel or a pitcher without fear of the consequences.

Footnotes

83:1 Wringing (in Hebrew, Se'hitah) is prohibited on the Sabbath.

88:1 The expression in Hebrew is lema'anehu; literally, "for his own purpose." Leeser translates for the purpose of the things created; the Talmud, however, takes it literally.

CHAPTER V.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHAT MAY AND MAY NOT BE WORN BY ANIMALS ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA I.: What gear may we let animals go about in and what not? 1 The male camel in a bridle; the female cannel with a nose-ring; Lybian asses in a halter, and a horse in a collar. All (animals) that are used to collars may go out in and may be led by the collar. Such gear (when it becomes defiled) can be sprinkled and submerged without being removed from its (proper) place (on the animal).

GEMARA: R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "Rabbi was asked, How is it when the reverse is the case? i.e., when the female camel is bridled and the male camel is invested with a nose-ring? May they be allowed to go about? There is no question as to a bridle on a female camel, for it is considered a burden; as to a nose-ring on a male camel, shall we assume that it is merely an additional safeguard, and thus becomes permissible, or is it an unnecessary safeguard and hence not allowed?" R. Ishmael b. Jossi answered: "Thus my father said: Four animals may go about with a bridle on—the horse, the mule, the camel, and the ass." A Boraitha states: Lydda asses and camels may go about with a bridle on. The following Tanaim, however, differ as to this point (whether a superfluous safeguard is a burden or not): one maintains that no animal may go about burdened with a chain; but Hananya says a chain or anything else that is intended as a safeguard is permitted.

Said R. Huna b. Hyya in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha prevails according to Hananya."
Levi b. R. Huna b. Hyya and Rabba b. R. Huna once travelled together; arriving at an entrance, the former's ass ran ahead of the latter's. Rabba b. R. Huna became dejected (at the lack of respect shown him, supposing it to have been done intentionally). Thought Levi to himself: "I will pacify him with the following question: Is it permitted to put a halter on an unmanageable ass like mine on the Sabbath?" Rejoined Rabba: "So said your father in the name of Samuel: 'The decision of Hananya prevails.'"

At the school of Menashyah it was taught: A goat with a bridle fastened to his horns is permitted to go about on Sabbath (but not if the bridle was simply tied to the horns, as it may slip off and a man may be forced to carry the bridle).

An objection was raised: "Were we not taught in a Mishna that it is not allowed to let a cow go about with a strap tied between her horns?"

Said R. Irmya b. Aba: On this point Rabh and Samuel differ; according to one it is prohibited at any rate, and according to the other, if for an ornament it is prohibited, but as a safeguard it is permitted. Said R. Joseph: "It seems that Samuel was the one who permitted it as a safeguard, as R. Huna said in his name the Halakha prevails according to Hananya." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "On the contrary, it may be that Samuel is the one who forbids it at any rate, as R. Jehudah said above in his name: Rabbi was asked: How is it when the reverse is the case," etc. Does this not mean to exclude a nose-ring from a camel? But why should you prefer this latter saying to the former one? Because it was taught: "R. Hyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rabh that it is forbidden at any rate; and R. Hyya b. Abhin in the name of Samuel said: It is permitted as a safeguard."

An objection was raised from the following: If the owner tied the (red) heifer with a halter, she may nevertheless be used. Should you assume that this (halter) is a burden (how could she be used)? (Do not) the Scriptures say [Numbers, xix. 2]: "Upon which there was no yoke"? Answered Abayi: "(It is to be understood) when the owner leads her from one town to another, (the halter is a necessary safeguard, hence no burden)." Rabh said: "There is quite a difference in the case of the red heifer," as she is very valuable (and must be guarded). Rabhina said: "She must have a halter on account of her stubbornness." "The horse with a collar." What is meant by "go about" or led? R. Huna said: "It makes no difference whether the strap hangs loose on the animal's neck or is used as a rein; but Samuel said they may go about if led (by the strap) but not (with the strap) hanging loose.

A Boraitha teaches: "They may go about with the halter tied round their necks in order that they may be led whenever necessary." Said R. Joseph: "I have seen the calves of R. Huna going out on a Sabbath with their halters round their necks." R. Samuel b. Jehudah, when coming from Palestine, said in the name of R. Hanina that Rabbi's mules also went out on a Sabbath with their halters tied around their necks. "And are sprinkled," etc. Is this to say that they are subject to defilement? Does not a Mishna state [Kelim, XII. 8] that only rings worn by human beings are subject to defilement, but harness and all other rings are not? Said R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha 1: The collar-ring having at one time been used by men for personal purposes and become defiled, still retains its defiled character; R. Joseph, however, maintains it is not necessary to claim this. The fact that the collar-ring is used by man for the purpose of guiding the animal lays it open to becoming defiled, as we have learned in the Boraitha which taught us: A metal whip is subject to defilement, for the reason that man uses it to manage the animal with. "And submerged without removing it from its place." Would this not constitute a case of "Chatzitzah" (intervention). 2 Said R. Ami: "(Intervention of the bridle between the neck and the water) is avoided by loosening the bridle." A Boraitha teaches: "Intervention is avoided by the size of the bridle."

MISHNA II.: The ass may go out with a rug fastened around him; rams may go out with leather bandages tied around their privates; sheep may go out with their tails tied up or down and wrapped (to preserve the fine wool); she-goats may go out with their udders tied up. R. Jossi forbids all this except sheep wrapped up. R. Jehudah says: She-goats may go out with their udders tied up to stop the lactation, but not to save the milk.
GEMARA: Said Samuel: The Mishna means: "Only when the (rug) is fastened on Sabbath eve." Said R. Na'hman: It seems to be so from the following Mishna: "An ass may not go out with a rug unless fastened." How should this be understood? Shall we say that (the rug) is not fastened at all? Then it would be self-evident, lest it fall off and will have to be carried by a man. We must, therefore, assume that the Mishna's meaning of "not fastened" signifies "not fastened before the Sabbath." Hence Samuel's opinion has a good reason.

And it is also supported in the following Boraitha: "The ass may go out with a rug fastened before the Sabbath, but not with a saddle, even though fastened before." R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: "Even with a saddle, if fastened before the Sabbath, provided, however, no stirrups are attached to the saddle and a crupper under the tail."

R. Assi b. Nathan questioned R. Hyya b. R. Ashi: "Is it permitted to put a rug on all ass on the Sabbath?" "It is," was the answer. And to the question: "What is the difference (in the Law) between these two?" He was silent. (Misinterpreting the silence,) R. Assi objected: "A Boraitha teaches: It is not allowed to remove the saddle from the ass directly, but one may move it to and fro until it falls off; if you say it is forbidden to handle the saddle, is there any question as to putting it oil?" Said R. Zera to him: "Leave him alone! He is of the opinion of his teacher (Rabh), in whose name R. Hyya b. R. Ashi related that he (Rabh) permitted putting a feed-bag on all animal on Sabbath." A feed-bag, which is nothing but an accommodation, is permitted; so much the more a rug, which is a relief! Samuel, however, permitted a rug, but prohibited a feed-bag. R. Hyya b. Joseph reported the opinion of Rabh to Samuel, whereupon the latter said: "If so said Abba, he knows nothing of the laws of Sabbath."

When R. Zera came (to Palestine), he heard R. Benjamin b. Japheth stating in the name of R. Johanan that it is permitted to put on a rug. He thanked him for it and, continuing, remarked: "Thus has the Arioch (King of Laws) in Babylon decided." Who is meant by the title (Arioch)? Samuel.

From the foregoing it is evident that all agree that it is permitted to cover an ass with a rug on Sabbath. But what is the point in which a saddle differs from the rug? It differs therein that a saddle may drop off (and involve the necessity of handling). R. Papa gave another reason: "To cover an ass with a rug is an act of relief, for it is said that an ass feels cold even in summer, but to remove a saddle from an ass's back in order to cool off the ass is not necessarily an act of relief."

An objection was raised. We have learned: "The horse shall not go out with a fox-tail (for a pompon) and calves with the feed-bags on public ground." Shall we not assume that (in the case of the calves) they may not go out on public ground, but they may on private ground, and it refers even to large calves (whose necks are long enough to reach the ground with their mouths easily); thus feed-bags are merely an accommodation? Nay; the permission to carry feed-bags applies only to small calves (whose necks are short and legs long, and to which reaching down to the ground with their mouths would entail a hardship) and must be considered as a necessary relief.

The master said: "She-goats must not go out with a bag attached to their udders." Is there not a Boraitha which teaches that they may? Said R. Jehudah: "This presents no difficulty. In the former case the bag is not tied fast, in the latter it is (and there is no reason for apprehension lest it drop off and will have to be carried)." Said R. Joseph: "Why, you have entirely done away with the teachers of our Mishna. There is a difference of opinion between the teachers in this very Mishna: 'She-goats may go out with a bag tied to their udders.'" R. Jossi forbids all except sheep with covers on to protect the wool. R. Jehudah says: "She-goats may go out with their udders tied up for the purpose of preventing lactation, but not for the purpose of saving the milk."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah related the case of she-goats which he saw in Antioch. Their udders were so large that bags had to be made for them in order to prevent their dragging on the ground and becoming mutilated. (These bags were worn also on the Sabbath.)

The rabbis taught: "It happened with one man whose wife died and left him a nursing child, he was so poor that he could not pay a wet-nurse. A miracle happened to him; his breasts opened and he nursed his child." Said R. Joseph: Come and see how great the man must have been that such a miracle was wrought for him. Said Abayi to him: On the contrary, Behold how bad the man must have been that the nature of mankind changed in him and nothing occurred to enable him to earn enough money to pay a nurse. Says R. Jehudah: Come and see how hard it is for heaven to change the fate of a man concerning his livelihood, that the nature of the world was changed, but not his fate. Said R. Na'hman: It is proven by this fact that a miracle occurred, but he was not provided with means for paying a wet-nurse.

The rabbis taught "It happened once that a man wedded a woman with a mutilated hand, and did not discover it until she died." Said Rabh: "Behold how chaste this woman must have been, for even her husband did not discover it." R. Hyya retorted: "This is nothing! It is natural with women to hide their defects, but note the modesty of the man, who did not discover it in his wife." "Rams may go out with (leather) bands around their privates." What kind of bands? Said R. Huna: "Hobbles." Ulla said they were leather bands tied around their breasts to prevent them from the attack of wolves. Do wolves attack only the males and never the females? It is because the males always go ahead of the flocks. Do wolves attack only the advance of a flock and never the rear? It is because the males are usually fat. Are there no fat sheep among the females? Moreover, how can the wolves know which is which? It is because the males generally lift their heads and look around cautiously. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said they wore leather bands tied around their privates to prevent them from having coition with the females. Whence this inference? From the last clause of the Mishna, "The sheep may go out with their tails tied up," in order that the males may have coition with them; hence we infer that the first clause is for the purpose of preventing them. "She-goats may go out with a bag tied around their udders." It was taught: Rabh said that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Jehudah; and Samuel held it to be in accordance with R. Jossi. Others taught: Rabh and Samuel did not directly cite the opinions of the Tanaim just mentioned, but they themselves decreed as follows: Rabh held that she-goats may go out with their udders tied up for the purpose of preventing lactation, but not to save the milk. Samuel, however, prohibited this in both cases. Others again say: R. Jehudah b. Bathyra long ago decided the same as Rabh, but added that on account of the impossibility of determining what purpose the tying up of the udders would serve, it is entirely prohibited. Thereupon Samuel decided that the Halakha prevails with him. Rabbin upon his arrival in Babylon said that R. Johanan said that the Halakha prevails in accordance with the first Tana.

MISHNA III.: And what must (animals) not go about in? The camel with a crupper, nor with hobbles on both legs, nor with the front leg hobbled with the hind. This law is applied to all other animals. It is not allowed to tie camels together with a rope and then lead them; but one is permitted to hold in his hand the several ropes on the camels and lead them, provided the ropes are not twisted into one.
GEMARA: A Boraitha in addition to this Mishna states: "If the crupper is fastened to the hump as well as to the tail of the camel, it may go about." Rabba b. R. Huna says: A camel may go about with a pad under its tail (to prevent friction). "One is not to tie camels." What is the reason? Said R. Ashi: Because it looks like leading them to market. "But one is permitted to hold in his hand," etc. Said R. Ashi: This law was stated only concerning (Kilaim), and hence the teacher means to say, provided he does not tie or twist them. Samuel said: And provided the cords do not protrude from his hand as much as the length of a span. Was it not taught at the school of Samuel, two spans? Said Abayi: From the difference between Samuel himself and his school we infer that Samuel came to teach us how to practise. But did not a Boraitha state: Provided he lifts (the cords) from the ground one span (but there is no restriction as to the quantity protruding from his hands)? The non-restriction of the quantity of cord applies only to the amount of cord used for the distance between the animal and the man's hand. (In that case the quantity is unlimited. The quantity of cord, however, protruding from the man's hand must not exceed one span; so also the distance from the ground to the cords must be at least one span.)

MISHNA IV.: The ass is not to go out with a rug, unless fastened, neither with a bell that has been muffled, nor with a collar on his neck, nor with ankle-boots. The hens are not to go out with cords tied to them, nor with straps on their feet. Rams are not to go out with carts tied to their tails; nor sheep with sneezing-wood; the calf with the reed yoke, nor the cow with the skin of a hedgehog (tied to the udder), nor with a strap (between her horns). The cow of R. Elazar b. Azarya went out with a strap between the horns against the approval of the rabbis.

GEMARA: "Neither with a bell that has been muffed." For it looks like bringing it to market. "Nor with a collar on his neck." Said R. Huna: With a collar underneath his jowls. What was the collar intended for? To prevent irritation of any wounds that may have been on the neck. "Nor with ankle-boots." To prevent injury from kicking one foot against the other. "The hens with cords." As a distinguishing mark. "Nor with straps on their feet." To prevent damage arising from jumping. "The rams with carts." To prevent the ends of their tails from damage through trailing on the ground. "Nor sheep with sneezing-wood." (What is it?) Said R. Huna: "In seaports there is to be found a kind of tree called 'Hanun, which produces sneezing-wood, which when held under a sheep's nose produces sneezing, and while sneezing such vermin as may have lodged in the sheep's head are expelled. If such be the case, may rams not go out with it either? For rams sneezing-wood is not used at all. They butt with their heads, therefore vermin drops out of its own accord. "Nor the cow with the skin of the hedgehog," etc. To prevent leeches from sticking to the udder. "Nor with the strap between the horns." Why not? Either in accordance with Rabh, who forbids it at any rate, or in accordance with Samuel, who forbids it as an ornament. "The cow of R. Elazar b. Azarya," etc. Had he only one cow? Did not Rabh, or R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, say that R. Elazar b. Azarya gave yearly as tithes from his herds as many as twelve thousand calves? We have learned (in a Boraitha): The cow in question was not his, but a neighboring woman's. It is only ascribed to him because he did not protest against it.

Rabh, R. Hanina, R. Jonathan, and R. Habiba [in the whole Section of Festivals, where the four names stand together, R. Jonathan must be read instead of R. Johanan] all said: He who has the power to protest against wrong in his house and does not do so, is responsible for (the transgressions of) every one in his house. In the city (where his protest would be recognized), he is responsible for the transgressions of every one of the inhabitants of the city; and if he is such a great man that his word would be respected in the whole world, he is punished for (transgressions of all) mankind. Said R. Papa: "And the Exilarchs are punished for the sins of all Israel." As R. Hanina said: It is written: "The Eternal will enter into judgment with the elders of his people and with the princes thereof" [Isaiah, iii. 14]. If the princes sinned, what have the elders to do with it? The intent is to say: Because the elders did not protest against the princes.

R. Jehudah sat before Samuel, when a woman came in complaining, and Samuel paid no attention to her. Said R. Jehudah to him: "Is Master unaware of the passage: Whosoever stops his ears at cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself and not be heard"? [Prov. xxi. 13]. Samuel retorted: "Ingenious scholar! Your head-master (meaning himself) is on safe ground, but our Chief is responsible," Mar Uqba, being at that time Chief of the judges (it was his affair), for it is written [Jerem. xxi. 12]: "O House of David! Thus hath said the Lord: Exercise justice on (every) morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings."

Said R. Zera to R. Simon: "Let Master reprove the Exilarch's retainers." He answered: "They care not for me." Rejoined R. Zera: Even if they do not care, reprove them anyhow; for R. Aha b. Hanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, never issued a benevolent decree, which He subsequently reversed into malevolence, except in this sole instance, which is written [Ezekiel, ix. 41]: "And the Lord said unto him, Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and inscribe a mark upon the foreheads," etc. Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Gabriel: "Go and set the mark (the Hebrew letter Tabh) in ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the angels of destruction have no power over them; and the same mark in blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the angels of destruction may have power over them." The Party of Prosecution pleaded before Him in these terms: "Lord of the Universe, what is the difference between the two?" He answered: "Those are perfectly righteous and these completely wicked." Again the Party of Prosecution pleaded: "Lord of the Universe! It was in their power to protest (against wickedness), and they did not." And the Lord answered: "It is known to me that, had they protested, their protest would have been of no avail." But they pleaded once more: "Lord of the Universe! It is known to Thee; but was it known to them?" And thus it is written: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, little children, and women, and at my sanctuary shall ye begin." Then they began with the old men who were before the house" [Ezek. ix. 6]. And R. Joseph taught: "Do not read 'my sanctuary,' but 'my sanctified,' which means the men who have performed all the laws prescribed in the Torah, which begins with all the letters of the alphabet. And it is also written [ibid., ibid. 2]: "And behold, six men came from the direction of the upper gate . . . . beside the copper altar." Was, then, the copper altar at that time? Was it not hidden already in the time of Solomon? It means that the Holy One, blessed be He, told them they shall begin from that place where they used to sing hymns before Him. And who are the six men (messengers)? Said R. Hisda: "Anger, wrath, rage, destruction, devastation, and ruin."

Why just the letter Tabh? Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: "The Tabh is the last letter on the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He; for R. Hanina said (the inscription on) the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is Emeth (truth) (and the last letter of the Hebrew word Emeth is a Tabh).

It being evident from the verse [Ezek. ix. 2] that Zechuth Aboth 1 no longer existed, at what time shall we assume that it ceased?

Said Rabh. From the time of the prophet Hosea b. Beëri, as it is written [Hosea, ii. 12]: "And no man will deliver her out of my hand," meaning that even the righteousness of the ancestors will be of no avail.

Samuel said: From the time of the King Chazael of Syria, as it is written [II Kings, xiii. 23]: "And the Lord became gracious unto them, and had mercy on them, and turned his regard unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, and he cast them not off from his presence until now." Thus, He will remember his covenant only "until now," but not after that.
R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: From the time of Elijah the prophet, as it is written [I Kings, xviii. 36]: "Elijah the prophet came near and said, O Lord, God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, this day let it be known that thou art God in Israel," etc., and means to infer that only "this day" the Lord will remember Zechuth Aboth, and not after this day.

R. Johanan says: From the time of Hezekiah the King, as it is written [Isaiah, ix. 6]: "To establish it and to support it through justice and righteousness, from henceforth and unto eternity: the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this," implying that after that the favors of the Lord will not be bestowed by virtue of Zecbuth Aboth, but through His zeal.

R. Ami said: Death is the result of sin, and affliction the result of transgression: death the result of sin, for it is written [Ezekiel, xviii. 20]: "The soul that sins, it shall die," etc.; affliction the result of transgression: for it is written [Psalms, lxxxix. 33]: "And I will visit their transgressions with a lash and their iniquity with stripes."

An objection was raised: One of the teachers said: The angels (once) said to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe! Why didst Thou punish Adam with death?" The Lord answered: "Because I gave him a light commandment, and he failed to observe it." The angels again said unto Him: "Why did Moses and Aaron die.? Did they not observe all the laws of the Torah?" And He answered [Eccl. ix. 2]: "The same fate befalls the righteous as the wicked." Hence death is not the result of sin! He (R. Ami) is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Even the death of Moses and Aaron was the result of their sins, for it is written [Numb. xx. 12]: "Because you had no faith in me"; (and the inference thereof is) if they had had faith, they would not have died.

Another objection was raised: (There is a tradition:) Only four men died in consequence of original sin. They are Benjamin ben Jacob, Amram, the father of Moses; Jesse, the father of David; and Kilab ben David. Whose opinion does this Boraitha agree with? The Tana who related the legend of the angels holds that Moses and Aaron also died in consequence of original sin. So must be then in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar, as said above. Thus we see that although Moses and Aaron died on account of their own sins, still death without sin and affliction without transgression are possible; hence R. Ami's theory is objected to.
R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: "Whoever says that Reuben (the patriarch Jacob's son) sinned with his father's wife is in error, because it is written [Gen. xxxv. 22]: "Now the sons of Jacob were twelve." This proves to us that they were all equal (in righteousness); but what does the verse [ibid., ibid.] which states that he did lie with Bilha, etc., signify? That Reuben deranged his father's bed, and the Scripture considers this equal to his having sinned with her. There is another Boraitha: Simeon b. Elazar said: That righteous man (Reuben) is innocent of the crime. The act with his father's wife was never consummated; as, is it possible that a man whose descendants will stand on the Mount Ebol and proclaim: "Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife" [Deut. xxvii. 20], would commit such a crime? But what does the above-cited verse mean? He (Reuben) resented the injustice done his mother and said: "When my mother's sister lived and proved a vexation to my mother, it was bearable; but to have my mother's servant prove a vexation to her, this is unbearable!" Therefore he removed the bed of Bilba from his father's bedroom (which the verse holds tantamount to lying with her). R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: He who maintains that the sons of Eli have sinned is nothing but in error, as it is written [I Samuel, i. 3]: " . . . two sons . . . priests of the Lord." (And if they would have sinned, the verse would not elevate them with such an honor.) [He holds with Rabh's theory farther on; however, he differs from him concerning 'Haphni, for the reason that he is mentioned together with Pinhas in the verse cited.]

Rabh said. Pinhas did not sin, as it is written: "And Ahiya, the son of Ahitub, Ichabad's brother, the son of Pinhas, son of Eli, was priest of the Lord at Shilah" [I Samuel, xiv. 3]. Is it possible that the Scriptures would describe minutely the pedigree of a sinner? Is it not written: "The Lord will cut off, unto the man that doeth this, son and grandson," etc. [Mal. ii. 12]. That was explained to mean, if he be simply an Israelite he shall have here no master among the teachers and no scholar among disciples, and if he is a descendant of priests, he shall have no son who may bring the offering. From this we must conclude that Pinhas is innocent of guilt. Is it not written, however, "sons of Belial" (and thus Pinhas is included)? It was because he should have protested against it, and did not, the Scripture considers it as if he had also sinned.
The same said again: He who thinks the sons of Samuel sinned, is also in error. It is written: "And they did not walk in his ways" [I Sam. viii. 3]. True, they did not walk in His ways, but they sinned not. How, then, is the passage to be upheld: "And they but turned aside after lucre and took bribes"? [ibid., ibid.]. They did not act as their father; for Samuel the righteous travelled through all Israel and dispensed justice in every city, as it is written: "And he went from year to year in circuit to Beth-El and Gilgal and Mizpah, and judged Israel" [ibid. vii. 6]; but they did not act in this way. They dwelt in their respective places in order to increase the fees of their messengers and scribes.

On this point the following Tanaim differ. R. Meir says: They (who were Levites themselves) claimed their priestly allowance personally (and thereby deprived the poor priests and Levites of their shares, for being also judges they were never refused). R. Jehudah says: They had commercial relations with private people (and were sometimes compelled to pervert justice). R. Aqiba says: They took tithes (to a greater extent than they were allowed to do) by force. R. Jossi says: They took by force the (priests') portions (shoulder-blades, jowls, and stomachs of a slaughtered animal).

He said again: "The same error is made concerning David." Said Rabh: Rabbi, who is a descendant of the house of David, endeavored to interpret favorably the passage: "Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord to do what is evil in his eyes?" [II Samuel, xii. 9]. He said: This evil deed is different (in words and language from other evil deeds whereof mention is made in the Scriptures). In all other instances it says, "and he has done," but here it says, "to do." This implies that he "wanted to do" (but did not do). "Uriah the Hittite thou hast slain with the sword" [ibid., ibid.]. (As a rebel) he should have had him tried by the Sanhedrin, which he did not. "And his wife thou hast taken to thee for a wife." He had a right to her, for R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: Whoever went to war with David divorced his wife previously. "Him thou hast slain with the sword (used) for the children of Amon." As he will not be punished on account of the children of Amon, so will he also not be punished for the death of Uriah. What is the reason? He (Uriah) was a rebel.

Said Rabh: "Note well the life of David, and you find nothing blamable save the affair of Uriah, as it is written [I Kings, xv. 5]: "Save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
Abayi the elder has contradicted the above statement of Rabh from his own statement elsewhere that David accepted slander? This difficulty remains. What was it? That which is written [II Samuel, ix. 4]: "And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of 'Ammiël, in (b') Lo-debar"; farther on it is written [ibid. 5]: "And David the king sent, and had him taken out of the house of Machir, the son of 'Ammiël, from (m') Lo-debar." 1 Thus, when David found him "doing something (good)," whereas Ziba informed the King that he was "doing nothing (good)," hence David was convinced that Ziba was a liar; why, then, did David give heed to his slander afterwards, for it is written [ibid. xvi. 3]: "And the king said, And where is thy master's son? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he remaineth at Jerusalem; for he said, To-day will the house of Israel restore unto me the kingdom of my father." But whence the adduction that David accepted slander? From what is written further [ibid. 4]: "Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine shall be all that pertaineth to Mephibosheth. And Ziba said," etc.

Samuel said: David did not accept slander. He (himself) saw in Mephibosheth's conduct that which corroborated Ziba's calumny, as it is written [ibid. xix. 25]: "And Mephibosheth the (grand-)son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had not dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes." (This was considered disrespect); further, it is written [ibid. 28]: "And he slandered thy servant unto my lord the king," etc. and further [ibid. 31]: "And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take the whole, since that my lord the king is come (back) in peace unto his own house." Now, this last verse (read between the lines) really means: "I have anticipated your safe arrival home with anxiety, and since you act toward me in such a manner, I have nothing to complain of to you but to Him who brought you safely back."

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: "Had David not given heed to slander, the kingdom of the house of David would never have been divided, neither would Israel have worshipped idols, nor would we have been exiled from our land."
The same rabbi said: He who believes Solomon guilty of idolatry is in error. This theory agrees with R. Nathan, who points to a contradiction between the two following passages in the very same verse [I Kings, xi. 4]: "And it came to pass, at the time when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart," etc.; and farther on [ibid., ibid.] it says: "Like the heart of David his father." While his heart was not as perfect as that of his father David, still he did not sin. Therefore it must be said that it means, his wives turned away his heart toward idolatry, but still he did not practise it. This is supported by the following Boraitha: R. Jossi said: It is written [II Kings, iii. 13]: "And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were to the right of the mount of destruction, which Solomon the King of Israel had built for Ashthoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians," etc. Is it possible that neither Assa nor Jehosophath had cleared them out before Josiah? Did not Assa and Jehosophath abolish idolatry in Judæa? It follows, then, that as Josiah is given credit by the verse in the Scripture for having abolished the worship of Ashthoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians, although at his time it had been out of existence for a long time, this was done merely because he (Josiah) had abolished other later forms of idolatry; the same rule is followed in the case of Solomon; while he himself did not build the Ashthoreth of the Zidonians, the fact that he did not prevent his wives from doing so makes him responsible in the same measure as if he had committed the deed himself. But is it not written [I Kings, xi. 6]: "And Solomon did what is evil in the eyes of the Lord"? This is also written merely because it was in his power to prevent the actions of his wives, and he did not do so; hence the Scripture ascribes the deed to him, as if he himself had committed it.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It would have been better for him (Solomon) to have been an actual hireling to idolatry than to be accused of doing what is evil in the eyes of the Lord.

Again R. Jehudah said in Samuel's name: At the time Solomon took in wedlock the daughter of Pharaoh, she brought to him about a thousand different musical instruments. Each of these was used for separate idols, which she named to him, and still he did not protest against it.
The same said again in the name of the same authority: At the time Solomon took in wedlock Pharaoh's daughter (the angel) Gabriel came down and planted a cane in the sea; on the sand that accumulated around the cane a great city was afterward built; but in a Boraitha we were taught that the miracle occurred on the day that Jeroboam introduced the two golden calves, one each in Beth-El and Dan, and that great city was Italia of Greece. 1 R. Samuel said: Whoever says Josiah sinned is also in error. It is written [II Kings, xxii. 2]: "And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in the ways of David his father and turned not aside to the right or to the left." Is this not contradictory to the verse [II Kings, xxiii. 25], "that returned to the Lord with all his heart." How is the "returned" to be understood? He must have sinned in order to return? Nay; from this it must be inferred that after Josiah attained the age of eighteen, he refunded from his private purse all amounts paid by such as he had declared guilty (bound to pay) from the time be was eight years old (when he became king). This is the interpretation of "returned to the Lord."

However, this differs from Rabh's following statement: "None is greater among penitents than Josiah in his time and one in our own time. And who is he? Aba, the father of Jeremiah b. Aba. Others say Aha, the brother of Aba, father of Jeremiah b. Aba, for the aforesaid teacher said Aba and Aha were brothers. Said R. Joseph: There is yet another in our own time, and he is Ukban b. Ne'hemiah, the Exilarch. 2 "Once while studying," said R. Joseph, "I dozed off and saw in a dream an angel stretching out his hands and accepting his (Ukban's) repentance."

Footnotes

91:1 See Exodus xx. 10 and Deut. v. 14, where it is prohibited to have cattle perform work on the Sabbath. The Mishna considers the carrying of burdens work and defines what gear constitutes a burden for cattle and what does not.

93:1 Naph'ha is Aramaic for "smith." According to the opinion of Dr. I. M. Wise, the reviser of this Tract in the first edition, Naph'ha refers to the city whence R. Itz'hak came. This was criticised, but we found the same was said by Frankel and many others.

93:2 When any article of apparel, worn by a person or animal while bathing, intervenes between the body and the water, i.e., bars the admission of the water to the body, it constitutes a case of "Chatzitzah."

100:1 Zechuth Aboth is a term implying the benefits bestowed upon men in consideration of the virtues and righteousness of their ancestors, and is based upon the passage in the Bible: "Keeping kindness unto the thousandth generation," etc. [Ex. xxxiv. 7]; and also upon the verse Ex. xxxii. 13.

104:1 The literal translation of the Hebrew word Blo-debar is: he does nothing (good); of Mlo-debar: he is very busy (doing something good). Upon the difference in the two literal meanings of the two words Rabh bases the untruth of Ziba's statement.

106:1 Rashi added to this that the Romans took away this city from the Greeks, and therefore the Roman kingdom is called Italy; we, however, deem it an error, as we have found that such a city is in Greece.

106:2 The text states: "And that is Nathan of Zuzitha and Rashi tried to explain the word Zuzitha "with sparks," or because the angel took him by the Zizith (locks) of his head. We have omitted this because it is proved by Abraham Krochmal in his "Remarks to the Talmud," article "The Chain of the Exilarch," that Ne'hemiah the Exilarch and Nathan the Exilarch were of two different times, many generations apart. (See there.)

CHAPTER VI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHAT GARMENTS (SERVING AS ORNAMENTS) WOMEN MAY GO OUT WITH ON THE SABBATH.

MISHNA I.: In what (ornamental) apparel may a woman go out, and in what may she not go out? A woman is not allowed to go out (even in private ground) either with woollen or linen bands or with straps on her head to keep her hair in tresses (as a precaution lest she enter public ground and take off the bands to show to her friends, thereby becoming guilty of carrying movable property for a distance of four ells or more). Nor is she to bathe herself with the bands on unless loosened. Nor is she to go out with either Totaphoth or Sarbitin on, unless they are fastened; 1 nor with a hood in public ground, nor with gold ornaments, nor with nose-rings, nor with finger-rings that have no seal, nor with pins. But if she did go out with these things, she is not bound to bring a sin-offering (as they are ornaments and not burdens).

GEMARA: "Bathing." Where is bathing referred to (and what has it to do with the Sabbath)? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: The Mishna means to say: What is the reason that a woman is not allowed to go out with either woollen or linen bands? Because the sages have decided that she is not to bathe herself with them on, even on week days, unless loosened; therefore she shall not (go out with them on) on the Sabbath at all, lest it happen that she become in duty bound to bathe herself, 2 and, while untying her hair, be forced to carry the bands in public ground for a distance of four ells or more.

R. Kahana questioned Rabh: "What about a hair-net?—Answered Rabh: "You mean to say a woven one? Everything woven has not been restricted." This was also taught in the name of R. Huna b. R. Joshua. According to others the same said: "I have seen that my sisters were not particular to take it off while bathing." And the difference between the two versions is when it was dirty; according to the first version, it does not matter, as everything woven was not restricted; and the second version, where particularity is the case, if they were dirty, they would certainly be particular to take them off.

An objection was raised from Mishna [Miqvaoth, IX. 8]: "When a person bathes, the following objects cause 'intervention' (Chatzitzah): Woollen and linen bands and headstraps (used by maidens)." R. Jehudah says woollen and hair bands do not cause "intervention," because water soaks through them. (Now we see that although woollen and linen bands are woven, yet they are an intervention.) Said R. Huna: "All this concerns only maidens." (And they are an intervention only because they are particular about it.)

R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah said that Samuel said that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah in the case of hair bands only. Said Abayi: From the expression "the Halakha prevails" we must infer that there is a controversy between R. Jehudah and the Tana of the above Boraitha. (The Tana said nothing about hair bands.) Shall we assume that because R. Jehudah declares hair bands not to be objects of "intervention," he must have heard the previous Tana mention them? Even if such be the case, it is not probable that R. Jehudah heard that the Tana agrees with him on that point, and hence he says: "If he agrees with me on this point, why not in the other instances also?" Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: Read, The sages agree with R. Jehudah with respect to hair bands.

This is supported by a Boraitha. Woollen bands cause intervention, but hair bands do not. R. Jehudah, however, said: "Neither of them causes intervention."

Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It seems to be so from the expression of our Mishna: "A woman may go out with hair bands, be they her own or her friends'." Whose opinion does this Mishna represent? Can we say R. Jehudah's? He permits even woollen bands. We must say it is in accordance with the above rabbis; hence they do not differ as regards hair bands. "Nor with Totaphoth." What are "Totaphoth"? Said R. Joseph: "A balm bandage for sanitary use (Humrate diqetiphta)." 1 Said Abayi to him: "Then let it be permitted as an amulet made by a reliable expert." (During Abayi's time this difficulty was not solved.) R. Jehudah, however, in the name of Abayi said: 2 "It is an Absayim"(a gold ornament). This is supported in the following Boraitha: "A woman may go out with a gilded hair-net, and Totaphoth or Sarbitin when fastened to the hair-net." What are Totaphoth and what Sarbitin? Said R. Abuhu: "The former are bands that reach from ear to ear, and the latter bands that reach from temple to temple." R. Huna said: "The poor make them of all kinds of colored material, and the rich make them of gold or silver." "Nor with a hood." Said R. Yanai: "I cannot understand what kind of a hood the Mishna means; is it a slave's hood that it prohibits and permits a woollen hood, or does it prohibit woollen hoods and so much more slaves' hoods? Said R. Abuhu: It seems that a woollen hood is meant. And so we have learned plainly in the following Boraitha: "A woman may go out with a hood and head ornament in her yard." R. Simeon b. Elazar says: With a hood even in a public ground. "It is a rule," said he, "that anything below the 'Shebha'ha' (hairnet) is permitted to be worn, but anything above it is not. Samuel, however, said the Mishna alludes to the slave's hood.

Did, indeed, Samuel say so? Did he not say the slave may go out with the mark (he wears) around his neck, but not with the mark on his clothes? This presents no difficulty. The former applies to the mark made for him by his master (in which case there is no fear of the slave removing and carrying it), while the latter applies to the mark made by himself. What meaning do you attach to Samuel's statement? If he permits the wearing of the mark on the slave's neck because the master made it and the slave will fear to remove it, could not the master also make the mark on the slave's clothes? Yea, but the slave might lose the mark, and for fear of his master he will fold up his coat and carry it on his shoulders (in public ground). And according to R. Itz'hak b. Joseph it is prohibited. This is also supported by a Boraitha, which teaches us distinctly that the slave may go out with the mark on his neck, but not on his clothes. In like manner Samuel once said to R. Hanina b. Shila: "None of the rabbis that call on the Exilarch should go out with their insignia on their clothes (on the Sabbath) save you. He would not be angry with you were you to go to him without them (hence, not being a necessary burden, you may wear them or not, as you choose)."

The master said: "Not with a bell," etc. Why not? Lest it break off and one may carry it. Then why should the same not be feared in regard to a bell attached to his clothes? Here a bell is treated of that was made by an expert and was woven right in with the cloth. This is also in accord with what R. Huna b. R. Joshua said: "Everything that is woven they did not restrict." "Nor with a golden ornament." What was this golden ornament? Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "A golden (ornament with an engraving of the city of) Jerusalem on it," such as R. Aqiba made for his wife.

The rabbis taught: A woman shall not go out wearing a golden ornament; but if she did so, she becomes liable to bring a sin-offering. So is the decree of R. Meir, but the sages say: She must not go out wearing it; if she did, however, she is not culpable. But R. Eliezer said: A woman may go out wearing a golden ornament to commence with. Wherein do they differ? R. Meir holds it to be a burden, and the rabbis hold it to be an ornament; then why should she not wear it to commence with? Lest she take it off to show it to her friends and thus happen to carry it; but R. Eliezer reasons differently. Who generally go out with such valuable golden ornaments? Prominent women; and prominent women will not remove them for the purpose of exhibiting them to friends.

Rabh prohibits the wearing of a crown-shaped ornament, and Samuel permits it. Both agree that the wearing of a crown-shaped ornament is permissible, as there is no fear that the woman will remove it; where they do differ, however, is as to a golden and jewelled ornament. The former holds that there is fear of her removing it in order to exhibit it, and thus probably happen to carry it, while the latter contends that as only prominent women wear such costly ornaments no fear need be entertained on that score.
Said R. Samuel b. b. Hana to R. Joseph: You distinctly told us in the name of Rabh that an ornament in the shape of a crown may be worn. 1 Levi 2 lectured in Neherdai that a crown-shaped ornament may be worn; whereupon twenty-four women in Neherdai went out with crown-shaped ornaments on.

Rabba b. Abuhu lectured the same in Mehutza, and eighteen women went out of one alley wearing those ornaments.
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "A belt may be worn." Some one said a leather belt (even if jewelled). Said R. Saphra: "Why! Even a golden belt jewelled, for is it not equal to a golden garment?" Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: "How is it with a belt worn over a sash?" Answered R. Ashi: "By this you mean two belts" (and this is prohibited). R. Ashi, however, said: "A sash may be worn only when it is securely fastened, but not otherwise." "Nor with a nose-ring." What is a nose-ring? It is a nose-band. "Nor with finger-rings," etc.; but if the ring have a seal it is prohibited, as it is not an ornament. Is this not contradicted from Kelim, XI. 8? The following ornaments of women are subject to defilement: Chains, nose-rings, rings, finger-rings either with or without a seal, and nose-bands. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "You quote a contradiction in the laws of defilement as against the laws of Sabbath. As for defilement, the Torah requires an utensil [Numbers, xxxi. 20], and such it is; but as for Sabbath, it refers to a burden; hence a ring without a seal is an ornament, with a seal it is a burden (for women)." "Nor with a pin." For what purpose can a pin be used? R. Ada from Narsha explained it before R. Joseph: Women part their hair with it. Of what use is it on Sabbath? Said Rabha: On week days they wear a golden plate on their heads; the pin is used for parting the hair and holding down the plate; but on Sabbath the pin is put against the forehead.
MISHNA II.: One is not to go out with iron-riveted sandals, nor with one (iron-riveted shoe) unless he has a sore on his foot, nor with phylacteries, nor yet with an amulet unless made by a reliable expert, nor with a shield, helmet, or armor for the legs; but if he has gone out (with either of these) he is not liable for a sin-offering.

GEMARA: "Iron-riveted sandal." What is the reason of its being prohibited? Said Samuel: "It happened toward the close of the persecutions (of the Jews) that a party of men hid themselves in a cave with the understanding that after once entering no one was to go out. Suddenly they heard a voice on the outside of the cave, and thinking the enemies were upon them, they began crowding each other into the farthest recesses of the cave. During the panic that ensued more men were trampled to death by the iron-riveted sandals worn by the party than the enemies would have killed. At that time it was enacted that a man must not go out (on Sabbath) with iron-riveted sandals." If this be the reason, let it also be prohibited on week days? Because it occurred on a Sabbath! Then let it be allowed on a festival; why then is it stated that on a festival it must not be sent (Betzah, 26, Mishna)? And furthermore, why is it forbidden on Sabbath? Because the people usually assemble on that day; and the same is the case with a festival. But do they not assemble on a congregational fast—why then should it not be prohibited also then? When the above-mentioned happened it was a prohibited assembly, but all these assemblies are permitted. And even according to R. Hanina b. Aqiba, who said concerning defilement that this prohibition is only in the Jordan in a boat, as the case happened, it is because the Jordan is different in width and depth from other rivers; but Sabbath and a festival are alike as regards labor.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This (the prohibition of the sandals in question) is only with regard to such as are riveted for the sake of durability, but not with regard to such as are riveted for the sake of decoration. How many (rivets are considered to be for the latter purpose)? R. Johanan said five in each. R. Hanina said seven in each. Said R. Johanan to R. Samon b. Aba: "I will explain to you the difference between my opinion and that of R. Hanina. I mean two rivets on each side of the sandal and one in the centre, while he means three on each side and one in the centre. The Gemara declared that R. Hanina is in accordance with R. Nathan, who permits seven; and R. Johanan is in accordance with R. Nohorai, who permits only five. And Aipha said to Rabba b. b. Hana: "Ye who are the disciples of R. Johanan may act according to him; we, however, are acting in accordance with R.

Hanina." R. Huna questioned R. Ashi: "How is the law if there were five?" And he said: "Even seven is permitted." "And how is it if there were nine?" And he rejoined: "Even eight is prohibited. A certain shoemaker asked of R. Ami: "How is it if the sandal is sewed from the inside?" He answered: "I have heard that it is permitted, but I can give you no reason." Said R. Ashi: "Does master not know the reason? Being sewed from the inside, it is no longer a sandal but a shoe; and the rabbis' precaution was against the riveted sandal, but not in regard to shoes."

There is a Boraitha: One must not go out with an iron-riveted sandal and shall not walk in them from one room to another, not even from one bed to another (in the same room); but it may be handled to cover vessels with or to support one of the bed-stands with. R. Elazar b. Simeon prohibits even this, unless the majority of rivets fell out and but four or five remain. Rabbi limits the permission to seven (rivets). If the soles are made of leather and the uppers are riveted, it is permitted. If the rivets are made like hooks, or are flat-headed, or pointed, or pierce through the sandal to protect the sole, it is permitted.

R. Massna, others say R. Ahadboy b. Massna in the name of R. Massna, said: "The Halakha does not prevail in accordance with Elazar b. Simeon." Is this not self-evident? When one individual opinion conflicts with a majority, the opinion of the majority prevails. Lest one suppose that, because R. Elazar b. Simeon gave a reason for his statement, should it be accepted, he comes to teach us that it is not so.
Said R. Hyya: "Were I not called a Babylonian, who permits what is prohibited, I would permit considerably more. How many? In Pumbeditha they say twenty-four, and in Sura they say twenty-two." Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "It seems by your remark that on the road from Pumbeditha to Sura you lost two." "Nor with one," etc. But if his foot is sore he may go out. On which foot may he wear the shoe? On the foot that is sore (for protection).
The rabbis taught: When one puts on his shoes he should commence with the right shoe; when he takes them off he should commence with the left. When one bathes he should wash the right side first; when he anoints himself he should anoint the right side first, and whoever anoints the whole body should commence with the head, for the head is the king of all the members (of the body). "Nor with phylacteries;" but if he went out with them on, he is not liable for a sin-offering. Said R. Saphra: This is not only in accordance with him who holds Sabbath is a day for (wearing) phylacteries, but it is even in accordance with him who holds that it is not. What is the reason? Because phylacteries are put on in the same manner as a garment. "And not with an amulet," etc. Said R. Papa: "Do not presume that both the maker and the amulet must be reliable; it is sufficient if the maker only is reliable." So it seems to be from the statement in the Mishna: "And not with an amulet that was not made by a reliable expert." It does not say with a reliable amulet.

The rabbis taught: Which are to be considered such? If they have cured three times, no matter whether they contained inscriptions (of mystic forms) or (certain) medicaments. If the amulet is for a sickness, be it serious or not, or if it is for one afflicted with epilepsy, or only serves as a preventive, one may fasten or unfasten it even in public ground, provided he does not fasten the amulet to a bracelet or a finger-ring, to go out with it in public ground, lest those who see it think that it is being worn as an ornament. Did not a Boraitha state that only such amulets as cured three different parties are reliable? This presents no difficulty. Here we are taught as to the reliability of the expert who made the amulet, while in the latter Boraitha we are taught as to the reliability of the amulet itself.

Said R. Papa: It is certain to me that where three different amulets were given to three different (human) sufferers at three different times (and a cure was effected), both the amulets and the expert who made them are reliable. Where three different amulets were given to three different sufferers only once, the expert is reliable, but not the amulets. Where one and the same amulet was given to three different sufferers, the amulet is reliable, but not the expert; but how is it with three different amulets given to one man for three different diseases? Certainly, the amulets are not reliable (for each cured only once), but how is it with the expert? Should he be considered reliable or not? If we say that the expert cured him, perhaps it was only the fate of the sufferer that he should be cured by a script? This question remains.
The schoolmen propounded a question: Is there any sanctity in an amulet or not? For what purpose are we to know this? In order to enter a privy; if there is any sanctity in the amulet this would not be allowed, otherwise it would.

Come and hear. We have learned in a Mishna: "Not with an amulet unless made by a reliable expert." From this we see that if made by a reliable expert one may go out with it. Now, if we say that there is sanctity in the amulet, how can we say that one may go out with it? Perhaps he shall be compelled to enter a privy, he will have to take it off, and thus be forced to carry it four ells or more in public ground.

MISHNA III.: A woman shall not go out with an ornamental needle (with a hole in), nor with a ring that has a seal, nor with a Kulear, nor with a Kabeleth, nor with a perfume bottle. And if she does, she is liable for a sin-offering. Such is the opinion of R. Meir. The sages, however, freed her in the case of the two latter.

GEMARA: Said Ulla: "With men it is (concerning a finger-ring) just the reverse." That is to say, Ulla is of the opinion that what is right for women is not right for men, and what is right for men is not right for women. Said R. Joseph: "Ulla is of the opinion that women form a class of their own." Rabha, however, says it often happens that a man gives his wife a ring with a seal on, to put away in a box, and she puts it on her finger until she comes to the box; again, it happens that a wife gives her husband a ring without a seal for the purpose of having him give it to a jeweller to repair, and until he comes to the jeweller he puts it on his finger. Thus it happens that a woman may wear a man's ring and a man a woman's (temporarily).

What is Kabeleth? Cachous (for purifying the breath). The rabbis taught: A, woman must not go out with Kabeleth, and if she did so she is liable for a sin-offering. This is the opinion of R. Meir, but the sages say she should not go out with it, yet if she does she is not liable. R. Eliezer, however, says she may go out with it to commence with. Wherein do they differ? R. Meir holds that it is a burden, the sages that it is an ornament; and the reason that she should not go out with it is lest she take it off to show to her friends, and thus perchance carry it in her hand. R. Eliezer, however, permits it to be carried to commence with, because, said he, who generally carry such? Women whose breath emits a bad odor, and surely they will not take them off to show them, hence there is no apprehension that they will carry them four ells or more on public ground.

There is a Boraitha: "A woman must not go out with a key in her hand, nor with a box of cachous, nor with a perfume bottle; and if she goes out with them, she is liable for a sin-offering." So is the decree of R. Meir, but R. Eliezer freed her, provided the box contains cachous, and the bottle perfume; but if they are empty, she is liable (for then there is a burden). Said R. Ada b. Ahaba: "From this we may infer that one carrying less than the prescribed quantity of food in a vessel on public ground is culpable, as it states if there was no cachou or perfume, which is equal to a vessel containing less than the prescribed amount of food, she is liable. Hence it makes her liable even if less than the prescribed quantity. Said R. Ashi: Generally one may be freed, but here it is different; the box and the bottle themselves are considered a burden.

We read in the Scripture [Amos, vi. 6]: "And anoint themselves with the costliest of ointments." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "This signifies perfumery."

R. Joseph objected: "R. Jehudah b. Baba said that after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem the sages prohibited even the use of perfumes, but the rabbis did not concur in the decree. If we say perfume used only for pleasure, why did not the rabbis concur?" Abayi answered: According to your mode of reasoning, even drinking wine from bowls (bocals) is prohibited, for it is written further [ibid., ibid.]: "Those that drink wine from bowls." R. Ami said, that certainly means bocals, but R. Assi claimed that it means they clinked glasses one with another. Still Rabba b. R. Huna once happened to be at the house of the Exilarch and drank wine out of a bocal, but was not rebuked. It is, therefore, thus to be understood: The rabbis restricted only such pleasures as were combined with rejoicing, but not pleasures unaccompanied with rejoicing.
Said R. Abuhu: Others say we were taught in a Boraitha: "Three things bring man to poverty: Urinating in front of one's bed when naked; carelessness in washing one's hands; and permitting one's wife to curse him in his presence." Said Rabha: "Urinating in front of one's bed should be understood to signify 'turning around so as to face the bed and then urinating,' but not turning in the opposite direction; and even when facing the bed it signifies only urinating on the floor in front of the bed and not in a urinal.' Carelessness in washing one's hand signifies "not washing one's hands at all," but not insufficient washing, for R. Hisda said: "I washed my hands well and plentifully and am plentifully rewarded." Permitting one's wife to curse him in his presence implies "for not bringing her jewelry," and then only when one is able to do so but does not.

Rahava said in the name of R. Jehudah: The trees of Jerusalem were cinnamon trees, and when used for fuel the odor extended over all the land of Israel; ever since the destruction of the second Temple the cinnamon trees disappeared; but a morsel as big as a barleycorn is still to be found in the treasury of the Kingdom of Zimzimai.

MISHNA IV.: One must not go out with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he does so he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him, but the sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah, ii. 4]: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Knee-buckles are clean and one may go out with them on the Sabbath. Stride chains are subject to defilement, and one must not go out with them on the Sabbath.

GEMARA: "R. Eliezer says they are ornaments." There is a Boraitha: The sages said unto R. Eliezer: If the weapons are ornaments to man, why will they cease to exist in the post-messianic period? He answered: "They will exist then also." This is in accordance with the opinion of Samuel, who said there will be no difference between the present time and the post-messianic period save the obedience to temporal potentates, for it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: "For the needy will not cease out of the land."

Said Abayi, according to others R. Joseph, to R. Dimi or to R. Ivia, and according to still others, Abayi said directly to R. Joseph: What is the reason of R. Eliezer's theory regarding weapons? It is written [Psalms, xlv. 4]: "Gird thy sword upon thy thighs, O Most Mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty."
Said R. Kahana to Mar, the son of R. Huna: Is not this passage applied to the study of the Law (Torah)? And he answered: "Anything may be inferred from a passage; at the same time, the passage must not be deprived of its common sense." Said R. Kahana: "I am fourscore years old and have studied the six sections of the Mishna with their explanations through, and did not know until now that a scriptural passage has first to be interpreted in its plainest form!" What information does he mean to convey to us by this assertion? That man has to study the Law through first, and then reason upon it.

R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Elazar said: Two scholars who debate in the Law (not for controversy's sake), the Holy One, blessed be He, causes them to prosper; moreover, they become exalted, for it is written [Psalms, xlv. 5], "be prosperous." But lest one say that this would be the case even if they (debate), not for the purpose (of studying the Law), therefore it says further [ibid., ibid.], "because of truth." Again, one might say that the same would be the case even if one became arrogant and conceited. Therefore it says further [ibid., ibid.], "and meekness and righteousness." And if they act humbly they will be rewarded with (the knowledge of) the Law, which was given with the right hand (of God), as it is further written [ibid.], "and thy right hand shall teach thee fearful things."

R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak says they will be rewarded with the knowledge of what is said of the right hand of the Law, for Rabha b. R. Shila, according to others R. Joseph b. Hama in the name of R. Shesheth, said: How is to be explained the passage [Proverbs, iii. 16]: "Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left riches and honor"? Shall one say that in the right hand is only length of days, but not riches and honor? Common sense does not dictate so; therefore it must be interpreted thus: For those who study the Torah in the right way there is long life, and so much the more riches and honor; but for those who study it not in the right way, riches and honor there may be, but not long life.
Said R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: Two scholars who quietly discourse on the Torah among themselves, the Holy One, blessed be He, hearkens unto them and listens to their desires, for it is written [Malachi, iii. 16]: "Then conversed they that fear the Lord one with the other," etc. Conversed means conversed quietly, as it is written [in Psalms, xlvii. 4]: "He will subdue (quiet) people under us." (Subdue and converse are expressed by the same terms in the two passages, hence the similitude. 1) What is meant by the words "that thought upon His name"? Said R. Ami: "Even when one intended to observe a commandment, but was accidentally prevented and could not accomplish it, it is credited to him as if he had actually observed it." Thus the passage "thought upon His name" is interpreted.

Said R. Hanina b. Ide: Whosoever observes a commandment as prescribed, will not be the recipient of bad tidings, for it is written [Eccl. viii. 5]: "Whoso keepeth the commandment will experience no evil thing." R. Assi, others say R. Hanina, said: "Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, has so decreed it (that he shall experience evil things) the decree is annulled through the prayers of this man, as it is written [ibid. 4]: "Because the word of a king is powerful, and who may say unto him, what doest thou?' and this immediately followed by the passage: 'Whoso keepeth the commandment will experience no evil thing.'"

R. Aba in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Two scholars who mutually instruct themselves in the Law, the Holy One, blessed be He, hearkens to their voices, for it is written [Song of Solomon, viii. 13]: "Thou that dwellest in the gardens, the companions listen for thy voice; oh, let me hear it"; but if they do not do so, they cause the Shekhina to move away from Israel, for further it is written [ibid. 14]: "Flee away, my beloved," etc.

The same in the name of the same authority said: The Holy One, blessed be He, loves two scholars who combine to study the Law, for it is written [Solomon's Song, ii. 4]: "And his banner over me was love." Said Rabha: "Provided they know something of Law, but have no instructor to teach them at the place where they reside."

The same said again: "The man who lends his money is more deserving than the charitable man, and the most deserving of all is he who gives charity surreptitiously or invests money in partnership (with the poor)." Furthermore he said: "If thy teacher is jealous (for thy welfare) and as spiteful as a serpent (if thou neglect thy studies), carry him on thy shoulders (because from him thou wilt learn), and if an ignoramus plays the pious, do not live in his neighborhood."
R. Kahana, according to others R. Assi, and according to still others R. Abba in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, said: "Whoso raises a vicious dog in his house prevents charity to proceed therefrom (for the poor are afraid to go in as it is written [Job, vi. 14]: "As though I were one who refuseth kindness to a friend." ("As though I were one who refuseth" is expressed in Hebrew by one word, viz., lamos; in Greek λαμος means dog, 1 and hence R. Simeon's inference.) Said R. Na'hman: "He even forsaketh the fear of the Lord," for it is written at the end of the verse [ibid., ibid.]: "And forsaketh the fear of the Lord."

Once a woman went into a certain house to bake, and a dog, through barking at her, caused her to have a miscarriage. Said the landlord of the house "Fear him not, I have deprived him of his teeth and claws"; but the woman answered: "Throw thy favors to the dogs, the child is already gone!"
Said R. Huna: It is written [Eccl. xi. 9]: "Rejoice, oh young man, in thy childhood, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youthful vigor, and walk firmly in the ways of thy heart and in the direction in which thy eyes see; but know thou that concerning all these things God will bring thee into judgment." (Does not this passage contradict itself? Nay.) Up to the words "and know" are words of the misleader, and from there on are words of the good leader. Resh Lakish said up to "(and) know" the theoretical part of the law is meant, and from there on it speaks of good acts. "Knee-buckles are clean," etc. Said R. Jehudah: This (birith) means arm-bandages. To this R. Joseph objected: "We have learned that a birith is (virtually) clean, and one may go out with it on the Sabbath. If it is an arm-band, how can that be? The latter is subject to defilement." It means that the birith is worn on the same part of the leg as the arm-bandage on the arm.
Rabbin and R. Huna sat before R. Jeremiah, who slumbered, and Rabbin said: "A birith is worn on one of the thighs and kebalim on both shins." But R. Huna said both are worn on both shins, but the chain attached to the birith on both shins is called kebalim, and the chain makes them a perfect vessel. At this point of the argument R. Jeremiah awoke and said: "I thank you. Even so I heard R. Johanan say. "When R. Dimi came to Neherdai, he sent to tell the sages: My former information in the name of R. Johanan that the Tzitz was a woven thing was an error, as so was said in his name. Whence the adduction that any ornament is subject to becoming defiled? From the Tzitz, the golden plate on the forehead of the High Priest. And whence the adduction that textile fabrics are also subject to becoming defiled? From the passage [Lev. xi. 32], "or" raiment, which includes any textile fabrics whatsoever.

The rabbis taught: "Any piece of textile fabric or any trifle of an ornament is subject to defilement." But how is it with an article which is half texture and half ornament? It is also subject to defilement. As for an ornament which is carried in a bag, the bag being of woven material becomes defiled and with it the ornament, but if the ornament was carried in a piece of cloth, the cloth remains undefiled. Is a piece of cloth not a textile fabric? Yea, but by that is meant that the bag, even if not made of textile fabric, becomes defiled, because it is attached to the garment. What is a bag used for? Said R. Johanan: Poor people use them for the purpose of putting some trifles in them and then hang them on the necks of their daughters.

It is written "And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host" [Numb. xxxi. 14]. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: "Thus said Moses unto Israel: 'Have ye then returned to your first sin (that ye have let the females live)?'" They answered him [ibid. 49]: "Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war who have been under our command, and there lacketh not one man of us" (implying that none had sinned). Said Moses again: "If such be the case, why need ye atonement?" They answered: "Though we have strengthened ourselves to keep aloof from sin, we could not put it out of our minds. We have therefore [ibid. 50] brought an oblation unto the Lord." On this the school of R. Ishmael taught: Why did the Israelites of that generation require forgiveness? Because they had feasted their eyes on strange women.

MISHNA V.: A woman may go out with plaits of hair, be they made of her own hair or of another woman or of an animal; with Totaphoth or Sarbitin if fastened. 1 With a hood or with a wig in her yard (private ground); with cotton wadding in her ear or in her shoe; or with cotton wadding prepared for her menstruation; with a grain of pepper or of salt, or with whatever else she may be accustomed to keep in her mouth, provided she does not put it in her mouth on the Sabbath to commence with; if it fell out of her mouth she must not replace it. As for a metal or golden tooth, Rabbi permits a woman to go out with it, but the sages prohibit it.

GEMARA: It has been taught: "Provided a young woman does not go out with (plaits of hair belonging to) an old woman; nor an old woman with plaits of hair belonging to a young woman." So far as an old woman is concerned, it would be nothing but right, for the plaits of a young woman would be a source of pride to her (and there is fear of her taking them off to show to others); but why should a young woman be prohibited to go out with plaits belonging to an old woman? They are a disgrace to her (and surely she would not take them off for exhibition)! The teacher while treating on plaits with respect to an old woman also makes mention of the case of a young woman (for the sake of antithesis). "With a hood or a wig in her yard." Said Rabh: "Everything prohibited by the sages to be worn on public ground must not be worn in the yard, save a hood and a wig." R. Anani b. Sasson in the name of R. Ishmael said: "Everything may be worn in the yard like a hood. But why does Rabh discriminate in favor of these objects?" Said Ulla: "In order that she may not become repulsive to her husband." "And with cotton in her ears or in her shoes." Romi b. Ezekiel taught only when tied to her ears or her shoes. "And cotton wadding prepared for her menstruation." "In this case," said Rabha, even if it is not tied it may be worn, because, being disgusting, it will not be handled." R. Jeremiah b. R. Abba questioned Rabha: "How is it if the same was prepared with a handle?" And he answered: "Then it is also allowed." And so also it was taught by R. Na'hman b. Oshia in the name of R. Johanan.

R. Johanan went to the college with cotton wadding in his ears on Sabbath, and his colleagues objected to it. R. Joni went into unclaimed ground with it against the opinion of all his contemporaries. "With a grain of pepper or a grain of salt." The former to take away any bad odor of the breath and the latter as a remedy for toothache. "Or with whatever else she is accustomed to keep in her mouth," meaning ginger or cinnamon. "A metal or a gilt tooth," etc. Said R. Zera: They differ concerning a gold tooth only, for a silver tooth is unanimously permitted. And so we have learned plainly in a Boraitha. Said Abayi: Rabbi, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon b. Elazar, all three agree to the opinion that anything provoking disgust (or ridicule) a woman will not wear for show: Rabbi, as just cited; R. Eliezer, as he freed a woman bearing a box of cachous or a perfume bottle; R. Simeon b. Elazar, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "Anything below the hair-net is permitted to be worn outside."

MISHNA VI.: Women may go out with a coin fastened to a swelling on their feet; little girls may go out with laces on and even with screws in their ears. Arabians may go out in their long veils and Medians in their mantillas; so may even all women go out, but the sages spoke of existing customs. She may fold her mantilla around a stone, nut, or a coin (used as buttons), provided she does it not especially on the Sabbath.

GEMARA: "Little girls may go out with laces." The father of Samuel did not permit his daughters to go out with laces nor to sleep together; he made bathing-places for them during the month of Nissan, and curtains during the month of Tishri. "He did not permit them to go out with laces?" Were we not taught that girls may go out with laces? The daughters of Samuel's father wore colored (fancy) laces and (lest they, take them off to show to others) he did not permit them to go out with them. "Fold her mantilla around a stone," etc. But did not the first part (of the Mishna) say that she may fold it, etc.? Said Abayi, the last part of the Mishna has reference to a coin (which is not permitted). Abayi questioned: May a woman fold her mantilla on Sabbath shrewdly around a nut for the purpose of bringing it to her little son? And this question is according to both; to him who permits subtilty in case of fire, and also according to him who forbids it. According to him who permits it, it may be that only in case of fire he permits, as if it were not allowed, he would extinguish it; but this is not the case here. And according to him who prohibits it, it may be that he does so because the clothing seller usually so bears the clothes; but here, as it is not the custom to bear it so, it may be that it is permitted? The question remains.

MISHNA VII.: The cripple may go out with his wooden leg; such is the decree of R. Meir, but R. Jossi prohibits it. If the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads, it is subject to defilement. Crutches are subject to defilement by being sat or trodden upon; 1 but one may go out with them on Sabbath and enter the outer court (of the Temple). The chair and crutches of a paralytic are subject to defilement, and one must not go out with them on the Sabbath nor enter the outer court (of the Temple). Stilts are not subject to defilement, but nevertheless one must not go out with them on Sabbath.

GEMARA: Rabha said to R. Na'hman: How are we to accept the teaching of the Mishna? Did R. Meir permit the cripple to go out with a wooden leg on the Sabbath and R. Jossi prohibit his doing so, or vice versa? Answered R. Na'hman: "I know not." "And how shall the Halakha prevail?" Answered R. Na'hman again: "I know not." It was taught: Samuel and also R. Huna begin the Mishna: "A cripple shall not," etc. And R. Joseph said: "As both sages read the Mishna so, we shall do the same." Rabha b. Shira, however, opposed: "Was he not aware that when R. Hanon b. Rabha taught so to Hyya, the son of Rabh, the father showed him with the movement of his hands to change the names? In reality Samuel himself has also receded from the former teaching, and has corrected: "A cripple may go out," so is the decree of R. Meir. [Hamoth, 101a.] "And must not enter the outer court," etc. A Tana taught before R. Johanan that one may go in with them in the outer court. Said R. Johanan to him: I teach that a woman may perform the "Chalitza" 2 with them (hence they are considered shoes), and you say he may go in with them to the outer court. Go and teach the contrary.

MISHNA VIII.: Boys may go out with bands and princes with golden belts; so may every one else, but the sages adduce their instances from existing customs.

GEMARA: What kinds of bands? Said Ada Mari in the name of R. Na'hman b. Baruch, who said in the name of R. Ashi b. Abhin, quoting R. Jehudah: "Wreaths of Puah roots." Said Abayi: "My mother told me that three of such wreaths give relief (in sickness), five of them produce a complete cure, and seven of them are even proof against witchcraft."
Said R. Aha b. Jacob: "And this only if they (the wreaths) have never seen sun, moon, or rain; never heard a hammer fall or a cock crow or the fall of footsteps."
Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "Thy bread is cast upon the deep" (meaning the remedy is an impossibility). 1 The rabbis taught: (Women) may go out with a Kutana stone (to prevent miscarriage) on the Sabbath. It was said in the name of R. Meir that they may even go out with the counterpoise of a Kutana stone, and not only such (women) as have already once miscarried, but even as a preventive to miscarriage, and not only when a woman is pregnant, but lest she become pregnant and miscarry. Said R. Jemar b. Shalmia in the name of Abayi: But the counterpoise must be an exact one and made in one piece.
MISHNA IX.: It is permitted to go out with eggs of grasshoppers or with the tooth of a fox or a nail from the gallows where a man was hanged, as medical remedies. Such is the decision of R. Meir, but the sages prohibit the using of these things even on week days, for fear of imitating the Amorites. 2 GEMARA: The eggs of grasshoppers as a remedy for toothache; the tooth of a fox as a remedy for sleep, viz., the tooth of a live fox to prevent sleep and of a dead one to cause sleep; the nail from the gallows where a man was hanged as a remedy for swelling. "As medical remedies," such is the decision of R. Meir. Abayi and Rabha both said: "Anything (intended) for a medical remedy, there is no apprehension of imitating the Amorites; hence, if not intended as a remedy there is apprehension of imitating the Amorites? But were we not taught that a tree which throws off its fruit, it is permitted to paint it and lay stones around it? It is right only to lay stones around it in order to weaken its strength, but what remedy is painting it? Is it not imitating the Amorites? (Nay) it is only that people may see it and pray for mercy. We have learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Leviticus, xiii. 45]: "Unclean, unclean, shall he call out." (To what purpose?) That one must make his troubles known to his fellow-men, that they may pray for his relief.
Rabhina. said: The hanging up of a cluster of dates on a date tree (as a sign that the tree throws off its fruit) is in accordance with the above-mentioned teacher.

If one says: "Kill this cock, for he crowed at night; or kill this hen, for she crowed like a cock; or I will drink and leave a little over," because of superstition, there is apprehension that he imitate the Amorites; but one may put a splinter of "Tuth" 1 or a piece of glass in a pot, that it may boil the quicker. The sages, however, prohibited pieces of glass as being dangerous. The rabbis taught: One may throw a handful of salt in a lamp that it may burn the brighter, or loam and fragments of earthenware that it may burn more slowly. The saying "to your health" at wine-drinking is no imitation of the customs of the Amorites. It happened that R. Aqiba gave a banquet in honor of his son, and at every cup that he drank he said: "To the wine in the mouth and to the health of the sages and their disciples."

Footnotes

107:1 In the Mishna the Hebrew word for "fastened" is "Tephurim," literally meaning "sewed" or "embroidered"; i.e., the Totaphoth and Sarbitin as worn by the wealthy were ornaments made of gold or silver with inscriptions engraved on them, but the poor made them of various colored materials (as explained in the Gemara farther on) and embroidered the inscriptions on them. The prohibition of the Mishna therefore refers only to the wearing of such ornaments before the inscriptions were either engraved or embroidered on them. Such is our explanation in our History of Amulets," pp. 11-15.

107:2 After menstruation. See Leviticus, xv.

109:1 For the explanation of Humrate diqetiphta see our "History of Amulets," p. 14.

109:2 This R. Jehudah is probably R. Jehudah of Diphta, for the R. Jehudah generally cited died on the day of Abayi's birth. See our "History of Amulets," etc.

111:1 R. Joseph passed through a severe illness and at times forgot his own teachings hence it sometimes occurred that he was reminded of them by his disciples.

111:2 Here is omitted the legend about Levi, as the proper place for it is in Kethuboth, 103b, and it will be translated there.

118:1 The words conversed and subdue in the two passages are expressed in Hebrew by "Nidberu" and "Yadber." Both are derived from the root Dibur = to speak quietly.

120:1 R. Simeon b. Lakish was a Palestinian and knew the Greek language.

121:1 See note to preceding Mishna.

124:1 Wherever the expression "subject to defilement by being sat or trodden upon" occurs in the Talmud it refers to being sat or trodden upon by a person afflicted with venereal diseases.

124:2 See the law of Chalitza [Deut. xxv. 9].

125:1 The text continues with different quack remedies for sickness, melancholy, and other things which are neither important nor translatable, and therefore omitted.

125:2 See Leviticus, xviii. 3 and 30, where the imitating of the customs of the Canaanites and Amorites is forbidden.

126:1 Zilla, according to the commentary of Malkhi Zedek, which means "a smooth shrubby herb, of the mustard family."

CHAPTER VII.

THE GENERAL RULE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL ACTS OF LABOR ON SABBATH . MISHNA I.: A general rule was laid down respecting the Sabbath. One who has entirely forgotten the principle of (keeping) the Sabbath and performed many kinds of work on many Sabbath days, is liable to bring but one sin-offering. He, however, who was aware of the principle of Sabbath, but (forgetting the day) committed many acts of labor on Sabbath days, is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for each and every Sabbath day (which he has violated). One who knew that it was Sabbath and performed many kinds of work on different Sabbath days (not knowing that such work was prohibited), is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for every principal act of labor committed. One who committed many acts all emanating from one principal act is liable for but one sin-offering.
GEMARA: What is the reason that the Mishna uses the expression "a general rule"? Shall we assume that it means to teach us a subordinate rule in the succeeding Mishna, and the same is the case with the Mishna concerning the Sabbatical year, where at first a general rule is taught and the subsequent Mishnas teach a subordinate rule? Why does the Mishna relating to tithes teach one rule and the succeeding Mishna another, but does not call the first rule a "general rule"? Said R. Jose b. Abbin: Sabbath and the Sabbatical years, in both of which there are principals and derivatives, he expresses a general rule; tithes, however, in which there are no principals and derivatives, no general rule was laid down. But did not Bar Kapara teach us a general rule also in tithes? It must be therefore explained thus: The subject of Sabbath is greater than Sabbatical, as the first applies to attached and detached things, while the Sabbatical applies only to attached ones. The subject of the latter, however, is greater than tithes, as it applies to human and cattle food; while tithes applies only to human food. And Bar Kapara teaches a general rule in tithes also, because it is greater than peah (corner tithe), as the former applies also to figs and herbs, which is not the case with peah.

It was taught concerning the statement of the Mishna: He who forgot, etc., that Rabh and Samuel both said: Even a child that was captured by idolaters or a proselyte who remained among idolaters is regarded as one who was aware of the principle, but forgot it and is liable; and both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish said that the liability falls only upon him who was aware, but subsequently forgot; the child and the proselyte in question are considered as if they were never aware, and are free.
An objection was raised from the following: A general rule was laid down concerning the observation of the Sabbath. One who had entirely forgotten the principle of Sabbath, and had performed many kinds of work on many Sabbath days, is liable for but one sin-offering. How so? A child which was captured by idolaters and a proselyte remaining with idolaters, who had performed many acts of labor on different Sabbaths, are liable for but one sin-offering; and also for the blood or (prohibited) fats which he has consumed during the whole time, and even for worshipping idols during the whole time, he is liable for only one sin-offering. Munbaz, however, frees them entirely. And thus did he discuss before R. Aqiba: Since the intentional transgressor and the unintentional are both called sinners, I may say: As an intentional one cannot be called so unless he was aware that it is a sin, the same is the case with an unintentional, who cannot be called sinner unless he was at some time aware that this is a sin (it is true, then, the above must be considered as never having been aware of it). Said R. Aqiba to, him: "I will make an amendment to your decree, as the intentional transgressor cannot be considered as such unless he is cognizant of his guilt at the time of action, so also should not the unintentional transgressor be considered as such unless he is cognizant at the time of action." Answered Munbaz: "So it is, and the more so after your amendment." Thereupon R. Aqiba replied: "According to your reasoning, one could not be called an unintentional transgressor, but an intentional." Hence it is plainly stated: "How so? A child," etc. This is only in accordance with Rabh and Samuel, and it contradicts R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish. They may say: "Is there not a Tana Munbaz, who freed them? We hold with him and with his reason, namely: It is written [Numb. xv. 29]: "A law shall be for you, for him that acteth through ignorance," and the next verse says [ibid. 30], "but the person that doeth aught with a high hand." The verse compares then the ignorant to him who has acted intentionally; and as the latter cannot be guilty unless he was aware of his sin, the same is the case with the ignorant, who cannot be considered guilty unless he was at some time aware of the sin.

Another objection was raised from a Mishna farther on: "Forty less one are the principal acts of labor." And deliberating for what purpose the number is taught, said R. Johanan: For that, if one performed them all through forgetfulness, he is liable for each of them. How is such a thing (as utter forgetfulness) to be imagined? We must assume that although cognizant of the (day being) Sabbath, one forgot which acts of labor (were prohibited). And this is correct only in accordance with R. Johanan, who holds: "If one is ignorant of what acts of labor constitute (sin punishable with) Karath (being 'cut off'), and commits one of those acts even intentionally, he is bound to bring a sin-offering only." And such an instance can be found in case one knows that those acts of labor were prohibited, at the same time being ignorant of that punishment which is Karath. But according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, who holds that one must be totally ignorant of both the punishment of Karath and what acts are prohibited on Sabbath, how can the above case be found? He was aware that Sabbath must be kept. But what was he aware of in the observance of Sabbath? He only knew of the law governing the going outside of the boundaries of the city.

But who is the Tana of the following Boraitha? The scriptural passage, "Him that acteth through ignorance," refers to one who was ignorant both of the (principle of) Sabbath and the prohibition of the acts of labor. One who was cognizant of both is referred to by the Scriptures as "the person that doeth aught with a high hand." If one, however, was cognizant of the (principle of) Sabbath, but not of the prohibition of the acts of labor, or vice versa, or even if he knew that the acts of labor were prohibited, but did not know that they involved culpability requiring a sin-offering (while he is not the scriptural man "that acteth through ignorance"), still he is culpable of a transgression requiring a sin-offering? It is Munbaz mentioned above.

R. Huna said: One who has been travelling in a desert and does not know what day is Sabbath, must count six days from the day (on which he realizes) that he has missed the Sabbath, and observe the seventh. Hyya b. Rabh said: He must observe that very day and then continue his counting from that day. And what is the point of their differing? The former holds that one must act in accordance with the creation (which commenced six days before the Sabbath), while the latter holds that one must be guided by Adam's creation (on the eve of Sabbath). An objection was made: "If a man while travelling in a desert forgot when the Sabbath arrives, he must count 'one day to six' and then observe the seventh. Does this not mean he must count six days and then observe the seventh?" Nay; it may be said that it means that very day, and continue his counting from that day. If this be the case, why are we taught "he must count one to six"? It should be taught (plainly) he must observe a day and continue counting from that day. Moreover, we were taught in a Boraitha: "If one while travelling in the desert forgot when the Sabbath arrives, he must count six days and observe the seventh." The objection to R. Hyya b. Rabh is sustained.

Rabha said (referring to the traveller who forgot the Sabbath): "On every day, except the one on which he realizes that he has missed the Sabbath, he may perform enough labor to sustain himself." But one that should do nothing and die (of hunger)? Nay; only in case he provided himself with his necessaries on the preceding day. Perhaps the preceding day was Sabbath. Therefore read: he may labor even on that day to sustain himself. In what respects is that day, then, to be distinguished from other days? By means of Kiddush and Habhdalah. 1 Said Rabha again: "If he only recollects the number of days he has been travelling, he may labor all day on the eighth day of his journey, in any event" (for he surely did not start on his journey on a Sabbath). Is this not self-evident?

Lest one say that one would not only not start out on the Sabbath, but also not on the day before Sabbath; hence, if he went out on the fifth day of the week, he is permitted to work on both the eighth and ninth days of his journey. Therefore he comes to teach us that only on the eighth day of his journey would he be permitted to work, for frequently one comes upon a caravan on Friday and starts out even on that day. "One who has entirely forgotten," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: "There are two verses in the Scripture, viz. [Exod. xxxi. 16]: 'And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,' and [Lev. xix. 3]: 'And my Sabbaths shall ye keep.' How is this to be explained?" The first means the observance of the commandment of Sabbath generally, and the second means one observance of the commandment for each Sabbath.

"One who knew (the principle of) Sabbath." What is the reason of a difference between the former and the latter part of the Mishna? Said R. Na'hman: For what transgression does the Scripture make one liable for a sin-offering? For what is done through ignorance? In the former part of the Mishna the case of one who was not aware that it was Sabbath is dealt with, and hence only one sin-offering is imposed, while in the latter the case dealt with is of one who was aware that it was Sabbath, but ignorant as to the acts of labor, hence a sin-offering for each act is prescribed. "Liable for a sin-offering," etc. Whence do we deduce the distinction between acts of labor? Said Samuel: It is written [Exod. xxxi. 14]: "Every one that defileth it shall be surely put to death." We see, then, that the Scripture has provided many deaths 1 for defiling the Sabbath.

But does not the verse refer to one who violates the Sabbath wantonly? As it cannot be applied to an intentional violator, for it is already written [Exod. xxxv. 2]: Whosoever doeth work thereon shall be put to death"; therefore apply it to an unintentional sinner. How, then, will you explain the words "put to death"? That is only the pecuniary equivalent (of being put to death) (viz., he shall bring a sin-offering which costs money). Why not advance the distinction between the acts of labor, as R. Nathan (does elsewhere)?

Samuel is not of the opinion of R. Nathan, but of R. Jossi, who says that the additional commandment not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath was taught additionally for the special purpose of conveying to us that one who does kindle a fire is not to be punished either with Karath or stoning; for we have learned in a Boraitha: The additional commandment not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath was taught additionally for the special purpose of conveying to us that one who kindles a fire on the Sabbath is not to be punished either with Karath or stoning. Such is the opinion of R. Jossi. R. Nathan says it is written for the sake of separation (from other acts). Let then the separation of acts of labor be adduced whence R. Jossi adduces them—in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. iv. 2]: "And do (of) any (one) of them," as follows: Sometimes one is only bound to bring one sin-offering for all transgressions, and sometimes one is bound to bring a sin-offering for each and every transgression separately.

Said R. Jossi b. Hanina: "Why does R. Jossi explain that passage thus? The verse should read 'one of them' (Achath mehenoh), but in reality it reads 'of one of them' (Meachath mehenoh), or it should read 'of one them' (Meachath henoh), but it reads 'of one of them.' Therefore he explains that 'sometimes one is equal to many and sometimes many equal one.'"  1 Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: "How is it if one is ignorant of both (of the day being Sabbath and the prohibition of the acts of labor on that day)? Answered R. Na'hman: "Take one instance at a time. You say he was ignorant of the day being Sabbath; then he is bound to bring a sin-offering. How would it be if, on the contrary, I had said that he was ignorant of the prohibition of the acts of labor first? Would you say that he becomes liable to a sin-offering for each and every act performed?" Said R. Ashi: "Let us see from the man's actions. How would it be if one came to him and reminded him of its being Sabbath (without calling his attention to the fact that he was working)? If the man immediately stopped his work, it is clear that he had actually forgotten that it was Sabbath. If, however, the man was reminded by a third party that he was working (without having his attention called to the fact that it was Sabbath), and he immediately quit his work, it is evident that he was not cognizant of the prohibition of the acts of labor; hence he would become liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every act performed. Said Rabbina to R. Ashi: "What difference does it make? If one is reminded that it is Sabbath and he quits work, he becomes aware that it is Sabbath, and if he is reminded of his working he also becomes aware that the day is Sabbath; hence it makes no difference."

Rabha said (supposing the following case happened: "One reaped and ground the equivalent (in size) of a fig on a Sabbath, without knowing that it was Sabbath, and on another Sabbath did the same thing, knowing it was Sabbath, but not knowing that such acts of labor were prohibited; then remembered that he had committed a transgression on the Sabbath through ignorance of the day being Sabbath, and took a sheep and set it aside for a sin-offering. Suddenly he recollected that he had also committed a transgression on the other Sabbath, through his ignorance of the prohibition of the acts of labor. What would the law be in such a case? I can say that the sheep set aside for a sin-offering for the first transgression suffices also for the second, although in reality two sin-offerings were required to atone for the second transgression. The one sin-offering would suffice, because it is in truth not brought for forgetting the Sabbath, but for reaping and grinding; the reaping in the first instance carries with it the reaping in the second, as also the grinding in the first instance carries with it the grinding in the second, and one sin-offering atones for all.

Assuming, however, that in the second instance (when he forgot about the prohibition of the acts of labor) he (at some later time) recollected only having reaped (but forgot that he also ground), and having set aside the sin-offering he became liable for on account of his transgression in the first instance (when he forgot about the Sabbath), he atones for the reaping and grinding on the first Sabbath and for the reaping on the second Sabbath, but not for the grinding on the second Sabbath; hence (after also recollecting that he had ground) he must bring an additional sin-offering. Abayi, however, says: The one sin-offering atones for all, because the grinding, which he atones for in the first instance, also carries with it the grinding in the second instance. Why so? For the reason that in both instances the acts atoned for are analogous. (When a sin-offering was brought, a confession was made. In citing the sin committed in the first instance grinding was mentioned and applies also to the grinding in the second instance. Therefore no additional sin-offering is necessary.)

It was taught: If one has eaten tallow (which is prohibited) on two different occasions, and at both times the tallow was the equivalent (in size) of an olive (or larger); and afterward he was reminded of the first occasion, and later on of the second occasion also, what is the law in his case? R. Johanan says: He must bring two sin-offerings. Why so? Because he recollected the transgressions at different times. Resh Lakish, however, says: He need bring only one sin-offering. What is R. Johanan's reason? Because it is written [Lev. iv. 28]: "For his sin, which he hath committed," and he adduces therefrom that for every sin committed one must bring a separate sin-offering, and Resh Lakish holds according to the passage [ibid. 26], "Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him," and claims that it being one and the same sin, only one sin-offering is sufficient. But what will Resh Lakish do with the verse, "For his sin which he hath committed"? That refers to the sin-offering which had already been brought, and therefore could not apply to a later sin. And what about R. Johanan and the passage, "Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven"? R. Johanan explains this as follows: If a man ate tallow equivalent (in size) to an olive and a half, and later ate another piece the size of half an olive. Afterward he recollected having eaten tallow, but thought that it was the size of one olive, might some not say that the remaining piece eaten in the first instance should be added to the piece eaten in the second instance, and thus constitute another piece the equivalent (in size) to an olive, and make him liable for another sin-offering? Therefore the passage which means: After once having obtained forgiveness for the transgression on the first occasion the second cannot be counted in with the first.

It was taught: If one intended to pick up a thing detached (for instance, a knife that had fallen in a row of vegetables), and while doing so (accidentally) cut off one of the growing vegetables, he is free. 1 If, however, he intended to cut something lying on (but not attached to) the ground, and instead cut off something growing out of (attached to) the ground, Rabha declares him free, because no intention to cut off the growing object existed in the mind of the man; but Abayi declares him culpable for the reason that, while the man did not intend to cut off what he really did, still the intention to cut was prevalent in the man's mind, and he really did cut; hence he is that the Scriptures refer to as "one who acteth unintentionally."

It was also taught: One who intended to throw (from private ground into public) only for a distance of two ells, but threw four, is freed by Rabha, for the reason that the original intention was to throw within a permissible distance (throwing for a distance of two ells only was permitted); but Abayi held him culpable, for the reason that the act originally intended was accomplished. If one threw in public ground mistaking it for private, Rabh holds him free (for the same reason as before), and Abayi holds him culpable (also for the same reason as he gave in the previous case). Both instances though analogous are necessary. In the first instance (of cutting), where Rabh holds the offender not culpable, the intention to cut off what was prohibited did not exist, but in the second instance (throwing four ells), it could not be accomplished without (carrying out the intention of) throwing for two ells, and passing the two ells (the object landing at a distance of four). Now, lest one might say that Rabha coincides with the opinion of Abayi, and from the latter instance it might be assumed that the offender intended to throw two, but threw four ells, hence Rabha holds him not culpable, for the intention to throw four ells did not exist; but if one threw four ells in what he thought was private ground, and which turned out to be public ground, the intention was carried out, for the object thrown reached its desired destination, and therefore lest one say that in this case Rabha coincides with Abayi, the two instances are illustrated, and we are informed that not even in this case does Rabha agree with Abayi.

MISHNA II.: The principal acts of labor (prohibited on the Sabbath) are forty less one—viz.: Sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding into sheaves, threshing, winnowing, fruit-cleaning, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, wool-shearing, bleaching, combing, dyeing, spinning, warping, making two spindle-trees, weaving two threads, separating two threads (in the warp), tying a knot, untying a knot, sewing on with two stitches, tearing in order to sew together with two stitches, hunting deer, slaughtering the same, skinning them, salting them, preparing the hide, scraping the hair off, cutting it, writing two (single) letters (characters), erasing in order to write two letters, building, demolishing (in order to rebuild), kindling, extinguishing (fire), hammering, transferring from one place into another. These are the principal acts of labor—forty less one.

GEMARA: For what purpose is the number (so distinctly) given? (They are enumerated.) Said R. Johanan: If one labored through total ignorance of the (laws governing the) Sabbath, he must bring a sin-offering for every act of labor performed. "Sowing, ploughing." Let us see: Ploughing being always done before sowing, let it be taught first, The Tana (who taught as in the Mishna) is a Palestinian, and in his country they sow first and then plough. Some one taught that sowing, pruning, planting, transplanting, and grafting are all one and the same kind of labor. What would he inform us thereby? That if one performs many acts of labor, all of the same class, he is liable for but one sin-offering.

Said R. Aha in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting R. Ami: "One who prunes is guilty of planting, and one who plants, transplants, or grafts is guilty of sowing." Of sowing and not of planting? I mean to say of sowing also.
Said R. Kahana: One who prunes and uses the branches for fuel is liable for two sin-offerings, one for reaping and one for planting. Said R. Joseph: One who mows alfalfa (hay) is guilty of mowing and planting both. Said Abayi: One who mows clover hay (which sheds its seed when mowed) is liable (for a sin-offering) for mowing and sowing. "Ploughing." There is a Boraitha: Ploughing, digging, furrowing, are one and the same kind of labor. R. Shesheth said: One who removes a knoll of earth in a house becomes liable for building, and if in a field he is liable for ploughing. Rabha said: Filling up a hole in the house makes one liable for building, and in the field for ploughing. R. Aba said: Digging (the same hole) on Sabbath for the purpose of making use of the earth alone is free even according to R. Jehudah, who said that the performance of an unnecessary act of labor makes one culpable. He refers to labor that improves an object and not to that which spoils it. "Mowing." There is a Boraitha: Reaping, vintaging, selecting dates, olives, and figs are all one and the same kind of labor. "Binding into sheaves." Rabha said: One who gathers salt from salt works is guilty of the act of binding into sheaves. Abayi, however, said that binding into sheaves applies only to produce of the soil. "Threshing." There is a Boraitha: Threshing, carding, and hackling belong to one and the same class of labor. "Threshing, winnowing, fruit-cleaning," etc. Is not winnowing, fruit-cleaning, and sifting one and the same class of labor? Abayi and Rabha both said: "Acts of labor executed during the construction of the tabernacle are enumerated separately, though they are of an analogous nature." Let pounding then also be enumerated (as labor, inasmuch as the spices for incense had to be pounded). Said Abayi: (It is true! This is also one of the acts of labor performed at the construction of the tabernacle.) But as the poor people do not pound their grain, generally using it in its natural state, it is not included in the principal acts of labor. Rabha, however, said: "The Mishna should be understood in the sense Rabbi expounded it: The principal acts of labor are forty less one. Should pounding be included, there would be forty even." Let then one of the principal acts (enumerated in the Mishna) be stricken out and substituted by pounding. Hence it is best to accept Abayi's reason.

The rabbis taught: If there are several kinds of food before a man on the Sabbath, he may select such as he desires and even set it aside, but he must not separate the good from the spoilt. If he does this, he is liable for a sin-offering. How is this to be understood? R. Hamnuna explained it thus: "One may select the good from the spoilt for immediate or later consumption, but he must not pick out the spoilt, leaving the good for later consumption. If he does this, he is liable." Abayi opposed: "Is there anything mentioned (in the Mishna) about separating the good from the spoilt?" He therefore explained the Boraitha as follows: "Food may be selected for immediate consumption and setting aside, but not for later consumption. If this is done, it is considered the same as storing it, and involves the liability." This was reported to Rabha by the rabbis, and he said: Na'hmeni (Abayi) has explained it correctly.

When two kinds of food were before a man and he selected part of one kind and ate it, then selected part of the other kind and set it aside, R. Ashi learned in the Boraitha that the man is free, but R. Jeremiah of Diphti learned that he is culpable.

Is there not a Boraitha which teaches that he is? This presents no difficulty. R. Ashi refers to food served in a basket or a bowl, but R. Jeremiah learned that the man sifted the food in a sieve.

When R. Dimi came to Babylon he related: It happened on a Sabbath, when R. Bibhi's turn came to entertain the disciples, that R. Ami and R. Assi arrived. R. Bibhi placed before them a basket filled with fruit (together with the leaves and sprigs), and I am not aware what his reason was. Was he of the opinion that it is forbidden to separate food from trash, or was it his liberality?

Hyzkiyah said: "One who shells pressed lupines (on the Sabbath) is culpable." Does this mean to say that it is forbidden to separate food from trash? Nay; there is quite a difference where pressed lupines are concerned; they must be scalded just seven times and immediately shelled, for if they are not immediately shelled they become putrid; therefore to shell them is equal to separating trash from good food. "Grinding." Said R. Papa: To chop beets is the same as to grind. Splitting wood for kindling is the same as grinding. Said R. Ashi: Splitting leather is the same class of work as cutting by measure (if he is particular about it). "Kneading, baking." R. Papa said: "The Tana of the Mishna omitted the cooking of spices that took place in the tabernacle and instead of that taught about baking." It is because the Tana follows the order of baking (first comes kneading, then baking, and cooking is included in the latter). "Wool-shearing, bleaching." Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: Spinning wool from a live animal on the Sabbath makes one liable for three sin-offerings; one for shearing, one for carding, and one for spinning. R. Kahana, however, said: This is not the way shearing, carding, and spinning are done (hence he is not at all culpable).

If one plucked quills, cut off their tops, and singed them on both sides, the rabbis taught that he is liable for three sin-offerings. "Tying, untying." What kind of tying and untying was done at the construction of the tabernacle? Rabha, others say R. Ilayi, said: This is the way of the (snail) fishers; to untie their nets from one load and tie them on another. "Sewing on with two stitches." But two stitches do not hold (hence it cannot be called work)? Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: Provided two knots are made, one at each end. "Tearing in order to sew together with two stitches." Was there any tearing done at the tabernacle? Both Rabba and R. Zera said: When a curtain became moth-eaten, they tore out the moth-eaten part and sewed it together.

R. Zutra b. Tobiah in the name of Rabh said: "To rip a seam on the Sabbath makes one liable; to learn from a magician is a sin involving capital punishment; one who knows the science of astronomy and does not make use of it, is not worth being spoken of." What is a magician?

Rabh says a "wizard." Samuel says a "blasphemer." R. Simeon b. Pazi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi said: Whoever knows the science of astronomy, and does not occupy himself with it is the party alluded to [Isaiah, v. 12]: "But the deeds of the Lord they regard not and the works of his hands they behold not." Said Samuel b. Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan: "Whence the adduction that we are bound to learn astronomy?" From the passage [Deut. iv. 6]: "Keep, therefore, and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding before the eyes of the nations." And what kind of wisdom is before the eyes of the nations? You must say that it is astronomy. "Hunting deer." The rabbis taught: To catch a slug and squeeze it so that it bleed is a transgression involving only a sin-offering.

R. Jehudah says, involving two sin-offerings, for R. Jehudah holds that squeezing comes in the class of threshing, but the rabbis told him that squeezing is not threshing. What reason do the rabbis give for their opinion? Said Rabha: Their reason is that threshing can only be applied to produce of the soil. "Slaughtering." Under which category? Rabh said "dyeing," and Samuel said "taking life." Said Rabh: "I said something which may seem absurd, and so as to prevent future generations from deriding me I will give a reason for what I said: Butchers are in the habit of coloring the throat of the carcasses with blood, in order that people may see (that the meat is still fresh) and be induced to buy." "Salting the hide," etc. Is not salting a hide preparing it?

Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish said: "Strike out one of them in the Mishna and substitute it with 'marking.' "Scraping the hair off," etc. R. Aha b. Hanina said: To polish a floor on the Sabbath is a transgression of the same order as scraping off the hair of the hide. Said R. Hyya b. Abba: R. Ashi told me three things in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: Sawing rafters on the Sabbath (that they may be equal in size and pointed) makes one liable the same as "cutting." Daubing a plaster on a piece of cloth makes one liable the same as "scraping hair off." Smoothing a stone makes one culpable of "hammering." R. Simeon b. Kisma in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, said: Painting pictures on vessels or blowing out glassware makes one culpable the same as hammering.

R. Jehudah said: Removing a border from cloth also makes one as culpable as hammering; but only in case one is particular about having the border remain on his cloth. "Writing two letters." The rabbis taught: "If one wrote one large letter instead of two small ones, he is not guilty of any transgression; but to erase a large letter, in the place of which two small letters can be written, makes one liable for a sin-offering (for the erasing is done with the intent to write, and two small letters are evidently needed). Said R. Mena'hem b. Jossi: "This is the only case where the law is more rigorous with erasing than with writing." "Building, demolishing," etc. Both Rabba and R. Zera said: All work which is done in the last stages is considered the same as hammering (which is generally the finishing work).

"These are the principal acts of labor." "These," to exclude a derivation of the same kind as the principal when it is done with the principal together, and as to which R. Eliezer makes one liable for the derivation also. "Less one," to exclude the extension of the warp or the woof, which R. Jehudah added to the principal acts; but the rabbis said: Extending the warp is included in warping and extending the woof is included in weaving.

MISHNA III.: And there is also another rule which was laid down: Whosoever carries out on the Sabbath such things as are fit and proper to be stored and in such a quantity as is usually stored, is liable; but whatever is not fit and proper to be stored, nor in such a quantity as is generally stored, only he who would store this is liable (because the storing shows that for him it is valuable).
GEMARA: "Whatever is not fit and proper." Said R. Elazar: The latter part of the Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar, who said in the following Boraitha: "There is a rule that all which is not fit and proper to be stored nor in such a quantity as is generally stored, if held by one man fit and another man has carried it out, the latter becomes liable for the intention of the owner."

MISHNA IV.: It is forbidden to carry about chopped straw in quantities of a cow's mouthful, stalks in quantities of a camel's mouthful, stubble in quantities of a lamb's mouthful, herbs in quantities of a kid's mouthful, leek and onion leaves, if fresh, equal in size to a dried fig, and if dry in quantities of a kid's mouthful. The different kinds of fodder are, however, not to be counted together, as the prescribed quantities are not equal for all.
GEMARA: "Chopped straw." What kind? Said R. Jehudah: "Pease stalks." When Rabhin came to Babylon he said thus: There is no diversity of opinion concerning the carrying out of straw in quantities of a cow's mouthful for a camel, as all agree that in such a case one is liable; the point of their differing is concerning the carrying out of stalks (which is not fit food for a cow) in quantities of a cow's mouthful for a cow. R. Johanan frees him, as he holds that unfit food cannot be regarded as nutrition; and Resh Lakish makes him liable, as he holds that even such is considered nutrition. "Stubble in quantities of a lamb's mouthful." But does not a Boraitha state "the size of a dried fig"? Both quantities are equal. "Leek and onion leaves, if fresh," etc. Said R. Jossi b. Hanina: Inferior food is not to be counted in with superior (in order to make out the prescribed quantity). Superior food, however, may be counted with the inferior (in order to complete the prescribed quantity).

MISHNA V.: The carrying out of an article of food the size of a dried fig makes one liable. And the different kinds of them are to be counted together, for the prescribed quantity is the same for all kinds, with the exception of husks, kernels, and stalks; likewise bran, both coarse and fine. R. Jehudah says that the husks of lentils are not excepted, because they are boiled with the lentils and are counted in the same (as food).
GEMARA: "Except bran," etc. Is not fine as well as coarse bran to be counted in (the same as food)? Is there not a Mishna concerning the separation of the first dough, that one is bound to separate the first dough made of flour mixed with its fine or coarse bran? Answered Abayi: "This is no contradiction. Poor people only generally use such mixed flour (when Sabbath is concerned something possessing real value is always spoken of)." "The husks of lentils are not excepted," etc. Husks of lentils only, and not of beans? Did not a Boraitha state that R. Jehudah said, "husks of beans and lentils"? This presents no difficulty. The Mishna refers to husks of new lentils and the Boraitha refers to old lentils and beans. And why not old ones? Said R. Abuhu: Because they (the husks of lentils and beans) are black and when dished up look like flies in a bowl (they are not eaten with the food and therefore are not counted in).

Footnotes

130:1 Kiddush and Habhdalah are the benedictions recited at the commencement and termination of the Sabbath, the former over wine or bread and the latter only over some beverage.

131:1 The literal translation of the passage Exod. xxxi. 14 is "Every one that defileth it [the Sabbath], death shall he die."

132:1 In that passage there is a superfluous Mem (the Hebrew prefix meaning of or from). Hence its literal translation is "of one of them."

134:1 In the Tract Kriroth the reason of the man's non-culpability is explained as follows: it is written [Lev. iv. 23], "if now his sin wherein he has sinned come to his knowledge," and this should be supplemented with "but not the sin which he had not in mind to commit at all." Whence we see plainly that the Scriptures designate as an unintentional sinner only one who knows wherein he has sinned; for instance, if he became aware that it was Sabbath, or that the acts performed by him were prohibited. In our case, however, where a man intended to pick up a thing but accidentally cut a thing, it is evident that no intention to cut existed in the man's mind, and the intent of the "wherein he has sinned" in the Scriptures does not apply to him. Rabha goes further and says that even if one actually accomplished an act he had in mind and which was permissible on the Sabbath, but at the same time accidentally committed a prohibited act (as illustrated in the above instance), even in such a case the scriptural "wherein he has sinned" cannot apply, nor can he be accounted the scriptural unintentional sinner who is liable for a sin-offering. Abayi, however, differs with him, as will be seen farther on.

CHAPTER VIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITIES OF VICTUALS AND BEVERAGES WHICH MUST NOT BE CARRIED ABOUT ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA I.: The prescribed quantities (of victuals and beverages) prohibited to be carried about on the Sabbath (are as follows): Sufficient wine in a goblet, which with the addition of a certain quantity of water would make a full goblet of wine (fit to drink); 1 milk to the quantity of a mouthful, honey sufficient to cover a wound with, oil sufficient to anoint a small limb with, and water in quantities sufficient for a medical bath for the eyes. For all other liquids and also of whatever can be poured out, the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug (about a quart). R. Simeon says: The prescribed quantities for the liquids enumerated in this Mishna are also a quarter of a lug, and the various prescribed quantities specified apply only to those who store such liquids.

GEMARA: A Boraitha, in addition to this Mishna, states: "The quantity which suffices for a good goblet of wine." What is to be understood by a good goblet? The goblet used in benediction 2 after meals.
R. Na'hman in the name of R. Abuhu said: "A goblet used at benediction after meals must contain no less than a fourth of a quarter lug (of pure wine), so that when mixed with water the prescribed quantity (a quarter lug) will be made." Said Rabha: We have learned this in our Mishna: "Sufficient wine in a goblet, which with addition of water would make a full goblet"—commented on by the Boraitha to mean "which would make a good goblet." From the close of the Mishna we learn: "For all other liquids the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug." [And] he is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that wine which is not strong enough to be mixed with three parts of water is not considered wine at all. Said Abayi: "There are two objections to this: Firstly, there is a Mishna that wine fit to drink is such as has been mixed with two-thirds water, like the wine of Sharon; secondly, do you think that the water in the pitcher (intended for mixing with the wine) is counted in?" Rejoined Rabha: The first objection does not hold good, as Sharon wine is an exception, which although weak is nevertheless good; or it may be that there the particularity is the color, which is not changed by an addition of two-thirds; but concerning taste, I say that only one which can bear three-fourths of water is considered. As to the second objection, concerning water in the pitcher, it is also nothing as concerning Sabbath. The quality and not the quantity is considered, and the wine in question is of that quality.

There is a Boraitha that the prescribed quantity for the extract of wine is the size of an olive. So said R. Nathan. And R. Joseph said that R. Jehudah agrees with him in a Mishna, Tract Nidah (which will be translated there).
The rabbis taught: The prescribed quantity for animal milk is the equivalent of a mouthful; for human milk and the white of an egg, as much as is used for the preparation of a salve for a sore eye; when mixed with water, the prescribed quantity is as much as is used to bathe both eyes with. "Honey sufficient to cover a wound with." A Boraitha states: "Sufficient to cover the mouth of a wound with."

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: The Holy One, blessed be He, has created nothing useless in the world. He created the snail as a remedy for a sore, the fly for the sting of a wasp, the mosquito for the bite of a serpent, the serpent for the mange, and the lizard for the bite of a scorpion.

The rabbis taught: There are five terrors through which the strong succumb to the weak. The Maphgia terrorizes the lion, 1 the mosquito the elephant, the lizard the scorpion, the swallow the eagle, and the kilbith (a small fish) the whale. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Is any similarity to be found in the Scripture? [Amos, v. 9] That causeth wasting to prevail against the strong."
R. Zera once met R. Jehudah standing at the door of his (R. Jehudah's) father-in-law in a very cheerful mood, and disposed to answer a whole world full of questions. He asked him: "What is the reason that (in a flock) the she-goats generally go ahead of the sheep?" And he answered: "In accordance with the Creation: At first darkness, then light" (she-goats are generally dark and lambs [or sheep] white). "Why are she-goats not covered with a tail?" asked the former again. And he answered: "Those who cover us are (in turn) covered, and those that do not cover us are not covered." (Because sheep provide us with wool, they are also provided with cover.) "Why has a camel a short tail?" "Because it feeds on thorns (in order that the thorns may not catch in its tail)."

And "Why has an ox a long tail?" "Because he grazes in plains and must protect himself from the gnats." "Why are the feelers of a locust soft?" "Because the locusts swarm in fields; were their feelers hard, the locusts would be blinded by losing them in knocking against trees, for Samuel said, all that is necessary to blind a locust is to tear off his feelers." "What is the reason that the lower eyelids of a hen are turned up (and cover the upper eyelids)?" "Because a hen soars to her roost and (in a house full of smoke) she might be blinded by the smoke from below."
The rabbis taught the following: "Three creatures grow stronger as they grow older, viz.: Fishes, serpents, and swine." "Oil sufficient to anoint a small limb with," i.e., a little finger. At the school of R. Janai it was thus explained: "It means the smallest limb of a one-day-old infant." And the same was said by R. Simeon b. Elazar. "Water sufficient for a medical bath for the eyes." Said Abayi: Let us see! Of an article which is very often used for one purpose and seldom for another, the rabbis always leniently permitted the maximum quantity to be used, as the prescribed quantity, of the article much in use. Again, when an article is used alike for several purposes, the rabbis restrict the prescribed quantity to its minimum: (to be more explicit) wine is frequently used as a beverage and only at times as a medicament; hence the rabbis regard it solely as a beverage (and determine the maximum quantity); the same is the case with milk; honey, however, which is used to a greater extent as a medicine than for nutritive purposes, is regarded as a medicine and therefore restricted to the prescribed quantity for medicines (which is a smaller quantity than a beverage). What is the reason, then, that the rabbis restrict water, which is certainly more of a beverage than a medicament, to the minimum quantity? Rabha answered: They hold with the opinion of Samuel, who declared that all liquids used as medicine for the eyes inflame and blind, except water, which soothes and does not blind (and in this case the Mishna has reference to one who carried about water on the Sabbath as a medicament for the eyes). "For all other liquids, the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug." The rabbis taught: For blood and all other liquids the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug. R. Simeon b. Elazar said the prescribed quantity for blood is as much as is used to apply to one eye; because that quantity is used when the eye is afflicted with a cataract.

All these prescribed quantities apply only to those who carry (the victuals or beverages) about. To those, however, who store them (the victuals or beverages) the carrying of even the least imaginable quantity is prohibited (because from his storing them we see that he considers them valuable); but R. Simeon says all these prescribed quantities apply to such as stored (victuals and beverages and hence considered them valuable); but as for persons who only carried them out, for all beverages (whether used also for medical purposes or not) if carried out in any quantities less than a quarter of a lug there is no culpability.

The former teacher said that "those prescribed quantities only refer to those who carry out," but to "those who store them the carrying of even the least imaginable quantity is prohibited." Is the one who stores not also a carrier (he is culpable for carrying and not for storing)?

Answered Abayi: The Boraitha treats of a case where a master ordered his retainer to clear off the table. If the retainer removed something of value to everybody from the table, it constituted a quantity which must not be carried about on the Sabbath. If the thing was of value only to the master and the retainer carried it out, he (the retainer) is culpable, in spite of the fact that the thing was of value to his master alone. (Hence he is called one who stores, and not a carrier) for it signifies that the thing is worth storing.
Again, the former teacher said: "And the sages agree with R. Simeon that the prescribed quantity of slops is a quarter of a lug." Of what use are slops? Said R. Jehudah: "To prepare mortar with." But were we not taught that the prescribed quantity for mortar is only as much as suffices to make the mouth of a bellows-pipe with? Aye, but for the purpose of preparing mortar, a man would not trouble himself to carry out so small a quantity as is sufficient to make a mouth of a bellows-pipe, hence a quarter of a lug would be the least that would be carried out to make mortar with.

MISHNA II.: The prescribed quantity for rope is as much as suffices to make a handle for a basket; for reeds, as much as suffices to hang a fine or coarse sieve thereon: R. Jehudah says: As much as is sufficient to take the measure of a child's shoe; for paper, as much as suffices to write a toll-bill on—a toll-bill itself must not be carried out; the prescribed quantity for paper that has been erased is as much as will wrap the top of a perfume bottle. The prescribed quantity for vellum is as much as suffices for the covering of an amulet; for parchment, as much as suffices for the writing of the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is "Hear, O Israel for ink, as much as is necessary for the writing of two letters (characters); for paint, as much as will paint one eye. The prescribed quantity for (bird) lime is as much as will suffice to put on a lime twig; for pitch or sulphur, as much as will cover a hole (in a quicksilver tube); for as much as will fill up a small leakage (in a utensil); for loam, as much as suffices to make all orifice for a pair of bellows used by goldsmiths; R. Jehudah says the prescribed quantity for loam is as much as will make a stand for a goldsmith's crucible; for clay, as much as will cover the mouth of a goldsmith's crucible; for lime, as much as will cover the little finger of a maiden; R. Jehudah says for lime the prescribed quantity is as much as will cover the temple of a maiden; R. Nehemiah says as much as will cover the back part of a maiden's temple.

GEMARA: "For paper, as muck as suffices to write a toll-bill on." There is a Boraitha: "The legal size of a toll-bill is a piece of paper large enough to contain two letters." Is this not contradictory to the Boraitha which says that the carrying out of a piece of blank paper large enough for two letters of ordinary size to be written on makes one liable? Answered R. Shesheth: "The two letters referred to by the Mishna are the letters used by the toll-master (usually extra large letters). Rabha, however, said that the piece of paper referred to is large enough for two letters and has a margin by which it can be held.

The rabbis taught: If one carry out on the Sabbath an unpaid promissory note he is liable, but not so for a paid one. But R. Jehudah said: The same is the case with a paid-up note, for its value lies therein, that the owner may show it to a prospective creditor in order to prove promptness of former payments. What is the point of their differing? Said R. Joseph: "They differ if it is allowed to preserve a paid note. According to the rabbis it is prohibited, and according to R. Jehudah it may be done. 1 "For vellum is as much as suffices to make a cover for an amulet." Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: "Of what size?" and the latter answered: "As we were taught in the Mishna, as much as will suffice to make a cover for an amulet." And what is the size in regard to tanning? The same quantity. And where do you take this from? From the Mishna farther on, that gives the same quantity for wool preparing to be woven and for already woven. The same is here as it is for tanning; the quantity is the same as if already tanned. (The further discussion is repeated in many places, and each is translated in its proper place.) "Parchment as much as suffices to write thereon the smallest portion," etc. Is this not a contradiction to the Boraitha which teaches that the prescribed quantity for parchment and double parchment (δο-ξέστος) is as much as suffices to write a Mezuzah (inscription on the door-posts) on? The Mezuzah mentioned in the Boraitha refers to the Mezuzah contained in the phylacteries. Does the Boraitha call phylacteries Mezuzah? Yea, it does elsewhere. But since the latter part of the Boraitha teaches explicitly that the prescribed quantity for parchment is as much as is required for writing the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is "Hear, O Israel," is it not to be assumed that in the former part of the Boraitha a Mezuzah proper is meant? Read: What is the prescribed quantity for parchment and double parchment? For the latter as much as is required for the writing of a Mezuzah; and the former, for the writing of the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is "Hear, O Israel."

Rabh said: "Double parchment is the same as parchment. The same as we may write the portions of the phylacteries on parchment, so may we also write them on double parchment." Were we not taught "parchment sufficient," etc., which certainly does not mean double parchment? Nay, it is only a better observance to write on parchment than on double parchment. "For ink," etc. A Boraitha adds: The prescribed quantity for dry ink is as much as will suffice for the writing of two letters; for prepared ink as much as a quill or stub will require to write the two letters with. Said Rabha: For carrying out sufficient ink for two letters and writing the two letters while carrying the ink, one is culpable; for the writing is equivalent to depositing a thing in a place.

But for carrying out sufficient ink for one letter only, and writing that letter while carrying the ink, afterward carrying out another quantity of ink sufficient for one letter and writing the other letter while carrying the ink, one is not culpable; for by the time the second letter was written (the ink of the first letter dried out and) the prescribed quantity of ink was not visible. Again Rabha said: For carrying out food to the size of one-half of a dried fig, laying it down, and then carrying out another quantity of like size (one is not culpable), for it is considered as if the first quantity had been consumed by fire. But why should it be thus considered? Is it not lying there yet? He means to say: If one picked up the first before he laid down the second, the first is to be considered as if consumed by fire, and hence one is not culpable.

"For paint," etc. Is it not a fact that people never dye one eye only? Said R. Huna. Modest women veil one eye and only paint the other. To this explanation some one objected, viz.: For paint as a remedy the prescribed quantity is as much as will dye one eye, said R. Simeon b. Elazar, but as a means for beautifying the prescribed quantity is as much as will dye two eyes. Hillel, the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmeni, explained it by saying that R. Simeon b. Elazar referred to country damsels who dye both eyes. "For bird lime as much as is sufficient to put on a lime twig." There is a Boraitha: As much as is sufficient to put on a twig for the purpose of catching birds. "For pitch and sulphur," etc. A Boraitha states: Sufficient to fill up a hole in a quicksilver tube. "For loam," etc. A Boraitha states: Sufficient to fill up the cracks in a small stove.

"For clay," etc. The rabbis taught: It is prohibited to carry out hair for the purpose of mixing it with clay used to cover a goldsmith's bellows-pipe with. "For lime," etc. A Boraitha states: To cover the smallest finger of a damsel. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Daughters of Israel, when they become of age, and they have not yet developed the signs of puberty, the poor smear their bodies with lime, the rich ones with fine meal, and princesses with myrrh oil. What is myrrh oil? στακτη. And R. Jeremiah b. Aba said: Olive oil from olives which were only one third ripe. There is a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: It is called (in Menachoth) anphiknun (ομφανιον); and why do they anoint with this? Because it removes the hair and makes the complexion clear.

R. Bibi had such a daughter and he anointed her with the same, each member of her body separately; and finally one of the prominent men paid him four hundred zuz and married her. He had a Gentile neighbor who also had such a daughter, and he anointed her whole body at one time, and she died; said he: "R. Bibi has murdered my daughter." Said R. Na'hman: "R. Bibi, who used to drink beer, his daughter needed the anointing, but our daughters do not need it, for we do not drink beer." "As much as is sufficient to cover," etc. What is meant by Kalkub and Andiphi? Said Rabh: The temple, and the hair between it and the ear. Are we to understand from the Mishna that the prescribed quantity permitted by R. Jehudah is larger than that of the rabbis? Is it not a fact that the rabbis allow the larger prescribed quantity?

Aye; R. Jehudah allows a larger quantity than R. Nehemiah, but still a smaller quantity than the rabbis. Or it is possible that an Andiphi means a forehead, from the following narration: "It happened that a Galilean once came to Babylon and was requested to lecture on metaphysics. The Galilean consented and began: I will interpret to you something in the style of R. Nehemiah. Meanwhile a wasp flew out of the wall, stung him on the Andiphi (forehead) and the Galilean died on the spot. It was said that he died a merited death." 1 MISHNA III.: For sealing-wax the prescribed quantity is as much as is required for the sealing of a bale of goods, so is the decree of R. Aqiba; the sages, however, say for the sealing of a letter.

For dung or fine sand as much as is required to fertilize (the soil around) a cabbage stalk, according to R. Aqiba, and to the sages as much as is required to fertilize (the soil around) a leek stalk. For coarse sand as much as is required to fill a trowel, for reed as much as is required to make a writing-pen from, or should it be thick or split, as much as is required to fry the softest beaten egg with, (which) mixed with oil, (lies) in a hot shell.

GEMARA: "Sufficient to fill a trowel." A Boraitha states: (For coarse sand the prescribed quantity is) as much as is required to fill the trowel of a plasterer. Who is the Tana that holds that sand is an improvement on plaster? Said R. Hisda: R. Jehudah of a Boraitha (Baba Bathra, 60b); Rabha, however, said it may be also in accordance with the rabbis, as they hold that the spoiling (of the whiteness) of the plaster (through the admixture of sand) is an improvement of its durability. "For reed as much as is required to make a writing-pen." A Boraitha teaches: A pen that reaches the joints of the fingers. "Or should it be thick." A Boraitha teaches: To fry a beaten egg mixed with oil. Said Mar b. Rabhina to his son: "Didst thou ever hear what is understood by the softest egg?" He answered that R. Shesheth said it was a hen's egg, Why does the Mishna call it a light (soft) egg? Because the sages found that no eggs are cooked as quickly as pullets' eggs. Why is it that all other prescribed quantities prohibited to be carried out on the Sabbath are of the size of a dried fig, and here the quantity is of the size of an egg? Answered R. Na'hman: "Even here is meant the quantity of a dried fig from an egg."

MISHNA IV.: The quantity of a bone is that large enough to be made into a spoon—R. Jehudah says large enough to be made into a key; glass of sufficient size to be used for scraping off the points of a weaver's spindles; a splinter or a stone large enough to throw at a bird—R. Elazar b. Jacob says to throw at an animal.
GEMARA: Is it to be understood from the Mishna that the prescribed quantity allowed by R. Jehudah is larger than that allowed by the rabbis? Is it not a fact that the rabbis allow the larger? Said Ulla: (R. Jehudah refers to) the tooth of a key. "Glass of sufficient size," etc. A Boraitha states: Sufficient glass to cut two threads at once. "A splinter," etc. Said R. in the name of R. Johanan: "Provided it is large enough to hurt." But how large should it be? R. Elazar b. Jacob teaches in a Boraitha: The weight of ten zuz.

Zunin once entered the college and questioned the teachers. "What is the prescribed quantity for gravel used in privy for toilet purposes?" He was answered: "The equivalent in quantity to the size of an olive, a nut, or an egg." Said he: "It would then be necessary to carry along a scale." So they deliberated, and decided that the quantity should be a handful.
Rabba b. R. Shilla asked of R. Hisda: "Is it permitted to carry up gravel to the roof (for the purpose cited above, as it is extra trouble, which is prohibited on the Sabbath)?" He answered: "Precious is the honor of man. For honor's sake, even a direct scriptural commandment may be circumvened!"

Said R. Johanan: It is forbidden to use fragments of earthenware for toilet purposes (after doing one's necessities) on the Sabbath. What is the reason? Is it to say because it is dangerous, then it should be forbidden also on week days; or is it to say because of witchcraft, it would also be prohibited on week days? What then is the reason? Is it because it may remove the hair (from the posterior)? Would this not be an act performed without intention (and work done unintentionally, he is of the opinion is permissible)? R. Nathan b. Ashia answered: A great man made the assertion; we have to find, therefore, a reason for it. There is no doubt whatever that fragments of earthenware are prohibited to be used on week days, when some other things can easily be obtained; but on Sabbath, if nothing else happens to be on hand, nor may be bought, the fragments might be considered as utensils; and, lest one might be inclined to think that for this reason they would be permitted to be used, he informs us that they are not. Can witchcraft be exercised through the agency of fragments? Aye; for the following proves it:

R. Hisda and Rabba b. R. Hana once travelled in a ship, and a matron who wanted to go on the same ship asked their permission to sit down near them, which they refused. She pronounced a certain word and the ship stood still, but they in turn pronounced a certain word and the ship moved on. She then said: "It grieves me sorely that I cannot inflict some punishment on you, seeing that you use no fragments for toilet purposes, nor do you kill the vermin in garments, nor do you pull out vegetables from a bundle (but cut the bundle first)." (Hence it may be seen that fragments can be used as a means for the exercise of witchcraft.)

R. Huna said to his son Rabba: Why do you not go more frequently to R. Hisda, who expounds the law so pointedly? Answered the son: "Of what use would it be? He never taught me but mere worldly knowledge, such as, for instance: Not to sit down to excrementize with a jerk nor to force myself too much, lest the intestines come out and endanger life." R. Huna then rejoined: "Thou sayest 'mere worldly knowledge.' He is interested in the life of the people, and you call it mere worldly knowledge. So much the more should you go to him."

R. Hisda and Rabhina differ as to the consequences of one withholding to perform his necessities. One is of the opinion that foul breath is the result, while the other holds that the entire body assumes a bad odor. The opinion of the latter is supported by the following Boraitha: "He who takes nourishment while in need of performing his necessities is compared to a stove in which a fire was built without previously removing the ashes, which is invariably the cause of a bad smell. One who feels like performing his necessities, but cannot do so, R. Hisda advises that he keep on sitting down and getting up until able. R. Hanan from Neherdai advises him to look for another place, but the rabbis say the sole remedy is to think of nothing else."

The rabbis taught: One who is about to eat a hearty meal should walk ten times four ells or four times ten ells, then perform a (natural) necessity, and after that go in and sit down to the meal.

MISHNA V.: The prescribed quantity of fragments (of earthenware) is the size of such as are placed between two boards, is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Meir says, of a size sufficient to stir a fire with. R. Jossi, of a size to receive (hold) a quarter of a lug. Said R. Meir: Although no positive proof for my assertion can be found in the Scripture, still a vague reference can be deduced from the passage [Isaiah, xxx. 14]: "So that there cannot be found among their fragments a sherd to rake fire from a hearth." Said R. Jossi: "Therefrom you would adduce your proof? It says immediately after that [ibid., ibid.], 'and to draw water from a pit.'"
GEMARA: We must assume that the prescribed quantity allowed by R. Jossi is larger than that allowed by R. Meir; but the scriptural text shows that R. Meir allows the larger; because, is it possible that the prophet will curse them with a larger object after having cursed them with a smaller? Said Abayi: R. Meir also means a fragment used to stir a big fire with; hence his fragment is larger than R. Jossi's. "Said R. Jossi," etc. Is not R. Jossi's answer correct? What could R. Meir rejoin? R. Meir might say that the prophet intends to convey that not only shall they not have anything of the least value left, but they shall not even have anything that is as valueless as a piece of fragment big enough to contain a drop of water.

Footnotes

143:1 The wines used in Palestine were so strong that they had to be mixed with water in order to make them fit to drink.

143:2 At the benediction after meals a goblet possessing certain qualities and which is called a goblet of benediction must be used, as ordained in the Tract Benedictions.

144:1 Maphgia is a species of insect, unknown to us at the present day, of which Rashi said that it was a small animal whose voice was so strong that when a lion hears it, he is afraid of it, taking it for a very great animal.

148:1 Abayi and Rabba also discuss the same note, but this is repeated in the Third Gate, in whose translation we are now engaged, and is, therefore, omitted here.

150:1 A Mishna teaches elsewhere that it is a sin to lecture on metaphysics, outside of the university.

CHAPTER IX.

RABBI AQIBA'S REGULATIONS ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS . MISHNA I.: R. Aqiba said: Whence do we deduce that one who carries an idol is as unclean (ritually) as a woman suffering from menstruation? From the passage [Isaiah, xxx. 23]: "Thou wilt cast them away as a filthy thing. 1 'Get thee hence!', wilt thou say unto them." Thus, in the same manner as a woman suffering from menstruation causes (ritual) uncleanness, so does also an idol.

GEMARA: Rabba said: The passage mentioned in the Mishna should be interpreted thus: "Estrange 2 them from thyself as a stranger; Get thee hence, say unto him, but tell him not to come in!" Further Rabba said: It is unanimously conceded that the carrying of idols causes (ritual) uncleanness and hence it is compared to menstruation, but there is a dissenting opinion among the rabbis concerning a stone (used as a pedestal for an idol or upon which a woman suffering from menstruation chanced to sit) beneath which there were utensils. R. Aqiba holds that idols are regarded the same as menstruating women and the vessels beneath the stone become defiled (for the reason that the stone is the basis of the idol, and the former becomes part of the idol, and hence everything beneath it becomes defiled), but the rabbis regard an idol as a reptile, i.e., as a reptile lying upon a large stone (in which case any utensils chancing to be beneath the stone do not become defiled). This decree is unanimously conceded.
R. Ahadbou b. Ami asked: What about an idol smaller in size than an olive? R. Joseph objected to this question: What is the purpose of the query? Does it refer to the prohibition of idolatry? Even an idol the size of a fly, like the idol of the Ekronites, which was called Zebub 1 (fly) is also prohibited; for we are taught it is written in the passage [Judges, viii. 33]: "And they made themselves Baal-berith for a god"; by Baal-berith is meant the Zebub (fly) idol of Ekron, and every idolater (at that time) made an image of his idol in miniature in order to keep it constantly at hand and to be able at any time to take it out, embrace, and kiss it; hence there is no question as to size. Nay, the query of R. Ahadbou is in regard to causing defilement? Either it is regarded as a reptile and defiles, even if only of the size of a lentil, or it is considered as a corpse and causes defilement if it is the size of an olive. (A part of a corpse the size of an olive causes the person touching it to become defiled.) Answered R. Ivia, and according to others Rabba b. Ulla: "Come and hear the following Boraitha: 'No defilement is caused by idols smaller than olives, for it is written [II Kings, xxiii. 6]: "And cast its powder upon the graves of the children of the people."'" (The adduction is) that as a corpse cannot cause defilement by a part less than the size of ail olive, the same is the case with idols, which are regarded as corpses.

MISHNA II.: (R. Aqiba says again:) Whence the adduction that a ship, though a wooden vessel, is not subject to defilement? From the passage [Prov. xxx. 19]: "The way of a ship is in the heart of the sea."

GEMARA: It is certain 2 that R. Aqiba intends to convey to us that the reason the passage cited in the above Mishna informs us of a fact known to all is because the sense is to be construed thus: In the same manlier as the sea is not subject to defilement, so also a ship call never become defiled.
There is a Boraitha: Hananyah said: We make the adduction from a sack (which is subject to defilement) that everything which can be carried after the manner of a sack, sometimes full and at other times empty, is subject to defilement, except a ship, which cannot be carried at all, full or empty. What are the points of difference in the two adductions (of R. Aqiba and Hananyah)? They are concerning a small (river) boat. One holds that all boats (ships) must be regarded as the sea itself (hence not subject to defilement), while the other is of the opinion that a small (river) boat must be regarded as a sack because it is carried to the place whence it is launched and hence is subject to defilement; as R. Hanina b. Aqa'bbia said: Why did the rabbis say that a small (river) boat is subject to defilement? Because it is usually loaded in the dry dock and then carried into the river.

Rabbi Johanan in the name of Rabbi said: "One should not absent himself from the college even for one hour. Behold, this teaching (concerning a river boat) has been taught in the schools for many years and no one knew the reason for it until R. Hanina b. Aqa'bbia came and explained it."

R. Jonathan said: One should never absent himself from the house of learning or abstain from learning the law, even when at the point of death, for it is written [Num. xix. 14]: "This is the law, when a man dieth in his tent"; (i.e.) even at the point of death man must occupy himself with the study of the law. Resh Lakish, however, adduces from the same verse that one does not retain (in memory) the law, unless he is ready to die for it.

MISHNA III.: (R. Aqiba said:) Whence do we adduce that in a patch of ground six spans long by six spans wide five different kinds of seed may be planted—one kind each in each of the four corners and one in the centre of the patch? From the passage [Isaiah, lxi. 11]: "For as the earth bringeth forth her growth, and as a garden causeth what is sown therein to spring forth." (We see then) it is not written "as a garden causeth its seed to spring forth," but what is sown therein.
GEMARA: How is this to be understood from that passage? Said R. Jehudah: The passage cited in the above Mishna is to be thus explained: "The earth bringeth forth her growth." "Bringeth forth" (which is in the singular) can be counted for "one" (kind of seed). Her "growth" (also singular) can also be counted for "one." (Now we have two.) "What is grown therein" (evidently plural) can be counted for two more (making four), and "to spring forth" (in the singular again) can be counted as one, making five in all; and (as far as the six spans square are concerned) the rabbis are quite certain (through tradition) that five different kinds of seed in a patch six spans square do not interfere with one another. But whence do we know that the assurance of the rabbis can be depended upon? Answered R. Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan, from the passage [Deut. xix. 14]: "Thou shalt not remove the landmark of thy neighbor, which they of old time have set," which is to be explained: "Thou shalt not go beyond what is limited by those of old." But what have those of old limited? Answered R. Samuel bar Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan: "It is written [Gen. xxxvi. 20]: "These are the sons of Seir the Chorite, who inhabited the land." Only they inhabited the land? Did the rest of mankind inhabit heaven? It simply means to state that they made the earth inhabitable by their knowledge of agriculture and their experience as to what ground is adapted for the planting of olive trees, vines, date trees, etc.

R. Assi said: "The teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishna refers to a patch of ground six spans square, excluding the corners.

Rabh said: "The above Mishna has reference only to an isolated patch (or furrow) of ground, but in a furrow surrounded by others one can not sow five kinds of grain, (as it is necessary to have a space of three spans dividing one kind from the other). Are there not corners, however, (to the furrow)?" The school of Rabh explained, in the name of Rabh, that reference is made to furrows into the corners of which grain had been sown.
Samuel, however, said, even in a furrow surrounded by other furrows. But will not the seeds interfere one with another? Samuel refers to furrows which are planted alternately from north to east and from south to west. 1 MISHNA IV.: (R. Aqiba says again): Whence the adduction that a woman, from whom seed of copulation 2 escapes only on the third day (after lying with her husband), is unclean? From the passage [Exodus, xix. 15]: "And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day. Approach not unto a woman." Whence the adduction that a child may be bathed on the third day of its circumcision, even if that day fall on a Sabbath? From the passage [Gen. xxxiv. 25]: "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore." Whence the adduction that a string of crimson wool must be tied on the head of the goat that was to be sent away? 3 From the passage [Isaiah, i. 18]: "Though they should be red like crimson, they shall become (white) like wool." Whence do we adduce that anointing one's self on the Day of Atonement is equal to drinking? Although no positive proof is apparent, still a reference can be adduced from the passage [Psalms, cix. 18]: "And it cometh like water on his body and oil into his bones."
GEMARA: The first part of the Mishna (treating of a woman) is not in accordance with the opinion of R. Elazar b. Azaryah, who declares her (the woman) clean in that case; the second part of the Mishna, however, (treating of bathing on the third day after circumcision) is in direct accord with his own words (as will be seen in Chapter XIX.). Therefore some rabbis claim that the first part of the Mishna reads clean instead of unclean, i.e., that the whole Mishna is according to the opinion of R. Elazar b. Azaryah, but other rabbis claim that the first part of the Mishna is according to the opinion of other Tanaim, who differ with Elazar b. Azaryah (and the word unclean is correct). "And they shall be ready against the third day" [Ex. xix. 11]. R. Ada b. Ahbha said: "Moses went up (to the Mount Sinai) at daybreak, and descended the following break of day." He went up at break of day, as it is written [Ex. xxxiv. 4]: "And Moses rose up early in the morning and went up unto Mount Sinai." He descended on the following daybreak, as it is written [ibid. xix. 24]: "Go, get thee down, and then shalt thou come up, thou, and Aaron with thee." We see that the Scripture compares the descending to the ascending, and as the ascending was early in the morning, so was also the descending early in the morning.

The rabbis taught: The decalogue was given to Israel on the sixth day of the (third) month, but R. Jossi said on the seventh day.

Said Rabba: All agree that on the first day of the (third) month the Israelites arrived at the wilderness of Sinai. It is adduced from the analogy of the word "this"; [Ex. xix. 1] "on this day they arrived at the wilderness of Sinai," and [Ex. xii. 2] "this month to be to you the first of months." As in the latter instance the "this" referred to the first, so does it also in the former; furthermore (he said), all agree that the law was given to Israel on a Sabbath; this is to be adduced from the analogy of the word "remember" [Ex. xx. 8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"; and [ibid. iii. 3]: "Remember this day on which ye came out from Egypt." As in the latter instance the very day of their coming out of Egypt is referred to, so is it also in the former instance. Where the rabbis do differ is what day was the first of the month. R. Jossi holds that the first of the month was set on the first of the week, and on that day no commandments were given, because the children of Israel were tired from their long journey. On the second day (of the week) the Lord said to them: "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests" [Ex. xix. 1]. On the third of the week he commanded them to keep away from the mountain. On the fourth to separate themselves from their wives. The rabbis, however, hold that the first of the month was set on the second of the week; that on that day nothing was commanded the Israelites, they being tired; on the third the cited passage [Ex. xix. 1] was said; on the fourth day they were to keep away from the mountain, and on the fifth to separate themselves from their wives.

An objection was raised: It is written [Ex. xix. 10]: "Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow." Is this not contradictory to the statement of R. Jossi (in whose opinion the sanctification lasted three days)? R. Jossi may explain this thus: "Moses added one day upon his own authority," as we have learned in a Boraitha: "Three things were done by Moses upon his own authority, and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed thereto. They are: He added one day (to the period of sanctification), he separated himself from a woman, and he broke the tablets into pieces." "He added one day upon his own authority." What was his object? The Lord said unto him: "To-day and to-morrow," and he construed the words as follows: "To-day must be equal (in duration) to tomorrow; as to-morrow includes the might, so must to-day; the night, however, having already passed, another day must be added in order to make up for the lost night." Whence do we know that the Lord agreed to this? Because the Shekhina did not appear on Mount Sinai until the Sabbath morn. What was the object of Moses in separating himself from a woman? He applied the order given the Israelites (to separate themselves from their wives) to himself in a so much larger degree (i.e., the order having been issued to the Israelites for the reason that they would shortly hear the word of the Lord, it would be so much more proper for him, who frequently was spoken to by the Lord, to separate himself entirely from a woman). And whence do we know that the Lord agreed to this also? It is written [Deut. v. 27 and 28]: "Go, say to them, Return you unto your tents. But as for thee, remain thou here by me." And what was his object in breaking the tablets? He thought: "As concerning the Passover sacrifice, which is only one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, it is written [Ex. xii- 43]: 'No stranger shall eat thereof,' how can I give the tablets, which contain all the commandments, to the children of Israel, who are now all renegades?" And whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed even to this? It is written [Ex. xxxiv. 1]: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thyself two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon these tables the words which were on the first tables which thou didst break." Said Resh Lakish: "'Which thou didst break' really means, 'which thou didst break rightfully.'"

Another objection was raised: It is written [Ex. xix. 11]: "And they shall be ready against the third day." According to R. Jossi it should be the fourth day. This is no objection! as it is said above that Moses added another day upon his own authority. Come and hear another objection: "The sixth means the sixth of the week and of the month." Is this not contradictory to the statement of the rabbis, who say: "The first of the month was the second day of the week?" Yea, (it may be that) this Boraitha holds to the opinion of R. Jossi.

Come and hear: On the fourteenth day of the month of Nissan, during which (month) the Israelites went out of Egypt, they killed the Passover sacrifice and on the fifteenth day they went out. On the night before that the first-born of the Egyptians were beaten. That day (the fifteenth) was the fifth of the week. Now, if the fifteenth of Nissan was the fifth of the week, we must certainly say that the first of the next month (Iar) was Sabbath and the first day of the following month (Sivan) was the first day of the week. Is this not contradictory to the statement of the rabbis, that the first day of the month was the second day of the week? The rabbis might have assumed that the month of Iar was an intercalary month.
Said R. Habibi of 'Huzunah to R. Ashi: Come and hear: It is written [Ex. xl. 17]: "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up," and a Boraitha teaches that this day was crowned tenfold, viz.: "That day was the first of the six days of the creation; the first of the days on which the first prince presented his offering before the altar; the first of the days on which the priests (Aaron and sons) did their work in the sanctuary; the first day on which the children of Israel brought their sacrifices into the tabernacle; the first of the days on which the heavenly fire descended upon the altar; the first of the days on which the priests were permitted to eat the sacrifices in the tabernacle; the first of the days on which the Shekhina appeared in the tabernacle; the first day on which Aaron the High Priest blessed the Israelites in the tabernacle; the first of the days on which sacrifices were no more permitted to be brought on the high places outside of the tabernacle, and the first day of the first of the months." Now, if the first day of this year was the first day of the week, we must say the first of Nissan of the preceding year fell on the fourth day of the week, because we have learned in another Boraitha: "Anonymous teachers say that there can be not more than four days' difference between one New Year's day and another." If a leap year intervened, then there may be a difference of five days. Is this not contradictory to the opinion of both the rabbis and R. Jossi? According to R. Jossi there were seven short months (of twenty-nine days) in that year, but according to the rabbis there were eight such months, (consequently the difference from the last year was only in two days,) as this year was an extraordinary one. (And the first day of the month Iar of the last year was on Friday.)

Another objection was raised: We have learned in the Tract Seder Aulim that on the fourteenth day of the month of Nissan, during which (month) the Israelites went out of Egypt, they killed the Passover sacrifice; on the fifteenth they went out, and that day was Friday. Now, if the first of the month of Nissan of that year was Friday, we must say that the first day of the following (Iar) month was on the first day of the week and the first of the succeeding month (Sivan) was on Monday. Is this not contradictory with R. Jossi? R. Jossi will then say that this Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis.
Come and hear another objection: R. Jossi says: "On the second day Moses went up on the Mount Sinai and came back. The same he did on the third day, but on the fourth day, when he came back, he remained." Came back and remained? Whence did he come back—it does not say that he went up at all? Say, then, on the fourth day he went up, came back, and remained. On the fifth he built an altar and offered a sacrifice. On the sixth he had no time. Shall we assume that he had no time because on that day the Israelites received the Torah? (If we say that the second refers to the second day of the week, it must be a fact that the Torah was given on Friday, and would this not be a contradiction to his [R. Jossi's] own opinion?) Nay; he had no time because the Sabbath was at hand.

A Galilean lectured in the presence of R. Hisda: Praised be the merciful God, who gave a triple law (the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa) to a triple people (Kahanites, Levites, and Israelites) through a man who was the third child of his parents (Miriam, Aaron, and Moses), on the third day of sanctification and in the third month. We see from this that the Galilean held in accordance with the teachings of the rabbis.
It is written [Ex. xix. 17]: "And they placed themselves at the foot of the mount." Said R. Abhdimi b. Hama b. Hassa: "It appears from this passage that the Holy One, blessed be He, inclined the mountain toward the children of Israel and gave them the choice of either accepting the Torah or being buried right under the mountain." Said R. Aha b. Jacob: "This would accord us the right to protest against any punishment inflicted upon us for violating the law. (For we were compelled to accept it.)" Said Rabha: Although (at that time they were compelled to accept it), at the time of Ahasuerus (King of Persia) they accepted it voluntarily. For it is written [Esther, ix. 27]: "The Jews confirmed it as a duty, and took upon themselves and upon their seed." And it is to be explained: "They took upon themselves voluntarily what at one time they were compelled to accept." R. Simai lectured: "At that time, when Israel answered to the information of Moses, 'We will do and we will obey,' six hundred thousand angels had furnished to every one of Israel two crowns: one for the answer 'We will do,' and one for the answer 'We will obey.' Thereafter when Israel sinned (with the Golden Calf) twelve hundred thousand destroying angels descended and took them away; as it is written [Exodus, xxxiii. 6]: 'The children of Israel then stripped themselves of their ornaments (they wore) from (the time they were at) Mount Horeb.'" Said R. Hami b. R. Hanina: "For in the same passage it may be deduced that in the same place where they were furnished they were taken away from them." Said R. Johanan: All of them were given as a reward to Moses, as immediately after the verse cited it is written: "And Moses took the tent," etc. Said Resh Lakish: We hope, however, that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return them to us, as it is written [Isaiah, xxxv. 10]: "And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with song, with everlasting joy upon their head." The expression everlasting means that it was already upon their heads at the time of reception of the Torah.

R. Elazar said: At the time the Israelites said "We will do" and afterward "We will obey" a heavenly voice (Bath-kol) was heard, which said unto them: "Who unfolded unto my children this mystery known only to the angels?" For it is written [Psalms, ciii. 20]: "Bless the Lord, ye his angels, mighty in strength, that execute his word, hearkening unto the voice of his word," and from this we see that only angels can execute first and then obey.

A Sadducee once noticed Rabha studying and observed that he in his absent-mindedness held his (Rabha's) finger underneath his knee and pressed it so hard that blood spurted from the finger. Said the Sadducee 1to him: "Impetuous people, whose mouths precede your ears! Ye are still of the same vehemence! Ye must first hear the Torah before you accept it and not accept without knowing its prescriptions!" Answered Rabha: We who are upright men trusted Him, as it is said of us [Proverbs, xi. 3]: "The integrity of the upright guideth them," but to those men who are continually fault-finding the latter part of the same verse [ibid., ibid.] can be applied, viz. "But the cunning of the treacherous destroyeth them."

R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: It is written [Solomon's Song, iv. 9]: "Thou hast ravished my heart, O my sister, (my) bride! thou hast ravished my heart with one of thy eyes." This means: When thou didst but receive the Torah, it was with one of thy eyes. When thou wilt obey it, it will be with both of thy eyes.

R. Johanan said: It is written [Psalms, lxviii. 12]: "The Lord gave (happy) tidings; they are published by female messengers, a numerous host." This implies that every word emanating from the mighty God was heralded in seventy languages. The school of R. Ishmael, however, (adduced the same from another passage): It is written [Jeremiah, xxiii. 29]: "Is not thus my word like the fire? saith the Lord, and like a hammer that shivereth the rock?" As the hammer that strikes emits a multitude of sparks, so, is every word emanating from the Holy One, blessed be He, heralded in seventy different languages.

R. Hananel b. Papa said: It is written [Proverbs, viii. 6]. "Hear! for of noble things will I speak." Why are the words of the Torah compared to a noble? To inform us that inasmuch as a noble has in his power the disposal over life and death, so have also the words of the Torah. This is similar to what Rabha said: To those who walk in the right ways of the law, it is an elixir of life, but to those who pursue not the right way, it is the poison of death.

R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: It is written [Solomon's Song, i. 12]: "A bundle of myrrh is my friend unto me, that resteth on my bosom." Said the Congregation of Israel: "Lord of the Universe! Although my friend chastiseth 1 me, still he resteth on my bosom!"

The same rabbi said: "It is written [Solomon's Song, v. 13]: "His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as turrets of sweet perfumes." Every word emanating from the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole world with the aroma of spices. If the world was filled with the aroma arising from the first word, where could the second word go? The Holy One, blessed be He, sent forth a wind from His store, which cleared off the aroma of each word, as it is written [ibid.]: "His lips like lilies, dropping with fluid myrrh." Do not read Shoshanim (lilies) but Sheshonim (learned men). The same said again that from each word which came from the Holy One, blessed be He, the soul of Israel was going out, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 6]: "My soul had failed me while he was speaking." But the Holy One, blessed be He, has let down the dew with which He will in the future make the resurrection and bring them to life; as it is written [Psalms, lxviii. 10]: "Rain of beneficence didst thou pour down, O God!"

He also said: When Moses ascended into Heaven, said the angels before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the Universe! What has one born of a woman to do among us?"
The Lord answered: "He came to receive the Torah." Said the angels again: "Wouldst Thou give a precious thing that Thou hast preserved since nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the creation of the world to a being of flesh and blood? (It is written [Psalms, viii. 5]): What is the mortal, that thou rememberest him? and the son of man, that thou thinkest of him?" Said the Holy One, blessed be He, unto Moses: "Give thou them an answer!" Answered Moses before the Lord: "Lord of the Universe! What is written in the law, which Thou gavest unto me?" [Ex. xx. 2]. "I am the Lord, thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Moses then said to the angels: Were ye in Egypt? Have ye served Pharaoh? Of what use can the Torah be unto you? Further, what is written in the Torah [ibid. 3]: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Are ye among the nations that worship idols? And furthermore, what is written in the Torah? [ibid. 8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Do ye any labor on the week-days? [Ibid. 7]: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Are ye merchants, that ye must swear? [Ibid. 13]: "Honor thy father and thy mother." Have ye fathers and mothers to honor? [Ibid. 12]: "Thou shalt not kill," etc. Is there any jealousy among you? Have ye any evil intent?

Then the angels confessed and praised the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Psalms, viii. 10]: "O Eternal One, our Lord, how excellent is thy name on all the earth!" but the ending of the verse [ibid. 2], "Thou who hast set thy majesty above the heavens," is not cited in this verse. Then every one of the angels befriended Moses and each of them disclosed some mystery to him, as it is written [Psalms, lxviii. 19]: "Thou didst ascend on high, lead away captives, receive gifts among men," which means that because at first the angels called Moses one born of a woman (man), they at the close gave him gifts, and even the Angel of Death disclosed a mystery to him, as it is written [Num. xvii. 12 and 13]: "And he put on the incense, and made an atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living." Now if the Angel of Death had not disclosed unto Moses this mystery, how could he have imparted it to Aaron?

Said R. Jehoshua b. Levi again: When Moses descended from Heaven, Satan came before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said: "Lord of the universe! Where is the Torah?" And the Lord answered: "I have given it to the earth." Satan descended to earth and said to it: "Where is the Torah?" And the earth answered [Job, xxviii. 23]: "God (alone) understandeth her way, and he knoweth her place." Satan then went to the sea, and the sea said: "She is not with me." He then went to the deep, and the deep answered: "Not in me is she," as it is written [ibid. 14]: "The deep saith, Not in me is she; and the sea saith, She is not with me." [Ibid. 22]: "Perdition and death say: With our ears have we heard a report of her." Satan then ascended before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said: "Lord of the Universe! I have looked for the Torah on the whole earth and could not find it." Then said the Lord unto him: "Go unto the son of Amram." And Satan went to Moses and said to him: "Where is the Torah which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave unto thee?" And Moses answered: "Who am I, that the Holy One, blessed be He, should give me the Torah?" Said the Lord unto Moses: "Moses, art thou a liar?" Said Moses before the Lord: "Lord of the Universe! Shall I claim that Thou hast given unto me a precious thing which Thou didst fondle every day?" Said the Holy One, blessed be He, unto Moses: "Because thou hast humbled thyself, the Torah shall bear thy name," as it is written [Malachi, iii. 22]: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant."

The same rabbi said again: When Moses ascended unto Heaven (and he was silent), the Lord said unto him: "Moses, is there no peace in thy city?" And Moses answered: "Is it then proper that a slave should salute his Master?" Said the Lord: "Still thou shouldst have wished me well." Then said Moses before the Lord [Numbers, xiv. 17]: "And now, I beseech thee, let the greatness of the power of the Lord be made manifest as thou hast spoken." "A string of crimson wool," etc. Did not the passage say (Kashanim) 1 "like years" and not like crimson, for were it like crimson it would read Kashani? Said R. Itz'hak: "The passage is thus to be explained: The Lord said unto Israel: If your sins all lie before me as the years that have passed since the creation, they shall nevertheless become white as snow."

Rabha lectured: It is written [Isaiah, i. 18]: "Go now, 2 and let us reason together, said the Lord." It should not read "go now" but "come now," and not "saith the Lord" but "said the Lord." The passage should be explained: In the future the Lord will say unto Israel: Go to your ancestors and they shall rebuke you; and Israel will say before the Lord: Lord of the Universe, to whom shall we go? Shall we go to Abraham, to whom Thou hast said: "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land which is not theirs, and they will make them serve," and he did not pray for us? Shall we go to Isaac, who, when blessing Esau, said [Gen. xxvii. 40]: "And it shall come to pass that when thou shalt have the dominion thou canst break his yoke from off thy neck," and he also did not pray for us? Shall we go to Jacob, to whom Thou didst say [Gen. xlvi. 4]: "I will go down with thee into Egypt," and not even he prayed for us? To whom shall we go now? Then the Lord will say unto Israel: "Inasmuch as ye have attached yourselves to me, though your sins should be as scarlet, they shall become white as snow."

Said R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan: It is written [Isaiah, lxiii. 16]: "For Thou art our Father; for Abraham knoweth nothing of us, and Israel recognizeth us not; Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name." In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to Abraham: "Thy children have sinned before me," and Abraham will answer: "Let them be wiped off (the face of the earth) for the sake of the holiness of Thy name." The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say: "I shall tell this to Jacob, who had trouble in rearing his own children; perhaps he will pay for the present generation." The Lord said to Jacob: "Thy children have sinned before me," and Jacob gave the same reply as Abraham. Then said the Lord: "Not with the aged can feeling be found, nor with the young wise counsel." The Lord then said to Isaac: "Thy children have sinned before me." Then said Isaac before the Lord: "Creator of the universe! Thou sayest my children, are they not Thine? When they answered before Thee, 'We will do,' and (then) 'obey,' Thou calledst them 'My son, my first-born,' and now they are my children and not Thine! And furthermore, how long a time have they sinned before Thee? Let us see; what is the duration of a man's life? Only seventy years. Take off the twenty years that Thou dost not punish for sin and only fifty remain. Take off the nights and only twenty-five full years remain. Deduct again twelve years and six months spent in praying, eating, and in the performance of other necessities, only twelve and one-half years remain. If Thou wilt bear the whole it is well, but if not let me bear half and Thou the other half. If Thou wilt say that I must bear the whole, did I not sacrifice myself for Thee?"

Then Israel said (unto Isaac): "For thou (alone) art our father." Said Isaac unto them: "Instead of praising me, praise ye the Holy One, blessed be He," and he pointed them on high with his finger. "There is the Lord!" Then they lifted up their eyes unto Heaven and said: Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from everlasting is Thy name.

R. Hyya b. Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: "Jacob deserved to go down into Egypt in iron shackles (because that is the usual way of going into exile), but his merits precluded such a thing, as it is written: "With human cords I ever drew them forward, with leading-strings of love; and I was to them as those that lift off the yoke from their jaws, and I held out unto them food" [Hosea, xi. 4].

MISHNA V.: The prescribed quantity for wood is as much as suffices. to cook an (easily boiled) egg; for spices as much as would suffice to spice such an egg—and the different spices are counted together; nut-shells, pomegranate peel, isatis, and cochineal, as much as suffices to dye the edge of a small piece of cloth; alum, native carbonate of soda, Cimolia chalk, vegetable soap, as much as suffices to wash the edge of a small piece of cloth. R. Jehudah says as much as will suffice to remove a blood stain.

GEMARA: Have we not learned this already? Reeds, split, as much as will suffice to cook an egg? In that case we must assume that the reeds could not be used for any other purpose, but wood which can be put to a multitude of uses, as, for instance, to make the handle for a key, (should be limited to a smaller quantity). He comes to teach us that the same quantity also applies in this case. "Nut-shells," etc. Is this not a contradiction to what we have learned elsewhere, that dyes may not be carried in quantities sufficient to exhibit a sample of the color in the market? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: "Because one will not take the trouble to make dye sufficient only for a sample." "Native carbonate," etc. A Boraitha in addition to this states, that coming from Alexandria but not from Anphantrin. "Vegetable soap" (Ashleg). Said Samuel: "I have inquired of a number of seafaring men and they have told me that the name for it is Ashalgoh; it is found in the shells of a pearl-oyster and it is extracted with iron needles."

MISHNA VI.: The prescribed quantity for (aromatic) pepper (pimento) is the least possible amount; for tar it is the same; for different kinds of spices and metals it is also the same; for the stone and the earth of the altar, torn pieces of the scroll of laws or its cover, it is also the same, because such things are generally preserved by men. R. Jehudah said: The same quantity applies to everything pertaining to the worship of idols, because it is written [Deut. xiii. 18]: "And there shall not cleave to thy hand aught of the devoted things."

GEMARA: To what use can such a small quantity of pepper be put? It may be used by one whose breath is foul. "For tar." For what purpose can tar in so small a quantity be used? It may be used by one who has the sickness Tzilchathah (an illness where only one-half of the head aches). "For different kinds of spices." The rabbis taught: The prescribed quantity both for aromatic spices as well as for ill-smelling oils is the same (least possible quantity); for purple dye also the same, and for roses only one rosebud. "And metals." Of what use are they? We have learned, R. Simon b. Elazar said: They can be used to make a goad. "The torn pieces of the scroll of laws." Said R. Jehudah: Book-worms, silk-worms, vine-worms, date-worms, and pomegranate-worms are all dangerous to human life. There was a disciple sitting before R. Johanan eating dates, and the disciple said to him: "Rabbi, there are thorns in the dates." Said the rabbi: "The date-worm (Pah) has killed this man."

MISHNA VII.: One who carries the chest of a spice dealer is liable for one sin-offering only, although there may be many spices in the chest. The prescribed quantity for garden seeds is the equivalent in size to a dried fig. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said. Five different seeds. The prescribed quantity for cucumber seeds are two, for pumpkin seeds the same, for Egyptian beans the same; a living locust (which may be eaten), be it ever so small, must not be carried, but dead locusts may be carried in quantities less than a dried fig. The prescribed quantity for vineyard birds 1 living or dead is the smallest possible quantity, because they were preserved for medicinal purposes. R. Jehudah said: One must not carry out a living locust, (which must not be eaten), be it ever so small, because such locusts were kept as playthings for small children.
GEMARA: "Cucumber seeds." The rabbis taught: The prescribed quantity for seeds used for planting is two, but for seeds used for food it is the equivalent of a pig's mouthful. How much is a pig's mouthful? The seeds of one cucumber. For cucumber seeds used as fuel the prescribed quantity is as much as will suffice to cook an egg; for cucumber seeds used as counters (for figures) only two. Anonymous teachers say five.
The rabbis taught: One who carries two hairs from the tail of a horse or a cow is culpable, because the hairs are always preserved for making nets. The prescribed quantity for hog bristles is only one; for willows (used for wickerwork) two; for tree-bark 1 one strip. "R. Jehudah says: A locust (which must not be eaten)," etc. Why did not the first Tana of the Mishna mention this? Because in his opinion it is forbidden to carry it even on week-days, lest one eat it. If such is the case, why should an eatable locust be allowed to be carried? Did not R. Kahana stand before Rabh and a small locust lighted on his lips: Rabh said to him. (R. Kahana), Take it away, lest people say that thou hast eaten it and thou hast violated the commandment [Leviticus, xi. 43]: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth"? Nay; there was no fear that the locust would be eaten alive, but they apprehended lest it die and then be eaten. (An eatable locust would not matter, but an uneatable locust would be a violation of the law.) If that is the case, why does R. Jehudah permit this? R. Jehudah holds that there is no fear of the locust being eaten when dead, as the child will mourn its death.

Footnotes

154:1 The Hebrew term used for "filthy thing" in the passage is "Davah," and in Leviticus, xx. 18, Davah is translated, "a woman suffering from her separation (menstruation)."

154:2 The word "Tizrom" (cast them away) Rabba holds to be a derivation from the word "Zar" (strange) and not from "Zarah" (cast away).

155:1 See II Kings, i. 2.

155:2 The term "it is certain" (peshitah) is generally used by the Gemara in the sense of the question, "Is it not self-evident?" In the above case, however, it is intended for an explanation of the reason for R. Aqiba's adduction. See Rashi.

157:1 Rashi declares this to be the best possible explanation of Samuel's opinion, and says that many others offered many different explanations, none of which are comprehensible.

157:2 See Leviticus, xv. 16, 17, 18, and ibid. xxii. 4.

157:3 See Lev. xvi. 21.

163:1 It is not meant a real Sadducee, as they did not yet exist in Rabha's time, but one of the other sects which opposed the oral law; and the name may be here a correction of the censor instead of Akum, as there are many such corrections of the censor. It may also be another sect for which the name Sadducee was borrowed.

164:1 The Hebrew term for bundle is Tzror, and for oppressor is Tzoror; hence R. Johanan interprets Tzror as if it were Tzoror.

166:1 Shanah in Hebrew means year (Shanim, plural, years). Shany means crimson, but the latter is used only once (Prov. xxxi. 21) in plural; the former, however, is generally used in plural, as, for many years. As here it is in plural (Kashanim) he declares it like years.

166:2 In Isaac Leeser's translation of the Bible, which we use in Biblical citations, this passage is rendered "Come now," but the literal translation is "Go now."

169:1 None of the commentators can explain what kind of birds is meant.

170:1 Rashi declares in his commentary that he does not know what it is nor for what purpose it is used. See Aruch.

CHAPTER X.

FURTHER REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITY OF THINGS TO BE STORED . MISHNA I.: One who had stored anything for planting, sampling, or medicinal purposes (before the Sabbath) and carried some of it out (into public ground) on the Sabbath, be it ever so small a quantity, is liable for a sin-offering. Any one else, however, is culpable only then if (he carried out) the prescribed quantity. Even the one who had stored is culpable only for the prescribed quantity, if he brought the thing carried out by him back (to private ground).

GEMARA: For what purpose is it said in the Mishna, "One who stored anything"? Would it not be sufficient to say, "One who carried out things intended for planting, sampling, or medicinal purposes, be the quantity ever so small, is culpable"? Said Abayi: The Mishna treats of the case of a man who, after storing the thing, forgot for what purpose he had stored it, and then carried it out into the street for any purpose whatever. Lest one say that the original intention (to store it) is abolished, and now the thing carried out has for him only the same value as for others, and he would be culpable only for carrying out the regularly prescribed quantity, it comes to teach us that one who commits a deed executes his original intention.
R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: R. Meir declares one who carried out only a single wheat grain, intended for sowing, culpable. Is this not self-evident? The Mishna taught: "Be it ever so small." One might presume that the term "be it ever so small" denotes something smaller than a dried fig but not smaller than an olive. R. Meir therefore informs us (that it refers even to one wheat grain). R. Itz'hak, the son of R. Jehudah, opposed this: "(We see that) the Mishna declares one culpable for an act originally intended to be performed, but now, supposing a man intended to carry out his entire household at once; is he then not culpable until he had accomplished the entire task, even if he had carried out part of it?" The answer was: If a man has an absurd intention it is abolished by the law, and he is culpable for carrying out the prescribed quantity. "Any one else, however," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with that of R. Simeon b. Elazar (on page 145).
Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: "If one carried out a thing the size of a dried fig with the intention of eating it, but changed his mind in the meantime and then intended to sow it, or, on the contrary, first intended to sow it and then to eat it, he is culpable. Is this not self-evident? The prescribed quantity for both eating and sowing was carried. Lest one say that the removing and the depositing of a thing must be done with the very same intention in order to make one culpable, which is not so in this case, he comes to teach us that he is culpable. "If he brought the thing," etc. Is this not self-evident? (for he did not sow it, we then see that his original intention is abolished). Said Abayi: "The Mishna speaks of a case where the man took the thing brought from his house, and threw it into the place where his full supply was kept, and the place where he threw it remained conspicuous. Lest one say, if the place is conspicuous, his original intention is not yet abolished, because he took the same thing again, it comes to teach us that the throwing of the thing among his other supplies annulled his original intention.

MISHNA II.: If one intended to carry out victuals and deposited them on the doorstep, whether he afterward carried them out (into the street) himself, or this was done by some one else, he is not culpable, because he did not accomplish the deed at one time. If one deposited a basket of fruit on the outside doorstep, even if the bulk of the fruit was on the outside (in the street), he is not culpable, unless he carried out the entire basket (into the street).

GEMARA: What kind of a doorstep does the Mishna have reference to? Should we assume that the doorstep was public ground, how can the man be not culpable? He carried out from private into public ground. Should we assume that the doorstep was private ground, why does the Mishna teach that if he carried it out (into the street), or any one else, he is not culpable? It is again a case of carrying out from private into public ground? We must therefore assume that the doorstep was unclaimed ground, and it comes to teach us that only when the victuals were deposited on the unclaimed ground the man is not culpable, but if they had been carried out from private into public ground, even by way of unclaimed ground, he is culpable.

And the Mishna does not agree with the opinion of Ben Azai, of the following Boraitha: "One who carries out from his store into the market by way of the alley is culpable, but Ben Azai says he is not." "If one deposited a basket of fruit," etc. Said Hyzkiyah: The case in question treats only of a basket filled with cucumbers and beets, but if full of mustard seeds he is culpable. From this we see that Hyzkiyah considers a vessel no support 1 (i.e., the cucumbers are encircled by the basket and need no support), but the mustard seeds, which are heaped up, are outside of the basket proper and not supported by it; therefore, when the basket with mustard seeds is carried outside, part of the mustard seeds are already on the outside and the carrier is culpable. R. Johanan, however, says, even if the basket contained mustard seeds, he is also not culpable.

Thence we see that R. Johanan does consider a vessel a support. Said R. Zera: "How is it with the Mishna? It is neither of the opinion of Hyzkiyah nor of R. Johanan." Hyzkiyah may explain it in accordance with his theory and R. Johanan with his own. Hyzkiyah explains the Mishna, which said "unless he carries out the entire basket." This is the case if the basket is filled with cucumbers and beets, but if filled with mustard seeds it is equal to putting out the entire basket into the street, and he is culpable, but R. Johanan explained the Mishna thus: Although the bulk of the fruit is on the outside, or even if all the fruit were on the outside, the man would not be culpable unless the entire basket was put on the outside. So also said Rabha: The Mishna treats only of a basket filled with cucumbers and beets, but if filled with mustard seeds the man is culpable.

Whence we see that he does not consider a vessel a support. Abayi, however, said: Even if the basket contained mustard seeds, the man is also not culpable. Whence we see that he does consider a vessel a support. Shall we say that Abayi adopted the system of Rabha and Rabha of Abayi, or Abayi contradicts himself and Rabha does the same? As it was taught: One who carried out fruit into public ground, Abayi said, is culpable only if he carried it out with his hand (although the body remained in public ground), but if in a vessel he is not culpable. (Why?

Because Abayi does not consider the body a support to the hand, in spite of the fact that the hand is attached to the body, but if he carried out the fruit in a vessel and part of the vessel still remained in private ground, he is not culpable.) And Rabha says, on the contrary: If he carried the fruit out in his hand he is not culpable (because he considers the body a support and the hand is part of the body), but if he carried it out in a vessel he is culpable (because, although the vessel is still in private ground, some of the fruit is in public ground). The answer is: Reverse the case. (Say Abayi's statement should be Rabha's and Rabha's Abayi's).

MISHNA III.: One who carries out anything in the right or in the left hand or in his bosom or on his shoulder is culpable, as so was the manner in which the sons of Kehath carried (their burdens). 1 But one who carries out a thing on the back of his hand or with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow, with his ear, with his hair, with his waist bag, the opening of which is at the bottom, or between his belt and his shirt, with the edge of his shirt, with his shoe or sandal, is not culpable, because he carries it in an unusual manner.

GEMARA: R. Elazar said: "One who carries out a burden ten spans above the ground [not on his shoulder, but in the air] is culpable, because in this manner the sons of Kehath carried their burdens." Whence do we know that the sons of Kehath carried their burdens in this way? It is written [Numb. iii. 26]: "Which is by the tabernacle and by the altar round about." Hence he compares the tabernacle to the altar. As the tabernacle was ten ells, so was also the altar ten ells; and whence do we know that the tabernacle itself was ten ells? Because it is written [Ex. xxvi. 16]: "Ten ells shall be the length of the boards." Or we may say that we know that the sons of Kehath carried their burdens in this manner from the ark, as the Master said: The ark was nine spans high, and with the cover, which was one span higher, it was ten. Experience is to the effect that when a burden was carried on the shoulders by means of poles, one-third of the burden was above the poles and two-thirds below; then as the ark was ten spans high and one-third of it was carried above the shoulders, it was certainly more than ten spans above the ground.
But let it be inferred from Moses himself, of whom it is said elsewhere that he was very tall. With Moses the case is different; as the Master said elsewhere that the Shekhina does not rest upon a man unless he is a scholar, a strong, rich, or tall man.

It was taught: One who carries a burden on his head is not culpable. And if one will say that the inhabitants of the city of Hutzal do so, we may assume that their deed is abolished by the rest of mankind, who do not carry burdens on their heads.

MISHNA IV.: One who intends to carry something in front, but the thing moved to his back, is not culpable, but if he intends to carry it on his back and it moves to the front he is. Of a truth it was said: A woman who wears a girdle, whether she carries something in the front or in the back of it, is culpable, because the girdle invariably turns around. R. Jehudah says the same rule applies to letter-carriers.
GEMARA: Where is the difference? The main object (here is the intention). And in either case his intention was not carried out; why is he not culpable if the thing, moved from the front to the back and culpable if it moved from the back to the front? Said R. Elazar: "Divide the Mishna into two parts. The second part was not taught by the same Tana as the first." Said R. Ashi: "This is no question at all. Perhaps the Mishna may be explained thus: Not only did the man intend to carry it on his back and did so, which would make him culpable, because his intention was carried out, but even if he intended to carry it on his back and it moved to the front, in which case his intention was not carried out, lest one say that then he is not culpable, it comes to teach us that when one intends to preserve the thing with little safety, and it occurs that he has done so with a proper safety, he is benefited by it; hence he is culpable." "Of a truth it was said." There is a Boraitha: Wherever it is said "Of a truth it was said," it is to be considered that so the Halakha prevails. "R. Jehudah says the same rule applies to letter-carriers." A Boraitha in addition to it states that so it is because the carriers of the government usually do so.

MISHNA V.: One who carries out a large loaf of bread into public ground is culpable. If two persons do this together they are both innocent, provided it could be done by one of them; if, however, they did so because it could not be done by one, both are culpable. R. Simeon, however, declares them not culpable.
GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, according to others Abayi said, and still others say that it was learned in a Boraitha: "If of both men who carried the loaf, either was able to carry it himself, R. Meir makes them both culpable, but R. Jehudah and R. Simeon declare them both innocent. If, of the two, neither was able (to do it himself), R. Jehudah and R. Meir declare them culpable and R. Simeon declares them free. If one of the two, however, was able, and the other unable, all agree that the able man is culpable." Whence is all this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. iv. 2]: "If any person sin," etc., i.e., if he committed the whole deed but not a part of it. How so? If two persons held one pitchfork and threw grain with it, or a weaver's spindle and wove with it, or a quill and wrote with it, or a reed and carried it into public ground, one might say that they are culpable. It is written [ibid.]: "If any person sin," etc. But if two persons held a date-press, or a log, and carried them out into public ground, R. Jehudah says, if one of the two was not able to carry it himself and they both carried it, they are both culpable, but if either of them was able, both are not culpable. R. Simeon says, even if one alone is not able to carry it and they carried it out together, they are also free. For only referring to such an instance the Scriptures say: "If any person," etc., and it is plain that one is culpable if he performs work alone, but if two persons did one thing they are both free.

The master said: If one of the two was able to perform the work alone and the other unable, all agree that he is culpable. Which of them was culpable? R. Hisda said, the one who was able. As to the one who was unable, why should he be so? What did he? Said R. Hamnuna to R. Hisda: "Why not? Did he not assist the one who was able? Answered R. Hisda: Assisting is not of consequence (because if he alone is not able to perform the work himself, his assistance is of no value). Said R. Zbid in the name of Rabha: "We have also learned in a Boraitha in support of this argument: If one suffering from a venereal disease rides an animal, the feet of which are encased in four pieces of cloth, the pieces of cloth are not subject to defilement, for the reason that the animal is able to stand on three feet." Why are they not subject to defilement? Was not one foot a help to the other three? Hence we must assume that one of the feet must be regarded as a help to the other three; a mere help, however, not having any legal consequence cannot become defiled, and as it is impossible to determine which one of the three feet is to be regarded as a help, all four pieces of cloth encasing them are not subject to defilement.

Again the master said: If either of the two were able, R.

Meir holds them both to be culpable. The schoolmen propounded a question: "Must the object carried out by them be of double the prescribed size, i.e., a prescribed size for each of them, in order to make them culpable, or does the prescribed size for one man suffice to make them both culpable? R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna (both answered): One of them held that one prescribed size suffices, and the other that it must be double in order to make them culpable, (and it is known which of them held to the former opinion and which to the latter). Said R. Ashi: "We have also learned in a Boraitha: 'Two men who carried out a reed used by a weaver (into the street) are both culpable.' Why so? Was not double the prescribed quantity necessary in order to make both culpable? Hence we must assume that the Boraitha holds one prescribed quantity to be sufficient." Said R. Aha, the son of Rabba, to R. Ashi: "What proof do you derive from this Boraitha? Perhaps it refers to a reed that was of sufficient size to cook an egg for one and another for the other?" R. Ashi answered: If such were the case, the Boraitha would say merely a "reed" and not a "reed used by a weaver." Said R. Aha again: "Perhaps the Boraitha refers to a reed of sufficient size to weave a napkin each for both of them? Therefore it were better to say that from this Boraitha we can derive no support either for one opinion or the other."

A certain scholar taught in the presence of R. Na'hman: "Two men who carried out a reed used by a weaver (into the street) are both not culpable." R. Simeon, however, declares them culpable. How can this be? (Is this not contrary to R. Simeon's usage?), Read then (on the contrary), the scholars said they are culpable and R. Simeon said they are not.

MISHNA VI.: If one carry victuals of less than the prescribed quantity in a vessel (out into the street) he is not culpable even of (carrying) the vessel, for the vessel is of no consequence to the victuals. If he carried a person on a litter he is not culpable even of (carrying) the litter, because the litter is of no consequence to the person. If he carried a corpse on a cot he is culpable. The same is the case if (he carries) a part of the corpse of the size of an olive or of a carcass the size of an olive and of a reptile the size of a lentil. R. Simeon declares all of them free.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: "If a man carry out victuals of the prescribed quantity in a vessel, he is culpable of carrying the victuals, but not of (carrying) the vessel, because the vessel is of no consequence to the victuals; but if the victuals are such that they cannot be carried otherwise than in a vessel, he is culpable of (carrying) the vessel also." Shall we assume from this teaching that if one ate two pieces of tallow each the size of an olive at different times through forgetfulness (and was not reminded of his sin between both times of eating), he is bound to bring two sin offerings? Said R. Ashi: In the case of the man who is culpable of (carrying) both the victuals and the vessel, it must be assumed that he carried them through forgetfulness and was subsequently reminded of having carried only one of them (but forgot about the other); later he was reminded of having carried the other also, and according to the opinion of the teacher of this Boraitha, he is culpable and bound to bring two sin-offerings, one for each time he was reminded. The same difference of opinion exists here as we have seen existed between R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish (in the chapter concerning the general rule of Sabbath). "If he carried a person in a litter," etc. Shall we assume that the Mishna is in accordance with R. Nathan and not with the rabbis of the following Boraitha? "If one carried out an animal or a bird (into the street), whether alive or slaughtered, he is liable." R. Nathan, however, says: "For (carrying out) a slaughtered (animal or bird) he is culpable, but not for one that is alive, because a live creature carries itself." Said Rabha: "It may be said the Mishna is in accordance with the rabbis of the Boraitha cited, as they differ with R. Nathan only concerning animals or birds, which usually struggle to get loose and thus become a burden; but concerning a person, who is carried and agrees to being carried, and virtually carries himself, the rabbis yield to R. Nathan."

Said R. Ada b. Ahba to Rabha: How will, in your opinion, the statement in our Mishna be made plain: "Ben Bathyra permits the selling of a horse to a Gentile, and a Boraitha, in addition to this, states that the reason that Ben Bathyra permits this is because the Gentile will not perform any work with the horse on a Sabbath that would involve the liability of a sin-offering (for a horse is used for riding only, and when a person rides a horse the person virtually carries himself, and hence is no burden to the horse), and R. Johanan says that Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said (practically) the same thing." Now, if in your opinion the rabbis differ with R. Nathan only in the matter of animals and birds, because when carried they struggle for freedom, but agree with him in the matter of a person, why does R. Johanan say that only Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan say the same thing? Did not the rabbis also admit this? (The answer was:) R. Johanan said that Ben Bathyra in permitting a horse to be sold to a Gentile referred to one which was used only for carrying falcons. Are there then such horses? Yea; they are to be found at the Zaidons'. 1 R. Johanan said: Even R. Nathan holds a man culpable if he carries a person, animal, or bird that is bound. "If he carried a corpse," etc. Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan, and the same was said by R. Joseph in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: R. Simeon frees one, even if he carries out a corpse for burial. Said Rabha: "Even R. Simeon concedes that if one carry out a spade to dig a grave with, or a scroll to read from, he is culpable." Is this not self-evident? Should we then assume that according to R. Simeon's opinion even this kind of labor is not labor for its own sake, how can we find any labor for its own sake which in the opinion of R. Simeon would involve the liability of a sin-offering? Lest one say that R. Simeon does not hold a man culpable for carrying a thing unless the work done with the thing is both for the man's sake and also for the sake of the thing itself—for instance, if the spade was needed for digging and also had to be sharpened, or the scroll had to be examined and used for reading—hence he informs us that such is not the case.

There was a corpse in Drokra 2 and R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak permitted it to be carried out into unclaimed ground. Said R. Johanan, the brother of Mar, son of Rabhina, to R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "According to which Tana's opinion do you act? According to R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon allow this? He only stated that the act does not involve the liability of a sin-offering, but he did not permit it to start with?" R. Na'hman answered: By the Lord! You yourself, and even R. Jehudah, would allow this to be done the same as I did; did I say that it was to be carried into public ground? I said unclaimed ground! Do not forget that this was also for the sake of the honor due a human being, of which it is said: "Precious is the honor of man, and for its sake even a direct commandment of the Scripture may be circumvened!"

MISHNA VII.: One who pares his finger-nails, either by means of his nails or by means of his teeth; also one who plucks hair from his head, beard, or lip,; also a woman who braids her hair, or paints her eyebrows, or parts her hair, is, according to R. Eliezer, culpable. The sages, however, declare this to be (prohibited only by rabbinical law) as a precautionary measure.

GEMARA: Said R. Elazar: "The difference of opinion exists only in the case of paring the finger-nails by means of the nails, but if taken off with an instrument (all agree) that he is culpable." Is this not self-evident? Is it not plainly written in the Mishna, if he pares his finger-nails, one by means of the others? One might think that the difference of opinion is also concerning an instrument, and the reason the Mishna does not mention an instrument is only to show the firmness of R. Eliezer in prohibiting the paring of finger-nails even with one's own nails. He informs us that the difference of opinion is concerning the nails only. R. Elazar said furthermore: "The difference of opinion is only concerning a man's paring his own finger-nails, but if he pared another's all agree that he is not culpable. (The reason for this is because when paring one's own finger-nails a man can make them look as if trimmed with an instrument, but when trimming another's this is not possible.)" Is this not self-evident? Did not the Mishna say plainly: "His own finger-nails"? Nay. One might think that according to the opinion of R. Eliezer the trimming of another's finger-nails also makes one culpable, but the Mishna, stating plainly "his own finger-nails," intends only to show the firmness of the rabbis in making not culpable even those who pare their own nails; therefore he informs that such is not the case. "Also one who plucks hair from his head," etc. There is a Boraitha: "One who cuts off a scissorsful of hair from his bead on the Sabbath is culpable." How much is a scissorsful supposed to be? Two hairs. R. Eliezer says: "One." The rabbis agree with R. Eliezer that in case one gray hair is plucked from a number of black hairs a man is culpable even for one, and not only on Sabbath but even on week days it is also prohibited, as it is written [Deut. xxii. 5]: "And a man shall not put on a woman's garment."

We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "If a finger-nail become separated from the finger of its own accord, a man may remove the adhering part, providing the greater part of the nail was separated. He may do this with his fingers, but not with an instrument. If he did it, however, with an instrument, he is not liable for a sin-offering. If the smaller part only was separated, he may not remove it. If he did so, however, with his fingers, he is not culpable, but with an instrument he is. Said R. Jehudah: "The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar." Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan "Provided the nail was bent upward and was troublesome." "Also a woman who braids her hair," etc. In what category can her work be counted? Said R. Abuhu: "It was explained to me by R. Jossi b. Hanina: 'Painting the eyebrows comes in the class of work enumerated as dyeing, braiding, and parting the hair in the class of building.'" Is this the manner of building? Yea; as R. Simeon b. Menassia taught: It is written [Gen. ii. 22] "And the Lord God formed 1 the rib which he had taken from the man." From this maybe adduced that the Holy One, blessed be He, braided the hair of Eve and brought her to Adam. For in the seaports hair braiding and dressing is called building.

We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "Braiding the hair, painting the eyebrows, and parting the hair, if done for herself, does not make her culpable (because it cannot be properly termed building); but if done for another it does make her culpable." Furthermore, R. Simeon b. Elazar said in the name of R. Eliezer: "A woman shall not put red dye on her face, because that constitutes painting."

The rabbis taught: If one milked a cow and then made cheese of the milk to the size of a dried fig; if he swept a floor or dampened a floor (to lay the dust); or if he removed honeycombs from a beehive, his case is as follows: If he performed these acts unintentionally on Sabbath, he is bound to bring a sin-offering, and if he did all this intentionally on a biblical feast-day, he shall receive forty stripes. Such is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the sages said: "All this is only prohibited by rabbinical law as a precautionary measure." (Says the Gemara:) Now the ordinance having prevailed according to the opinion of R. Simeon, all these acts are not prohibited at all.

MISHNA VIII.: One who plucks something from a perforated flower-pot is culpable; from a flower-pot that is not perforated he is not culpable. R. Simeon held him not culpable in both cases.
Abayi put a contradictory question to Rabha, according to others R. Hyya b. Rabh to his father Rabh: "The Mishna states that R. Simeon holds one not culpable in either case. From this we see well that to R. Simeon a perforated or a solid flower-pot is one and the same thing. We have learned in another Boraitha: R. Simeon said that there is no difference between a perforated and a solid flower-pot except to make the seeds grown in the flower-pot subject to defilement (i.e., in a solid flower-pot the seeds are not accounted as seeds). Hence there is a difference between the pots in the opinion of R. Simeon." The answer was: In all cases except defilement R. Simeon regards seeds in either a perforated or a solid flower-pot as loose (i.e., detached from the ground). In the case of defilement, however, it is different, because the Scriptures themselves added a special provision regarding defilement of seeds, as it is written [Lev. xi. 37]: "And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing-seed which hath been sown, it shall be clean."

END OF VOLUME I .

Footnotes

173:1 The Talmudical term for" support" is "Agad," literally "bind." In the above the sense demands its rendition by "support."

174:1 Numb. iv.

179:1 The text reads Vaidon; Luria corrects this to read Zaidon, as we have adopted, which means a falconer's horse. Hai, the Gaon, however corrects it Bazaidon, because a falconer in the Persian language is Baz, and one who occupies himself by hunting for birds is called Bazaidon.

179:2 Name of a city.

181:1 The Hebrew word for "formed" is "Vayiven," literally "built."

SECOND EDITION, RE-EDITED, REVISED AND ENLARGED

BOSTON NEW TALMUD PUBLISHING COMPANY

100 BOYLSTON STREET

[1896]

Scanned at sacred-texts.com, January-February 2003. J.B. Hare Redactor. This text is in the public domain. This file may be used for any non-commercial purpose, provided this attribution is left intact.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles:

1. Tenan of the original—We have learned in a Mishna; Tania—We have learned in a Boraitha; Itemar—It was taught.

Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately followed by the answers, without being so marked.

When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase, Lisna achrena or Waïbayith Aema or Ikha d'amri (literally, "otherwise interpreted"), we translate only the second.

As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation from the latter.

Words or passages enclosed in round parentheses ( ) denote the explanation rendered by Rashi to the foregoing sentence or word. Square parentheses [ ] contain commentaries by authorities of the last period of construction of the Gemara.

COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

CONTENTS.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS OF VOLUME II.—TRACT SABBATH, xli

CHAPTER XI.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THROWING FROM ONE GROUND INTO ANOTHER, 189

CHAPTER XII.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING BUILDING, PLOUGHING, ETC., ON THE SABBATH, 204

CHAPTER XIII.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING WEAVING, TEARING, HUNTING, ETC., ON THE SABBATH, 213

CHAPTER XIV.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CATCHING OF REPTILES, ANIMALS AND BIRDS, 219

CHAPTER XV.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE TYING AND UNTYING OF KNOTS ON THE SABBATH, 230

CHAPTER XVI.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING ARTICLES WHICH MAY BE SAVED FROM A CONFLAGRATION ON SABBATH, 239

CHAPTER XVII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF UTENSILS AND FURNITURE ON THE SABBATH,

266 CHAPTER XVIII.
REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CLEARING OFF OF REQUIRED SPACE, THE ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN CATTLE WHEN GIVING BIRTH TO THEIR YOUNG AND TO WOMEN ABOUT TO BE CONFINED, 276

CHAPTER XIX.
REGULATION'S ORDAINED By R. ELIEZER CONCERNING CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, 288

CHAPTER XX.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTS OF LABOR WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED DIFFERENTLY ON A SABBATH AND ON A FESTIVAL, 309

CHAPTER XXI.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE POURING OUT OF WINE FROM VESSELS COVERED WITH. A STONE (WHICH MUST NOT BE LIFTED), AND THE CLEARING OFF OF CRUMBS, ETC., FROM THE TABLE, 322

CHAPTER XXII.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING PREPARATION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES, 328

CHAPTER XXIII.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING BORROWING, CASTING LOTS, WAITING FOR THE CLOSE OF THE SABBATH, AND ATTENDING TO A CORPSE, 342

CHAPTER XXIV.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING A MAN WHO IS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK ON THE EVE OF SABBATH WHILE TRAVELLING, AND CONCERNING FEEDING OF CATTLE, 363
THE PRAYER AT THE CONCLUSION OF A TRACT, 379

APPENDIX

381

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

OF

VOLUME II.—TRACT SABBATH

CHAPTER XI.

MISHNAS I., II., III., IV., and V. Throwing from private into private by way of public ground. What constituted the sin of the wood-gatherer. The mysterious scrolls found by Rabh in the house of his uncle R. Hyya concerning the principal acts of labor. What was the name of the wood-gatherer. Arraignment of R. Aqiba by Jehudah ben Bathyra for slandering Zelophchad, by naming him as the wood-gatherer, and for slandering Aaron, by stating that he had been punished by leprosy. Reward for merit comes more quickly than retribution for wickedness. Regulations concerning pits in public ground for the Sabbath. Throwing from a distance of four ells against a wall. Throwing within four ells, when the object thrown rolled to a greater distance. Throwing at sea for a distance of four ells, and throwing from the sea to land, or from one ship to another. Throwing a thing on Sabbath and recollecting that it was Sabbath immediately afterwards. If the thing thrown was caught by another. The rule concerning what constitutes committing an act through error, involving the liability for a sin-offering, 189-203

CHAPTER XII.

MISHNAS I., II., III., and IV. Concerning building. The amount of building involving liability for a sin-offering; the amount of ploughing. The writing of how many letters make one liable for a sin-offering; with which hand that is to be done. The wonderful statement of some young men at the schoolhouse, which was not heard of even in the time of Joshua the son of Nun. Why the letters of the word Sheqer (lie) are so close together (in the order of sequence of the alphabet) and the letters of Emeth (truth) so far apart? Because lies are very frequent and truth very scarce. Tattooing. Ben Sattadai, being a fool, cannot be cited as an instance, 204-212

CHAPTER XIII.

MISHNAS I., II., III., and IV. Concerning weaving. How many threads one must weave to become culpable. One who tears an article or breaks a vessel on the Sabbath in a moment of fury is regarded as one who practises idolatry. Concerning one who rends his garments upon being advised of the death of a relative on Sabbath. Reward for shedding tears over the death of a righteous man. Fate of those who fail to mourn the death of a scholar. If one member of the community die, let the entire community beware. Rules pertaining to hunting and trapping. May the door be closed on a stag who seeks refuge in a dwelling? 213-218

CHAPTER XIV.

MISHNA I. Concerning the eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Thorah. On what material the Phylacteries may be written. Samuel's and Karna's experience with Rabh upon the arrival of the latter in Babylon from Palestine. Questions put to Rabh by Karna. Samuel's remedies given Rabh during the latter's illness. Questions put to R. Joshua of Garthi by a Bathusee, and R. Joshua's replies, 219-222 MISHNA II. Concerning the preparation of salt water on Sabbath. A drop of water the best remedy for sore eyes. Which parts of the body must not be touched by the hand immediately after arising and before performing the morning ablutions. The comparison of the eye to a princess, who should not be touched by a hand that had not been washed three times. Is it permitted to bathe a sore hand in wine or vinegar on Sabbath? 222-225 MISHNAS III. and IV. Concerning foods and beverages which may be partaken of on Sabbath for medicinal purposes. Definition of the tree-water mentioned in the Mishna. The aptitude of Babylonian beer as a remedy. The use of Ikkarim (a preventive against pregnancy), 225-229

CHAPTER XV.

MISHNAS I., II., and III. Concerning the tieing and untieing of knots on Sabbath. The poverty of R. Jehudah, the brother of Sallah the Pious, and the manner he and his shared the use of one pair of sandals, 230—233 MISHNA IV. Concerning the folding of clothes and the making of beds on the Sabbath. Laws concerning a Sabbath that is concurrent with the Day of Atonement. Distinction of attire on Sabbath from that on week-days. R. Johanan's statement in reference to clothes. Rules for walking on the Sabbath. Inferences drawn from the biblical passage: "Give unto the wise, and he will become wiser." Boaz's object in marrying Ruth. The mention made in the Thorah concerning change of attire. The necessity for a scholar of keeping his attire immaculate. The degree of trustworthiness required of a scholar in order that he may recover a lost article without identification. The degree of worth required of a scholar to allow of his eligibility to the presidency of a congregation. Rules concerning the cleansing of food on the afternoon of the Day of Atonement, 233-238

CHAPTER XVI.

MISHNAS I. and II. Concerning the saving of sacred scrolls from a conflagration on Sabbath. What is the law concerning such scrolls if written in Aramaic, Coptic, Median, old Hebrew, Elamite, and Greek? What happened to Aba Halafta on his visit to R. Gamaliel the Great in Tiberias, while sitting at the table of Johanan the Nazuph. Aba Halafta's reminiscence of R. Gamaliel's grandfather, in reference to the book of Job, written in Aramaic. The law concerning the saving of written benedictions and amulets from a conflagration. One who writes benedictions is regarded as one who burns the Law. What happened to men of Sidon, who wrote benedictions, which fact became known to R. Ishmael. Why are the two verses (Numbers x. 35 and 36) marked by signs? What is the law concerning the saving of the Gilyonim and the books of the Sadducees from a conflagration? R. Tarphon's dictum in this matter.

Ema Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife's, and her brother R. Gamaliel's experience with a philosopher, who was also a judge. The law concerning covers of books, and to which place they may be taken in case of fire, 239-257 MISHNA III. How much food may be saved from a conflagration on Sabbath? How should bread be cut on the Sabbath? The number of meals to be eaten on Sabbath. The amount of property a poor man may own and still not be debarred from accepting charitable gifts. What should be given to an itinerant beggar, The reward of those who observe the eating of three meals on the Sabbath. The reward of one who maketh the Sabbath a delight. By what means we may make the Sabbath a delight. The good deeds related by several Tanaim and Amoraim, to have been especially taken care of by them. The different kinds of work performed by each one of the Amoraim personally in honor of the Sabbath.

Anecdote told of Joseph, who honored the Sabbath, and his rich Gentile neighbor. The eventual impoverishment of the Gentile through the purchase of a pearl which was swallowed by a fish, and the sudden wealth of Joseph, who bought the fish and found the pearl. Experience of R. Hyya bar Aba while the guest of a rich man in the city of Ludkai. How must the Day of Atonement be honored? What the two angels who accompany man at the close of Sabbath say to one who had honored the Sabbath and to one who had not. The story of R. Abuha and his calf. Different opinions concerning the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem, 257, 258 MISHNAS IV., V., VI., and VII. How many loaves of bread maybe saved in a basket from a conflagration. It is allowed to cover a chest with a goatskin to keep it from burning. Partitions to be made with vessels filled with water.

Concerning a candle that had fallen on the table. Concerning Gentiles and minors at the extinguishing of a fire on Sabbath. The miracle occurring for Joseph ben Simai. What dangerous animals may be killed on Sabbath. The dissatisfaction of the pious with those who kill on the Sabbath, and the dissatisfaction of the sages with the pious. Aba bar Minyumi at the house of the Exilarch. The story of R. Gamaliel on board of a ship, and of Samuel, in whose presence a Gentile lit a candle for his own use, 258-265

CHAPTER XVII.

MISHNAS I. to VI. Concerning vessels which may be handled on the Sabbath. Vessels which may be removed for lack of space, also from sunshine into the shade; whether fragments of the vessels may be moved with them, and other such matters. The questions put to Rabh by Mari bar Rachel, and Rabh's replies. Concerning window-blinds and covers of vessels, 266-275

CHAPTER XVIII.

MISHNA I. How much straw may be removed for the accommodation of guests on Sabbath. The reward for hospitality. Different opinions concerning the merits of hospitality. The six things of which the interest is paid to man on earth and the principal in the world to come. The four additional things which include the previous six. Concerning one who judges his neighbor charitably, and his reward above. The story of the man who was hired by the father of Hyrcanos for three years, and who was not paid at the end of the term. The story of the pious man who ransomed a maiden from captivity. The story of R. Jehoshua and the Roman matron, and his disciples. Whether salt meat and salt fish may be handled, 276-281 MISHNA II. Concerning a basket set down for chickens to climb. Concerning a woman carrying her child. What may be done in the event of an animal falling into the water on Sabbath, 281, 282 MISHNA III. Concerning animals about to calve on a festival. What assistance may be given a woman about to give birth to child on a Sabbath. For how long a period may the Sabbath be violated on account of a woman lying-in? From what time is she considered to be lying-in? Where life is at stake, the ordinances may be put. to the most lenient construction. Every thing necessary for a sick person, where the illness is not dangerous, should be performed by a Gentile. Concerning bleeding. Meals after being bled. The duty of drinking wine after being bled, and advice to one who has no wine, On what days one should be bled and on what days one should not. Everything mentioned in Ezekiel xvi. 4 may be done for a woman lying-in on Sabbath, 282-287

CHAPTER XIX.

MISHNAS I., II., and III. Concerning the bringing of the knife for circumcision on Sabbath. When it should be brought publicly and when concealed; when it should be concealed before witnesses. Public carrying of the knife as a proof of the love of the commandment. Commandments accepted by Israelites with joy are even now carried out joyfully; those received with protest are now reluctantly carried out. Story of Elisha, "the man of wings." The Sabbath may be violated on account of preparations for circumcision. Concerning the sucking out of the blood, and bandages necessary for circumcision. What Abayi's mother told him. Rabh's experience with the physicians of Me'huzza. Children who have imperfect circulation should not be circumcised until in perfect health. What happened to Nathan of Babylon. How a child should be bathed on Sabbath. The law concerning hermaphrodites. Concerning a child born at twilight and a child born without a foreskin. The story of the child of R. Ada bar Ahabha, who was carried to thirteen circumcisers. Whether the Sabbath may be violated on account of a child that had been delivered from the side of the mother (with instruments). When a child is called a miscarriage. If a child was to a certainty regularly born, it must in the event of its death be mourned in the regular manner, 288-305 MISHNAS IV., V., and VI. Concerning one who had two children to be circumcised. Under what circumstances a child may be circumcised after the eighth day and until the twelfth. The benedictions pronounced by the circumciser, the father of the child, and the assembled guests after the circumcision, 305-308

CHAPTER XX.

MISHNAS I. to V. Concerning wine-filters. Laws concerning folding-beds, folding-chairs, etc. Question put by R. Kahana to Rabh. Rabh's reply and the explanation of same by the Gemara. The assertion that the Law will be forgotten by Israel, and R. Simeon's ben Jochai explanation of same. The advisability of investigating amongst the judges in Israel in times of trouble. Corrupt judges the hindrance to the resting of the Lord's Shekhina among the children of Israel. Zion's redemption must come through justice. The story of the young scholar who was accused before R. Ashi. The story told by R. Joseph concerning the goblet of wine served him by Mar Uqba. Concerning the soaking of laserpitium on Sabbath, Indisposition of R. A'ha bar Joseph, who was cured by laserpitium. Several sayings of R. Hisda, giving advice. How animals must be fed. Concerning straw on a bed. Concerning customary and unusual handling of things. Small men should not wear large shoes nor women torn shoes, 309-321

CHAPTER XXI.

MISHNAS I. to III. Concerning the lifting of a child in connection with things held by the child, and the lifting of a corpse in connection with other things. Concerning a base to a prohibited thing. Concerning a stone at the opening of a barrel or on a cushion. Concerning the removal of husks and bones from the table. The decision of Abayi that the school of Hillel is always in conformity with R. Simeon's opinion, that the law of Muktza has no foundation, 322-327

CHAPTER XXII.

MISHNA I. How much may be saved from a broken cask. Concerning fruit which is pressed in order to extract the juice. Bunches of grapes may be pressed into the cooking pot direct, but not into a bowl. According to biblical law one is not culpable for pressing any fruit, with the exception of grapes and olives. Witnesses testifying from hearsay are not accredited, 328-331 MISHNA II. Concerning eatables that are dressed with hot water. The three questions propounded by R. Hyya bar Aba: "Why are the fowls of Babylon so fat? Why are the Babylonians so merry during the festivals? Why are the scholars of Babylon so well dressed?" The answers of R. Johanan: "If a thing is as certain to thee as the fact that thou canst not marry thy own sister, then say it. Otherwise, say it not!" 331, 332 MISHNAS III. and IV. Concerning the breaking open of a cask and eating its contents. Rabh shows his respect for his pupils R. Kahana and R.
Ashi by refusing to sit on a bolster when they sat on the ground. Concerning the depositing of victuals in a cave. Concerning the dusting of clothes on Sabbath. R. Shesha's, the son of Idi, tasteful arrangement of his cloak. The narrative of R. Dimi in the name of and regarding Rabbi, 332-338 MISHNA V. Concerning bathing in a cavern or in the hot springs of Tiberias. How the wine of Purgaitha and the water of Deumseth robbed the Israelites of ten tribes. How R. Jehudah had a pledge taken from Rabba bar bar Hanna to insure the latter's appearance at his college, and the advantage gained by R. Jehudah in learning a new Halakha, 338-341

CHAPTER XXIII.

MISHNAS I. and II. Concerning borrowing and lending. Such acts as must be performed on festivals should be performed in as different a manner to what they are performed on week-days as possible. Concerning the counting of guests and dishes. Casting lots at meals. A man on whose account another is punished is not admitted into the abode of the Lord, 342-346 MISHNAS III., IV., and V. Concerning the hiring of laborers on Sabbath. The rule laid down by Abba Saul. Concerning the transaction of the affairs of a community on Sabbath. The betrothal of children on the Sabbath. The miracle which occurred to a man who would not mend a fence of his field on Sabbath. Concerning waiting at the techoom on account of a bride or a corpse. Concerning the performance of all necessities for a corpse on Sabbath, 346-353 MISHNA VI. Closing the eyes of a corpse on Sabbath. Concerning the closing of the eyes of a dying person on a week-day. On account of a living child, only one day old, the Sabbath may be violated; but not even for David, King of Israel, if he be dead, may this be done. A living child one day old need not be guarded from the attacks of rats, but even the dead body of Og, King of Bashan, must be guarded from such attacks. Practise charity when the opportunity presents itself and when it is within thy reach. Poverty is compared to a wheel constantly turning. He who pities living creatures is pitied also in Heaven. The explanation of many verses in Ecclesiastes regarding the human body. Why R. Hanina did not weep over the death of his daughter. There are six kinds of tears which are shed: three good and three bad. The dispute of Joshua ben Kar'ha with the eunuch. Why Barzillai was a liar. Worms are as annoying to a corpse as a needle is to excrescences on the flesh. The soul of a man mourns for the body seven days. The narrative relating to R. Jehudah and his actions towards a stranger who died in his vicinity. "Return thy soul as clean as it was given thee," and the parable connected with the statement. The conversation between R. Na'hman and the dead body of R. Ahai ben Yashi. The bones of a man who had no jealousy in his heart will not rot. The souls of the righteous are ensconced underneath the throne of honor a twelvemonth after leaving the body. "Make my funeral sermon impressive, for I shall be present." To repent one day before death means to repent every day, lest the morrow bring death. "At all times let thy garments be white," and the parable connected with it, 353-362

CHAPTER XXIV.

MISHNA I. Concerning one who was overtaken by dusk on the eve of Sabbath while on the road. The Sabbath rest must be kept inviolate as far as one's animal is concerned, but one is not responsible for the Sabbath rest of a Gentile. An additional statement concerning the Sabbath rest, which the sages would not reveal. On the day the eighteen precautionary ordinances were instituted, according to the opinion of some, the measure of laws was made heaping full, while, according to others, it was not filled enough. The examples connected with this statement. Why R. Gamaliel allowed his ass to drop dead under a load, 363-367 MISHNAS II., III., and IV. Concerning the untieing of straw for cattle. Concerning the cramming of camels, calves, poultry, and doves. Kneading on Sabbath. The fate of those born on the different days of the week, according to the diary of R. Jehoshua ben Levi. The seven planets guiding the destiny of man. Designation (Muktza) on account of filth and on account of expensive articles. Concerning the cutting up of pumpkins and carrion, 367-376 MISHNA V. What vows may be annulled on Sabbath. Whether a vow may be annulled before the expiration of twenty-four hours after one hears it pronounced, or only during the same day. How consultation concerning vows must be had. Should a Chacham (sage) only be consulted, or will three ordinary men suffice for that purpose? How vows are to be annulled on Sabbath. By thought or by word of mouth; may one say merely: "Go, eat and drink!" The sages comply with the request of Mar Zutra and annul his vow on a Sabbath. How water for ritual purposes may be measured on Sabbath. What happened to Ula at the house of the Exilarch regarding the measuring of water in a hath, 376-378

CUSTOMARY CONCLUDING PRAYER.

Epigraph. Translator's remarks, 379, 380

APPENDIX. 1

Concerning the eighteen regulations enacted in the attic of Hananiah ben Hizkyah ben Garon. Their importance and influence on the government of the Jews. The degeneracy of priestdom, 381-390

Footnotes

xlvii:1 We would call the attention of the reader to the appendix of this volume, which will prove interesting to the general reader and present something heretofore unpublished to the student of the Talmud.

TRACT SABBATH.

CHAPTER XI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THROWING FROM ONE GROUND INTO ANOTHER . MISHNA: One who throws a thing from private into public or from public into private ground is culpable. From private into private ground, by way of public ground, R. Aqiba holds him to be culpable, but the sages declare him free. How so? If two balconies face each other across a street, one who transfers or throws something from one into the other is free; if the two balconies, however, are in the same building, he who transfers a thing from one into the other is culpable, but he who throws is free; because the work of the Levites (in the tabernacle) was as follows: From two wagons facing each other in public ground boards were transferred, but not thrown from one into the other.
GEMARA: Let us see! Throwing is but the offspring of transferring. Where is transfer itself mentioned in the Scriptures? Said R. Johanan: "It is written [Ex. xxxvi. 6]: 'And Moses gave the command and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp,' etc. Where was Moses sitting? In the quarters of the Levites. The quarters of the Levites was public ground (because all the people were received there by Moses). And Moses said unto Israel: 'Ye shall not transfer anything from your quarters (which was private ground) into these quarters.'" We have found, then, transfer from within, but where do we find transfer from without? It is a logical conclusion, that transfer from within is the same as transfer from without. Still he calls transfer from within the principal act and transfer from without but the offspring. Now, if transferring from within and transferring from without involve the same degree of culpability, why does he call the one a principal and the other all offspring? For the following reason: If one commit two principal acts of labor, or two offsprings of two different acts of labor, he becomes bound to bring two sin-offerings; but if he commits one principal act and one offspring of the same act of labor, he becomes bound to bring only one sin-offering.

Whence do we know that if one throw a thing four ells in public ground he is culpable? All that is said about four ells in public ground is traditional.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: The wood-gatherer's sin [mentioned in Numbers xv. 32-35] consisted in carrying four ells in public ground. We learned in a Boraitha, however, that he pulled out sticks growing in the ground. R. Aha b. R. Jacob said: He gathered the sticks and bound them into bundles. What difference is there in the acts? (Why this dissension?) The difference is, as we were taught in the name of Rabh, who says: "I found a mysterious paper in the possession of my uncle, R. Hyya, upon which was written: 'Aissi ben Jehudah said: The principal acts of labor are forty less one. One of them does not involve culpability. R. Jehudah holds, that carrying in public ground is not this one act and the Boraitha holds that pulling out of the ground is not that one, and R. Aha b. R. Jacob holds that binding into bundles is not the act which involves culpability.' Each one of these three was certain that if a man committed any of the acts mentioned by each he was undoubtedly culpable."
The rabbis taught: The name of the wood-gatherer was Zelophchad, and so it is written [Numb. xv. 32]: "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man," etc., and further on [ibid. xxvii. 31 it is written: "Our father died in the wilderness," etc., etc., "but in his own sin he died," etc., an analogy of the word wilderness. As by "our father" is meant Zelophchad, so also the name of the wood-gatherer was Zelophchad. So said R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Jehudah b. Bathyra: "Aqiba! Whether your statement be true or false, you will have to answer for it at the time of the divine judgment; for if it be true, you disclosed the name of the man whom the Scriptures desired to shield, and thus you brought him into infamy, and if it be false you slandered a man who was upright." The same case occurred in the following: It is written [Numb. xii. 9]: "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them," etc. From this we learn that Aaron also became leprous. So said R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Jehudah b. Bathyra: "Aqiba! Whether your statement be true or false, you will have to answer for it at the divine judgment; for if it be true, you disclosed a thing the Scriptures desired to conceal, and thus you brought infamy upon Aaron, and if it be false, you slandered a man who was upright." But the Scriptures say: "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them." This signifies only that Aaron was included among those against whom the anger of the Lord was kindled.

We have learned in a Boraitha according to the opinion of R. Aqiba: "Aaron also became leprous, as it is written: 'And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold she was leprous,' which implies that at the moment when he turned toward Miriam he was cured of his leprosy and perceived it in Miriam."

Said Resh Lakish: He who suspects an innocent man is punished in the flesh, as it is written [Ex. iv. 1]: "But behold, they will not believe me," and it was known to the Holy One, blessed be He, that Israel will believe, and the Lord said unto Moses: "They are believers and they are children of believers, but thou, I know, wilt finally not believe." They are believers, as it is written [ibid. iv. 3 1]: "And the people believed.'' They are children of believers, as it is written [Gen. xv. 6]: "And he believed in the Lord." Thou wilt finally not believe, as it is written [Numb. xx. 12]: "Moses and Aaron, because ye have not confided in me;" and whence do we know that he was punished in the flesh, as it is written [Ex. iv. 6]: "And the Lord said furthermore unto him, Do put thy hand into thy bosom; and he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, white as snow."

Rabha said, according to others, R. Jose b. Hanina: Reward for merit, destined for a man, comes to him more quickly and in a greater degree than retribution for wickedness, for in the case of Moses we see it written [Exod. iv. 6]: "And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, white as snow." But the reward was, as it is written [ibid. 7], "And when he pulled it out of his bosom, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh." The reason that the verse repeats "pulled it out of his bosom," is to show, that the hand had become cured while in the bosom (and thus the reward was given more quickly and effectively).

It is written [Ex. vii. 12]: "Aaron's staff swallowed up their staves." Said R. Elazar: "This was a miracle within a miracle, for Aaron's staff did not swallow up the staves (of the Egyptian magicians), which had become serpents, while it was itself a serpent, but after it was become a staff again." "From private ground into private ground," etc. Rabha propounded a question: "Shall we assume that the point of difference is in the opinion relating to whether the surrounding of a thing by the atmosphere of a certain place makes the thing equal to being deposited in that place or not?" And if this is the point of difference, it must follow that the Mishna treats of a case where the object thrown was at no time above ten spans from the ground (because above ten spans no public ground exists).

Those who deem it a culpable act, do so, because they hold that the object, being surrounded by the air of the public ground, through which it passed, makes it equal to being deposited therein, while those who do not deem it a culpable act are not of this opinion; but if the object thrown was above ten spans from the ground, do both sides agree that the thrower is not culpable? Or shall we assume that both sides do not differ as to the object thrown being equal to being deposited in the place, the atmosphere of which surrounded it, agreeing that such is the case; but their point of difference is as to whether throwing is equal to transfer or not?

He who holds that the thrower is culpable does so because he considers throwing equal to transfer by hand, and as transfer makes a man culpable, even if it was accomplished above ten spans from the ground, it also applies to throwing; but he who holds that the thrower is not culpable, does so because he does not consider throwing equal to transfer by hand. And the case treated of by the Mishna is one where the throwing was done above ten spans from the ground? Said R. Joseph: This question was also propounded by R. Hisda, and R. Hamnuna decided it from the following Boraitha: "From private into private ground, by way of public ground itself, R. Aqiba makes him culpable, but the sages declare him free." Now, if he says, "by way of public ground itself," it implies that it was below ten spans from the ground. Let us then see wherein was the difference of opinion.

Shall we say that it was a case of transfer by hand and still the one who holds him culpable does so because it was below ten spans, but if it was above ten spans he would concede that he was not culpable? How can this be? Did not R. Elazar say: "He who transfers a burden above ten spans from the ground is culpable, because thus were burdens transferred by the sons of Kehath"? Therefore we must assume that the Boraitha treats of a case of throwing and not of transfer by hand, and hence one holds, that an object surrounded by the atmosphere of a certain place below ten spans from the ground is equal to an object deposited in that place, while the other holds that such is not the case. Conclude then from this that the Mishna treats of a case where the throwing was done below ten spans from the ground.

The above teaching, however, is not in accord with the opinion of R. Elazar, for he said: R. Aqiba makes the thrower culpable even when the throwing was done above ten spans from the ground; but for what purpose does the Boraitha state "public ground itself"? Merely to show the firmness of the rabbis in declaring one free, even when he transferred a thing by hand through public ground.

All that was said above is contrary to the opinion of R. Helkiah b. Tubhi, because he said: "If the throwing was below three spans from the ground, all agree that the thrower is culpable; if above ten spans, all agree that he is not culpable; but if the throwing was done between three and ten spans above the ground, then the difference of opinion between R. Aqiba and the sages arises." We have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Helkiah: "Below three all agree that one is culpable; above ten all agree (that only a rabbinical prohibition exists) as a precautionary measure (because no Erubh was made). 1 If the two premises belonged to the thrower, he may throw to start with. From three to ten spans is where the point of difference between R. Aqiba and the sages arises.
It is certain, that if it is one's intention to throw eight ells and he throws only four, one is culpable; because it is equivalent to the case where one intends to write the name Simeon and only writes Sim (for Sim alone is also a name, and four ells is the prescribed distance for throwing); but what is not certain is, If one intended to throw only four ells and threw eight, what is his case? Shall we assume that he threw the prescribed distance and is thus culpable, or, because the object did not reach the desired destination, he is not culpable? The answer was, that according to this question Rabhina asked R. Ashi, and the latter answered that no culpability can exist unless he intended that the object should remain wherever it happened to alight, i.e., if the man intended to throw eight ells and threw only four he is also not culpable, and the assertion that the last-named act is equivalent to writing Sim when the intention was to write Simeon, which according to the succeeding Mishna is an act involving culpability, does not hold good; for he cannot write Simeon without first writing Sim, but surely he can throw eight ells without previously throwing four ells.

The rabbis taught: If one threw from public into public ground and private ground was in between, and the four ells commenced and ended in the two public grounds, including the private ground, he is culpable; but if he threw less than four ells he is not culpable. What news does this convey to us? It is to inform us, that the different premises are counted together and that the culpability arises not from the fact that the atmosphere of the private ground, having surrounded the object thrown, makes that object equal to having been deposited in that private ground; because that ordinance does not hold good, and the culpability arises merely from throwing four ells in public ground.

R. Samuel b. Jehudah, quoting R. Abba, who quoted R. Huna in the name of Rabh, said: If one transferred an object for four ells in a roofed public ground, he is not culpable. Why so? Because this public ground is not equal to the public ground under the standards in the desert traversed by the Israelites. This is not so! We know that the wagons which carried the boards of the tabernacle were roofed, and Rabh said in the name of R. Hyya that the ground beneath the wagons, between them, or alongside of them, was all public. Rabh means to state that the wagons were not actually covered, but that the boards were placed crossways on them in layers, and between every layer there was uncovered space, and that space was, in the opinion of Rabh, public ground.
The rabbis taught: The boards used at the tabernacle were one ell thick and sloped gradually until they attained the thickness of one finger at one end, as it is written [Ex. xxvi. 24]: "And they shall be closely joined together on top by means of one ring," and in another passage [Joshua iii. 16] it is written, "failed, were cut off." 1 So said R. Jehuda. Hence it is evident that on top the boards were only one finger thick. R. Nehemiah says: "They were also one ell thick on top, as it is written [ibid. ibid.], 'joined together,' and the 'together' means that they were to be the same on top and on the bottom. But it says "joined" (Tamim)! The Tamim here signifies that they must be whole, unbroken.

The school of R. Ishmael taught: To what can the tabernacle be compared? To a woman going to market, whose dress hangs down and drags on the ground (i.e., the curtains were hanging down and dragging on the ground).

The rabbis taught: The boards of the tabernacle came to a point and the thresholds contained sockets on which the boards were fitted. The hooks and fillets of the curtains appeared like stars in the sky.
The rabbis taught: The lower curtains were of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and of twisted linen thread, and the upper curtains were of goats' hair, and more skill was necessary to make the curtains of goats' hair than of the first-named materials, for concerning the lower curtains it is written: "And all the women that were wise-hearted spun with their hands, and they brought that which they had spun of the blue, and of the purple, and of the scarlet yarn, and of the linen thread"; but concerning the upper curtains it is written [ibid. 26]: "And all the women whose hearts stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats' hair." And we have learned in the name of R. Nehemiah, "The goats' hair was woven right from the goats' backs without being shorn." "If the two balconies," etc. Said Rabh in the name of R. Hyya: "The space between the wagons, beneath the wagons, and alongside of them is public ground." Said Abayi: "The space between two wagons was the length of another wagon? What is the length of a wagon? Five ells. Rabha said the sides of the wagon (i.e., the width between the sides) was the width of a wagon. What is that width? Two and one-half ells. Now, we know that the width of a way in public ground is sixteen ells. Whence do we adduce this? If we adduce this from the case of the tabernacle, it should only be fifteen ells; (for the width of two wagons together with the space between them was fifteen ells). The answer is: There was another ell additional between the two wagons where the Levite walked in order that he might watch the wagons and adjust anything that might come out of place."
MISHNA: One who takes anything from, or places anything upon a sand-heap, dug out of a pit or a stone that is ten spans high and four spans wide, is culpable. If the sand-heap or the stone is below that height, he is free.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna say a sand-heap, dug out of a pit, or a stone? Why not the pit or the stone itself? (Then we would know both the height and depth which must not be used for the placing of a thing.) This was said in support of the statement of R. Johanan, viz.: That the sand-heap dug out of a pit is counted in with the depth of the pit as to height to complete the ten spans. We have also learned thus in a Boraitha: One must not draw water from a pit in public ground which is ten spans deep and four spans wide, unless he has made a railing round the pit that is ten spans high. He must also not drink from the pit unless he put his head and the larger portion of his body into it. The pit and the sand-heap dug out of the pit are counted in with it to complete the ten spans.

R. Mordecai asked of Rabha: What is the law regarding one who threw a thing on a post ten spans high and four spans wide, standing in public ground? Shall we assume that he is culpable because he removed the thing unlawfully and also deposited it unlawfully (i.e., from public ground into private), or that he is not culpable because the object which lighted on the post came from ground which is under no jurisdiction, being above ten spans from the ground? (If the man had the intention to throw the object on top of the post, he must have thrown it high up into the air, and before lighting on the post it passed through space above ten spans from the ground, and that space is regarded as ground under no jurisdiction, therefore he is not culpable?) Rabha answered: "This is explained in the Mishna." R. Mordecai then went to R. Joseph and asked the same question. He received the same answer: "It is explained in the Mishna." Thereupon he came to Abayi with the same question, and again received the same answer. Said R. Mordecai to Abayi: "Do ye all spit with the same spittle?" Answered Abayi: Dost not thou think that the Mishna explains it? Did not the Mishna say, "One who takes from or places upon"? Rejoined R. Mordecai: "Perhaps the Mishna treats of a needle which can be placed on a level with the ten spans height." Said Abayi: "A needle must also be lifted above the level." Said R. Mordecai again: "It can be placed without being lifted above the level, because every stone has some crevices that are lower than the surface of the stone and the needle can be placed in one of the crevices."

R. Johanan propounded a question: "What is the law regarding a man who throws a cake of earth (four spans square and one span deep) into a pit exactly ten spans deep and four spans square? Shall we say, that he is culpable because he threw the cake of earth into the pit, which was still ten spans deep and therefore private ground, or that he is not culpable because as soon as the cake reached the bottom of the pit it lessened the pit's height to nine spans, and thus made the pit unclaimed ground?" Let R. Johanan decide this question himself by what he said in the following Mishna: "If one throw a thing from a distance of four ells against the wall, and it strikes the wall at a height of over ten spans from the ground, he is free, but if below ten spans from the ground he is culpable, because one who throws a thing to the ground at a distance of four ells is culpable." We have investigated the case; how can he be culpable if the object thrown did not adhere to the wall? And R. Johanan answered: "The case was one of a soft date, which did adhere to the wall." Now, if the conclusion is that the cake of earth lessened the depth of the pit, the date which adhered to the wall also lessened the distance of four ells from where the date was thrown, and he says that the man is culpable? The answer was: In the case of the date the thrower did not intend that the date should adhere to the wall permanently, while in the case of the pit the cake of earth remained in the pit permanently, as intended by the thrower.

Abayi said: If a man throw a mat into a pit ten spans deep and eight spans wide in public ground he is culpable. If he, however, placed the mat into the pit so that the pit was divided into two equal parts, he is not culpable. (The latter decree informs us of two facts: Firstly, that although the mat was placed in the pit, while the pit was still of sufficient size to constitute it private ground and was only diminished at the time the mat was placed into it, the man is not culpable, and secondly, that the mat takes up sufficient space to make the two pits caused by division less than four spans wide each.) Now, if, according to Abayi, it is a certainty that the mat is sufficient to nullify the enclosures necessary for the designation of private ground, so much the more is this the case with the cake of earth previously mentioned, but according to R. Johanan, to whom it is even questionable whether the cake of earth can produce that effect, surely a mat cannot.
Abayi said again: If a man throw an object into a pit ten spans deep and four spans wide, filled with water and standing in public ground, he is culpable, but if the pit was filled with fruit, he is not culpable; because water does not annul the enclosures necessary for the designation of private ground, while fruit does (the reason is that an object thrown into a pit of water falls to the ground in spite of the water [viz.: a stone or iron], while in a pit filled with fruit it rests on top). 1 We also learned the same in a Boraitha, in the name of R. Simeon: "Water does not annul the enclosures necessary for the designation of private ground."

MISHNA: If one throw a thing (a soft date) from a distance of four ells against the wall, and it strike the wall at a height of over ten spans from the ground, he is free; but if it strike the wall below ten spans from the ground, he is culpable; because one who throws a thing to the ground at a distance of four ells is culpable.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah, quoting Rabh in the name of R. Hyya: If one throw a thing at a distance of four ells against a wall, and the thing rested in a hole in the wall above ten spans from the ground, the law in his case is decided differently by R. Meir and the sages, viz.: R. Meir holds, that any object (like a hole) capable of being enlarged, must be looked upon as having been already enlarged, and therefore the man is culpable. The sages, however, hold that such is not the case; everything must be regarded in its actual condition.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: If a man throw a thing upon a sand-heap four ells wide and sloping up to a height of ten spans, he is culpable, provided the thing rested on the highest point of the heap, because the heap is regarded as being ten spans high in its entire length. The same we have learned in a Boraitha in the name of R. Hanina ben Gamaliel.

MISHNA: If one threw an object within four ells (in public ground) and the object rolled to a greater distance, he is free; if he threw a thing outside of four ells and it rolled back within four ells, he is culpable.
GEMARA: Why should a man be culpable in the latter clause of the Mishna; the object thrown did not rest outside of four ells if it rolled back within the prescribed limit? Said R. Johanan: The Mishna treats of a case where the object thrown came in contact with an obstacle by means of which it rolled back, and therefore it rested for a moment outside of four ells.

Rabha said: "In the opinion of the sages, who differ with R. Aqiba concerning his decree, that an object surrounded by the atmosphere of a certain place makes the object equal to having been deposited in that place, a man who threw a thing from private into private ground by way of public ground, even below three spans from the ground, is not culpable unless the thing thrown rested for a moment at least on the public ground." Mareimar sat and repeated the above decree. Said Rabhina: "Does not our Mishna say the same, through the declaration of R. Johanan, who decrees that the Mishna holds a man culpable only if the object thrown by the man rests at its destination for a moment?" Answered Mareimar: Thou speakest of a rolling thing (which is carried along by the wind and it is not known when it will stand still). Such a thing cannot be regarded as resting, although it is below three spans from the ground, but in our case it is different. The thing was thrown (and was not rolled by the wind); so we might assume that when it reached a distance of less than three spans from the ground, it must be considered as resting on the ground; he informs us (that such is not the case).

MISHNA: If one throw a distance of four ells on the sea, he is free; if there happen to be shallow water, through which a public thoroughfare leads, where he threw the four ells, he is culpable. What must be the maximum depth of such shallow water? Less than ten spans; for one who throws four ells in shallow water, through which only occasionally a public thoroughfare leads, is culpable.
GEMARA: Said one of the schoolmen to Rabha: "The Mishna mentioning a public thoroughfare twice is justified in doing so, because we might presume that a thoroughfare used only in cases of necessity cannot be regarded as a public thoroughfare, and hence the Mishna informs us that while in other cases use from necessity is not to be regarded as customary, in this case it is different. But why is shallow water mentioned twice?" Answered Abayi: We might presume that the shallow water was not four ells wide, in which case it would be used a thoroughfare; but if it was four ells, people would circumvene it, and thus it would not be considered a public thoroughfare; therefore it is repeated to inform us that there is no difference between shallow water less than four ells wide or more.

MISHNA: One who throws from the sea into land, from land into the sea, from the sea into a ship, from a ship into the sea, or from one ship into another, is free. If ships are bound together, one may transfer an object from one into the other; but if the ships are not bound together, even though they lie alongside of one another (and meet), one must not transfer a thing from one into the other.

GEMARA: We have learned: If one desires to draw water from the sea into the ship, he must make a small (board) attachment to the side of the ship, and then he can draw the water. So said R. Huna, because he holds that unclaimed ground commences from the bottom of the sea and ends with the surface. The atmosphere above the sea is considered as ground under no jurisdiction, and hence the making of the attachment was really not necessary; but it being Sabbath, this should be done to distinguish the Sabbath from week-days. R. Hisda and Rabba bar R. Huna said: "The attachment made should be four ells wide," because they hold that the unclaimed ground commences from the surface of the water, and the water itself is considered as ground, and if the attachment were not made, it would constitute carrying from unclaimed ground into private ground, and this is not allowed to commence with.

R. Huna said: "On the small boats, that are not four spans wide down their entire depth, a man must not carry anything only for four ells (because it cannot be considered private ground), unless at a distance of three spans from the ground the boat is four spans wide. If there be sticks or refuse at the bottom of the boat, the bottom of the boat commences from the top of such sticks or refuse, and if the boat be ten spans high, according to that calculation one may carry in it." R. Na'hman opposed this: "Why should a man not be permitted to carry in a boat the bottom of which is not strewn with sticks and refuse?" Have we not learned in a Boraitha that R. Jose b. R. Jehudah said: "If one placed in public ground a stick (ten spans high), on top of which was a trough, which was four spans wide, a person throwing anything on top of the trough is culpable, because, while the trough was not ten spans high itself, the height of the stick upon which it rests is considered as included in its own." Why should this not also refer to the case of the boat, and the place where it is four spans wide be considered as if it reached down to the bottom? R. Joseph opposed R. Na'hman as follows: "Did not R. Na'hman hear that R. Jehudah, in the name of Rabh, according to others, in the name of R. Hyya, said, that the sages did not agree with Jose b. R. Jehudah and exonerated the man?" Hence we see that the Boraitha, treating of the boat, holds with the opinion of the rabbis. "If ships are bound together," etc. Is this not self-evident? Said Rabha: "The Mishna wishes to inform us, that one is permitted to carry from one ship into another, even if a small boat is between them, i.e., one may carry from one ship into the boat and thence into the other ship, even though the small boat is not tied to either ship." Said R. Saphra to him: "Moses! 1 How canst thou say such a thing? Does not the Mishna state explicitly that one may carry from one ship into another? No boat between them (was mentioned)." R. Saphra, however, explained the Mishna thus: The Mishna, by saying one may carry from one ship into another, means to say that an Erubh maybe made between the two ships, just as between two houses, and then things may be carried from one into the other, as we have learned in a Boraitha: An Erubh may be made between ships that are tied together and things may be carried from one into the other. If the rope by means of which the ships were lashed to each other became torn, carrying to and from one ship to the other is not allowed; but if the ships were lashed together again, either intentionally or unintentionally, through compulsion or through an error, the original permission again holds good.

The same is the case with mats of which tents were made, whereby the ground enclosed by the mats becomes private; and if many such tents were made, carrying from one tent into another is permitted, provided an Erubh is made. If the mats were rolled up, however, such carrying is not permitted. Were the mats rolled down again, intentionally or unintentionally, through compulsion or through error, the original permission again holds good.

It was reported in the name of Samuel: If the ships were tied together with a mere thread, permission to carry from one into the other holds good.

MISHNA: If one threw a thing, and after the thing had passed out of his hand, he recollected that it was Sabbath; if another person caught the thing thrown; if a dog caught it or if the things thrown was consumed by fire (before reaching its destination), the man is free. If one threw a thing for the purpose of injuring a man or a beast, and before such injury was inflicted recollected (that it was Sabbath), he is free. (For) this is the rule: Only such are culpable and, bound to bring a sin-offering as commit an act through error from beginning to end; if the act, however, was committed through error only at the start, and at the close was committed consciously, or vice versa, the perpetrator is free until the beginning as well as the end of the act is committed through error.

GEMARA: What would be the case, if the thing, after passing out of the thrower's hand, had rested (outside of four ells in public ground)? Would he be culpable? Why! Did he not recollect (that it was Sabbath) before the thing rested? And our Mishna (distinctly) states that one cannot be culpable unless an act were committed through error from beginning to end! Said Rabha: The 'Mishna teaches us two facts: Firstly, if one threw a thing, and after the thing had passed out of his hand he recollected (that it was Sabbath); or secondly, even if he did not recollect (that it was Sabbath), but another man, or a dog, caught the thing, or it was consumed by fire before it rested, he is not culpable. "This is the rule." We have learned: If one threw a distance of six ells, two ells through error, the next two consciously, and the last again through error, Rabba declares him free.

(How can that occur? As soon as the object had passed out of his hand and had not yet reached farther than two ells, he became conscious that it was Sabbath, and before it had passed the next two ells he forgot again that it was Sabbath.) Rabha, however, declares him culpable. Rabba declares him free, even according to the opinion of R. Gamaliel (in the last Mishna of Chapter XII.), who does not consider the consciousness during the time intervening between the perpetration of the two acts (each of which only executed one-half the prescribed deed) as being of any consequence (but considers the two unfinished acts as one prolonged act done unintentionally and making the perpetrator culpable). For what reason?

Because in the case treated of in the cited Mishna nothing was done during the period of consciousness (of the Sabbath) intervening between the two unfinished acts to neutralize the erroneous character of the two unfinished acts, and thus they became one finished act and made the perpetrator culpable. In this case, however, Rabha assumes that during the time intervening between the passing of the first two ells and the last two ells, the man carried the thing, and did so fully conscious (of the Sabbath), and thus neutralized the erroneous character surrounding the throwing for the first two and last two ells.

Rabha, however, declares him culpable, even according to the rabbis, who hold contrary to the opinion of R. Gamaliel (in the cited Mishna) and consider the consciousness (of Sabbath) during the period intervening between the two unfinished acts as a neutralization of the unintentional character of the unfinished acts, thus making the perpetrator not culpable. In this case, however, the man is culpable. (Why so?) Because in the case cited in the same Mishna the entire act could have been committed, but was not, for after the man became conscious (of its being Sabbath) he stopped; hence the unfinished act was not counted. Later he again forgot that it was Sabbath, but again recollected, before the entire act was committed; so the second unfinished act was not counted, and the man is free.

In this case, however, the thing having been thrown could not be stopped when the man became conscious of its being Sabbath before it reached its destination! Thus the act was committed, and the fact that the thrower became conscious (of its being Sabbath) in the mean time is of no consequence. (Now, the conclusion is that there is really no difference between the rabbis and R. Gamaliel or between Rabba and Rabha, because all agree that if the thing was thrown the man is culpable, but if carried by hand he is not.)

Rabba said: If one threw a thing and it rested in the mouth of a dog or in the opening of an oven, he is culpable. Did we not learn in the Mishna that if a dog caught it, or if it was consumed by fire, he is not culpable? Yea; but the Mishna refers to a case where the intention was to throw it elsewhere and accidentally a dog caught it or it was consumed by fire; but Rabba means to say that a man is culpable if he intentionally throw it into the dog's mouth or into the oven. Said R. Bibhi b. Abayi: We have also learned elsewhere that the intention to have a thing rest in a place makes that place a fit one for the thing.

Footnotes

193:1 The law concerning Erubhin, will be explained in Tract Erubhin.

194:1 The Hebrew term for "cut off" in that passage is Tamu, and for "joined" in the previous passage it is "Tamim" hence the comparison by analogy.

198:1 So explains Rashi (Isaakides); we think, however, the reason that water does not annul the enclosures is, because water belongs to the public and any one can draw it out, and therefore it is equal to not being there; but, fruits must belong to a private individual and this makes it private ground.

201:1 The word Moses was used as a title to a great teacher.

CHAPTER XII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING BUILDING, PLOUGHING, ETC., ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA: (Among the forty, less one, principal acts of labor, building was enumerated.) What is the least amount of building which will make a man culpable? The least possible amount. The same applies to stone-masonry, smoothing with a hammer (at the close of the work); as for planing, he who planes the least bit, and for drilling, he who drills ever so little, is culpable. For this is the rule: He who performs any act of labor which is of permanent value is culpable. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: He who during his work strikes the anvil with his sledge is culpable, because he virtually brings about labor.

GEMARA: Of what use is so small an amount of building? Said R. Aha bar Jacob: "So small an amount of building is usually done by a householder who discovers a hole in the wall of one of his rooms and fills it up (with wood or cement). And the instance of such work having been performed at the (construction of the) Tabernacle is: When one of the boards contained a hole produced by worms, a little molten lead was poured into it and it was thus filled."

Samuel said: "One who places a stone in the street for the purpose of paving the walk is culpable." An objection was made. We have learned elsewhere: If one furnish the stone for paving and another furnish the mortar, the latter is culpable? [Says the Gemara:] If you base your objection to Samuel's decree upon this Boraitha, why do you not also cite the latter decree of the Boraitha which reads: R. Jose says: "One who picks up a stone and places it upon a row of stones is also culpable"? Hence we see that there are three different kinds of building. Building at the base, in the centre, and on the top. Building at the base only requires a solid foundation in the earth. Building in the centre requires mortar. Building on top needs only proper placing without the use of mortar. "Stone-masonry." In what category of labor can stone-masonry be placed, that its performance should make one culpable? Rabh said it comes under the category of building, and Samuel said under the category of smoothing with a hammer. The same difference of opinion exists between Rabh and Samuel in the case of one who bores a hole in a chicken-coop that was not previously perforated. The former holds this to be building, while the latter regards it the same as smoothing with a hammer. (It makes no difference to one who performs such labor unintentionally, for in either event he must bring a sin-offering, regardless of what class of labor he performed, if he does only one act; but when he performs two acts there is a difference. If they are both of one category, he is bound to bring only one sin-offering, but if they are of different categories, he must bring two; but in the case of one who performed such work with intention, even if he does only one act it does make a difference. The witnesses to his deed when warning him—of his wrong-doing—must inform him just what class of labor he is engaged in executing. Should they tell him incorrectly, he cannot be held guilty. This applies to all cases where the Gemara asks as to the category of labor performed.) The same difference of opinion also exists in the case of one who affixed a handle to a pickaxe, Rabh classing such work as building, and Samuel as smoothing with a hammer.

A question was propounded by R. Nathan bar Oshiya to R. Johanan: "Under what category of labor is stone-masonry to be placed?" R. Johanan answered him by making the sign of hammering with his hand. "For this is the rule." What additional significance does the statement "for this is the rule" contain? It applies to the hollowing out of a block of wood capable of holding a Kabh (about four lugs), a cavity a good deal smaller. "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said," etc. What labor is performed by striking an anvil with a sledge? The Tosephta in this chapter explains it as follows: "Said R. Simeon ben Gamaliel: He who during his work strikes the anvil with the sledge is culpable; because at the construction of the Tabernacle those that covered the boards with metal-plate would strike the plates with their hammers."

MISHNA: One who ploughs, grubs, weeds, or prunes ever so little is culpable. One who gathers wood for the purpose of using the space occupied by the wood is culpable if he gathers ever so little; but if he gathers it for the purpose of lighting a fire with it, he is culpable only if he gathered as much as is required to cook (an easily boiled egg). If one gathered grass for the sake of the space occupied by it, he is culpable for gathering even ever so little; if for the purpose of feeding cattle, he does not become liable unless he gathered as much as a goat's mouthful.

GEMARA: Of what use is a place where a man ploughed ever so little? It may be used to plant one seed of a cucumber in. This was also done at the Tabernacle, where one root was all that was necessary (for dyeing) and was pulled out of the ground, thereby making a hole. (This is not contradictory to what we have learned previously, that the minimum prescribed quantity for cucumber seeds was two, because a man will not take one cucumber seed out for sowing; but when sowing a separate hole is made for each seed and thus the prescribed quantity in this case is limited to one.) "One who ploughs, grubs, weeds, or prunes." The rabbis taught: One who tears out herbs (which when damp are good for human food) for the purpose of eating them is culpable if the quantity equals or exceeds the size of a dried fig. For cattle the prescribed quantity is that of a goat's mouthful. If for the purpose of using for fuel, the prescribed quantity is as much as is used to cook an easily boiled egg with; if for the purpose of cleaning (weeding) his place, he is culpable even for ever so little. Is all this kind of work not done for the sake of cleaning the place? 1 Said Rabba and R. Joseph: The Mishna treats of a case where even if the man was not standing in a garden belonging to an individual, but even if be did it in a public field (if his intention is to clean the place he is culpable). Abayi said: (The same is the case) even if he did it in a private field and had no intention to clean the place, as it did not belong to him but to some one else.

MISHNA: One who writes two letters, with the right or with the left hand, be they of one denomination or of different denominations, or be they written with different inks or be they letters of different languages (alphabets), is culpable. R. Jose said: The only reason that one is declared culpable for writing two letters, is because they can serve as marks; for thus the boards used at the Tabernacle were marked in order to be able to tell which fit together. Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi) said: We also often find a short name which forms part of a long name, as Sam for Simeon and Samuel, Noah for Nahor, Dan for Daniel, Gad for Gadiel.

GEMARA: It would be right if the Mishna were to say that if one write with his right hand he is culpable, because writing with the right hand is the general way; but writing with the left is entirely out of the ordinary. Why should he be culpable? Said R. Jeremiah: "The Mishna also refers to a left-handed man." A left-handed man? His left is his right and his right his left hand. Let him then not be culpable if he use his right hand! Said Abayi: In the case of the Mishna a man is referred to who has equal strength in both hands; but R. Jacob, son of the daughter of Jacob, said: The Mishna stands according to the decree of R. Jose that the reason of a man's culpability is because of the letters standing for marks, and the making of marks with either the right or the left hand is prohibited.

How can the first part of the Mishna be according to the opinion of R. Jose—it teaches further, "R. Jose said"? If the latter part is explicitly attributed to R. Jose, the first part cannot be in accord with him. Nay; the entire Mishna is in accord with R. Jose (say then because R. Jose said). "Rabbi said: We also often find a short name," etc. What does Rabbi mean by this teaching? Shall we assume that one is culpable only if he wrote two letters representing two different names, but if the two were merely an abbreviation of one name he is not culpable?

Did we not learn in a Boraitha: "It is written [Lev. iv. 2]: And do (of) any (one) of them." One might assume from this verse that the man is not culpable unless he wrote the entire name, or wove the entire cloth, or he finished the whole length of the seam, therefore it is written "of any (one) of them." Now, if we take "of any (one) of them" literally, the writing of even one letter or the weaving of even one thread should make one culpable! Therefore it is written: "Of any (one) of them." How should this be understood? One is not culpable until he writes a short name which forms part of a long name, like Sam for Simeon or Samuel, Noah for Nahor, etc., etc. Rabbi (Jehudah) said: The two letters need not be part of a long name, but even if the two form a name (of a thing) in themselves like: Shesh, teth, red, gag, choch.

(shesh—lion, teth—to give, red—go below, gag—roof, choch—nose band.) Said R. Jose: Is then the man culpable because of writing? It is only because of making a mark, for thus were the boards of the Tabernacle marked in order that one mil tell which fit together. Therefore if one made but one scratch on two boards or two scratches on one board, he is culpable. R. Simeon quotes the same verse: "And do (of) any (one) of them." One might assume that the man is not culpable unless he wrote the entire name, etc. How should this be understood? One is not culpable until he has performed labor which is permanently fixed. Now in the Boraitha we see that R. Jehudah said the two letters need not be part of a name, but even if the two form a name. (Does not R. Jehudah contradict himself?) This presents no difficulty.

In the above Mishna he gives his own opinion, while in the Boraitha he cites his master's opinion, because we have learned in another Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Gamaliel: "Even if the two letters are not part of a long name, but form a name in themselves, he is culpable. For instance: shesh, teth, etc."

Did not R. Simeon say the very same thing as the first Tana? Perhaps one might say that R. Simeon refers to one who wrote two letters that have no meaning and are part of a long word. For instance, Aa from Aazreko (I assisted you). In such a case R. Simeon would be the stricter and the first Tana the more lenient. Is this not contrary to R. Simeon's wont, as we have learned in a Tosephta further on: "If one bore a hole with a drill, be the hole ever so small, he is culpable," etc.? R. Simeon however declares him free until the hole made was as large as it was originally intended to be. Answer and interpret R. Simeon's words thus: One might say that one is not culpable until he writes the whole verse; therefore it is written "of any one," signifying that one word is sufficient. "Rabbi said: We also often find," etc. How can the name of Sam be equal to Simeon? The (letter) Mem in Sam is an end (closed) letter, while the Mem in Simeon is an open (middle) Mem. 1 Said R. Hisda: From this we may infer that if one write by mistake an open Mem instead of a closed Mem in the scroll of laws, the scroll may be used.

The rabbis said to R. Jehoshua ben Levi: There were some young men at the schoolhouse to-day, and they related such wonderful things as were never taught before even in the time of Joshua the son of Nun. These are they: Aleph, Beth means Oliph Bino (go and teach knowledge). Gimmel, Daled means Gmol (be bountiful) Dalim (to the poor), Why is the foot of the Gimmel pointed toward the Daled? Because so should be the feet of those who are bountiful—ever ready to seek beneficiaries. Why is the foot of the Daled pointed back toward the Gimmel? In order that the poor man may know that he must not conceal himself from his benefactor. Why does the Daled turn its face from the Gimmel? In order to teach us that the benefactor should give to the poor without ostentation and that the poor man be not abashed. Hey, Vav, Zayin, Cheth, Teth, Iod, Khaf, Lamad means: Hey Vav, which is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He; (Zayin) Zon—He will feed thee; (Cheth) Cheyn—will be gracious unto thee; (Teth) Tov—will be good to thee; (Iod) Ierushah—He will make thee inherit in the world to come; (Khaf) Khesser—He will give thee a crown; (Lamad) Leaulim haboh—in the world to come.

Mem open (middle) and Mem closed (end) means Meimar (sayings) Pathuach (open) [implying that there are such sayings of God as are open to every one]; but Meimar (sayings) Sathum (closed) [implying that there are sayings of God which are hidden to most men]. Noon curved (middle) and Noon straight (end) means Neamon (an upright man); Khaph (curved) [should be (curved) bowed down, modest in this life, and in the life hereafter he will become a Neamon] (an upright man) Pashut (straight). Samach means Smohch (assist). Ayin means aniim (the poor). Peh round (middle) and Peh straight (end) means Peh (a mouth) Pasuach (shall be open [to teach]); and Peh (mouth) Sasum (shall be closed [to slander]). Tzadi round (middle) and Tzadi straight (end) means Tzadik (a righteous man) should be modest and fearless (straight). Quph means Qodosh (holy), implying who does all, that has been mentioned, is holy. Resh means Roshoh (wicked), implying, who does the contrary is wicked. Why does the crown of the Quph look down upon the Resh? just as the Qodosh (Holy One, blessed be He) looks down upon the Roshoh (the wicked), saying: Turn from thy ways and I shall also give thee a crown. Why does the foot of the Quph hang unsupported? In order to admit of the wicked entering into the Qudoshim (holiness) if he turn from his ways. Shin means Sheqer (a lie) and Thaph means Emeth (truth). Why are the letters of Sheqer so near to one another (the order of sequence in the alphabet is Resh, Quph, Shin) and Emeth so far from one another (being the first, middle, and last letters of the alphabet)? Because lies are very frequent, while truth is very scarce. Why have the letters in Sheqer but one foot while those in Emeth have so many? Because lies will finally totter, while truth will stand supreme.

MISHNA: One who through forgetfulness at onetime wrote two letters is culpable. He may have written with ink, paint, dye, gum, or vitriol, or with anything making a permanent mark. Further, one who wrote on two walls forming a corner, or on two covers of an arithmetical book, so that the two letters can be read together, is culpable. One who writes on his own body is culpable. One who tattooes letters in his flesh R. Eliezer holds him culpable for a sin-offering, and R. Jehoshua holds him to be free. If one write with dark liquids, with fruit-juice, or in road-dust, in fine sand, or in anything that does not retain the writing, be is free. If one write with the back of his hand, with his feet, with his mouth, with his elbow; or if one write one letter to another letter (that had already been written), or writes over letters that had been written before; or when one's intention was to write a Cheth and wrote two Zayins; or if one write one letter on the ground and another on the wall, or on two separate walls, or on two separate pages of a book, when the two letters cannot be read together, he is free. If one wrote one abbreviated letter, R. Jehudah ben Bethyra holds him culpable and the sages hold him free.

GEMARA: "Or with anything making a permanent mark," etc. What other additional things does the Mishna mean to express by this? R. Hananyah taught: It means if one wrote with berry-juice or with gall-nuts, he is also culpable. R. Hyya taught: "If one wrote with graphite, soot, or black ink, he is culpable." "One who tattooes two letters on his flesh," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: Said R. Eliezer to the sages: "Did not the son of Sattadai 1 bring witchcraft out of Egypt, through tattooing on his flesh?" Answered the sages: "He was a fool and we do not cite single instances of fools." "If one write one letter to another letter," etc. According to which Tana's opinion is this? Said Rabba bar R. Huna: "This is not according to the opinion of R. Eliezer, for R. Eliezer said that if one add another thread to one already woven, he is culpable." We have learned in a Boraitha: "If one wrote one letter at the end of any scriptural book, thereby finishing that particular book, or if one added another thread to one already woven, he is culpable." According to which Tana's opinion is this? Said Rabba bar R. Huna: "This is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who said that if one add another thread to one already woven he is culpable." R. Ashi said: We may assume that the opinion of the sages does not conflict with this opinion, because the case of finishing a book differs from that of adding another thread; hence, according to their opinion, one is also culpable (for finishing a book by adding one letter).

We have learned in a Boraitha: "If one corrected one letter in the Scroll of laws, he is culpable." How can this be? One is not held culpable for writing one letter; how can the Boraitha hold one culpable for merely correcting one letter? Said R. Shesheth: "Here a special case is treated of; i.e., if one take off the top bar of the Cheth and make two Zayins out of it." Rabha said: The same is the case if, for instance, one remove the square portion of a Daled and form a Resh therefrom. "If one wrote one abbreviated letter," etc. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jose ben Zimra: "Whence do we know that there are abbreviated letters in the Scriptures? As it is written [in Gen. xvii. 5]: Khi Ab Hamaun Goyim Nsathicha (For the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee). In the word Ab the Aleph is the abbreviation of Ab—father, and the Beth stands for bachur—selected; Hamaun stands for haviv—lovely, Melech—king, vathig—modest, neamon—upright. All this I have made thee among the nations." R. Johanan declares of his own accord: "The ten commandments commence with Anauchi when it could be Ani (meaning I am). The Anauchi is an abbreviation for Ano (I), Naphshi (my soul), Kthovith (I have written), Yehovith (and have given)."

MISHNA: If one, through forgetfulness at two different times, write two letters, say one in the morning and the other toward evening, R. Gamaliel holds him to be culpable and the sages declare him free.
GEMARA: On what point do R. Gamaliel and the sages differ? R. Gamaliel does not consider the consciousness (of its being Sabbath) during the time intervening between the perpetration of the two acts (each of which executed only half the prescribed deed) as being of any consequence (but considers the two unfinished acts as one prolonged act done unintentionally and making the perpetrator culpable). The sages, however, consider the consciousness (of Sabbath) during the period intervening between the two unfinished acts as a neutralization of the unintentional character of the unfinished acts and thus make the perpetrator not culpable.

Footnotes

206:1 This means that taking the things away cleans the place even unintentionally.

208:1 The five Hebrew letters Khaf, Mem, Nun, Peh, and Tzadi are written differently at the end and in the centre of words.

210:1 As to who Ben Sattadai was, see the works of Prof. Derenbourg.

CHAPTER XIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WEAVING, TEARING, HUNTING, ETC., ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA: R. Eliezer said: One who weaves (on the Sabbath) is culpable, as soon as he has woven three threads at the beginning of the web, and with a web already begun the addition of one thread suffices to make him culpable. The sages said: Both at the commencement of a new web, as well as at the continuation of one already begun, the prescribed quantity (making one culpable) is two threads. One who attaches two threads to the web, either to the warp or to the shoot, to the fine or to the coarse sieve, or to the basket, is culpable. Also one who sews two stitches, or tears asunder, in order to sew (together with) two stitches.
GEMARA: When R. Itz'hak came to Babylon, he taught that R. Eliezer said "two threads and not three," as stated in the Mishna. But we learned three! This is no contradiction. R. Itz'hak refers to thick threads and the Mishna to thin. "One who attaches two threads," etc. Said Abayi: This means, one who attached two threads to the web and one in the web. "One who sews two stitches," etc. Was this not taught in the Mishna treating of the principal acts of labor? Because in the succeeding Mishna the rule is taught concerning one, who tears while in a rage, or through grief at the death of a near relative, sewing and tearing is repeated in this Mishna. "Or tears asunder in order to sew together with two stitches." How is this to be imagined? (If by tearing the thing one means to spoil it, he may tear even as much as will require any number of stitches and not be culpable, but if he tears in order to sew together with two stitches and thus improve the thing, how can that be done?) This can be done in the case of a piece of cloth protruding from a garment, which one would tear off, and then sew up the remaining rent.
MISHNA: One who tears a thing while enraged, or through grief on account of his dead, and, in general, all who spoil a thing are not culpable. If, however, one destroy a thing with the intention to mend it, the prescribed quantity (making him culpable) is determined according to the prescribed quantity of the act by which it is mended. The prescribed quantity of wool when being washed, carded, dyed or spun is a thread the length of a double sit; 1 in the weaving the prescribed quantity for wool is the breadth of one sit.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction: We have learned in a Boraitha: One who tears a thing while in a rage, or through grief, or through mourning for the dead, is culpable, and although he desecrates the Sabbath, the duty of tearing (ordained in cases of mourners for the dead) is fulfilled. This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha treats of the case of a man who tore his garment on account of the death of one on whose account it was his duty to tear his garment, while the Mishna treats of the case of a man who did not do so for duty's sake, but on account of a death of a stranger, and this not being his duty, he merely spoiled his garment. How can you say, that the Mishna treats of a man who tore his garment on account of the death of a stranger; it says distinctly his dead? Yea, it says his dead, but he has such relatives, on whose account he need not tear his garment; (though it may be his duty to bury them, he being the nearest living relative; and tearing one's garment becomes a duty only in the event of the death of a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or sister). Now, there is no contradiction then as far as mourning for the dead is concerned, but there surely is as regards one who is enraged? In the Boraitha he is held culpable and in the Mishna he is not? Here also there is no difficulty: The Mishna's statement is in accord with R. Simeon's decree, who holds, that one is not culpable of performing a deed not for its own sake, while the Boraitha is in accord with the opinion of R. Jehudah, who holds one culpable of performing work even not for its own sake. But you have heard that R. Jehudah's opinion only applied to an act by which a thing was mended? Did you also hear that he decreed thus in the case of where a thing was destroyed? Said R. Abhin:

This is also a case of mending, because it relieves the man's mind; and while he may spoil the garment at the same time he abates his fury." Is such action permitted? Have we not learned that R. Simeon ben Elazar said in the name of 'Hilpha bar Agra, quoting R. Johanan ben Nuri: "He who tears his garments in his fury, or he who breaks his vessels, or he who throws away his money while in a rage, shall be regarded in your eyes as a worshipper of idols, because such is the custom of the misleader: To-day he says to one, 'Do so,' to-morrow 'Do something else,' until he tells one to go and worship idols and the man does so." R. Abhin added to this: "Where can a Scriptural passage be found prohibiting this? [Psalms lxxxi. 10]: 'There shall not be among thee a foreign god; nor shalt thou bow thyself down to any strange god.' This means that no foreign god (misleader) shall be in thy heart, because it says Becho (in thee). The latter part of the verse infers, that if he allows the misleader to dwell in his heart it will bring him to bowing down to idols." Such action is permitted only when a man is not in an actual fury, but wishes to appear as if enraged in order to command obedience (from his family), as R. A'ha bar Jacob used to do; viz.: "When he wanted to show displeasure at the deeds of his family, he would take up a broken vessel and shatter it, making his family believe that he was furious and was breaking whole vessels."

Said R. Simeon ben Pazi in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi, quoting Bar Qapara: 1 The tears shed by a man on account of the death of an upright man are counted by the Holy One, blessed be He, and stored in His treasury, as it is written [Psalms lvi. 9]: "My wanderings hast Thou well numbered: put Thou my tears into Thy bottle, behold they are numbered by Thee." R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: "One who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar deserves being buried alive, as it is written [Joshua xxiv. 30]: 'And they buried him on the border of his inheritance at Thimnah-serach, which is on the mountain of Ephraim, on the north side of Mount Ga'ash.' Ga'ash signifies storm, and from this it is inferred, that because the people did not mourn the death of Joshua the mount stormed and tried to bury them alive."
Said R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan: "One who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar will not have long life. This is in retaliation; (because he did not mourn the death of the scholar, his own death will be hastened), as it is written [Isaiah xxvi. 8]: 'In measure, by driving him forth, thou strivest with him.'" R. Hyya bar Aba objected and said to R. Johanan: How canst thou say, that one who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar will not have long life? Is it not written [Judges ii. 7]: "And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, that lived many days after Joshua, who had seen all the great deeds of the Lord, which he had done for Israel"? R. Johanan answered: "Thou Babylonite! Does the verse say, that lived many years? It only says many days!" Now, according to R. Johanan's argument, does the verse [Deut. xi. 21]: "In order that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children," etc., also mean days and not years? In this verse it is different. Where a blessing is conferred days and years are meant.
R. Hyya bar Aba said again in the name of R. Johanan: "If one brother die, let the remaining brothers take care that they do not die. Or if a member of a society die, let the other members take care that they die not." This means: if the best one among them die; another says, on the contrary, if the least one among them die. "The prescribed quantity of wool," etc. R. Joseph showed the extent of a double sit as being twice the distance between the fore and the middle finger when spread out, and R. Hyya bar Ama showed its extent as being the distance between the thumb and the forefinger when spread out.

MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: "One who chases a bird into a bird-tower or a deer into a house is culpable." The sages said: "One who chases a bird into a bird-tower, a deer into a house, yard, or into a menagerie, is culpable." Said R. Simeon ben Gamaliel: "Not all menageries are equal. Following is the rule: Where another chase would be necessary (to catch the deer) one is not culpable; where no further chase is necessary, one is culpable."
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: One who caught a blind or a sleeping deer is culpable, but if the deer is lame, sick or old he is not culpable. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "What difference is there between the two?" Answered R. Joseph: "A blind or a sleeping deer, as soon as touched, would attempt to escape, whereas. a lame or a sick animal could not do this." Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that one who caught a sick deer is culpable? This presents no difficulty. The rabbis refer to a deer sick with fever (when it was impossible for it to move), while the Boraitha refers to sickness arising from overexertion.

MISHNA: If a deer run into a house and one lock (the doors) behind the deer, he (the man) is culpable. If two men lock (the doors) both are free. If one of them could not lock (them) himself and both did so, they are both culpable. R. Simeon declares them free. If one sit down at the entrance of the house without filling it up and another sit down beside him, thus filling up the gap, the latter is guilty. If the former sat down at the entrance and filled it up, and another came up and sat beside him, the former, even if he got up and walked away, is culpable, and the latter free; for this is the same as if one locked his house to preserve its contents and a deer were on the inside.

GEMARA: R. Jeremiah bar Aba in the name of Samuel said: One who catches a lion on the Sabbath is not culpable until he brings him into his cage.

R. Aba said in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting Rabh: "If a bird flew under a man's coat-skirt, the man may keep it there until dark." R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak objected: From the above Mishna, "If a man sat down at the entrance and filled it up, and another came up and sat beside him, the former, even if he got up and walked away, is culpable and the latter is free," would we not assume, that the man is free (i.e., he need bring no sin-offering) but he should not have done it in the first place? Nay; it means he is free and may do so to commence with. This seems to be borne out by the latter part of the Mishna, viz.: "For this is the same as if one locked his house to preserve its contents and a deer were on the inside." It is certainly allowed to close the house on a Sabbath and hence, being the same as locking the house, it is allowed in the first place.
Said Samuel: "At all times when it is taught, that one is not culpable of performing work on the Sabbath, it is meant that, while he is not culpable, he must not perform such work to commence with, excepting in the three following instances: One of the three has just been mentioned (concerning the deer); the second is, when one lances a wound on the Sabbath; if the intention is to extract the pus contained in the wound, he is not culpable, and may do so in the first place; as we have learned in a following Mishna, that a sewing needle may be used to remove a splinter from the flesh; the third is, when one catches a snake on the Sabbath and he did so in order to escape being bitten, he is not culpable and may do so to commence with, as we have learned in a preceding Mishna, that one may put a vessel over a serpent, in order to escape being bitten."

Footnotes

214:1 The length of a sit is the distance between the first and middle finger of the hand when stretched taut. A double sit is the distance between the thumb and forefinger when stretched farthest apart.

215:1 Because mourning for one's dead is treated of in the last paragraph, the following discussions relating to mourning for upright men in general are held and the opinions of the different teachers cited.

CHAPTER XIV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CATCHING OF REPTILES, ANIMALS AND BIRDS . MISHNA: One who catches or wounds any one of the eight kinds of reptiles enumerated in the Scriptures (Lev. xi. 29-30, viz.: the weasel, the mouse, the tortoise, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail and the mole) is culpable; one who wounds worms or any other kind of reptiles (not enumerated above) is free. One who catches them for a purpose is culpable; he who does so without the intention (to use them) is free. He who catches such animals or birds as are within his domain is free, he who wounds them is culpable.

GEMARA: From the teaching of the Mishna that the reptiles (enumerated above) must not be wounded, it is evident that such reptiles must be possessed of a skin (which can be wounded). According to whose opinion is this? Said Samuel: "This is according to the opinion of R. Johanan ben Nuri; for he so stated (in Tract Chulin). Rabba bar R. Huna, however, in the name of Rabh said: It may also be assumed that the Mishna is in accord with the rabbis, who disagree with R. Johanan ben Nuri only where defilement is concerned, but who agree with him as to Sabbath. And as regards the Sabbath they (the rabbis) do not disagree with R. Johanan. Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that one who caught one of the eight kinds of reptiles enumerated in the Scriptures, or who wounds them, is culpable and that this applies only to such reptiles as have skins, and only such a wound is called incurable which has been produced by the blood clotting in the skin and remaining there, even when no blood came to the surface? R. Johanan ben Nuri, however, states, that all the eight reptiles enumerated in the Scriptures have skins (and therefore one who wounds any of them is culpable; we see that they, disagree even as regards the Sabbath). Said R. Ashi: The first Tana of the mentioned Boraitha, at variance with R. Johanan, is R. Jehudah, who stated, that there are among the eight such as have no skin; but the other rabbis, who differ with R. Johanan, where defilement is concerned, do not disagree with him in regard to Sabbath. Then why is it stated, that "R. Johanan ben Nuri, however, states, etc.," as if he opposed the rabbis? Read: "Thus states R. Johanan ben Nuri and his opponents." "Or any other reptiles." How is it, if one kills them? Is he culpable? The Mishna must be understood that if one only wounds them he is not culpable, but if he kills them he is culpable? According to whose opinion is this? Said R. Jeremiah: "This is according to the opinion of R. Eliezer, as stated in the first chapter" (page 22). R. Joseph opposed this: "Thou sayest, according to the opinion of R. Eliezer? The rabbis only differ with R. Eliezer when such reptiles as are incapable of breeding are concerned (for then they are not considered as actual living beings); but as to reptiles that are capable of breeding, they also agree, that one who kills them (on the Sabbath) is culpable (because that would be taking life, and taking life is prohibited on the Sabbath). "One who catches them for a purpose is culpable; he who does so without any intention (to use them) is free." According to whose opinion is this teaching? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It is according to the opinion of R. Simeon, who states, that any work not committed for its own sake does not make one culpable.

Samuel said: "One who takes a live fish out of the water, is culpable as soon as a part of the fish as large as a Sela has become dry (because then the fish cannot live)." Said R. Jose bar Abhin: Samuel means to say, that he is not culpable unless a place as big as a Sela become dry under its fins, and not on its body.
Mar bar Hamduri in the name of Samuel said: "If one thrust his hand into the entrails of an animal and displaced a fœtus, that may have been there, he is culpable." Why so? Said Rabha: Mar bar Hamduri explained this to me as follows: Did not R. Shesheth say, that if a man tore out flax from among the thorns surrounding it, he is culpable, because he removed a thing whence it grew? So also in this case he is culpable because he displaced the fœtus whence it grew. Said Abayi: The same is the case with one who tore out a mushroom which grows near a vessel filled with water, because he removed an object whence it grew. R. Oshiyah objected: Did we not learn that one who tears out a thing from a flower-pot, which is not perforated, is not culpable, but from a perforated flower-pot he is culpable. Why should he be culpable in this case? Because a thing does not grow in a flower-pot which is not perforated, as a rule; but in this case it grows in its usual way. "He who catches such animals or birds as are within his domain," etc. R. Huna said: "It is allowed to write Tephillin on the skin of a bird which is ritually clean." Said R. Joseph: "What would be inform us? That a bird has a skin? This is taught in the Mishna, for it says, he who wounds a bird is culpable." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "He informs us of a very important matter. From the Mishna we would simply know that the bird, having a skin, must not be wounded, but we might think, that such a skin, being porous, must not be used for Tephillin. Hence he informs us, that it may also be used for Tephillin, as it was said in Palestine that pores which do not permit of ink soaking through cannot be considered as pores.

Mar the son of Rabhina asked of R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Is it allowed to write Tephillin on the skin of a fish which is ritually clean?" R. Na'hman answered: "This can only be decided by Elijah; when he comes again, he will decide whether it is allowed or not."
Samuel and Qarna were sitting on the banks of Lake Malka. Samuel noticed that a ship was struggling with the rough waters and a man was suffering in consequence. Said Samuel to Qarna: "It seems to me, that a great man is coming from Palestine and that he is sick at the stomach. Go and see what ails him." He went and found Rabh on the ship, and asked him: "Whence do we know that Tephillin may be written only upon the skin of a ritually clean animal?" Rabh answered: "It is written [Exod. xiii. 9]: 'In order that the law of the Lord shall be in thy mouth,' which means, that the Law shall be written only on such a thing as thou mayest take into thy mouth." Qarna asked him again: "How do we know that blood is red?" Rabh answered again: "Because it is written [II Kings iii. 22]: 'The Moabites saw the water at a distance as red as blood.'" (In the meantime Rabh felt that Qarna was quizzing him.) He asked him, "What is thy name?" He answered: "Qarna." Said Rabh: "A Qarna (thorn) be in thy eyes!" Finally Samuel took Rabh to his own house, gave him barley-bread, small fishes, milk and such things as tend to produce looseness of the bowels, but did not show him the place to excrementize in. So Rabh cursed him and said: "May the one who wishes to make me suffer, not be able to rear his children." So it was.

The rabbis taught: It is allowed to write Tephillin on the skins of (ritually) clean animals and creatures, also upon the skins of such as died a natural death and were not slaughtered, and it is an ordinance (instituted) by Moses at Sinai, that the Tephillin are wound in the hairy hide of such animals, whence the skin may be taken, and are sewed with the veins of such animals; but it is not allowed to write Tephillin on the skins of (ritually) unclean animals and creatures, whether such animals were slaughtered or naturally expired. This question was asked by a Bathusee of R. Joshua of the city of Garsi. "Whence do we know that Tephillin must not be written on the skin of an unclean animal?" "From the passage [Lev. xiii. 9]: 'In order that the law of the Lord shall be in thy mouth,' which means, that the Law shall be written only on such a thing as a man may put into his mouth." "According to thy, argument," said the Bathusee, "Tephillin should not be written on the skin of a (ritually) clean animal, that died a natural death (because it must not be eaten also)." Answered R. Joshua: "I will give thee an instance of two men, who incurred the death penalty. One was duly executed, while the other died at the moment that he reached the gallows. Which is preferable? Certainly the natural death. In this case also, why should the skin of the animal that died a natural death not be used for writing the Tephillin thereon?" "According to that, then," said the Bathusee, "why should it not be eaten also?" Answered R. Joshua: "It is written [Deut. xiv. 21]: 'Ye shall not eat anything that dieth of itself,' and thou wouldst that it should be eaten." Answered the Bathusee: "Kalos" (Greek Κάλος = nice, well).

MISHNA: It is prohibited to prepare brine on Sabbath, but the making of salt water, in order to dip one's bread into it, or to use for seasoning other dishes is permitted. Said R. Jose: Is this not brine? (What is the difference?) be it more or less salted? Only the following kind of salt water may be made: If oil is first put into the water or into the salt.
GEMARA: How should the Mishna be understood? Said R. Jehudah. in the name of Samuel: "It is not permitted to make a great deal of salt water, but a little may be made." "Said R. Jose: Is this not brine? Be it more or less salted." The schoolmen asked: "Does R. Jose, by making that statement, mean to say that both should be prohibited or that both be allowed?" Said R. Rabba and also R. Johanan: "R. Jose meant to say, that both should be prohibited." We have also learned this in a Boraitha: "One shall not make a great deal of salt water in order to put it into a Gistar (a large vessel) filled with things requiring a soaking; but he may make a little salt water to dip his bread into it or use it for seasoning other dishes. Said R. Jose: 'Because one is more and the other less salted the former should be prohibited and the latter should be permitted; then one might say that a greater act of labor should be prohibited and a smaller one permitted? Therefore, I say, both are not allowed, but it becomes permissible, if oil is put into the water or into the salt, the main thing is that one should not mix water and salt to commence with.'"

R. Judah bar Haviva taught: "One shall not make salt water very strong." What does he mean by "very strong"? Rabba and R. Joseph bar Aba both said: "If one put an egg into the water and the egg float it is strong salt water." How much salt must be used for such water? Said Abayi: "Two-thirds salt and one-third water." For what purpose can that be used? For fish-brine.

The same Judah b. Haviva taught: "One must not salt pieces of radishes and eggs on the Sabbath." R. Hizkyah in the name of Abayi said: "Salting radishes is not allowed, but salting eggs is."

The same Judah b. Haviva taught: "If citrons, radishes and eggs are eaten without the peel (in the case of an egg, the yolk without the white), they remain in the stomach."
Rabhin walked behind R. Jeremiah on the banks of the sea of Zidon. Rabhin asked R. Jeremiah: "Is it allowed to wash one's self in this water on Sabbath?" R. Jeremiah said: "Yes, it is." Asked Rabhin again: "How is it if a man who is bathing in this water, opens and closes his eyes, so that the water has access to the eyes?" Answered R. Jeremiah: "I never heard of just such a case, but of one similar to it. I heard R. Zera say at one time in the name of R. Mathne, another time in the name of Mar Uqba, both of whom said, that the father of Samuel differed with Levi and that one of them said, that pouring wine on the eyes as a remedy is allowed but pouring wine into the eyes is not allowed, while the other said that the saliva of a man who had not broken his fast is a remedy for the eyes and must not even be put on the eyes; but Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel said: A man may soak a medicament for the eyes on Friday in water and may then use the water on Sabbath with impunity."

Bar Levayi was standing before Mar Uqba, and saw the latter opening and closing his eyes, so that the medicinal water may have access to them. Said he to Mar Uqba: "So much Mar Samuel did certainly not permit!"

R. Yanai sent to Mar Uqba a request: "Let master send his the eye-salve prescribed by Samuel for sore eyes." Mar Uqba answered: "I send it to you, so that you do not think me parsimonious, but Samuel said, that bathing the eye in cold water in the morning and bathing the hands and feet in warm water at night is better than any medicine for the eye in the world." The same we have learned in a Boraitha: by R. Muna in the name of R. Jehudah.

The same R. Muna used to say: "As soon as a man rises and his hand touches his eye, nose, mouth, ear or a vein, it had better be chopped off. The same should be done with a hand that touches a pitcher used for beer, before it (the hand) is washed, because such a hand causes blindness, deafness and bad odors."

We have learned: R. Nathan said: "The eye is (like) a princess and it hurts her to be touched by a hand that has not been washed three times." R. Johanan says: "Puch (a precious stone or a certain kind of paint 1) applied to the eye, stills its wrath, dries its tears and causes its lashes to grow."

Mar Uqba said: "One who (accidentally) injured his hand or foot so that blood flowed (on the Sabbath) may steep them in wine in order to stop the flow, with impunity." The schoolmen asked: "May he do this, in vinegar also?" Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi: "When I attended the school of R. Kahana, it was said, that it is not allowed in vinegar." Said Rabha: "And the, men of the city of Me'hutza, who are very delicate, are generally cured by wine the same as other people are by vinegar."
It happened, that Rabhina came to the house of R. Ashi and saw the latter, having had his foot trodden upon by an ass, soaking it in vinegar. Said Rabhina to him: "Does not the Master coincide with R. Hillel, who said, that soaking in vinegar is not allowed?" R. Ashi answered: "With a wound on the instep of the foot and the back of the hand it is different, because R. Ada b. Mathne said in the name of Rabh, that a wound on the back of the hand and on the instep of the foot is equal to an internal wound and the Sabbath may be desecrated on its account."

The rabbis taught: "One may wash his body in the waters of Gror, Chamtan, Essia and Tiberias (all of which are salt waters), but it is not allowed to bathe one's self in the Great Sea and not in water used for soaking flax, also not in the sea of Sodom." Is this not contradictory to what we have learned in the Boraitha, viz. "One may bathe in the Tiberias and in the Great Sea, but not in water used for soaking flax and in the sea of Sodom." This presents a difficulty; for in the Boraitha bathing in the Great Sea is permitted, while the rabbis prohibit it. Said R. Johanan: There is no difficulty. One Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Meir, while the other is in accord with the opinion of R. Jehudah (who differ in Tract Mikva'ath, Chapter V., Mishna 6). R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak opposed this, and said: "They differ only as regards defilement, but have ye heard that they also differ concerning the Sabbath?'' Hence R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak explained this otherwise. He said, that the Boraitha which does not permit bathing in the Great Sea refers to one who stays in the water some length of time (and it is obvious that this is done on account of his health). Now, if we say, that the one Boraitha refers to a man who stays in the water for some time, we must assume, that the other Boraitha refers to one who does not stay long, and if this is so, why should not the one (who does not stay long) be permitted to bathe even in the water used for soaking flax? Have we not learned in another Boraitha: "One may bathe in the Tiberias, in flax-water or in the sea of Sodom, even if his head be scrofulous, provided he does not stay long in the water"? Therefore we must explain, that the difficulty existing between the two former Boraithas concerning the Great Sea is: that the one prohibiting bathing in the Great Sea refers to bad water which is not usually used for bathing, while the other refers to the good water generally used by bathers and in both the case refers to one who stays in the water for some time.
MISHNA: It is not allowed to eat Greek hyssop (a remedy for worms) on the Sabbath, because it is not food for healthy people. It is allowed, however, to eat yoeser (wild rosemary) and to drink shepherd-blossom (tea, an antidote for poisonous beverages). It is permitted to partake of all usual eatables and beverages on the Sabbath as medicaments with the exception of tree-water (water of a certain spring) and root-tea (a compound of gum, herbs, and powdered roots), because the two latter serve only as a remedy for jaundice. At the same time it is permitted to drink tree-water to quench one's thirst, and one may anoint himself with root-oil but not as a remedy.

GEMARA: "It is allowed, however, to eat wild rosemary," etc. For what purpose is it eaten? To drive out worms in one's liver. What is it eaten with? With seven white dates. What does the illness (requiring this remedy) arise from? From the eating of meat broiled over live coals and the drinking of water immediately after the eating on an empty stomach or from eating fat meat, beef, nuts or Rapa-twigs when eaten on an empty stomach and immediately washed down with water.

The mother of R. A'hadboy b. Ami made a remedy for a man who had imbibed poison of an adder by cooking laurel leaves in a cupful of beer, giving it to the man to drink, then clearing out the coals from a burning hearth, placing a brick on the hearth and making him sit on that brick until the poison left the man in the shape of a green fern. R. Ivia said, that she did not cook the laurel leaves in beer but in a quarter lug of milk of a white goat.

One who swallowed a (small) snake should eat kostos (an Indian root of which a precious salve was made, called in the Bible onycha) in salt and should run three miles. R. Simeon b. Ashi once saw a man who had swallowed a snake, so he disguised himself as a Persian horseman, called to the man, compelled him to eat kostos with salt, then chased him for three miles. In consequence of fright the man then vomited the snake piece by piece.

One who was bitten by a snake should get a bearing (female) ass, tear her open, take out the fœtus, and apply it to the wound.

One who was encircled by a snake should run to the water, take a basket, place it over the snake's head, and as soon as the snake winds itself around the basket, throw it into the water and escape.
One who is pursued by a snake should, if he is in company of a friend, jump on the friend's back and have the friend carry him at least four ells so as to hide the scent of his footsteps, or, if alone, should jump over a stream or pond of water. At night he should place his bed on four empty casks, then tie four cats to the casks, and sleep in an unroofed space. He should also place a lot of twigs and dry branches in front of his bed, so that if the snake glide among them they will rustle, in which event the cats will hear the noise and devour the snake. If one is pursued by a snake, he should run to a sandy place, where it is hard for a snake to glide. "It is permitted to partake of all usual eatables," etc. What does the Mishna mean to add by the word "all"? A milt, which is good for the teeth (although it is bad for a weak stomach), or bran, which is good for the stomach (but bad for the teeth). What does the Mishna mean to add by the word "all," referring to beverages? Water of Izlat (Kaffir-corn) boiled with vinegar. "With the exception of tree-water." We have learned in a Boraitha: "With the exception of prickly water." One who teaches prickly water does so because the water pricks the gall, and one who teaches tree-water refers to water running out of two trees? What does he mean by this? Said Rabba bar Brona: "There are two date-trees in Palestine that are called Thalai, and between them is a spring of water; the first cup of this water produces a weak sensation in the stomach, the second cup purges and the third leaves the stomach as clear as when imbibed." Said Ula: "I drank the Babylonian beer with better effects than that tree-water, but it is only then effective if drunk for the first time in forty days. R. Joseph said: "The water called prickly water above is Egyptian beer, which is one third barley, one third wild saffron, and one third salt." R. Papa said: It is one third wheat, one third wild saffron, and one third salt, and it should be drunk between Passover and Pentecost, when it will relieve constipation and stop diarrhœa. "And root-tea." What is root-tea? Said R. Johanan: It is made of Alexandrian gum, alum, and garden saffron, each the weight of one Zuz, and ground together. To one who suffers with too frequent menstruation, three cups of this tea should be given in wine, and she will not be barren. For jaundice two cups are to be administered, in beer, but the patient will be barren ever after. May this be done? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: Whence do we know that castrating a man is prohibited? From the passage [Lev. xxii. 24]: "And in your land shall ye not make the like." Which means, ye shall not do this on your own bodies. So said R. Hanina?

This is said only in reference to one who has the intention of making one a eunuch, but not with reference to one who administers the remedy for jaundice, and incidentally makes one impotent; as R. Johanan said: "One who wishes to castrate a cock shall cut his comb, and thus the cock will become impotent." Did not R. Ashi say, that a cock whose comb is cut off is not rendered impotent thereby, but, being very proud, will have no more coition with hens on that account? Were he actually rendered impotent, it would not be allowed to remove his comb, for it is written [ibid.]: "And in your land shall ye not make the like." It is allowed to give a man two cups of root-tea for jaundice, providing he was already impotent. But even this is prohibited (in Menachoth 56)! Say rather it may be given to a woman who is not subject to the command of bearing children.

MISHNA: One who suffers with toothache must not gargle vinegar for it, but he may dip something in vinegar and apply it, and if the pain is relieved t hereby, he need have no fear of the consequences. One who has pains in his loins must not rub them with wine or vinegar, but may anoint them with oil; not with rose-oil, however. Children of princes may anoint their wounds even with rose-oil, because it is their wont even on week-days to anoint themselves with rose-oil. R. Simeon said: "All Israelites must be considered as children of princes."
GEMARA: R. Aha bar Papa asked R. Abuha concerning the following contradiction: "The Mishna teaches, that one who has a toothache must not gargle with vinegar, implying thereby, that vinegar is a remedy for toothache, and still we find in the passage [Proverbs x. 26]: 'As vinegar is to the teeth, and as smoke is to the eyes.'" This presents no difficulty. The Mishna refers to an injured tooth, whereas the passage refers, to sound teeth, which are put on edge by vinegar. "Must not gargle vinegar." Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that it is not allowed to gargle vinegar and then spit it out, but if swallowed afterwards gargling is allowed? Said Abayi: Such is also the intent of the Mishna, meaning, if he spit out after gargling. "One who has pains in his loins," etc. Said R. Aba b. Zabhda in the name of Rabh: The law according to the opinion of R. Simeon prevails. Shall we assume that Rabh holds with R. Simeon? Did not R. Simi bar Hyya say in the name of Rabh, that a bung-head tied around with a piece of cloth must not be hammered into a barrel on a festival (because the barrel being full of wine, the cloth will absorb some, and by being pressed into the hole the wine absorbed will run out, and wringing a thing is not allowed), although the wine runs out of its own accord, and not through the intention of the man; but according to R. Simeon this would be permitted? Where an act is concerned which will most certainly be consummated, even without the agency of man, as the head of a creature being removed, death must surely follow, R. Simeon also admits, that it is not allowed. We have learned elsewhere, however, explicitly, that Hyya bar Ashi said, that Rabh holds according to R. Jehudah, and Samuel according to R. Simeon? (How can it be said that Rabh holds with R. Simeon?) Said Rabba: I and the lion of our society (i.e., R. Hyya bar Abbin) explained this as follows: The ordinance prevails according to R. Simeon, that (rose-oil) is allowed, but not for the reason advanced by R. Simeon. R. Simeon says, that all Israelites are considered as princes, and therefore, even in such places where rose-oil is very costly, one may also anoint himself with it; but Rabh says it is allowed, because, where he (Rabh) resided, rose-oil was very cheap (but where it is costly it is not allowed).

Footnotes

224:1 See II Kings ix. 30, Isaiah liv. 11 and I Chronicles xxix. 2.

CHAPTER XV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE TYING AND UNTYING OF KNOTS ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA: Following are the knots for the tying of which one becomes culpable. The knot of the camel-drivers (made on the guiding-ring) and the knot of the seamen (made on the bow of a ship); just as one becomes culpable for tying them, so also one becomes culpable for untying them. R. Meir said: "One does not become culpable for any knots that can be untied with one hand."

GEMARA: What is the meaning of a knot of the camel-drivers and a knot of seamen? Shall we assume, that by such a knot is meant the one that is tied in attaching the guiding-line suspended from the nose-ring of a camel to something else, and also the knot made in attaching the hawser of a ship to a capstan on the dock? (Such knots are not permanent, why should the tying of them be prohibited?) Nay; by that knot is meant the one made in attaching the guiding-line to the nose-ring and the hawser to the ship itself (both of which are permanent knots).

MISHNA: There are knots on account of which one does not become culpable, as in the case of a camel-driver's or seaman's knot. A woman may tie the slit of her chemise, the bands of her hood, the bands of her girdle, the straps of her shoes and sandals; also the bands of leather flasks (filled) with wine or oil, and of a pot of meat. R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob, says: "One may tie a rope in front of cattle, in order that they may not escape." One may tie a bucket (over the well) with his girdle, but not with a rope. R. Jehudah permits this to be done with a rope also. For a rule was laid down by R. Jehudah: One is not culpable for any knot which is not permanently fastened.

GEMARA: Is there not a difficulty in understanding the Mishna itself? The first part states, that there are knots on account of which one does not become culpable, etc., implying, therefore, that, while one who ties them does not become liable for a sin-offering, at the same time he must not do it to commence with. The latter part, however, says, that a woman may tie the slit of her chemise, etc., implying, then, that she may do it in the first place? The Mishna means: There are some knots for the tying of which one does not become culpable, as in the case of the knots of the camel-drivers, etc., and they are: The knots by means of which the guiding-line is attached to the nose-ring, and the knots by means of which the hawsers are attached to the ship itself. For tying such knots one does not become liable for a sin-offering, but he must not make them to commence with (because at times the knot is left on the nose-ring or on the ship for some time), and there are other knots which may be tied in the first place, such as the slit of a woman's chemise, etc.; what would he inform us? Is it not self-evident, that a woman must tie the slit in her chemise. The case treated of is where a chemise has two slits, an upper and a lower, and it can be put on (over the head) even if the lower one is tied. We might assume, then, that only the upper one of the slits would be permitted to be tied; he therefore informs us, that both the upper and the lower may be tied and untied. "The bands of her hood." Is this not self-evident? The case is, that the bands of the hood are always tied, and the woman slips on the hood without untying or tying the bands, and we might assume that for this reason the knot is considered permanent; he therefore informs us, that if a hair become entangled in the hood, the woman may tie and untie the bands. "The straps of her shoes and sandals," etc. R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious, had a pair of sandals, which were sometimes worn by him and sometimes by his child. He came to Abayi and asked him whether he might tie and untie them (on Sabbath). Said Abayi: "He who does this unintentionally becomes liable for a sin-offering." Said R. Jehudah to him: "If thou hadst said, that one is not culpable for doing this, but that it must not be done to commence with, it would seem strange to me; thou sayest now, that one is liable for a sin-offering." Asked Abayi: "Why so?" Answered R. Jehudah: "Because on week-days I sometimes also wear the sandals, and (if my child wishes to use them) I untie them and adjust them to the child's foot." Answered Abayi: "If such be the case, they may be tied or untied (on the Sabbath) to commence with."

R. Jeremiah was walking behind R. Abuha on unclaimed ground, and the band of his sandal having been torn off, he asked R. Abuha what to do. R. Abuha told him to take damp seaweeds, which an animal can eat (and which may therefore be handled on Sabbath), and tie his sandal.

Abayi stood before R. Joseph in private ground, and the band of one of his sandals becoming torn off, he asked R. Joseph what to do. Said R. Joseph: "Leave thy sandal here and walk without it." Asked Abayi: "Wherein does my case differ from that of R. Jeremiah?" Answered R. Joseph: "R. Jeremiah's sandal was torn off in unclaimed ground, where, had he left it, it would have been lost, but thine is in my yard and will be safe." Said Abayi: "But the sandal is a perfect vessel; for I can put it on my other foot and then it will not fall off. Why should I not be permitted to handle it?" R. Joseph answered: "Because we learned elsewhere in regard to Chalitzah that R. Johanan interpreted a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jehudah, who says, that if the band of a sandal was torn off, the sandal cannot be regarded as a vessel.

We must assume, therefore, that the ordinance according to R. Jehudah prevails." "Also the bands of leather flasks filled with oil or wine," etc. Is this not self-evident? The case treated of is where the flasks had two mouths, and lest we assume that only one of them may be tied and untied, he informs us that both may be tied. "And of a pot of meat." Is this not self-evident? The Mishna means to state, that even if the pot have an opening at the bottom it might be assumed that the knot tied around the mouth of the pot is permanent and should not be untied. We are informed that it may be untied, nevertheless. "R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said," etc. Is this not self-evident? The case treated of is where there were two ropes, one tied higher up and the other lower.

We might assume, that because the lower one is tied permanently one may not untie it; therefore he informs us that both may be tied and untied. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob." "One may tie a bucket with his girdle, but not with a rope," etc. What kind of a rope is not permitted? Is it an ordinary rope? Why does R. Jehudah permit it? It remains permanently tied? Shall we assume that it refers to the rope of a weaver? Why is it not permitted? It will surely be removed, because the weaver will need it? Or is it prohibited simply as a precautionary measure, lest some one tie the bucket with an ordinary rope, and R. Jehudah does not entertain this apprehension?

Then it is contradictory to the following Boraitha: "A rope fastened to a bucket which became torn, should not be tied into a firm knot, but simply tied into a loop." R. Jehudah says: "It should be joined together with the owner's girdle, but it must not be tied into a loop." This would be a case of where both the rabbis and R. Jehudah contradict themselves. There is no contradiction at all. As for the rabbis, they hold, that an ordinary rope may be mistaken for the rope of a weaver, because both are called ropes, but a loop cannot be mistaken for a knot, because they have different names. As for R. Jehudah, he prohibits a loop to be made, not because he holds that a loop may be mistaken for a knot, but because the loop in this case is equal to a knot.

R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting Rabh, said: "One may bring a rope from his house and can tie it to the cow, and then fasten it to the crib."

R. Johanan asked of R. Jehudah bar Levayi: "May weaving utensils, either upper or lower, be handled on the Sabbath?" Answered R. Jehudah: "Nay; they may not." "Why so?" "Because on week-days they are also never used for any other purpose (being too heavy); hence they are always used for weaving alone (and therefore must not be handled on Sabbath)."

MISHNA: One may fold his clothes (just removed) even four or five times (on the Sabbath). On the eve of Sabbath one may prepare his beds for use on the Sabbath, but not at the close of Sabbath for use after the Sabbath is gone. R. Ishmael says: "One may arrange his clothes and prepare his beds on the Day of Atonement for the Sabbath; further, the sacrificial tallow left over from the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement (if the two succeed one another, before the Jewish calendar was arranged); but not such as is left over from the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath." R. Aqiba said: "Neither that (tallow) left over from the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement, nor that of the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath."
GEMARA: The school of R. Yanai said: The Mishna only permits the folding of clothes by one man, but not by two, and also only in case the clothes are new, but not if they are old (because old clothes are better preserved by folding). New clothes must only be folded if they are white clothes, but not if they are colored. White clothes may be folded only if they constitute all the garments possessed by the man; but if he had others, he must not fold even those, as we have learned in a Tosephta: "The family of R. Gamaliel did not even fold white clothes, because they had others for a change."

R. Huna said: "If one have a change of clothes for the Sabbath, he should change them; if not, he should at least let them down." 1 R. Saphra opposed this: "If one let down his garments, he will be considered as a vain man." If he does this only on the Sabbath and not on week-days, he will not be considered vain but simply as one desirous of keeping the Sabbath with due respect, as it is written [Isaiah lviii. 13]: "And honor it by not doing thy usual pursuits." "Honor it" is meant to imply that, by wearing different clothes on the Sabbath, the Sabbath should be honored, for R. Johanan calls clothes signs of honor, and through clothes a man is honored. "By not doing thy usual pursuits" means that the walk on the Sabbath should not be as on week-days [ibid. ibid.]: "By not following thy own business," means to say, that only thy own business is not allowed, but heavenly business is. "And speaking (vain) words": the mode of speaking on Sabbath should not be like that on week-days. Speaking is not allowed, but thinking is. (All this is perfectly proper, not to dress as on week-days, nor to speak as on week-days); but what does a different walk on the Sabbath signify? It signifies, that one should not make long strides on the Sabbath, as Rabbi asked of R. Ishmael b. R. Jose: "May one make long strides on the Sabbath?" Answered he: "May one do so even on week-days? For I say, that a long stride deprives a man of a five hundredth part of the light of his eyes. A remedy for this is, however, the drinking of the wine over which the benediction is made on the eve before the Sabbath."

It is written [Ruth iii. 3]: "Therefore bathe and anoint thyself, and put thy garments upon thee," by which, said R. Elazar, is meant the Sabbath garments.

It is written [Proverbs ix. 9]: "Give to the wise (instruction), and he will become yet wiser." Said R. Elazar: By that is meant Ruth the Moabite and the Prophet Samuel of Ramah. Naomi said to Ruth: "Therefore bathe and anoint thyself, and put thy garments upon thee, and go down to the threshing-floor," but Ruth did as it is written further [ibid. 6]: "And she went down unto the threshing-floor, and did in accordance with all that her mother-in-law had commanded her," which means, that she first went down to the threshing-floor and then dressed herself, in order not to soil her clothes. As for Samuel, when Eli said unto him [I Samuel iii. 9]: "Go, lie down; and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth," he did at the time as it is written [ibid. 10]: "And the Lord came, and placed himself, and called as at previous times, Samuel, Samuel. And Samuel said, Speak, for thy servant heareth, "but did not say, "Speak, Jehovah," as he was told to do by Eli (because, not knowing who was speaking, he did not want to speak the Lord's name in vain).

It is written [Ruth ii. 3]: "And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers." Said R. Elazar: She went and came to and fro until she found such men as were fit company for her. "Then said Boaz unto his young man that was appointed over the reapers, Whose maiden is this?" [ibid. 5]. Was it proper for Boaz to inquire whose maiden she was? We have learned in a Boraitha: He (Boaz) noticed that she was very modest, for when gleaning from the sheaves, she did so standing if the sheaves were also standing, and if the sheaves were on the ground, she did not stoop, lest she reveal some of her form, but sat down and gleaned in that position. "But keep close company with my own maidens" [ibid. 8]. Was it proper for Boaz to say "my own maidens"? Was it his custom to mingle with the women? Said R. Elazar: "Because Boaz saw that 'Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto her' [ibid. i. 14] he thought, that if she were such a woman it would be proper for him to associate with her." "And Boaz said unto her, At mealtime come near hither (halom)" [ibid. ii. 14]. Said R. Elazar: "By the word 'halom' (near hither) Boas hinted to her that from her would spring the kingdom of David, who used the expression 'halom,' as it is written in [II Samuel vii. 18]: 'Then went King David in and sat down before the Lord, and he said, Who am I, O Lord Eternal? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me as far as hitherward (halom)? "And eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar" [Ruth ii. 14]. "From this it can be inferred, that vinegar is good for (relieving excessive) heat," said R. Elazar. But R. Samuel ben Na'hmeni said: "This was also a hint to Ruth, that from her would spring forth a son, whose deeds would be sour as vinegar, and that was King Menasseh." "And she seated herself beside the reapers" [ibid. ibid.]. Said R. Elazar: "Beside the reapers and not between them, was also a hint that the kingdom of David would eventually be divided." "And he reached her parched corn, and she ate, and was satisfied, and had some left." Said R. Elazar: (This is a reference to the kingdom of David) "Ate at the time of David, was satisfied in the time of Solomon, and had some left in the time of King Chizkyah." Others say: "Ate during the days of David and Solomon, was satisfied during the days of Chizkyah, and had some left in the time of R. Jehudah Hanassi (a descendant of David), whose coachman even, according to the teaching of the Master, was said to be richer than the Shahur (king, shah) of Persia." In a Boraitha, however, we have learned: (This passage does not refer to the kingdom of David but to Israel in general). It means: "Israel ate in this life, will be satisfied in the times of the Messiah, and shall have some left in the world to come."

R. Hyya bar Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: "Whence do we know that a change of clothes is a biblical prescription?" Because it is written [Lev. vi. 4]: "And he shall take off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes to without the camp, unto a clean place." This was commented upon by the school of R. Ishmael to mean, that the clothes worn while cooking for one's master should not be worn when serving the master at table.

The same teacher said again: A scholar (Talmud-Chacham), upon whose clothes a stain can be found, deserves to be put to death, for it is written [Proverbs viii. 36]: "All those that hate me love death." Do not read, "those that hate me" (mesanai), but "those that cause others to hate me" (masnii) (implying that if a stain is noticed on a scholar's clothes, the whole law is held lightly). Rabhina said: "In the Boraitha was taught not 'upon whose clothes a stain can be found,' but 'upon whose clothes grease (Rebhad) 1 is found." They do not differ, however.

The former refers to an over-garment, while the latter to an under-garment.

R. Johanan said: Who can be called a scholar trustworthy enough to be believed when claiming a lost article, without identification, but simply by seeing the article lost and claiming it as his own? A scholar who is so particular that, if he happen to put on his night-robe wrong side out, he will take the trouble to take it off again and adjust it properly.

R. Johanan said again: "Who is the scholar worthy of being made the president of a congregation?" The one who, when asked concerning an ordinance bearing on any subject, knows exactly what to answer, even such ordinances as are contained in the Tract Kalah (Kalah is a supplement to the Talmud, which is not generally read, and treats of a bride).

He said again: "Who is the scholar that is deserving of having his work performed by his fellow-citizens? The one who neglects his own affairs to attend to religious affairs." This refers, however, only to one who has lost his subsistence on account of his congregational duties.
Again, R. Johanan said: "Who can be called a scholar (Talmud-Chacham)? One who can give the interpretation of any ordinance in whichever chapter (or tract) that may be shown him." What difference does that make? The difference is this: If a man is familiar only with the ordinances of a certain tract, he may only be competent to be the presiding officer of one community, but if he understand them all, be may be made the chief of the house of learning in a whole district. "R. Ishmael said: 'One may arrange his clothes,'" etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Numb. xxviii. 10]: "This is the burnt-offering of the Sabbath." From this we learn, that we may offer up the tallow left over from the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement; but one might say, that the fat left over on the Day of Atonement may be offered up on the Sabbath also; therefore the passage says [ibid. ibid.]: on every Sabbath." So says R. Ishmael, but R. Aqiba says, 'This is the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on every Sabbath,' implies, that the fat left over from the Sabbath may be sacrificed on a biblical feast-day; but one might say, that it may be done also on the day of Atonement; therefore the passage says 'on every Sabbath.'"
The point of difference between R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba is as follows: R. Ishmael contends that vow-offerings and voluntary offerings may be brought on feast-days, and therefore the term "every Sabbath" cannot refer to feast-days, but does refer to the Day of Atonement, whereas R. Aqiba contends that such offerings must not be brought on feast-days, and hence "every Sabbath" implies that the fat left over from the Sabbath may be offered up on a feast-day.

R. Zera or R. Aba said in the name of R. Huna: "If the Day of Atonement fall on a Sabbath, herbs for cooking must not be selected on that day." Said R. Mana: This we have learned in a Boraitha as follows: "Whence do we know that if the Day of Atonement fall on a Sabbath herbs must not be selected? Because it is written [Exod. xvi. 23]: 'A rest, a holy rest is unto the Lord to-morrow.'" Why is the word "rest" repeated? Shall we assume, that no other labor must be performed? This is ordained (in Chapter xx. 10): "Thou shalt not do any work." It must therefore refer to such work as is not really labor, as "selecting herbs" (and the passage must refer to a Sabbath on which the Day of Atonement happens to fall, because on ordinary Sabbaths no additional prescription is necessary; but it being the Day of Atonement, on which, were it not also Sabbath, such work would be permissible, on account of alleviating the sufferings caused by fasting, we might assume that it would be allowed also on a Day of Atonement, which occurs on a Sabbath; therefore the passage refers to a Sabbath upon which the Day of Atonement happens to fall). R. Hyya bar Aba, however, in the name of R. Johanan said: Selecting herbs on a Sabbath concurrent with the Day of Atonement is permissible, and the repetition of the word "rest" is on account of the prohibition of actual labor, and as for there being another ordinance to that effect, it is for the purpose of signifying that the transgressor of this commandment will be punished for the violation of both the positive and the negative commandments.

We have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Johanan: Selecting herbs on a Day of Atonement concurrent with a Sabbath is permissible. Nuts may be cracked and pomegranates cleaned after the afternoon prayer, for the purpose of alleviating the suffering of the fasting. In the house of R. Jehudah, cabbage was prepared, and in Rabba's house, pumpkins were cleaned. Later on Rabba noticed that this was being done even before the afternoon prayer; so he told them that a message was received from R. Johanan of Palestine that this was prohibited.

Footnotes

234:1 The poor of those days, when at work—i.e., on week days—used to roll up their long garments in order not to be hindered by them while at work. The rich used to wear long garments at all times; hence the above decree of R. Huna.

236:1 Rashi interprets the word Rebhad to mean "semen."

CHAPTER XVI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING ARTICLES WHICH MAY BE SAVED FROM A CONFLAGRATION ON SABBATH . MISHNA: All sacred scriptures may be saved from a conflagration (on the Sabbath); be such scriptures allowed or not allowed to be read on Sabbath. The Scriptures written in any language whatsoever must be considered sacred, and brought to a safe place, even on a week-day. Why are some (sacred scriptures) not allowed to be read (on Sabbath)? In order that one might not miss the sermons at the school-house. One may save the case of the book with the book, the case of the Tephillin with the Tephillin, even if money is contained therein. Where must such things be taken (for safety)? In a closed space surrounded by walks. Ben Bathyra says: "Even in a space that has one side open."
GEMARA: It was taught: If the Scriptures wore written in Aramaic (Targum), or in any other language, they need not be saved from a conflagration. So says R. Huna. But R. Hisda says: "They must be saved." According to the Tana who holds, that all of the scriptures may be read on Sabbath, there is no difference of opinion between R. Huna and R. Hisda, for the Scriptures must be saved. But, according to the Tana who holds, that some scriptures may and others may not be read on the Sabbath, R. Huna says, that the latter need not be saved, while R. Hisda says they must, in order not to disgrace the Scriptures. An objection was made: "Our Mishna says, that all scriptures, whether allowed to be read on the Sabbath or not, or even if written in whatever language, must be saved. We must assume, that the readable part of the Scriptures is the Prophets and the non-readable part is the Hagiographa, and if written in other languages, which are naturally non-readable, they must nevertheless be saved. How, then, can R. Huna say, that the non-readable need not be saved?" R. Huna might say: How can this explanation of the Mishna correspond with the further ordinance that they "should be brought to a safe place"? If it says that they must be saved from the conflagration, it is self-evident that they must be brought to a safe place? What is the correct interpretation of the Mishna? R. Huna interprets it according to his understanding thus: "The readable part of the Scriptures is the Prophets, the non-readable part is the Hagiographa, providing they are written in the holy language (Hebrew), but if written in other languages they need not be saved; but although they need not be saved on the Sabbath, if they lie in an unfit place even on week-days, they must be brought into a safe place." R. Hisda interprets the Mishna according to his understanding thus: "The readable part is the Prophets, the non-readable part is the Hagiographa, and although written in other languages they must also be saved, and the term 'should be brought to a safe place' refers even to torn pieces of such Scriptures although written in other languages."

Another objection was made: We have learned in a Boraitha: "If they (the Scriptures) are written in Aramaic or any other language, they must be saved from a conflagration? Is this not contradictory to R. Huna's opinion? Nay; R. Huna may say that the Tana of the Boraitha holds the Scriptures written in other languages to be readable. Come and hear: Scriptures written in Coptic, Median, old Hebrew, Elamite or Greek, although not permitted to be read, must be saved from a conflagration." This is surely a contradiction to R. Huna? R. Huna might say: There is a difference of opinion among the different Tanaim, as we have learned in the following Tosephta: If the Scriptures are written in Aramaic or in any other language, they must be saved from a conflagration, but R. Jose says, that they must not. Said R. Jose: It happened that Aba 'Halafta went to R. Gamaliel the Great in Tiberias, who sat at the table of Johanan the Nazuph (also called Ben Nazuph), and held in his hand the book of job in Aramaic, which he was reading. Said Aba 'Halafta to R. Gamaliel: "I remember having at one time come to thy grandfather R. Gamaliel, who stood on the steps of the corridor of the Temple when a Book of Job in Aramaic was brought to him. He told the mason to take the book and immure it underneath the stairway." Whereupon the later R. Gamaliel also ordered the book he was reading to be immured.
The rabbis taught: The benedictions, which are written in Hebrew, or amulets although containing letters of the Holy Name and many passages of the Scriptures, must not be saved from a conflagration, but may be burned up together with such letters and passages. From this it was said, that one who writes benedictions commits an act equal to burning up the Scriptures, as it happened in Zidon: One wrote benedictions, and it was told to R. Ishmael. R. Ishmael set forth to investigate the matter. As soon as the man saw R. Ishmael approach, he threw the writings into a bowl of water. Said R. Ishmael to him the following words: "The punishment thou wilt receive for this latter deed will be greater than that for writing the benedictions."

The Exilarch asked of Rabba bar R. Huna: If the Scriptures were written with paint or with dyes and in the holy language, may they be saved from a conflagration or not? I ask thee, taking in consideration the differences of opinion existing between the different Tanaim, for those who hold that Scriptures written in Aramaic or any other language must not be saved, what is their opinion regarding such as are written in the holy language and not with ink? Whereas those who hold that the Scriptures in any language must be saved, do they not refer to such as are written in ink only, but those written with paint or dye, even if written in Hebrew, should also not be saved? Answered Rabba bar R. Huna: "No, they must not be saved." Rejoined the Exilarch: "R. Hamnuna taught, in a Boraitha, that they may?—Answered Rabba: "If such was taught in a Boraitha, it must be so!"

The rabbis taught: Before the passage [Numb. x. 35]: "And it came to pass when the ark set forward, that Moses said, etc.," and at the close of the next verse, the Holy One, blessed be He, made signs (the inverted letter Nun, which must be inserted in the Scroll) in order to signify that this is not the proper place for the two passages; but Rabbi says, that this is out of the question, and that the two verses form a valuable book in themselves. We have heard from R. Samuel ben Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan, that we have not a Pentateuch but a Septateuch 1 (i.e., we have not five books of Moses, but seven). Would this imply that R. Samuel holds with Rabbi and declares that there are seven (because the two verses, which form a book in themselves, divide Numbers into two books)? Who is the Tana, however, that differs with Rabbi? He is R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, for we have learned in a Boraitha:

R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says, that these two passages will in the future be removed and put in their proper place. Why were they put here, then? In order to make a separation between the two scourges that befell the Israelites. Which was the second scourge? The one that follows immediately afterwards [Numb. xi. 1]: "And it came to pass, that, as the people complained in a manner displeasing to the Lord," etc., etc. And which was the first? The first was as it is written [ibid. x. 33]: "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord, which, according to R. Hama b. Hanina, means "and they departed from the ways of the Lord." Which is the proper place for the two passages? Said R. Ashi: In Numbers ii. (where it is decreed how every man should walk in the wilderness, and the end of the chapter stating that every, man did as he was commanded, should be followed by those two verses).

The schoolmen asked: May the blank pieces of the Scroll of Laws which had become detached from the Scroll be saved from a conflagration on Sabbath or not? Come and hear: The Gilyonim (blank pieces of the Scroll) and the Sadducean books need not be saved from the conflagration. They, together with the holy names contained in them. Does not the word Gilyonim have reference to the blank pieces of the Scroll? Nay; the blank pages of the Sadducean books. How can it mean the blank pages of the Sadducean books. Why, it is not even allowed to save the Sadducean books themselves? Perhaps the Boraitha means, that the Sadducean books are considered as blank pages, and hence must not be saved.

The text of the Boraitha says further: The Gilyonim and the Sadducean books must not be saved from a conflagration; R. Jose says, that on week-days the Holy Name must be torn out wherever it appears and preserved, and the remainder must be burned; but R. Tarphon says: May I bury my children, if I would not burn such books together with the Holy Name, whenever they reached my hands; for when a man is pursued by murderers or by a snake, it were better for him to seek refuge in the temple of an idol than to enter the houses of such people; for the idolaters serve their idols because they know not God, but the others know God and deny him; they (the latter) are referred to by the verse [Isaiah lvii. 8]: "And behind the doors and the doorposts hast thou placed thy remembrance" (implying that they remember the Lord very well, but nevertheless place their memory behind the doors and doorposts).

Said R. Ishmael: In the Scriptures it is even allowed to erase with bitter water the Holy Name of God, which was written in a holy cause in order to bring about peace between man and wife, a fortiori it should be allowed in the case of those people who cause discord and enmity between Israel and the Heavenly Father. To them David had reference [in Psalms cxxxix. 21, 22]: "Behold those that hate thee, I ever hate, O Lord! and for those that rise up against thee do I feel loathing. With the utmost hatred do I hate them: enemies are they become unto me." So, as they must not be saved from a conflagration, they must also not be saved from the waters, or anything that might destroy them.

Joseph bar Hanin asked of R. Abuha: "May the books of Be Abhidon be saved?" Answered R. Abuha: Yea, nay, I really cannot tell. Rabh never went to the Be Abhidon, and all the more not to the Be Nitzrephe. 1 Samuel, however, never went to the Be Nitzrephe, but did go to the Be Abhidon. Mar bar Joseph said: "I am of their society and do not fear them." Still it happened at one time that he was in danger on their account.

Ema Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, who was also a sister of R. Gamaliel the Second, encountered a philosopher in her neighborhood who was a judge, and had the reputation of being inaccessible to bribery. R. Gamaliel and his sister wished to ridicule him and prove that he was accessible to bribery. Ema Shalom brought him a golden candle.

He asked her what she wanted, so she answered: "My father is dead, and I wish to inherit some of his possessions." The judge said: "Go, I will order that you be given your share." Said she: "Thou canst not order it so, because our law decrees, that wherever there is a son a daughter cannot inherit." Answered the judge: "Since you Israelites are in exile, your law given you by Moses has been revoked, and a new law was given you by which daughters may inherit equally with sons." On the morrow came R. Gamaliel and brought him a Libyan ass, and told him that he did not wish to let his sister inherit.

Said the judge: "After thy sister left I consulted the law again, and found that the new law said: 'I did not come to abolish the Mosaic law, neither to increase nor to diminish it.' Hence it must remain as in the old law, that where a son is left a sister must not inherit." Said Ema Shalom to the judge: "May God make thy light as bright as a candle." Said R. Gamaliel to her (in the presence of the judge): "An ass came along and extinguished thy candle." "Why are some (sacred Scriptures) not allowed to be read (on the Sabbath)?" etc. Said Rabh: "It is not allowed to read such Scriptures only during the time of the sermons at the school-house, but at any other they may be read." Samuel, however, said, that even at any other time they must not be read, because he holds with R. Nehemiah as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "Although it was said that the Hagiographa should not be read, still they may be discussed and lectured upon, and when a quotation must be made, the book maybe referred to and the quotation read." Said R. Nehemiah: "Why was it prohibited to read the Hagiographa on the Sabbath?

In order that it might be said: As it is forbidden to read the Hagiographa, it is all the more so forbidden to read ordinary papers." "In a closed space surrounded by walls." What is to be understood by the term "closed space"? Said R. Hisda: "This refers to a lane surrounded on three sides by walls and having on the fourth side two beams. If the lane have three walls and two beams it is a closed space, if it have only one beam on the fourth side it is an open place, and the Tana of the Mishna as well as Ben Bathyra hold in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who decided to that effect elsewhere." Said Rabba to R. Hisda: "Dost thou call a space surrounded by three walls and one beam an open place? If this be so, according to the sages, why cannot victuals and beverages also be brought there, not alone Scriptures?

In my opinion, two walls and two beams, one on each side, form a closed space, and two walls with only one beam constitute an open space. And the two Tanaim of the Mishna are not in accord with R. Eliezer, but with R. Jehudah, who opposes him (in Tract Erubin)."

Said Abayi to Rabba: "And why should not, according to thy explanation, victuals and beverages be brought there (for safety) in conformity with the opinion of the sages?" Said R. Ashi, however, "The two Tanaim of the Mishna are of the opinion of R. Eliezer, and a closed place is formed by three walls and one beam, while an open place is made by three walls without any beam at all; and even according to R. Eliezer, who requires two beams, it is only for the bringing thither of victuals; but for the safe keeping of the Scriptures, R. Eliezer holds even one beam to be sufficient."

MISHNA: One may save enough victuals to last for three meals (on the Sabbath in the event of a conflagration). Such food as is fit for human beings may be saved for the use of human beings, and such as is fit for cattle may be saved for cattle. How so? If a conflagration happen on the eve of Sabbath, one may save enough victuals for three meals. If it occur in the forenoon of Sabbath, one may save enough for two meals, and if it occur in the afternoon of Sabbath one may only save enough for one meal. R. Jose, however, says: "One may at all times save enough for three meals."
GEMARA: Let us see! Why should it only be allowed to save three meals, or two, or one? (It says, further on, that the victuals for the meals are to be brought into such a place as is covered by an Erub. In such a place things may be carried, and the things themselves may also be handled, then why should one not be allowed to save more than enough for three meals?) Said Rabha: Because a man is anxious for his possessions, he might, if allowed to save as much as possible, forget about the Sabbath and extinguish the fire altogether. Said Abayi to him: "We have learned previously, that a man upon whose roof a barrel filled with victuals becomes broken, may bring another vessel and put it underneath the barrel in order that the contents of the barrel fall into the vessel, but may not bring another barrel and transfer the contents of the broken one into the new, nor may he place a new barrel alongside of the other and remove the contents of the broken one into the new one by keeling over the former and letting its contents drop into the latter. Why should he not be allowed to do this? (He is on private ground, and the barrel with its contents may be handled?) If it is prohibited as a precautionary measure in the manner of the previous case, where does the precaution arise?" This latter case is also a precautionary measure; for were he allowed to remove the contents from one barrel into another, there is fear of his carrying it through public ground. The text of the Boraitha, how ever, teaches further, that if the man had guests in his house, he may remove the contents of the broken barrel into a new one, etc. But he may not first remove the contents and then call guests, but first call guests and then remove the things; nor may he pretend (to call guests), but must actually desire their company. In the name of R. Jose bar R. Jehudah it was said, that even calling guests as a pretext is also allowed.

The rabbis taught: If one had saved (from the fire) fine bread, he must not return and save coarse bread, but if he first saved the coarse he may return and save the fine. One may also save enough on the Day of Atonement in the event of a fire (when that day is succeeded by Sabbath) to last him through the Sabbath also, but on a Sabbath it is not permitted to save enough for the Day of Atonement (if the Sabbath falls on the day before), and all the more so is it not allowed if the Sabbath precedes a feast-day; nor is it allowed to save on one Sabbath for the following Sabbath.

The rabbis taught: If one forgets bread in an oven, and in the meantime the Sabbath sets in, it is allowed to save enough bread to last for three meals; and one may say to bystanders, "Come and take out as much as ye need"; and when taking out the bread it should not be done with a baker's shovel, hut with some other utensil. R. Hisda said: A man should see that everything should be prepared on Friday for the Sabbath as early as possible, as it is written [Exodus xvi. 5]: "And it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, when they prepare what they shall have brought in," etc., and this means, that as soon as the sixth day sets in, preparations for the Sabbath should be begun.
R. Aba said: "A man must pronounce the benediction over two loaves on the Sabbath," for it is written [ibid. xvi. 5]: "Double bread." Said R. Ashi: "I noticed the manner in which R. Kahana did this: He would hold two loaves, but would cut only one, because it is written [ibid. xvi. 18]: 'Every man according to his eating had he gathered.'" R. Zera used to cut off the loaf sufficient to last him for the entire meal. Asked Rabhina of R. Ashi: "Does this not seem gluttonous, to hold so large a piece in one's hand?" Answered R. Ashi: "Because on week-days such was not his wont, it does not appear gluttonous on Sabbath, and R. Zera did this only in honor of the day." R. Ami and R. Assi, if happening to have the same bread used in making an Erub, for use on Sabbath, would pronounce the benediction over the bread, for they said that because one religious duty had been fulfilled with that bread, it should be used to fulfil another religious duty." "How so: If a conflagration," etc. The rabbis taught: How many meals should a man eat on the Sabbath? Three. R. 'Hidka said four. Said R. Johanan: Both the rabbis and R.

'Hidka adduced their opinions from the same passage, as follows [Exodus xvi. 25]: "And Moses said, Eat it to-day; for a Sabbath is this day unto the Lord: to-day ye will not find it in the field." R. 'Hidka holds that, day being mentioned three times, three meals should be eaten during the day and one at night, and the rabbis hold that the day includes the night and only three meals are required. Our Mishna, however, which decrees that only enough for three meals should be saved, does therefore not agree with R. 'Hidka. According to whose opinion, however, will the following Mishna be? (Tract Peah): "If a poor man have sufficient for two meals, he must not apply for another at the public kitchen (where food is distributed), but he may apply to the general charity fund. If he have, however, sufficient for fourteen meals (for the week) he must not even apply to the general charity fund!" If the Mishna were of the opinion of R. 'Hidka, he should have had sufficient for sixteen meals, so as to afford him four meals on the Sabbath, and, according to the rabbis, for fifteen meals in order to have three meals on the Sabbath? It is therefore neither in accord with R. 'Hidka nor with the rabbis. Nay; it is in accord with the rabbis, and the poor man should eat his Sabbath-night meal on the Sabbath day, so with his Friday-night meal it will make three meals on the Sabbath. It may also be said that the Mishna holds with R. 'Hidka, and that the poor man should leave his Friday meal for the Sabbath. Shall we make the poor man then fast on Friday? It would therefore be better to hold the Mishna's opinion to be in accord with R. Aqiba, who says, that the poor man should make Sabbath equal to a weekday in order not to be forced to rely upon charity. Thus fourteen meals are sufficient, and he may eat only two on Sabbath.
But according to whose opinion is the Mishna (Tract Peah): "If a wandering mendicant come to a town, he must be given a loaf which can be bought for a Pundian (one forty-eighth of a Sela) when the price of flour is one Sela for four Saahs (and the sages calculated that such a loaf is sufficient for two meals). If he remain over night he must be given lodging, and if he remain over Sabbath he must be given three meals for Sabbath." Shall we assume, that this Mishna holds with the rabbis and not with R. 'Hidka? It might also be in accord with R. 'Hidka if the mendicant happen to have one meal with him, he is told to eat the one he has and is given three more. Should the mendicant then depart empty-handed? Nay; he is also given a meal to take along on the way. What must he be given for lodging? Said R. Papa: Enough to hire a bed and a pillow.

The rabbis taught: The dishes used on the eve of Sabbath may be cleansed for the Sabbath-morning meal. The dishes used in the morning may be cleansed for the mid-day meal, and those of the mid-day meal for the afternoon; but those of the afternoon must not be cleansed until the Sabbath is over. All this is said concerning dishes; but glasses, cups, and all drinking utensils may be cleansed at any time, because there are no fixed times for drinking.

R. Simeon ben Pazi in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi, quoting Bar Qapara, said: One who keeps the commandment to eat three times on the Sabbath will be rid of three punishments, viz.: "The tribulations (at the time) of Messiah; the punishment of Gehenna, and the war of Gog and Magog." From the tribulations of Messiah, because the Sabbath is always mentioned as the day, and it is written [Malachi iii. 23]: "Behold, I send unto you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the day of the Lord, the great and the dreadful." From the punishment of Gehenna, because it is written [Zephaniah i. 15]: "A day of wrath is that day," etc., meaning the Gehenna. From the war of Gog and Magog, because it is written [Ezekiel xxxviii. 18]: "On the day of Gog's coming."

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jose: One who makes the Sabbath pleasant will be rewarded with a boundless inheritance, as it is written [in Isaiah lviii. 14]: "Then shalt thou find delight in the Lord; and I will cause thee to tread upon the high places of the earth, and I will cause thee to enjoy the inheritance of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Not the inheritance of Abraham, concerning whom it is written [Genesis xiii. 17]: "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it," etc., and not as in the case of Isaac, as it is written [ibid. xxvi. 4]: "And I will give unto thy seed all these countries," but as it is written of Jacob [ibid. xxviii. 14]: "And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east, and to the north and to the south."
R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: (The man who makes the Sabbath pleasant) will also be saved the pain of exile, because it is written [Isaiah lviii. 14]: "And I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth," and [Deut. xxxiii. 29]: "And thou shalt tread upon their high places." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, "He who makes the Sabbath pleasant is given everything his heart desires," because it is written [Psalms xxxvii. 4]: "And delight thyself in the Lord, and he will give thee the wishes of thy heart." What is meant by "delight"? From the passage [Isaiah lviii. 13]: "If thou call the Sabbath a delight," we can adduce that the delight means Sabbath.

Wherewith should the Sabbath be made pleasant? Said R. Jehudah, the son of R. Samuel bar Shilath, in the name of Rabh: "With a mess of beets, large fish, and garlic-heads." But R. Hyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rabh: "Even with any dish whatever prepared especially for the Sabbath." What does "any dish whatever" mean? Said R. Papa: "Even small fish fried in oil."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "If the Israelites had kept the first Sabbath (after the commandments were given) properly, no nation or race on earth could have harmed them. For it is written [Exodus xvi. 27]: 'And it came to pass on the seventh day that there went out some of the people to gather; but they found nothing.' And not long afterwards Amalek attacked the Israelites."

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon ben Jochai: "If the Israelites were to keep two Sabbaths in succession as they should, they would immediately be released from exile, for it is written [Isaiah lvi. 6]: 'Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves unto the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be unto him as servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath by not violating it, and those who take hold of my covenant,' and immediately afterwards it is written [ibid. ibid. 7]: 'Even these will I bring to my holy mountain.'

R. Jose said: "May my share in the world to come be with those who eat three meals on the Sabbath." Again he said: "May my share in the world to come be with those who recite Hallel 1 every day." This is not so. The Master says, that he who recites Hallel every day is a blasphemer. Nay; R. Jose does not mean Hallel, but Hallelujah.
R. Jose said again: "May my share in the world to come be with those who perform their morning devotion as soon as the sun begins to rise." Again said he: "May my share be with those who die of abdominal disease, for the Master said, that most of the righteous die of bowel troubles." He also said: "May my share be with those who die when about to fulfil a commandment; also with those who receive the Sabbath in Tiberias and see it out in Zipporias (Tiberias was in a valley and Zipporias on a hill); also with those who remain in the houses of learning, and not with those who attempt to draw scholars away from their studies; also with those who solicit alms but not with those who dispense alms; also with those who are suspected but are not guilty." Said R. Papa: "I have been suspected but was not guilty." Said R. Jose: "I have gone in unto my wife five times and have planted five cedars in Israel." Who are they? R. Ishmael, R. Eliezer, R. 'Halafta, R. Aftiles, and R. Mena'hem, all sons of R. Jose. But he also had a son called Vradimos? Nay; Vradimos is the same as R. Mena'hem, and the reason he was called Vradimos was because his face was as beautiful as a rose (Vrad is Aramaic for rose).

Said R. Jose again: "In all my days the ceiling of my house never saw the seam of my undershirt." Again said be: "I never acted contrary to the advice of my colleagues. I know well that I am not a descendant of priests, but when my colleagues asked me to pronounce a benediction usually said by priests, I did so." Again he said: "I never said a thing that I afterwards repented having said."

R. Na'hman said: "May it be accounted to me (for my reward), that I have observed the three meals (in honor of the) Sabbath." R. Jehudah said: "May it be accounted to me, that I have given my prayers preliminary consideration." 1 R. Huna, the son of R. Jehoshua, said: "May it be accounted to me, that I have never walked four ells with uncovered head." R. Shesheth said: "May it be accounted to me, that I have observed the commandment of Tephillin," and R. Na'hman said again: "May it be accounted to me, that I have observed the commandment of Tzitzith (showthreads)."

Said R. Joseph to R. Joseph the son of Rabha: "Canst thou tell me which commandment thy father observed most punctually?" The answer was: "The commandment of Tzitzith. For it happened one day that my father was ascending the stairway, and a thread of his Tzitzith becoming torn off, he would not leave his place until a new thread had been brought to him and the Tzitzith were mended."
Said Abayi: "May it be accounted to me, that whenever I noticed a young scholar (of my college) had finished a Tract of the Talmud, I gave a feast to all the sages of the day." Said Rabha: "May it be accounted to me, that whenever a young scholar and another man came before me for judgment, I did not put my head on the pillow (rest) until I exhausted every to find the scholar's words prove the justice of his claim." Said Mar, the son of R. Ashi: "I am unfit to judge a young scholar because I love him as well as I do myself, and no man call see himself unjust."

R. Hanina used to wrap himself in a cloak on the eve of Sabbath and say: "Come with me, and let us go toward Sabbath the queen." R. Yanai used to clothe himself in his holiday clothes on the eve of Sabbath and say: "Come, bride; come, bride."

Rabba, the son of R. Huna, came as a guest to the house of Rabba the son of R. Na'hman. At the table three cakes steeped in the fat of the ram (which were only served on special occasions) were placed before him. Said he to his host: "Didst thou know that I would come to visit thee?" Answered the host: "Art thou then better than the Sabbath? (We prepare it usually for every Sabbath, as it is written: 'And thou shalt call the Sabbath a pleasure.')"
R. Aba used to buy on the eve of every Sabbath thirteen Isteris' (six and a half Dinars) worth of meat from thirteen different butchers, and would hand them the money immediately upon their entering his door 1 and delivering the meat, saying to them: "Make haste, make haste and deliver your orders to others." R. Abuha used to sit on an ivory stool and make fire in honor of the Sabbath. R. Anan used to don a black apron in order to show that this day (the eve of the Sabbath) was a day of preparation, and that work had to be performed for the Sabbath. R. Safra used to singe a cow's head himself for the Sabbath, and Rabha would salt fish himself. R. Huna would light candles himself. R. Papa would prepare the wicks for the lamps. R. Hisda would cut herbs himself. Rabba and R. Joseph would chop wood for Sabbath. R. Zera would light the kindling wood. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak would shoulder all burdens to be carried in and out of the house himself on the eve of Sabbath, saying: "If R. Ami or R. Assi would come to visit me, would I not do the same for them?" Others say that R. Ami and Assi did this on the eve of every Sabbath, saying: "If it should happen that R. Johanan were to visit us, would we not do the same for him?"

Joseph, who honored the Sabbath, had a rich Gentile for a neighbor. The astrologers told the Gentile that all his goods and possessions would eventually be eaten up by Joseph, his neighbor. He went and sold out all his goods, and with the proceeds bought a precious pearl. This pearl he had set in his turban. While crossing a lake one day, the wind blew off his turban and it fell into the water. A fish swallowed it. Subsequently the fish was caught by fishermen late on the eve of Sabbath. Said the fishermen: "Who will buy this so late in the evening?" They were told by some people to go to Joseph, who honored the Sabbath, and that he usually bought such things. They carried it to Joseph, who bought it, and upon opening the fish he found the pearl, which he sold for thirteen 1 boxes of golden Dinars. A certain old man met this Joseph, and said to him: He who lends to the Sabbath is repaid by the Sabbath itself.

Rabbi (Jehudah Hanassi) asked of R. Ishmael the son of R. Jose: "By what acts did the rich men of Palestine, so wealthy, merit their wealth?"
He answered: "Because they gave tithes, as it is written [Deut. xiv. 22]: 'Thou shalt truly give tithes.'" 2 "By what acts did the rich men of Babylon merit their wealth?" asked Rabbi again. "Because they keep the law honorably," was the reply. "And what about the rich men of other lands?" "Because they honor the Sabbath," as R. Hyya bar Aba related: "It happened that I was a guest in the house of a man in the city of Ludkai and a golden table was brought for me, which required sixteen men to carry, and sixteen silver chains were fastened to it, and bowls, pitchers, goblets, and glasses were hung on those chains, and on the table were all kinds of food and beverages and spices, and when the table was set down they said: 'Unto the Lord belongeth the earth, with what filleth it' [Psalms xxiv. 1], and when the table was taken away, they said: 'The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth hath he given unto the children of men.' [Psalms xcv. 16.] I said to my host, 'My son, how didst thou merit all this?' Said he, 'I used to be a butcher, and whenever I came across a good animal, I would keep it for Sabbath.' Said I to him: 'Well is unto thee, that thou hast merited this, and praise be to God, who hath rewarded thee.'"

Said the Exilarch to R. Hamnuna: "It is written [Isaiah lviii. 13]: 'The holy day of the Lord, honorable.' What does this 'honorable' signify?" R. Hamnuna answered: "It means the Day of Atonement, on which day there is no eating and no drinking, and hence the Thora says, thou shalt honor it with clean clothes." Further, it says [ibid.]: "Thou shalt honor it" (this evidently does not refer to the Day of Atonement, which is called honorable, but must again refer to the Sabbath; how, then, should it be honored?) Said Rabh: "Thou shalt make the usual time of thy meals earlier," and Samuel said, "Thou shalt postpone the ordinary meal-hour." The children of R. Papa bar Aba asked R. Papa: "How shall we, who have meat and wine every day, distinguish the Sabbath day?" He answered: "If ye usually have your meals at a late hour, have them earlier, and if at an early hour, have them later."

R. Shesheth (who was blind) in the summer used to seat his pupils, who came to hear him lecture on Sabbath, in a place where the sun shone earliest, in order that they might become warm and leave, and in the winter used to seat them where the sun could not reach them, that they might become cold and leave the sooner.

R. Zera, when seeing his pupils standing in pairs and discussing the Thora on the Sabbath, used to say to them: "I pray ye, go home, eat, drink, and be merry. Do not violate the Sabbath! (It is made for pleasure and not for learning.)"

Rabha, according to others R. Jehoshua ben Levi, said: "Even a man who prays singly on the Sabbath eve must recite the prayer commencing with 'Thus were finished,' etc. [Genesis ii. 1-3]; for R. Hamnuna said, that he who prays on the Sabbath eve and recites that prayer is considered by the verse as being a collaborator in the creation of the world."
R. Eliezer said: "Whence do we know that speaking is equal to acting, as it is written [Psalms xxxiii. 6]: 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens made.'"

R. Hisda in the name of Mar Uqba said: "He who on the Sabbath recites the prayer commencing with, 'Thus were finished,' etc., has the hands of the two angels who accompany each man laid on his head, and they say to him [Isaiah vi. 7]: 'And thy iniquity is departed and thy sin is forgiven.'"

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose bar Jehudah said: "Two angels accompany a man on the Sabbath eve on his way home from the house of prayer; one is a good angel and the other an evil one; and when the man comes home and finds the candles lit, the table set, and his bed made up, the good angel says: 'May it be the will of God that the next Sabbath shall be the same,' and the evil angel answers 'Amen' involuntarily. If, however, the man does not find everything in order, the evil angel says: 'Mayst thou find it so on the next Sabbath also,' and the good angel answers against his own will: 'Amen.'"

R. Elazar said: "A man should set his table on the Sabbath eve, although he may not be hungry and can eat not more than the size of an olive." R. Hanina said: "A man should set his table on the eve following the Sabbath, though he may not be hungry and can eat but the size of one olive. (This is also in honor of the. Sabbath and is like the accompanying of a king at his departure.) Warm water at the close of the Sabbath day is wholesome. Warm bread at that time is also wholesome."

R. Abuha used to have a calf which was the third calf of its mother (and hence the best) killed for him at the close of the Sabbath day, and he ate only one of the entrails of the calf. When his son Abhimi grew up, he (Abhimi) said, "Why kill a whole calf for the sake of one of its entrails? Let us leave one of the entrails of the calf killed for the Sabbath for father, that he may eat it at the close of the Sabbath." This was done, but a lion came and killed the calf that was spared.
R. Jehoshua ben Levi said: "He who answers 'Amen. The Name of the Eternal be blessed,' with all his heart, has any ill fate which has been predestined for him nullified in heaven, as it is written [Judges v. 2]: 'When depravity had broken out in Israel, then did the people offer themselves willingly; (therefore) praise ye the Lord.' Why had depravity broken out in Israel? Because they had not praised the Lord." R. Hyya bar Abba in the name of R. Johanan said: "Even if that man have amongst his sins aught of idolatry, he is also forgiven."

Said Resh Lakish: "He who answers 'Amen,' etc., with all his might has the gates of Paradise opened for him, as it is written [Isaiah xxvi. 2]: 'Open ye the gates, that there may enter in the righteous nation that guardeth the truth.'" (The truth in Hebrew is called "Emunim," and Resh Lakish said, "Do not read Emunim but Amenim, the plural for Amen.") What is Amen? Said R. Hanina: "Amen is the abbreviation for El (God), Melech (king), Neamon (truth)." (Meaning that by saying Amen a man certifies that his Creator is the God and king of truth.)

R. Jehudah, the son of R. Samuel, in the name of Rabh said: "A fire seldom occurs in a place unless there is a violation of the Sabbath, as it is written [Jeremiah xvii. 27]: 'But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, and to enter in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.'" What does "it shall not be quenched" signify? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "The fire shall occur at a time when men are not around, as a rule."

Abayi said: "Jerusalem was destroyed solely on account of the violation of the Sabbath, as it is written [Ezekiel xxii. 26]: 'And from (the violations of) my Sabbaths do they turn away their eyes, so that I am profaned among them.'" R. Abuha said: "Jerusalem was not destroyed until they had abolished the reading of the Shema in the morning and in the evening, as it is written [Isaiah v. 11-13]: 'Wo unto those that rise up early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, that continue until late in the twilight, till wine inflame them! And there are harp and psaltery, tambourine and flute, and wine, at their drinking feasts; but the deeds of the Lord they regard not, and the works of his hands they behold not. Therefore are my people led into exile, for want of knowledge.'" R. Hamnuna said: "Jerusalem was not destroyed until the children were kept away from school, as it is written [Jeremiah vi. 11]: '(I must) pour it out over the child in the street'; and it may be explained thus: Why must I pour it out? Because the child is in the street and not at school."
Ula said: "Jerusalem was destroyed because the people were devoid of shame, as it is written [ibid. 15]: 'They should have been ashamed because they committed an abomination; but they neither felt the least shame, nor did they know how to blush; therefore shall they fall among those that fall.'"

R. Itz'hak said: "Jerusalem was destroyed only because no distinction was made between great and small, as it is written [Isaiah xxiv. 2, 3]: 'And it shall be the same with the people as with the priest, etc. Empty, emptied out shall be the land.'" R. Amram, the son of R. Simeon bar Aba, in the name of his father, quoting R. Hanina, said: "Jerusalem was destroyed only because the people did not admonish one another, as it is written (Lamentations i. 6): 'Her princes have become like harts that have found no pasture.' As the harts in a herd travel head to rump, so would the men of Jerusalem not dare face each other with admonitions, but followed from behind in silence."

R. Jehudah said: "Jerusalem was destroyed because they insulted men of learning, as it is written [II Chronicles xxxvii. 16]: "But they mocked at the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scorned his prophets, until the fury of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy." What does "till there was no remedy" signify? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "He who insults a man of learning, can find no panacea for his affliction."
R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said again: "It is written [I Chronicles xvi. 22]: 'Touch not my anointed, and do my prophets no harm.'" By "touch not my anointed" is meant the children of the school (for children are usually anointed), and "do my prophets no harm" refers to the scholars. 1 Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Jehudah the Second: "The world is sustained solely through the exhalation of the children" (because they are pure and without sin). Said R. Papa to Abayi: "What about thy and my exhalation?" Answered Abayi: "The difference lies therein, that thou and I might have sinned, but children are incapable of committing sin." Resh Lakish said again in the name of the same authority: "The children should not be withheld from attending school, even while the new temple shall be in process of construction."
Said Resh Lakish to R. Jehudah the Second: "I have heard a tradition coming from thy parents which says, that the city which has no school for children shall be destroyed; but Rabhina says, the tradition is to the effect that the high court shall put the city under a ban (until a school is built for children)."

Rabha said: Jerusalem was destroyed solely because there were no more trustworthy men there, as it is written [Jeremiah v. 1]: "Roam about through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and notice, and search in its broad places, if ye can find one man, if there be one that executeth justice, that searcheth for truth: and I will pardon it." What is meant by trustworthy men? Such as can be trusted in business.

MISHNA: Further, one may save a basket full of loaves (of bread), be it even enough for a hundred meals, a fig-cake, and a cask of wine; and one may also call to others: "Come ye and save for yourselves!" If those who do so understand their advantage, they make a settlement with the owner after the Sabbath is over. Where may such articles be taken to (for safety)? To a court that is joined to the other (court of the house burning) by an Erub. Ben Bathyra says: "Even to one that is not joined by an Erub."

There all utensils (dishes) may be brought, that are used on the same day; one may (in the event of a conflagration on the Sabbath) put on as many clothes as possible, and may wrap himself in whatever is possible. R. Jose says: "One may only put on eighteen pieces of ordinary apparel, but he can come back as often as he chooses and put on the same quantity and carry them off." One may also call to others: "Come ye and save with me (whatever ye can)!"

GEMARA: Have we not learned, in the preceding Mishna [page 245], that only (enough victuals for) three meals may be saved (and in the above Mishna sufficient for a hundred meals is permitted)? Said R. Huna: "This presents no difficulty. Our Mishna refers to one who comes to save the food with only one basket (when he may fill it with any quantity, whereas the preceding Mishna refers to one who brings several baskets, and in such a case it is not permitted to put in each basket more than sufficient for three meals)." But R. Aba bar Zavda in the name of Rabh said: "Both Mishnas refer to one who comes even with several baskets, but still no difficulty arises. This Mishna speaks of one who does not carry the food beyond the same court, while the other refers to one who carries it into another court.

"A fig-cake," etc. Why does the Mishna say, that if those who save for themselves know their advantage they will make a settlement with the owner after having saved the things from the conflagration? Are they not entitled to it under any circumstances, by virtue of the owner having made it public property when saying, "Come ye and save for yourselves"? Said R. Hisda: "This refers to pious people who would not take advantage of a man who is compelled to sacrifice his property." Said Rabha: "Can they be called pious, who accept remuneration for their time on the Sabbath? Nay; the Mishna does not refer to pious men, but to God-fearing men, who, while they would not take anything not belonging to them, would not care to trouble themselves gratuitously.

By stating, therefore, that those who know their advantage will settle accounts with the owner afterwards, the Mishna means to say that their prudence consists in their knowing that they will not receive any remuneration for their time on Sabbath, but will only receive their own property as their due." "Come ye and save with me." Why does the first part of the Mishna permit the saying of "Come and save for yourselves," and in the last part the permission is given to say: "Come and save with me"? Because the first part of the Mishna refers to victuals, and a man cannot save more than sufficient for three meals, while the last part of the Mishna refers to clothing; and as a man can change his clothing as often as he pleases, he may call to others to come and help him save whatever is possible.

"One may put on as many clothes as possible." The rabbis taught: One may dress himself, go out and undress, come back and dress again, and so on as often as he chooses. So said R. Meir. R. Jose, however, said, that one may put on only eighteen pieces of ordinary apparel. These were: 1. and 2. Macturen and Unqly, a mantle with a head-hold; 3. Funda, pocket for money; 4. Kalbus, a dress without sleeves; 5. Chaluk, a kind of shirt; 6. Apiliute, cover or overcoat; 7. Maopareth; 8 and 9. Drawers and pantaloons and cap for the head; 10. and 11. Shoes; 12 and 13. Socks; 14 and 15. Pargud, striped suit; 16. Girdle; 17. Hat; 18. Neckties.

MISHNA: R. Simeon, the son of Nanas, says: "One may spread a goat-skin over a chest, a box, or a cupboard, which lips caught fire, so that they only become singed. One may also form a partition with any, utensil (or vessel), be it full of water or not, in order to keep the fire from spreading. R. Jose forbids the making of such a partition with new earthenware vessels filled with water, because such vessels cannot stand heat, but burst and extinguish the fire."

GEMARA: R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "When one side of a garment has caught fire, the other side may be put in water, and if thereby the fire is extinguished it makes no difference." An objection was made: We have learned in a Tosephta, that if a garment has caught fire one may wrap it around him, and it makes no difference if the fire is thereby extinguished. One may also unroll the Sacred Scrolls, if the covering has caught fire on one side, and it does not matter if thus the fire is quenched. (This Tosephta then simply permits the unfolding or the folding of a garment that has caught fire, but says nothing about soaking the undamaged part in water.) Rabh holds with R. Simeon, the son of Nanas, in the above Mishna (who permits the prevention of the fire). R. Simeon, however, restricts his permission so that, while preventing the fire, it is not extinguished, but simply singes the objects (when the article, however, is soaked in water the fire will certainly be quenched, and did R. Simeon permit this also?) Yea, he did; for the last part of the Mishna relates, that R. Jose forbids the making of a partition with new pottery filled with water, because such vessels are liable to burst and extinguish the fire; and if R. Jose forbids this, surely R. Simeon (the first Tana) must have permitted it in the first part of the Mishna.

The rabbis taught: If a candle fall on the table, the table board may be raised and the candle dropped to the floor, and if it become extinguished, it matters not. Another Boraitha taught, that if a candle burn behind a door, the door may be opened and closed as usual, regardless of whether the candle is thus extinguished. Rabh scolded the one that thus decreed. Said Rabhina to R. A'ha the son of Rabha, according to others R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: "Why did Rabh scold the one who made that decree? Shall we say that it was because he holds with R. Jehudah (who says that an indirect act is also prohibited), and the Boraitha holds with R. Simeon, who permits the performance of an indirect act; is it possible that Rabh will scold every one who holds with R. Simeon?" he answered: "In this matter R. Simeon would also agree that this is prohibited, as it would be like decapitating a man without killing him."
R. Jehudah said: "One may open a door opposite a hearth-fire." Abayi scolded the one that decreed thus. Of what circumstances do we treat here? If the door is opened when there is an ordinary wind blowing, what reason had the one to prohibit it; and if there be an extraordinary wind blowing, why did the other permit it? The case here treated of is that of an ordinary wind, and the one prohibits the door being opened as a precautionary measure, lest this be done when a high wind is blowing, while the other does not regard a precautionary measure necessary. "One may also form a partition," etc. Shall we say that the rabbis hold the indirect bringing about of an extinction to be permissible and R. Jose holds to the contrary? Have we not heard the case to be the reverse? We have learned in a Boraitha: One may make a partition with empty vessels, and with vessels filled with water that are not liable to burst, and such are iron vessels. R. Jose, however, says, that the vessels made of pottery in the villages of Shihin and Hananiah are also proof against bursting. Thus we see that R. Jose is even more lenient than the rabbis? This presents no difficulty, for the above Boraitha is altogether in accordance with R. Jose; but it is incomplete, and should read thus: "One may make a partition with empty vessels, and with such as are filled with water but are not liable to burst; and such vessels are iron vessels and vessels made of pottery in the villages of Shihin and Hananiah," as R. Jose says that the vessels made of pottery in these villages are proof against heat.

MISHNA: If a non-Israelite comes near to extinguish (the fire), one must neither say to him: "Extinguish (it)," nor "Do not extinguish it," and for the reason, that one is not obliged to make him rest (on Sabbath). If a minor, however, desires to extinguish the fire, one must not allow him to do so, because one is obliged to see that he (the minor) rests (on Sabbath).

GEMARA: R. Ami said: "During a conflagration one may proclaim: 'Whoever will come and extinguish the fire, will lose nothing by it.'"
The rabbis taught: It happened that a fire broke out in the court of Joseph ben Simai in the town of Shihin, and the men of the fortress of Sepphoris came to extinguish the fire, because Joseph was an official of the government; but he would not allow them to do so, in honor of the Sabbath. A miracle occurred, and it commenced to rain, and the fire was extinguished. That evening he sent to each man in the fortress two selah and to their officer fifty selah. When the sages heard this, they said: "It was not at all necessary to do this, because the Mishna says, that when a Gentile comes to extinguish a fire on Sabbath, one need not tell him to do it, or not to do it." "If a minor, however, desires to extinguish the fire," etc. Could we conclude from this, that if a minor is detected eating forbidden food it is the duty of the court of justice to prevent his doing so (and we know such is not the case)? Said R. Johanan: "Yea; if the minor does this with his father's knowledge. We must say, then, that the same case applies to the Gentile, who does the work with the knowledge of the Israelite whose house is burning. Is this permitted? Yea, it is; for the Gentile does it of his own volition, and it makes no difference whether the Israelite knows it or not (because he, the Gentile, knows he will be rewarded)."

MISHNA-. One may cover the top of a lamp with a vessel in order that the ceiling may not catch fire, and also cover the ordure (of poultry 1) on account of the children (in the house). (One may also place a vessel) over a scorpion in order to prevent him from biting. R. Jehudah said: "A case of this kind happened once in the presence of R. Johanan ben Zakai in Arab, and he said, 'I am not certain whether (the man) is not culpable (and bound to bring a sin-offering).'"
GEMARA: R. Jehudah, R. Jeremiah b. Aba, and R. Hanon b. Ram happened to be the guests of Abin of Nishikia. The two former were furnished with beds, and the last one was not. At the same time, he noticed him teaching his son that the ordure of a child is to be covered, in order that the child should not touch it; and he said, "Abin the fool is teaching foolishness to his children. Is not the ordure of a child useful for dogs? What can you say? It was not prepared from yesterday. But this makes no difference; for we have learned in a Boraitha, that running rivers and springing wells are to be considered as the feet of every man." And Abin asked, "How, then, shall we teach?" And Hanon answered, "Over the ordure of poultry, that the child shall not touch it." "Over a scorpion in order to prevent him from biting." R. Jehoshua ben Levi said: "All dangerous creatures may be killed on Sabbath." R. Joseph raised an objection: "We have learned in a Boraitha, that five creatures may be killed on Sabbath, and they are: the fly of Egypt, the wasp of Nineveh, and the serpent of Hadaiev, and the snake of Palestine, and a mad dog from any region." According to whose opinion is this Boraitha? It is not according to the opinion of R. Jehudah, who holds, that the performance of an act not in itself necessary makes one culpable? We must say, then, that the Boraitha agrees with R. Simeon. If this is so, is it allowed to kill only these five, and not others? Said R. Jeremiah: "Who can tell us that this Boraitha is a correct one? It may be erroneous." Said R. Joseph: "I have studied the Boraitha. The same objection was made before me, and I defended it by stating, that the Boraitha refers to the case where the creatures pursued the man in order to harm him, and under these circumstances even R. Jehudah permits the killing of these creatures."

A certain disciple related before Rabha, the son of R. Huna, quoting a Boraitha: "One who kills serpents and snakes on the Sabbath does not find favor in the eyes of the pious." Answered Rabha: "And these pious men do not find favor in the eyes of our sages." Thus he differs with R. Huna, for it happened that R. Huna, seeing a man killing a snake on Sabbath, said to him: Hast thou killed the last of them (if thou hast only killed one, of what use is it to violate the Sabbath? From this we see that R. Huna differs from the opinion of his son.)

The rabbis taught: If a man met snakes on the road and killed them, it was decreed above that he should kill them (thus, removing danger for others, because a good deed is performed through a righteous man); if, however, he did not kill them, it was decreed above that he should be killed by them (that is, he is a sinner and deserving of death), but through the mercy of the Lord a miracle was performed, and he was saved. Said Ula, according to others Rabba bar bar Hana, in the name of R. Johanan: "Only in case the snakes prepared to strike at the man, can it be said that it was decreed that the man should be killed."
R. Aba bar Kahana said: "It happened that a snake was found in the school-house, and a man of the city of Neiety killed it." Said Rabbi: "He met his equal." The schoolman asked: "Did Rabbi mean, that the man was right in his deed, or on the contrary?" Come and hear: R. Aba, the son of Hyya b. Aba, and R. Zera were sitting in the hut of R. Janai, and they resolved to ask R. Janai if one might kill snakes and serpents on the Sabbath. And he answered: "If a bee should annoy me, I would kill it; a fortiori, snakes and serpents."

Aba the son of Marta, who is Aba the son of Minyumi, was indebted in a sum of money to the Exilarch's house. He was brought there and was worried. While standing in the room, Aba spat on the floor. This happened on the Sabbath, and the Exilarch ordered his servants to bring a dish and cover up the spittle. Said Aba to him: "This is not necessary, for R. Jehudah says, that one may put his foot on spittle and thus clear it off." Thereupon the Exilarch remarked: "This proves to me that the man is a young scholar; let him go in peace."

Aba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Hanina: "The lamps of the house of Rabbi may be handled on the Sabbath." R. Zera asked him: "Which lamps do you refer to, the lamps that can be handled with one hand, or those that require both hands"? and he answered: "The same as can be found in your father's house (those were small lamps)." The same Aba said in the name of the same authority, that the carriages of the house of Rabbi might also be handled on the Sabbath. R. Zera asked him which he referred to, those that one man can pull, or those that require two men, and the answer was: "The same that your father possesses." Aba bar Kahana said again, that the same R. Hanina permitted the house of Rabbi to drink wine that was scaled with but one seal, in the markets of the heathens, and he states, that he does not know whether R. Hanina holds with R. Eliezer (who held that one seal only was necessary) or whether he permitted this out of respect to the house of the Nassi (for fear that if he prohibited this, they would become angry 1).
MISHNA: If a non-Israelite lit a lamp on the Sabbath, the Israelite might make use of the light. If he (the non-Israelite) did so (especially) for the Israelite, the latter must not use it. If the non-Israelite filled up (a trough) with water, to water his (own) cattle, the Israelite may water his cattle after him; if he did so for the Israelite (especially), the latter must not water his cattle with it. If a non-Israelite made a stairway in order to descend upon it from a ship, the Israelite might descend after him; if he made it (especially) for the Israelite, the latter must not descend. Once R. Gamaliel and several elders arrived on a ship (on Sabbath) and a non-Israelite made a stairway upon which to descend (from the ship), whereupon R. Gamaliel and the elders also descended.

GEMARA: And it is necessary for the Mishna to mention the above cases separately, because if we were taught only concerning a lamp, we would say, that a lamp only may be used because a lamp will give light for a hundred men as well as for one; but as for water, we might say, that the water should not be used, in precaution lest the non-Israelite replenish the trough especially for the Israelite. For what purpose, however, is the stairway mentioned? That was only for the purpose of relating what happened to R. Gamaliel and the elders.

The rabbis taught: With grass which a Gentile mowed for his own cattle, an Israelite may feed his cattle, but if the grass was mowed especially for the Israelite, he may not. The same rule applies to water for watering the cattle. This applies only where the Gentile and the Israelite are not acquainted; but if they are, it is not allowed, under any circumstances. This is not so! For R. Huna said in the name of R. Hanina, that a man may allow his cattle to graze on the Sabbath, but must not feed them on grass which he designated previously for some other purpose (it matters not whether the grass is still uncut or cut). (Now, we see that things which have been designated for another purpose must not be fed to cattle on the Sabbath; how then is it allowed to feed one's cattle on the Gentile's grass which was cut on the Sabbath, and surely designated for some express purpose?) This presents no difficulty; for the permission to feed one's cattle on the Gentile's grass only holds good if the cattle feed themselves, and the man may stand by and prevent them from invading another pasture (but does not allow the man to feed them by hand).

It is said above: "This applies only where the Gentile and the Israelite are not acquainted," etc. Is this so? Did not R. Gamaliel descend on the stairway, although he and the Gentile were acquainted? Said Abayi: "The Gentile made the stairway when R. Gamaliel did not see him." But Rabha said: "It may be that the stairway was made in the presence of R. Gamaliel, but this case would be the same as that of a lamp. A lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred."

An objection was made to the teaching of Rabha: We have learned in a Tosephta: R. Gamaliel said to the elders: "As the Gentile made the stairway while we were not looking, we may descend on it." Answered Rabha: "Read simply, that R.

Gamaliel said, 'because the Gentile had already made it, we may use it.'"

Samuel happened to arrive at the house of Abin in Touron on a Sabbath. A Gentile came and lit a candle. Samuel turned his face away from the light; but after seeing that the Gentile brought a paper and commenced to read by the light of that candle, he said: "I see now that the Gentile lit the candle for his own use," and he then made use of it himself.

Footnotes

241:1 In the Hebrew introduction to Tract Rosh Hashana this entire argument is explained, and we do not deem it advisable to translate it at present.

243:1 We render these names without translations, as we also do in the case of Gilyonim, because of the incessant discussions concerning them among Hebrew theologians, and we do not desire to decide the definite meaning.

249:1 Hallel is called the section of the Psalms from Chapter cxiii. to cxix.

250:1 It is stated elsewhere (in Tract Rosh Hashana) that R. Jehudah prayed only once in every thirty days.

251:1 Rashi interprets this passage somewhat differently, namely: R. Aba did not hand the money to the butchers immediately upon their entering the door, but would hand the meat to his servants at the door, saying: "Make haste and cook this while I go and bring more," showing that he went himself for the meat and brought each piece from each butcher home separately.

252:1 Rashi explains that his teacher Levi taught, that the number thirteen was usually used by the sages for a general sum and must not be taken literally as the above thirteen butchers, etc.

252:2 The literal verse reads "Asser teasher," which is here applied in the sense, that thou shalt give tithes in order that thou mayst become rich, the word "osher" also meaning riches.

256:1 Rashi justifies this reference by basing it on the verse in Psalms xc. 12, which he interprets: "A prophet has a heart endowed with wisdom"; although Isaac Leeser translates the verse, "That we may obtain a heart endowed with wisdom," the Hebrew word Navi meaning both "prophet" and also "we may obtain."

261:1 According to the explanation of the Gemara. See also translation of the Mishna by De Sola and Raphall.

263:1 Rashi gives this a different explanation, but the above seems correct to us.

CHAPTER XVII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF UTENSILS AND FURNITURE ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA: All utensils (and furniture) which may be handled on the Sabbath, their doors (lids) may be handled with them, even when their lids had been removed; for such lids cannot be considered as house-doors, which are not intended to be removed. One may take a hammer on the Sabbath for the purpose of cracking nuts, an axe to chop fig-cake, a hand-saw to saw cheese, a shovel to gather up dried figs, a fan and a fork to place a thing (food) before a child, a spindle and a shuttle to pick fruit, a sewing-needle to remove a splinter (from the flesh), and a packing needle to open a door.

GEMARA: "All utensils which may be handled on the Sabbath, their doors (lids) may be handled with them, even when their lids had been removed." Removed when, on Sabbath? and if removed on a week-day they certainly may be handled? Why, on the contrary. On Sabbath the lids being attached to the utensils, they were intended for use with the utensils; but if removed on week-days, they did not form part of the utensils on the Sabbath, hence not intended for simultaneous use, and should not be handled! Said Abayi: The Mishna means to say, that the lids may be handled with the utensils on the Sabbath even if the lids had been removed on a week-day.
The rabbis taught: "The doors (lids) of a drawer, chest, or cage, may be taken down on the Sabbath, but not replaced. The (door of a chicken-coop (which is built in the ground) must not be removed nor replaced on the Sabbath." It may be right to prohibit the removing or replacing of the door of a chicken-coop (built in the ground), because removing it would constitute the act of tearing down, and replacing it would constitute building, but as for the doors of a drawer, chest, or cage, what is the opinion of the rabbis? Do they hold that the acts of building and tearing down apply also to utensils? If so, why do they permit the removing of the doors (lids); and if not, why do they prohibit replacing them? Said Rabha: "The act of building does not apply to utensils, but replacing is prohibited more as a precautionary measure, lest one drive the door in with a stick (and this would constitute the act of hammering)." "One may take a hammer," etc. Said R. Jehudah: This refers to a hammer intended only for nut-cracking, and such a hammer may be used to crack nuts, but a smith's hammer must not be used for that purpose; [for R. Jehudah holds, that a thing which is intended only for an act prohibited on the Sabbath, must not be used even for a permissible act]. Rabba, however, says, that a smith's hammer may be used to crack nuts [for he holds that a thing which is intended only for a prohibited act, may be used for a permissible act].

It was taught: R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan said: "We have learned, that a hammer which is intended for hammering gold may also be used for cracking nuts." R. Shoman bar Aba said: "We have learned, that the hammer referred to is intended to be used for spices."
The one who teaches that a spice-hammer may be used certainly permits a gold-hammer; but the one permitting a gold-hammer to be used, does not allow a spice-hammer, because a spice-hammer must be kept perfectly clean, and is laid away for non-use during the Sabbath. "A spindle and a shuttle to pick fruit," etc. The rabbis taught: A date which was not quite ripe, and was put in straw which was intended for use in clay-making, might be taken out. providing it was, not completely covered by, the straw, but enough to take hold of was left uncovered. The same applies to a cake which was taken out of the oven not quite done, and was put in glowing cinders to be cooked; but R. Eliezer ben Tadai said, that both the date and the cake might be taken out even when completely covered, providing this is done with a prong, and then the straw or the ashes respectively fall off of themselves. Said R. Na'hman: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Eliezer ben Tadai."
From this we see that R. Na'hman holds, that handling in an unusual manner is not considered handling at all; but did not R. Na'hman say, that if a radish is deposited in earth with its roots downwards and its head upwards and protruding from the earth, it may be taken out; but if deposited head downwards, it must not be taken out (and thus we see that R. Na'hman regards handling in an unusual manner the same as handling proper)? The answer is, that R. Na'hman afterward retracted his decision concerning the radish. "A sewing-needle to remove a splinter." Rabha the son of Rabba sent a request to R. Joseph: "Let the master teach us the law regarding a needle, the eyelet or the point of which had been broken off." R. Joseph answered: "We have learned this in our Mishna: 'A sewing-needle to remove a splinter.' What difference would it make to the splinter whether the needle has an eyelet or not?" Rabha objected: "We have learned, that a needle, the eye or the point of which had been broken off, is not subject to defilement." Said Abayi: "Thou confusest Sabbath with defilement? As for defilement, a vessel must be complete in order to be subject to defilement; but for Sabbath use, anything which can be used is in itself sufficient, and with this needle I can remove a splinter."

R. Na'hman forbids the straightening of the limbs of a child at birth on the Sabbath, and R. Shesheth permits it.

MISHNA: The hollow olive-cane is subject to defilement if it has a knot; if not, it is not subject to defilement. In any event, it may be handled on the Sabbath.

R. Jose 1 saith: "Any utensil may be handled on the Sabbath, with the exception of the large wood-saw and the plough-share."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Previously only three utensils were permitted to be handled on the Sabbath, and they were: a knife to chop pressed dates, a skimmer, and a small table-knife. Subsequently more was allowed, and then still more, and then more again, until finally any utensil was allowed with the exception of the wood-saw and the ploughshare.
What is meant by "subsequently more was allowed, and then still more," etc.? Said Rabha: They allowed a thing which was intended for use in a permissible act, whether it was needed for another purpose, or whether the room it occupied was needed; then still more was allowed, namely: to shift a thing out of the sunshine to a shady place; then more again was allowed, namely: a thing that was intended for use in a prohibited act (e.g., a smith's hammer) was permitted to be used for another purpose or when its room was needed; but it was not permitted to be moved from the sunshine into the shade, and all this was allowed to be done by only one person, but not by two, until finally all utensils might be handled even by two persons.

Abayi raised an objection to this: "We have learned, that a mortar which contained garlic may be handled, but if it did not contain garlic it must not be handled." The answer was this: It is meant, to remove from the sunshine to the shade. R. Hanina said: This Mishna was taught in the times of R. Nehemiah ben Hahalyah, as it is written [Nehemiah xiii. 15]: "In those days I saw in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, etc." (and because in those times there was great laxity in keeping the Sabbath, strict laws were made as a precaution, and even a mortar was not allowed to be handled unless it contained some eatables). Said R. Elazar: The Mishnas relating to the pieces of wood for the showbreads in Tract Menahoth, the sticks used by the priests for the Passover sacrifice in the Tract Pesachim, the bolts in the Tract Kelim, and the above Mishna relating to the mortar (all of which prohibit the handling of such things on Sabbath) were all taught before it was allowed to handle all vessels.

MISHNA: The utensils may also be handled with intent to use them or without such intent. R. Nehemiah saith: "They may be handled only if intended for use."

GEMARA: What is meant by "with intent to use them," etc.? Said Rabha: "'With intent to use them' means to use a thing which was intended for use in a permissible act, whether it was needed for its intended use, or whether the room it occupied was needed; and 'without such intent' means even to shift a thing from the sunshine into the shade, and a thing that was intended for use in a prohibited act was permitted to be used for its intended use or when its room was needed, but it was not permitted to move it from the sunshine into the shade. Now R. Nehemiah comes to say, that even if a thing was intended for a permissible act, it may be used only for its intended use and if the room occupied by it were needed, but it was not permitted to shift it from the sunshine into the shade.

R. Sapa, R. Aha b. Huna, and R. Huna bar Hanina were sitting together. The latter asked R. Sapa, according to Rabba, who explains Nehemiah's teaching (that even a permissible thing must not be removed for the purpose of occupying its place): "How can we remove dishes after eating?" Said R. Sapa: "It is equal to a dirty thing (standing on a clean place), which may be removed at any time."

R. Mari bar Rahel had several leather bolsters that lay in the sun (on a Sabbath). He came to Rabha and asked him if he might move them. Rabha told him it was allowed. Said R. Mari again: "I have other bolsters besides these." Answered Rabha: "This makes no difference. Thou mightst need those too if guests should call." Said R. Mari again: "I have sufficient for guests also." Said Rabha to him: "This proves to me, then, that thou art of the opinion of Rabba, who prohibits the moving of things from the sunshine into the shade on Sabbath. Hence everybody else may do this, but thou must not."

Said R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya bar Ashi, quoting Rabh: Whisks may be handled on the Sabbath to sweep the tables, but the brooms made of date-palms (which are only intended for floor-sweeping) must not be used for sweeping the tables. This was also stated by R. Elazar.

MISHNA: Of all utensils which may be handled on the Sabbath, fragments may also be handled, but it must be with a purpose, viz.: the pieces of a kneading-trough to cover the bunghole of a cask, the pieces of a glass to cover the mouth of a pitcher. R. Jehudah says: "They must be fit for the same use (as the whole utensil), viz.: the parts of a kneading-trough to hold a brew, and the pieces of a glass to hold oil."

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "The first Tana of the Mishna and R. Jehudah differ only as to fragments which were broken off on the Sabbath; for the former holds that the fragment is part and parcel of the utensil, and fit for the same use, while R. Jehudah holds, that the fragment is a newly created thing; but if the fragments were broken off before the Sabbath set in, all agree that they may be handled because they were prepared for use while it was yet (week) day."
We have learned, in one Boraitha, that fire maybe made with utensils, but not with fragments; and in another Boraitha we have learned, that as we may make fire with utensils, so we may also use fragments for the same purpose. In a third Boraitha, however, we were taught, that we must not make fire with either utensils or fragments. We must say, then, that the first Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah (who holds, to the theory of "Muktza" and Noled (a newly created thing), the second Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Simeon (who holds to neither of the two theories), and the third Boraitha is in accordance with R. Nehemiah (who holds that every utensil must be used for its particular purpose and not for other purposes).

R. Na'hman said: "Bricks left over from a building may be handled, because they can be used as seats; but if the bricks were piled up one on top of the other, they were evidently designated for building, and must not be handled." R. Na'hman said in the name of Samuel: A fragment of a piece of pottery may be handled in private ground, but not in unclaimed ground (because in private ground other vessels can generally be found and the fragment may be used as a lid or cover, but in unclaimed ground there are no other vessels and the fragment cannot be used in that manner); but R. Na'hman himself declares, that the fragment may be handled in unclaimed ground also (because in unclaimed ground there may also be. some things which can be covered), but not in public ground; and Rabha, however, says, it may be handled even in public ground (because having been once regarded as a utensil in private ground it remains such everywhere).

This theory of Rabha's is borne out by his action; for it happened that he was walking on the street Ritka in the city of Mehuzza on a Sabbath, when his shoe became soiled with dirt. His servant came and cleaned it off with a fragment of a piece of pottery. The rabbis who went behind him scolded his servant for this act, whereupon he (Rabha) remarked: "It is not enough that they have not learned (what is permissible and what is not), but they also want to teach others. If this fragment were in private ground, it would have been a useful article because a vessel could be covered with it, and here in public ground it is useful to me."

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "The bung-head of a broken barrel may be handled on Sabbath." We have also learned this in the following Boraitha: "The bung-head and the pieces of a broken barrel may be handled on Sabbath, but it is not allowed to break off a piece of the fragments and cover a vessel with it or put it under the legs of a bedstead." If the bung-head and pieces, however, were thrown away among the garbage before the Sabbath, they must not be handled at all.
R. Hamdura said in the name of Samuel: "The waste of a mat may be used on the Sabbath." Why so? For what purpose can it be used? Said Rabha: "Bar Hamdura explained this to me as follows: What is a mat used for? To prevent the dust from settling upon an object, and the waste can also be used for covering up dirt." R. Zera said in the name of Rabh: "Remnants of silken togas must not be handled on the Sabbath." Said Abayi: "This is said of remnants that measure less than three fingers square and are of no value to either rich or poor."

The rabbis taught: Fragments of an old oven are equal to any other vessels that may be handled on Sabbath. So said R. Meir; but R. Jehudah said they may not be handled. R. Jose testified in the name of R. Eliezer ben. Jacob, that fragments of an oven may be handled on the Sabbath and the covers of in oven may be handled even if their handles are broken off. Said Rabhina: "According to whose opinion do we handle to-day the covers of the ovens used in the city of Mahassia, which have no handles? It must be according to the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Jacob."
MISHNA: One may dip water with a hollow pumpkin to which a stone is fastened, providing the stone will not fall off; otherwise, one must not dip water with it. One may dip water with a jug to which a vine branch is fastened. "For a window-blind," says R. Eliezer, "a thing may only then be put up, if it be fastened and hang down; otherwise, it must not." The sages say it may be put up in any manner.

GEMARA: We have learned in another Mishna: "If a stone lie at the opening of a barrel, the barrel may be bent over, so that the stone fall down." Said Rabba in the name of R. Ami, quoting R. Johanan: "The case applies only when the stone lying at the opening of the barrel was left there unintentionally; but if placed there on purpose, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited thing (and must not be moved)." R. Joseph in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, said, on the contrary: "If the stone was left there unintentionally the barrel must be bent over, so that the stone fall down; but if placed there intentionally, it serves as a lid to the barrel, and may be removed." On what points do R. Ami and R. Assi differ? One holds, that an act must be accomplished in order to be an act, while the other holds the intention to be equivalent to the deed, and their respective theories are borne out by their opinions which follow:

For when R. Dimi, and according to others R. Zera, came from Palestine, he related in the name of R. Hanina: It happened that Rabbi once went to a certain place on a Friday, and finding a pile of stones said to his disciples: "Go and have it in your minds that we intend to sit on these tomorrow." Thus Rabbi did not order them to act, but merely to think. R. Johanan, however, said, that Rabbi ordered his disciples to act. And what, according to R. Johanan's opinion, were the disciples to do? R. Ami said, that Rabbi ordered them to place the stones in position for them to sit on, but R. Assi said, that Rabbi ordered them not only to place the stones in position, but also to clean them (because, in the latter's opinion, changing the position of an object does not constitute an actual deed).

It was taught: R. Jose b. Saul said it was not stones but a pile of building wood. R. Johanan b. Saul, however, said it was not building wood but poles with which the depth of the water is sounded. "One may dip water with a hollow pumpkin to which a vine-branch is fastened." If it is fastened one may, and if not, one may not. Shall we assume that our Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel? as we have learned in a Boraitha: Branches of a tree which were intended for kindling, if subsequently used for sitting purposes, must be tied together, but R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said, they need not be tied together. 1 Said R. Ashi: It may be said, that this Mishna is not at variance with the opinion of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, but is merely a precautionary measure, for fear that a branch, being brittle, might be broken by the man if not tied together. "For a window-blind," etc. Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: All agree that it is not permitted to put up even a temporary tent 2 to begin with on a biblical festival, and decidedly not on the Sabbath, but as for adding (that is, if part of the blind was already up) a blind to a temporary tent that had already been put up, R. Eliezer said, that it is not permissible on a festival and much less so on the Sabbath, and the sages declare, that it is permitted on the Sabbath and so much the more oil a festival. "The sages say it may be up in any manner." What is meant by "in any manner"? Said R. Aba in the name of R. Kahana: "By that is meant, that it makes no difference whether the blind was fastened or not, providing it was prepared for its purpose since the day before." Said R. Jeremiah to him: "Why wouldst thou assume that the sages would be more lenient in this matter? Say rather that they meant to state, that it made no difference whether the blind hung down or not, providing it had been previously fastened." R. Aba answered: "Because I hold with the Tana of the following Tosephta: A stick, prepared by the master of a house for the opening and locking of a door, may be used on Sabbath, providing it was fastened and hung to the door; otherwise, it must not be used. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, however, declared, that as long as it was prepared for that purpose, it was of no consequence whether it was fastened and hung to the door." (Thus it may be seen that R. Aba held with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel.)

R. Jehudah bar Silas in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, said: "The Halakha according to R. Simeon ben Gamaliel prevails." Did R. Johanan say this in reality? Have we not learned in a Mishna, that all covers of vessels having handles attached may be handled on Sabbath? Referring to this, R. Jehudah b. Shila in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, said, that such would be the case only if the covers could be made use of as independent vessels. (How, then, can R. Johanan hold with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, who says, that the stick which was not fastened to the door may be used on Sabbath, surely it is not an independent vessel?) Shall we assume, that R. Johanan holds with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel only in the case where the stick could also be used for other purposes and thus could be called an independent vessel? Then how can it be said that R. Johanan holds with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, for the latter does not require the stick to be an independent vessel, as we have learned above in the matter of the branches (see page 273), where R. Simeon ben Gamaliel declares, that they need not be tied together? R. Johanan is in accordance with him only in the matter of the stick being prepared for its particular purpose without being fastened to the door, but disagrees with him as regards an independent vessel.
R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha 1 proclaimed at the door of the Exilarch's house, that the Halakha according to R. Eliezer prevailed. R. Amram raised an objection: "We have learned in the last Mishna of this Tract as follows: 'Thence we learn that it is permitted to put up a window-blind, to measure and to tie on the Sabbath.'" (How, then, could R. Itz'hak say, that the Halakha according to R. Eliezer prevailed?) Said Abayi to him: Upon what is thy objection concerning R. Itz'hak based? The Mishna just mentioned gives the opinion of the sages only, who are at variance with R. Eliezer in our Mishna, and thou mightst say, that because no contention is mentioned, the Halakha according to the sages prevails; then thou knowest of another Mishna (in Erubin), concerning the hinge of a cupboard door, no name is mentioned, and still the Mishna appears to be in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer only (thus R. Itz'hak can accept R. Eliezer's opinion). Saith the Gemara: (Although Abayi justified R. Itz'hak) an act of the sages (as is related in the last-mentioned Mishna) is sufficiently decisive to establish the Halakha.

MISHNA: All lids of utensils may be removed (on the Sabbath), provided they have handles. Said R. Jose: What does this apply to? To lids of vessels fastened in the ground, but lids of vessels in general may be removed at all events.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah bar Shila in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan: "The lids of utensils may be handled only if they can be made use of for other purposes as independent vessels." Saith the Gemara: "All agree, that covers of utensils (fixtures) fixed in the ground must be handled only if they have handles attached, and lids of other utensils not fixed in the ground may be handled even if they have no handles, but the point of the divergent opinions is as regards the covers of ovens, the one side contending, that ovens must be regarded as fixtures in the ground and the other side contending that they are ordinary utensils."

Footnotes

268:1 In the Mishna of Yost and De Sola and Raphall, R. Jehudah was credited with the saying, but in our original R. Jose is named, as is proven in Erubhin 35 a.

273:1 Compare page 90, in this tract.

273:2 By a temporary tent, says Rashi, is meant principally a sheet put up on four poles to serve as a roof, but screens on the sides are not considered a tent. The putting up of a window-blind in a building, however, is regarded by R. Eliezer as an addition to the building.

274:1 See note to page 96, in this tract.

CHAPTER XVIII.

REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CLEARING OFF OF REQUIRED SPACE, THE ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN CATTLE WHEN GIVING BIRTH TO THEIR YOUNG AND TO WOMEN ABOUT TO BE CONFINED . MISHNA: One may even clear off four or five chests of straw or grain, in order to provide room for guests, and to remove obstacles to instruction; but one must not clear out a whole barn. Further, one may clear off: heave-offerings, grain (of which it is not certain that the tithes have been set apart), first tithes of which the heave-offering has been taken off, second tithes and consecrated things which have been redeemed, and dried broad-beans, which serve the poor (others say, the goats) for food. But one must not clear off mixed grain (of which tithes have not yet been separated), nor first tithes. of which the heave-offering had not yet been taken off, nor second tithes nor consecrated things which had not yet been redeemed, nor arum (wake-robin) nor mustard. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel permits arum (wake-robin) to be cleared off, because it serves the (house) raven for food.

Bundles of straw, bundles of stalks, and bundles of reeds may be handled, provided they are designed for cattle-fodder, otherwise they must not be handled.

GEMARA: The Mishna says, "four or five chests." Why say four or five? If five may be cleared off, surely four may! Said Samuel: This is said only as a customary saying; but in reality it means to say that any number maybe cleared off; but by saying "one must not clear off a whole barn," the Mishna means to state, that all the straw should not be removed for fear lest pits be noticed in the ground, and the man might fill them up. Even if the whole barn be full and as yet untouched, one may commence to remove as much as is necessary, and the Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of R. Simeon, who disregards the law of Muktza.

The rabbis taught: One may not commence on a full barn, but one may remove enough, when entering, with his feet, to provide an entrance, and when going out to make a way of egress.

The rabbis taught: A sheaf of grain, if commenced prior to the Sabbath, may be used on the Sabbath; but if not, it must not be used on Sabbath, so saith R. A'ha, but R. Simeon permits this to be done. How large should the sheaf be? We have learned in a Boraitha that it should measure one Lethach. 1 The schoolmen propounded a question (not having heard Samuel's explanation): "How is the term 'four or five chests' to be understood? Should a man clear off only four or five chests, even if that be not room enough for his guests; or should he do so in proportion to the number of his guests? If according to the number of his guests, does it mean to say, that one man should clear off sufficient for all, or every man for himself?" Come and hear: Rabba told in the name of R. Hyya: It once happened that Rabbi went out on a Sabbath to a certain place, and saw that the place assigned to him for lecturing was too small; so he went out into the field, and found the whole field full of sheaves. He cleared off the field, and provided sufficient room." Thence we see that he did so in proportion to the number of his guests; but this narration decides only one part of the schoolmen's question, viz.: the one relating to the number of sheaves to be cleared off, but not the one relating to whether one man may clear off sufficient for all, or every man for himself. Come and hear: "Rabbi cleared off the field," etc. (that is, one man for all). And what think you, that Rabbi did this himself? he certainly must have ordered this to be done, so it is not known whether one man did it, or each man for himself. "For guests," etc. R. Johanan said: "The reward for hospitality is equal to that for visiting the house of learning, for the Mishna saith for guests and for obstacles to instruction, thus putting the two causes on a par." Said R. Dimi: "Hospitality is even a greater virtue, for it is given the precedence over instruction."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: Hospitality is even a greater merit than receiving the Shekhina, as it is written [Genesis xviii. 3]: "And he said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy eyes, pass not away," etc. (showing that Abraham let the Lord wait while he went to receive his guests). Said R. Elazar: Come and see how the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He, is unlike that of human beings. An insignificant man cannot say to a great man: "Stay here until I come back again," whereas to the Holy One, blessed be He, Abraham said as mentioned above.

Said R. Jehudah bar Shila in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan: "There are six things, the interest on which a man consumes on earth, while the principal is given him in the world to come. They are: Hospitality, visiting the sick, contemplation before prayer, attending the house of learning, educating children in the Law, and charity in judging others." Is this so? Have we not learned in a Mishna: These are the things the interest of which a man consumes on earth and the principal of which is given him in the world to come? "Honoring father and mother, doing favors to neighbors, peace-making among men, and, above all, the study of the Law." Now, if the Mishna says "these are the things," it means no others! Nay; the six things previously mentioned are included in those subsequently enumerated (hospitality and visiting the sick are included in doing favors to neighbors; contemplation before prayer is a favor to one's self, as it is written [Proverbs xi. 17]: "The man of kindness doth good to his own soul"; attending the house of learning and educating children in the Law is included in the study of the Law; charity in judging others is included in peacemaking among men, and R. Johanan does not dispute the Mishna, but merely expounds it).

The rabbis taught: One who exercises charity in judging others is charitably dealt with when judged above. It once happened that a man came from upper Galilee and hired out to a master in southern Palestine for three years. On the last eve of the Day of Atonement (when his term was up) he asked his master for his wages, so that he could return to his wife and children. The master replied that he had no money. Said the man: "Then give me my money's worth in grain." And the master answered: "I have it not." Said the man again: "Give me my money's worth in land," and again the master replied: "I have it not." "Then give me my money's worth in cattle." "I have it not," was the reply. "I will take my money's worth in bolsters or bed-clothes," Pleaded the man, but the answer was still the same. The poor man shouldered his bundle and sorrowfully went away. After the holidays the master took the hired man's wages and, besides, three asses; one laden with victuals, the second with beverages, and the third with spices, and went to his hired man's house in Galilee. After having partaken of a meal together, the master paid him his wages, and asked him: "When I told thee that I had not the money to pay thee thy wages, what didst thou suspect me of?" The man answered: "I thought that perhaps thou hadst come across a bargain and hadst paid out all thy ready money." "And when thou askedst me for cattle and I refused thee, what didst thou think then?" "I thought that thou hadst hired out thy cattle on some other farm, and thou couldst not give me any at the time." "And when thou askedst me for grain and I refused?" "I thought perhaps thou hadst not yet paid thy tithes and hence thou couldst not give me any." "And when I refused thee land?" "I thought perhaps thou hadst rented it out." "And when I refused thee bed-clothes?" "Then I thought that thou hadst devoted all thy possessions in honor of the Lord." "I swear to thee, then, that such was really the case. I had made a vow to give away all my possessions for charitable purposes, because my son Hurkenes did not want to study the Law. Afterwards, when I came to my comrades in the South they released me from my vow, and as thou didst judge me in kindness, so may God judge thee in kindness."

The rabbis taught: A pious man once ransomed a Jewish maiden from captivity. When they came to a lodging-place at night, he laid her down at his feet. On the morrow he bathed, and then went out to teach his disciples. During the lesson, he asked his disciples: "When I laid the damsel down at my feet last night, what did you suspect me of?" And they answered: "Perhaps there may be one among us who has not yet been tried and thou couldst not trust him, so thou laidst her near thee." "And when I went in the morning and bathed, what did you suspect?" "Perhaps, on account of the hardships on the way, thy seed of copulation ran out from thee and thou wert compelled to bathe." "By the Lord," said the master, "so it was; and as ye have judged me in kindness, so may the Lord judge you in kindness."

The rabbis taught: It happened that the sages had business with a Roman matron to whom all the great men of Rome came for advice, and they could not decide who should go to her. Finally R. Jehoshua volunteered to go, and so he and his disciples went to her. Four ells from the door of her house, R. Jehoshua removed his phylacteries and went in, locking the door behind him. When he came back he bathed, and then went back and taught his disciples. During the lesson he asked: "When I removed my phylacteries, what did ye suspect? "And they answered: "The phylacteries are holy, and thou didst not wish to bring them into a profane place." "And when I locked the door behind me, what did ye suspect?" "We thought perhaps thou hadst a secret political affair to transact and didst not wish us to enter." "And when I came out and bathed, what did you suspect?" And they replied: "We thought perhaps some of the matron's spittle had accidentally dropped on thy garments and thou hadst to bathe." "By the Lord," said R. Jehoshua, "so it happened; and as ye judged me in kindness, so may the Lord also judge you in kindness." "Further, one may clear off heave-offerings," etc. Is this not self-evident? It might be assumed that the heave-offerings being in possession of a plebeian who is not allowed to partake of them, they must not be handled; but the Mishna comes to teach us, that because a priest is allowed to eat them, they may be handled by everybody. 1 "And dried broad-beans." The rabbis taught: Hatzav (a certain plant the roots of which grow deep into the ground but do not spread) may be handled on the Sabbath, because it is food for deer. Mustard may be handled, because it is food for doves. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said that pieces of glass may be handled, because ostriches eat them. Said R. Nathan: "In this case twigs may be handled, because they serve elephants for food." What did R. Simeon answer R. Nathan? Ostriches are more frequently owned by men than elephants. Said Ameimar: "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel means to say, that only one who possesses ostriches may handle pieces of glass?" Said R. Ashi to Ameimar: "If this is so, what did R. Nathan question? If one possesses elephants, he may surely handle twigs. So R. Nathan means to say, that because twigs serve as food for elephants, anybody may handle them; and the same applies to pieces of glass, because they serve ostriches for food, everybody may handle them (on the Sabbath)." "Bundles of straw," etc. The rabbis taught: "Bundles of straw, bundles of stalks, and bundles of reeds may be handled, provided they are designed for cattle-fodder; otherwise, they must not be handled." R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "If the bundles can be lifted with one hand they may be handled, but if not they must not be handled."

Bundles of satureia, abrotanum, and thyme, if prepared for fuel, must not be used on Sabbath, but if prepared for cattle-food may be used. Grain from an ear (of wheat, etc.) may be taken by hand only, but not with a vessel. One may even take a few grains from growing ears with his fingers, and eat them, but must not take them with a vessel, so saith R. Jehudah; but the sages say, that one may do this with his fingers, but not with both hands, as usually done on week-days. The same ordinance holds good for any other spices.

It was taught: Salt meat may be handled on Sabbath, but fresh meat must not be handled, according to R. Hisda; but R. Huna permits this.

The rabbis taught: Salt fish may be handled, but not stale unsalted fish, and meat may be handled, be it fresh or salt.

The rabbis taught: Bones may be handled, because dogs eat them; putrid meat may be handled, because beasts of prey eat it. Uncovered water 1 may be handled, because cats drink it. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, however, said, that all these things should not be kept in the house even on week-days, because they are dangerous.

MISHNA: One may set a basket on end for chickens, in order that they may climb up or down upon it. A runaway hen may be chased until she goes back again. One may lead about calves or young asses to exercise them. A woman may lead her son about to give him exercise. R. Jehudah says: "When (may she do) this? If the child lifts one foot and sets down the other; but if it trails (its leg) behind, she must not."
GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "If a cow fall into a lake, it is allowed to throw into the lake bolsters, bundles, vessels, etc., in order to give the cow a foothold and enable her to get out." An objection was made: We have learned in a Boraitha: "If a cow fall into a lake, food may be brought to her in order that she may not starve to death." So it refers only to food, but nothing is said in reference to bolsters, etc. This presents no difficulty. Where food can be brought it may be done, but when the cow cannot be reached, bolsters, etc., may be brought. But a vessel that is prepared for other purposes is thereby destroyed? That is simply a rabbinical ordinance, but pity for creatures is a Mosaic law and has precedence. "A runaway hen may be chased," etc. The hen may be chased, but not led. This is a similar teaching to that of another Boraitha, wherein we have learned, that all animals and birds may be led about in private ground with the exception of a hen. Why not a hen. Said Abayi: "Because a hen, when led, will not walk, but will jump and fly, and the man leading her will be forced to carry her."

MISHNA: On a feast-day one must not deliver cattle, about to give birth, of their young, but may be of assistance to them in any other manner. One may give a woman (about to give birth to a child) all assistance possible, even call a midwife from a distance; one may violate the Sabbath on her account and tie the navel-string. R. Jose says: One may also cut the string. Lastly, one may accomplish anything necessary for the circumcision on the Sabbath.

GEMARA: What is meant by "being of assistance"? Said R. Jehudah: "To hold up the young, that it may not fall," and R. Na'hman said: "To pull out the young by pressing the sides." R. Jehudah's explanation is supported by the following Boraitha: "How is an animal assisted in giving birth to her young? By holding up the young, blowing air into its nostrils, and leading it to its mother's breast, so that it may suck."
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "When a clean animal (one that may be eaten) gave birth to her young on a festival and would not take to it, we would coerce her into taking to her offspring." How would this be done? Said Abayi: "They would bring a handful of salt, lay it in the mother's womb, and the pain that would be caused thereby would remind the mother of her young, and she would immediately take to them, and they would pour the water discharged by the mother on the young, so that the mother would scent it and seek her young. This was done, however, only with a clean animal, but not with ail unclean animal. Wily so? Because usually an unclean animal will not cast off her young, and should she do so, she will never take to them again." "One may give a woman (about to give birth to a child) all assistance possible." Let us see! The Mishna says, that one may call a midwife even from a distance, and then, that one may violate the Sabbath on her account. What is the object in particularizing what may be done? The Mishna means to tell us, what the rabbis taught, viz.: "If a woman lying in is in need of a light, another woman may light a candle for her; and if she needs oil, the waitress may bring her oil through public ground in her hands; should that not be sufficient she may bring it in her hair, and if that does not suffice she may bring it in a vessel."

The master said: "If a woman lying in is in need of a candle, another woman may light it for her." Is this not self-evident? He means to tell us, that even if the woman lying in be blind, and one might say, that being blind she needs no candle, hence it should not be lit; the candle should her at all events, for she may need a thing that others could not see without a light, while, by aid of the light, they would find it and hand it to her.

Further, it says, that a woman may bring her oil in her hair. This would be worse still, for the hair would have to be wrung, and that would make the woman (who brought the oil) guilty of wringing (on Sabbath). Rabba and R. Joseph both said, that wringing hair does not constitute wringing within the meaning of the law. R. Ashi said: "Even if wringing the hair would constitute wringing within the meaning of the law, the woman should bring the oil in a vessel which should be placed on the hair (head); for any work which must of a necessity be performed on a Sabbath, should be performed in as far different a manner from that done on a week-day as possible."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "As long as the womb of a woman lying in is still open, whether she says she must have it done or not, the Sabbath may be violated for her. As soon, however, as the womb is closed, the Sabbath may be violated only if she says she must have it done; otherwise, it must not be violated, so taught Mar Zutra." R. Ashi, however, taught in the name of the preceding authority, that as soon as the womb is closed, even if the woman says she must have it done, the Sabbath must not be violated on her account.

Said Rabhina to Mareimar: "Mar Zutra is more lenient in his teaching, and R. Ashi the stricter; according to whom does the Halakha prevail?" Answered Mareimar: "The Halakha according to Mar Zutra prevails, for it is the general rule, that wherever human lives are concerned, the more lenient teaching is always accepted as final."
At what time is the womb considered to be open? Abayi said: "From the time the woman commences to give birth." R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua said: "From the time blood commences to flow", and others say, from the time that she becomes helpless and her attendants lay her on the bed.

How long is the womb considered to be open? Abayi said, for three days after birth, and Rabha in the name of R. Jehudah said, for seven days, and others say for thirty days. The scholars of Neherdai divide the time of a woman lying in into three periods of three, seven, and thirty days each. During the first period, whether the woman says she must have it done or whether she says it need not be done, the Sabbath may be violated for her. During the second period, if she says it must be done, the Sabbath may be violated; but if she says it need not be done, it must not be violated; and during the third period, even if she says she must have it done, the Sabbath must not be violated by Israelites, but it may be done by Gentiles. This is according to R. Ula the son of R. Ilai, who says, that everything which must be done for a sick person on the Sabbath should be done by Gentiles, and also according to R. Hamnuna, who said, that all things which are to be done for a person who is not dangerously ill, should be ordered done by a Gentile. As it happened with the daughter of R. Hisda (the wife of Rabba), who took a bath in her husband's absence, before the thirty days were up, and caught cold, and friends were compelled to bring her, still lying in bed, to Rabba in Pumbaditha.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "A woman lying in should be given thirty days." For what law should she be given thirty days? The men of Neherdai said, for bathing (that is, she should not bathe for thirty days, in order that she may not catch cold). Said Rabha: This rule applies to women whose husbands are not at home, for when the husband is at home, he can take care of his wife and prevent any bad consequences.
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said again: One may kindle a fire for a woman lying in, on the Sabbath, and not only for a woman lying in, but also for a sick person; not only in the winter but also in the summer-time, as R. Hyya bar Abhin said in the name of Samuel, that one, who was bled and caught cold, may have a fire made for him on Sabbath not only in the winter, but also in the summer-time. Samuel once was bled and caught cold, so a chair made of elm-wood was chopped up and a fire made for him (on Sabbath). The same thing happened to R. Jehudah; so a table of cedar-wood was chopped up and a fire made for him. Rabba had the same experience and a stool was used to make a fire, and when told by Abayi that he was, guilty of destroying a useful article said My personal welfare is dearer to me than the article."

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "A man should sell even the roof of his house and buy shoes for himself if in need of them; but if he had recently been bled and feels hungry, he should sell even these shoes and buy food with the proceeds." What kind of food should he purchase? Rabh said meat, and Samuel, wine. Rabh said meat, as being a substitute for flesh lost through bleeding, and Samuel said (red) wine, as a substitute for (red) blood.

When Samuel had himself bled, a dish made of milt was prepared for him, and R. Johanan would drink wine until it could be smelt through his ears. R. Na'hman would drink wine until his spleen would float in wine. R. Joseph would drink wine until his veins would swell so that the lancet would be forced out, and Rabha would drink only wine that was three years old.

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak to his disciples: I beg of you, that on the day on which you have yourselves bled, you should go home and say that Na'hman will come to visit you. (In consequence a good meal and wine will be prepared, and you can partake of it.) Deceit is not permitted under any circumstances, but those mentioned as follows:

One who is bled, and has not the money to buy wine, should take a mutilated Zuz and go to seven wine-dealers. When asking for wine he will be given some to taste, and when offering his money, it will be rejected. He will then proceed to another dealer, and keep on until he will have drunk a quarter of a lug. One who cannot even do this, should eat at least seven black dates and should put oil on his temples, then lie down in the sun and go to sleep.

Abhlat (a Persian official) found Samuel sleeping in the sun and said to him: "Thou leader of Jews! Can a good thing emanate from a bad one?" Samuel answered: "This is my bleeding-day." In reality this was not so, but there are days when sleeping in the sun is healthful; for instance, on the day when the Tamuz (July) equinox falls, but Samuel, who was a physician, would not tell this to Abhlat.
Rabh and Samuel both said: "The man who eats a light meal on the day when he is bled, has light earnings decreed for him in heaven for the following year, because if he himself has no pity for his own body, he is not worthy of being pitied by the heavenly host." The same two authorities also said, that one who was bled should not sit where the wind blows; for it may be that the surgeon who bled him allowed too much blood to escape, and the wind might force still more blood from him, and thus become dangerous. Samuel was always bled in a house the walls of which were of seven bricks' thickness, and at one time it happened that he felt weak; he looked up, and noticed that a brick was missing from the wall.

Rabh and Samuel also said, that a man who was bled should not go out into the street without having partaken of something. If he does and meets a corpse, his face turns yellow, and if he should happen to meet a murderer he will die himself, and if he meets a pig he will become scabby. They also said, that after bleeding a man should not rise immediately, but should rest a while and then get up; for the master said, that five things are more conducive to death than to life. They are: Eating and arising immediately, drinking and arising, sleeping and arising, being bled and arising, and having sexual intercourse and arising immediately afterwards.

Samuel said: "A young man should be bled every thirty days until he is forty years of age. From fort), to sixty, he should be bled every two months, and after sixty he should be bled every three or four months."

Samuel said again: The fourth day of the week, if falling on the fourth, fourteenth, or twenty-fourth day of the month, or if it is a Wednesday after which there are less than four days to the end of the month, is a dangerous day for bleeding. Bleeding on the first and second of every month produces weakness, and on the third day it is dangerous. Bleeding on the eve of any biblical festival produces weakness, and on the eve of Pentecost it is dangerous, in consequence of which the rabbis instituted the precautionary measure, that no man should be bled on the eve of a festival, for fear that he might have it done on the eve of Pentecost.
Again Samuel said: "One who had eaten heartily of wheaten food is not wholly benefited by being bled, but is simply cased for the time being." This means to say, then, that one who has a heavy feeling can ease himself temporarily by being bled after a meal, but is not permanently benefited thereby. After being bled one may drink immediately, but should not eat until the time in which he could walk half a mile had elapsed.
(On a day when nothing profitable had been performed) Rabh used to proclaim (the following simile): If one bled a hundred persons, he earned a Zuz for each; if he cut the hair of a hundred persons, he earned a Zuz for each; but if he trimmed the mustaches of a hundred men, he labored in vain. 1 (There was no charge made for trimming mustaches when done in conjunction with hair-cutting or bleeding.) Said R. Joseph: We learned at the college of R. Huna, that a day on which the disciples did not study was called a mustache-day, and I did not understand the meaning of the term; but now I can see the significance of the expression, for it means to say that the day was lost. "And tie the navel-string." The rabbis taught: "One may tie the navel-string," and R. Jose said: "One may cut it also on the Sabbath and deposit the afterbirth, which is supposed to be a remedy to keep the child warm." R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "Daughters of kings would deposit the afterbirth in a bowl of oil and rich men's daughters would deposit it in carded wool. Poor people would deposit it in feathers." Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abuha, quoting Rabh: "The Halakha according to R. Jose prevails."

R. Na'hman said again, quoting the same authorities: "The rabbis agree with R. Jose, that when two children were born, both attached to one navel-string, the latter may be cut, because otherwise it would be dangerous." He also said again, in the name of the same authorities: All that is contained in the sermon of Ezekiel may be done for a woman lying in on Sabbath, as it is written [Ezekiel xvi. 4]: "And as for thy birth, on the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, nor wast thou washed in water to be cleansed; and thou wast not rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling clothes." "And as for thy birth," from this we may infer, that one may assist in the birth of a child on Sabbath. "Thy navel was not cut," from this we infer, that the navel may be cut on Sabbath. "Nor wast thou washed in water to be cleansed." This teaches us that the child may be washed on Sabbath. "Thou wast not rubbed with salt." From this we know, that a child may be rubbed with salt on Sabbath. "Nor wrapped in swaddling clothes." This teaches us, that we may wrap a child in clothes on the Sabbath.

Footnotes

277:1 A measure of grain spoken of in Hosea iii. 2, and presumably a half of a Kur.

280:1 The discussions concerning the mixed grain and all the other subjects enumerated in the above Mishna appear again in Tract Berachoth, where we shall render them in the course of our work.

281:1 Water was never kept uncovered in the Orient for fear of snakes, and any water that was found uncovered was immediately thrown out.

287:1 This explanation is the one given by the commentary of Tosphath, which seems to us to be more to the point than the one given by Rashi.

CHAPTER XIX.

REGULATIONS ORDAINED BY R. ELIEZER CONCERNING CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH . MISHNA: R. Eliezer saith: If the knife used for circumcision was not brought on the day preceding the Sabbath, one is to bring it publicly on the Sabbath; in times of danger (during persecutions) one may conceal it (about the person) before witnesses. Further, R. Eliezer saith: One may even cut wood to be burnt into charcoal, in order to forge an iron instrument (knife for circumcision). The following rule was laid down by R., Aqiba: All work (necessary in aid of circumcision) which could have been performed on the day before (Sabbath) does not supersede (the observance of) the Sabbath, but such work as could not have been performed on the day before, does supersede (the observance of) the Sabbath.

GEMARA: A question was propounded by the schoolmen: "What does R. Eliezer mean by saying, 'one is to bring it publicly on the Sabbath'? Does she mean to say, that the man thereby demonstrates how dear a commandment (of the Lord) is to him, that he is ready to violate the Sabbath for its sake, or is it rather, because the man would be suspected of carrying a prohibited thing oil the Sabbath, if he did so surreptitiously?" What difference does it make what R. Eliezer meant? The difference is this: "If the man does it in order to allay suspicion, it would be sufficient to have two witnesses see him conceal the knife about his person and then carry it even in times of peace; but if the man does it in order to demonstrate his love of God's commandments, he must carry it publicly even if he have two witnesses." What is the conclusion? It was taught that R. Levi said: "R. Eliezer meant only for the man to demonstrate his veneration of God's commandments." This is supported by a Boraitha, which plainly states, that a man should carry it publicly, and not have it concealed, such are the words of R. Eliezer. Said R. Ashi: All this is unnecessary. Our Mishna plainly teaches us the same, for it says, that only in times of danger the knife should be concealed, and it is easily understood that only in times of danger is this to be done, but not under ordinary circumstances, and for what purpose? Only to show that a commandment should be venerated. It follows, therefrom, that the argument is accepted.

We have learned in another Boraitha: "One is to bring it publicly," and not have it concealed, such are the words of R. Eliezer; and R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Eliezer, that in times of danger the custom was to conceal it about the person before two witnesses. "Further, saith R. Eliezer," etc. The rabbis taught: In the place where R. Eliezer resided, wood was cut and burnt into charcoal, in order to forge an instrument (knife for circumcision) on Sabbath. In the place where R. Jose of Galilee lived, fowls were eaten with milk. R. Itz'hak said: There was a city in Palestine where R. Eliezer's teaching was carried out, and there were no premature deaths in that city; and not only this, but at one time when the government prohibited circumcision in the entire land, that city was not included in the decree.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "Every commandment of the Lord which was received by the children of Israel with joy, for instance circumcision, concerning which it is written [Psalms cxix. 162]: 'I am rejoiced over thy promise, 1 as one that findeth great spoil,' is even now observed with joy; but every commandment which was received with protest, for instance the law of incestuous marriages, concerning which it is written [Numbers xi. 10]: 'And Moses heard the people weep according to their families,' meaning the case (of intermarriage) among the families, is even now observed reluctantly, for there are no marriages celebrated without some discord among the families."

We have learned, that R. Simeon ben Elazar said: "Every commandment for the observance of which the Israelites were ready to lay down their lives, as for that prohibiting idolatry and commanding circumcision, is observed punctually even to this day; but such commandments as they would not sacrifice themselves for are even now lightly regarded, as is the case with the commandment concerning Tephillin." As R. Yanai said: "Tephillin require a clean body, such as Elisha the man of doves possessed." What is meant by a clean body? Abayi said: "A body that emits no odor when clothed with Tephillin," and Rabha said: "A body that will never become drowsy while wearing Tephillin." Why was Elisha called "the man of wings"? It once happened that the government promulgated a decree by which all Israelites who would use Tephillin (phylacteries) were to be decapitated. This Elisha donned his phylacteries and went out into the market. He was seen by a casdor (quæstor), and the latter pursued him. Seeing that he could not escape, Elisha took the phylacteries from his head and carried them in his hand. When questioned by the quæstor what he carried in his hand, he replied: "Wings of doves." When opening his hand, he really found doves' wings, 1 and was therefore called the man of wings ever afterwards.

R. Aba the son of R. Ada said in the name of R. Itz'hak: "It once happened, that having forgotten to bring the knife for circumcision on the day before Sabbath, a man brought it on Sabbath, by way of the roof and private ground, against the will of R. Eliezer." R. Joseph opposed this: "How canst thou say, that this occurred against the will of R. Eliezer? It was R. Eliezer himself who permitted bringing the knife on Sabbath? Thou wouldst infer, then, that bringing the knife by way of private ground, and not publicly, was against his will, because he insists that the knife should be brought publicly through public ground only. In accordance with whose will was it done? If thou wilt say, it was done in accordance with the decree of the rabbis, who prohibit bringing the knife through public ground, and permit it through private ground and roofs, did the rabbis indeed permit this? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that in the same measure as it is not allowed to bring the knife through public ground, it must also not be brought through roofs and private ground?" Therefore R. Ashi supplemented the statement of R. Aba by adding, that the knife was brought against the will of R. Eliezer and his opponents; but in accordance with the decree of R. Simeon, who permits the carrying of everything through private ground and roofs, even if they were not combined by an Erub (in Tract Erubim).

R. Zera once found R. Assi sitting and saying: R. Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of R. Jehudah Hanassi as follows: It once happened that they forgot to bring a knife for circumcision on the eve of Sabbath, so they brought it on Sabbath. This angered the sages very much, for the reason, that the decree of the former sages had been set aside and that they had acted according to the decree of R. Eliezer. Firstly, because R. Eliezer was an adherent of the school of Shamai; and secondly, because where one man is opposed to a number the majority should prevail, and the majority was against R. Eliezer; and R. Osiah answered the sages, who were angered, that the case was not as it appeared to them. "For," said he, "I asked R. Jehudah the circumciser, and he told me, that the knife was brought through an alley which was not combined by an Erub, from one end to the other, but not through public ground."

R. Zera then said to R. Assi: "Does the master hold, that things may be removed in an alley which was not combined by an Erub?" R. Assi answered, that they might. Said R. Zera again: "Did I not ask thee once before and thou gavest me another answer? Was it because thou wast engaged in other matters and this Halakha escaped thee?" and the answer was: "Such was the case."

R. Hyya bar Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: "The rule laid down by R. Eliezer, that for everything pertaining to circumcision the Sabbath may be violated, does not apply also to other duties of the day which should happen to fall on the Sabbath; because, where the preparations necessary for the bringing of the two loaves on Pentecost are concerned, R. Eliezer permitted them to be made on Sabbath merely through deduction by analogy, although this was also a duty of the day based on a biblical ordinance." Which other duties of the day does R. Johanan intend to except from this rule? We know, that in preparing the booth, the palm-branch, and all their accessories (for the feast of Booths) the Sabbath may be violated. The same is the case with Lulab, with Matza, and with Shofar, as it is stated in other Boraithas. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. Said R. Ada bar Ahabha: "R. Johanan intended to except Tzitzith (show-threads) for a garment and a Mezuzah (door-post inscription) for a house (although both of these are duties of the day, for if a man wear a garment he must have Tzitzith, and if he enter a house he must have a Mezuzah.)" This we have also learned in a Boraitha: "They all agree (even R. Eliezer), that if one made a show-thread for his garment, or a Mezuzah for his door, on the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering." Why so? Said R. Joseph: "Because no specified time is set for the accomplishment of these duties." Said Abayi to him: "On the contrary, just because no specified time was set for the accomplishment of that duty, every moment is the time for performing it (so, if he have the garment on Sabbath, or enter the house On that day, he should perform those duties, and hence it must be considered a duty of the day)." Therefore said R. Na'hman in the name of R. Itz'hak, and according to others R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua The reason is, because one is enabled to abandon these things for the time being (and hence the duty does not devolve upon him for that day)."

From what we have learned above, we see, that for the circumcision itself and all its necessary accessories the Sabbath may be violated, according to the dictum of R. Eliezer. Whence does he deduce this? This is the reasoning of R. Eliezer: It is written [Leviticus xii. 3]: "And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." Thus, as it says distinctly the eighth day, it makes no difference what (Jay the eighth falls on, whether it be Sabbath or not. Let us see: The rabbis and R. Eliezer differ only as far as the preparations for circumcision on the Sabbath are concerned, but not as to the circumcision itself. If, then, they do not regard the text quoted as does R. Eliezer, they should not even permit the violation of the Sabbath on account of circumcision itself. What source do they base their permission on? Said Ula, and also R. Itz'hak: "This is traditional."

An objection was raised: We have learned that the Sabbath may be violated in order to save life. Whence do we know this? Said R. Elazar ben Azariah: "Why! if it be permitted when circumcision is concerned to violate the Sabbath, where but one of the many members of the body is concerned, it should certainly be permitted in so much greater a degree when the whole body is to be saved. If thou sayest, then, that the permission to perform circumcision on the Sabbath is only traditional, how is it possible that thou shouldst derive an a fortiori assumption from a traditional institution?" Therefore R. Johanan saith, that the permission to perform the rite of circumcision on Sabbath is not based upon tradition, but is derived from the word "day," as the verse quoted above reads: "And on the eighth day," etc.; whereas it could read simply, "And on the eighth"; for in the preceding verse we read "seven days," etc.

Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: "The word 'day,' however, is also necessary, that we may know that the rite must be performed during the day and not at night!" This can be inferred from another passage [Genesis xvii. 12], where it expressly says: "And at eight days old shall every man-child in your generations be circumcised," etc.
R. A'ha bar Jacob said: As far as the rite of circumcision itself is concerned, the rabbis also hold that the permission to perform it is based on the passage quoted, "and on the eighth day"; but as for the preparations necessary for circumcision, they claim to find no justification for violating the Sabbath on that account. But it is absolutely necessary that "the eighth" be mentioned, for otherwise how would we know that the rite should not be performed on the seventh? That is also definitely settled by the other passage, as stated above: "And at eight days old," etc. Still, both passages are necessary, in order to prove that the eighth day is the day for circumcision; because, if it did not state expressly "on the eighth day," it might be presumed that the seventh day would do, and if it did not state "at eight days old," it might be presumed that after the child is eight days old any other later day, e.g., the ninth, would do. Hence R. Johanan's explanation is the most acceptable; and we have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Johanan's explanation, and not of that of R. A'ha bar Jacob, as follows: "On the eighth day shall he be circumcised, even though it be Sabbath." How, then, is it possible to keep the commandment in Exodus xxxi. 14? "And ye shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death." This refers to other labor, but not to that of circumcision. How, then, do we know that circumcision is not included in the prohibited labor, and that the eighth day does not refer to all other days except Sabbath? To this end it reads "the eighth day," and "day" means, even on Sabbath.

The rabbis taught: Although it is written [Deut. xxiv. 8]: "Take heed in the plague of leprosy," which signifies, that the leprous spot must not be cut; but if the white spot (the symptom of leprosy) show itself on the member to be circumcised, it may be cut off, whether the member be circumcised at the prescribed time or afterwards.

A biblical festival must not be violated on account of circumcision, unless it happen to be the eighth day (precisely the prescribed time). Whence do we adduce these two ordinances? From the teaching of the rabbis, as follows: The first one is based on the verse [Leviticus xii. 3]: "And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." The order is imperative, regardless of whether the member be leprous or not. Whence do we know this? Perhaps it means to say, that only the healthy flesh of the foreskin be circumcised? Nay; it could say merely the foreskin, but it says expressly the flesh of the foreskin, meaning that even if the flesh be leprous it should also be circumcised. What need is there of a special verse for this purpose? During circumcision no intention to cut leprous flesh exists; hence, if it be done, it is done unintentionally, and an unintentional act does not involve culpability? Said Abayi: "The verse is used here to counteract the opinion of R. Jehudah, who holds, that an act committed unintentionally also involves culpability." Rabha said: "The verse must be used, even if the opinion of R. Simeon be adhered to, who holds, that an act committed unintentionally does not involve culpability. For in this case it is different; the act committed here is like the one where a man would behead another and still claim no intention to kill him (and when circumcising the flesh of the foreskin, if there be a leprous sore, one cannot help but cut it)This, even R. Simeon admits, would involve culpability, were it not for that exonerating verse." Does Rabha alone hold thus? Have we not learned elsewhere that Abayi and Rabha both agree, that R. Simeon declares even an unintentional act, which is, however, like the case of one beheading another without the intention to kill him, to be prohibited? After Abayi had heard Rabha's explanation, he accepted it.

The second ordinance mentioned is, according to Rabha, based upon the verse [Exodus xii. 16]: "No manner of work shall be done on them, save what is eaten by every man; that only may be prepared by you." "That" stands for circumcision only in its prescribed time, but not for the preparation for it and "only" stands as a prohibition not to perform the rite unless it be the prescribed time. R. Ashi, however, said: "No special verse is needed for this, for a festival is referred to [in Leviticus xxiii. 32] as "a sabbath of rest shall it be unto you." Hence it is a positive commandment, and the verse stated (immediately before this) is a negative commandment; thus a festival is covered by both a positive and negative commandment, while circumcision is covered by a positive commandment only, and one positive commandment cannot supersede a joint positive and negative commandment. "A rule was laid down by R. Aqiba." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "The Halakha according to R. Aqiba prevails." We have learned also in the matter of Passover sacrifices to the same effect, that every act of labor that can be performed on the day before Sabbath must not supersede the (due observance of) Sabbath, but the killing of the sacrifice, which cannot be done on the day before Sabbath, does supersede (the due observance of) Sabbath; and R. Jehudah declared also, in the name of Rabh, that the Halakha according to R. Aqiba prevails. It is necessary that he should so instruct us at both times, because, if he instructed only as concerns circumcision, we might assume that where sacrifices for the Passover are concerned, the preparations which could have been made on the day before Sabbath, but were not, would supersede the due observance of the Sabbath; because failure to bring that sacrifice would involve the punishment of Karath (being cut off), while failure in circumcision would not involve Karath, if not performed at the right time; and, on the other hand, had he instructed us only as concerns sacrifices for the Passover, we might assume that the Sabbath could be violated if the acts necessary for circumcision which could have been performed on the day before, were not; for the reason, that the covenant regarding circumcision is mentioned thirteen times in the Thora, and is in consequence regarded as a thirteenfold commandment, which must under all circumstances be observed. Hence the necessity for the twofold instruction.

MISHNA: One may perform everything necessary for circumcision on the Sabbath, as circumcising, tearing open, sucking out the blood, applying a plaster or caraway seed. If the latter had not been ground before the Sabbath, one may masticate it with the teeth and then apply it. If one had not mixed wine with oil before the Sabbath, he may apply each separately. One must not prepare an actual bandage (on the Sabbath), but may apply an old piece of linen; and if such had not been prepared before the Sabbath, the circumciser may bring it with him tied around his finger and even from another court (yard).

GEMARA: Let us see: The Mishna enumerates all the acts necessary for the performance of the rite of circumcision; why, then, does it commence by saying, "everything necessary" for circumcision, and then proceed to detail "everything"? What act is there that has not been enumerated? The Mishna means to include what was taught us by the rabbis, as follows: "The circumciser, while engaged in finishing the circumcision, if noticing that excrescences still remain on the gland, whether they are of a nature which make the circumcision invalid or such as do not make it invalid, may remove them.

But if he had already finished (and put up his instruments), if excrescences which make the circumcision invalid remain, he may remove them; but if they do not make the circumcision invalid, he must not remove them." (Hence by stating "everything that is necessary," etc., the Mishna means to include, that it is permitted even to remove excrescences which do not make the circumcision invalid, provided the operator had not already finished and put up his instruments.) Who is the Tana who holds, that if the circumciser had already finished he must not return and remove the excrescences?

Said Rabha bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, it was R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah, as we have learned in a Boraitha: "If the fourteenth of Nissan fall on a Sabbath, the animal used for the Passover sacrifice may be skinned only as far as the breast, so saith R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah; but the sages say, that the whole animal may be skinned." (Now, we see that R. Ishmael holds, that after the work had been completed as far as was necessary no more may be done; hence he is the one who says, that the circumciser must not return to remove the excrescences.) This is not conclusive evidence!

It may be that R. Ishmael in the case of the sacrifice holds, that because it is not necessary that the commandment be beautified. 1 But in the case of circumcision, where the beautifying of the commandment is necessary (as is taught in Tract Sakkah), we might say, that R. Ishmael is of a different opinion; therefore the sages of Neherdai say, that the Tanas who hold, that after having finished the circumcision the operator must not commence anew, are in reality the rabbis who differ with R. Jose in Tract Menachoth concerning the law of the showbreads. 2 The rabbis taught: "If excrescences remain on the gland after circumcision, and are such as make the circumcision invalid, they must be removed; and failure to do so involves the punishment of Karath." Who becomes liable to be punished by Karath?

Said R. Kahana: "The circumciser." (If he performed the circumcision on Sabbath and did not finish it, he simply made a wound and did not perform a commandment; hence he becomes amenable to Karath. R. Papa opposed this: "The circumciser might say, 'I have performed one half of a commandment; come ye and complete the other half. Why should I be punished by Karath?' Therefore if the circumcision was performed on an adult who, excrescences which make it invalid having remained, will not permit them to be removed, he becomes amenable to Karath." This was opposed by R. Ashi: "As for an adult, what news does that impart to us? It is expressly stated [Genesis xvii. 14]: 'And any uncircumcised male, who circumciseth not the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people'?

Therefore he says nay; it really refers to the circumciser, and only then if he came late on Sabbath, near twilight, and was told that it would be impossible to finish the operation before night, but persisted in performing it. If in consequence he left excrescences which make the circumcision invalid, he simply made a wound without performing a commandment, and thus he becomes amenable to Karath." "Sucking out the blood." R. Papa said: "The circumciser who does not suck out the wound places the child in danger, and should be discharged from office." Is this not self-evident?

It certainly must be dangerous not to do this, or the Sabbath would not be violated in order to perform that duty! We might assume, that the blood having already come to the surface it would run out of itself, and hence by sucking it out the Sabbath is not violated; hence we are given to understand that this is not so: the blood is moved only by the suction, and the Sabbath is violated; but failure to do this would involve danger for the child and hence it is permitted, and is regarded the same as applying a plaster or caraway seeds (mentioned further on in the Mishna), the omission of which would also involve danger to the child. "Applying a plaster or caraway seeds." Abayi said: "My mother told me, that the most effective plaster for all ills is made of seven different kinds of fat and one kind of wax; and Rabba said: "The best plaster for all ills is one made of wax and resin." Rabha stated this publicly in a lecture in the city of Mehuzza, and two brothers the sons of Minyumi, who were physicians, tore their clothes in anger; for they had known of it and made capital out of the secret, until Rabha came and revealed it. Said Rabha to them: "I will tell you of something that I shall not proclaim publicly, and that is, Samuel said, that one who washes his face and does not dry it thoroughly, becomes afflicted with scabs, and the remedy for such is the fluid extract of mangold." "If the latter (caraway seeds) had not been ground before the Sabbath," etc. The rabbis taught: "In preparing for circumcision, such things as must not be done on Sabbath, may be done on a festival. One may grind the seeds and mix wine with oil." Asked Abayi of R. Joseph: Why may the caraway seeds be ground on a festival? because they may be utilized for cooking: then why should it not be permitted to mix wine with oil on Sabbath? It may be utilized for a sick person who is not dangerously ill. As we have learned in a Boraitha: "Wine and oil must not be mixed for a sick person on the Sabbath," but R. Simeon ben Elazar in the name of R. Meir said, that it may be. Said R. Simeon ben Elazar: It once happened, that R. Meir was sick with stomach trouble, and we wanted to mix wine with oil for him (on the Sabbath), but he would not permit us to do this. So we asked him whether he wished his own words to be made void during his lifetime, and he answered: "Nay; it is allowed to mix wine with oil on Sabbath, but I cannot bring it over me to act contrary to the decree of my colleagues."

Thus we see, that it is at all events allowed to mix wine with oil on the Sabbath. Why, then, does the Mishna say, that if this was not done on the day before the Sabbath, each should be applied separately? The difference lies therein, that when giving it to a sick person, it is merely mixed, but when used for a balm (at circumcision) it must be thoroughly stirred and requires a good deal of labor. Let it be given (applied) just mixed. That is just what the Mishna prescribes, each to be applied separately; i.e., it should not be stirred.

Abayi said: "My mother told me, that if a child appears red all over it is a sign that the circulation is imperfect, and hence circumcision should be postponed until the circulation is perfect. If a child has a greenish cast it is a sign that the blood is impoverished, and circumcision should then be postponed until the blood is richer." This we have also learned in a Boraitha, as follows: "R. Nathan said: 'I once went to a city by the sea, and there met a woman whose first and second child both died in consequence of circumcision. The third child she brought to me, and I noticed that it was quite red. I told her to wait until the blood had settled and then circumcise it. She did so and then circumcised it, and the child lived. The child was then named after me, Nathan the Babylonian. At another time I came to the country of Cappadocia, and a woman came to me telling me that she had had two children circumcised, both of whom had died in consequence of circumcision. The third she brought to me, and I noticed that it had a greenish cast. I also noticed, that if it were circumcised no blood would flow; so I told her to wait until the circulation of the blood was in order. She did so, and the child was circumcised, and lived. She named it also after me, and called it Nathan the Babylonian.'"

MISHNA: One may bathe the child both before the circumcision as well as after (on Sabbath), by sprinkling water over it with the hand, but not by pouring water over it from a vessel. R. Eliezer ben Azariah says: One may bathe a child on the third day (after the circumcision), even if it fall on a Sabbath; for it is written [Genesis xxxiv. 25]: "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore." On account of a doubtful child (a child about which there is a doubt whether it was born in the eighth month of its gestation, and is therefore not expected to live) or an hermaphrodite, the Sabbath (-rest) must not be desecrated. R. Jehudah permits this in the case of an hermaphrodite.

GEMARA: The Mishna commences by saying: "One may bathe the child," and then goes on to say that it may only be sprinkled by hand. That is not bathing! Said Rabha: "The Mishna means to state, that a child may be bathed as usual on the day of circumcision, either before or after the performance of the rite; but on the third day after circumcision, if that day should be a Sabbath, one may only sprinkle the child by hand, and not bathe it in a vessel." R. Elazar ben Azariah, however, said, that even if the third day fall on a Sabbath the child may be bathed as usual, as it is written [Gen. xxxiv. 15]: "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore."

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Elazar, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Elazar ben Azariah. In the West the question was discussed whether R. Elazar ben Azariah meant that the whole body of the child might be bathed, or whether the part circumcised only might be bathed. Said one of the rabbis, whose name was R. Jacob: "It seems to me that the whole body is meant, because if the wound only was meant, wherein does the wound caused by circumcision differ from any other wound? Any wound may be bathed on the Sabbath in water and oil, according to Rabh's opinion." This was opposed by R. Joseph: "Is it immaterial whether the water was warmed on the Sabbath or before the Sabbath?" This was again opposed by R. Dimi: "Whence dost thou know that the Mishna refers to water that was warmed on Sabbath, perhaps they (the sages and R. Elazar) differ even as to water warmed before the Sabbath set in?" Said Abayi: "I was prepared to answer this question myself, but R. Joseph preceded me and said, that of a necessity the water must have been warmed on Sabbath, because the precariousness of the child demanded it."

We were also taught, that when Rabhin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Abuha quoting R. Elazar, and according to another version, in the name of R. Abuha quoting R. Johanan, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Elazar ben Azariah, whether it be with water that was warmed on the Sabbath or before the Sabbath, or whether the whole body or only the circumcised part is concerned, because it would be dangerous not to bathe the child on that day.

It was said above in the name of Rabh, that every wound may be bathed on the Sabbath with water or oil; but Samuel said that water may be poured to one side of the wound and it may run down into the wound. An objection was made: "We have learned, that oil or water must not be put on a piece of cotton to place on a wound?" This is prohibited on account of the necessity to wring the piece of cotton. We have been taught by a Boraitha in accordance with Samuel's opinion; viz.: "Water must not be placed directly on the wound, but near it, that it may run down into the wound."

The rabbis taught: "Dry cotton and dry sponge, but not dry papyrus or dry cloth, may be placed on a wound." This presents a contradiction. Is not dry cotton the same as dry cloth? This is no difficulty. By cloth is meant new cloth, which must not be used, whereas old cloth may be. Said Abayi: "From this we see, that pieces of cloth heal a wound." "On account of a doubtful child or an hermaphrodite," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Leviticus xii. 3], "his foreskin"; so, on account of a foreskin which must be circumcised, the Sabbath may be violated, but on account of one which is doubtful the Sabbath must not be desecrated. Such also is the case with the circumcision of the foreskin of a true male, but not with that of an hermaphrodite. R. Jehudah, however, says, that the Sabbath may be violated on account of an hermaphrodite, and if the latter is not circumcised he becomes amenable to Karath. The Sabbath may also be violated on account of a child who was born at a certain time, but not on account of one who was born at twilight (and it is not known whether it was born on Sabbath or on the following day). It is not allowed to violate the Sabbath on account of a child who was born without a foreskin, because the school of Shamai (only) contends, that even if a child is born without a foreskin, some blood must be drawn in commemoration of the covenant. The school of Hillel, however, says, "That is not necessary." Said R. Simeon ben Elazar: "The school of Hillel and the school of Shamai did not differ as to a child born without a foreskin; both agree that blood must be drawn from it, because the foreskin is not wholly missing, but is merely ingrown. They differ only as regards a proselyte who was born without a foreskin. When seeking conversion, the school of Shamai contends that blood of the covenant must be drawn from his gland, whereas the school of Hillel does not require this to be done.

The Master said: "On account of a doubtful child, the Sabbath must not be desecrated." What does he mean by "doubtful"? He means to say, what we learned from the rabbis; viz.: A child born in the seventh month may have the Sabbath violated for it, but if born in the eighth it must not. If it is doubtful whether it was born in the seventh or in the eighth month, the Sabbath must not be violated on its account. Not only this, but a child born in the eighth month must not even be carried on the Sabbath, because it is like a stone (and cannot live). It is allowed, however, for the mother to stoop down and suckle the child, because it is dangerous for the mother to carry too much milk.

We were taught that Rabh said (referring to a child born without a foreskin): The Halakha prevails according to the unknown Tana, while Samuel said, the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon ben Elazar. R. Ada bar Ahabha had a child that was born without a foreskin; so he carried him to thirteen circumcisers, until the child was maimed and made impotent. Said he: "I deserve this fate, because I did not follow the dictum of Rabh." Said R. Na'hman to him: "Thou hast not only disobeyed Rabh, but also Samuel, for Samuel said, that a child born without a foreskin should be bled only if it was born on a week-day, but not on a Sabbath; and thy child was born on a Sabbath." R. Ada bar Ahabha, however, held, that he had only disobeyed Rabh, because, he was certain that the foreskin of a child is never wholly missing, but is merely ingrown and should be lanced even on Sabbath, as we were taught: Rabba said, that there is fear lest it be an ingrown foreskin; but R. Joseph said, that we were certain that it is so. Said R. Joseph: "Whence do I know this? From the following Boraitha: R. Elazar Hakappar said, that the school of Shamai and Hillel do not differ as to a child that is born without a foreskin. Both agree that the blood of the covenant must be drawn from the gland. The school of Shamai, however, contends that this may be done on the Sabbath, while the other holds that the Sabbath must not be desecrated on that account. If, then, R. Eliezer Hakappar holds, that they differ only as to the desecration of the Sabbath, the first Tana must hold, that both schools agree that the Sabbath may be desecrated on that account, and in consequence must also hold, that the foreskin is not wholly missing but is merely ingrown (hence I am certain that it is so)."
Whence do we know that the first Tana holds, as above, and not that both schools agree to the contrary; viz.: that the Sabbath must not be desecrated? If such would be the case, for what reason would Hakappar tell us that Beth Shamai holds that the Sabbath should be violated? The Halakha would not prevail thus? Nay! Perhaps R. Eliezer means to tell us, principally, that both schools hold, that if a child is born without a foreskin on a week-day he must have his gland lanced (and incidentally mentions that if a difference existed, it was concerning the Sabbath).

R. Assi said: If a child be born of a woman who, after giving birth, must keep the law mentioned in Leviticus xii. 2, the child must be circumcised on the eighth day; but ill a case where the woman need not keep the law mentioned (for instance, if the child was taken out through the sides by means of instruments), or if the woman was a Gentile on the day of giving birth to the child and became a convert to Judaism on the day following (and hence need not observe that law), the child need not be circumcised just on the eighth day (but at any time), as it is written [ibid. ibid.]: "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a male child: then shall she be unclean seven days," etc., etc.; [ibid. 3]: "And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." Said Abayi to him: "What about the generations before the Law was given? The women knew nothing of the law of uncleanness, and still the children had to be circumcised on the eighth day?" Answered R. Assi: "Since the Law was given, a new Halakha has been in force." Nay; this is not so! Have we not learned, that if a child was taken through the side of a woman, or if it had two foreskins, R. Huna and R. Hyya bar Rabh entertained different opinions as to whether it should be circumcised on the Sabbath or not? one claimed that it should, and the other that it should not. Now we see that they differed only as to a desecration of the Sabbath, but nothing is said about the non-necessity of the child's being circumcised on the eighth day? One is dependent upon the other. (He who holds that the Sabbath should be violated, does so because he also holds that the child must be circumcised oil the eighth day; while he who holds that the Sabbath must not be violated, does so because he holds that such a child need not be circumcised on the eighth day.)
We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel said: Every human child that has lived for thirty days cannot be called a miscarriage, as is written [Numbers xviii. 16]: "And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem"; and any young of an animal that has attained the age of eight days, cannot be called a miscarriage, as it is written [Leviticus xxii. 27]: "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, then shall it remain seven days by its mother; and from the eighth day and henceforth shall it be favorably received," etc. And how is it, if the child has not yet attained the age of thirty days, is it still a doubtful child? How then is it allowed to circumcise any child on the Sabbath? (perhaps it is a miscarriage, and in that event it would be wrongful to inflict a wound in vain). Said R. Ada bar Ahabha: "We may do so at all events. If it is a regularly born child, the commandment is fulfilled; and if not, no wound is inflicted, but merely a piece of flesh is cut."

Now, then, we have learned in the above Boraitha, that if it be doubtful whether the child was born in the eighth or in the seventh month the Sabbath must not be violated on its account. Why should this be so? Let it be circumcised at all events. If then it proves to be a regularly born child, it was right to circumcise it; and if not, no labor was performed, but merely an incision in the flesh was made. Said Mar the son of Rabhina: "I and R. Nehumi bar Zacharias have explained it thus: 'The child should be circumcised, but the injunction of the above Boraitha not to violate the Sabbath refers to the preparations which are necessary for circumcision, and this is in accordance with the decree of R. Eliezer.'"

The schoolmen propounded a question: Do the rabbis differ with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, or do they not? If they do, does the Halakha remain according to R. Simeon, or not? Come and hear: R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon ben Gamaliel. Now if he says that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, there must be some who differ with R. Simeon.
Abayi said: "If a child was killed by accident, either through falling off a roof or through being killed by a lion before it had lived thirty days, all agree, that it must be presumed that it was a regularly born child. A point of difference arises concerning a child that had lived less than thirty days and during its lifetime was very weak and merely breathing. Some say that it was a miscarriage and others that it was a regularly born child." What difference does it make? It makes a difference where the levirate marriage 1 is concerned. (If the child is presumed to be a regularly born child, it exempts a man from the levirate marriage; but if it is presumed to be a miscarriage, it does not exempt a man.)

Let us see! It is said above, that if the child die by accident, all agree, that it is a regularly born child; yet we know that it happened to R. Papa, and R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua, who were the guests of R. Idi bar Abin, that the latter prepared for them a calf, which was the third in birth of its mother, in the seventh day of its life, and they said to him: "If ye had waited to kill this calf until evening we would eat of it (because it would then have been in its eighth day); but now we will not eat of it." Hence we see, that although this was a healthy calf and met its death violently, they regarded it as doubtful whether it was a miscarriage or not. Hence say, rather, that on the contrary, if the child was weak and barely breathing prior to its death, all agree, that it must be presumed to be a miscarriage; but they differ as to a child which had met its death by accident. Some say, that it must be regarded as a regularly born child, and others, that it was a miscarriage.
The son of R. Dimi bar Joseph had a child born to him which died inside of thirty days, so he went into mourning for it. Said his father to him: "What wouldst thou? Eat delicacies 1 (that thou sittest in mourning)?" And he answered: "I am positive that the child was a regularly born child." "R. Jehudah permits this in the case of an hermaphrodite." Said R. Shezbi in the name of R. Hisda: "Not in every case does R. Jehudah hold an hermaphrodite to be a male; for if we would say that in all cases he considers him to be a male, the hermaphrodite would come under the law of estimations [Leviticus xxvii. 2-15], and in the Tract Erachim (estimations) we may learn, that according to R. Jehudah he is exempt. Why is he considered a male as concerns circumcision? because it is written [Genesis xvii. 10]: "Every man child among you shall be circumcised" (and "every" includes also hermaphrodites).
MISHNA: If one have two children to be circumcised, one after the Sabbath and the other on the Sabbath, and through forgetfulness circumcised the former on the Sabbath, he is culpable. If one of the children, however, was to be circumcised on the day before Sabbath and the other on the Sabbath, and through forgetfulness one had the former circumcised on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declares him liable for a sin-offering and R. Jehoshua declares him free.

GEMARA: R. Huna learns the Mishna literally; in the first case, "he is culpable." R. Jehudah, however, learns to the contrary, that "he is not culpable." R. Huna learns "he is culpable," from what we have learned in a Boraitha; viz.: Said R. Simeon ben Elazar: "R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua do not differ as to the case where a man has two children to be circumcised, one after the Sabbath and the other on the Sabbath, who through forgetfulness circumcised the former on Sabbath. They both declare him culpable. Their point of difference is, if one of the children was to have been circumcised on the day before Sabbath and the other on the Sabbath, and through forgetfulness the former was circumcised on the Sabbath, the former declares him culpable and the latter free. Both of them derived their decrees from the law concerning idolatry (all sin-offerings are based upon the sin-offerings incidental to the laws of idolatry). R. Eliezer holds, that as in idolatry so also it is with the Sabbath. If the commandment is, "Thou shalt not do so," and the man did so, he is liable for a sin-offering; and R. Jehoshua says: "Here it is different. The intention was to fulfil a commandment, and if accidentally it was not done he should be free."

And R. Jehuda learns the Mishna "not culpable," deriving his support from the following Boraitha: R. Meir said: "R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua do not differ as to the case where a man has two children to be circumcised, one before the Sabbath and the other on the Sabbath, and through forgetfulness circumcised the former on Sabbath. They both declare him not culpable. Their point of difference is, if one of the children was to be circumcised on the day after Sabbath and the other on Sabbath, and through forgetfulness the former was circumcised on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declares him culpable and R. Jehoshua declares him free. Both of them derived their decrees from the law concerning idolatry, as is said above."
MISHNA: A child may be (legally) circumcised on the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth day (after its birth), but neither before nor after. How so? Usually (it may be circumcised) on the eighth; one born at (the evening) twilight, on the ninth; one born at (the evening) twilight before Sabbath, on the tenth; if a feast day follows that Sabbath (it may be circumcised) on the eleventh; if both New Year feast-days follow that Sabbath, on the twelfth. A sick child must not be circumcised until it is thoroughly recovered.

GEMARA: Said Samuel: "After the fever has left the child, seven days should be allowed to elapse until the child get well, before the circumcision is performed." The schoolmen propounded a question: Must every day be of twenty-four hours' duration, or may the last of the seven days be counted if only a few hours have passed? Come and hear: Luda taught, the last day of the child's convalescence is more important than the day of its birth; for a child may be circumcised on the eighth day after its birth, even if only one hour of that day be passed; but the seventh day of its convalescence after a sickness must be one of fully twenty-four hours, before circumcision is permitted.

MISHNA: The following principal excrescences (knobs) make the circumcision invalid: Flesh that covers the larger part of the gland (of the organ). A man so circumcised must not (if he be a priest) partake of Terumah (heave-offerings). If the child be very fleshy and (such imperfect circumcision) is caused thereby, the knobs must, for appearances' sake, be cut away. One who was circumcised without having had the skin torn open, is considered as uncircumcised.

GEMARA: R. Abbina in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Aba, quoting Rabh, said: "By stating 'flesh, that covers the larger part of the gland,' the Mishna means to say the 'upper part of the gland.'" "If the child be very fleshy." We have learned in a Boraitha: "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: 'If the gland of the child be surrounded by a fleshy coating, and when erect the gland appears to be circumcised, the coating need not be cut away; but if it does not appear to be circumcised, the coating should be cut away.' "One who was circumcised without having had the skin torn open," etc. The rabbis taught: The benediction to be pronounced by the circumciser (before performing the rite) should be as follows: "Praised art Thou, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us the circumcision." The father of the child should pronounce the following benediction (in the interval between the circumcision and the tearing open of the skin): "Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to enter the child into the covenant of Abraham our father." The bystanders must respond: "As he hath been entered into the covenant, so may he also be entered into the Law, into the bridal canopy, and into good deeds." The man who makes the benediction (over the goblet of wine) should say as follows: "Blessed art Thou, etc., who hast sanctified Thy favored one (meaning the patriarch Isaac, see Genesis xxii. 2) even in the womb (as it is written in Genesis xvii. 19: 'And I will establish my covenant with him'), who hath made a sign in his body, and hath scaled his children with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore as a reward for this we pray Thee, Thou living God, to command that our children be saved from the grave because of the covenant that is scaled in our flesh. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hast made the covenant." One who circumcises proselytes must say: "Blessed art Thou, etc., and hast commanded us the circumcision." The one who pronounces the benediction (over the goblet) must say: "Blessed art Thou, etc., and hast commanded us to circumcise the proselytes, and to draw from them blood of the covenant. For were it not for the blood of the covenant, heavens and earth would not exist, as it is written [Jeremiah xxxiii. 25]: 'If not my covenant by day and night, I would not have instituted the ordinances of heaven and earth.' Blessed be Thou, O Lord, who didst make the covenant." One who circumcises slaves pronounces the same prayer as is used for proselytes, inserting "slaves" where "proselytes" is used; and the one making the benediction does likewise.

Footnotes

289:1 Promise stands for the Hebrew "Imrothecho," literally "thy word," and the word here referred to signifies the first commandment given to Abraham, which was the commandment of circumcision. Hence the deduction, that the commandment of circumcision was received with joy.—Rashi.

290:1 This seeming miracle is explained at length in our History of Amulets, pp. 24-26, and the gist of the explanation is as follows: The government referred to above and in power at the time of Elisha was Greek and not Roman, a fact demonstrated by the late Dr. Krochmal in his "Eyon tephilah." The Greeks, being at that time at war with the Egyptians, sought to destroy any ties of affinity existing between the Jews and the Egyptians, and to that end promulgated the decree prohibiting the wearing of Tephillin by the Jews, for those Tephillin bore close resemblance to the totaphoth (amulets) worn by the Egyptians. As a matter of fact, all amulets worn at that time by the different nations bore a symbol of their gods or idols, and was also a mark of nationality; hence the government in power desired that all its vassals wear its own amulets. The Talmud elsewhere relates that the Samaritans worshipped as their idol the form of a dove, for on Mount Gerizim, which is in Samaritan territory, an idol of that kind was found, which had been worshipped by them. Elisha knew of this, and, mindful of the fact that the Greeks were at peace with the Samaritans, carried along with him amulets in the form of doves' wings (which was the amulet of the Samaritans) in order to substitute them for his Tephillin, whenever the necessity for the deception arose. When closely pressed by the quæstor, and not considering the commandment of wearing Tephillin sufficiently important to sacrifice his life on their account, he, while endeavoring to escape, changed his Tephillin for the doves' wings, to which the quæstor could raise no objection.

297:1 The Hebrew word "Veanvehu" is interpreted by the Talmud to signify "and I will beautify him," while in the translation of the Bible, by I. Leeser, it is translated, "I will sing his praise," and the reference made to the verse by the Talmud accepts the term in its Talmudical sense.

297:2 This will he explained in the Tract Menachoth.

304:1 Concerning the law of levirate marriage, see Deut. xxv. 5-11.

305:1 It is a custom amongst Jews, that the first meal eaten by a mourner after the burial of his dead must be given him by friends or strangers, and usually some delicacy is brought to him.

CHAPTER XX.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTS OF LABOR WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED DIFFERENTLY ON A SABBATH AND ON A FESTIVAL . MISHNA: R. Eliezer says: One may stretch a wine-filter (of cloth) over a vessel on a feast-day, and on the Sabbath one may pour wine into it, if it was already fastened (to the vessel). The sages say: One must not stretch it (over a vessel) on a feast-day, and on Sabbath one must not pour (wine) into it, but the latter act is allowed on a feast-day.

GEMARA: How is it possible that R. Eliezer should decide, that one may stretch a wine-filter, etc., on a festival, if he does not even allow a window-blind to be added to a temporary tent, as is explained by Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan [Chapter XVII., p. 272]. In that case he does not even allow the addition of a blind, and here he permits the stretching of a filter to commence with? R. Eliezer holds as R. Jehudah, as we have learned in a Boraitha: There is no difference between the Sabbath and the festival, except that the preparation of food is permitted on the latter. R. Jehudah, however, even permits the arrangements for the preparation of food. What arrangements for the preparation of food are we aware of, that R. Jehudah permits? Such as cannot be made at any time before the festival; but did we hear of his permitting the arrangements for the preparation of food that could be made before the festival, to be made on the feast-day? In this respect R. Eliezer is more lenient than R. Jehudah, for he permits all arrangements for the preparation of food to be made on the festival. "The sages say: One must not stretch it," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: What if a man did stretch the filter over a vessel on a festival? Is he culpable? Said Abayi: "This is only a rabbinical prohibition, that one should not do on a festival such things as one does on a week-day."

Abayi collected all the rabbinical prohibitions to be found in the Boraithas, and taught as follows. A leather bag, a wine-filter, a baldachin, and a folding-chair as used in the city of Galin, must not be spread; but it one does so, he is not culpable. Tents, however, which are permanent, must not be put up, and if a man does this he is culpable. One way, however, set up an ordinary bed, a chair, a tripod, and a stool with impunity. "One must not pour wine into it," etc. The schoolmen asked: "What if a man did pour wine into it? Is he culpable?" Said R. Kahana: "Yea; he is liable to bring a sin-offering." R. Shesheth opposed this: "Have ye ever seen that R. Eliezer should permit a certain thing to be done to commence with, which the rabbis hold would make one liable for a sin-offering?" R. Joseph interposed: "Why not? Have we not learned (p. 114), in the case of a woman who went out with a golden ornament, that R. Meir held her liable for a sin-offering and R. Eliezer permitted her to go out with it to commence with?" Said Abayi to him: "Dost thou think that R. Eliezer opposes R. Meir in the above passage? Nay; he merely opposes the sages, who said that a woman must not go out wearing the ornament, but if she do so, she is not culpable; whereas he says, that she may do so to commence with."

How should a man be warned not to pour wine into the filter? (i.e., in what category of labor is that act to be classed, so that the man can be warned that he is performing a certain prohibited principal act of labor? 1). Rabba said: "He is to be warned against fruit-cleaning." R. Zera said: "Against sifting." Said Rabba: "It seems to me that my decision is more in conformity with reason, for as in fruit-cleaning the good fruit is separated from the bad, so it is also in this case: he separates the clean wine from the lees." Said R. Zera: "It seems to me that my decision is more in conformity with reason, because as in sifting the good falls to the bottom and the bad remains in the sieve, so it is also in this case: the good wine falls into the vessel, while the lees remain in the filter."

Rami the son of Ezekiel taught: "A folded garment should not be spread on poles to serve as a sun-shade; but if a man do. this, he is free. If, however, a string or a hanger was already attached to the garment with which it could be fastened to the poles, this may be done to commence with."

R. Kahana asked of Rabh: "What is the law regarding a baldachin?" and he answered: "Even a bed is not permitted."

R. Kahana then inquired: "What is the law regarding a bed?" and Rabh answered: "Even a baldachin is allowed." "What is the law regarding a bed and a baldachin?" "A bed is allowed but a baldachin is not allowed." In spite of this, there is no difficulty. In not permitting even a bed, Rabh had reference to a folding-bed as used by the Karmanites, and where he said, "Even a baldachin is allowed," he had reference to a baldachin as described by Rami bar Ezekiel; i.e., one which had strings attached to it. In saying, "A bed is allowed and a baldachin is not allowed," he meant to say, that an ordinary bed, such as is generally used, may be set up, but a baldachin, that had no strings or hangers attached, must not be set up. Said R. Joseph: "I have seen the baldachins in the house of R. Huna; at night (on Sabbath eve) they were folded up and in the morning they were all set up."

Rami bar Ezekiel sent to R. Huna and asked him to impart to him some of the good sayings of Rabh, two concerning the Sabbath and one concerning the Law. So R. Huna sent him the following sayings: Concerning what we have learned in a Boraitha, that a leather-bag which had strings already attached may be spread on poles on Sabbath, Rabh said, that this may be done jointly by two men but not by one. 1 Said Abayi: "A baldachin which must not be set up must not even be set up by the joint efforts of ten men." What was the other good saying of Rabh concerning Sabbath? Concerning what we have learned in a Boraitha, that if an iron stove had one leg missing it may be handled, but if two legs were missing it must not be handled, Rabh said, that it must not be handled even if one leg was missing, as a precaution lest one might be tempted to fasten the missing leg, and that would constitute building, What was the good saying of Rabh concerning the Law? Rabh said: There will be a time when the Law will be forgotten by Israel, as it is written [Deut. xxviii. 59]: "Then will the Lord render wonderful thy plagues," etc., and I could not understand what is meant by "wonderful plagues"; but it is written [Isaiah xxix. 14]: "Therefore, behold, I will do yet farther a marvellous work, doing wonder on wonder, so that the wisdom of their wise men shall be lost, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."

The rabbis taught: When our teachers went into the vineyard at Jamnia, they said that the Law would be forgotten by Israel, as it is written [Amos viii. 11]: "Behold, days are coming, saith the Lord Eternal, when I will send a famine in the land, not a famine for bread, nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the Lord"; and [ibid. 12]: "And they will wander about from sea to sea, and from the north even to the cast, they will roam about to seek the word of the Lord; but they shall not find it." By the word of the Lord is meant: Halakha, the end of exile (i.e., the coming of the Messiah), and also the prophecies. 1 In another Boraitha we have learned: R. Simeon ben Jo'hai said: "May God forbid that the Law be forgotten by Israel. It is written [Deut. xxxi. 21]: 'For it shall not be forgotten out of the mouth of their seed.' How then can the previous passage, 'And they will roam about to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it,' be verified? It means they shall not find a perfect Halakha (which shall be incontestable), nor a Mishna (which shall be beyond refutation) anywhere on earth."

We have learned in a Boraitha: If thou shouldst live in a generation in which there is much trouble (persecution), go and investigate amongst the judges of Israel; for most of the trouble that happens in this world happens only on account (of the corruption) of the judges, as it is written [Micah iii. 9-11]: "Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob and ye princes of the house of Israel, that abhor justice and make crooked all that is straight. They build up Zion with blood-guiltiness and Jerusalem with wrong; her heads judge for bribes, and her priests teach for reward, and her prophets divine for money, and yet will they lean upon the Lord," etc. They are all wicked, and yet they all lean upon the One who spoke and the world was created; and therefore the Lord will bring upon them three troubles for the three sins of which they were guilty as mentioned above (judging for bribes, teaching for reward, and divining for money), as it is written [ibid. 12]: "Therefore for your sake shall Zion be ploughed up as a field, and Jerusalem shall become ruinous heaps, and the mount of the house, forest-covered high-places"; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will not permit his Shekhina to rest again amongst Israel until the corrupt judges shall be removed and the guardians of the peace shall be abolished from Israel, as it is written [Isaiah i. 25 and 26]: "And I will turn my hand against thee, and purge away as with lye thy dross, and remove all thy tin. And (then) I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning."

Ula said: "Jerusalem will not be redeemed except through charity (righteousness), as it is written [Isaiah i. 27]: 'Zion shall be redeemed through justice, and her converts through righteousness.'" R. Papa said: When the proud men will be destroyed, then also will the men who slander and cause us to be hated be destroyed, as it is written: "and purge away as with lye thy dross." And when the corrupt judges will be removed, the bailiffs will also become extinct, as it is written [Zephaniah iii. 15]: "The Lord hath removed thy punishment; he hath cleared away thy enemy."

Melai in the name of R. Eliezer ben R. Simeon said: "It is written [Isaiah xiv. 5]: 'Broken hath the Lord the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers.' The staff of the wicked refers to the judges who made of themselves a staff upon which their servants (scribes) should lean (i.e., they gave them all the opportunities to extort money, of which they took a share). The sceptre of rulers refers to the judges who made their relatives rulers."

Mar Zutra said: "The above verse refers to the teachers who turn out ignorant men and allow them licenses to be judges (and through ignorance they were incapable of judging rightfully)."

R. Elazar ben Melai said in the name of Resh Lakish: "It is written [Isaiah lix. 3]: 'For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity: your lips have spoken falsehood, your tongue uttereth deception.' 'Your hands are defiled with blood' refers to the judges, your fingers with iniquity' refers to the scribes of the judges, your lips have spoken falsehood refers to the lawyers, 'and your tongue uttereth deception' refers to the litigants themselves."
R. Melai said again in the name of R. Itz'hak of Magdala: "From the day that Joseph left his brethren, he tasted not wine, as it is written [Genesis xlix. 26]: 'These shall be on the head of Joseph, on the crown of the head of him that was separated 1 from his brothers.'" R. Jose bar Hanina said, that the brothers of Joseph also did not taste wine, because it is written [ibid. xliii. 34]: And they drank, and were merry with him" (because it says "with him," the inference is, that without him they did not drink).

R. Melai said again: "The reward due Aaron for what is written [Exod. iv. 14]: 'And when he seeth, he will be glad in his heart,' was given him in the breastplate of judgment" [see ibid. xxviii. 15].

The inhabitants of the city of Bashkar sent a query to Levi, as follows: "What is the law concerning a baldachin, what is the law concerning flax sown in a vineyard, does it come under the head of Kelaim or not, and what is the law concerning one who dies on a festival?" While the messenger was on his way, Levi died. Said Samuel to R. Menasseh: "If thou wouldst be wise, answer thou these queries." So R. Menasseh answered as follows: "As for a baldachin, we have investigated on all sides and found no permission (for setting it up). As for flax sown in a vineyard, it constitutes a case of Kelaim. As for a man that had died on a festival, the corpse should be kept until after the second day of the festival, and it should not be interred, neither by Israelites nor by Gentiles." This is not so! Rami bar Ezekiel found permission for a baldachin as previously said! R. Tarphon decided that flax sown in a vineyard does not constitute Kelaim, and Rabha decreed, that a corpse may be interred on the first day of a festival by Gentiles and on the second day even by Jews? However, because the men of Bashkar were ignorant, R. Menasseh gave them the stricter decrees, lest they take advantage of the more lenient.
R. Abin bar R. Huna said in the name of R. Hama bar Gurya: "A man can wrap himself in the canopy that has not been fastened to the poles, together with its fringes, and go out into public ground with impunity." In what respect does this decision differ from that of R. Huna, who said in the name of Rabh, that one who went out into public ground wearing a Talith (toga) without Tzitzith (show-threads) is culpable and liable for a sin-offering? In the case of a Talith, the showthreads, being the most important part of that garment, are valuable, and without them the Talith is simply a burden; whereas the fringes of a canopy are not an essential part of the canopy, and having used the latter for a garment it may be worn even with fringes.

Rabba bar R. Huna said: "A man may with cunning stretch a wine-filter over a vessel and say, that he intends to use it as a receptacle for pomegranates, but when it is already stretched he may filter wine through it." Said R. Ashi: "He may do this only if he had previously placed pomegranates in the filter." In what respect does this decision differ from the following Boraitha: During the intermediate days of a festival (either Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles) a man may brew Leer for consumption on those days but not for use on other days, be it beer made of dates or of barley; and although he have stale beer still on hand, he may with cunning brew new beer and drink it. (Should he have any left over he may keep it for other days; hence we see that it is not necessary to dissemble by doing something else before performing the act really intended.) In the latter case it is not known whether the man have any stale beer on hand or not, and hence it might be presumed that he has none and must brew more; but in the former case, when the wine-filter is stretched and wine is being immediately filtered through it, the presumption would be that it was stretched for that purpose only.

Said the disciples to R. Ashi: "We would call the attention of the master to this young scholar, R. Huna bar Hyvan or Heluvan by name, who takes the clove of garlic and stops up a hole in a wine-barrel with it, saying, that he intends merely to preserve the clove of garlic. He also goes and lies down on a ferry, presumably to sleep; in the meantime he is ferried across the river, and on the other side he watches his fields, saying, however, that he merely intended to sleep." Answered R. Ashi: "Ye speak of cunning (trickery). All the acts mentioned by you are prohibited by rabbinical laws only, and in the case of a scholar, there is no danger that he will commit them publicly (without resorting to cunning)."

MISHNA: One may pour water on yeast in order to thin the latter; and one may filter wine through a cloth or an Egyptian wine-basket. One may put a beaten egg in a sieve. One may also make honey-wine on Sabbath. R. Jehudah says: "On Sabbath this may be done only in a cup, on feast-days even in a lug, (pitcher), and on the intermediate days even in a barrel." R. Zadok says: "At all times it should be made according to the number of guests."

GEMARA: Zera said: "A man may pour clear wine or clear water into a filter with impunity." May clear wine only, and not dimmed wine, be poured into a filter? Have we not learned, that R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "A man may stir up a cask of wine, with the lees, on the Sabbath and pour it through a filter with impunity"? Zera explained the decree of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel to the effect, that the latter spoke of wine that was just being pressed, when it is customary to drink the wine with the lees (hence the wine is not improved, as it can be drunk without filtering). "One may filter wine through a cloth." R. Simi b. Hyya said: "Providing the cloth is not turned into a funnel (that the cloth should not subsequently be wrung)." "An Egyptian wine-basket." Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: "Providing the wine-basket is not lifted above the bottom of the vessel to the height of one span." "One may put a beaten egg in a mustard sieve." R. Jacob Kar'hah explained this as follows: "Because the yolk is used only for coloring; the white of the egg is nevertheless as much an article of food as the yolk (hence no sifting takes place)."

It was taught: Mustard which had been prepared before Sabbath may be ground on the Sabbath, either by hand or with a vessel. Honey may also be placed in the mustard on Sabbath; it must not be thoroughly mixed, however, but merely stirred. Cresses which had been cut up before the Sabbath may be mixed with oil and vinegar on the Sabbath, and one may also add mint; it must not be thoroughly mixed, however, but merely stirred. Garlic which had been ground before the Sabbath may be mixed with broad-beans and peas, but must not be ground together; mint may also be added. Said Abayi: "We see, that mint is good for the spleen." "One may make honey-wine on the Sabbath." The rabbis taught: "One may make honey-wine on the Sabbath, but not an oil-wine salve." The difference between honey-wine and oil-wine salve is that the former is made of honey, wine, and pepper, while the latter is made of old wine, clear water, and aromatic balsam to be used as a lotion after a bath.

Said R. Joseph: "Once I went with Mar Uqba to a bathhouse. When we came out, he gave me a cup of wine which, when drinking, I felt all over from the roots of my hair to the nails of my feet; and had he given me another, I am afraid that the reward due me in the world to come would have been lessened in proportion." Mar Uqba drank this wine every day? He was accustomed to it.

MISHNA: One must not put laserpitium in tepid water for the purpose of softening the former, but one may put it in vinegar. One must not soak bran nor grind it, but may put it in a sieve or in a basket. One must not sift feed-straw through a winnow, nor lay it in a high place so that the chaff fall out, but one may take it up in a winnow and then pour it into the crib.

GEMARA: The schoolmen asked: "What if one did put laserpitium in tepid water?" Said Abayi: "This is only a rabbinical prohibition, that it should not be done as on a weekday."

R. Johanan asked of R. Yanai: "Is it allowed to put laserpitium in cold water (on Sabbath)?" and he answered: "It is not." Said R. Johanan: "We have learned in the Mishna, that it is not allowed to put it in tepid water, but in cold water it should be allowed." Answered R. Yanai: (If thou askest me concerning a Mishna) what difference is there between me and thee? The Mishna is according to the opinion of one man, and the Halakha does not prevail according to his opinion, as we have learned in a Tosephta: Laserpitium must not be put in either cold or tepid water. R. Jose said: "It is not allowed to put it in tepid water, but it may be put in cold water." For what purpose is it used? For a heavy feeling in the chest.

R. Aha bar Joseph had a heavy feeling in the chest, so he came to Mar Uqba, and was told to drink laserpitium to the weight of three shekels in three days. He drank some on Thursday and Friday, and on Sabbath he came to the house of learning to inquire whether he might drink it. He was told, that the disciples of Ada, others say of Mar bar R. Ada, taught, that one may drink, even a Kabh or two Kabhs with impunity. He then said to them: "I am not asking whether I may drink it. That I know is allowed, but I should like to know whether I may put the laserpitium in water in order to drink it. How shall I do?" Said R. Hyya bar Abin to them: "The same thing happened to me, so I went to R. Ada bar Ahabha and asked him, but he did not know; so I asked R. Huna, who said, that Rabh decided that first it should be put in cold water and then it may be put in warm water."

R. A'ha bar Joseph leaned on the shoulders of his nephew, R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak, and went out into the street, and told him, when they came to the house of R. Safra, to lead him in. When they got there, they went in, and R. A'ha asked of R. Safra: "May a shirt that had been laundered too stiffly be rubbed and softened by hand on the Sabbath? Shall we assume, that it is only intended to soften the shirt and is therefore permissible, or that it is intended also to bleach it and is hence prohibited?" R. Safra answered, that it might be done, and asked him: "Why dost thou ask about a shirt, why not ask also about a turban?" "I have already asked concerning a turban of R. Huna, and he said, that it is not permitted." "Why, then, didst thou come to ask about a shirt? Thou couldst have inferred, from the turban, that the other was also not permitted?" Answered R. A'ha: "A turban is bleached by unfolding and rubbing, but a shirt is not."

R. Hisda said: "If a shirt had been hung up to dry by means of a stick drawn through the armholes, it should be taken down from the stick, but the stick should not be taken down alone (because the stick is not a vessel and hence must not be handled)." Said Rabha: "If the stick was one that may be used by a weaver, it may be taken down (because it is regarded as a vessel)."

R. Hisda said again: "A bundle of herbs, if suitable for cattle-food, may be handled on the Sabbath. If not, it must not be handled." Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: "Dried salt meat may be handled on Sabbath (because it can be eaten uncooked), but dried salt fish must not (because it cannot be eaten uncooked)."

R. Hisda said again: "A man who attends school, and has not sufficient bread, should not eat herbs, because it creates hunger. I myself have never eaten herbs, neither when I was poor nor when I was rich. When I was poor I did not want to stimulate my appetite, and when I was rich I rather ate meat and fish in place of herbs." Again he said: "A young pupil who lacks food should not eat a little at a time. He should wait until he can accumulate sufficient for a hearty meal, and then eat. When I was poor I never ate until I could put my hand in the basket and find sufficient to satisfy my hunger."
The same R. Hisda said to his daughters: "Be chaste in the eyes of your husbands. Do not go about eating in the presence of your husbands. Do not eat herbs at night (for fear of bad breath). Do not eat dates at night. Do not drink beer at night, and use not the same toilet that men do. When some one knocks at your door, do not ask 'Who is it?' in the masculine, but in the feminine." "One must not sift feed-straw through a winnow." This Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer ben Jacob said: "A winnow must not be touched at all."

MISHNA: One may clean out (the crib) for the (stalled) ox and throw (the superfluous fodder) over the side, so that it does, not become unclean, so says R. Dosa. The sages declare this to be prohibited. One may remove the fodder in front of one animal and place it before another, on the Sabbath.
GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: Do the sages dissent from the first part of R. Dosa's decree, from the last part, or from both? Come and hear: "We have learned in a Boraitha: 'The sages said: "Neither one nor the other may be thrown over the side."'" Said R. Hisda: "The sages differ with R. Dosa only when the crib was a separate vessel, but if it was part of the stall and fixed to the ground, all agree that it is prohibited to clean it out." "One may remove the fodder from in front of one animal," etc. In one Boraitha we learned, that one may remove the fodder from cattle with healthy snouts and place it before cattle with diseased snouts; and in another Boraitha we learned the contrary, that fodder may be removed from cattle with diseased snouts and placed before cattle with healthy snouts. Said Abayi: "According to both Boraithas, the fodder of an ass may be placed before an ox, but the fodder of an ox must not be placed before an ass. The first Boraitha refers to fodder placed before an ass who does not emit phlegm from the mouth, and which may be placed before a cow who does emit phlegm; and the other Boraitha, which permits the placing of fodder of animals with bad snouts, also refers to an ass, and calls the snout of an ass bad (diseased) because he feeds on all manner of things, like thistles, etc. The cow is referred to as having a healthy snout because she is very particular as to what she feeds on (hence the two Boraithas do not differ)."
MISHNA: Straw on a bed must not be shaken up with the hand, but it may be moved with the body. If it be designed for fodder, or a pillow or cloth lie over it, it may be shaken up by hand. A clothes-press which is kept in the house may be opened, but must not be used for pressing. The clothes-presses of the professional washers must not be touched. R. Jehudah says: "If the press was partly open before the Sabbath, it may be entirely opened and drawn out (others say, the clothes may be drawn out)."

GEMARA: R. Jehudah said: "It is permitted to triturate pepper seed with the handle of a knife one by one, but not two together (on Sabbath)." But Rabha said, that as a man usually triturates pepper in a mortar on a week-day, he may on Sabbath triturate as many together as he chooses with the handle of a knife.

R. Jehudah said again: "(On the Sabbath) a man who bathes should first dry himself standing in the water and then go out; otherwise he carries water into unclaimed ground for four ells." If that is so, what about the man going into the water? By entering he pushes the water forward four ells (into the lake or river) by mere motion? Motion has not been provided for in the prohibitions of unclaimed ground.

Said Abayi, according to another version R. Jehudah: "If a man stepped into loam, he should wipe his feet on the ground and not on a wall." But Rabha said: "Why should he not do that, because it might be presumed that he plasters the wall and is engaged in building,? Nay; this is not ordinary building (but more like field-work). On the contrary: If he wipe his feet on the ground he may perchance smoothen out an incavation, hence he should rather wipe his feet on the wall. For the same reason, he should not wipe his feet on the side of an incavation, lest he smoothen it out."
Rabha said again: "One should not cork a bottle with a piece of cotton or cloth, lest he wring it." R. Kahana said: "The dirt on a garment should be removed by rubbing the cloth on the inside and not on the outside, lest it seem like washing." R. Abuha in the name of R. Elazar, quoting R. Yanai, said: "One may scrape off dirt on an old shoe, but not a new one. With what should it be scraped off? With the back of a knife," said R. Abuha. Said a certain old man to him: "Withdraw thy teaching before that of R. Hyya: One must not scrape off dirt on an old nor on a new shoe. One must also not rub his foot with oil, while it is still in the shoe. He may, however, rub his foot with oil and then put on his shoe or his sandal. He may also anoint his whole body with oil and lie down on a skin, although the skin is benefited by the oil." Said R. Hisda: "Providing the oil dripping from the body on to the skin is only sufficient to polish the skin, but if there is enough to soften the skin one must not lie down on it."

The rabbis taught: A small man should not wear a large shoe (lest it fall off and he be forced to carry it on the Sabbath). He may, however, wear a large shirt (as there is no fear of his taking that off and carrying it). A woman should not go out with a torn shoe on the Sabbath (lest she be laughed at and carry the shoe). She also must not accept Chalitza in such a shoe; but if she did so, the Chalitza is valid. She also should not wear a new shoe, that she had not tried on before the Sabbath (lest it be too large and she take it off and carry it). Such is the explanation of Bar Qappara.

In one Boraitha we have learned, that one may remove the shoe of a statue, while in another we were taught that it must not be removed. This presents no difficulty. The one Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis, who differ with R. Eliezer, while the other is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer; as we have learned in another Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Eliezer, that if the shoe was loose and easily removed it might be taken off.

Footnotes

310:1 See Chapter VII., note to page 138.

311:1 Rashi remarks that, although some explanation for this passage was ventured upon by the Gaonim, still he does not understand it himself, and hence can give no satisfactory explanation.

312:1 Rashi explains the above passage as follows: That by the word of the Lord is meant Halakha, may be derived from the verse [Deut. v. 5], "To announce to you the word of the Lord," which is synonymous with Halakha. As for the end of exile also being part of the word of the Lord, I do not know what verse that can be based on. That by the word of the Lord is also meant the prophecies, can be inferred from the verse [Hosea i. 1]: "The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea."

314:1 "Separated" is expressed by the word Nazir, which means also one who has vowed to drink no wine.

CHAPTER XXI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE POURING OUT OF WINE FROM VESSELS COVERED WITH A STONE (WHICH MUST NOT BE LIFTED), AND THE CLEARING OFF OF CRUMBS, ETC., FROM THE TABLE . MISHNA: One may lift up a (petted) child, that has a stone in its hand, also a basket in which there is a stone; one may also handle unclean Therumah (heave-offerings), together with clean and with ordinary grain. R. Jehudah saith: "One may also take out Therumah from mixed grain in proportion of one to the hundred."

GEMARA: Rabha said: "If a man carried out a child to whose neck a purse of money was fastened, he is culpable of carrying the purse; but if he carried out the corpse of a child which had a purse of money fastened to it, he is free." Why is the man culpable in the first instance, for the carrying of the purse and not for carrying the child? He holds with R. Nathan, who said, that a living thing carries itself. Why not say, that the purse is an accessory to the child? Have we not learned in a Mishna (p. 182), that if a man carried out a person on a litter he is not culpable of carrying even the litter, because it is of no consequence to the person? A litter is regarded as of no consequence to the person, but a purse is not held to be part of a child. Why, in the second instance, is the man not culpable for carrying the corpse of the child? Rabha holds, with R. Simeon, that every labor which is not performed for its own sake does not make a person culpable (and he is not culpable for carrying the purse, because in his sorrow he does not think of the purse that the child was wont to play with).

An objection was made (to Rabba's teaching by virtue of the above Mishna): One may lift up a child with a stone in its hand? The disciples of R. Yanai explained this as follows: "A child is referred to that yearns for its father, and if it were not carried it would become sick." The stone is no hindrance to its being carried. If that is the case, why is a stone mentioned? why not money? Did not Rabha say, that the child may be carried if it have a stone in its hand, but not money? That is simple. If the stone fall to the ground the father will not pick it up, but if money falls he will pick it up. We have been taught by a Boraitha in support of Rabha: If one carry his clothes, folded, on his back, or his sandals or his rings in his hand, he is culpable; if he wear them, however, he is free. If he carry out a man dressed in clothes, sandals, and rings, he is also free; but if he carried the clothes, sandals, or rings alone, he would be culpable. "A basket in which there is a stone," etc. Why should a man not be culpable for carrying it? Is not the basket a basis for a prohibited thing? Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabha: "Here a basket is spoken of which is broken, and where the stone fills in the gap, making the basket whole." "One may also handle unclean heave-offerings." Said R. Hisda: "When may unclean heave-offerings be handled? If the clean heave-offering be at the bottom and the unclean on top, the unclean may be removed; but if the clean be on top, it may be removed, and the unclean must remain untouched." If the unclean be on top, let it be thrown off until the clean is reached! Answered R. Ilai, Rabh said: "Here fruit is spoken of, that would be spoiled by being thrown off."

An objection was made: We have learned in a Boraitha: "Unclean heave-offerings may be handled with clean and with ordinary grain; it makes no difference where it lies: on the top or at the bottom." This is a refutation of R. Hisda? R. Hisda might say, that our Mishna treats of a heave-offering that is needed for food, while the Boraitha treats of a heave-offering when the space it occupies is needed. What impels R. Hisda to explain the Mishna in that manner? Said Rabha: "From the latter part of the Mishna it seems to be in the sense explained by him, for that part of the Mishna says, that if money lie on a bolster, the bolster may be turned so that the money shall fall down; and Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan explained, that such is the case only if the bolster itself be needed; but if the space occupied by the bolster is required, one may lift the bolster, with the money, and deposit it elsewhere. Now, if this part of the Mishna refers to the demand for the object itself, the first part does likewise." "R. Jehudah saith: 'One may take Therumah from mixed grain in proportion of one to the hundred.'" How can this be done? In doing it, one would make a useless thing useful, and that is not permitted? R. Jehudah holds with R. Simeon ben Elazar, who declares, that one may look upon one side of a mixed-grain pile and consider it Therumah, and eat from the other. How can it be said, however, that R. Jehudah holds with R. Simeon ben Elazar, for have we not learned in a Boraitha, that they differ on this question, the former holding that one may take a measure of grain from the pile, of one to the hundred, set it aside as Therumah, and use the remainder, while the other says, that one should look upon one side of it and eat from the other? R. Jehudah is even more lenient; for he permits all of it to be used after a measure had been set aside, while R. Simeon permits only part of it to be used.

MISHNA: If a stone lie at the opening of a barrel, the barrel may be bent over, so that the stone fall down. If the barrel stand amongst other barrels, it may be lifted and then bent over, in order that the stone fall down. If money lie on a bolster, the bolster may be turned, so that the money fall down. If dirt be found on the bolster, it maybe cleaned off with a rag; and if the bolster be of leather, water maybe poured on it until the dirt is removed.
GEMARA: Said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: "The Mishna refers to a case where the stone lying at the opening of the barrel was left there by accident. If it was placed there purposely, the barrel becomes a basis to a prohibited thing and must not be handled." "If the barrel stand amongst other barrels," etc. Who is the Tana who holds, that where there are both a permissible and a prohibited thing we must engage ourselves only with the permissible thing and not with the prohibited? Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "That is R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, who said in Tract Betza, that if the waste was in a larger quantity than the eatable portion, the eatable portion might be taken, but the waste must not be touched. In the case of the barrel, the useful portion is certainly in a larger quantity than the useless (why, then, should he not remove the stone?). If a man should wish to remove the wine, it would necessitate his lifting the barrel at all events; with the barrel the stone would also be lifted, and in that case the useless would surpass in quantity the useful."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said: "If a barrel stood in a cellar amongst other barrels, or among glassware (and there is danger that if the barrel is lifted and bent over the stone covering it will fall upon another barrel, or upon some of the glassware and break it), it may be lifted, carried to another place, bent over so that the stone roll off, its contents removed to the quantity required, and returned to its former place." "If money lie on a bolster," etc. Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: "The Mishna here refers to a case where the money was accidentally left on the bolster; but if it is laid there on purpose, the bolster becomes a basis to a prohibited thing and must not be handled."

Hyya the son of Rabh of Diphti taught the same as Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, viz. (page 323), that if the space occupied by the bolster is required, the bolster together with the money may be moved.

R. Oshea said: "If a purse of money was accidentally left in private ground, one may put a loaf of bread or a child on it and take it back to the house." R. Itz'hak said: "This rule applies not only to a purse of money, but also to a brick that is needed for any purpose."

Said R. Jehudah bar Shila in the name of R. Assi, that a box of money was once forgotten in the market and R. Johanan was asked what was to be done. He ordered them to place a loaf of bread or a child on it, and take it in. Said Mar Zutra: "All these rules are laid down in the case of where the things referred to were left by accident." But R. Ashi said, that such is not the case, and that a child or a loaf of bread can be used to move a corpse only.
When Abayi had to bring in stalks of grain, he would put on them some article of food (or some vessel) and bring it into the house; and when Rabha had to bring in (an uncooked) dove, he would put a knife on it and bring it into the house. When R. Joseph heard of this, he said: "How sagacious are the minds of these young scholars! When did the rabbis permit this to be done? When the things to be brought were forgotten on the outside; but they did not permit their being moved to commence with." Abayi answered: "(I have done right.) For were I not a trustworthy man, I would not have used those means to bring in the grain at all. Stalks of grain are a useful thing to sit on, and may be handled." And Rabha said: "(I have also done right.) For were I not a trustworthy man, I would not have placed a knife on the dove at all, as there are some people who eat it raw (hence it may be handled on the Sabbath)." Shall we say, that Rabha holds that the raw dove may be handled only because it is eaten (raw) by some people, and were it not so it could not be handled (on Sabbath), hence be holds as R. Jehudah in Tract Betza? Did not Rabha say to his servant on a festival: "Fry a duck for me and throw the entrails to the cat"; and we see thence that he permitted his servant to handle the entrails because they were food for a cat? The entrails would have spoiled if left over for the next day, and we must assume therefore that they were designed as food for the cat from the day preceding.

MISHNA: The school of Shamai teaches: "Bones and husks may be removed from the table." The school of Hillel, however, teaches: "One may only lift the whole table board (or cloth), and shake off what is left over." All crumbs smaller than an olive may be removed from the table; also the hulls of beans and lentils, because they may serve for fodder. It is allowed to use a sponge for wiping, providing it has a handle made of leather; otherwise, it is not allowed. At all events, one may handle a sponge on the Sabbath, and it is not subject to defilement.
GEMARA: Said R. Na'hman: We know that the school of Shamai holds to the opinion of R. Jehudah (who accepts the theory of Muktza), and that the school of Hillel holds to the opinion of R. Simeon (who disregards the law of Muktza). (Hence the order of the Mishna should be reversed.) The dictum of the school of Shamai should be credited to the school of Hillel, and vice versa. "Hulls of beans," etc. The permission to remove the hulls of beans, etc., is certainly in accordance with R. Simeon, who disregards the law of Muktza; and the latter clause of the Mishna referring to a sponge, which must not be used for wiping off the table unless it have a handle (because without the handle it would be wrung and that is prohibited, although the intention to wring it did not exist), is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah, who holds, that one must not perform an act even unintentionally. In this case R. Simeon also agrees with R. Jehudah, because it again presents a parallel case to the beheading of a creature where no intention to kill it exists.
The pits of dates (Armiassa) to which some of the meat adheres maybe handled, and those of Parsiassa 1 must not be handled. Samuel used to handle the latter with bread, holding to his opinion that anything at all may be done with bread (while others hold that bread should not be put to any uses except for food). Rabba would hold them with a pitcher of water. R. Shesheth would throw them out by means of his tongue, and R. Papa would throw them underneath the bed. It was told of R. Zacharias ben Abkulos, that he would turn his face towards the back of the bed and throw them out with his tongue.

Footnotes

326:1 For explanation of the terms Armiassa and Parsiassa, see Vol. I., p. 45.

CHAPTER XXII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING PREPARATION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES . MISHNA: Should a cask break open, sufficient may be saved for three meals. The owner may also call to others: "Come and save for yourselves (whatever you can)." No portion of the leakage, however, may be sponged up (soaked up with a sponge). One must not press fruit in order to extract the juice; and if it ooze out by itself, it must not be used. R. Jehudah said: "If the fruit is for eating, the juice which oozes out may be used; but if it is for beverage, it must not be used. If honeycombs be broken on the eve of Sabbath and the honey ooze out, the honey must not be used." R. Eliezer, however, permits this.

GEMARA: We have learned, that wine must not be soaked up with a sponge, and oil must not be dipped with a spoon, in the same manner as it is done on week-days (there must be a slight change).
The rabbis taught: If fruit becomes scattered in a courtyard (private ground) it may be gathered up and eaten, but this must not be done as on a week-day; i.e., gathered in a basket. "One must not press fruit," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "R. Jehudah (of the Mishna) agrees with the sages in the case of olives and grapes." Why so? Because this class of fruit is intended only for pressing, and the juice which must of a necessity ooze out might be calculated upon by the owner for a beverage. Ula said, that R. Jehudah differed with the sages even in the case of olives and grapes. R. Johanan said, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah as far as other fruit is concerned, but not as regards olives and grapes.
Said R. Aba in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel: "R. Jehudah subsequently agreed with the sages as regards olives and grapes, and the sages also agreed with him later concerning other fruit." Said R. Jeremiah to R. Aba: "Wherein do they differ?" and R. Aba answered: "Go and seek, and thou wilt find it!" Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "It seems to me that they differ concerning berries and pomegranates, for we have learned in a Boraitha: The juice of olives or grapes, which after having been pressed and brought into the house had oozed out by itself, must not be used, whether the fruit had been brought in for eating or beverage. If a man squeezed out the juice of berries and pomegranates and brought the pressed fruit into the house to eat, if any more juice oozed out, he might drink it; but if he brought the fruit expressly for eating purposes or for beverage, or without any express design, he must not drink the juice that had oozed out, so said R. Jehudah. The sages, however, prohibit the use of the juice under any circumstances."

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "A man may squeeze out a bunch of grapes directly into a pot, but not into a bowl. (Why not? Because if he squeezed it into the pot it is proof positive that it will be used for food, but if squeezed into the bowl it might be used as a beverage.) Said R. Hisda: "From the decree of our master we can learn, that a man may milk a goat right into the pot, but not into a bowl." Thus we see that Samuel holds, that beverages when mixed with eatables are also regarded as eatables.

Said R. Zera in the name of R. Hyya bar Ashi, quoting Rabh: "A bunch of grapes must be squeezed directly into the pot, but not into a bowl, but the oil of fish may be pressed out even into a bowl." R. Dimi repeated this decree. Said Abayi to him: "Ye teach this in the name of Rabh, hence ye have no objection; but we learn this in the name of Samuel, hence we have the following objection: 'Can Samuel say that the oil of a fish may be squeezed out even in a bowl? Were we not taught, that if a man squeezed out herbs which were soaked in wine and vinegar, it is, according to Rabh, permitted to commence with, if the herbs were to be eaten; but if the juice only was to be used, the man would not be liable for a sin-offering, but he should not do it to start with? If the herbs, however, were cooked, whether the man wished to eat them or only use the juice, he might squeeze them out into a bowl. Samuel, however, decreed, that be the herbs cooked or raw, one may do this only if he intends to eat the herbs, but not if he only intends to use the juice; if he does, however, he is not liable for a sin-offering.'"
R. Dimi answered: "By the Lord! My eyes have seen it, and not as a stranger, that I heard this decree from R. Jeremiah, he from R. Zera, he again from R. Hyya bar Ashi, and the latter from Rabh's mouth."

In regard to the quoted Boraitha concerning the herbs that one had squeezed out (we have heard the opinion of Rabh and Samuel), R. Johanan said: "Be they cooked or raw herbs, he may do so to commence with, if he intends to eat the herbs; but if he only desires the juice he must not do so, and if he does he is liable for a sin-offering." All this however, is opposed by the following Boraitha: One may squeeze out herbs which were soaked in wine and vinegar on the Sabbath for use on the same day, but not for later use; but one must not press olives or grapes, and if he does, he is liable for a sin-offering." Now, this is in opposition to all three: Rabh, Samuel, and R. Johanan. Rabh could explain this in accordance with his teaching; viz.: The herbs may be pressed on the Sabbath, for use on that day and not later, providing he uses the herbs for eating; but if he wishes to use the juice he must not do so, but if he does he is not liable for a sin-offering; and cooked herbs he may squeeze out, whether he requires the herbs or the juice, olives and grapes he should not press: if he does, he is liable for a sin-offering. Samuel could explain it according to his own opinion: A man may squeeze out herbs on Sabbath for that same day, but not for later use; and the same law applies to cooked herbs, provided they are used for eating, but if the juice is wanted they must not be pressed, etc. R. Johanan could explain the Boraitha in accordance with his teaching, as follows: Be the herbs cooked or soaked, they may be squeezed out if intended for eating; but if the juice is required he must not, and if he did so it is equal to pressing olives or grapes, and he is liable for a sin-offering.
Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: "According to biblical law one cannot be culpable except for pressing olives and grapes. So have taught the disciples of Menasseh. Also according to biblical law, a witness that testifies from hearsay must not be accredited, with the exception of a case where he testifies to having heard that a woman's husband had died." "If honeycombs be broken on the eve of Sabbath." When R. Hosea came from Neherdai he brought a new Boraitha; viz.: "If olives and grapes were crushed before the Sabbath, and the juice oozed out, it must not be drunk; but R. Eliezer and R. Simeon both permit it." Said R. Joseph: "He just tells us of another man in addition to R. Eliezer!" Said Abayi to him: "He taught us a great deal; for from our Mishna I would say, that honeycombs were eatables before being crushed and also afterwards; therefore R. Eliezer permits the use of the honey, but in the case of olives and grapes which were previously eatables and subsequently became beverages, it might be presumed that even R. Eliezer would not permit their use. Hence we were instructed by R. Hosea to the contrary."

MISHNA: Whatever has been dressed with hot water on the eve of Sabbath, may be soaked in hot water on the Sabbath; and whatever has not been dressed with hot water on the eve of Sabbath, must only be passed through hot water on the Sabbath: excepting only stale salt fish and Spanish kolias (a kind of fish which was generally cured to make it eatable), for passing these through hot water is all the dressing required for them.

GEMARA: What does the Mishna refer to? For instance, the hen of R. Aba! He would cook a hen, then soak it in water, and when it would fall to pieces he would eat it. Said R. Safra: "I was there at one time and R. Aba served me with some of that dish, and had he not given three-year-old wine immediately after it, I would have been forced to vomit."

R. Johanan would spit every time be was reminded of Babylonian Kutach (a dish made of small salt fish boiled in milk). Said R. Joseph: "Yea, and let us spit when we think of R. Aba's hen." And R. Gaza said: "I was in Palestine at one time, and made that same dish (kutach); so they begged me to give them some for all the sick in Palestine." "And whatever has not been dressed with hot water," etc. What is the law concerning one who had passed kolias or stale salt fish through hot water? Said R. Joseph: "He is liable for a sin-offering." Said Mar the son of Rabhina: "We have understood it so from the Mishna, because the last clause is 'for passing these through hot water is all the dressing required for them,' and the finishing of a certain kind of labor is equivalent to hammering.

R. Hyya bar Aba and R. Assi once sat in the presence of R. Johanan, and R. Johanan dozed off. So R. Hyya bar Aba asked R. Assi why the fowls of Babylon were so fat. R. Assi answered: "Go to the desert of Aza in Palestine, and I will show thee fatter ones." "Why are the Babylonians so merry during the festivals?," asked R. Hyya again. "Because they are poor (and during the entire year they have no pleasures, so they take advantage of the festivals)," was the answer. "Why are the scholars of Babylon so well dressed?" queried R. Hyya. "Because they are ignorami" (and must wear good clothes in order to command respect), answered R. Assi. At that moment R. Johanan awoke, and said to them: "Youngsters! Did I not tell you, that it is written [Proverbs vii. 4]: 'Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister,' which means: If a thing is as certain to thee as the fact that thou canst not marry thy own sister, then say it? Otherwise, thou shalt not say it. (Then why speak such foolishness?)" Then said they: "Let Master tell some things (which would benefit us)!" Said R. Johanan: "The fowls of Babylon are fat because they were never driven away from home, as it is written [Jeremiah xlviii. 11]: 'Moab was ever at ease from his youth, and he was resting on his lees, and was not emptied from vessel to vessel, and had not gone into exile: therefore had his taste remained in him and his scent was not changed.' Whence do we know that the fowls of Palestine were driven from home? It is written [ibid. ix. 9]: 'Both the fowls of the heavens and the beasts are fled; they are gone away.'—[R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan, that the fowls and the beasts and all else came back to Palestine with the exception of the Spanish kolias (the reason will be explained in Tract Bechorath.]—'Why are the Babylonians merry during the festivals?' Because they were not included in the curse of [Hosea ii. 13]: 'And I will cause to cease all her mirth, her festival, her new moon, and her Sabbath, and all her appointed feasts.'"

Said R. Itz'hak: "(Indeed it was so.) There was not a single feast in Palestine, that the military did not come to Sephoris"; and R. Hanina said: "There was not a single feast in Palestine, that captains, guards, and supervisors did not come to Tiberias."—"Why are the scholars of Babylon so well dressed?" "Because they are all strangers. As the saying goes: In a city where a man is known, he may wear whatever he chooses; but where he is not sufficiently known he should dress well."

R. Joseph taught: It is written [Isaiah xxvii. 6]: "In the future shall Jacob yet take root: Israel shall bud and blossom; and shall fill the face of the world with fruit." What is meant by "bud and blossom"? The scholars of Babylon, who wind blossoms and wreaths around the Thorah.
MISHNA: A man may break open a cask, to eat dry figs therefrom; provided, he does not intend using the cask afterwards as a vessel. He must not pierce the bunghole of a cask, such is the decree of R. Jehudah (or R. Jose); the sages permit this to be done. And one must not bore a hole in the side of it; but if it was already perforated, he must not fill it up with wax, because he would smoothen the wax thereby. Said R. Jehudah: "Such a case was brought before R. Johanan ben Sachai, at Arab, and he observed: 'I doubt whether that act does not involve liability to bring a sin-offering.'"

GEMARA: Said R. Oshea: "When may a man hold a dirk to open a cask of figs? If the figs are very tightly packed, for then he would have to use a knife or a dirk to get the figs out; but if they were packed loose he must not use a knife to open the cask."

An objection was raised: We have learned, that R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "A man may bring in a cask of wine, cut off the bung-head with a knife, and serve it to the guests with impunity." This Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of the sages, while our Mishna is in accordance with the decree of R. Nehemiah (who holds that no vessel may be used for any other purpose but that for which it was originally intended). What impelled R. Oshea to make the entire Mishna conform with the dictum of R. Nehemiah? Let him say, that the cask may be opened with a knife even if the figs are loose, and thus be in accord with the sages? Answered Rabha: "The reason is, that R. Oshea could not quite comprehend why the Mishna specified figs: it could have said fruit, and on that account he reasoned as stated."

In one Boraitha we have learned: Palm-leaf baskets containing dried figs and dates may be untied, taken apart, or cut; and in another Boraitha we were taught, that they may be untied, but not taken apart or tied. This presents no difficulty; for one Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of the sages, and the other is in accord with R. Nehemiah.
A question was asked of R. Shesheth: "May a cask be bored with an auger on the Sabbath? Shall we assume, that one intended to make an opening in the cask and hence it is prohibited, or that he intended merely to make a larger space for the flow of the wine and it is therefore permitted?" The answer was: "The intention was to make an opening, and it is prohibited." An objection based upon the teaching of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel previously mentioned was raised, and the answer was: "There the intention certainly was to make the space larger, while here it is obvious that the intention was to make an opening; otherwise, he would have broken open the cask with a knife." "One must not pierce the bunghole of a cask." Said R. Huna: "They differ only in reference to the top of a bunghole of a cask; but as for the side, all agree that it is not allowed, and this is carried out by the later clause in the Mishna; viz.: 'And he must not bore a hole in the side of it.'" R. Hisda, however, said: "They differ only as far as boring a hole in the side of the bunghole is concerned, but as for the top, all agree that it is permitted; and the later clause of the Mishna means to state that one must not bore a hole in the side of the cask itself."

The rabbis taught: One must not bore a new hole on Sabbath, but if it was already made he may enlarge it; and others say, that he must not enlarge it; but all agree, that if the hole was merely stopped it may be reopened. The first Tana prohibits the boring of a new hole, because thereby an opening is made. Does not enlarging a hole improve the opening? Said Rabba: According to biblical law, an opening through which one cannot enter or go out is not considered a door, but the rabbis made this a precaution on account of chicken-coops, the holes of which are made for the purpose of admitting fresh air and emitting the foul. (Therefore making a hole in a coop is equivalent to making a whole coop, for without holes it is of no value.) Enlarging a hole, however, is permitted, because one would enlarge a hole in a chicken-coop, lest an ichneumon should enter and kill a chicken. Why do some say, then, that holes should not even be enlarged? Because it might be that one did not make the hole in a chicken-coop large enough, and would enlarge it. R. Na'hman taught in the name of R. Johanan, that the Halakha remains according to the last dictum.
All agree, that a hole which had been stopped up may be reopened. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This was said only in the case of where a hole had been stopped to preserve the aroma of the wine. If, however, the hole was stopped up in order to strengthen the cask, it must not be reopened. What is meant by preserving the aroma and by strengthening the cask? Said R. Hisda: "If the hole was on top of the cask and was stopped up, it was for the purpose of preserving the aroma; but if at the bottom, it was for the purpose of strengthening the cask." Rabha said: "If it was at the bottom, it was also only for the purpose of preserving the aroma; and only if the hole was stopped up right underneath the lees of the wine, it was for the purpose of strengthening the cask."

Rabh prohibits the inserting of a faucet into a cask, and Samuel permits it. All agree, that cutting a hole in the cask for the purpose Of inserting a faucet is prohibited, and that replacing the faucet, if once removed, is permitted. They differ, however, only when a hole had already been made in the cask before the Sabbath, but it was not quite fit for the faucet. Those who say, that it is prohibited, do so as a precaution lest one cut a fresh hole, while those that permit this to be done say no precautionary measure is necessary.
This is like the following difference between Tanaim: We have learned that a screw must not be fitted on a festival, much less on a Sabbath; but if it fall out it may be replaced on Sabbath, and so much more on a festival; and R. Yashia makes the ordinance more lenient. What does R. Yashia make more lenient? Shall we assume, that he refers to the first part and permits a screw to be cut? In that event, he would be improving a vessel, and that is certainly not allowed! Shall we assume, on the other hand, that he refers to the second part; the first Tana alone permits this? We must say, therefore, that the screw was already cut, but did not quite fit, and he permits the fitting of it. (Hence the same difference exists here as between the previous Tanaim.) R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi in the name of R. Johanan said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Yashia." "But if it was already perforated," etc. To fill it up with oil is, according to Rabh, prohibited, as a precaution lest he fill it with wax; and according to Samuel it is permitted, as the latter does not deem a precautionary measure necessary. Said R. Samuel bar bar Hana to R. Joseph: "Thou hast said distinctly in the name of Rabh, that oil is permitted." Answered R. Joseph: "Thou hast caught me in a trap." 1 Said Samuel: "The leaf of myrtle must not be put in the bunghole of a cask, so that the wine flow over it." Why so? R. Yimar of Diphti said: "As a precaution lest a groove (channel) be made." R. Ashi said: "As a precaution lest the leaf be broken off (from its stem)." What difference is there? The difference is in the case of a leaf that had already been broken off (from its stem). (The precautionary measure of R. Yimar remains, while that of R. Ashi falls to the ground of itself.)

Is it permitted to wrap one's self in a bolster in public ground and bring it into private ground? Rabh prohibits this and Samuel permits it. If the bolster were soft and could be folded, they do not differ, all agreeing that it is permitted. If it were hard and could not be folded, all agree that it is prohibited. They differ only concerning a bolster that was neither soft nor hard, but a medium between the two. One says, that it appears like a burden and should not be carried, while the other holds that it is not a burden and may be carried; and the opinion just ascribed to Rabh was not stated by him expressly, but was merely inferred from the following incident: "Rabh came to a certain place and found that he lacked room; so he went out into a lane (unclaimed ground), and when a bolster was brought to him he would not sit down on it. Those who saw this inferred therefore that he did not hold it to be permissible." As a matter of fact, this was not so. Rabh had it proclaimed that a bolster was allowed to be used, but in honor of the masters who were with him he would not sit down on that bolster. Who were those masters? R. Kahana and R. Assi.

MISHNA: One may put cooked victuals into a cave (or cellar) for the purpose of preserving them; also put clean water (contained in a vessel) into water that is not drinkable, in order to keep it (the former) cool; likewise cold water (in a vessel) into hot water, in order to warm the former. One whose clothes have dropped into the water while on the road, may unhesitatingly go on with them. As soon as he arrives at the outmost court (of the city or village), he may spread his clothes in the sun to dry, but he must not do this publicly.
GEMARA: Is this not self-evident? One might say, that there should be a precaution against grading (smoothening) any incavations that might be in the cave; hence we are told that such is not the case. "Clean water into water that is not drinkable," etc. Is this not self-evident? Yea; but this is taught on account of the later clause in the Mishna, i.e., putting cold water into hot. Is this also not self-evident? One might say, that this should be prohibited, as a precaution lest one also put a vessel containing cold water into glowing cinders to warm; so we are told, that such a precaution is not necessary. "One whose clothes have dropped into the water," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "All things which were forbidden on account of causing suspicion among the people (that one is committing a wrongful act) should not be done, not only publicly, but even in the innermost recesses of one's rooms." Is this not contradictory to our Mishna, which says, that one may spread his clothes in the sun, but not publicly? This is a difference between Tanaim, for in reference to this Mishna we have learned in a Boraitha, that both R. Eliezer and R. Simeon hold, that it is prohibited even when not done publicly.

Said R. Huna: "He who dusts his clothes on a Sabbath is liable for a sin-offering. This refers only, however, to a new garment, but not to an old one, and the new garment only when it is black; but garments of other colors may be dusted. Referring to a black garment, it is only then prohibited to be dusted if its possessor is particular about it (to such a degree, that he never puts it on without dusting it)."

Ula once came to Pumbaditha and he saw the rabbis dusting their clothes on a Sabbath, so he said: "The rabbis are violating, the Sabbath!" So R. Jehudah said to his disciples: "Dust your clothes right before his eyes: we are not particular."

Abayi stood before R. Joseph. R. Joseph said to him: "Give me my hat." And seeing that the hat was very dusty, Abayi hesitated to give it to him. So R. Joseph said: "Take hold of it and dust it: we are not particular."

We have learned in a Boraitha: Those who deal in clothes, and carry them folded on their shoulders on Sabbath, are liable for a sin-offering: this refers not only to clothes-dealers, but also to others; clothes-dealers, however, are mentioned, because that is their usual custom. The same is the case with a merchant who carries out a bag of money. He is liable for a sin-offering; and not only a merchant, but also others; but merchants are mentioned because it is their wont to carry money in that manner.

Said R. Jehudah: "It once happened that Hyrcanos the son of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos went out on Sabbath with a kerchief folded on his shoulder and tied to one of his fingers with a piece of twine (in order that it might not fall down); and when the sages heard this, they said that the twine was unnecessary, for he could have carried the kerchief without it."
It happened that Ula came to the house of Assi bar Him, and he was asked whether it was allowed to make a groove of the clothes on Sabbath. (The Babylonians wore long garments, and by turning them up at the bottom a quasi-groove was made.) Ula answered: "So said R. Ilai: It is prohibited to make a groove on Sabbath." What is a groove? Said R. Zera: "A groove made of the clothes of the Babylonians." Said R. Papa: "Bear this rule in mind: If the clothes are turned up for the purpose of preventing their becoming soiled, it is prohibited; but if they are turned up to improve their appearance, it is allowed, as R. Shesha the son of R. Idi would always arrange his cloak (toga) tastefully (on a week-day, hence it is customary and may also be done on Sabbath)."

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he related: It once happened that Rabbi went out into the field, and both ends of his toga hung on his shoulders. Said Jehoshua the son of Ziruz, the son of R. Meir's father-in-law before Rabbi: "Did not R. Meir say, that in a case of this kind one is liable for a sin-offering?" Said Rabbi: "Was R. Meir so particular, that he determined just how far down the ends of one's toga should reach?" Still he (Rabbi) let down his toga; and when Rabhin came from Palestine he said, that it was not Jehoshua ben Ziruz who made that remark, but Jehoshua ben Bepusai the son-in-law of R. Aqiba; and not that R. Meir said what has just been cited, but that R. Aqiba had said that. Also, that Rabbi had inquired whether R. Aqiba was so particular; and lastly, that Rabbi let down his toga. When R. Samuel ben R. Jehudah came from Palestine he said, that Rabbi was only asked concerning such a case (but not that he himself was the party referred to).

MISHNA: One who bathes in the water of a cavern or in the hot springs of Tiberias, though he wipe himself with ten towels, must not carry them off in his hand; but if ten persons wiped themselves, their faces, their hands, and their feet, with one towel, they might carry it off in their hands.

One may anoint and rub the stomach with the bands, but not so as to cause fatigue. One must not brush the body with a flesh-brush or descend into a kurdima. 1 One must not take an emetic, or stretch the limbs of an infant, or put back a rupture; one who has strained his hand or foot must not pour cold water on it, but he may wash it in the usual way: if he thereby becomes cured, it is Well.
GEMARA: The Mishna teaches, "the water of a cavern," in connection with the hot springs of Tiberias; hence it must be, that the water of a cavern is also hot. And again it says, "one who bathes," and not "one may bathe," from which we see, that to commence with, bathing in those waters is not allowed; but merely to rinse one's self is permitted, even to commence with. This is according to the opinion of R. Simeon. "Though he wipe himself with ten towels," etc. The first part of this clause in the Mishna imparts something new and unexpected in that it teaches, that, although if one man wipe himself with ten towels, there will be very little water contained in the towels, still he might through thoughtlessness wring them; and the latter part of the clause also imparts something new and unexpected, stating, as it does, that if ten men wipe themselves with one towel, although the towel will contain a great deal of water, they will mutually remind each other that it must not be wrung.

The rabbis taught: "A man may wipe himself with a towel and leave it at the window of a house that is nearest to the wall of the bathhouse; but he must not give it to the bathhouse employees, because they are suspected of wringing it on the Sabbath." R. Simeon, however, says: "A man may wipe himself with one towel and carry it in his hand to his house." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "How is the law?" and he answered: "Did not R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan say, that the law prevails according to R. Simeon?" Did R. Johanan say this indeed? Did he not say elsewhere, that the Halakha prevails according to the anonymous teachers in the Mishna, and the Mishna teaches, that even if one man wiped himself with ten towels he must not carry them off in his hand? R. Johanan teaches, that the Mishna concludes with, "So said the son of Hakhinai." (hence it is the teaching of one individual).

R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan said: "The bathhouse employees may carry the sheets with which the women wipe themselves in the bathhouse on the street by wrapping them around their bodies; provided they wrap them over their heads and the greater part of their body."

R. Hyya bar Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: "A large veil which is worn by women should have the two ends that hang down in the back tied." And he said again, that they should be tied underneath the shoulders.

Rabha said to the inhabitants of Mehuzza: "If ye must carry clothes for the military on Sabbath, wrap them around you underneath the shoulders." "One may anoint and rub his stomach." The rabbis taught: "The stomach may be rubbed and anointed on the Sabbath, provided it is not done the same as on week-days." How should it be done? R. Hama bar Hanina said: "He should first anoint it and then rub it"; but R. Johanan said, that he might do both at the same time. "But so as not to cause fatigue," etc. Said R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan: "It is not allowed to stand on the bed of Lake Deumseth, because the loam at the bottom is saline and immersion in the lake causes fatigue." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "The days on which a cure in that lake (for bodily ills) may be effected are only twenty-one, and Pentecost occurs during those twenty-one days." The school-men asked: "Does Pentecost fall at the beginning of the twenty-one days or at the end?" Come and hear: Samuel said, that all waters taken for a cure are effective only from Passover to Pentecost. As for waters taken internally, Samuel may be right (because during cool weather one takes more exercise and thus the waters are effective), but for bathing it would seem that Pentecost should be the commencement.

Said R. Helbo: "The wine of the land of Purgaitha and the waters of the lake Deumseth robbed Israel of ten tribes (because indulgence in these pleasures are detrimental to spiritual welfare)." R. Elazar ben Aroch happened to be there, and indulged in those luxuries to such an extent that he forgot his learning, and afterwards the sages had to pray for his return unto the Law. This is as we have learned elsewhere (Aboth): R. Nehurai said: "Go into exile only in a place of learning and think not that the Law will follow thee, or that thy comrades will preserve it in thy hands, and do not depend upon thy acquired knowledge." This R. Nehurai is, according to some, the same Elazar ben Aroch, and he was called Nehurai, because this signifies (in Hebrew) "light of the eyes"; for he enlightened the eyes of many scholars with his interpretations. "One must not brush the body," etc. The rabbis taught: One must not brush the body with a flesh-brush on Sabbath. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "If one's feet were soiled, he might brush them the same as on week-days unhesitatingly." The mother of Samuel the son of Jehudah made her son a silver brush. "Or descend into a kurdima." Why so? Because the bottom of a kurdima is slippery (and one might fall and wet his clothes, and thus be tempted to wring them). "One must not take an emetic." Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "One must not take a medicament as an emetic, but may thrust his finger down his throat and thus cause vomiting." "Or stretch the limbs of an infant." Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "To swathe a child on Sabbath is allowed." "Or put back a rupture." Said R. Hana of Bagdad in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha prevails, that it may be done." (Samuel learns in the Mishna, instead of "it is not allowed," "it is allowed.")

Rabba bar bar Hana once came to Pumbaditha, but did not go into the college of R. Jehudah. So R. Jehudah sent for Ada, the officer of the college, and said to him: "Go and take a pledge of Rabba bar bar Hana." The officer went and did so. Afterwards Rabba bar bar Hana came to the college. When he came he heard R. Jehudah teach, that a rupture must not be put back on the Sabbath. Said he to him: "So said R. Hana of Bagdad in the name of Samuel, that the Halakha prevails permitting this to be done." Answered R. Jehudah: "It is our Hana and our Samuel. Yet we never heard of this before. Now thou canst see that I was right in demanding a pledge for thy appearance. Hadst thou not come, we would never have heard this." "One who has strained his hand or foot," etc. R. Ivia sat in the presence of R. Joseph, and he dislocated his hand. Said he to R. Joseph, making a motion to replace it: "May I replace it thus?" "Nay," said R. Joseph. "And thus may I?" asked R. Ivia, making another motion. "Nay," was the answer again. Thus questioning, he finally succeeded in replacing his hand. Said R. Joseph to him: "What didst thou ask me for? It is expressly stated in our Mishna, that if one strained his hand or his foot, he must not pour cold water on it, but he may bathe it in the usual way. If he thereby becomes cured, it is well." "Did we not learn in the same Mishna that a rupture must not be put back, and still Samuel permitted it to be done?" asked R. Ivia. Answered R. Joseph: "Canst thou weave everything into one garment? What we have learned, we may follow; but what we have not learned, we cannot."

Footnotes

335:1 See note to page 114 of this tract.

338:1 A bathing place with a loamy bottom, into which it is easy to descend, but from which it is quite an exertion to ascend.

CHAPTER XXIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING BORROWING, CASTING LOTS, WAITING FOR THE CLOSE OF THE SABBATH, AND ATTENDING TO A CORPSE . MISHNA: A man may borrow of an acquaintance jugs of wine or oil (on Sabbath), provided he does not say to him: "Lend (them to) me." A woman may also borrow bread from her acquaintance. If the man is refused (by his acquaintance), he may leave his upper garment (as a pledge) with the lender, and settle his account after Sabbath. Thus, also, in Jerusalem, the custom was, if the eve of Passover fell on a Sabbath, a man might leave his upper garment with the vender, take his paschal lamb, and settle his account after the holiday.

GEMARA: Rabha bar R. Hanan said to Abayi: "What is the difference between saying: 'I want to borrow' and 'Lend me'?" Answered Abayi: "The difference is, if a man says, 'I want to borrow,' he usually returns what he has borrowed and the lender will not be compelled to write it down; but if he says, 'Lend (trust) me,' the lender generally writes down what he has lent." Said Rabba again: "During the week it makes no difference, the lender is not particular whether one says, 'I want to borrow,' or 'Lend me.' He writes it down just the same-, then why should a distinction be made on Sabbath?" And Abayi answered: "The saying of 'I want to borrow,' on Sabbath, is a reminder to the lender that the sages said, that one must not say 'lend me,' and thus prevents him from writing it down."

The same said again to Abayi: "Let us see! The sages said, that everything done on a festival which can be done in a different manner from that on a week-day should so be done. Now, why do we not see women, who go for water with jugs, perform that work differently from their manner on a week-day?" He answered: "Because that would be impossible! For how should they do? Shall we say, that one who carries a large jug should carry a small one? That would necessitate her going twice. Or that one who carries a small jug should carry a larger one? Then she would have a heavier burden to carry. Should she cover it with a cloth? Then she might wring it. Should she cover it with a lid? Then she might have to untie it. Hence it is impossible." 1 "A woman may also borrow bread from an acquaintance," etc. From the Mishna we see, that only on Sabbath a woman must not say, "Lend me," when borrowing bread, and on weekdays that would be permitted. Would this not be against the decree of Hillel, who prohibits this on account of possible usury (as explained in Tract Baba Metzia)? Nay; we can say that the Mishna is in accordance with Hillel's decree, but here it refers to such places where bread has a fixed value, while Hillel refers to places where bread has not a fixed value. "If the man be refused," etc. It was taught: "A loan on a festival is, according to R. Joseph, uncollectable by law, and Rabba say it is collectable." R. Joseph says, that it is uncollectable, because otherwise the lender will write it down; and Rabba says, if we say that it is uncollectable, the lender will not trust the borrower and the latter will not have the means of celebrating the festival. Is this not a contradiction to our Mishna, which teaches, that if the man be refused trust, he may pledge his garment, etc.? If the loan be uncollectable, the pledging is quite right; but if it be collectable by law, why should the borrower pledge his garment? The lender can sue him by law? The lender might say, that he does not care to be troubled by lawsuits and judges. R. Ivia would take pledges, and Rabba bar Ula would trick the borrower (by in turn borrowing something from him after the holiday and holding that for a pledge).

MISHNA: A man may count the number of his guests and also of his extra dishes verbally, but not from a written list. He may let his children and household draw lots at table (as to who is to have one dish, and who is to have another), provided he does not intentionally stake a larger portion against a smaller one. They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices on a festival (as to which priest is to have one sacrifice and which is to have another), but not for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (to whom one piece belongs, and to whom another piece belongs).

GEMARA: Why should a man not read from a written list Said R. Bibhi: "Lest he might strike out a guest's name or an extra dish from the list." Abayi said: "This is a precautionary measure against reading of business papers on Sabbath." What is the point of difference between them? If the list is engraved on the wall! In that case there is no fear of striking out a name, but the precaution against reading business papers still remains, and the Amoraim differ in this case with the Tanaim in the following Tosephta, as we have learned: "A man must not look into a mirror on Sabbath (lest he trim his hair with scissors), but R. Meir permits looking into a mirror which is attached to a wall." Now, why may a man look into a stationary mirror; because by the time he goes to fetch scissors, he will be reminded that it is Sabbath? Why not say, that the same is the case with another mirror, which he holds in his hand? By the time he lays down the mirror and goes for scissors, he will also be reminded that it is Sabbath? The mirror prohibited to be used by the first Tana of the Tosephta is one that is attached to an instrument which can be used to trim hair, and that is in accordance with the dictum of R. Na'hman as stated by Rabba bar Abuha in his name: "Why did the sages prohibit the use of an iron mirror? Because a man might use it to trim his superfluous hair."

The rabbis taught: An inscription at the foot of pictures of beasts or men must not be read on. the Sabbath; and gazing, on the picture of a man is prohibited even on week-days, because it is written [Leviticus xix. 4]: "Ye shall not turn unto the idols." With what tradition do you supplement this verse, that you may infer therefrom the prohibition to gaze at a picture? Said R. Hanin: "Ye shall not turn to the idols which your imagination alone hath created." "He may let his children and household draw lots," etc. It says, "his children and household": we must assume, that strangers are not to be included; if not, why not? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: A party of men eating on a festival, where the portions distributed to each are exactly alike in size and quantity, are guilty of the following prohibited acts; viz.: measuring, weighing, counting, borrowing and lending 1 (all of which acts are prohibited on a festival). According to Hillel's opinion, they are guilty of usury also. If that is so, why should it be allowed for his children and household? Here the reason is as related by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, who said: "It is allowed to borrow or lend from and to one's children and household and charge interest, in order to exemplify the evils of usury." If that is so, why is it not allowed, according to the Mishna, to stake a larger portion against a smaller? As a matter of fact, it is allowed; but the Mishna is defective and should read: "He may let his children and household draw lots at table, and even stake a larger portion against a smaller." Why so? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh above: He may let his children and household draw lots, but not strangers. Why so? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel above: A larger portion must not be staked against a smaller one even on week-days for strangers. Why so? On account of Kubeia. 1 "They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices," etc. What is meant by "but not for the eatable portions"? (Why should that not be done? The eatable portions of the sacrifices must be eaten on a festival.) Said R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob: "That prohibition is only applicable to the eatable portions of the sacrifices left over from the preceding day. Is this not self-evident? I would say, that because it is written [Hosea iv. 4]: 'And thy people are contentious equally with the priests,' that the priests are contentious, and hence they should be permitted to cast lots for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (for the sake of peace); therefore we are taught, that the sacrifices of the day may be drawn for, but not those of the preceding day."

The same R. Jacob said: "A man on whose account another man has been punished, either through divine or human judgment, is not admitted into the abode of the Holy One, blessed be He." Whence is this adduced? Shall we assume that it is -from the verses [I Kings xxii. 20-22]: "And the Lord said, Who will persuade Achab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gil'ad? And one said, In this manner, and another said, In that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and placed himself before the Lord and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou wilt persuade him, and also prevail: go forth and do so." And it was asked who the spirit was, and R. Johanan said, it was the spirit of Naboth; and Rabh said that by saying, "Go forth," the Lord meant to expel the spirit from within His abode. Perhaps the reason for expelling the spirit was because it is written [Psalms ci. 7]: "He that speaketh falsehoods shall not succeed before my eyes." Therefore we must say that the basis for R. Jacob is the following. It is written [Proverbs xvii. 26]: "To punish the just with a fine even is not good." (This is explained to signify, that even punishment through a just man is not good.) What is not good is certainly evil, and it is written [Psalms v. 5]: "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: evil cannot abide with thee"; and this means, that "because Thou, God, art righteous, evil cannot remain in Thy abode." "They may draw lots," etc. How do we know that the word "Choloshim" 1 means lots? It is written [Isaiah xiv. 12]: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O morning-star, son of the dawn! how art thou hewn down to the ground, crusher of nations!" ("Crusher" is expressed by the word "Cholesh," and the inference is made from the supposition that lots were cast which nation was to be crushed first.)

It is written [Daniel iv. 33]: "And additional greatness was added unto me." What was that additional greatness? Said R. Jehudah in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Aba: "From this we can infer, that he (Nebuchadnezzar) rode a male lion and twisted a snake round the lion's head, to verify what is written [Jeremiah xxvii. 6]: 'And also the beasts of the field have I given him to serve him.'

MISHNA: One must not hire laborers on the Sabbath, nor may he commission another man to hire them for him. One must not stand at the extreme limit of the "techoom" 2 and wait for dusk (the end of Sabbath), in order to hire laborers (beyond the techoom), or gather fruit beyond it; but if watching fruit beyond the techoom, he may await the dusk at its extreme limit, and in that case bring the fruit back with him. Abba Saul laid down the rule: "Whatever I am permitted to prepare for the day following the Sabbath, on the Sabbath, I may get ready for at dusk."

GEMARA: What is the difference between a man and his neighbor? The Mishna teaches he should not hire laborers on Sabbath nor commission another man to hire them for him? Is this not self-evident? His neighbor is also a Jew. Said R. Papa: "That refers to a Gentile neighbor." R. Ashi opposed this, and said: "The prohibition to commission a Gentile to do something on a Sabbath is merely rabbinical, for the sake of the Sabbath rest (Shbhuth), 1 and to hire laborers on the Sabbath is also prohibited only by rabbinical law. How then can one rabbinical law be supplemented by another of the same character? Hence I may say, that the Mishna refers to a Jewish neighbor and should be explained thus: A man must not commission him to hire laborers on Sabbath, but he may say to him, 'Come to me after dusk and we will do something together.' The Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha, as we have learned elsewhere: A man must not say to his neighbor, 'I would like to see thee after dusk for the purpose of talking business,' and R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha says he may do so, and Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan taught, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jeshoshua ben Kar'ha."

Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said again: "What reason did R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha have for saying so? Because it is written [Isaiah lviii. 13]: 'By not following thy own business, and speaking vain words.' It is not allowed to speak, but surely thinking is permitted!"

R. A'ha bar R. Huna asked Rabha concerning the following contradiction: "How can we say, R. Johanan states, that though it is not allowed to speak it is allowed to think; did not Rabba bar bar Hana say in the name of R. Johanan, that everywhere it is allowed to think, excepting in a bathhouse and a toilet-room, for where it is not allowed to speak of the Law it is also not allowed to think of it?" "In that case it is different, for it is written [Deuteronomy xxiii. 15]: 'Therefore shall thy camp be holy,' and a bathhouse and a toilet-room cannot be holy; hence thinking of the Law in those places is not allowed." Speaking of other things except the Law is not permitted (on Sabbath). Did not R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna both say, that it is allowed to count up charitable disbursements on Sabbath; and R. Elazar say, that one may figure out amounts to be distributed among the poor (on Sabbath); and R. Jacob bar Idi say in the name of R. Johanan, that all things pertaining to the saving of human beings or the affairs of the community maybe discussed on Sabbath, and that it is allowed to go to the schoolhouses and call meetings for deliberation upon the community's business; and R. Samuel bar Nahmeni say in the name of R. Johanan, that even halls may be visited for the purpose of calling business meetings together; and the disciples of Menasseh say, that betrothal of daughters may be discussed and the advisability of choosing a profession for a child may be deliberated upon, on the Sabbath? The passage cited in the Law states, that "following thy business" is prohibited, but affairs sanctioned by Heaven may be discussed (and all the above affairs are pleasing to the Lord).

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "Accounts concerning which advice is requested by others and which have no bearing upon one's own business may be figured on the Sabbath." The following Boraitha is cited in support of this: "Accounts of disbursements in the past and of future expenditures must not be calculated on the Sabbath; but such as are of no importance, and concerning which advice was asked, may be calculated. Is the following Boraitha not contradictory to the one cited? Accounts which are of no importance at all may be calculated on Sabbath, but not such as are of importance." How so? A man may say to his neighbor, "I have hired so much labor to cultivate a certain field," or "I have expended so many Dinars on such a dwelling," but be must not say, "I have expended so much and must expend so much more." (The contradiction arises from the fact that in the previous Boraitha it is prohibited to calculate disbursements made in the past, while in the last Boraitha it is permitted.) But according to your opinion, why not cite the contradiction occurring in the previous Boraitha itself; viz.: Firstly, it is said that disbursements of the past must not be calculated, and then, that accounts of no value may be figured? This presents no contradiction at all (neither in the previous Boraitha itself, nor from one to the other). If the disbursements of the past have already been made and nothing is owing, then the accounts of same are of no value and may be spoken of on the Sabbath; but if any amount of such expenditures is still due, then it becomes an important account and must not be discussed. "One must not stand at the extreme limit of the 'techoom,'" etc. The rabbis taught: It once happened that the fence of the field belonging to a pious man was broken, and noticing it on a Sabbath, he was about to mend it, when he recollected that it was Sabbath; so he left it. A miracle occurred, and kaffir-corn began to sprout in the place of the broken fence and furnished him and his family with their sustenance. R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "A man may say to his neighbor, 'Tomorrow I intend to go to a certain town.' Why may he say this? Because, if there are huts on the road to that town at distances of seventy ells apart, he may even go on Sabbath; hence, though there be no huts on the road, he may say that he intends going on the morrow."

An objection was made, based upon our Mishna; viz.: "One must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk in order to hire laborers or gather fruit." It would be quite right, if the hiring of laborers only was concerned; for a thing which must not be done on Sabbath must not be waited for at the techoom; but as for gathering fruit, if there were walls around the town, that would be permitted? Why, then, should it be prohibited to wait at the techoom until dusk? This may refer to fruit which was still attached to the ground (and could not be gathered on Sabbath even if the town had walls). How can this be said? Have we not learned that R. Oshea taught: "One must not wait at the techoom to bring straw and chaff." It would be correct concerning straw which is still attached to the ground; but how can this apply to chaff? This may refer to chaff which is used to mix with loam, and hence was designated for building purposes.

Another objection was made! Come and hear: We have learned in the succeeding Mishna, that nightfall may be awaited at the techoom in the case of a bride and corpse; hence for other purposes one must not await nightfall at the techoom. It would be quite right if it said, in the case of things pertaining to a bride, for instance to cut off a myrtle-branch; but what things can be done pertaining to a corpse? Only the bringing of the coffin and the shroud? Why, then, should a man not be allowed to bring things which are the equivalent of the necessaries pertaining to a corpse? for if there were walls surrounding the town, he would be allowed to bring them. Why, then, should he not be permitted to wait at the techoom for the purpose of bringing them? Because the case may be, that things (as shrouds) pertaining to the corpse were not already prepared, but must be cut.

"But if watching fruit beyond the techoom, he may await the dusk," etc. May he do this even if he had not yet recited the Habhdalah prayer? Why! R. Elazar ben Antignous said in the name of R. Elazar ben Jacob, that a man must not transact his business at the close of Sabbath, before reciting the Habhdalah prayer. And if it be that he said the Habhdalah prayer while reciting the evening prayer, did not R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel say, that even if a man included the Habhdalah prayer in the evening prayer, he must say it again over the goblet of wine? Should it then be said, that he said the prayer over the goblet also; how could he have done that in a field? This case refers to the time of wine-pressing (when it is possible to obtain a goblet of wine even in the field); such is the explanation of R. Nathan bar Ami to Rabh.

Said R. Aba to R. Ashi: "In the West (Palestine) we simply say the benediction, 'Blessed be he, etc., who distinguishes between holy and ordinary days,' and go right to work." And R. Ashi said: "When we were in the house of R. Kahana, he would pronounce the same benediction, and we would go and chop wood." "Abba Saul laid down the rule," etc. Concerning what clause of the Mishna does Abba Saul lay down this rule? Shall we assume that he refers to the first clause of the Mishna, which decrees, that one must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk, and thus applies his rule?

Then, instead of saying, "Whatever I am permitted to prepare," etc., he should have said in the negative, "Whatever I am not permitted to say to another man he should do for me, I must not wait at the techoom to do myself." If we assume, however, that the rule refers to the latter clause of the Mishna, namely, "but if watching fruit, he may await the dusk," etc., then Abba should have applied his rule to the contrary; viz.: "Whatever I am permitted to wait for at the techoom, I may tell another man to do for me." Abba Saul applies his rule to the latter clause of the Mishna, and he refers to the following dictum of R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, viz.: "A man may say, to his neighbor: 'Watch my fruit which is in your vicinity, and I will watch such of yours as is in my vicinity.'" This is commented upon by Abba Saul, addressing the first Tana as follows: "You certainly admit that a man may say to his neighbor, 'Watch my fruit in thy vicinity and I will watch thine in my vicinity.' Now, say, 'Whatever I am permitted to tell my neighbor to do, I am also permitted to wait for at the techoom to do it myself.'" What does Abba Saul intend to supplement by laying down a rule? He means to add what was taught by the rabbis, as follows:

One must not wait at the techoom to bring home a stray animal; but if it is seen from the limits of the techoom, it may be called, so that it will come to within the techoom by itself. To this Abba Saul applied the rule, that if one may call to the animal, he may also wait at the techoom limits until dusk and bring it in himself. A man may also wait at the techoom limits to forward what is necessary for a bride; and also what is necessary for a corpse, to bring a coffin and shrouds for him; and we may say to him: "Go to a certain place and take it; and if thou dost not find it in that place, go to another place; and if thou canst not buy it for one hundred Zuz buy it for two hundred." R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah said: "One must not specify the amount the necessaries are to be bought for, but merely say, 'If thou canst not get it for little money, get it for more.'"

MISHNA: One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter. If a Gentile brought mourning fifes on the Sabbath, an Israelite must not play (mourn) on them, unless they be brought from the vicinity. If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him (on the Sabbath), an Israelite may be buried therein; but if it was done on purpose for an Israelite, he must not at any time be buried therein.

GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by saying, "unless they be brought from the vicinity"? Rabh said: "By that is meant a place within sight, where one is positive that it was within the limits of the techoom." Samuel said: "Even if it is not positively known that they came from within the limits of the techoom, but where it is presumed that such is the case, the fifes may be used." Our Mishna seems to be in accord with Samuel's explanation, because it says in the next clause, "If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him, an Israelite may be buried therein," and it does not say positively that the two things were done for a Gentile; hence we see, that where an object is doubtful, we may presume that it is allowed. Thus in the case of the fifes, if there is a doubt as to whence they were brought, they may nevertheless be used by an Israelite. We have learned in a Boraitha, however, a support to Rabh's opinion; viz.:
A city which contains both Israelites and Gentiles, and there is a bathhouse there which is heated on the Sabbath, if the majority of the inhabitants are Gentiles an Israelite may go there immediately after sunset on the Sabbath. If there are more Israelites than Gentiles there, the Israelite must wait the length of time required to heat water afresh before going to the bathhouse; and the same is the case in a city where there is an equal number of Jews and Gentiles. (This is a support to Rabh, because, though it is doubtful whether the bath was heated for a Jew or a Gentile, still, the Israelite must wait.) R. Jehudah. said: "If the capacity of the bath be limited (so that water be heated quickly) and a notable man be present, the Israelite need not wait." What is meant by a notable man? Said R. Jehudah in the name of R. Itz'hak the son of R. Jehudah: "If there was a man present who had ten servants, who could heat ten jars of water at the same time, an Israelite might go and bathe himself." 1 "If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him," etc. Why should we not wait until the length of time in which a new grave can be dug elapses? Said Ula: "This refers to a paved way, where a grave is seldom dug for an Israelite (hence it must have been dug for a Gentile)." What can be said in reference to the coffin? Said R. Abuha: "If the coffin lie on the same grave."

MISHNA: One may do all that is necessary for a corpse (on Sabbath), anoint and wash it, provided he does not dislocate its limbs. The pillow may be moved from under its head; the corpse may be put on sand, in order to keep it (from putrefying) the longer; its jaws may be tied, not for the sake of bringing them together more closely, but to prevent them from dropping lower. In like manner, a beam that had been broken may be upheld by a stool or bedstead, not in order to make it erect again, but to keep it from breaking still more.
GEMARA: Did not R. Jehudah. in the name of Samuel say, that it once happened that a disciple of R. Meir, while entering behind his master into the bathhouse, wished to rinse off a place for his master to sit down, and his master would not permit it; so he wanted to grease the steps with oil, but the master said that the floor must not be oiled? Hence we see, that a thing which must not be handled must not be anointed or washed. How then is it permitted to wash and anoint a corpse? If the floor of a bathhouse be allowed to be washed, there is fear lest another floor will be washed also (and thus smoothen any holes which may be in the floor); but a corpse and a floor cannot be confounded, and it is allowed to wash and anoint a corpse out of respect to the dead.

What is meant to be supplemented by "all that is necessary for a corpse"? They meant to add what was taught by the rabbis; viz.: One may bring vessels for cooling the corpse, or iron vessels may be put on the belly of the corpse to keep it from swelling, and one may stop up any holes in the corpse to keep the air from entering."

MISHNA: One must not close the eyes of the dead on the Sabbath, nor (even) on the week-day, while he is expiring. Whoever closes the eyes of a dying person the instant he expires, is equal to the man who sheds blood ('like a murderer).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Who closes the eyes of a dying man is like a murderer, for it is the same as a candle which is about to go out. If a man lays a finger on the flame, it immediately becomes extinguished, but if left alone would still burn for a little time. The same can be applied to the case of an expiring man; if his eyes were not closed, he would live a little longer, and hence it is like murder.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "One who wishes that the eyes of a corpse should close, should inject wine into the nostrils of the corpse and anoint the eyelids with a little oil, and then pull the big toes of the feet, when the eyelids will close of themselves."

We have learned in another Boraitha: "One should violate the Sabbath even for a child of one day, if it still have life; but for a corpse, even be it that of David, King of Israel, the Sabbath must not be violated." The reason for this is: For a child of even one day, the Sabbath should be violated, saith the Thorah, in order that it may keep many Sabbaths in the future; but David, King of Israel, when dead, can keep no more commandments. This is in accord with the saying of R. Johanan; viz. It is written [Psalms lxxxviii. 6]: "Free among the dead," etc. which means, that when a man is dead, he is free from keeping any commandments.
We have also learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Elazar said: A child of a day need not be guarded from the attacks of cats and dogs, but even when Og the King of Bashan is dead he must be guarded, as it is written [Genesis ix. 2]: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth," etc. Hence, as long as a man lives, the beasts are in dread of him; but as soon as he is dead, the fear is destroyed.

We have learned in another Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Elazar said: As long as thou canst, practise charity: as long as thou hast the opportunity and as long as it is in thy hands. For Solomon said in his wisdom [Ecclesiastes xii. 1]: "But remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youthful vigor, while the evil days (meaning old age) are not yet come, nor those years draw nigh of which thou wilt say, I have no pleasure in them." By that is meant, the days of the Messiah, because at that time there will be neither rich nor poor: all will be rich (and no opportunity for charity will present itself). This differs with the teaching of Samuel, who says, that there is no difference between the present time and the days of Messiah, only that one is subject to the government at the present time, while then it will not be so, as it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: "For the needy will not cease out of the land."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar Hakappar said: A man should always pray for deliverance from poverty, although if he himself will not eventually come to poverty, his children or his grandchildren will, as it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: "For the needy will not cease out of the land, therefore do I command thee," etc. (The Hebrew term for "therefore" is "Biglal," and the school of Ishmael taught that Biglal is the equivalent of Galgal, meaning a "wheel," thus inferring, from that word, that poverty is like a wheel, always turning from one to the other.)

R. Joseph said: "There is a tradition extant, that a diligent young scholar will never become poor." But we see that he sometimes does become poor? Still, we have never seen one so poor that he had to beg his bread from house to house.

Said R. Hyya to his wife: "If thou seest a man about to beg bread from thee, hasten to give it to him, that he might at some other time do likewise for thy children." Said she to him: "Art thou cursing thy children?" "Nay; I am simply quoting the verse above, as interpreted by the school of Ishmael, that poverty is a wheel continually turning."
We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbon Gamaliel the Great 1 said thus: "It is written [Deut. xvii. 18]: "And grant thee mercy and have mercy upon thee, and multiply thee," etc. This means to say, that one who hath mercy upon creatures will be granted mercy from above, but one who hath not mercy upon other creatures will not be granted mercy from above.

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 2]: "While the sun, and the light, and the moon, and the stars are not yet darkened." The sun and the light are compared to the brow and the nose, the moon to the soul, the stars to the cheeks; and further, the verse reads: "And the clouds return not again after the rain," which means, that after weeping the eyes become dim. (The entire verse is, according to this interpretation, not applicable to the end of the world but to a human life.)

Samuel said: "Up to forty years of age, the eyes of a man which have become dim through tears may yet be restored by different remedies, but beyond that age there is no remedy for them"; and R. Na'hman said: "The dye used for the eyes makes them brighter until a man is forty years of age; after that age, however, it may preserve the eyes, but does not help them, even if the eyes are filled with dye." What are we given to understand by this statement? We are told that, the larger the brush used for applying the dye to the eye, the better it is for the eyes.

One of R. Hanina's daughters died, and he did not weep over her death. Said his wife to him: "Was a hen carried out of thy house?" "Is it not sufficient that our child died; wouldst thou have me lose my eyes through weeping?" replied R. Hanina; and he is of the opinion of R. Johanan, who said in the name of R. Jose ben Katzartha: "There are six kinds of tears in the eyes, three of which are good for the eyes and three bad. Tears generated by smoke, weeping, or disorder of the bowels are bad for the eyes; but those that are caused through laughing, acrid fruits (such as mustard), and medicaments which are applied to produce tears, are good for the eyes."

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 3]: "On the day when the watchmen of the house will tremble": this refers to the bowels and the sides which protect the bowels; "the men of might will bend themselves," meaning the legs of the man; "and those be darkened that look through the windows," refers to the eyes.
Cæsar asked of R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah: "Why didst thou not come to the debating rooms?" and he answered: "The mountain is covered with snow" (meaning his head was gray),"the surrounding paths are icy" (meaning his beard was gray),"the dogs do not bark any more" (meaning his voice was inaudible)," and the millstones grind no more" (meaning his teeth were decayed).

The school of Rabh would say of an old man: "He hath lost nothing and is constantly seeking" (meaning that he was always bowed down).

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose bar Kisma said: "Two are better than three" (referring to two legs, instead of two legs and a stick). "Woe is to the One who goeth away and doth not return," so said he. What does he mean by it? Said R. Hisda: "Youth."

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said: "Youth is a crown of roses, and old age a crown of thorns."

We have learned in the name of R. Meir: Be heedful of thy teeth and thou wilt show it in thy step, as it is written [Jeremiah xliv. 17]: "When we had plenty of food and fared well and saw no evil." Said Samuel to his disciple R. Jehudah: "Thou sagacious man! When thou goest to eat, untie thy stomacher and bring in thy bread! Before the age of forty, eating is more wholesome; but after that, drinking is better."

A eunuch (who was a Sadducee) said to R. Jehoshua, was bald-headed, with the intent to tease him: How far is it from here to Bald city?" and he answered: "Just as far as from here to Castrate city." The eunuch said again: "I noticed that a bald goat only cost four Zuz"; and R. Jehoshua said: "Yea! and I noticed that the privates which were cut away from a he-goat cost eight Zuz." The eunuch noticed that R. Jehoshua did not wear shoes, and said: "He who rides a horse is a king, he who rides an ass is a nobleman, he who wears shoes is at least a man, but he who does not even wear shoes is worse off than a corpse in his grave." Said R. Jehoshua: "Thou eunuch! Thou hast told me three things, and three things thou shalt presently hear from me: The beauty of the face is a beard, the joy of the heart is a wife, and God's inheritance is children. Blessed be the place that has kept thee from all these joys." The eunuch retorted: "Thou bald-head! Wouldst thou quarrel with me!" and R. Jehoshua replied: Thou eunuch! Thou earnest to tease me."
Rabbi said to R. Simeon the son of Halaphta: "Why did we not have the pleasure of thy company on the festivals, as our parents had the pleasure of thy parents' company?" and he answered: "The hills have become mountains, those who were near have become distant, two have become three, and the peacemaker of the house is gone" (meaning, "I have become old, can make but short steps, must have a cane to lean on, and my teeth are gone").

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 4]: "And when the two doors on the streets will be locked, while the sound of the mill becometh dull, and man riseth up at the voice of the bird"; and means, that in old age a man's stomach refuses to digest and he cannot excrementize, and he becomes so weak that the least sound, such as piping of a bird, will awaken him from his slumbers. Even so said Barzillai the Gileadite to King David [II Samuel xix. 36]: "I am eighty years old this day; can I discern between good and evil?" which proves to us that the mind of an old man changes; and further, it says: "Or can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink?" From this we see that an old man's sense of taste is lost; and further, again: "Or can I listen yet to the voice of singing men and singing women?" which proves to us that old men become hard of hearing. Said Rabh: "Barzillai the Gileadite was a liar; for the servant who was in the house of Rabbi was ninety-two years old, and she would taste all the dishes that were being cooked." Said Rabha: "Barzillai was a lascivious man, and a man of that kind ages very rapidly and loses all his senses."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Ishmael bar R. Jose said: "The older scholars become, the more wisdom comes to them, as it is written [Job xii. 12]: 'So is with the ancients wisdom, and with those of length of days understanding.' With ignorant men, however, it is different. The older they become, the more ignorant they are, as it is written [ibid. 20]: 'He removeth the speech from trusty speakers and taketh away the intelligence of the aged.'"

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 5]: "Also when men will be afraid of every elevation." To an aged man, even a little hillock appears as a high mountain; "and are terrified on every way," and they are afraid of everything on their way; "and the almond-tree will refuse (its blossom)," meaning that the joints of the limbs will refuse to do their duty; "and the locust will drag itself slowly along, and the desire will gainsay compliance," means that the desires of old men wane.
Said R. Kahana: "What is written [Psalms xxxiii. 9]: 'For he spoke, and it came into being,' refers to a woman; and 'he commanded, and it stood fast,' refers to children."

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 5]: "Because man goeth to his eternal home." Said R. Itz'hak: "This proves that every righteous man is given a dwelling in the world to come according to his merit, and this is like a king with his slaves entering a city. They all enter through one gate, but when night comes every man is given a berth in accordance with his rank."

R. Itz'hak said again: "It is written [Ecclesiastes xi. 10]: 'For childhood and the time when the head is black 1 are vanity,' and means to say, that the deeds committed in youth blacken the reputation in old age."

R. Itz'hak said again: The worms are as disagreeable to a corpse as pricks of needles are to a man, even if an excrescence only is pricked, as it is written [Job xiv. 22]: "But his body on him feeleth pain, and his soul will mourn for him." R. Hisda said: "The soul of a man mourns for him the first seven days after his death, and that is based upon an analogy of expression; viz.: It is written [Genesis l. 10]: 'And he made for his father a mourning of seven days'; and the verse in Job previously quoted also contains the word 'mourn,' hence the analogy."

R. Jehudah said: "If a corpse has left none to mourn him, ten men should go to the place where he died and mourn his death." A stranger, who had none to mourn him, died in the neighborhood of R. Jehudah; so every day R. Jehudah took ten men, went to the place where the stranger died, and mourned for him. After seven days, the spirit of the stranger appeared to R. Jehudah in a dream, and said to him: "May thy heart be as light as thou hast made mine."
Said R. Abuha: "All that is said in the presence of a corpse is known to the latter, until he is buried and the earth is thrown on top of him." R. Hyya and R. Simeon bar Rabbi differ concerning this: One says, until the corpse is buried, and the other, until the flesh is decomposed. He who says until the flesh is decomposed, bases his assertion on the previously cited verse: "But his body on him feeleth pain, and his soul will mourn him." The other, who says "only until he is buried," bases his assertion upon the verse [Ecclesiastes xii. 7]: "When the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return unto God who gave it."

The rabbis taught: "Return the soul to the Lord as clean as He gave it to thee." This is illustrated by a parable of a king who once gave to his attendants suits of clothes. The wise among them took care of them, kept them clean and folded, and used them on special occasions only. The fools put them on and performed their work in them. Naturally, the clothes became dirty. All at once, the king demanded the clothes back again. The wise men returned them clean and whole, but the fools returned them in a dirty and dilapidated condition. The king was well pleased with the wise men, and told them to depart in peace, and had their clothes stored; but the clothes of the fools he ordered to be sent to the washers, and the fools were sent to prison. So does also the Holy One, blessed be He. Concerning the bodies of the righteous men, He saith [Isaiah lvii. 2]: "He shall come in peace: they shall repose in their resting-place"; and concerning the souls he saith [I Samuel xxv. 29]: "Yet will the soul of my lord be bound in the bond of life with the Lord thy God." Concerning the bodies of the wicked, He saith [Isaiah lxviii. 22]: "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked"; and concerning the souls of the wicked, He saith [I Samuel xxv. 29]: "And the soul of thy enemies will he hurl away, as out of the middle of the sling."

We have learned: R. Eliezer said: "The souls of righteous men are deposited underneath the throne of honor, as it is written: 'Yet will the soul of my lord be bound in the bond of life'; and the souls of the wicked are crowded together until they are crushed, as it is written: 'The souls of thy enemies will he hurl away.'" "How is it with the souls of men who are neither righteous nor wicked?" asked Rabba of R. Na'hman. He answered: "If I were dead, ye would not know it." Samuel said: The souls of the righteous, of the ordinary men, and of the wicked are given over to the angel whose name is Domah, who has charge of all souls. The souls of the righteous are given their resting-place soon; the others are not given rest until they come before the divine judgment.

Said R. Mari: "The bodies of righteous men also decompose, as it is written: 'When the dust will return to the earth, as it was.'"
Diggers were digging some earth belonging to R. Na'hman. They came to the grave where R. Achai bar Yashia was buried, and the corpse scolded them. The diggers came to R. Na'hman, and told him that a man who was buried on his ground had scolded them. So R. Na'hman went himself to the grave, and asked: "Who art thou, Master?" and the man in the grave answered: "I am called Achai bar Yashia." Said R. Na'hman to him: "Did not R. Mari say, that the bodies of the righteous shall turn to dust?" and the corpse replied: "Who is this Mari? I know him not." But R. Na'hman persisted: "It is written: 'When the dust shall return to the earth, as it was.'" And the corpse retorted: "He who taught thee Ecclesiastes, did not teach thee Proverbs, where it is written [Ch. xiv. 30]: 'Jealousy is the rottenness of the bones'; and if thy teacher had explained this to thee, thou wouldst have known, that he who hath jealousy in his heart, his bones shall rot after death, but he who hath no jealousy in his heart, his bones shall not rot." Thereupon R. Na'hman felt the dead man's bones, and truly they were sound. So he said to him: "Let the Master arise and go home with me for a while." And the dead man answered: "By this remark thou hast proven to me that thou hast not even studied the prophets, for it is written [Ezekiel xxxvii. 13]: 'And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and when I cause you to come up out of your graves' (for this would tell thee, that only the Lord can make me arise, and still thou askest me to go with thee)." "Yea," quoth R. Na'hman; "but there is another passage [Genesis iii. 19]: 'For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.'" "This will, however, be only one hour before the final resurrection," answered the corpse.

A certain Sadducee said to R. Abuha: "Ye say that the souls of the righteous are deposited underneath the throne of honor. How, then, could the woman of the familiar spirit whom King Saul consulted, 1 bring up the soul of Samuel?" R. Abuha answered: "That happened during the first twelvemonth after the death of Samuel, as we have learned in a Boraitha, that during the first twelvemonth the souls of the deceased come up and down; but after that period the soul ascends to heaven and does not return."
Said R. Jehudah, the son of R. Samuel bar Shila, in the name of Rabh: "From the funeral sermon held over the remains of the deceased, it may be observed whether they will enter the kingdom of Heaven or not." (If the funeral sermon is in the form of a eulogy and the deceased was much beloved, it can be presumed that he will have a happy time in the beyond.) This is not so! For did not Rabh say to R. Samuel bar Shila: "See that thou makest my funeral oration exceeding touching, for I shall be there." R. Jehudah meant to say, that when the sermon is touching, and elicits a responsive chord in the breasts of the audience; for some orations may be made ever so touching but if the deceased was not deserving, it will produce no effect whatever. Said Abayi to Rabba: "Thou, Master, who hast not a single friend in Pumbaditha, who will mourn thy death?" "Thou and Rabba bar R. Hana will suffice," answered Rabba.

R. A'ha asked Rabh: "Who is the man that will live in the world to come?" He answered by quoting the verse [Isaiah xxx. 21]: "And thy ears shall hear the word behind thee, saying, This is the way; walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left." 1 R. Hanina said: "The man who gives satisfaction to our masters."

It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 5]: "And the mourners go about the streets." The Galileans said: "Do such things as will be spoken of to thy credit in thy funeral sermon"; and the Judæans said: "Do such things as will be spoken of after thy burial." There is no difference in the two statements, for in Galilee the funeral sermon was held before burial, and in Judæa after burial.
We have learned (in the Mishna Abhoth): "One day before thy death, thou shalt repent of thy sins," said R. Eliezer; and his disciples asked him, "Can a man know on which day he will die?" and he answered: "For just that reason, he should repent to-day, lest he die to-morrow. Thus all his days will be spent in repentance. So also hath Solomon said in his wisdom [Ecclesiastes ix. 8]: 'At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oil be wanting on thy head.'" Commenting upon this, R. Johanan ben Zakkai said: "This is illustrated by a parable about a king who invited his retainers to a banquet, but did not state the time; the wise among them dressed and were ready, standing in front of the palace, for they said: 'In a king's house nothing is wanting. Perhaps the banquet takes place to-day.' The fools, however, went about their business, saying: 'Can a banquet be given without preparation?' Suddenly the king called in his retainers to the banquet. The wise went in becomingly attired, while the fools went in in their working clothes. The king was well pleased with the wise, and angry with the fools, and said: 'Those that are prepared and attired for the banquet shall sit down, eat, drink, and be merry; but those that are not, shall stand and look on, but shall receive nothing.'" Said the son-in-law of R. Meir, in the latter's name: Then it would appear as if those standing were waiting upon those who were sitting (and they would not be ashamed). They were also to sit down, but while the others ate they would be hungry, and while the others drank they would remain thirsty, as it is written [Isaiah lxv. 13 and 14]: "Therefore, thus hath said the Lord Eternal, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be made ashamed; behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry out from pain of heart, and from a broken spirit shall ye howl"; and on this account it is written: "At all times let thy garments be white," etc.

Footnotes

343:1 The additional quotations of Rabha bar Hanan to Abayi concerning festivals will appear in Tract "Festivals," where they properly belong.

344:1 Guilty of borrowing and lending can only be explained by presuming that, if one received a smaller portion than another, the host would promise to make up for the deficiency on another day.

345:1 From the Greek κ{! 0x79 y !}yβεια = dice. The above prohibition is a precautionary measure against the possibility of casting lots degenerating into a game of hazard.

346:1 The term "casting lots" is expressed in the Mishna by the word "Choloshim," and the root of the word "Choloshim" is "Cholosh," and has a variety of meanings.

346:2 By "techoom" is meant the distance of 2,000 ells which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance.

347:1 See Introduction to Tract Sabbath, p. xxii.

352:1 Others say that this above Boraitha really supports Samuel on account of R. Jehudah, and Rashi remarks that he finds that the more plausible supposition.

354:1 This means Gamaliel the Second, who was the Nassi in Jamnia, and he is entitled "the Great" in many places.

358:1 The Hebrew expression for "the time when the head is black" is "Shachrus," meaning blackness.

360:1 See I Samuel xxviii.

361:1 The significance of the verse is explained by Rashi as follows: When we hear of a man who has died, and we are told to walk in his ways and to do as he did, such a man will live in the world to come.

CHAPTER XXIV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING A MAN WHO IS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK ON THE EVE OF SABBATH WHILE TRAVELLING, AND CONCERNING FEEDING OF CATTLE . MISHNA: One who (on the eve of Sabbath) is overtaken by the dusk on the road must give his purse to a Gentile (while it is yet day). If there is no Gentile with him, he must put it on the ass. As soon as he arrives at the outmost court (dwelling of the first town or village he reaches), he must take off all such things as may be handled on the Sabbath; and as for the things which must not be handled he must loosen the cords, so that they fall off themselves.
GEMARA: Why was it allowed for a man to give his purse to the Gentile accompanying him [he (the Gentile) acts for him]? Because it was known to the rabbis that a man is anxious about his money, and if it were not allowed, he might carry it himself in public ground. Said Rabha: "He may do this with his own purse; but if he found something, he must not have it carried for him." Is this not self-evident? Did we not learn in the Mishna, "his purse"? We might assume that the same would apply to something found, and the Mishna says only "his purse," because that is the usual occurrence; hence Rabha teaches us as mentioned. Even in the case of something which was found, the prohibition applies only if the man had not yet had it in his hand; but if he had, it is regarded the same as his purse. "If there is no Gentile with him," etc. If there is a Gentile with him, he must give his purse to the Gentile. Why not put it on the ass in the first place? Because concerning the ass there is a commandment to let it rest, but no such commandment exists for a Gentile. How is the case if the man had accompanying him an ass, a deaf-mute, 1 an idiot, and a minor? To whom must he give his purse in that event? He must put it on the ass. Why so? Because the deaf-mute and the minor are human beings, and he might by accident give it to an Israelite who was not a deaf-mute or a minor. "How is it if he had with him a deaf-mute and an idiot only? He must give it to the idiot (because a deaf-mute has more sense than an idiot). How is it with an idiot and a minor? He must give it to the idiot. All this has been finally decided, but the question that presented itself to the schoolmen was, to whom the purse must be given if the man had with him a deaf-mute and a minor. Some say he should give it to the deaf-mute, and others, to the minor.

How is it if the man have nobody along, no Gentile, no ass, no deaf-mute, no idiot, and no minor? What should he do then? Said R. Itz'hak: "There was another mode of procedure, which the sages would not reveal." What was that? He should carry it less than four ells at a time (i.e., carry it a little less than four ells and stop, then start and carry it on again for less than four ells, and so on). Why would the sages not reveal this? Because it is written [Proverbs xxv. 2]: "It is the honor of God to conceal a thing; but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Where is the honor of God concerned in this matter? Perhaps the man will not stop, but go on and carry, it over four ells.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: "On the day when the eighteen precautionary measures were instituted in the attic of Hananiah ben Hizkyah ben Garon (this measure concerning the purse of the traveller was also instituted, viz., that he should not carry it but give it to the Gentile), and the measure of laws was made heaping full." R. Jehoshua, however, says, that the measure was smoothened in too great a degree, 1 and we have learned that R. Eliezer meant to say what his simile illustrates; viz.: There was a basket filled with cucumbers and beets to the brim; and if a man put in mustard-seed, there is an addition, without, however, forcing out anything else. Thus the measure was full, but not overflowing. R. Jehoshua, however, compares it as follows: There was a tub filled with honey, and nuts were thrown into it, in consequence of which the honey overflowed and some was spilled. (This means, that by the institution of those precautionary measures the Mosaic laws were undermined.)
The Master said: "If there was no Gentile with him, he should put it on the ass?" How is it that he may do this? If he put it on the ass, he will be compelled to drive the ass, and surely this is also labor, which is prohibited on the Sabbath, as it is written [Exod. xx. 10]: "On it thou shalt not do any work." Said R. Ada bar Abha: The man must put the purse on the ass, while the latter is walking along; in that case, no transfer from one fixed point takes place (because while both are walking it cannot be said that the purse is resting in one particular place). It is, however, impossible that the ass should not rest at some place for a little while? When the ass rests, the man removes the purse; and when it commences to walk again, he puts it back. If that is so, it would be the same if he would transfer his purse to a fellow-Israelite while walking, and he would never be guilty of the act of transferring from one (fixed) place and depositing in another? Said R. Papa: An act which, if committed by one man unassisted, would make him liable for a sin-offering (e.g., if he, while running or walking, should pick up something off the ground even without stopping, he would become liable for a sin-offering), he must not commit with the assistance of a companion; but if he did so, he is not liable for a sin-offering (e.g., if he picked up a thing and placed it on his companion while the latter was walking, in that event neither is culpable, for the one did not deposit it in a fixed place, and the other did not remove it from a fixed place). Such acts, however, as must not be committed with the aid of a companion may be done with the assistance of an ass in the first place.

R. Ada bar Abha said again: "If a man has a bundle on his shoulders before dusk on the Sabbath while on the road, he may run with the burden until he reaches home, but he must not walk his usual gait." Why so? Because, if he walks in the usual manner, he might stop (and by stopping carry out the prohibited transfer from one fixed point and depositing in another). When he reaches home, however, he must stop for some time, and thus he would bring a thing from public ground into private ground? The remedy for this is, to throw the bundle from his shoulders backwards, and not in the usual manner.

Rabha the brother of R. Mari bar Rachel taught the following decree in the name of R. Johanan: "One who drives cattle on the Sabbath (even if they are burdened) is free." Why so? If he did so unintentionally, he cannot be liable for a sin-offering, because Sabbath laws are identical with those of idolatry. In like manner, as a man cannot be guilty of idolatry unless he worship with his own body, so it is with the Sabbatical law. If he perform labor through the medium of his cattle, without doing any himself, he cannot be guilty. Even if he did it intentionally, he is also not guilty. Why so? Because we have learned in a Mishna (Tract Sanhedrin): "Among those who are subject to capital punishment (by stoning) is he who violates the Sabbath by an act which, if done intentionally, carries with it such punishment (stoning), and which, if done unintentionally, makes one liable for a sin-offering." Hence, if the unintentional performance of such an act does not carry with it liability to bring a sin-offering, its intentional performance cannot carry with it the punishment of stoning, nor the punishment of stripes; because, where the penalty for the violation of a negative commandment is death, stripes cannot be inflicted; and even according to the Tana who holds that stripes can be inflicted for such violation, in this case it could not be done, because, were the verse to be read, "Thou shalt not do any labor, nor thy cattle," it would be right; but the verse distinctly says, "Thou shalt not do any labor, neither thou, etc., nor thy cattle." Hence, when the work was not done jointly by the man and his cattle, he cannot be punished in any manner for a violation of the Sabbath. "As soon as he arrives at the outmost court," etc. Said R. Huna: "If the ass was laden with glassware, he may bring cushions and place them on the ground, so that when he loosens the cords the glassware may fall on the cushions and escape being broken." We have learned, however, that such vessels as may be handled on the Sabbath may be removed from the ass; and why may not the glassware be handled? R. Huna refers to glassware which belongs to a surgeon, and being dirty (bloody) is unfit for use in a household. In that case, then, the man would render the cushions which he places on the ground to receive the falling glassware unfit for their proper use, and this is prohibited on the Sabbath? The cushions are only to be used in order to break the fall of the glassware, and after the glassware rolls off on to the ground, the cushions can be used as before.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Jochai said: "If a sheaf of grain (the tithes of which had not yet been separated) is on the back of the ass, the man may push it off with his head, so that it fall to the ground." The ass of R. Gamaliel was once laden with honey, and, the Sabbath having set in, R. Gamaliel would not allow the ass to be unloaded until the Sabbath was over. This proved too much for the animal and it dropped dead.

We have learned in the Mishna, that such things as may be handled on Sabbath may be removed from the animal; why was not the honey removed? The honey had become spoiled. If the honey was spoiled, why was it brought? It was intended to be used for the bruises on camels. Then the cords should have been loosened and the honey allowed to fall off? The honey, was in (inflated) skins, and would have burst if allowed to fall. Then cushions should have been placed on the ground to receive them? The cushions would have become soiled, and thus rendered unfit for use. Pity should have been taken on the animal, and it should not have been allowed to stand laden all day? Pity for animals is only a rabbinical institution according to R. Gamaliel, and thus he could not observe it lest he violate the Sabbath.

Abayi once saw Rabba playing with his little son, and setting him on the back of an ass, so he said to him: "Why! Does Master use an animal on Sabbath!" and Rabba answered: "This cannot be called using an animal in the regular manner, but just incidental use, and that was not prohibited by the rabbis."

Abayi objected: "Have we not learned that if two walls of a booth (to be used on the Feast of Tabernacles) were made by hand, and the third wall was already made by a tree, the booth might be used for ritual purposes; but it is not allowed to ascend to the roof of the booth on a festival, because the tree serves as a support to the roof, and by ascending the roof the tree would be used, which is prohibited? Hence we see that, although that would be incidental and not direct use, still it is prohibited?" Rabba answered: "In the case cited by thee, a tree is referred to, the branches of which were also part of the roof." The Mishna seems to have this meaning attributed to it by Rabba, for in a later clause it is stated, that should the tree (which partly supports the booth) be removed, and the booth can stand by itself, one may ascend it; hence the tree is regarded as an independent wall.
MISHNA: One may untie bundles of straw for cattle, also strew stalks for them, but one must not undo tied bundles of Zirin. 1 Herbs used as fodder, and carob-pods, must not be cut up for cattle, large or small. R. Jehudah permits the cutting up of carob-pods for small cattle.

GEMARA: Said R. Huna: "There is no difference between bundles of straw and stalks, except that the former are tied twice while the latter are trebly tied, and by Zirin is meant the young branches of a cedar-tree (which when young are still tender and are eaten by cattle); and the Mishna should be explained thus: One may untie bundles of straw for cattle, and also strew them, and the same may be done with stalks, but not with Zirin; the latter must neither be untied nor strewn." Said R. Hisda: "What reason has R. Huna for explaining the Mishna in this manner? He means to say, that on account of such things as are already proper fodder for cattle one may trouble himself on Sabbath, but on account of such as must first be prepared as fodder, one should not trouble himself." R. Jehudah, however, says, that bundles of straw and Zirin are identical, except that the former were tied twice and the latter trebly, but stalks signify cedar boughs; and he explains the Mishna thus: We may untie bundles of straw for cattle, but not strew them; stalks may also be strewn; the Zirin, however, may be untied, but not strewn." Said Rabha: "What is the reason for R. Jehudah's explanation? He holds, that we may prepare things for the use of cattle, but we must not trouble ourselves on account of such things as are already fit fodder for cattle."

An objection was made to the foregoing (based on the latter clause of the Mishna): "Herbs used for fodder and carob-pods must not be cut up for cattle." As herbs are mentioned in conjunction with carob-pods, we must assume, that as the herbs were soft, so were also the carob-pods; and, it being prohibited to cut them up, we see that with such things as are already proper fodder we must not trouble ourselves, and this is contrary to the dictum of R. Huna? R. Huna might say to the contrary, that as the carob-pods are hard, so also are the herbs. Where do we find that herbs should be cut up for cattle, they generally eat them as they are? This refers to young calves and mule-colts.
(Another objection was raised.) Come and bear: One may cut up pumpkins for cattle and carrion for dogs. Then we may say, that as carrion is soft, so also are the pumpkins; and hence we see, that we may trouble ourselves even with such articles as are already fit fodder for cattle, and this is contradictory to R. Jehudah's opinion? R. Jehudah might say to the contrary, that as the pumpkins were hard, so was also the carrion. How can that be? Supposing it was the carcass of an elephant, or the dogs were young and could not eat carrion without having it cut up for them.

MISHNA: A camel must not be crammed (to fatten it), nor may it be forced to eat: but the food may be put into its mouth. Calves must not be crammed, but the food may be put into their mouths. Poultry may be fed and crammed; water may be poured on bran, but the bran must not be kneaded. One must not put water before bees, or before doves in a dove-cot; but one may put it before geese, before poultry, and before house-pigeons.

GEMARA: What is meant by "must not be crammed"? Said R. Jehudah. "By that is meant, that the stomach of the camel should not be turned into a feed-bag." Can such a thing be done? Said R. Jeremiah of Diphti: "Yea; I saw with my own eyes, that an itinerant merchant fed his camel a measure of grain, and when it had consumed that, he forced another measure down its throat." "Calves must not be crammed, but the food may be put into their mouths," etc. What is the difference between cramming and putting food into the calf's mouth? R. Jehudah said, that cramming is accomplished when the food is stuffed down into the calf's mouth so that it cannot eject it, and putting food into its mouth is merely as is implied by the term; and R. Hisda said, that in both cases the food is forced down so far that the calf cannot eject it; but in cramming, some instrument is used, and the other is done by hand.

R. Joseph objected: We have learned in a Boraitha, that poultry may be crammed, and so much the more food may be given to the poultry a little at a time. The contrary is the case with doves. Food must not be given them even a little at a time, and much less may they be crammed. Now what is the difference between cramming and forcing them to eat a little at a time? Shall we assume that by cramming is meant, forcing the food down by hand, and by giving them food a little at a time is meant, throwing it to them? If so, why should doves not be fed in that manner? Is it then prohibited to throw them food? We must therefore say, that in both cases the food is given by hand, but in cramming the food is forced down so that it cannot be ejected, while in the other case it can be ejected. If this applies to poultry, then we must certainly assume that, as for calves, cramming is done by forcing the food down with an instrument, and this would be contradictory to R. Jehudah? R. Jehudah might say, that by feeding poultry is meant, throwing food to them; and the reason that one must not feed doves is because they do not belong to him, whereas poultry belongs to him and must be fed by him, as we have learned in a Boraitha, that one may give food to a dog but not to a pig; and the reason is, that a man is in duty bound to feed his dog, but a pig that he does not own he need not feed. Said R. Ashi: "This we also learn from our Mishna: 'One must not put it before bees, or before doves in a dove-cot; but we may put it before geese, poultry, and house-pigeons.'" We must assume the reason of the Mishna to be because one is not obliged to take care of the bees and doves, but must take care of those which he owns. According to this, then, why is water only spoken of, why not wheat or barley? We must say, that water is easily obtainable, and hence there is no necessity to trouble one's self on that account.

R. Jonah taught at the door of Nassi: It is written [Proverbs xxix. 7]: "The righteous considereth the cause of the indigent." The righteous, synonymous with the Holy One, blessed be He, knoweth that a dog hath not much food, and hath thus ordained, that the food in his stomach remains undigested for three days, as we have learned in a Mishna: How long must the food (carrion) remain in the stomach, that it may still be considered unclean? In the stomach of a dog three days, but in the stomach of a bird or a fish only as long as it would take it to burn up if thrown into the fire.

Said R. Hamnuna: "From what was said above, it may be implied that one may throw food before a dog." How much? Said R. Mari: "A small piece, and the dog should immediately be driven off." This refers to a dog in the field, but within the city a strange dog should not be fed at all, lest he run after the man; however, a dog belonging to him may be fed.

Said R. Papa: "There is nothing poorer than a dog, and nothing richer than a pig (meaning that a dog is very fastidious about food, while a pig will eat anything)."
We have learned in a Boraitha, in support of the dictum of R. Jehudah: What is the difference between cramming and putting food into the mouth of a calf? Cramming is accomplished by laying the calf down, forcing open its mouth, and stuffing it with soaked grain; and putting food into its mouth is merely feeding and watering it separately, while the calf is standing. "Poultry may be fed and crammed," etc. Said Abayi: "I asked my master, with whose opinion was the Mishna in conformity, and he told me with that of R. Jose bar Jehudah, as we have learned: Water must not be poured on bran, said Rabbi, but R. Jose bar Jehudah said that it may be done."

The rabbis taught: "When water is poured on parched corn the corn must not be kneaded on Sabbath, but others say that it may be kneaded." Who is meant by "others"? Said R. Hisda: "R. Jose bar Jehudah." Such is the case, however, only when it is done differently than on a week-day. How can it be done differently? By kneading a little at a time and not in a lump. All agree, however, that Shthitha 1 may be kneaded on the Sabbath, and that Egyptian beer may be drunk. Was it not said, that kneading was not allowed on Sabbath? This presents no difficulty. Fine corn may be kneaded, but coarse must not; and even then it must be kneaded differently than on a week-day. How can this be done? On week-days the vinegar is first put in and then the Shthitha, and on Sabbath the latter should be put in first.

Levi the son of R. Huna bar Hyya once found the herder of his father's cattle pouring water on bran and giving it to the cattle. He scolded him. Afterwards R. Huna met his son, and said to him: Thus said the father of thy mother in the name of Rabh (meaning R. Jeremiah bar Aba): "It is allowed to pour water on bran but not to put the mixed bran into the mouth of the cattle (but young cattle, that cannot eat themselves, may be fed by hand)." And this may be done, providing it is done differently than on a week-day. How should that be done? The bran should only be stirred once lengthwise and once crosswise. It will not mix well, however, in this manner. Said R. Jehudah: "Then it should be poured into another vessel."

We found in the diary of Zera: "I asked of my Master R. Hyya, whether kneading was permitted on the Sabbath, and he said, 'No.' I asked him whether transferring from one vessel to another was permitted, and he said it was." Said R. Menasseh: "It is allowed to give one animal a measure of grain, and two measures for two animals, but one must not give three measures for two animals." R. Joseph, however, said that a whole Kabh, or even two Kabhs, may be given for one or two or three animals, and Ula said that even a Kur or more may be given.

It was written in the diary of Levi: "I related in the presence of my master, who was Rabbi the Holy (Jehudah Hanassi), that in Babylon they were kneading Shthitha on Sabbath and Rabbi protested against it; but no one paid attention to it, and he had no power to prohibit it, because R. Jose bar Jehudah once permitted it (as mentioned previously)."

It was written in the diary of R. Jehoshua ben Levi: "One who is born on the first day of the week will be a man, and not one thing will be in him." What does that mean? That there will not be any one good thing in him? Did not R. Assi say that he was born on the first day of the week? Shall we say, that not one bad thing will be in him? R. Assi said: "I and Dimi bar Kakusta were both born on the first day of the week, and, behold! I am a prince and he is a leader of robbers!" What, then, is meant by "not one thing will be in him"? This means, that he will be either wholly bad or wholly good. "A man who was born on the second day of the week will be a man of violent passion." Why so? Because on the second day the water was separated. "A man born on the third day will be rich and lascivious." Why so? Because grass was created on the third day. "A man born on the fourth day will be wise and have a good memory." Why so? Because on the fourth clay the lights were created. "A man born on the Fifth day will be a charitable man." Why so? Because on that day the fishes and fowls were created. "A man born on the sixth clay will be a very devout man." [R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: "He will be zealous in the fulfilment of commandments."] "A man born on the Sabbath will also die on the Sabbath, because on his account the great day of Sabbath was violated." Said Rabba bar R. Shila: "He will, however, be called a great and pious man."
Said R. Hanina to the men who related what was written in the diary above: "Go and tell the son of Levi, that the fortune of a man does not depend upon the day, but upon the hour he was born in. One who is born in the hour of sunrise will be a bright man; he will eat and drink of his own, but he will not be able to keep secrets and will not be successful in stealing. One who is born under Venus will be a rich man, but will be lascivious, because fire is generated under Venus. One who is born under Mercury will be bright and wise, because that star is the scribe of the Sun. One who is born under the Moon will be sickly or troubled. He will build and demolish, will not eat and drink his own, but will keep secrets, and will be successful m stealing. One who is born under Saturn will have all his thoughts and aims come to naught; and others say, to the contrary, all aims against him will come to naught. One who is born under Jupiter will be a righteous man, and R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said he will be very devout. One who is born under Mars will be a man who will shed blood. He will either be a surgeon or a robber, a butcher or a circumciser, said R. Ashi. Rabba said that he was born under Mars. Said Abayi to him: "Thou, Master, reprovest men, and whom thou reprovest, he dieth; hence thou, also, sheddest blood."

It was taught: R. Hanina said: "One who is born under a lucky star may be either rich or wise, and the same thing applies to Israelites also." R. Johanan said: "An Israelite does not come under this fate"; and R. Johanan says this in accordance with his dictum elsewhere; viz.: Whence do we know that the Israelites are not subject to fate? Because it is written [Jeremiah x. 2]: "Thus hath said the Lord, Do not habituate yourselves in the way of the nations, and at the of the heavens be ye not dismayed, although the nations should be dismayed at them." So the nations may be dismayed at the signs of the heavens, but not the Israelites; and Rabh holds likewise, that the Israelites are not subject to fate. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: Whence do we know that the Israelites are not subject to fate? Because it is written [Genesis xv. 5]: "And he brought him forth abroad." Abraham said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Creator of the Universe, lo, one born in my house will be my heir"; and the Lord answered: "He that shall come forth out of thy own bowels shall be thy heir" [Gen. xv. 4]. And Abraham said again: "Creator of the Universe! I have consulted my horoscope, and have found that I am not capable of having a son"; so the Lord said to him: "Away with thy horoscope! An Israelite hath no fate!"

Of Samuel it is also known, that he thought the Israelites had no destiny, for Samuel and Ablat were once sitting together, and some men went past a meadow. Ablat (who was an astrologer) said to Samuel, pointing to one of the men: "That man will not return. A snake will bite him, and he will die." Said Samuel: "If he is an Israelite, he will come back." While they were talking, the man came back; so Ablat arose and examined him, and he found a snake cut in on the man's clothes.

Said Samuel to the man: "What didst thou do to-day, that thou hast escaped death?" The man answered: "It is our custom, when going out with a party of men, that we all contribute our share of victuals, and then have our meal in common. I knew that one of our party had no (bread) victuals, and not wishing to make him ashamed, I secured the basket to gather the food; and when coining up to him I pretended to put in his share, but in reality put in mine, and thus he was not ashamed." "Then thou hast committed an act of charity," said Samuel; and when he went out he preached that charity maybe the cause of saving a man's life, and not only from a violent death, but also from death which otherwise would have overtaken a man naturally.

Of R. Aqiba it is also known, that he did not believe the Israelites to be subject to fate, for R. Aqiba had a daughter, and the soothsayers predicted that on the day on which she should enter the garden a snake would bite her and she would die. He was very much troubled on that account. One day his daughter took off her headdress in the garden, and the needle protruding from it stuck on the side of the fence where a snake happened to be, and piercing the eye of the snake, the latter was killed. When R. Aqiba's daughter went back to the house the snake dragged after her. Asked R. Aqiba: "What didst thou do today, to escape death?" and she answered: "At dawn a man came to the door begging bread. Everybody, however, was at the table, and no one heard him but myself. I took my own meal, that thou gavest me, and gave it to him." Said R. Aqiba: "Thou didst an act of charity, and this saved thee from death." He then went forth and preached, that charity may be the cause of saving a man's life, and not only from a violent death, but also from one that was to have come naturally.

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak is also known to discountenance the theory of the Israelites being subject to fate; for the mother of R. Na'hman was told by astrologers that her son would turn out to be a thief, so she would not let him go out bare-headed, saying: "Always keep thy head covered, that thou mayest fear the Lord, and pray to Him for mercy"; and he did not know why she always told him this. One day he sat underneath a tree studying, when his head-wear fell off, and looking up, he saw the tree filled with delicious dates. He was very much tempted to take some of the fruit, although the tree did not belong to him, and accordingly climbed the tree, and bit off a branch with his teeth.

MISHNA: Pumpkins may be cut up for cattle, and carrion for dogs. R. Jehudah saith: "If the carrion was not yet carrion (if the beast had not yet died) before the Sabbath, it must not be cut up; because, in that case, it is not part of what had been provided (for consumption on Sabbath)."

GEMARA: It was taught: Ula said, the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah, and of Rabh it is also known that he agrees with R. Jehudah, as may be seen from his decree concerning covers of a vessel (on page 29). Levi also admits. that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah; for when a carcass was brought to him for decision as to its fitness for use, or unfitness, on a festival, he would not inspect it unless it had lain in the dirt; because, should he hold it to be fit, it would forthwith become carrion and not even be fit for dogs, by reason of its turning into carrion on the festival (and thus not having been provided on the day before for consumption on the festival).

Samuel, however, said, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, as also does Zera, because a Mishna elsewhere, which teaches, that if an animal died (on Sabbath or on a festival) it must not be removed, was explained by Zera to refer only to such an animal as was designated for a sacrifice and which must not be made use of at all; but any ordinary carcass may be removed. R. Johanan also said, that the Halakha according to R. Simeon prevails.

Is it possible that R. Johanan said this? Have we not learned that R. Johanan always holds Halakhas to be in accordance with the abstract decrees of the Mishna, and in another Mishna we have learned that the wood of a beam that had been broken on a festival must not be used on the festival? R. Johanan claims, that the Mishna above was taught in the name of R. Jose bar Jehudah.

Come and hear (another objection): "It is permitted to commence taking from a heap of straw on a festival for use as fuel, but not from wood designated for another purpose." This is also taught abstractly (and is certainly contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon). This above teaching refers to cedar beams intended for building purposes, and being very expensive should not be used as fuel, even according to R. Simeon.

Come and hear (another objection based upon another abstract Mishna): "It is not permitted to water or to slaughter animals living in their wild natural state, but it is allowed as regards domestic animals." (This is also contrary to R. Simeon?)

R. Johanan, however, found an abstract Mishna that was in accord with R. Simeon; viz.: That Mishna concerning bones and husks which may be removed from the table (page 326), and R. Johanan holds as R. Na'hman (did later), that all decisions rendered by the school of Shamai are in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah, while those rendered by the school of Hillel agree with those of R. Simeon.

It is related of R. A'ha and Rabhina, that one said that all laws pertaining to Sabbath remain as decreed by R. Simeon, with the exception of one thing, that had been set aside on account of causing disgust, namely, an old candlestick that had become soiled with the dripping tallow; and the other said, that even in this instance the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, but the one thing that does not remain as decreed by R. Simeon is the case of a candlestick which had been used on the same Sabbath. (Both admit, however,) that as for the theory of designation where expensive articles are concerned, R. Simeon accepts it in that case, and declares, that they may not be used on Sabbath, as we have learned in a Mishna (page 268) concerning the large wood-saw and the ploughshare, which, according to R. Simeon, also must not be handled, because they are expensive (and being used only by mechanics should not be handled by others).

MISHNA: A man may annul vows (of his wife or daughter) 1 on the Sabbath, and consult (a sage) as to vows (relating to objects) required for the Sabbath. Window-light may be shut out by blinds; a piece of stuff may be measured, and also a Mikvah (plunge-bath), to ascertain whether it be of legal size. It happened in the days of R. Zadock's father, and in the days of Abba Saul ben Botnith, that they closed a window with an earthen jar, and then tied another vessel to a pole with papyrus, in order to ascertain whether, in a covered vessel, there was an opening one span high or not. From them we learn, that (in certain cases) it may be permitted to close, to measure, and to tie on the Sabbath.
GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: Does the term, "required for the Sabbath," in connection with vows, apply to both clauses of that sentence; and if it does not, neither may be done on the Sabbath, whence we shall learn, that the time in which a man may annul the vow of his wife or daughter does not expire with the day, but continues for twenty-four hours; because, if the vows do not relate to the Sabbath and neither of the above two clauses may be executed, the man can annul the vow at night after the Sabbath; or shall we say that the term, "required for the Sabbath," applies only to the latter clause, that of consulting as to vows, and not to the first clause, that of annulling the vow, which would establish the fact that the time for annulment expires with the day and does not continue for twenty-four hours? Come and hear: R. Zoti, one of the disciples of R. Papi, taught, that only such vows as relate to the Sabbath may be annulled on the Sabbath; thence we may learn, that the time for annulment of vows does not expire for twenty-four hours? Said R. Ashi: "Did we not learn (in a Mishna of Tract Nedarim), that the time for annulment of vows continues for one day only?" Concerning this, there is a difference of opinion among the Tanaim (as will be explained in Tract Nedarim). "And consult as to vows," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: "Does this mean to say, that the man had not time before Sabbath (i.e., that he made the vow on the Sabbath), or even if he had time before Sabbath, but wishes to be released from his vow at once?" Come and hear: The rabbis complied with the wish of R. Zutra the son of R. Zera, and released him from his vow on a Sabbath, although he had plenty of time to have this done before Sabbath. 1 R. Jose wished to state, that, as to vows, a man may consult on Sabbath only a man who is a competent authority (Chacham), but he must not consult three ordinary men, because that would appear as a judgment on business affairs. Abayi said to him: "Whereas three men may be consulted standing, or even if they are of kin, or even at night, it will not appear as an ordinary judgment."

When a man wishes to annul the vow of his wife on the Sabbath, he must not say to her, as on a week-day: "Thy vow is annulled," or, "I release thee from thy vow"; but merely: "Go and eat," or, "Go and drink," and this releases her from her vow. Said R. Johanan: "The man must, however, think at the time that he is annulling her vow."
We have learned in a Boraitha: The school of Shamai said: "On Sabbath a man must annul the vow in his mind only, but on a week-day he must proclaim it by word of mouth." The school of Hillel said, however, that be it Sabbath or a week-day, it is sufficient if the man annul the vow in his mind without proclaiming it. "They closed a window with an earthen jar," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "There was a small bridge between two houses, and underneath the bridge lay a part of a corpse, and a cracked tub stood on top of the two houses; but it was not known whether the crack in the tub was large enough to admit of the penetration of the uncleanness arising from the corpse. So, first of all, all holes which were in the walls of the two houses were stopped up with towels; then another vessel (a small jar) was tied with papyrus to a pole and laid on the tub, in order to see whether the crack was one span deep or not." 1 "From them we learn that (in certain cases) one may close, measure," etc. Ula once came into the house of the Exilarch on Sabbath, and saw Rabba bar R. Huna sitting in a tub of water and measuring it. Said Ula to him: "The rabbis only permitted the measuring of a plunge-bath for ritual purposes; but did they permit it to be done for no purpose?" Rabba bar R. Huna answered: "I am doing this merely to while away the time (I have nothing else to do, and must not think of the Law while bathing, so it makes no difference)."

END OF TRACT SABBATH .

Footnotes

363:1 A deaf-mute is exempt by law from keeping any commandments.

364:1 See Appendix.

367:1 This term will be explained in the Gemara farther on.

371:1 Shthitha is the name of a dish prepared from parched corn.

376:1 See Numbers xxx. 2.

377:1 All this is originally part of Tract Nedarim. We have in consequence omitted it, but a part of that passage being necessary for the elucidation of the above text, we have incorporated it in the Tract Sabbath.

378:1 This explanation is taken from Rashi. The other commentary by Tosphath differs with Rashi, but the explanation is even more complicated than the above. Hence we have chosen the former.

THE PRAYER AT THE CONCLUSION OF A TRACT.

"Abayi said: "May it be reckoned to me (for my reward in the world to come), that whenever I noticed a young scholar (of my college) had finished a tract of the Talmud, I gave a feast to all the sages of the day." (Pages 250 and 251 of this tract.)

[Bearing the above motto in mind and as a matter of peculiar interest, we shall translate below the laudatory prayer published in every edition of the ancient Talmud at the conclusion of each tract, and in justification of this our digression from the actual text would state the following:

With all pious Israelites who were exclusively engaged in the study of the Talmud, and even with those who made it an incidental feature of their lives, it has since time immemorial been the custom to celebrate as a happy event the completion of the study of each tract. So marked was the degree of gratification at this frequent occurrence, that it became customary for the first-born sons in Israel, who in commemoration of one of the plagues sent by the Lord upon the Egyptians were in the habit of fasting on the eve of Passover, to complete the study of a tract of the Talmud on that day, and, thanks to the feast given in honor of the occasion, escape the rather onerous duty of fasting; and even in the nine days of penance occurring before the Fast of the Ninth of Abh, when the Temple was destroyed, when meat was not to be eaten and wine was not to be drunk, the same subterfuge would be resorted to, in order that a feast might be given and thus break the fast of the nine days. Apart from this, the prayer is rich in sentiment, and deserves to be rendered at the end of this volume once for all.]

We shall return to thee, Tract Sabbath, 1 and mayest thou return to us! We shall bear thee in mind, Tract Sabbath, and mayest thou bear us in mind! May we not be forgotten by thee, Tract Sabbath! and thou shalt not be forgotten by us on this earth nor in the world to come!

[This is to be repeated three times, when the following is to be recited:]
May it be Thy will, O Lord, our God and God of our fathers, that Thy Law may be our pursuit in this world and in the world to come! May there be together with us, in the world to come, Haninah bar Papa, Rami bar Papa, Na'hman bar Papa, Ahayi bar Papa, Abba Mari bar Papa, Raphram bar Papa, Rakhesh bar Papa, Sur'hab bar Papa, Ada bar Papa, and Doro bar Papa. 2 Make sweet, O Lord, our God, the words of Thy Law in our mouths, and in the mouth of Thy people the house of Israel; and may we, our children, and the children of Thy people the house of Israel, all know Thy Name and learn Thy Law.

Wiser than my enemy doth Thy commandment make me; for it is perpetually with me. Let my heart be entire in the statutes, that I may not be put to shame. Never will I forget Thy precepts; for with them Thou hast kept me alive. Blessed art Thou, O Lord! teach me Thy statutes. Amen, Amen, Amen. Selah, Vaed (Forever)!

We thank Thee, O Lord, our God and God of our fathers, that thou hast cast our lot amongst those that dwell in the houses of learning, and not amongst the occupants of the markets. For we arise early, and they arise early. We arise to the words of Law, and they arise to words of vanity. We strive, and they strive. We strive and receive our reward, while they strive in vain. We run, and they run. We run towards everlasting life, and they run towards death, as it is written: "But Thou, O God! Thou wilt bring them down into the pit of destruction; let not the men of blood and deceit live out half their days; but I will indeed trust in Thee!"

May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that as Thou hast assisted me in the conclusion of Tract Sabbath, so mayest Thou assist me in the commencement of other tracts and books of Law, and in their conclusion: that I may live to learn and teach, to observe and to do and to keep all the words of the teachings of Thy Law with affection. And may the merits of all the Tanaim and Amoraim and other scholars uphold me and my children, in order that the Law may not escape from my mouth, from the mouths of my children and children's children forever, and may it be verified in me (all that is written): "When thou walkest, it shall lead thee; when thou liest down, it shall watch over thee; and when thou art awake, it shall converse with thee. For through me shall thy days be multiplied and the years of thy life shall be increased unto thee. Length of days are in her right hand, in her left are riches and honor. The Lord shall give strength unto His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace."

[Revised July 22, 1896, and found all correct.—ISAAC M. WISE .]

Footnotes

379:1 At the conclusion of another tract, name it instead of Tract Sabbath.

379:2 At the close of a learned work, entitled "Answers and Questions," by Rabbi Moses Iserles, and also in the work entitled "Sea of Solomon," by Solomon Lurie, Tract Baba Kamah, may be found the reasons why the above ten names must be mentioned in the prayer.

APPENDIX.

PAGE 24 of Volume I. of this tract contains a Mishna commencing with the statement: "And these are some of the regulations enacted in the attic of Hananiah ben Hizkyah ben Garon," and concluding, "they enforced eighteen regulations on that day." At the same time, the Mishna fails to enumerate in the place mentioned, or elsewhere, these eighteen regulations. The Gemara, however, conjectures upon their character and cites them in a scattered and incoherent manner. As a matter of course, this is not done without the adduction of numerous and varied opinions; but the conclusion is, that the eighteen regulations are those which we shall enumerate farther on.

In another section of the Gemara it is related, that three hundred jars of wine and a like number of jars of oil were taken up into that attic in order to afford the sages no opportunity to leave their places until their deliberations concerning the regulations were finally concluded.

Among these regulations there are, however, only two or three concerning Sabbath, the rest being dispersed throughout the Talmud in their proper departments and merely mentioned as regulations enacted during that session, but they are not enumerated in regular order either of sequence or time of enactment. Hence we, in consistency with our method of translation—viz., to place everything in its proper department—have omitted in this tract the enumeration of these regulations, together with the diverse opinions concerning the reasons for their institution, which reasons as cited by the Gemara are very abstruse and for the most part untenable.
In the last chapter of this tract, however, mention is again made of the eighteen regulations, and it is declared, that their measure was made "heaping full," while elsewhere in the Gemara the assertion is made, that the day on which they were enacted was as grave in its consequences for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made. It is these two statements that have impelled us at the last moment to embody these eighteen regulations in an appendix at the end of this volume, and state as best we can, after careful study and consideration of the subject, the most potent reasons for their enactment.

With this purpose in view, we shall divide the eighteen regulations into five classes, as follows: Those pertaining to Therumah (heave-offerings), Tumah (uncleanness), Chithon (mingling with other nations), Mikvah (legal bath), and Sabbath.
Therumah is rendered useless when brought into contact with any one of the following ten subjects: First: With a man who eats a thing that had been contaminated by a parent of uncleanness 1 and had thus become unclean in the first degree. Second: With a man who had eaten a thing unclean in the second degree (i.e., had been touched by a thing unclean in the first degree). Third: With a man who had drunk unclean beverages. Fourth: With a man who had bathed his head and the larger portion of his body in water that had been pumped up (drawn or scooped), and not in a legal bath. Fifth: With a clean person (i.e., one who had already taken a legal bath, but was subsequently drenched with three lugs of drawn water). Sixth: With the sacred scrolls of the Holy Writ, either in part or in its entire form. 2 Seventh: With hands of which one was not quite certain that they had been kept clean the whole day. Eighth: With one who had taken a legal bath, if the Therumah was touched before sunset. Ninth: With eatables and utensils which had become unclean through beverages (as will be explained in Tract Yodaim). When brought in contact with any one of these nine subjects, Therumah is rendered useless. Tenth: The crop raised from Therumah (seed) is of the same character as the seed; if the latter was clean when planted the crop is clean, but if the seed was unclean the crop is the same. Nevertheless, it is still considered Therumah, and subject to the laws of Therumah. Thus we have ten regulations concerning Therumah.

Concerning uncleanness, there were four regulations enacted: First: All movable things bring uncleanness on a man by means of a tent, not larger even than a span, covering a corpse, even if the space between the corpse and the tent was but an awl's width. (For explanation, see Tract Ahaloth.) Second: The daughters of the Samaritans are considered unclean (as women suffering from their menstruation) from the day of their birth. Third: A child of a heathen is considered unclean, because it is considered as one afflicted with venereal disease. Fourth: One who presses grapes or olives renders the vessels used to receive the must or the oil susceptible to uncleanness. (This is explained in detail in Tract Kelim.)

Concerning Chithon, but one regulation was enacted, covering four subjects: It was prohibited to partake of the bread, oil, or wine of other nations in order to prevent intermarriage with their daughters.

Concerning Mikvah, one regulation only was enacted; viz.

If the water running out of a rain-gutter flow directly into a Mikvah, the Mikvah is not invalidated; but if the water was intercepted by a vessel from which it flowed into the Mikvah, the latter becomes invalid; or even if three lugs of drawn water were poured into the Mikvah, they render it useless (see Tract Mikvaoth).

Concerning Sabbath, two regulations were enacted: First: One shall not search for vermin or read before lamplight (on Friday night). 1 Second: One who was overtaken by dusk on the Sabbath eve while on the road must give his purse to a Gentile.

The learned reader who is not familiar with the intricate teachings of the Talmud, and even the student of the Talmud who has delved in its labyrinths of lore for the sake of probing into the ordinances and discussions contained in its volumes, will be quite amazed at the seeming unimportance and triviality of the above regulations, unless thoroughly comprehensive of the spirit of the Talmud and the object of the sages in their day.
At the time when these regulations were enacted and enforced, there appeared no reasonable grounds for their enactment; and even the reasons advanced by the Gemara itself in a faltering, groping manner are in many instances quite absurd. Entirely contrary to their usual custom, the sages themselves did not base these regulations upon any inference, analogy, passage, or ordinance contained in the Holy Writ, a very remarkable occurrence indeed. Furthermore, at a casual glance, the student will not find in any one of the regulations a motive based even on common sense.

Strange to say, it has also occurred that our excellent Hebrew poet L. Gordon, in a poem pungent with deepest sarcasm and pointed ridicule, commented upon these eighteen regulations, saying, amongst other things: "Not for political purposes, not for the improvement of the government moral or material, did our sages seclude themselves in their attic, but merely to prohibit matters as trivial and absurd as that of reading by lamplight on the eve of Sabbath," etc.

Had the poet, however, devoted deeper study and closer research to the environments, influences, and conditions prevailing in the days of these sages, he would readily have discovered that the greatest political import, the gravest questions of government both moral and material, actuated the institution of these apparently ridiculous regulations, all culminating and leaning towards the accomplishment of one great object; viz., that of keeping the small nation of Jews intact and guarding it from the dangers menacing it not only from the exterior world but from its interior vampires and oppressors.

It should not be overlooked that when the deliberations anent these regulations were about to be commenced, the hall used for the session was closely guarded by men armed with keen-edged swords, under instructions to permit all who desired to enter to do so, but to instantly thrust their swords through any one endeavoring to retreat; and what was the discussion commenced with? Merely an argument determining the uncleanness of certain vessels, which the priests could not approach (as will be seen farther on). Still, Hillel the Prince, the mighty sage, sat before his old-time opponent Shamai, and listened to him with the most profound attention and reverence, just as if he were the least among his disciples.
This historical fact was but another item in inducing us to digress from our established method and insert the eighteen regulations, together with the explanation of their importance; for had we not done so, it is highly probable that we would have called down the criticism of many scholars who could not overlook such an omission.

At no period in the history of the Jewish race do we find so much deliberation, profundity of thought, and depth of calculation in evidence as at the time when the sages secluded themselves in the attic of Hananiah ben Hizkyah. There it was, that means were devised to keep the nation of the Jews—whose friends were always in the minority, and whose enemies, not only abroad but in their very midst, were as the sands of the sea—intact and proof against annihilation.

All of the literature current among the masses was carefully scanned and revised. The ethical code was reënforced, and wherever necessary purged of objectionable matter. This censorship was carried to such an extent that it was attempted to reject even Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Ezekiel as undesirable; and it was only with great difficulty that those in authority were prevailed upon to let them remain. The records of ancestry, however, tracing the descent of every existing family, which were the pride of the people, as well as all works treating of medical science and the art of healing, were buried and hidden beyond recovery. Even the Apocrypha were eliminated from the Holy Writ and declared ordinary literature, and many other writings unknown to us even in this day, as well as all secret scripts, were thoroughly revised and made adaptable to the existing times and circumstances. All this, and more, was done with the sole purpose of preserving the integrity of the Jewish race and preventing its absorption by other nations.

Thus it was commenced to accustom the Jew to study and thought, and as an outcome of this period of virtual renaissance the eighteen regulations were enacted with two prime objects in view, as follows:
Firstly, to diminish as far as possible the constantly growing domination of the priests; for the high-priestdom, with which the supreme governing power was identical, could be purchased with money, and more especially because the number of priests in the last century prior to the destruction of the Temple had grown to such a vast proportion that those in actual service alone numbered little short of twenty thousand. Apart from these were those who did not perform actual service, while enjoying all the immunities and privileges of their rank as priests, and they were: Priests who had the least blemish on their bodies; those whose descent or even whose wives' descent left the least room for doubt; and the wealthy and influential priests who would not perform the menial duties of priests, but left them to the less fortunate and more insignificant of their number. (See "Die Priester und der Cultus," by Dr. Adolf Büchler, Vienna, 1895.)

Of such men was the party in power composed, and they made but too free a rise of their authority. As a matter of course, restrictions had to be provided wherewith to relieve the oppressed.

Secondly, the object was to prevent the amalgamation of the Jews with the other nations with whom they were in daily and constant association.

Now for the manner in which the first object was about to be accomplished.

Quite some time previous to the time of which we are treating, the laymen had, after a hard struggle, succeeded in divesting the priests of their spiritual power (i.e., the right to decide all questions pertaining to religious and ritual matters, whether a thing was allowed or forbidden, clean or unclean, etc.), by proving that the priests were far too ignorant to be competent judges. 1 This struggle had been going on since the days of Nehemiah, for prior to his day the priests were the sole judges both in spiritual and in temporal affairs, claiming their privilege in accordance with the passage [Deut. xxi. 5]: "And after their (the priests') decision shall be done at every controversy and every injury." Having wrested the spiritual power from the priests, the supervision of all religious and ritual matters was conferred upon the Pharisees, who henceforth were the recognized authorities in the interpretation of the Law. This accomplished, the next step decided upon was to limit as much as possible the temporal power of the priests: it was decided not to do this in too precipitate a manner, but cautiously and unostentatiously, using as a medium regulations seemingly unimportant, but the hidden motives of which were far-reaching in their consequences.

The time of Hananiah ben Hizkyah was the more opportune for such a coup d'état, as by that time the Pharisees had obtained the upper hand of all other existing sects, notably the Sadducees.

Now, inasmuch as it proved to be an easy matter to enact laws by means of which the Jews would be prevented from amalgamating with other nations, such as the prohibition of partaking the bread, oil, etc., of Gentiles, the proclamation declaring the children of heathens unclean (to prevent the children of Jews from joining them at play and thus forming attachments), and the women of the Samaritans, the deadliest enemies of the Jews, unclean (in order to prevent their employment as servants by Jews), it was but little more difficult to devise laws which would forever break the oppressive domination of the priests in a mild but nevertheless effective manner.

The first step necessary for the accomplishment of this desirable end was to completely destroy the system of espionage practised by the priests, and which was carried on to such an extent that spies were constantly prying into actions and even utterances in the houses of the laymen. This was, however, by no means an easy task, from the very fact that the priests were virtual shareholders in all the possessions of the laymen. One fiftieth of all grain raised by the peasants was their share as Therumah; one tenth of such grain comprised the tithe, and one tenth of the tithe belonged to the priests individually; the first of the dough, the first of shorn wool, the parts of slaughtered cattle, the firstlings of cattle, the firstfruits of trees and produce, all belonged to the priests; and it was but natural that they were to be found in the houses of the laymen at all times, whither they would come not to humbly ask for their donations, but to demand it as the rightful possessors and shareholders. Nor were they at all backward about taking a hand in the management of all other affairs of the layman, under the plea of guarding their own interests; and thus at times willingly, sometimes unwillingly, they were the spies of the higher authorities of the government.

The question then arose how to find a place where the deliberations for the suppression of this constantly growing evil could be held without the presence of the spying priests; and to meet the exigencies of the case, an old decree that had been promulgated in the early days of the existence of the Temple was again called into being and made effective. The decree was the one enacted in the time of Jose ben Joezer Ish Izreda and Jose ben Johanan the Jerusalemite, and read: "All the lands outside of Judæa are unclean" (i.e., all eatables and beverages containing any degree of sanctity whatever are rendered unclean by coming in contact with the soil of those lands outside of Judæa, but aside from such eatables and beverages nothing was rendered unclean). Now, the only eatables and beverages containing any sanctity whatever, which could be found outside of Jerusalem, where the sacrifices and other sanctified articles were brought, were the gifts and the Therumah set aside for the priests. Thus we see that the declaration of uncleanness, ostensibly directed against all eatables containing any degree of sanctity, was in reality directed against the Therumah of the priests, while the priests themselves were flattered by the elevation of the Therumah to the degree of highest sanctity, and its object will be apparent from the following argument:

The Therumah is invested with sanctity only when it is separated from the bulk, but while still a part of the entire crop it is regarded as ordinary grain. If the Therumah were separated from the bulk in any land outside of Judæa, the moment it comes in contact with the soil it becomes unclean and unfit for use. This fact made it necessary to separate the Therumah in Judæa. The transportation of the entire crop to Judæa for such a purpose involving too much labor and expense, part of the crop was set aside in the field, and from that part a sufficient quantity was separated and sent to the holy land. There the quantity of the Therumah (which according to biblical ordinance could have been only one grain, but according to established custom amounted to one fiftieth of the entire crop) was separated from the quantity sent. The consequence of this mode of procedure was, that the presence of the priest at the place where the crop was harvested was no longer required, as he could not demand his share outside of Judæa. Thus it was rendered possible to hold a convocation where the presence of the priest was no longer to be dreaded. 1 It seems that up to the time of Hananiah ben Hizkyah this decree had been evidently disregarded or not sufficiently effective, 2 for we see that eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple it was again promulgated, and this time reënforced with the declaration that even the atmosphere of all lands outside of Judæa was unclean and all articles containing any degree of sanctity were rendered unclean by contact with such atmosphere.

The eighty years before the destruction of the Temple correspond with the time of Hananiah ben Hizkyah, and it is quite possible that the sages called by the Talmud "the sages of the eighty years" were the same that took part in the deliberations in the attic, and that, in order to secure at least one place where they could hold a convocation undisturbed by the priests, they declared even the atmosphere of the lands outside of Judæa unclean.

The Talmud relates, also, that in the city of Usha the decree was reënforced for the third time with the declaration that all articles rendered unclean by the atmosphere of such lands were not only to be rendered useless, but were to be immediately burned, as a precaution lest a priest might accidentally make use of them.

Still, the decree was not as effective as it should have been, as long as the priest could come and announce that he would use his share of the Therumah for seed or dispose of it as seed, and to meet this exigency the sages of the attic first of all decreed that the crops raised from clean or unclean Therumah, used as seed, were clean or unclean respectively.
Again, means had to be devised to rid the laymen residing in Judæa proper from the obnoxious presence of the priests at all times; for at harvest-time, or when the grain was brought from the lands outside of Judæa, the ever-watchful priest was on band. To this end the subsequent regulations concerning Therumah were enacted and gradually reënforced. Thus at first a man who had eaten a thing unclean in the first degree rendered Therumah useless; then a man who had eaten a thing of the second degree of uncleanness, until finally even a sacred scroll, or even a hand that had come in contact with a sacred scroll, and last of all a hand that was not known to be positively clean, rendered Therumah useless. All this was done with the sole object of keeping the priests out of the houses of the laymen, and rather bring the Therumah to them than have them come to demand it. Should they come in spite of this, it was not difficult to find a pretext for calling the Therumah unclean. In order, however, not to make the purpose of these regulations too apparent, and thus give offence to the priests, other regulations were enacted in conjunction with these, which, while of no value whatever in themselves, acted as screens for the actual intentions.

It is now not difficult to explain the historical sensation caused by the deference shown by Hillel to Shamai at the commencement of these deliberations, and the reasons which prompted the posting of an armed guard at the entrance of the hall. Hillel, in his capacity as a prince of Israel, was somewhat too timid to proceed against the priests in too harsh a manner; but the masses were so much incensed against their oppressors, and so deeply conscious of their grievances, that he could not stem the popular tide against them. In this emergency it was Shamai, under ordinary circumstances of lesser consequence than Hillel, that proved to be the champion of the popular cause; and in order to insure for him a telling majority when the question came up for a final vote, the doors of the hall were guarded so that none could leave, while all were allowed to enter. Seeing the patriotism and popularity of Shamai, the prince could not help bowing to popular sentiment and showing respect to the favorite of the hour.

It would require a volume of many, many pages to demonstrate how each one of the regulations instituted was directed against the priests, how deeply it injured them, and in what measure it curtailed their previous unlimited sphere of action; also, especially, how the dispute between Hillel and Shamai concerning the susceptibility to uncleanness of vessels used at grape and olive pressing concerned the priests. Even then, a person not thoroughly imbued with the spirit of those times could scarcely understand it; but we would request that the eighteen regulations be again carefully perused, and it will readily be observed by even the casual reader, from the hints given, that the ten ordinances 1 relating to Therumah were directed entirely against the priests, and the four concerning uncleanness were in part against the priests and in part against mingling with other nations; as for the regulation against mingling, that goes without saying, while the regulations concerning the Mikvah and Sabbath were but incidental and trivial matters intended as a screen for the grave importance of those mentioned.

Footnotes

382:1 By a "parent of uncleanness" is meant any object that had come in direct contact with a corpse. See explanation in Tract Shekalim.

382:2 Why contact with the Holy Writ should render Therumah unclean can in our opinion be explained only as follows: When the priests came to demand their share of the Therumah, it is highly probable that they did this with a correspondingly impressive ceremony and read the part of the Law referring to the Therumah before the donors. If such was really the case, they no doubt carried the scrolls with them wherever they went, and in consequence the regulation was enacted which rendered the Therumah unclean when brought into contact with the scrolls or book containing the Holy Writ. Our basis for this assertion is the ordinance to be found in Tract Yodaim, which proclaims that the scrolls or books containing the Holy Writ render hands unclean when coming in contact with them, and doubtless the hands of the priests, which were afterwards to handle Therumah, are meant.

383:1 There are differences of opinion in the Gemara as to the division of the regulations. Some hold that they should be grouped, while others would count them separately. The matter is of no importance, however, and hence we have grouped them in conformity with the number stated by the Mishna.

386:1 See Haggai ii. 13 and 14.

388:1 At the same time that the decree declaring all lands outside of Judæa unclean was promulgated, glassware was also declared unclean, while prior to that time glassware had not even been susceptible to uncleanness. We cannot state positively whether this was done in order to render the first decree less conspicuous or to prevent the priests from being present at the places where glassware was manufactured, which were all outside of Judæa. Be that as it may, it can safely be assumed that the measure was another political ruse.

388:2 It was not sufficiently effective because, in order to circumvene the decree, the priests brought chests to the lands outside of Judæa in which to store the bulk of the grain before separating the Therumah, and thus prevent the contact of the latter with the soil. This we presume from a hint of Rashi to that effect.

390:1 We have not enumerated the ordinances in their regular order of sequence as to the time, for they are scattered in the Talmud without any order, but arranged them more in accordance with their importance and severity, according to the commentary of Rashi.

Book 7: Tract Baba Bathra (Vols. XIII and XIV)

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles:

I. Tenan of the original—We have learned in a Mishna; Tania—We have learned in a Boraitha; Itemar—It was taught.

Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately followed by the answers, without being so marked.

When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase, Lishna achrena or Waïbayith Aema or Ikha d'amri (literally, "otherwise interpreted:), we translate only the second.
As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation from the latter, s. Words or passages enclosed in round parentheses ( ) denote the explanation rendered by Rashi to the foregoing sentence or word. Square parentheses [ ] contain commentaries by authorities of the last period of construction of the Gemara.

COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

COPYRIGHT 1916, BY NEW TALMUD PUBLISHING SOCIETY

TO HIM

WHO FOR HIS PHILANTHROPY AND HUMANITY IS BELOVED AND

HIGHLY PRAISED BY THE PEOPLE OF GREATER

NEW YORK AND COUNTRY

THE H ONORABLE SAMUEL GREENBAUM JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT

THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY HIS ADMIRER

AND FRIEND

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

New York, January 1, 1902 .

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOUSES, YARDS, AND FIELDS IN PARTNERSHIP OR CONJOINTLY; THE SHARING IN PARTITIONS, FENCES, AND WALLS; LOOKING INTO OTHERS' PROPERTY; CLAIMS PAID BEFORE DUE; DUTIES OF ONE TO HIS CITY—STREETS, ETC.; CITIZENSHIP BY LAPSE OF TIME, AND CONCERNING THE SIZE OF A YARD LIABLE TO DIVISION

1

CHAPTER II.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SPACE TO BE LEFT BETWEEN ONE'S PROPERTY AND ANOTHER'S, BE IT OF ONE OR TWO KINDS. UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS A TENANT MAY PLACE AN OVEN IN HIS DWELLING. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A SHOP IN A YARD MAY BE PREVENTED. CONCERNING THE SPACE TO BE LEFT BETWEEN A CITY AND PIGEON-COOPS, TREES, BARNS, CEMETERIES, AND TANNERIES

55

CHAPTER III.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING OCCUPANCY (HAZAKAH)—AT WHAT TIME AND IN WHAT RESPECT IT GIVES TITLE. REPLEVINS BY COURT. PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY A DEFENDANT WHO IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PLAINTIFF BUT EQUAL IN EVIDENCE. A PROTEST AGAINST OCCUPANCY IN ONE'S PRESENCE OR ABSENCE BY ONE'S OPPONENT. THE WRITING OF BILLS OF SALE AND DEEDS OF GIFT. OCCUPANCIES WHICH CAME FROM INHERITANCE. THE OCCUPANCIES OF SPECIALISTS, PARTNERS, GARDENERS, AND GUARDIANS. OBTAINING PROPERTIES FROM THE CONTRACTING COLLECTORS OF DUTIES AND TAXES. BAILMENTS—OF WHOM THEY MAY BE ACCEPTED. PERSONAL PROPERTIES TO WHICH THE LAW OF OCCUPANCY DOES AND DOES NOT APPLY. OPENING OF WINDOWS AND DOORS TO NEIGHBORS' OR PARTNERS' PROPERTIES, AND BUILDING OF CAVES, PITS, ETC., UNDER PUBLIC GROUND

83

CHAPTER IV.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING UNCONDITIONAL AND CONDITIONAL SALES OR GIFTS OF BUILDINGS, HOUSES, AND PALACES: WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED; AND ALSO CONCERNING YARDS, BATH-HOUSES, AND PRESS-HOUSES FOR OIL AND WINE. SALES OF WHOLE CITIES, VALLEYS, FIELDS, WELLS, ETC.

147

CHAPTER V.
RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SALES OF SHIPS, BOATS, ANIMALS, AND TEAMS; CONCERNING BROODS OF PIGEONS AND BEASTS; TREES, WITH THE GROUND AND WITHOUT. HOW TO ACQUIRE TITLE To FRUIT AND FLAX. OF ARTICLES WHICH BECAME DEARER OR CHEAPER BETWEEN THE TIME OF SALE AND DELIVERY. AT WHAT TIME THE WHOLESALERS AND STOREKEEPERS HAD TO CORRECT THEIR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, AND OF WHAT MATERIAL THE WEIGHTS MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE MADE 167

APPENDIX TO MISHNA I., CHAP. III., PAGE 83

214

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

OF

TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE).

CHAPTER I.

MISHNAS I. TO III. In case of dividing partnerships in a yard, where and of what the wall shall be built. Is overlooking another's property considered injurious? Of what size the yard must be to be fit for division. May a prayer house be taken apart before the new building is ready? The legend of Herod the great with Simeon b. Shatuh. How Herod built the Temple without the consent of the Roman government. Concerning partitions, fences in partners' gardens, and valleys. Mayor may not one be compelled to join in the expenses of fences if one's estate is surrounded by his neighbor's on three sides? If there is a wall, and one of the owners claims that his neighbor did not bear his share of the expense. A debtor who says: I paid my debt before due. If the plaintiff demanded his money long after due.

He who claims, "I have never borrowed," is to be considered as if he should say, "I have never paid." How and where is a parapet to be made and of what size? If there were two courtyards one upon the other; there were two tenants, and the roof of the lower one sank; there was one who built a wall against the window of his neighbor, etc. Two brothers divided a bequest, a palace and a fine garden, and the latter built a wall on the edge of the garden. There was a note belonging to orphans, against which the other party showed a receipt, 1-16 MISHNA IV. The sharing in the building of a gate to a courtyard as well as to a city wall. Who are obliged to pay taxes and duties of a city? Rabbi opened his barns of grain in the years of famine, etc. How long must one dwell in a city to be taxed? Charity must be collected by two persons and distributed by three.

May one be pledged or not for charity? Who of the poor must be investigated before support, and who supported immediately without inquiry? What about one who begged from door to door? The virtue of charity equals the sum of the virtues of all the other commandments together. "I was told by the child who was corrected by his mother," etc. The one who is doing charity secretly is greater than Moses our master. How is the verse, Prov. xxi. 21, to be understood? Whosoever makes it his business to do charity will be blessed with sons having wisdom, wealth, etc. The discussion of Aqiba with Tarnusruphus. As the yearly household expenses for one are appointed (in Heaven) on each Rosh Hashana, so are his losses. Grace is charity which nears the redeeming, etc. How may the born of Israel be raised?

Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai questioned his disciples as to the meaning of the verse, Prov. xiv. 34, etc. Iphra Hurmiz, the mother of King Sabur, sent four hundred dinars for charity to R. Ammi, etc. If one bought a tract of land, however small, he is considered a citizen immediately, 16-32 MISHNA V. Partners cannot compel each other to divide. This is the rule: If, after division, each part retains its former name, then one can compel his partner to divide. A yard must be divided in accordance with the doors, etc. The four ells which are allowed for each door are for unloading. If one of the inhabitants of an alley desires to open the door leading from his yard to another alley. Inhabitants of alleys who desire to make doors to the street may be prevented by the public.

Prophecy was taken away from the prophets and was given to the wise, to lunatics, and children (how this is to be understood). There was a man who bought an estate near to the estate of his father-in-law (who had no male children). The law, "Either you concede or I concede," when is it applied? The case of female slaves whom Huna bequeathed to his sons. May or may not the books of the Bible be bound together? What must the size of the holy scrolls be? What was placed in the ark, and how. The order of the Prophets, and who wrote them? Who was Job—an Israelite or a Gentile—and at what time did he exist, if he existed at all? The legends about Satan and Job.

Satan was more afflicted than Job himself, etc. Satan and Peninnah both intended (with their accusations) to please Heaven, etc. The explanation of the passages addressed out of the storm wind, etc., etc. Why was not Job doubly rewarded with daughters, as he was with sons and with all his property? There are three to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a taste of the world to come in this world. There are six whom the angel of death has not dominated. There are four who died without sin, 32-54

CHAPTER II.

MISHNAS I. TO III. How much space is to be left between one's property and another's? For whom is it to remove himself from supposed injury, the supposed injurer or him who would be injured? One must remove a pond for steeping flax from herbs, garlic from onions, and mustard from bees. Three spans space, and plastered with lime—are both needed, or does one of them suffice? Is one allowed to void his urine near the wall of his neighbor? Under what circumstances one may or may not place an oven in a lower story of a house. Can one of the partners in a yard prevent his partner from establishing a store in it, or not? At what age a child may be taken to school. The enactment of Joshua b. Gamla concerning teaching of children. In what circumstances the claim, "You are cutting off my livelihood," applies? "I doubt whether an inhabitant of one alley can prevent one of another alley from competing with him." The legend of R. Dimi's dry figs. How much space is to be left from one wall to an opposite one, and how much to a window, 55-67 MISHNAS IV. TO XII. To what distance a ladder must be removed from one's neighbor's pigeon-coop. The distance between a pigeon-coop and the city. If a case which we should judge by a majority would be different if according to proximity, how is it to be judged? How much space is to be left to the city when planting a fruit tree outside; and how much to a wild one, to a carob, and to a sycamore. How much to barns, to cemeteries, and to tanneries. The Shekhinah occupies every place. The world is like a balcony without the fourth wall, etc. On what side of the city a tannery may be placed. He who desires to increase his wisdom shall recite his prayers towards the south, etc. To a well a distance of twenty-five ells must be left when planting a tree, etc. One must not plant a tree near his neighbor's field, etc. A tree which bears fruit to the measure of a kab is forbidden to be cut down. A tree which is within sixteen ells of the boundary of another's estate is considered robbery, etc. If the branches of a tree are inclined towards another's field, what is to be done? The branches of a tree which overhang public ground may be cut off, so that a came] with its rider may pass freely, 67-82

CHAPTER III.

MISHNA I. The law of occupancy—to what it does and does not apply. Whence is it deduced? What time is needed for it, and how a protest against it should be made. Must the three years of hazakah be interrupted? Who testifies as to the occupancy of houses? The many cases of occupied houses which the owners claimed, brought before different rabbis of the Amoraim who decided differently. If one claims, "It was from my parents," and the other claims the same. There was one who said: "I possessed a document but lost the true one, and this is a correct copy," There was another case similar concerning a hundred zuz in cash. It was murmured among people that Rabha b. Sharshum had appropriated land belonging to orphans, and Abayi sent for him. One snatched a piece of silver from his neighbor and the case was brought before R. Ami.

There was a boat about which two parties quarrelled, each claiming that it was his. If each of the parties claim: "This estate belonged to my parents." If witnesses testified that the plaintiff has loaded a basket of fruit from this field on the shoulders of the defendant, the hazakah is effected immediately. Is ploughing a hazakah, or not? If one has made a hazakah on the trees and another upon the ground, has the owner of the trees a share in the ground? 83-100 MISHNAS II. AND III. There are three lands concerning the law of hazakah. If one runs away from a city because of crime, and one occupies his estate, the law of hazakah applies. How should one protest? Is a protest not in one's presence to be considered? Under what circumstances the court announces to the defendant that his property will be sold. How is it when he told them to write a deed of gift without an explanation?

A hazakah to which there is no claim is not to be considered. How so? What happened to Anan and Kahana, who placed their fences on others' estates. If the father has consumed one year and his son two, or vice versa, or each of them one year and the buyer from them one year, is it considered a hazakah? The law of hazakah does not apply to specialists, farmers, etc. May one who is supposed to be interested in a case be a witness? Has one a right to say: "I cut myself off from this estate entirely"? If A has robbed B of a field and has sold it to C, then D comes with a claim, has B then any right to be a witness for C? If one sold a field to his neighbor without security, he has no right to qualify as a witness concerning it. The announcement of Rabha or Papa about an article which a Gentile takes away from an Israelite.

If one has given his garment to a specialist, the latter claiming two zuz and the owner one. If one has exchanged his utensils for another's in the house of a specialist, etc. "Come and I will tell you what the swindlers of Pumbeditha are doing." May a gardener be taken as a witness in case of a claim, or not? A robber—neither he nor his son has hazakah, but his grandson has. A specialist or a gardener who has ceased his profession, a son who was separated from his father, and a woman who was divorced—all of them are considered, in a case of hazakah, with men in general. If one sold his estate by duress, the sale is valid. Why so? Tabba hanged Pappi on a tree, to compel him to sell him his field. If witnesses testify they signed a note whose amount was not yet paid, but was prepared by the borrower in case he should find some one who would make him the loan.

"I did so only with the intention of pleasing my husband, but not with the intention of selling it." Is there no occupancy in the estate of a married woman? If one borrowed from his bondsman and encumbered his estate for him by a document, and afterwards he freed him? One must not accept bailments from women, slaves, or children. If one who was the business man of the house, and the bills of sale and notes were in his name, claims: "All this is my own"—what should be the evidence? Concerning a gift or an inheritance of brothers. Is it not the duty of every Israelite to save the property of his neighbor from damage when seeing danger is near? There cannot be a better hazakah than lifting up, as this act gives title to one in everything. The estate of idolaters, if sold to an Israelite, and the latter has not made a hazakah on it, it is like a desert.

If an Israelite buys a field from a Gentile and another Israelite comes and takes possession of it (before the bill of sale reaches the buyer). "I was told by the Exilarch Uqban the following three things: (a) That the law of the government should be respected as a law of the Torah," etc., 100-134 MISHNAS IV. TO X. What, and under what circumstances, collusive witnesses have to pay. If there were three brothers and one stranger. There is a difference in usage of articles—in some cases hazakah applies, and in some not. Does this rule always hold good? The wonderful sayings and acts of Bnaha. Hazakah does not apply to movable pipes attached to drains, etc. What is to be considered an Egyptian window? To an enclosure the size of a span in width, hazakah applies. One must not open windows to the yard even when he is a partner in it.

One must not open, in a yard belonging to partners, a door or window opposite that of one's partner, etc. One must not make a hole in public ground. "There were enclosures from R. Ammi's property facing an alley," etc. When the second Temple was destroyed, many of Israel separated themselves from eating meat and drinking wine. Such a thing must not be decreed, which the majority of the congregation could not endure, 134-146

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNAS I. TO V. If one sells a house unconditionally. If one sells a property, he must write in the bill of sale: "I reserve nothing of it for myself." If E owns a field adjoining A's field from east to west, and B's from north to south, and he comes to sell it, etc. If A and B were partners in a field, and A sold his share to C. If one sold a house with the stipulation that the upper diæta (chamber) was reserved for him. If one has sold the house to one man and the diæta to another. Title is not given to a well, although there is mentioned that one sold the depth and the height. The difference between a sale and a gift. If one sold a house, he sold with it the door, the bolt and lock, but not the key. If one sold a yard, the houses. walls, cellars, and caves are included, but not movable property. If one sells a press-house, the sale includes the trough, the press-beam or press stone, etc., 147-166.

MISHNAS VI. TO IX. If one sells a bath-house the sale does not include the boards on the floor. If one sells a town, the sale includes houses, etc., but not movable property. If one sells a field, the sale includes the stones which are needed for its use. From the passage, Gen. xxxiii. 17, we infer that the boundary is sold to the buyer with the field biblically. A depositary who claims that he had returned the bailment, etc. In selling a field, if it contains a well, cistern, etc., they are not included in the sale 158-166

CHAPTER V.

MISHNAS I. TO V. How should one acquire title to a boat? To a promissory note title is given by transfer and bill of sale: acquire title to it and to all the debts it contains is traditional and also according to common sense. A bill of sale to a wagon does not include the mules when not hitched, and vice versa. May the amount paid serve as evidence? If one sells an ass, the harness is not included. The khumni is not included in the harness. What does khumni mean? If one sold a she-ass, its foal is sold; but if a cow, the calf is not. If one buys the brood of a pigeon-coop; of a bee-hive. If one buys a tree for cutting it down, he must begin a span high from the ground; an inoculated sycamore, three spans; a trunk of sycamores, two. If exactly three spans, it is beneficial for the growth of the tree, etc., 167-175 MISHNAS VI. TO IX.

If one buy two trees within his neighbor's field, the ground beneath is not sold; if three, it is. Concerning the firstfruit offerings. If the branches were wide-spreading. How much space is to be left between the trees in question, that it should be considered the buyer's? A practised act is more important for evidence. How should the ground be. longing to the buyer be measured? If one has sold two trees situated in his field and one on the boundary. There are four legal customs concerning sales. If one sold dark-red wheat and it was found to be white, or vice versa, etc. By what acts is title given to fruit and to flax? The vessels of the buyer give title to him in every place, except on public ground. There are four legal customs concerning sellers, etc. To real estate title is acquired by money, deed, or hazakah; and to personal property title is given by drawing only.

To a thing which is usually lifted up, title is given by lifting; and usually drawn, by drawing. If one hires a servant to work for him in the barn for one dinar a day, with the stipulation that he shall work for him for the same price in the harvest-time. If one sold wine or oil, and it be comes dearer or cheaper, 175-190 MISHNAS X. AND XI. If one sends his little son to the storekeeper with a pundiun (dupondius), but the child loses the issar and breaks the glass. If one take a vessel from a specialist, to examine it, he is responsible for an accident. The wholesaler has to clean his measures once within thirty days. Must overweight be given, and how much? The punishment for false measuring is harder than for adultery. It is harder for the cheating of a commoner than for the cheating of the sanctuary.

The scales must be hanging three spans in the air, etc. Weights must not be made of tin, lead, cassiterite, or other kinds of metal. One must not keep in his house an unjust measure, even if he uses it for a chamber. If the elders of the city want to enlarge the measures, it must not be more than a sixth of them. From the verse Ezek. xlv. 12 may be inferred three things, etc. "Those who forestall fruit," etc.—who are meant thereby? There must not be exported from Palestine things by which a livelihood is made. It may be prayed by blowing of horns even on Sabbath, when business becomes dull. One must not emigrate from Palestine to other provinces, unless the price of grain has increased, etc. "When Abraham our father departed from this world, all the great men of the nations stood up in a file and said," etc. "I remember when a child used to break a piece of carob, threads of honey would leak out," etc., 190-203

HAGADAH.

The well-known legends of Rabba b. b. Hana: Waves, Hurnim ben Lilith, roebuck of one day, alligator. The fish which destroyed sixty cities. The fish with two fins. About the leviathan, male and female. The banquet of the upright in the world to come. The bird with her head in the sky. The geese from which a whole river of fat was running. The Arabian merchant who accompanied Rabba in the desert, and showed him the dead of the desert at the time of Moses. The place where Korach with his company was swallowed up, where the earth and the sky meet, etc. What R. Johanan has to tell. Jehudah of Mesopotamia. What happened with Eliezer and Jehoshua while on the ship. What Huna b. Nathan told. The canopies (chupas) for each upright in the world to come. The ten chupas made for Adam the first in paradise. About Hiram the King of Tyre who claimed to be a God. The increase of Jerusalem in the future, 203-213

APPENDIX.

Usucapio in the Roman Law 214

TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE).

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOUSES, YARDS, AND FIELDS IN PARTNERSHIP OR CONJOINTLY; THE SHARING IN PARTITIONS, FENCES, AND WALLS; LOOKING INTO OTHERS' PROPERTY; CLAIMS PAID BEFORE DUE; DUTIES OF ONE TO HIS CITY—STREETS, ETC.; CITIZENSHIP BY LAPSE OF TIME, AND CONCERNING THE SIZE OF A YARD LIABLE TO DIVISION . MISHNA I.: Partners in a courtyard surrounded by two houses, each of them belonging to one of the partners, one of whom (or both) may desire to make a Me'hitza (partition) in the yard, the wall is to be built in the middle exactly. The material for it and all other things must be as is customary in the country; viz.: in the case of unhewn stones (of which the thickness is usually six spans) each of them has to give his share of space and material for three spans; in the case of hewn stones, for two and a half; in the case of half-bricks, between which are usually inserted sand and small stones, for two; and in the case of whole bricks, one and a half spans from each suffice. Therefore, when it happens that such a wall falls, the space and material of it belong to both equally. The same is the case with a garden in places where they are usually fenced: if one of the partners desires to construct a fence, the other cannot prevent him, nor withhold his share of the expense. In valleys, however., in places where it is not usual to fence, one cannot compel his partner to share with him, but he may build a fence about his own portion, and make an enclosure on the outside (as a sign that it belongs to him only); and therefore should such a fence fall, the material belongs to him alone. If, however, such is built conjointly, it must be in the exact middle, and an enclosure is to be made on both sides (as a sign that it was built conjointly); and therefore should it fall, the space and material belong to both.

GEMARA: The schoolmen, in interpreting the Mishna, were about to explain the word Me'hitza as meaning division, according to Numbers xxxi. 43, where the word Ma'htzis is used in the sense of divided into halves; and the Mishna comes to teach that when both have decided to divide their grounds, one of them can compel the other to join in building such a wall, even if he object to do so, from which it is to be inferred that looking into the other's property is considered injurious. But perhaps the expression Me'hitza means only a partition, according to what we have learned in a Tosephtha, that if a partition (which divides the vine from other kinds of products) break, the owner of the other products has to notify the owner of the vineyard twice that he should fence it, and if he does not do so, the products are prohibited and the owner of the vineyard is responsible. And as in this Tosephtha the word Me'hitza is used with the meaning of a fence, so it may be that in our Mishna also it means a fence. And the Mishna teaches that if both have decided to build a fence, then each of them must join in its making, but not otherwise. From which it is to be inferred that looking into another's property is not considered injurious? If it should be so, then why does the Mishna state "the wall must be," etc.? It ought to be, "it must be built."

On the other hand, if the Mishna means that they have decided to divide, why the expression "Me'hitza"? It ought to be "to halve," as people say: "Come to halve our goods"; and also, if looking is considered injurious, why the statement of the Mishna, "if both like to do so"? Even if one of them desires, his partner may be compelled to join with him, so as to prevent injurious looking in. Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishna treats of a small yard which was not liable to division (it did not contain eight ells), and then only when both consent to divide can one compel his partner, but not otherwise. But then what comes the Mishna to teach? That when the yard is not sufficient for a division, and both wish to do so, they may? Is it not taught plainly farther on? From that teaching one may say that he can compel him only to join in erecting a border-mark, but not a wall. It comes to teach us that the same is the case even with a wall. But if so, why the other statement of a border-mark? There it is needed because of the last part of the Mishna, which teaches that with the Holy Writ it is different: it is not allowed to be divided, even if both consent to do so.
Now, the Mishna is explained as treating of a yard which is not sufficient for division. Then what matters it—even if they have both decided to divide their grounds, could they not retract? Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: It treats of a case in which it was already done with the ceremony of a sudarium. But even then, what matters it? After all, it was decided only verbally, and they may retract? It speaks of a case in which the parts of each were already marked off. R. Ashi, however, said: It speaks of a case in which each of them has already made a hazakha (settlement) on his part, so that they have acquired title and can no more retract. (The expression in the Mishna for half-bricks is khphisin.) Said R. A'ha b. R. Ivia to R. Ashi: Whence do we know that this expression means half-bricks and the additional span is for the stuff which is put between them? Perhaps it means unhewn stones, and this additional span is for the projecting corner. And he answered: The meaning of the words of the Mishna is traditionally so explained.

Said Abayi: A span is needed only when, between the half-bricks, small stones and sand are put, but if only clay, a span is not needed. Shall we assume that a wall, four ells in height, of hewn stones needs the thickness of five spans? Was not the height of the walls of the first Temple thirty ells, and the thickness only six spans, and it nevertheless held? The additional span sustained it. Why, then, did they make the walls of the second Temple still thicker? Because a thickness of six spans can sustain only a height of thirty ells, but not a greater one, and the second Temple was much higher. And whence do we deduce it? From [Haggai, ii. 9]: "Greater shall be the glory of this latter house than that of the former." Rabh and Samuel, and according to others R. Johanan and R. Elazar, differ in the explanation of this verse. According to one, it means the building itself; and according to the other, it means the years of its existence. In reality, however, it was in both respects more glorious.
The schoolmen propounded a question: Does the Mishna mean, by giving the sizes, with the lime, or without? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: Common sense dictates that it means with the lime; for without the lime the sizes mentioned in the Mishna would not be correct (since without the lime it would not hold, and the lime, of course, enlarges the size). But can it not be said that it means without the lime, and because the size of the. rime does not reach a span, therefore the Mishna does not count it? But does not the Mishna state a span and a half? It may be said that, because the two halves make a span, therefore it is counted. Come and hear! (Erubin, p. 28:) "The cross-beam in question must be wide enough to hold a half of a brick, which is three spans in length and in width." There it treats of a great one, and it seems to be so, as it says: "A half of a brick, three spans," etc., from which it is to be inferred that there is a smaller half-brick which is not of the size mentioned, and this is the size in our Mishna, where both half-bricks together measure only three spans with the lime. R. Hisda said: One must not take apart a prayer-house until another one is built; according to some, because it may be neglected by accident, and according to others, because until the new one be built there they will have no place for prayer. And the difference is that, when there is another place for prayer, according to the latter it may be done.

Maremar and Mar Zutra used to take apart the summer house of prayer in the winter, and the winter house of prayer in the summer. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: How is it? When the money for the new building has already been collected by the treasurer, may the old be taken apart, or not? And he answered: Even then a redeeming of prisoners may happen, for which the sum might be used. But how is it if the whole material for the new building was already prepared? And he rejoined: Even then the above case can happen, and the material would be sold out for this purpose. If so, then even when it is already built? And he replied: A completed building it is not customary to sell for such a purpose. And this was all said in case no sign of ruin was seen in the old building; but if there were such, it might be taken apart immediately. R. Ashi, for example, saw such in the prayer-house at Sura, and took it apart and placed his bed there, and did not take it out until the whole building was ready. It is said farther on that Baba b. Buta advised Herod to take apart the old Temple for the purpose of building a new one. Was this not against the law, as declared above by R. Hisda: "One must not take apart," etc.? If You wish, you may say he saw a sign of ruin in the old one; and if you wish, it may be said it is different with a king, who usually does not retract from his word, as, e.g., Samuel said, that if the king should say, "I will remove this great mountain," it would be done.

Herod was a servant of the Hasmoneans, and there was a little girl among them upon whom he cast his eyes. One day he heard a voice saying that a servant who should rebel that day would succeed. Then he slew all his superiors except this little girl; and when she saw that he intended to marry her, she ascended to the roof and proclaimed: "If it happen that one shall claim himself descended from the Hasmoneans, be it known that he is a slave, for all the Hasmoneans were slain except myself, and I now commit suicide by throwing myself from this roof." Said Herod to himself: Who insists upon what is written [Deut. xvii. 15]: "From the midst of thy brethren shalt thou set a king," etc.? The rabbis, as the leaders of Israel. He therefore slew all the rabbis, and left only Baba b. Buta, to take advice from him when needed; but he blinded him. One day Herod came (incognito) and sat before him, saying: "Let the master see what the bad slave Herod has done." And he answered: "What can I do to him?" And he said: "Curse him." But Baba answered with the verse [Eccl. x. 20]: "Even in thy thoughts, thou must not curse a king." Herod said: "But he is not a king at all." And Baba answered: "Let him be only rich, it is written [ibid., ibid.]: 'In thy bed chambers, do not curse the rich.' And even if he be only a ruler, it is written [Ex. xxii. 27]: 'A ruler among thy people, thou shalt not curse.'" And Herod said: "This is only when he does as the people of Israel do; but he, Herod, does the contrary." And he rejoined: "I am afraid of him." Herod continued: "But there is no one who could tell him, as only you and I are here." And Baba rejoined with the above-cited verse: "For a bird of the air can carry the sound," etc. Then rejoined Herod: "I am Herod, and did not know that the rabbis were so careful. Had I been aware of this, I should not have slain them; but now I crave your advice; perhaps as to that you will find some remedy for me." And Baba answered: "You have blinded the eye of the world, as it is written [Num. xv. 24]: 'If through inadvertence of the congregation.' 1 Go, therefore, and occupy thyself with the eye of the world, which is now the Temple, as it is written [Ezek. xxiv. 21]: 'I Will profane my sanctuary . . . the desire 2 of your eyes,' and so I advise you to rebuild the Temple."

And Herod said: "I fear the Roman government." Rejoined Baba: "Send a messenger to Rome, for which it shall take a year until he shall reach there, and let him remain there a year, and his returning shall also take a year, and during the three years you can take apart this Temple and build a new one." Herod did so, and the answer was: "If you have not as yet taken apart the old one, let it remain so; if you have already taken it apart, do not build a new one; and if you have already taken apart and also rebuilt, such is the custom of bad slaves: they seek advice after the thing is already done. It is true, you are now the ruler. Your record, however, is in our archives, in which it can be seen that you are not a king, nor a descendant of kings. It is only marked, 'Herod, the servant, has made himself free.'" It was said that he who had not seen the new Temple of Herod had not, in all his life, seen a fine building. "With what material did he build it?" asked Rabha. With ornamented marble stone of different colors, the stones being not in a straight line, but alternately projecting and receding, the gaps being intended to receive the lime. He intended to cover it with gold, but the rabbis advised him not to do so, because as it was it looked as effulgent as the waves of the sea.

But why did Baba give Herod such advice? Did not R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, or in the name of Jehoshua b. Levi, say that Daniel was punished for giving good advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written [Dan. iv. 24]: "Therefore, O king, let my counsel be agreeable unto thee, and atone for thy sins by righteousness," etc.? With the Temple it was different, for except by the king, it could not be rebuilt at all. And whence do we know that Daniel was punished? He was thrown into the lions' den [ibid. vi.]. "And all other things," etc. What does the expression all add? Those places where it is customary to make such a partition of thorns. "Therefore, if it happens that such a wall fall," etc. Is this not self-evident? It means that, should the wall fall into the part of one of them, or if, in the building thereof, one of the partners should build it all on his part, lest one say that then the other partner should be considered as a plaintiff for whom it is to bring evidence, it comes to teach us that this is not so. "The same is the case with a garden," etc. Does not this paragraph contradict itself? It states: "The same is the case, etc., where it is customary to make a fence"; from which it is to be inferred that if it was not customary, one cannot compel another to join. Then how is to be understood the last part, which states: "In a valley, etc., where it is not customary to make a fence," etc.; from which it is to be inferred that if there be no such custom at all, he may be compelled to join? And this is contradictory, since even concerning a garden, where there was no such custom at all, he is not to be compelled. So much the less in a valley, where there is no such custom? Said Abayi: It means to say thus: In a garden, even where it was not the custom, and in a valley, where it was the custom, to make a fence, the partner may be compelled to join. Said Rabha to him: If it is so, to what purpose is it stated "however." "Therefore," said he, "it means thus: concerning a garden, where there is no custom at all, it must be considered as if it were customary to make a fence; however, in a valley, where it is not the custom, it is to be considered as though the custom were not to fence. Therefore in the first case he is to be compelled to join, and in the second he is not." "But one may put the fence in the space of his own part," etc. How shall the enclosure be put? Said R. Huna: It shall be inclined toward the inside. Why not toward the outside? Because then the partner could cut it off and claim that the wall was built conjointly. But can the same not be done even when it inclines toward the inside? The joining (to the fence) would be recognized. But does not the Mishna state plainly, "outside"? The objection remains.

R. Johanan, however, said that the Mishna means not exactly an enclosure, but a sign smeared with clay, the extent of an ell, outside. And why not inside? Because then the partner could mark such outside, to claim that it was done by both. But even now, the partner can scrape it off for the purpose of making such a claim? Scraping can be recognized (as artificial). If, however, the partition were made of thorns, there can be no remedy with a sign, unless one writes it on a note and puts in for safekeeping in the court. 1 So Abayi maintains. "If, however, such was built conjointly," etc. Said Rabha of Pharziqa to R. Ashi: Why, then, the enclosure at all? And he answered: The Mishna treats of a case in which one has already made such an enclosure on one side; the other should follow him on the other side, as a sign that the wall belongs to both. And he asked: Does the Mishna teach a remedy against a swindler? And R. Ashi rejoined: Is not the first part, which states that an enclosure should be made (inside or outside), a remedy against a swindler? To which he answered: The first part teaches a law, and by the way gives also the advice which should be the remedy against a swindler; but in the last part it does not teach a new law at all, as it is self-evident that when they have joined in the wall the material belongs to both (and the new teaching is only the remedy against a swindler)? Said Rabhina: The last part treats of a case in which the wall was made of thorns, and comes to teach that it is not as Abayi said above, that there is no remedy except by a note, etc.; but that if the enclosures are made on both sides it suffices.

MISHNA II.: If one's estates surround those of his neighbor on three sides, and he has fenced all the three sides, the neighbor is not to be compelled to join in the expense (so long as it is open on the fourth side). Said R. Jose: If the neighbor fenced the fourth side of his field, then he must join in the expense of all the fences.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Jose. And there is no difference whether the fourth fence was built by the surrounder or by the surrounded (as in either case his [the neighbor's] field is now protected). It was taught: R. Huna said: He must take an equal share in all the expense, and Hyya b. Rabh maintains that he has only to pay for the cheapest fence-rails. An objection was raised from our Mishna, which states that when he has fenced all three sides the neighbor is not to be compelled; from which it is to be understood that if he has fenced the fourth side also, then the neighbor must join. Then the decision of R. Jose, who said that when the fourth was fenced he must join in the expense of all the fences, is to be understood that he differs with the first Tana in that, according to him, he must share all the expense equally, while according to the first Tana he must pay only for cheap fence-rails. And this explanation can be correct only in accordance with R. Huna. But according to Hyya, who said that all of them treat only about the payment for cheap fence-rails, what, then, would be the point of difference between the first Tana and R. Jose?

It is to be explained as to the surrounder and the surrounded. According to the first Tana, even when the surrounder has fenced the fourth side, the surrounded has to pay, for the reason stated above; and according to R. Jose, only when the surrounded himself has fenced the fourth side, from which we see that the other fences pleased him; but if the surrounder did so, the surrounded has nothing to pay.

Runya's estate was surrounded by that of Rabhina on all four sides. And when he asked him to join in the expense of fencing, he would not listen. "Join at least in the expense for cheap fence-rails." He would not listen. "Give something for the protection of your estate"; and he would not. One day Runya was engaged in gathering dates from his trees, and Rabhina said to his gardener: "Go and fetch one bunch of dates." And Runya rebuked him. Then said Rabhina to him: "Now your intention that your trees should be protected, if not from thieves, at least from goats, is clear." And he answered: "Goats can be prevented by the voice." And Rabhina rejoined: "But even then you must have a man who shall lift up his voice." Finally Runya came before Rabha, who told him that he should go and settle with Rabhina as well as he could, as otherwise he would decide in accordance with R. Jose as explained by R. Huna.

The same Runya bought a field which was attached to one of Rabhina's, and the latter was about to prevent him, in accordance with the law of preemption. Said R. Saphra b. R. Ieba to Rabhina: "People say, Zala, who is poor, needed for his family as much bread as Zalla the rich. Permit then the poor Runya, who has already one estate among your estates, to have another one, so that he can make a living."
MISHNA III.: If a wall which separated courtyards falls, the owners of both sides have to join in rebuilding it (to the height of four ells). If there is a wall, and one of the owners claims that his neighbor did not bear his share of the expense in building it up to the height of four ells, he is not to be trusted unless he brings evidence (as it is considered that his neighbor did so at the time it was built). Above four ells, one cannot compel his. neighbor to join with him. If there were a wall above that height, and the neighbor built another one near it to the same height, with the intention of roofing, he has to share in the expense, even before roofing; and if he claims that he has already joined in the expense, he is not to be trusted unless he brings evidence.

GEMARA: Said Resh Lakish: "A debtor who says: 'I paid my debt to the creditor, when the time had not yet elapsed,' is not to be believed, as usually creditors are glad to be paid in due time."

Abayi and Rabha both said: It may happen that one unexpectedly got money and thought, "I shall pay my debt before it is due, so I shall not be troubled thereafter." An objection was raised from our Mishna, which states that he is considered to have paid at the time it was built. Now let us see how was the case. If the defendant claims that he has given his share of the expense in time, there is no reason why he should not be believed, it must then be said that he claims to have paid it before it was due, and nevertheless the Mishna states that he is to be believed? The case of the Mishna is different, as with every brick or every piece of material that was used the time for payment is considered due; i.e., it is not to be considered that he is claiming to have paid before it was due. Come and hear the other part of the Mishna concerning the height over four ells, which is considered not to have been done conjointly. Let us see how was the claim. If the defendant claims: "I have joined with you in time," why should he not be believed (he is the defendant, and it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence)? It must be, then, that he claims that he has joined before the time due, and we see that he is not believed. There is another reason why he should not be believed, as usually one would pay no money before he is positive that the court will decide against him. R. Papa and R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua acted according to Abayi's decision, and Rabha b. Mar R. Ashi acted according to Resh Lakish, and so the Halakha prevails. And even in the case of orphans, although the master said elsewhere that he who comes to collect from the estate of orphans cannot do it without taking an oath; yet in our case the "hazakha" rule, that one does not pay when it is not due, is strong enough even concerning orphans.

The schoolmen propounded a question: If the plaintiff demanded his money after the time has long elapsed, and the defendant claim that he had paid when it was as yet not due, shall we say that the above standing rule., that one does not pay before due, denies the theory of giving consideration to a claim which appears trustworthy, for the reason that, why should he tell a lie which only injures him, as, e.g., the defendant could say: "I have paid in time" (and then it would be for the plaintiff to bring evidence), while claiming "I have paid before due," the burden of proof lies upon him, or perhaps such a claim is to be considered even with the standing rule? Said R. A'ha b. Rabha to R. Ashi: Come and hear! If one claims, "I have a mana with you," and the debtor answers, "Yea"; on the morrow, when he demands his money, the debtor says, "I have already paid you," then he is free.

If, however, he says, "You have nothing with me," he is responsible. Is it not to be assumed that by the expression, "I have paid you," it means in time, and the expression, "You have nothing with me", means, "I have paid you before due"? Hence we see that such a claim is not considered Nay, the expression, "You have nothing with me," means, "You have never loaned it to me," as the master says elsewhere: He who claims, "I have never borrowed," is to be considered as if he should say, "I have never paid." "If, however, he has built another wall," etc. Said R. Huna: If he has built only a half-wall, it is the same as if he should build the whole. And R. Na'hman said: He has to join only for the half he has built, but not for what he has not.

R. Huna, however, admits that if the neighbor built something opposite the party wall, the corner of his house attaching it to the party wall, then he has not to join in the expense except so far as he has built; and also R. Na'hman admits that if he has prepared in his wall a place for roofing it (from which is to be seen that he intends to continue the wall and to roof it), he must join immediately.

R. Huna said the holes in the wall prepared for placing the roofing beams, which were prepared by one of the partners, do not support the claim of the other partner, who says he has joined with him in the building of the whole wall (claiming that if he should not do so he would not expend so much money in an uncertainty, perhaps his partner would not join with him and would not allow him to open windows to the side of his yard), even when the μελαθγοω (the holes which hold the beams) for the roofing beams have already been placed, as the builder may say, "I have prepared the whole thing, with the purpose of not damaging the wall through making holes in it, being sure that this would suit you, and you will join in the expense afterward." R. Na'hman said: If one has placed on his neighbor's wall little boards for roofing, it is not to be considered that the consent of his neighbor suffices for roofing it with beams.

In the reverse case, however, such is to be considered sufficient. The same said again: If the dripping of water from; one's roof into a neighbor's yard take place, it gives him a right to put a pipe on the roof so that the water may run to one place in the same yard; and the same is the case in the reverse, but not if the roofing be of small branches, so that it contains numerous interspaces, thus spoiling the earth where there is dripping through the interspaces. R. Joseph, however, maintains that even this is allowed, and so he acted.

R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu said: If one let a chamber of his house to his neighbor, and this was a house with many rooms for different tenants, the tenant may use the holes which are in the wall, the beams which protrude up to four ells from his chamber; and if this was an upper chamber, he may also use the thickness of the wall on the roof, if customary to use same; but he has no right to use the front yard. R. Na'hman himself, however, maintains that he has a right to the front yard also, but not to the rear yard; and Rabha maintains that he has a right in the rear yard also.

Rabhina said: A roof which is made for shade, if one has attached it to the wall of his neighbor, it is not to be considered as "hazakha" until the lapse of thirty days. However, if there be no protest after thirty days, it is a "hazakha" (and the owner is trusted if he claim that he has done this with his neighbor's consent). If this, however, was done for the purpose of a booth for the Feast of Tabernacles, after seven days it is considered a "hazakha." If, however, one has attached the roof with clay, it is considered a "hazakha" immediately (as this he would not do without consent).

Abayi said: If there were two houses on both sides of a public thoroughfare, each of the owners has to make a parapet to half of his roof, but not exactly opposite each other (i.e., one may make it on the north and the other on the south), and each of them has to add a little to his half (for the purpose of preventing looking into his neighbor's property). [Questioned the Gemara:] Why only on a public thoroughfare—should it not on a private thoroughfare be the same? The law of a public thoroughfare it was necessary for him to teach, lest one say: "One may claim it is anyhow needed for you to make a parapet to prevent the people passing in the street from looking into your property; therefore make the whole parapet on your property, and I will bear half of the expense." So he comes to teach us that he may answer: "From the public thoroughfare one can see only in the daytime, but not at night"; or, "Only when I am standing, but not when I sit," and also, "When one likes to look. For you, however, it is to be seen in any circumstances." The master said: "Each of them has to make a parapet to half a roof," etc. Is this not self-evident? He means to say that if one has already done his part, lest one say his neighbor has a right to say to him, "Take from me the expense, and make all of it (as it is too much trouble for me to find a laborer for such a small work; and if you had not done yours, I would have taken laborers to do the whole of it on my property and taken from you your share of the expense)," it comes to teach us that his neighbor may say, "As you do not wish to spoil your roof by the weight of the entire parapet, so I do not wish to spoil mine." R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel said: On a roof which looks into the yard of one's neighbor, he has to make a parapet to the height of four ells. However, between the roofs he need not. And R. Na'hman himself maintains that four ells is not necessary, but a partition of ten spans is. To what purpose? If to prevent looking, then four ells are necessary; and if only for separation of the roofs, in case one step beyond his roof, he should be accused of intention to steal, then any partitions suffice, and if to prevent goats or sheep from straying, a small partition which they cannot jump over suffices? It is for the second purpose mentioned above; but if there should be any separation, he may say, "I stretched my hand over to the neighbor's roof because I wanted to measure the boundary lines on the roof," which is not likely for him to say when the partition is of ten spans. An objection was raised from the following: "If his courtyard was higher than the roof of his neighbor, it is not to be taken into consideration." May we not assume that it means that no parapet whatever is needed? Nay. It means the consideration of a parapet of four ells, but one of ten spans is required.

It was taught: If there were two courtyards, one upon the other, according to R. Huna the lower one has to build from his upper side upwards until he reaches the upper one, and the higher one continues; and according to Ula and R. Hisda the higher one has to share in the expense of the lower one also; and there is a Boraitha which supports R. Hisda as follows: If there were two courtyards, one upon the other, the upper one cannot say, "I will begin to build from my property," but he must share with the lower one; and if, however, his courtyard were higher than the roof of his neighbor, he has nothing to do with him.

There were two tenants, one in the upper and one in the lower part of a house, and the roof of the lower one sank, and he called on the upper one to rebuild it. He declined, saying, "My residence is not spoiled." Then the lower one asked of him permission to rebuild the whole thing at his own expense, but the upper one responded, "I have no place in which to live until you shall have rebuilt." Then he wanted to hire a residence for him, but he was told, "I do not want to trouble myself by removing." And to the claim of the lower one that he could not live in the house, he answered, "Thou canst bow thy head when going out and coming in." Said R. Hama: The upper one's claim could be taken into consideration, provided the roof had not reached down to the height of ten spans from the floor of the house; but if it so reached down, the lower one may claim, "This place belongs to my property, and it must be removed." And all this is said when there was no stipulation at the time of building; but if there were, the upper one may be compelled to share in the rebuilding. But to what extent must it have sunk that the lower one should have the right to rebuild? Said the rabbis, in the presence of Rabha, in the name of Mar Sutra b. R. Na'hman: He has quoted his father answering this question, that if the height was less than is stated (Chapter VI., Mishna 4), the height should be the half of the length and the breadth together. And Rabha answered: Did not I tell you, you should never hang a βιχος (clay pot) on R. Na'hman's neck? (It means that nonsense should not be quoted in his name.) For I know R. Na'hman's decision was: "If it was spoiled from the ordinary use of a dwelling." However, after all, to prevent controversy the law should state some dimension. Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: If the height decreases so that the bundles of sticks usually made in the city of Mehusa cannot be brought in and be manipulated.

There was one who built a wall against the window of his neighbor, and to the claim of his neighbor, "You darken my place," he answered him, "I will close up at my expense this window and make you a new one above." But the other party refused, saying, "By doing so you will spoil my wall." He said then: "I will take apart your wall unto this place and build you a new one." The other rejoined: "The old wall will not bear the new building." He then offered to rebuild the whole wall from top to bottom and to make him a new window, and again he refused, saying that one new wall would not correspond with the three old ones. Finally the other party agreed to rebuild the whole house, and still he refused: "I have no place to live." And even then his neighbor agreed to hire for him a residence, and he again responded, "I do not want the trouble of removing." And R. Hama decided that the law cannot compel him to comply with the wish of his neighbor. But to what purpose is this stated? Has not R. Hama declared his decision in the above case? He meant to say that even if he has used the house in question for keeping straw and wood only, even then he cannot be compelled.

There were two brothers who divided a bequest. One took a palace and the other took a nice garden which was in front of it; and the latter built a wall on the edge of the garden, and to the claim of his brother that he darkened his house, he answered, "I built it on my property." And Rabh decided that the law is not against him. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Why should this case differ from the case in the following Boraitha: Two brothers divided a bequest. One took a vineyard and the other took a field. The owner of the vineyard is entitled to four ells of the field for the entering of animals to work it up, etc., as it is considered that so was the stipulation at the time of the division. (Hence we see that the requirements of the vineyard are taken into consideration. Why should it not be the same with the palace of the above case?) And R. Ashi answered: There the owner of the vineyard paid to his partner the difference between the two estates, and consequently the stipulation that his vineyard should be worked up was made. To this Rabhina rejoined: Do you mean to say that in the case of the palace there was not any settlement about the value of the two parts of the bequest? Does the law speak of fools? And R. Ashi rejoined: It may be there was a settlement, and the man of the garden took his share for the value of the building of the palace, but they had not made any settlement for the value of the air. But should there not be taken into consideration the rightful claim of the man of the palace, that he has paid him the difference for a palace, and then it was changed into a dark chamber like a prison? Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: The name of the palace does not change even after the wall is built, and the gratification which the owner of the garden received was for the name. As we have learned in the Middle Tract (p. 275), if one said, "I sell you the estate, which contains a kur of earth, and there is no more than a half," etc., the sale is valid, as it is so called. But still, what comparison is this? There he sold him a piece of ground which was so named, and the buyer is aware of what he bought; but here, could not the man of the palace say: "I have agreed to this division for the purpose of living in it as my parents did, and now it is darkened"? Said both Mar the Elder and Mar the Younger, the sons of R. Hisda, to R. Ashi: The Sages of Nahardai, among them R. Hama, decided according to their theory elsewhere, that they hold with R. Na'hman, who said in the name of Samuel that brothers, after the dividing of a bequest, have no claim for a path, for windows, for ladders, and for canals, each on the other (as they ought to take these into, consideration when dividing), and must be strict on this law, as this was enacted once for all. Rabha, however, maintains that such a claim is always to be taken into consideration.

There was a note belonging to orphans, against which the other party showed a receipt, and R. Hama decided not to collect on this note because of the receipt, and not to destroy it until the orphans should have grown up, as they might find some evidence against the receipt. R. A'ha b. Rabha questioned Rabhina: How does the Halakha prevail in all cases like the above-mentioned? and he answered: All of them are to be practised in accordance with R. Hama, except in the case of the receipt, as witnesses should not be considered by us as liars. 1 Mar Sutra b. R. Mari, however, said that even in the last case R. Hama is right; for, if the receipt were genuine, they would have made use of it while the creditor was still alive, and because they did not do so forgery was to be feared.

MISHNA IV.: Partners of a courtyard must share in the expense of building a gate or a door to it, if one of them demands it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says: Not all courtyards need a door (the Gemara will explain which need one and which do not). An inhabitant of a city has to share in the building of a wall around the city, with the doors and the bolts. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that not all cities need one. How long must one dwell in a city to be considered a citizen of it? Twelve months. If, however, he has bought a dwelling-house in it, he is considered a citizen at once.

GEMARA: Shall we assume that a gate to a courtyard is considered a good thing? Is it not a fact that there was a pious man to whom Elijah appeared frequently, and after he had built a gate to his courtyard Elijah did not speak to him thereafter (because this prevented poor men from entering for their needs)? This presents no difficulty. If the door is to be opened from inside, it is not good; but if from outside (so that any one can open it), it is a good thing. "Building a gate or door to it," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said that only a yard which is near the public thoroughfare needs a gate, but not one which is not near to it. The rabbis, however, maintain that a courtyard which is even far away from a public thoroughfare may need a gate; for it may happen that people will pass into it from that which is at the thoroughfare, and will cause harm to the owner's property. And also to a city which is far from the boundary a surrounding wall is not required, according to R. Simeon; and the rabbis maintain that each of them may require one in war time. R. Elazar questioned R. Johanan: How shall such a tax be apportioned: according to the number of souls, or to the number of houses, or according to one's wealth? And he answered: According to the number of houses; and thou, Elazar, my son, put nails in this Halakha (that it never escape from thy mind).

R. Jehudah the Second taxed the rabbis for this purpose, and Resh Lakish said to him: The rabbis do not need any guard, as it is written [Ps. cxxxix. 18]: "Should I count them," etc. Count whom—the upright? Can they be more than the sands? Is it not written [Gen. xxii. 17] that all Israel is only "as the sand"? You must then say that it means that the acts of the upright are more than the sands, etc. Now, the little sands guard the sea. So much the more should not the acts of the upright, which are more than the sands, guard them? R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda taxed the rabbis. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak to him: By this act you have transgressed what is written in the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. The Pentateuch [Deut. xxxiii. 3]: "Yea, thou also lovedst the tribes; all their saints were in thy hand; and they, prostrate before thy feet, received thy words." Thus said Moses before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe, even when thou lovest the tribes, the saints of Israel shall be in thy hand" (i.e., they shall be guarded by thee). For the further explanation of this verse R. Joseph taught that it means the scholars who drag their feet from town to town and from country to country to learn the Torah and to discuss about the commandments of the Omnipotent. The Prophets [Hosea, viii. 10]: "But even though they should spend gifts among the nations, now will I gather them; and they shall be humbled a little through the burden of the king of princes." And Ula said: This verse was written in the Aramaic language, and the expression Yithnu should be read Yethano, which means (in Aramaic) "to learn," and it is to be interpreted thus: If all the Israelites who are in exile should occupy themselves with the study of the Torah, the gathering of them would be at hand; but if only a few of them, they should be exempt from the burdens imposed by kings or princes. And the Hagiographa [Ezra, vii. 24]: ". . . no one shall be empowered to impose any tax, tribute, or toll," etc. And R. Jehudah said: This means, to free the scholars of the taxes of the government.

R. Papa had taxed orphans for digging a new well. Said R. Shesha b. R. Idi to him: Perhaps no water will be found (and then the money of the orphans would be taken for nothing, for they are not of age to relinquish their property). And he answered: I am taking the money; if there should be water, I will use it; if not, I will return it.

Rabbi opened his barns of grain in the years of famine, and said: This shall be for the use of them who have studied the Bible, Mishna, Gemara, Halakha, or Hagada, but not for ignorant men who have never desired to study anything. R. Jonathan b. Amram entered, and said: Rabbi, feed me. He asked him: My son, hast thou read the Bible? And he said no. Hast thou studied the Mishna, or anything? And he said no. "Then why should I feed thee?" And he answered: Feed me as people feed a dog or a raven. And he did so. After he went out, Rabbi was sorry, saying: Woe is me! that I have given my bread to an ignorant man. Said R. Simeon his son to him: Perhaps this man was your disciple, Jonathan b. Amram, whose custom it is not to derive any benefit from his wisdom. It was investigated, and they found that so it was. Then said Rabbi: My barns shall be open to every one, without any distinction. Rabbi's previous act, however, was in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that chastisements are inflicted upon the world only because of the ignorant men who do not desire to study anything. "How long must one dwell in a city," etc. There is a contradiction from the following. A caravan with asses or camels, who are travelling from one place to another, who took their rest in a city which was guilty of idolatry, and the caravan while being there were persuaded and worshipped idols, they are to be stoned, but their money must be saved for their heirs. If, however, they were there thirty days, they must be slain by the sword, as inhabitants of the town, and their money is to be confiscated (hence we see that thirty days' residence suffices to be counted a citizen). Said Rabha: This presents no difficulty. To be counted an inhabitant of the town, thirty days suffice; but to be a citizen, twelve months are required. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one vows that he shall derive no benefit from the citizens of this town, he must not so derive from them who have resided there for twelve months; but he may derive benefit from them who have resided there less than this time. If, however, he vows not to derive benefit from the inhabitants of this city, then he may derive from them only who have not resided as yet thirty days. But have we not learned in a Boraitha that a poor man who has resided thirty days in the city is entitled to get meals from the kitchen of the city charities? Three months entitles him to get cash for food from the treasury of the charities; six months, to raiment; nine months, to burial; and twelve months, he must share in the expense of fencing fields or gardens, which it was then customary to make of sticks in the shape of the Greek letter ψ? Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: The statement in the Mishna, twelve months, means also the same.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: Every one, even orphans, must share in the expense of the fencing, except rabbis.

R. Papa said: To the repair of the wall of the city, for buying horses for the riders around the city (for watching and to ascertain what it needs), and for an arsenal. all, even orphans, must contribute, except the rabbis. The rule for this is that to everything from which they derive benefit they must contribute, even orphans. Rabba had taxed the orphans of Mar Mirion for charity. Said Abayi to him: Has not R. Samuel b. Jehudah taught that orphans must not be taxed for charity, even for the redeeming of prisoners? and he answered: I did so only to honor them.
Aiphra Hurmiz, the mother of King Sabur, sent a purse with dinars to R. Joseph, saying: This shall be used for the highest charity. And he deliberated what kind of charity should be considered the highest. Said Abayi to him: As it is said above that orphans must not be taxed even for the redeeming of prisoners, it is to be inferred that redeeming of prisoners is considered the highest charity.

Rabha said to Rabba b. Mari: Wherefrom is the Rabbi's decision that redeeming of prisoners is the highest charity? And he answered: From what is written [Jer. xv. 2]: "Such as are destined to death, to death; to the sword, to the sword; to famine, to famine; to captivity, to captivity." And R. Johanan said all in this verse that is mentioned later is harder than what precedes it—as, for instance, "to be killed by the sword" is harder than a natural death, in accordance with the verse, as well as with common sense. The verse [Ps. cxvi. 15]: "Dear 1 in the eyes of the Lord is the (natural) death of the pious," accords with common sense—because from a natural death the corpse remains clean, but the sword defiles it with blood. And that famine is worse than the sword is also learned from the same, as in the verse [Lam. iv.], "Happier are those slain by the sword than those slain by hunger," etc., and common sense—for the latter has to suffer long and great pain, while the former's death is quick and sudden. Captivity, however, is harder than all of them, as in it all the before-mentioned sufferings are endured.

The rabbis taught: Charity must be collected by two persons and distributed by three. Collected by two, because an administrating body must be constituted of no less than two; distributed by three, because it requires deliberation in judgment (as to whether the applicant is worthy of support, and to what extent): therefore it is likened unto a civil case which requires a body of three. The collecting of food is to be done every day; but cash for the charity treasury, only on the eves of the Sabbaths. Distributing of food is for every poor man, but cash is only distributed to the poor of the city. However, the elders of the city have a right to exchange, according to their discretion, money for food, or food for money.

The elders of the city have also the right to fix the measures, and the prices of victuals and beverages, and also the wages of laborers, and to fine him or them who transgress their laws. The masters say: No administrative body should be less than two. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Na'hman: It is written [Ex. xxviii. 5]: "And they shall take the gold." An administration requires two; but to bestow trust, one is sufficient. And this is a support to R. Hanina, who said that it happened once that Rabbi appointed two brothers as treasurers of the charity (and two brothers are considered one in this office). But, after all, what "administration" is there in collecting charity? It is as R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, that one may be pledged for charity even on the eve of Sabbath (hence it is administration). Is that so?

Is it not written [Jer. xxx. 20]: "I will punish all that oppress them"? Also R. Itz'hak b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rabh that it means even the collector of charity? This presents no difficulty. If the man is wealthy, he may be pressed and pledged as Rabha pressed R. Nathan b. Ammi and took from him four hundred zuz for charity. But if he is not wealthy, then the one who presses him will be punished. It is written [Dan. xii. 3]: "And the intelligent shall shine brilliantly, like the brilliance of the expanse." This means a judge who goes into the depths of the law and tries ever to decide according to the truth. "And they that bring many to righteousness shall be like the stars, for ever and ever." This means the collectors of charity.

In a Boraitha, however, it is taught that the first part of the verse quoted means both the judges and the collectors, while the latter part means the instructors of children. Who, for instance, is meant? Said Rabh: "R. Samuel b. Shilath"—whom Rabh found once standing in a garden, and he said to him: "Have you left your honorable position (as I was told that you never left the children whom you are instructing, and now I see you standing without them)?" The answer was: "It is thirteen years since I have seen this part of my property, and even now my mind is with my pupils." (But there are only mentioned the judges, collectors, and instructors of children.) But how about the rabbis? Said Rabhina: The verse [Judges, v. 31], "But may those that love him be as the rising of the sun in his might," refers to them.

The rabbis taught: The collectors of charity must not separate themselves from each other (while they are engaged in collecting). However, one may go to collect from the storekeepers, while the other does so from the keepers of the stands in the market. Should it happen to a charity collector to find money in the streets, he must not put it into his private purse, but into the purse of the charity, and when he shall reach home then he may take it out. The same is the case if he meets one of his debtors and he pay him what he owes him: he shall not put it into his private purse, but into that of the charity (to prevent suspicion), and when he comes home he may take it out.

The rabbis taught: The treasures of charity, if there be no poor among whom to distribute, they may exchange the smaller coins of the money collected for larger ones, but not from their private purse. And the same is the case with the collectors of food; if there be no poor, they may sell it to others, but not to themselves. The coins of charity must not be counted in pairs, but each one separately (in order to avoid suspicion).

Abayi said: Formerly my master would not sit on the rugs which belonged to the synagogue (because they were brought from the treasury of the charities); but after he heard that the elders of the city have the right to change the use of charity money as they see fit, he sat thereon.

Formerly (he said again), while being a treasurer, he used to have two purses—one for poor strangers and one for the poor of the city; but when he heard that Samuel said to R. Ta'hlipha b. Abdimi, "You can keep the money for charity in one purse with the stipulation that you may distribute it to whom you find worthy," he also kept the money in one purse, as he made the same stipulation with his congregation. R. Ashi, however, who was also a treasurer, said: I need no stipulation at all, as all the donations are intrusted to my discretion.

There were two butchers who made a stipulation that each of them should do business every alternate day, and he who should violate this agreement, the skins of his slaughtered cattle that day should be destroyed. And finally one did business on the day which was not his, and the partner destroyed his skins. And when the case came before Rabha, he made him pay. R. Jimar b. Shlamyah objected to him from that which was taught above, that they may fine them who act against the stipulation, and Rabha did not care to answer him. Said R. Papa: He has done right in not answering, as only when there is no court or honored man may partners make a stipulation between themselves. But if there be, then their stipulations are not to be considered when the court, etc., has no knowledge thereof.
The rabbis taught: One must not examine the treasures of charity, and also not the treasures of the sanctuary. Although there is no direct support from the Bible, a hint of this is to be found [II Kings, xii. 16]: "And they reckoned not with the men into whose hands they delivered the money," etc.

R. Elazar said: It is advisable for one to count his money, although he has a trusted treasurer in his house, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 11]: "They put up in bags after having counted the money," etc.

R. Huna said: If one came to ask food, it may be investigated whether he is in need; but no investigation should be made of him who asks for raiment. This can be seen from the verse [Is. lviii. 7]: "Is it not to distribute thy bread to the hungry . . . when thou seest the naked, that thou clothe him?" etc., as the expression distribute, "Porosh" (with an sh instead of with an s), means investigate first and then give. And immediately after this it reads: "When thou seest the naked," etc., which means at once. R. Jehudah, however, maintains the contrary: No investigation for food, but for raiment. He appeals to common sense and to the verse. To common sense—he who requires food suffers the pangs of hunger, which is not the case with 'him who asks raiment; and the same cited verse is also to be interpreted thus: "Is it not to distribute thy bread," etc., means immediately, as the verse is to be explained according to its pronunciation and not the spelling; 1 "and if thou seest the naked," etc., means that he shall show you that he is so. And there is a Boraitha supporting R. Jehudah. If one say: "Clothe me," he must be investigated, but if he say: "Feed me," it must be complied with at once without any investigation. There is a Mishna (mentioned in Sabbath, p. 247): "If a wandering mendicant come to a town, he must be given a loaf which can be bought for a pundian (one forty-eighth of a sela), when the price of flour is one sela for four saahs. If he remain over-night, he must be given lodging; and if he remain over Sabbath, he must be given three meals for Sabbath." What is meant by lodging? Said R. Papa: A bed to sleep in and a pillow; and a Boraitha in addition to this states that if this mendicant was begging from door to door, then the congregation need not look after him.

There was a mendicant who begged from door to door, and R. Papa paid no attention to him. Said R. Samma b. R. Ieba to him: If the master pay no attention to him, then no one will mind him, and he may starve to death. But did not the Boraitha say that if he beg from door to door the congregation has nothing to do with him? This means that to him must not be given what is appointed for mendicants who don't beg at the door, but something is to be given him. R. Assi said: One may not refuse to give at least a third of a shekel yearly for charity, as it is written [Neh. x. 33]: "And we established for us (as one of the) commandments to impose on ourselves (to give) the third part of a shekel in every year," etc. And he said again: The virtue of charity equals the sum of the virtues of all the other commandments together, as it is written (in the just cited verse) "commandments," in the plural and not in the singular. Said R. Elazar: The gatherer of charity is deemed more virtuous than he who gives charity, as it is written [Is. xxxii. 17]: "And the work of righteousness (i.e., zedaka—charity) shall be peace; and the effect of it quietness and security for ever," which means: If he was worthy of reward, he will distribute his bread to the hungry; and if he was not worthy of reward, the poor will be the members of his household.

Said Rabha to the inhabitants of Mehusa, his city: I pray you, see that there be concord among you, in order that ye shall have peace from the government. R. Elazar said again: When the Temple was in existence one gave his shekel, and he was atoned. Now, when the Temple is destroyed, if people do charity, well and good; if not, the idolaters come and take away their goods by force. Nevertheless, even this is counted as charity in Heaven, as it is written [Is. lx. 17]: " . . . and righteousness as thy taskmasters." (Even when given to the taskmasters, it is counted in Heaven as charity.) Said Mar Uqba: I was told by the child who was corrected by his mother, in the name of R. Elazar, as follows: It is written [Is. lix. 17]: "And he put on righteousness as a coat of mail," etc., which may be understood, that as in a coat of mail every little link thereof is counted in the number which is needed to make up such a coat of mail, so every little coin of charity is counted in Heaven, in the end making up a great amount.

R. Hanina, however, said from the following verse [ibid., lxiv. 5]: ". . . and like a soiled garment, all our righteousnesses . . ." As every thread of a garment makes it into a great garment, the same is it with charity, that every coin counts in the great aggregate.
Why was R. Shesheth called the child who was corrected by his mother? Because it happened once that R. A'hadbui b. Ammi questioned him something concerning the law plagues; and while discussing this matter, the questioner answered him jestingly. R. Shesheth became dejected, and in punishment for this, R. A'hadbui became dumb, and forgot his studies. The mother of R. Shesheth came to him and wept before him, that he should pray for R. A'hadbui to be cured; but he did not listen to her until she said to him: "See the breasts by which you have been nursed," when he prayed, and R. A'hadbui was cured.

R. Elazar said: The one who is doing charity secretly is greater than Moses our master; as in regard to him it is written [Deut. ix. 19]: For I was afraid of the anger, and the indignation . . . and regarding him who does charity secretly, it is written [Prov. xxi.. 14]: "A gift in secret pacifieth anger, and a bribe in the bosom, strong fury." He differs, however,. with R. Itz'hak, who says that one pacifies only anger, but not strong fury. Because he maintains that the beginning of the verse just quoted does not correspond with the end; as it was heard in his name that a judge who accepts bribery brings strong fury into the world.

R. Itz'hak said again: He who gives a coin to a poor man is rewarded with six blessings; he, however, who encourages him is rewarded with eleven. The six are [Is. lviii. 8, 9]: "Then shall break forth as the morning dawn thy light. . . . Then thou shalt call, and the Lord will answer." The eleven are [ibid., ibid. 10]: ". . . . and satisfy the afflicted soul, then shall shine forth in the darkness thy light And thou shalt be called," etc.

The same said again: It is written [Prov. xxi. 21]: "He that pursueth righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness, and honor." How is this verse to be understood? Because he pursues righteousness, he will find righteousness? It means that whoever pursues righteousness and charity, the Holy One, blessed be He, will open unto him the ways of procuring money, in order that he may be able to do charity. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said that the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him the chance to find men who need and are worthy of support, so that he may have the full reward for it, in the world to come. What does he mean to exclude? He means to exclude what Rabha or Rabba lectured: It is written [Jer. xviii. 23]: ". . . in the time of thy anger deal thus with them."

Thus prayed Jeremiah before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe! even when they overrule their evil thoughts and are about to do charity, Thou shouldst not give them the chance to support worthy men; but unworthy ones, for which they will get no reward in the world to come." R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Whosoever makes it his business to do charity, will be blessed with sons having wisdom, wealth, and who will preach haggadah (morality)." As it is written in the above-cited verse, "will find life," which means wisdom; "wealth," as in the same verse it is written zedaka (which means charity, and, usually, to be able to do charity, one must be wealthy); and "haggadah," as in the same verse it says "honor," and reads [Prov. iii, 35]: "The wise shall inherit glory. . ."
There is a Boraitha: R. Mair used to say: If a common questioner discusses, "If your God likes the poor, why does He not feed them?" one may answer, "For the purpose of saving us from the punishment of Gehenna." This Tarnusruphus questioned of R. Aqiba, and the above was his answer. To which Tarnusruphus rejoined: It is, on the contrary, for this you should be punished with Gehenna; and I will give you a parable from which you will understand why: A king became angry at his slave and put him in prison, with the command that nobody should feed him; in spite of this, a person fed him and gave him drink. Would the king not be angry at and punish such a man? And ye Israelites are called servants, as it is written [Lev. xxv. 55]: "For unto me are the children of Israel servants . . . ." R. Aqiba answered: I will give you another parable, to which my previous answer is to be compared: A king became angry with his son, put him in prison, and commanded that nobody should give him food or drink; in spite of which command, one fed him and gave him drink. When the king became aware of it, would he not be grateful to this person and send him a present? And we Israelites are called children, as it is written [Deut. xiv. 1]: "Ye are the children of the Lord," etc. Tarnusruphus, however, said: Ye are named children, and also servants—children, when ye are doing the Omnipotent's will, and servants when ye act against His will. And you will admit that now ye are acting against His will (as your Temple is destroyed and ye are in exile, which would not be the case, if ye did His will). Hence he who favors you acts against the will of God. To which R. Aqiba answered: With regard to this, it is written [Is. lviii. 10]: "And if thou pour out to the hungry thy soul, and satisfy the afflicted soul," etc. The "afflicted soul" refers to us in our present circumstances, and nevertheless the beginning of this verse favors such charity.

R. Jehudah b. Shalom lectured: As the yearly household expenses for one are appointed (in Heaven) on each Rosh Hashana, so are his losses. If he is worthy, he will act according to the beginning of the verse cited; but if not, the last portion of this verse, "the afflicted souls," will be the members of his own house. So Rabban Johannan b. Zakkai had seen in a dream that his nephews would lose in the current year seventeen hundred dinars, and he made them distribute this amount for charity. However, seventeen dinars remained with them, and on the eve of Atonement the government took them away from them. Then R. Johannan said unto them: "Fear not; seventeen dinars were taken from you, and you will lose no more." To the question: "Whence do you know?" he answered: "I have seen it in a dream." And to the question: "Why did you not inform us, as then we would have distributed the entire amount to the poor?" he answered: "In order that you give charity only for the purpose of doing the heavenly will."

It happened to R. Papa that, while mounting steps, he slipped, and nearly fell (and would have been killed; but was miraculously saved). Then he said: If this had happened, my enemies would have accused me of being a violator of the Sabbath or an idolater. Said Hyya b. Rabh of Diphti to him: Perhaps a poor man called upon you and you paid no attention to him. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Joshua b. Kar'ha said: He whose eyes are shut to charity is likened unto an idolater; and this is to be taken from an analogy of expression in the following verses: Concerning charity it is written [Deut. xv. 9]: "Beware that there be not Belial in thy heart"; and concerning idolatry, it is written [ibid., xiii. 14]: "There have gone forth children of Belial." Hence the expression Belial makes the two above-mentioned acts equal.
There is a Boraitha: "R. Elazar b. Jose said: Charity and kindness done by Israel in this world, are defenders and peacemakers between them and their heavenly Father; as it is written [Jer. xvi. 5]: 'For thus hath said the Lord, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament nor to condole with them; for I have taken away my peace from this people, saith the Lord, yea, kindness and mercy.' Kindness means bestowing of favors, and mercy means charity (hence, because these were taken away, therefore is the peace also taken away)."

There is another Boraitha: "R. Joshua said: Grace is charity, which nears the redeeming; as it is written [Is. lvi. 1]: 'Thus hath said the Lord, Keep ye justice and do zedaka 1 (charity).' The same used to say: Ten hard things were created in the world: A mountain is hard, iron cuts it; iron is hard, fire softens it; fire is hard, water extinguishes it; water is hard, the clouds bear it; clouds are hard, the winds spread them; the wind is hard, the body tolerates it; a body is hard, shaking breaks it; shaking is hard, wine dispels it; wine is hard, sleep removes it; death is harder than all of these, and charity saves from death; as it is written [Prov. X. 2]: '. . . but zedaka will deliver from death.' "

R. Dusthai b. Yannai lectured: Come and see how the manner of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not as the manner of human beings. When a human being brings a present to the king, there is a doubt whether it will be accepted or not; and if it be accepted, whether he will see the king. But the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so; if a man gives a coin to a poor man, he is rewarded and experiences the appearance of the Shekhinah; as it is written [Ps. xvii. 15]: "As for me, in zedek (charity) shall I behold thy face.

R. Elazar used to give a coin to a poor man before praying, quoting the above verse [ibid., ibid.]: "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with contemplating thy likeness." What does it mean?

Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "It means that scholars who keep sleep from their eyes in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, satisfies them with the appearance of the Shekhinah in the world to come." R. Johanan said: It is written [Prov. xix. 17]: "He lendeth to the Lord, that is liberal to the poor." If this were not written, it would be impossible of conception; for it appears as if He becomes a servant to the lender; for it is written [ibid., xxii. 7]: ". . . and the borrower is servant to the man that lendeth." R. Hyya b. Abba, in the name of R. Johanan, said: It is written [ibid., xi. 4]: ". . . but zedaka will deliver from death"; and [ibid., X. 2]: "Treasures of wickedness will not profit aught; but zedaka will deliver from death." What do the two zedakas mean? One, that it saved him from an unnatural death; the other, that it saved him from Gehenna.

Which of them speaks of Gehenna? The one from chap. xi., as there is there mentioned the day of "wrath"; as it is written [Zeph. i. 15]: "A day of wrath is that day," etc., meaning Gehenna. And what kind of zedaka saves one from an unnatural death? If he gives, and knows not to whom, and he who receives it knows not from whom (if he gives his donation to the treasurer of charity). "Gives and knows not to whom" excludes the acts of Mar Uqba (who used to put four zuz every day in the slot underneath the door for one poor man, so that the poor knew not from whom he received it, but Mar Uqba knew to whom he gave it).

"The receiver does not know from whom" excludes the acts of R. Abba, who used to wrap up some dinars in his handkerchief and, coming among the poor, stretch his hand containing it behind him, and the poor would take it out; so that he knew not who took it, but the poor knew who was the giver. An objection was raised from the following: What shall one do that he should have male children? R. Elazar said: He should distribute his money among the poor. R. Joshua said: He should enjoy his wife before he has intercourse with her. And R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: He shall not give a coin for the treasury of charity unless the treasurer is like unto R. Hananya b. Theradion. (Hence one must not always give to the treasury of charity?) The above Boraitha meant also when the treasurer was of that kind.

R. Abuhu said: Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe, how may the horn of Israel be raised?" To which He answered: "You should take charity from every one of Israel who is to be counted" [Ex. xxx. 12]. The same said again: King Solomon b. David was questioned: How great is the power of charity? and he answered: Go and see how David, my father, explained this [Ps. cxii. 9]: "He distributeth, he giveth to the needy: his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted in honor." Rabha, however, said, from the following verse [Is. xxxiii. 16]: "He shall dwell on high; rocky strongholds shall be his refuge; his bread shall be given him; his water shall be sure." And it is to be interpreted thus: "Why shall he dwell on high," etc.? Because to the poor he has given his bread, and to the down-trodden his water was sure.

R. Abuhu said again: Solomon was questioned: Who is supposed to be the man who has a share in the world to come? And be answered with the verse [Is. xxiv. 23]: " . . . and before his ancients in glory" (which means him who is respected in his old age for the wisdom which he gathered during all his life. As it happened to Joseph b. R. Joshua, who was in a state of catalepsy, and when he awoke his father asked him: What have you seen in the upper world? And he answered: I have seen a reversed world: he who is here highly esteemed is there considered of the lowest class, and vice versa. His father rejoined: Not a reversed world, but a rational one, have you seen. He continued questioning: And how are we considered there? And he answered: The same as in this world. I also heard a saying: Happy are they who come here with their study in their hands. I also heard that those who were killed by the government, none of the creatures could approach them (because of their high standing).

Who is meant by those who were killed by the government? Shall we assume that R. Aqiba and his comrades are meant? Is it only because they were killed? (They were the greatest men of the generation, aside from this.) It meant them who were killed in Louda. (See Tract Taanith, pp. 45-46.)
There is a Boraitha: Rabban Johannan b. Zakkai questioned his disciples as to the meaning of the verse [Prov. xiv. 34]: "Zedaka exalteth a people; but the disgrace of nations is sin." And R. Eliezer answered: "Zedaka exalteth a people" means Israel, as it is written [II Sam. vii. 23]: "And who is like thy people, like Israel, the only nation on the earth?" And "the disgrace of nations is sin"—all the zedaka and kindness of the nations, if they indulge in them only for the purpose of becoming great or gaining a good name, is a sin for them. R. Joshua (one of the disciples) answered the first half-verse same as R. Eliezer; and the second half: If the nations do so even in order that their kingdom shall continue to exist for a long time, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar [Dan. iv.]. Rabban Gamaliel answered the first half of the verse as above; the second half: It is a sin for the nations if they do so solely to pride themselves thereon against other nations. So he who is proud without cause falls into Gehenna, as it is written [Prov. xxi. 24]: "The presumptuous and proud, scorner is his name, who dealeth in the wrath of presumption." And by wrath is meant Gehenna, as mentioned above. Said R. Gamaliel: For the right interpretation of this verse we are still in need of the Modaith; as R. Eliezer b. Modaith interpreted it thus: The first part as above, and the second part: If the nations art doing so only for the purpose of insulting Israel; as it is written [Jer. xl. 3]: "Now the Lord hath brought it . . . because ye have sinned," etc., which was said by Nebusaradan. R. Ne'hunia b. Hakana, however, answered. This verse is to be interpreted thus: Zedaka and kindness exalt a nation, meaning Israel; but to the nations it is considered a sin-offering. Their master, R. Johannan b. Zakkai, rejoined: It seems to me that Ne'hunia's interpretation is better than yours and mine. "Than mine! Did he also say something about this?" Yea as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "Said to them R. Johannan b. Zakkai: As a sin-offering atones for Israel, so does charity atone for all other nations."

Iphra Hurmiz, the mother of King Sabur, sent four hundred dinars for charity to R. Ammi, and he did not accept it, but forwarded it to Rabha, who accepted it, in order to have peace with the royal house. R. Ammi, however, became angry, and said: Does Rabha not accept the verse [Is. xxvii. 11]: "When its boughs are withered, they shall be broken off; women will come and set them on fire; for it is not a people of understanding," etc.?

But why does R. Ammi become angry? Did he not want to maintain the peace with the royal house? He thought that this money ought to be distributed among the Gentile poor only. Rabha also did so, but R. Ammi was not aware of it.

There is a Boraitha: It was said about Benjamin the Upright, who was a treasurer of charity, that at one time a woman came to him in the years of famine, asking him to feed her. And he told her: I swear that there is nothing in the treasury of charity. But she rejoined: Rabbi, if you will not feed me, you will find a woman with her seven children dead. He then fed her from his own pocket. At a later time he became sick and was near to death; the angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe, Thou hast declared that he who saves one soul of Israel is like unto him who has saved a whole world; and Benjamin the Upright, who has saved a woman with her seven children, should he die in his prime?" Immediately the adverse decree was torn, and a Boraitha states that twenty-two years were added to his life.

The rabbis taught: It happened with the King Monbas, who had distributed his treasure and that of his parents, in the years of famine, that his brothers and the whole household murmured against him, saying: Your parents saved and always added to the treasure of their parents, and you are distributing all this! And he rejoined: My parents saved their riches in this world, and I save in the heavenly treasury. As it is written [Ps. lxxxv. 12]: "Truth will grow up out of the earth, and righteousness will look down from heaven." My parents saved in their treasury, which brought them no interest, and I have saved in such a treasury as does bring interest. As it is written [Is. iii. 10]: "Say ye to the righteous, that he hath done well; for the fruit of their doings shall they eat." My parents have saved in a place which can be reached by a hand, but I have saved in a place that can be reached by no hand. As it is written [Ps. lxxxix. 15]: "Righteousness and justice are the prop of thy throne: kindness and truth precede thy presence." My parents have saved for their descendants, and I have saved for myself. As it is written [Deut. xxiv. 13]: ". . . and unto thee shall it be as righteousness before the Lord thy God." My parents have saved money in their treasury, and I have saved souls in my treasury. As it is written [Prov. xi. 30]: "The fruit of the righteous is of the tree of life; and the wise draweth souls to himself." My parents have saved for this world, and I have saved for the world to come. As it is written [Is. lviii. 8]: ". . . and before thee shall go thy righteousness; the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward." "If, however, he bought a dwelling-house," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel of the following Boraitha, who says that if one bought a tract of land, however small, he is considered a citizen immediately. But have we not learned in another Boraitha that he taught, if one bought a tract of land which is even only fit to build a house upon? There are two Tanaim who have reported differently in his name.

MISHNA V.: Partners cannot compel each other to divide a courtyard unless each of the parts measures at least four ells; nor can a field be divided unless each part measures at least nine kabs for sowing. R. Jehudah, however, says: Nine half-kabs. Nor can a garden be divided unless each part measures at least half a kab for sowing. R. Aqiba, however, says: A quarter. Neither can one compel his partner to divide a dining-room, a turret, a pigeon-coop, a cloth, a bath-house, or an olive-press house, unless each has enough room to continue his former work. This is the rule: If, after division, each part retains its former name, then one can compel his partner to divide; but not otherwise. All this is said when the partners disagree; however, when they do agree, they may do as they please. An exception is the Holy Writ, if they possess it, which must not be divided, even if both agree to do so.

GEMARA: Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: The four ells mentioned must be measured after doors and partitions necessary have been placed. And he may be supported from the following Boraithas: As one of them states that a courtyard is not to be divided unless each part contains eight ells, and another one states, unless four ells; to explain the contradiction, it is to be said that one treats without the doors and partitions, and the other treats with them.
R. Huna said: A yard must be divided in accordance with the doors (it means, he who possesses more doors is to get a greater share). R. Hisda, however, maintains that four ells must be allowed for each door, and the remainder should be divided equally. There is a Boraitha which supports R. Hisda: "All the doors which are in a yard, the owners of them have a right to four ells for each one; if one possesses one door, and another one two, the former takes four, and the latter eight ells; and the remainder is to be divided equally. If, however, one of them possesses a gate which measures eight ells, he has .a right to eight ells opposite it, and four ells in the yard." What is meant by the additional four ells? Thus said Abayi: He takes eight ells in the length and four ells in the width of the yard. Amemar said: An excavation in the yard which contains granum of fruit for the food of cattle, four ells is to be measured to it on either side. However, this is said when the owner has no separate door for it; but if he has one, four ells to the door only are to be measured. R. Huna said: "To a balcony the law of four ells does not apply, as the four ells which are allowed for each door are for unloading, and to and from the balcony one goes through the door of the house. R. Shesheth objected from the following: Gates of houses, as well as gates of balconies, have a right to four ells? The Boraitha speaks of a balcony which is partitioned with windows; if so, then it is self-evident, as it is a good chamber? It means that the partitions did not reach the ceiling. The rabbis taught: A gate, a balcony, or a gallery to which doors of the upper compartments open, and from which steps lead down to the court, have each a right to four ells. And even if five houses were open -to this gallery, no more than four ells are allowed. R. Johanan, questioned R. Jannai: Has a chicken-coop a right to four ells, or not? And he answered: The four ells are given for unloading, and here he can load and unload through the roof of the chicken-coop. Therefore it has no right to four ells.

Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: In the case of a house which is only half roofed, how is the law about the four ells in question? And he answered: It is not entitled to them—not only when it is roofed from inside, so that it is easy for one to go in to unload; but even when it is roofed from outside, he may take the trouble of entering from inside to unload.

R. Huna questioned R. Ammi: If one of the inhabitants of an alley desires to open the door leading from his yard to another alley, may the inhabitants of that alley prevent him, or not? And he answered: They may. He questioned him also: Lodgings for the government militia, how should they be arranged? In accordance with the number of souls or in accordance with the number of doors? And he answered: In accordance with the number of souls. And so also have we learned in the following Boraitha: Manure in the yard is to be divided in accordance with the doors of the house; and military lodgings, in accordance with the number of souls.
R. Huna said: If one of the inhabitants of an alley desires to make a fence around the entrance, the other inhabitants may prevent him, because he extends their way (making them walk around his fence). An objection was raised from the following: If there were five courtyards open to the alley (which was, in turn, open to the street), all of them may use the place bordering on the fifth yard which is nearest the street (for loading, unloading, etc.). The fifth, however, may use only its own place, but not the places near the other yards. The same is the case with the first three at the place near the fourth yard, the first two at the third, and only the first one at all of them, while none of them have the first one. (Hence we see that to the first one none of them has a right; and this objects to R. Huna's theory, who said that none of them have a right to make a fence around their entrance.) Regarding this law, Tanaim. of the following Boraitha differ: One of the inhabitants of an alley who desires to open his door into another alley, the inhabitants of that alley may prevent him. If, however, the door was there, only it was shut, and he wanted to open it, they cannot prevent him. So is the decree of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Elazar, however, maintains, that if there were five yards opening to an alley, all of them may use the places which border upon the yards in the alley. And to the question, "Where are yards mentioned?" it was said that this Boraitha is not complete, and should read thus: "And the same is the case with five yards which open into an alley: all of them may use the fifth which is nearest the street, and the fifth can use only its own place, etc. So is the decree of Rabbi. R. Simeon, however, maintains that all of them may use the places alike."

The master says: If there was a door, and it was shut, the inhabitants cannot prevent him. Said Rabha: This law holds good only when he had not broken the hinges; but if he had broken the hinges, it is supposed that he had not intended to open the door again, and the inhabitants can prevent him from doing so. Said Abayi to him: The following Boraitha supports you: "If there was a house with a closed door, the four ells for unloading applies to it; if, however, the owner broke the hinges from the door, he has lost his right to them." Rabba b. b. Hana, in the name of R. Johanan, said: Alleys which are open to a road which leads to another city, and the inhabitants of this city desire to close them, the inhabitants of that city may prevent them; not only when there is no other road to that city, but even if there was another road, they can also prevent them. As R. Jehudah, in the name of Rabh, declared: A thoroughfare which is occupied by a majority, it is prohibited to spoil.

R. Annan, in the name of Samuel, said: Inhabitants of alleys who desire to make doors to their ends which are open to the street may be prevented by the public. The schoolmen were about to interpret this that it meant only the first four ells which are attached to the public ground, but not beyond this. As R. Zera said elsewhere, in the name of R. Na'hman: The four ells which are attached to the public ground are to be considered as the public ground itself. In reality, however, it is not so, as R. Na'hman's decision there was only regarding the law of defilement; but here it might happen that the street should be crowded and many people would enter beyond the four ells. "Nor can afield be divided," etc. And R. Jehudah does not differ with the first Tana, as each of them speaks in accordance with the custom in his country. But what is the law in Babylon? Said R. Joseph: It can be divided if there is enough to plough for a day. How is this to be understood? If it means in the days of sowing, when the earth has already been ploughed, then the ploughing will not last two days, and in one day it could not be completed; and if in the days of ploughing, then in the time of harvest there will not be a day's work (and it is a trouble to hire laborers for a fraction of a day)? If you wish, it may be said that it means a day of ploughing and sowing together; and if you wish, it may be said that it means a day of sowing and artificial watering. R. Na'hman said: A valley can be divided when there is for each part a day's artificial watering. "A vineyard," says the father of Samuel, "three kabs for each part." And so also we have learned in the following Boraitha: "If one says: 'I sell you a part of the vineyard,' it is no less than three kabs. So is the decree of Symmachos." Said R. Jose: "Such a decree is only prophetical, as I see no ground for this." How is the law in question to be decided in Babylon? Said Rabha b. Qisna: There shall be no less than three bushes, each of them containing no less than twelve branches of grapes, to dig which is a man's day's work.

Said R. Abdimi of the city 'Haifa: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from the prophets and was given to the wise. (How is this to be understood?) Can a wise man not be also a prophet? In other words, were all the prophets fools? He means to say, that although it was taken away from the prophets who were not wise, it was not taken away from the wise ones. Said Amemar: And a wise man is better than a prophet, as it is written [Ps. xc. 12]: ". . . obtain (nobbi 1) a heart endowed with wisdom." And usually, who is dependent upon whom? The smaller is dependent upon the greater. Hence wisdom is greater than prophecy. Said Abayi: This theory may be supported from the fact that one great man declares something new, and exactly the same had been said by another great man. Said Rabha: "What support is this? It may be that both of them are equal in wisdom. Therefore," said he, "it happens frequently that a great man declares something new, and afterwards it is found that Aqiba b. Jose has already declared so (and it is hard to say that he was equal in wisdom to R. Aqiba). R. Ashi, however, objected also to this: It may happen that in this one case he was equal in wisdom to him. And he supported this from the fact that it very often occurs that a sage declares a Halakha, and afterwards it is learned that the same was already said to Moses on Mount Sinai. But even then, perhaps it was by chance, as it happens that a blind man accidentally seizes something. It means that he declares also the reason of it.

R. Johanan said: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from the prophets and was given to lunatics and small children. What is meant by lunatics? Thus it happened to Mar b. R. Ashi, who was standing in the market of Mehuza and heard a lunatic say that the future head of the college in Suria would be Tibumi (Mar's name was Tibumi). And he said: "Who among the rabbis signs his name Tibumi, if not myself? Hence I shall succeed." And he went to Suria. In the mean time the rabbis of the college intended to appoint R. A'ha of Diphthi as their head. However, when they heard that Mar had arrived, they sent to him two of the rabbis to take his advice, and he detained them. Then they sent another two, and he did the same with them. Finally ten of them arrived, and then he began to teach and to lecture, and proclaimed himself as the head of the college. [He did so because one must not begin to lecture if there are less than ten persons present.] R. A'ha then applied to himself the saying of the sages: He to whom harm has been done by heaven, has no hope of relief in the near future, and vice versa.

And what in regard to the children? For example, the little daughter of R. Hisda was sitting on the knee of her father, and Rabha and Rami b. Hama were sitting opposite, and to the question of her father, "Whom of them would you like to marry?" she answered, "Both of them." And Rabha immediately rejoined: "I shall be the last one." (And so it was. Rabha married her after the death of her first husband, Rami b. Hama.)

R. Abdimi of 'Haifa said again: Before one eats and drinks he has two hearts, and after this he has only one, as it is writ ten [Job, xi. 13]. 1 Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua: Who is used to wine, even if his heart is locked like a virgin's, the wine opens it; as it is written [Zech. ix. 17]: ". . . and new wine the virgins."
R. Huna b. R. Joshua said: It is certain that when a firstborn among his brothers (who is entitled biblically to two shares) comes to inherit his shares in real estate, he is to be given two portions adjoining. But how is it if the first-born has died without children, and the surviving brother marries his wife and takes his shares—does the law of preëmption apply to him also, as to the dead brother, or not? Abayi said: He is to be treated just as the dead one. And Rabha said: It is written [Deut. xxv. 6]: "And it shall be that the firstborn," etc., which signifies that he shall be treated as the first-born in that respect, but not respecting the division of a heritage.

There was a man who bought an estate near to the estate of his father-in-law (who had no male children), and when they came to divide the inheritance of the father-in-law, he insisted that the estate at the boundary of the one he bought should be given to him. Said Rabha: Such a claim, if not listened to, it would be equal to the acts of Sodomites. Therefore they must be compelled to comply with his wish. R. Joseph opposed: Could not his brothers-in-law claim that this estate was pleasant to them as the estate of Bar Marion (which was then known as the best estate)? And the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Joseph (if the estate needs no artificial watering). Should one of brothers who are about to inherit two estates of dry land, each of which has a pond for watering, buy an estate adjoining one of the two estates in question, and demand that this should be given him as his share-said Rabha: As each of them has a pond for watering, his claim is a right one; and if declined, it would be a Sodomite custom. R. Joseph, however, opposed this, saying: His brother can claim: "It might happen that one pond would become dry and we should be compelled to water both estates from one pond; but as he has bought another estate, the pond will not be sufficient for watering all of them, and mine would remain dry." And the Halakha prevails in accordance with him also in this case.

If the inheritance consists of two estates which are watered from one pond, and one of the brothers has bought an estate adjoining one of these, and demands this adjoining one as his share—said R. Joseph: His claim is a right one, as the above reason cannot apply here; and, therefore, if it should not be listened to, it would be a Sodomite custom. To which Abayi opposed: One can claim: "It is better for me to have my estate between your two, and then it will be better preserved." However, the Halakha prevails again with R. Joseph, as the latter claim is not to be considered. If two brothers inherit an estate which has a river on one side and a pond on the other, the estate must be divided diagonally so that each half borders on both the river and the pond. "Nor a dining-room," etc. But how is it when there is not so much space for each? According to R. Jehudah the law, "Either you concede or I concede," must be applied. One of them can say: "Either I pay you cash for your share, and the whole estate remains for me, or vice versa." And R. Na'hman said: Such a law cannot be applied, and they must remain in partnership. Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: According to your decision, that the law of concession does not apply in such a case, how is it, then, if a first-born and his brother have inherited from their father a slave, or an animal which is not fit for slaughtering-how shall they divide it? (A first-born is entitled to two-thirds; and therefore he took as his instance a first-born, because it is more difficult for them to remain partners.) Answered R. Na'hman: Because I say even then they must remain partners, and the slave or animal in question must serve to one two days, and to the other one.

An objection was raised from the following: If there is a bondsman only in half (as, for instance, he has been a bondsman of two masters and was freed by one of them), he may serve his master one day, and attend to his own business the other day. So is the decree of Beth Hillel. Said Beth Shammai: Such a law is partial, as you have satisfied only the master, but not the bondsman; as the bondsman cannot marry a female slave, for he is half free, nor can he marry a free maiden, because he is half slave, shall it be decided that he shall remain unmarried? This would also be improper, as the world is created for reproduction; as it is written [Is. xlv. 18]: "Not for naught did he create it: to be inhabited did he form it." And therefore he can compel his master to set him free, and accept a note for half his value. And Beth Hillel changed their decision and yielded to that of Beth Shammai. (Hence we see that in such a case the law of concession applies?) Here it is different, as the concession is not an even one for both partners; for the bondsman can only demand of the master to accept half his value for freeing him; but the master cannot demand of the bondsman to sell him his free half, as this is against the law.
Another objection was raised: Two brothers, one of them rich and the other poor, inherit from their father a bath- or a press-house. If it is rented to somebody, they must certainly divide the rent; but if the bath was made for their private use, the rich brother can say to the poor one: You may hire or buy servants who will prepare the bath for your use, but I will not pay for half the work, or buy olives and press them in the press-house. (Hence we see that the law of concession does not apply?) Here also the concession is not even, as the poor one has no money to offer to pay for his share in the inheritance. Come and hear another objection from our Mishna. "If, after the subdivision, each part can retain its former name," etc., but if not, it must be appraised in money and one of the partners must concede his share to the other when he is paid. (Hence the law of concession applies?) On this point Tanaim differ, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "If one of the partners says to the other: 'Take your share in full, and I will take the remainder,' he must be listened to. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he must not."

Now let us see. If the case be similar to that of our Mishna, why should R. Simeon b. Gamaliel object? We must say, then, that the Boraitha cited is not complete, and it should read thus: "You take the prescribed quantity for your share, and I will take the remainder; or, I will concede or else you concede"—he is to be listened to. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: "Nay." Hence Tanaim differ. The case maybe similar to that quoted in our Mishna, and the reason of R. Simeon why he must not be listened to, is this: He may claim: "I have no money to pay for your share, and I do not want to accept a present from you." As it is written [Prov. XV. 27]: "He that hateth gifts shall live."

Said Abayi to R. Joseph: R. Jehudah's decision, that the law of concession applies, is in accordance with Samuel, who said, concerning the Holy Writ, that if it was a property of two partners "it must not be divided even when both agree," the case being only when it was bound in one volume; but if bound in two parts, they may. And this can also be correct when the law of concession does not apply; for if it were applied, then there would be no difference whether bound in one or in two parts. R. Shalman, however, explained the decision of Samuel: When both partners agree to divide.
Amemar said: The law of concession is to be applied. Said R. Ashi to him: And what about R. Na'hman's decision? And he said: I do not hold with him. "Is that so? Did it not happen to Rabba and R. Dimi, the sons of Hinna, that their father bequeathed unto them two female slaves, one of them able to cook and bake, and the other to spin and weave; and they came before Rabha, and he decided that the law of concession did not apply here?" "There was another reason; viz., both brothers needed the services of both slaves. And to decide, 'You take one and I take the other,' would not be the law of concession." But did not Samuel decide that when bound in two parts they might divide? It is already explained above that he speaks of a case when both partners are willing to do so.

The rabbis taught: One may attach the Pentateuch to the Prophets, and both to the Hagiographa, and keep them in one volume. So is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, said: "Each of them is to be kept separately." The sages said, furthermore, that the book of each Prophet must be kept separately. Said R. Jehudah: It happened with Beithus b. Zonin, that he had eight books of the Prophets attached together, with the permission of R. Elazar b. Azariah. According to others, however, he had the books, but they were each of them kept separately. Said Rabbi: It happened once that the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, attached to one another, were brought to us, and we approved it.

After each book of the Pentateuch, four lines must be left blank when copying. The law is the same regarding each book of the Prophets; except in the case of the books of the Twelve Prophets, three lines after each is sufficient to be left blank. However, if one book ends at the bottom of the page, the next book may be begun right at the top of the next page without leaving any lines blank.
The rabbis taught: "If one wishes to attach the scrolls of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa to one another, he may do so, provided he leaves a whole page blank at the beginning, and at the end enough blank space to wrap around the entire scroll; and he may begin a new book at the top of a page when the previous book ends at the bottom of the page preceding. And if he wishes to separate the books afterwards, he may do so." How is this to be understood? It is self-evident that a separate book is better than if attached. It means to say one may begin at the top of the page; as then, if he decides to separate the books, it will be easier for him to do so. There is a contradiction in the following Boraitha, which states: "There must be blank space at the beginning and at the end of each book, sufficient to wrap it up." To wrap what up? Around the whole book? Then it contradicts the former Boraitha which states that at the beginning one page is sufficient; and if it means only one page, then it contradicts the above, which states "enough at the end to wrap around the book"? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: This Boraitha also means to leave blank space at the beginning and at the end, as prescribed. R. Ashi, however, said: The latter Boraitha speaks of the Holy Scrolls, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "All scrolls are rolled (around one holder) from right to left; the Holy Scrolls are rolled towards the middle (and must be attached to two holders); and a blank page must be left both at the beginning and at the end." And R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok said: So wrote the scribes of Jerusalem their Holy Scrolls.

The rabbis taught: The length of the Holy Scrolls must not exceed the circumference; nor must the latter exceed the length.

Rabbi was questioned about the prescribed dimensions of the Holy Scrolls. He answered: Six spans in length when written on double parchment will be equal to the circumference; and when on ordinary parchment, I do not know what length.

R. Huna wrote seventy Pentateuchs, and in only one of them the length happened to be equal to the circumference. R. A'ha b. Jacob wrote only one, on calf-skin, and the measurements happened to be just as prescribed; and the rabbis cast their eyes upon him, and he died.

[Said the rabbis to R. Hamnunah: Is it true that R. Ammi wrote four hundred Pentateuchs? And he answered: Perhaps he wrote only one verse [Deut. xxxiii. 4]: "The law which Moses commanded us, is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob," four hundred times. Similarly to this, Rabha questioned R. Zera: Is it true that R. Janai had planted four hundred vineyards? And he answered: Perhaps such as contain five trees, two on each side and one behind (which, in regard to the law of Kilaim, is considered a vineyard).]

An objection was raised: The ark which was made by Moses was two and a half ells in length, one and a half in width, and one and a half in height: all these measurements were taken with an ell of six spans. The tablets which were brought down by Moses were six spans square and three spans thick: they were placed in the ark lengthwise. Now, how much space did the tablets occupy in the ark? Twelve spans. Then three spans of space were left. Take off one span for the two walls of the ark, each of which was half a span, then two spans' space was left, where the Holy Scrolls were placed.

As it is written [I Kings, viii. 9]: "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone," etc. The expressions "nothing" and "save" are an exclusion after an exclusion; and there is a rule that where such is to be found, it means an inclusion; and here the Holy Scrolls are included, which were in the ark. Now the length of the ark is accounted for. How is the width to be accounted for? The tablets occupied six spans in width; and from the remaining three one span must be deducted for the two walls. This leaves two spans of empty space, to the end that the Holy Scrolls should not be crushed while being taken out or returned. So said R. Mair. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that the ell was of five spans.

The tablets, which were six spans square and three thick, were placed in the ark lengthwise, and occupied twelve spans, thus leaving only one-half span of space: one finger (a quarter of a span) for each wall. This is for the length. As to the width, the tablets occupied six spans; and from the remaining space of one and a half spans take off half a span—one and a half fingers 1 for each wall—leaving then one span; and this was occupied by the pillars. As it is written [Solomon's Song, iii. 9 and 10]: "The pillars thereof," etc. And also the casket in which the Philistines placed the gift to the God of Israel was put alongside. As it is written [I Sam. vi. 8]: "Ye must put in a casket alongside of it, and then send it away," etc. And upon the casket the Holy Scrolls were placed.

As it is written [Deut. xxxi. 26]: "Take this book of the law, and put it at the side of the ark," etc. We see, then, that it was placed at the side and not within the ark. But what is to be included from the two exclusions mentioned above? The broken tables, which were first broken by Moses. Now, if it is borne in mind that the circumference of the Holy Scrolls was six spans, its diameter must have been two spans, as there is a rule that everything with a circumference of three spans has a diameter of one span. Now, as it was said above, that the Holy Scrolls were rolled toward the middle, then the diameter must exceed two spans, for the space in the middle between the two rolls could not be reckoned in the two spans. How, then, could it get in?

Said R. A'ha b. Jacob: "The Holy Scrolls which were written by Moses (of which the king read the portion belonging to him, and the high priest read on the Day of Atonement in the court of the Temple) were rolled from left to right only, in one roll." But even then, how can you put in a thing which is two spans in thickness into a space of only two spans? Said R. Ashi: "A piece of the parchment was left, out from the roll, so that it could be put in the two spans, and what was left was lying on the top." But according to R. Jehudah's theory, where were the Holy Scrolls placed before the Philistines sent the casket? A little board was attached to the pillars, and the Holy Scrolls were put upon it.

The rabbis taught: "The order of the prophets is as follows: Jehoshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Prophets." Let us see: Hosea, of the Twelve Prophets, was before Isaiah, as it is written [Hosea, i. 2]: "The beginning of the word of the Lord," etc. This certainly cannot be understood that he was the first of the prophets to whom the Lord spoke since the time of Moses, as there were many prophets after Moses preceding Hosea. And therefore R. Johanan explains that he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period; viz.: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah. Hence he was before Isaiah. Why is he placed after? Because his book is counted among the Twelve, among whom were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were the last of the prophets: therefore his book is placed together with theirs. But why was the book of Hosea not separated, and placed first? Because his book is small, and if it were placed separately it would become lost. However, was not Isaiah before Jeremiah and Ezekiel? Why is he not placed first? Because "Kings" ends with the destruction of the Temple, and the whole book of Jeremiah speaks of the destruction, and that of Ezekiel at the beginning speaks of the destruction and at the end of consolation, while Isaiah's entire book speaks of consolation: destruction was put next to destruction, and consolation next to consolation.
The order of the Hagiographa is as follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Book of Esther, Book of Ezra, and Chronicles. 1 And who wrote all the books? Moses wrote his book and a portion of Bil'am [Numbers, xxii.], and Job. Jehoshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch beginning: "And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died." Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth. David wrote Psalms, with the assistance of ten elders, viz.: Adam the First, Malachi Zedek, Abraham, Moses, Hyman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korach. Jeremiah wrote his book, Kings, and Lamentations. King Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the great assembly wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and the Book of Esther. Ezra wrote his book, and Chronicles—the order of all generations down to himself. [This may be a support to Rabh's theory, as to which, R. Jehudah said in his name, that Ezra had not ascended from Babylon to Palestine until he wrote his genealogy.] And who finished Ezra's book? Nehemiah ben Chachalyah.

There is a Boraitha in accordance with him who said that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua; namely: "It is written [Deut. xxxvi. 5]: 'And Moses the servant of the Lord died,' etc. Is it possible that Moses himself should have written 'and he died'? Therefore it must be said that up to this verse Moses wrote, and from this verse forward Joshua wrote. So said R. Joshua, according to others R. Nehemiah." Said R. Simeon to him: Is it possible that the Holy Scrolls should not have been complete to the last letter, and nevertheless it should read [ibid., xxxi. 26]: "Take this book of the law," etc. Therefore, we must say that up to this verse the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated, and Moses repeated and wrote it down; and from this verse forward He dictated, and Moses with tears in his eyes wrote it down; as thus it is read [Jer. xxxvi. 18]: "Then said Baruch unto them, With his mouth did he utter clearly all these words unto me, and I wrote them in the book with ink."

According to whom, then, is the following—that R. Joshua b. Aba, in the name of R. Gidel, quoting Rabh, said: "The last eight verses of the Pentateuch, when read from the Holy Scrolls, must be read by one person without any interruption"?
Should it not be in accordance with R. Simeon? It may be also in accordance with R. Simeon; and the reason for the exception of these eight verses is because, as there was already a change at the writing by Moses (as said above), the change is made also here. "Joshua wrote his book"; but is it not written there: "And Joshua died"? This was written by Elazar. But is it not written there: "And Elazar died"? The book was finished by his son Pinchas. "Samuel wrote his book." But is it not written: "And Samuel died"? The book was finished by Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet. "David wrote the Psalms," etc. But why did the Boraitha not enumerate also Ethan the Ezrachite? Said Rabh: "The latter and Abraham are identical." It enumerates Moses, and also Hyman; did not Rabh say that by Hyman is meant Moses? There were two Hymans. "Moses wrote his book," etc. This is a support to R. Levy b. Lachma, who said that Job lived in the time of Moses. 1 Rabha, however, said: Job lived in the time of the spies which were sent by Moses to investigate Palestine.

One of the rabbis was sitting before R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni and said: Job never existed; and is mentioned in the Scripture only for an example. Said he to him: The Scripture is against your theory, as it states plainly [Job, i. 1]: "There was a man," etc. But according to your theory it is also written [II Sam. xii. 3]: "But the poor man had nothing," etc. Was it so in reality? It was written only for an example! The same may be said concerning Job? If it were so, why, then, his name and the name of the country he came from?

R. Johanan and R. Elazar both said that Job was among the ancestors of the Babylonian exiles; and his college was in Tiberias.

An objection was raised: There is a Boraitha: "Job's age was from the time when Israel came to Egypt until he left it." Read: "As many years as the Israelites were in Egypt." Another objection was raised. There were seven prophets who have prophesied to the nations, viz.: Bil'am and his father, Job, Eliphaz the Themanite, Bildad the Shuchite, Zophar the Na'amathite, and Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite. (Hence we see that Job was a Gentile?) And according to your theory, was then Elihu, just mentioned, a Gentile? He was certainly an Israelite, as it is written, "of the family of Ram." And why is he called a prophet of the nations? Because his prophecies were for the nations. The same can be said concerning Job. But did not the Jewish prophets also prophesy for the nations? The Jewish prophets prophesied to Israel, and to the nations also, but the above-mentioned seven have prophesied for the nations only.

There is an objection from the following: A pious man was among the nations, and Job was his name; and he came to this world only for the purpose of receiving his reward. The Holy One, blessed be He, however, brought chastisements upon him, and he began to blaspheme; the Lord then doubled his reward in this world, so that he should have no share in the world to come. (Hence we see that Job was a Gentile?) On this point Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: R. Elazar said: Job was in the time of the judges; as it is written [Job, xxvii. 12]: ". . . deal in such vanities?" And which generation was one entirely of vanities? It is the generation of the Judges. R. Joshua b. Karha said: Job was in the time of Ahasuerus; as it is written [Job, xlii. 15]: "And there were not found such handsome women as the daughters of Job," etc. And in which generation were handsome women searched for, if not in the generation of Ahasuerus? [But perhaps it was in the time of David, when handsome women were also searched for [I Kings, i. 3]? There they searched only among the daughters of Israel, but in the time of Ahasuerus it is written, "in all the land."] R. Nathan said that Job was in the time of the Queen of Sheba, as it is written [Job, i. 15]: "When the Sabeans made an incursion." [And R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni said in the name of R. Jonathan: He who translates Malchas Sheba "the queen of Sheba" is in error, as the right translation is "the government of Sheba."] And the sages said: He was in the time of the Chaldea, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 17]: "The Chaldeans posted themselves," etc. Still others said that Job was in the time of Jacob and has married Dinah, Jacob's daughter. (They infer it from an analogy of expression, Nebala.) And all the just mentioned sages hold that Job was an Israelite, except the last, who maintains that he was a Gentile. R. Johanan said: It is written [Ruth, i. 1]: "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged," etc. It means it was a generation that judged the judges. If, e.g., the judge said to them: "Takeout the toothpick from thy tooth," they answered: "If thou wilt take the beam out of thy eyes, I will remove the toothpick." If, e.g., the judge said to one: "Thy silver is become dross," the answer was: "Thy wine is drugged with water" [Is. i. 22] (i.e., if the judge accused one of a small transgression, the accused said to him: "Thou thyself art a greater sinner than I am").

It is written [Job, i. 6-9]: ". . . that the accuser (Satan) also came in the midst of them," etc. Satan said before the Lord: "I have sped all over the world, and found no trusty man like thy servant Abraham, to whom thou didst say [Gen. xiii. 17]: 'Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.' And not withstanding this, when he searched for a grave to bury his wife Sarah, and did not find one until he bought it for four hundred silver shekels, he did not murmur or bear in mind anything against thee." "Then said the Lord to Satan," etc. Said R. Johanan: That which was said about Job is more important than that which was said about Abraham, as regarding the latter it is written [ibid., xxii. 12]: "Now I know that thou fearest God," etc. And regarding the former it is written [Job, i. 1]: "And this man was perfect and upright, and fearing God and eschewing evil." What is meant by "eschewing evil"? Said R. Aba b. Samuel: Job was liberal with his money; it is customary, if a laborer has done some service to the value of half the smallest coin, that the employer takes him to the storekeeper, buys something for this coin, and gives the laborer the half due him. Job, however, gave him the whole coin for such services. "Then Satan answered, Is it for nought that Job feareth God? . . . the work of his hands hast thou blessed." What does this mean? Said R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak: "Any one who took a coin from Job for business, has succeeded." And what means, "And his cattle are far spread out in the land"? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: His cattle have changed the order of the world. Usually wolves kill goats; Job's goats, however, killed wolves. "But only stretch forth thy hand," etc. [ibid. 11-19]: "The oxen were ploughing, and the she asses were feeding beside them." How is this to be understood? Said R. Johanan: From this is to be inferred that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Job a foretaste of the world to come (as about the world to come it is written [Jer. xxxi.] that pregnancy and birth in a woman occurred together). "A fire of God," etc. [to ii. 5]. Satan again answered the Lord, as said above. "And Thou hast incited me against him," etc. Said R. Johanan: If this were not written it would be impossible for a human being to conceive it: the Scripture speaks of the Lord as if He were a human being who can be influenced through incitement.

There is a Boraitha: Satan descends and tempts human beings; then ascends and accuses them; then takes the order and takes the soul of him whom he has tempted. "Then the accuser answered the Lord," etc. [ibid., ibid. 4-8], Said R. Itz'hak: Satan was more afflicted than Job himself. It is similar to a master who says to his servant: "Break the barrel, but save the wine" (without letting him have a vessel to save it in). So was it with Satan; the Lord told him to take Job's body, but to save his soul. Said Resh Lakish: From this we see that he who is called Satan is himself the evil spirit who tempts one to sin; and he himself is the Angel of Death, as he was told to save the life: from which it is to be seen that the life of man was in his hands.

R. Levi said: Satan and Peninnah both intended (with their accusation) to please heaven. Satan, who had seen that the Lord was favorable toward Job, feared that through the justice of Job Abraham's merits would be forgotten, and, therefore, he spoke as above. And Peninnah, as it is written [I Sam. i. 6]: "And her rival also provoked her continually, in order to make her fret," etc. It means for the purpose of making her pray and have a child. R. A'ha lectured the same in the city of Papuniah, and Satan came and kissed his feet for this. "With all this, did not Job sin with his lips." Said Rabha: "With his lips he did not sin, but he sinned in his heart." What was it? [Job, ix. 24]: "Is a land given up to the wicked? He covereth the faces of its judges: if this be not the truth, who is it then? 1 Said Rabha. Job was about to turn the dish face downwards (i.e., to deny the might of the Lord).

Said Abayi to him: Job spoke only about Satan. On this point Tanaim differ. About the just cited verse R. Elazar said: Job was about to turn the dish face downwards. And R. Joshua said to him: Job spoke only with regard to Satan. It is written [ibid. x. 7]: "Still it is within thy knowledge that I am not wicked, and there is none that can deliver me out of thy hand." Said Rabha: Job wanted to free the whole world of a trial. He said thus: Lord of the Universe, Thou hast created an ox with parted hoofs, and us without (and Thou hast commanded that only creatures with the parted hoofs shall be eaten, but Thou couldst have made it the reverse). Thou hast created Paradise, and Thou hast created Gehenna; Thou hast created the upright, and Thou hast created the wicked. Who can prevent Thee? (Hence no reward and no punishment should be dealt, as all was done according to Thy will!) And what have Job's colleagues answered to this? [ibid. xv. 4]: "Yea, thou truly makest void the fear (of God), and diminishest devotion before God." Which means that the Holy One, blessed be He, has created the evil spirit, and He has created wisdom as a remedy against him.

Rabha lectured: It is written [ibid. xxix. 13]: "The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me; and the heart of the widow I caused to sing for joy." From the first half of this verse we learn that be used to rob a field belonging to orphans, improved it, and returned it to them; and in the latter half we learn that if there was a widow whom no one wished to marry, he put his name upon her, saying that she was his relative, and then it was easy for her to marry. It is written [ibid. vi. 2]: "Oh, that my vexation could be truly weighed, and my calamity," etc. It was said by or to Rabh: The earth may cover Job's mouth for this. He makes himself a comrade of providence [ibid. ix. 33]: "There is no one who can decide between us, who could lay his hand upon us both." Said Rabha: For this also his mouth may be covered with earth: should a slave rebuke his master? [ibid. xxxi. 1]: "A covenant had I made with my eyes: how, then, should I fix my look on a virgin?" Said Rabha: He had not looked upon strange women, but Abraham had not looked even at his own wife; as it is written [Gen. xii. 11]: "Now I know that thou art a woman of handsome appearance," from which it is to be inferred that before that time he knew not that.

[Job, vii. 9]: "As the cloud vanisheth and passeth away: so will he that goeth down to the nether world not come up again." Said Rabha: From this we see that Job denied resurrection. [Ibid. ix. 17]: "He that bruiseth me with his tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without a cause." Said Rabba: Job has blasphemed by the tempest, and by the tempest he was answered. Blasphemed by the tempest—as he said: "Lord of the Universe! Perhaps a tempest passed before Thee, and changed to Thee the word Iyabh to Oyabh." 1 And by the tempest he was answered—as it is written [ibid. xxxviii. 1]: "Then did the Lord address Job out of the storm-wind. . . . Do but gird up like a mighty man thy loins: and I will ask thee, and do thou inform me."

So said He: "I have created many hairs on human beings, and for each hair I have created a separate hole; for if two should be nourished from one hole, it would blind the eyes of men; now from one hole to another it was not changed to me; and from Iyabh to Oyabh, should it be changed?" [Ibid., ibid. 25]: "Who hath divided off water-courses," etc. "There are many drops that I have created in the clouds, and for each drop there is a separate place; for if two drops should go into one, they would make the earth too soft, and it could not produce; these places were not changed to me." ". . . And a way for the lightning (that is followed by) thunders." "Many thunders have I created in the clouds, and for each thunder there is a separate track; for if two should go along the same track, they would destroy the world. The tracks were not changed to me; and from Iyabh to Oyabh, should it be?" [Ibid. xxxix. 1]: "Knowest thou the time when the chamois of the rock bring forth?" "The chamois of the rock is cruel towards its offspring, and when the time of bearing comes she ascends to the top of the mountain, so that the offspring should fall and die. And I send an eagle which receives it with its wings." "Markest thou when the hinds do calve?" "The hind has a narrow womb, and when the time of bearing comes, I procure a snake that bites her in the womb, so that she is able to bring forth the offspring. In both cases it must happen at the exact moment; for if it occurs a second before or a second later, the young in the first case, and the mother in the latter, would die. Now, from one second to the other there never is a change; and from Iyabh to Oyabh, should it be changed?" [Ibid. xxxiv. 35]: "Job hath not spoken with knowledge, and his words are without intelligence." Said Rabha: From this it may be deduced that one is not to be made responsible for his words at a time when he is afflicted. [Ibid. ii. 11-13]: "When, now, the three friends of Job . . . and they met together," etc. What is meant by "they met together"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: They all entered at one time the gate of the city where Job lived; although a Boraitha states that each of them lived three hundred parsas away from the others. But who informed them? According to some, each of them had a crown on which were engraved the pictures of his three colleagues; and if one of them became afflicted, the picture was changed. And according to others, they had in their garden three trees, each of which bore the name of one of the friends; and if one became afflicted, the tree was changed. Said Rabha: This is what people say: "Either to have colleagues like Job's, or death."

It is written [Gen. vi. I]: "And it came to pass when men began to multiply . . . and daughters," etc. R. Johanan said: With a daughter, multiplication comes into the world, as in Chaldaic a girl is called rabhia; literally, multiply. Resh Lakish, however, maintains that with a daughter strife comes into the world, as rabhia means also strife. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: According to your opinion, multiplication comes with daughters; why was not Job doubly rewarded with daughters, as he was with sons and with all his property? And he answered: Although they were not doubled in number, they were in beauty; as it is written [Job, xlii. 13-15]: "He had also fourteen 1 sons and three daughters," etc. And farther on it is written: "And there were not found such handsome women," etc. 2 To R. Simeon, Rabbi's son, a daughter was born; and he became dejected.

Said his father to him: With thy daughter came multiplication (rabhia). Said Bar Kapara to him: The consolation of your father is very poor. The following Boraitha states: "The world cannot be without males and females. However, happy is he whose children are male, and woe to him whose children are female. The world cannot be without a spice dealer and a tanner (burseus); happy is he who is a spice dealer, and woe to him who is a tanner." On this point, however, the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ. It is written [Gen. xxiv. 1]: "The Lord has blessed Abraham bakhol (in all things)." What does the word bakhol mean? R. Meir said: He was blessed in not having any daughters. R. Jehudah, however, said: He was blessed in having a daughter. Anonymous teachers say: He had a daughter with the name Bakhol.

R. Elazar the Modai said: Abraham, our father, was an astrologer; and therefore all the kings from the West and the East came to his door to ask his advice. 1 R. Simeon b. Johanan said: A diamond was hanging on Abraham's neck, and when a sick man looked upon it, he was cured. And when Abraham passed away, the Lord sealed it in the planet of the sun. Said Abayi: This is what people say: When the day arrives, the sick become better. There is another explanation of the word bakhol—that as long as Abraham was alive Esau did not rebel. According to still others: "Because Ishmael repented in his days." That Esau did not rebel in his days is stated in a Boraitha to explain the verses Gen. xxv. 29-34 as referring to that day on which Abraham died.

And that Ishmael had repented is explained by Rabha, in the name of R. Johanan, to Rabhina and to R. Hama b. Buzi thus: It is written [ibid., ibid. 9]: "And his sons Isaac and Ishmael," etc. And from the fact that Isaac is named first, although Ishmael was older, it is to be understood that Ishmael had repented and, knowing that Isaac was better than he, given him the preference. But perhaps the verse only does it because it was so, and Ishmael had nothing to do with it? Then the Scripture [ibid. xxxv. 29] would also say Jacob and Esau, and not according to the age, as it is now. Hence the previous construction is correct.

The rabbis taught: There are three to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a taste of the world to come in this world; namely, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: Abraham— because regarding him is written bakhol; Isaac—because regarding him is written mikhol; and Jacob—regarding whom is written khol. The same three overruled the evil spirit, as the words just mentioned are written regarding them.

The rabbis taught: There are six whom the Angel of Death has not dominated: the former three, and Moses, Aaron, and Miriam—the three former, because of the words mentioned; and the three latter, because it is written [Num. xxxiii. 38]: "By the order of the Lord," etc. There are seven whom the worms have not devoured: the former six, and Benjamin ben Jacob; according to others, also David—the former six, because of the reasons stated above; and Benjamin, because it is written [Deut. xxxiii. 12]: "The beloved of the Lord (is he), he shall dwell in safety," etc. There are four who died without sin, but because it was so decreed at the time when the serpent made Eve eat the fruit of the tree of wisdom; viz., Benjamin b. Jacob, Amram father of Moses, Jesse father of David, and Khilab b. David—to all of them traditionally, except Jesse the father of David, which is also deduced from the verse. 1

Footnotes

5:1 The Hebrew expression is, "Me'ainai hoaida," literally, "from the eyes of the congregation"; hence the leaders are called the eyes of the congregation.

5:2 The expression in Hebrew is "Ma'hmad Ainechem," literally, the delight of your eyes.

7:1 In the text it reads that R. Na'hman said there can be made a sign by Sinuphi Irikhi. Luria corrected it to read Ribhi instead of Irikhi, but failed to give any explanation. The explanation of Rashi is so complicated that we cannot understand it. Ashri, however, and Rabono Gershon omit all this, and we therefore have followed their example.

16:1 In ancient times promissory notes were written mostly by witnesses.

20:1 The expression in Hebrew is Yoqor, which has two meanings—"dear" and "grievous": the Talmud takes the former meaning and Leeser takes the latter.

23:1 Their Bibles must have been written differently, as in ours the spelling of the word is as it is pronounced.

28:1 The Hebrew term is zedaka; Leeser translates it "equity," according to the sense.

36:1 The expression in the Bible is ve'nobbi, which has; two meanings—"to obtain," and also "a prophet." The Talmud takes it literally, that a prophet has a heart of wisdom. Leeser translates according to the sense.

37:1 The expression in this verse is nabub yilabab; literally, "The empty one shall receive two hearts." Leeser's translation does not correspond.

43:1 One and a half fingers"—meaning the little finger, of which there are six to a span.

44:1 Rashi explains the reasons of the order of the Hagiographa, which, in his opinion, was arranged in order of time, and maintains that Job was written after Ruth and Psalms, the two latter having been written, according to him, by David; and concerning the Songs, he says: "It seems to me that Solomon said or wrote them in his old age." However, the order of our Scriptures is different, and they are certainly not in the order of time, as modern critics ascribe a much later period of time to almost all the books, and we are still ignorant of the reason why the order was changed in the canons we possess from that in the Talmud, and who it was that substituted the existing order.

46:1 His support is from an analogy of expression; and the Gemara discusses the analogy, but it is too complicated, and therefore omitted. The same is the case with the saying of Rabha farther on.

49:1 This is the exact translation of Leeser, which we follow in our edition. The Bible commentaries differ in the explanation of this passage, which is very complicated, and Leeser, following one of them, explains it all as a question. The latest commentator, Dr. Benjamin Szold of Baltimore, interprets it according to the Talmud, that the first half should not be understood as a question, but as a fact; and it seems to us he is right.

51:1 Job in Hebrew is spelled Iyabh: Oyabh means enemy; and this means that perhaps the vowels were changed, thus rendering, instead of Job, enemy.

52:1 Shibha in Hebrew means seven; so it is written in Job ii. In this passage it is written shibhnah, which, according to the Talmud, means fourteen; and double what was before, as all his property was doubled. Leeser has translated seven, giving no attention to the letter nun added in this word.

52:2 in the text it is deduced from the names of the daughters; e.g., Yememah, beautiful as the day, etc. We have omitted this, as it is difficult, with the Hebrew words, each of which has several meanings, to point out which meaning it bears, and to discuss it. And it is also unimportant.

53:1 The term in the text for this is aiztagninuth, and the commentators explain this to mean astrologer. According to Schönhak, however, it is composed of two Greek words, στεγω, νοοω, which mean one who can fathom the mysteries of mankind.

54:1 This also is deduced from different verses in the Scripture, in a very complicated way which would be of no interest to the English reader, and has therefore been omitted.

CHAPTER II.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SPACE TO BE LEFT BETWEEN ONE'S PROPERTY AND ANOTHER'S, BE IT OF ONE OR TWO KINDS. UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS A TENANT MAY PLACE AN OVEN IN HIS DWELLING. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A SHOP IN A YARD MAY BE PREVENTED. CONCERNING THE SPACE TO BE LEFT BETWEEN A CITY AND PIGEON-COOPS, TREES, BARNS, CEMETERIES, AND TANNERIES . MISHNA I.: One must not dig a well near that of his neighbor, nor a channel, cave, aqueduct, or basin, for washing, unless it be removed to a distance of at least three spans from that of his neighbor, and plastered with lime. Olive or poppy waste, dung, salt, lime, and flint-stones must also be removed to a distance of three spans, and must be covered with lime. To the same distance, seeds, ploughing, and urine must be removed from the wall; a handmill to a distance of three spans from the lower millstone, which is four from the upper millstone; and an oven three spans from the foundation, which is four spans from the upper rim.

GEMARA: The Mishna begins with a well and ends with a wall? Said Abayi, according to others, R. Jehudah: By the term "wall" is meant the wall of the well. But then it could teach: "Unless he removes it from the well," and it would be self-evident that the meaning is "from the wall of the well"? The Mishna comes to teach us by the way that a wall of a well must measure no less than three spans, in cases of selling and buying, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "If one says, 'I am selling you the well with its walls,' the walls must measure three spans."
It was taught: If one comes to dig a well at the boundary of his neighbor's vacant plot, has he to remove it to the distance mentioned in the Mishna, or not? According to Abayi he has not, and according to Rabha he has. They differ with regard to a plot prepared for works only; but if it is not prepared for this, they both agree that he may dig at the boundary. And even if it was according to Abayi, he is not obliged to remove the well to any distance. Even in accordance with the theory of the rabbis, who state farther on that if one comes to plant a tree near the well of his neighbor, he must do so at a distance of twenty-five ells, it is because the well was already in existence there at the time he comes to plant; but here the well does not as yet exist. And according to Rabha he must maintain the distance. Even in accordance with the theory of R. Jose, who says, farther on, that each of the neighbors has a right to do what he pleases on his own property, etc., it is because, when he begins to plant, roots which can injure the well do not as yet exist. But here the owner of the plot which is prepared for wells may claim: "Each time you use the spade at my boundary, you weaken my estate."

An objection was raised from our Mishna: One must not dig a well near that of his neighbor, from which it is to be inferred—near the already existing well; but if not, he may. And this contradicts Rabha's theory? He may answer: Was it not taught, in addition to this, that it means from the wall of the well?

Another objection from the latter part of our Mishna was raised, which enumerates all the things that are to be removed from the wall, from which it is to be understood that it speaks of an existing wall, but not if it is not yet in existence. And the answer was: This can also be explained that the Mishna comes to teach us that all the things which it enumerates are injurious to the wall.

Come and hear the following: A tree must be removed from a well to a distance of twenty-five ells. Does it not mean from an existing well? Here also it may be explained to mean that at a distance of less than twenty-five ells the roots are injurious to the well. But the same is the case if the well did not as yet exist. If so, then how should the latter part, which states that if the tree is already in existence one has not to cut it down, be understood? For if one must not plant a tree near a plot, even when it is only prepared for walls, how can such a case be found? As R. Papa explained elsewhere, it speaks of a case where one buys such. So it can also be explained here to mean: In case one bought such a tree, he has not to remove it.

Come and hear the following: One must remove a pond for steeping flax from herbs, garlic from onions, and mustard from bees. Is it also not to be understood to mean already existing herbs? Here also it can be explained, even when it is only prepared for them, and it comes to teach that the things mentioned harm one another. But if so, how should the latter part: "R. Jose allows mustard. . . . Because the bees consume the blossoms of my mustard," be understood? As if one must remove the bees even from a place which is only prepared for mustard, how can such a case be found? Said R. Papa: "It means, when one buys such." But if so, then what is the reason of the rabbis' decision; and also according to R. Jose, why only with mustard? Should it not also be the same in the above case of herbs and flax?

Said Rabhina: The rabbis hold that the injurer has to remove himself from the things which can be injured by him; e.g., if the roots of a tree are injurious to a well, the tree must be removed, and not the well, (Says the Gemara:) From Rabhina's statement it is to be inferred that R. Jose holds that the injured one has to remove himself—then why only in the case of mustard? The same ought to be the case with the herbs. If there is a pond for steeping flax, the herbs should be removed, and not the pond? Therefore we must say that R. Jose is also of the opinion that the injurer must remove himself, and the reason of the herbs in question is because the pond does harm to the herbs, and not the herbs to the pond; but bees and mustard injure each other. And thus said R. Jose to the rabbis: The case of the herbs and pond is correct, because the pond injures the herbs, and not vice versa.

But why should the same be in the case of bees and mustard, which injure each other? The rabbis, however, are of the opinion that bees do not harm mustard; for if they try to consume the mustard within the sown seeds, they cannot grasp them, by reason of their extremely small size. And if they do harm the leaves, it would not matter, for others will grow. But how can it be said that R. Jose holds that the injurer must remove himself—does not the following Mishna state: R. Jose said: Although the well was in existence before the tree was planted, the latter has not to be cut down, etc.? Therefore we must say that R. Jose holds that the injured one has to remove himself.

And he said to the rabbi thus: My theory is, that the injured one must remove; but even in accordance with your theory, that the injurer must remove, your decision is correct in the case of the herbs in question, as the pond harms the herbs, etc. But why should it be the same in the case of mustard and bees, which do harm each other? To which the rabbis answered as stated above. The mustard, however, harms the bees on account of its pungency. "Nor a basin for washing," etc. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: The case is when it is a basin for soaking clothes (they used to soak clothes for several days in canine dung); but if it is a basin for washing, it is to be removed four ells (because of splashing while washing). And so also we have learned in the following Boraitha: "A basin for washing—four ells." But in our Mishna it is stated "three spans." Hence it must be explained that the Boraitha treats of a basin for washing, and is in accordance with R. Na'hman.

R. Hyya b. R. Ivya taught in our Mishna plainly: Provided there is a space of three spans from the edge of the soaking pond to the wall. "And plastered with lime." The schoolmen propounded a question: Does the Mishna state, "and plastered with lime" (which means that this must also be done), or, perhaps, "or plastered with lime" (which means that one of the two requirements suffices)? It certainly teaches "and plastered with lime"; for if it read or, then all, parts of the Mishna would be taught together, as there is no difference between them. But perhaps it teaches separately, because the injurious effect is not the same in both cases: in the one case it is wetting from the well, while in the other it is the heat from the olive waste? Come and hear the following Tosephtha: R. Jehudah said: "If a flint-stone is placed by a human being between the properties of two persons, each of them may dig a well on his property at a distance of three spans from the flint-stone, provided the walls of the well he plastered with lime." We see, then, that only when that from which the earth becomes weak is placed there by a human being the lime is needed; but if it is there naturally, no lime is needed? Nay; the same is the case even when it is there naturally; and the expression "placed" is necessary. lest one say that in such a case the prescribed amount of space is not sufficient. Therefore he comes to teach us that it does not matter. "Olive or poppy waste," etc. There is a Mishna [Sabbath, p. 86]: "It must not be deposited . . . and also not in lime or in sand," etc. Why, then, here is sand not mentioned and a flint-stone is, while there the reverse is taught? Said R. Joseph: Because it is not customary to deposit victuals in flint stones.

Said Abayi to him: "Is it, then, customary to so deposit in wool-flocks, and, nevertheless, it is mentioned there? Therefore," said Abayi, "the Mishnayoth rely upon each other." (I.e., our Mishna relies upon the cited one in the case of sand, while the latter Mishna relies upon ours in the case of flint-stones, as the same is the case with both.) Said Rabha to him: "If such were the case, then the other things would not be repeated in both Mishnas; but some of them would be mentioned in one Mishna, and others in the other, Therefore," said Rabha, "the reason why a flint-stone is not mentioned in the cited Mishna is because a pot with victuals cannot be deposited there, as the flint-stone would break it.

And the reason why sand is not mentioned here is because the nature of sand is such that it is warmed up by a hot thing, but it is cooled by a cold thing," (Hence, here, it must not be removed.) But did not R. Oshia teach us in his Boraitha that sand must also be removed? R. Oshia numbers it among the things which are injured by wetting. Let, then, the Tana of our Mishna, also add this to the category of things that injure by wetting? Wetting is already dealt with in the case of the channel mentioned therein. But does not the Mishna state, "a basin for washing," which is also in the same category, although a channel has already been mentioned?

Both must be mentioned, because one could not be inferred from the other, for the following reasons: If a channel only were mentioned, one might say because it is stationary—but for a basin for washing, which is not stationary, the space in question is not needed. On the other hand, if it mentioned only a basin for washing, one might say: "Because of the wetting by stagnant water which has been used for washing is injurious, but a channel does not matter." Therefore both had to be mentioned. "Seeds, ploughing," etc. Why is it necessary for both to be mentioned? If seeds must be removed, is it not self-evident that ploughing for the purpose of sowing is also meant? It means even when the seeds were sown in an unploughed field where they are not so deep. And would not ploughing be understood from seeds; as what is a field ploughed for, if not for sowing?

It means even when it was ploughed for the improvement of trees. But why all this? It has already mentioned the things that injure by wetting; and as a field that has been ploughed or in which seeds have been sown needs wetting, it is self-evident that it must be removed? The Tana speaks of Palestine, concerning which it is written [Deut. xi. 11]: ". . . from the rain of heaven doth it drink water." Shall we then assume that the Tana holds that the rootlets proceeding from the planted seeds extend laterally so that unless the distance beat least three spans the wall maybe injured?

Have we not learned [Kilaim, VII. 1] that when one plants vines, he cannot sow seeds over them, unless there be a layer of earth at least three spans in depth over the vines; and a Boraitha in addition to this taught that he might sow on the sides of the plot where the vines are planted (even if not three spans deep; hence we see that the rootlets proceed from seeds downwards, and not laterally, for in the latter case it would be forbidden to sow the seeds even on the sides)? Said R. Haga in the name of R. Jose: The seeds are mentioned, not because the rootlets proceed laterally, but because they render the ground wherein they are sown friable, thus weakening the support to the wall of the well if placed too near it.

"And urine." Said Rabba b. b. Hana: One is allowed to void his urine near the wall of his neighbor; as it is written [I Kings, xxi. 21]: "Mashtin C'kir." But does not our Mishna state that urine must be removed to a distance of three spans? The Mishna means urine which has been collected in a urinal. Come and hear another objection from the following Tosephtha: "One must not void his urine against the wall of his neighbor, unless it be at a distance of three spans." This is said concerning a brick wall, but in the case of one made of stones, a distance of one span is sufficient to prevent harm by softening the ground under the wall. And if the wall is built upon a rock, then it does not matter at all. Hence it contradicts Rabba b. b. Hana? This objection remains. But does he not cite a verse?

The verse means even such a creature as habitually voids its urine upon a wall—namely, a dog. "A handmill," etc. Why so? Because it makes the ground vibrate. But have we not learned in a Boraitha that a horse-mill must be removed to a distance of three spans from the circumference, which is four spans from the funnel; and such a mill does not make the ground vibrate? Therefore it must be said that the reason of our Mishna is not the vibration of the ground, but the noise produced by the mill. "And also an oven," etc. Said Abayi: From this it is to be inferred that the foundation should be wider than the upper rim by one span. And this regulation relates to buying and selling; for if its foundation did not contain a span more, the buyer may recede.

MISHNA II.: One must not place an oven in a lower story of a house, unless there be an empty space of four ells above it. If the oven is placed in an upper chamber, there must be at least three spans of stone-flooring under it; under a cooking stove only one span of stone-flooring is required. Yet when damage is caused, it must be repaired. R. Simeon, however, says: All these measurements are ordained so that, when they are complied with and damage is caused, one is not held responsible for it.

One must not establish a bakery or a dyer's shop under another's granary; and also not a stable. In reality, it was said that a bakery may be established under a wine store; but, at all events, not a stable.
GEMARA: But have we not learned in a Boraitha that an oven requires four spans, and a stove three? Said Abayi: That Boraitha speaks of bakers, ovens and stoves, and the oven mentioned in our Mishna is that of a private man, and similar to a baker's stove. "One must not establish a bakery," etc. A Boraitha states that if the stable has been established before the granary over it, it may remain. "In reality, it was said," etc. There is a Boraitha: It was allowed under a wine store, because it improves the wine; but not a stable, because it imparts a bad odor to the wine. Said R. Joseph: Our wine is harmed even by the smoke of a candle. Said R. Shesheth: A haystack is likened unto a stable (because when the hay is damp it becomes warm and emits an odor which harms the wine).

MISHNA III.: Partners in a yard can prevent one from establishing a store there, claiming that they cannot sleep on account of the noise produced by the people's coming and going. He, however, who makes utensils, which he sells in the market, cannot be prevented by the partners, with the claim that the noise of the hammer disturbs their sleep. The same is the case if one of them has a handmill, or if he is a teacher of children, as the claim that they cannot sleep on account of the noise is not to be considered.

GEMARA: Why, in the first part, is the claim of the noise from the people's coming and going considered, while in the latter part the noise of strange children is not considered? Said Abayi: The latter part speaks of an instructor of children residing in an adjoining yard. Said Rabha to him: "If it were so, then the Mishna would state that in an adjoining yard it is permitted. Therefore," said he, "the latter part of the Mishna speaks of a school for children's education, and was stated after the enactment of Joshua b. Gamla. So R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: May the memory of Joshua b. Gamla be blessed, for, were it not for him, Israel would have forgotten the Torah, as in former times the child who had a father was instructed by him; but the one that had not, did not learn at all. The reason is that they used to explain the verse [Deut. xi. 19]: "And ye shall teach them to your children," etc., literally—ye personally. It was therefore enacted that a school for the education of children in Jerusalem should be established, on the basis of the following verse [Is. ii. 3]: ". . . for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem." And still the child who had a father was brought to Jerusalem and instructed; but the one who had not, remained ignorant. It was therefore enacted that such school should be established in the capitals of each province; but the children were brought when they were about sixteen or seventeen years of age, and when the lads were rebuked by their masters, they turned their faces and ran away. Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years (and after this enactment it was also enacted that the claim of the noise of school-children should not be considered).

Rabh said to the schoolmaster R. Samuel b. Shilath: If the child is under six years of age, do not accept him; but above that age, accept him and feed him (with knowledge) as you feed an ox. The same said again to him: When you must beat a child, do so with a shoe-strap only; if this produces the desired effect, then well and good; if not, leave him in the company of his comrades, whose steady progress he will see, and this will improve him. An objection was raised from the following: If one of the tenants of a yard wishes to establish an office for circumcision, a barber shop, a tannery, or a school for children, the other tenants may prevent him? It speaks of children of idolaters. But there is another Boraitha which states that if there are only two tenants, and one of them wishes to make one of the above-named establishments, the other one may prevent him? This Boraitha also speaks of children of idolaters. Conic and hear another Boraitha: He who has a house in a yard belonging to partners, must not rent this house for one of the above-named establishments; nor to a Jewish or a Gentile schoolmaster. This Boraitha speaks of the head schoolmaster of the entire city (who has all the subordinate schoolmasters under his control, and instructs them how to teach, which produces a great deal of noise).

Rabha said: Since the enactment of Joshua b. Gamla we do not transfer a child from the school of one city to that of another; but from one congregation to another we do. However, if there is a river between them, we do not, unless there is a bridge over it; but if there is only a dock, we do not. He said again: The number of children in a school must not exceed twenty-five, if there is one teacher; if the number is between twenty-five and forty, an assistant must be provided for him by the city; and if there are fifty, two teachers must be appointed. He said again: If there is one teacher who can perform his duties well enough, but there is another one who is still better, the former must not be discharged, lest his successor become too certain of retaining the position and will not attend to his work properly.

R. Dimi of Nahardea, however, said: On the contrary, he will be even more diligent, as the jealousy of scholars increases wisdom. Rabha said again: If there are two teachers, one of whom is a good expounder, but is not particular about the exact pronunciation of the words in the Scriptures, while the other is particular in the latter respect but is not so good an expounder, the former should be appointed, as the errors will be corrected by themselves. R. Dimi of Nahardea, however, said: On the contrary, an error impressed upon the mind of a child remains there forever (therefore the latter should be given the preference), as it is written [I Kings, xi. 16]. "For six months did Joab remain there with Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom." When he came before David, and was asked why he had done so, he said .

Because it is thus written [Deut. xxv. 19]: thou shalt blot out each zochor (male) of Amalek." Said David to him: But we read zoicher (remembrance, meaning both—males and females)! And Joab answered: "My master instructed me to pronounce zochor." 1 He then went to his master, and questioned him how to pronounce this word, and he answered zochor. So he took out his sword, and wanted to kill him. And to the question of the master, "Why?" he answered: Because it is written [Jer. xlviii. 10]: "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently." And his master rejoined: "Let, then, this man (myself) remain in this course," and he answered him, quoting the end of the verse: "And cursed be he that withholdeth his sword from blood." Some say that he slew him, and others say that he did not.

Rabha said again: An instructor of children, a planter, a butcher, a barber, and a scribe of the city are to be considered as if they were already warned (i.e., if they neglect their duties they may be discharged without previous notice); as the general rule regarding this is: All irreparable damage done by a specialist, who is appointed as such, is to be considered as if he were previously warned. (An instructor of children who has spoiled a child cannot repair this harm; and the same is the case with a planter who has spoiled the trees; a butcher who, through his neglect, has made the meat illegal for use; a barber who has killed a man by performing venesection; and a scribe who has written the Holy Scrolls fallaciously.)

R. Huna said: If one of the inhabitants of an alley establishes a handmill there, and another one comes to do the same, the law gives the former the right to prevent the latter; for he may claim: "You are cutting off my livelihood." He is supported by the following: Fishermen must remove their nets from a fish which has already been marked by one of them while it was trying to escape from him to a distance that a fish is usually able to traverse. And to the question, How far is it? Rabba b. R. Huna said: "The distance of a parsa"? Nay, with fish the case is different, as they place spies (to look out for bait, and the former fisherman is certain that the fish will go to his bait and then he will surely catch it; but here his comrade may say to him: "I am not injuring your livelihood, as your customers will go to you and mine to me").
Said Rabhina to Rabha: Shall we assume that R. Huna is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who said (Middle Gate, p. 143) that a storekeeper must not furnish little children with presents of nuts, etc., for the purpose that they may call again—and the sages allowed this? Nay, it may be said that R. Huna's theory is in accordance with that of the rabbis also, as there they allow this for the reason that the storekeeper may say, "I bestow nuts, you may give plums"; but here the claim, "You are cutting off my livelihood," is a right one, even in accordance with the rabbis.

An objection was raised. One may establish a store or a bath-house near or opposite to that of his neighbor, and the latter cannot prevent him from doing so, for he may say: "You can do business in your establishment, and I will do business in mine." (Hence this contradicts R. Huna's theory?) On this point Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: "The inhabitants of an alley may combine to prevent one from another alley from opening a tailor shop, tannery, children's school, or any other specialist's establishment; but they cannot do so against an inhabitant of their own alley. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that the majority can prevent an inhabitant even of their own alley."

R. Huna b. R. Joshua said: "It is certain to me that the inhabitants of one city have a right to prevent one of another city from competing with them, provided he does not pay the duties of the city. It is also certain to me that an inhabitant of an alley cannot prevent another inhabitant of the same alley; but I doubt whether an inhabitant of one alley can prevent one of another alley." And this question remains undecided.

Said R. Joseph: R. Huna, who prohibits competition in any specialty, admits that concerning instructors of children no competition is to be considered; as the master said that the jealousy of scholars increases wisdom. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: R. Huna also admits that no competition is to be considered in the case of peddlers in large cities, as the master said that Ezra has enacted for Israel that peddlers shall travel in the large cities, for the purpose that the daughters of Israel might easily procure their ornaments. This is only concerning travelling dealers; but the establishment of a stationary place may be prevented. And if the peddler is a young scholar for whom it is a humiliation to travel, he may be permitted to establish a stationary place; as Rabha permitted R. Yashia and R. Obadiah to establish a place of business against the then existing law of that city, saying that because they were scholars they would be hindered in their study by travelling.
There were three basket dealers who brought baskets to Babylon, and the inhabitants of the city prevented them. So they came before Rabhina, who said: They come from the country, and may sell their goods to countrymen who come here on the market day; but only on that day, and in the market only, but may not traffic with their goods in private houses of the city.

There were wool dealers who brought wool to the city of Pumnahara, and the inhabitants there prevented them. They came before R. Kahana, who said to them: "They have a right to do so." They, however, claimed that they had to collect their debts, which must take time, and they had nothing to live on if they should be prevented from selling their goods; and he allowed them to sell as much as they needed for a livelihood only, while they were there, but not more.
R. Dimi of Nahardea brought dry figs in a boat. Said the Exilarch to Rabha: Go and see whether he is a scholar; then you may hold the market for him. And Rabha sent R. Ada b. Abba to examine him. He questioned him about something of the Law, which he could not answer. So R. Dimi said to him: Is the master Rabha? He tapped him good-naturedly on the sandal, and answered: "From myself to Rabha there is a great difference; but, nevertheless, I am your master, while Rabha is the master of your master." In consequence of this, the market was not held for him; and R. Dimi lost on his dry figs, and came to complain before R. Joseph, saying: See, master, what was done to me! And he answered: The One who neglected not to take revenge for the shame of the king of Edom, shall not neglect to revenge your shame. (The shame of Edom, as it is written [Amos, ii. 1]: ". . . because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.") Consequently R. Ada's soul has gone to its rest. Then R. Joseph said: I have punished him, for I have cursed him. R. Dimi said: I have punished him, for he had caused my loss on the dry figs. Abayi said: I have punished him, for he used to say to the rabbis: While ye are licking bones in the college of Abayi, would it not be better for you to eat fat meat in the college of Rabha? And Rabha said: I have punished him, for, when he used to go for meat, he used to say to the butcher: You must give me meat before you give it to the servant of Rabha, as I am better than he. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said: I have punished him. For R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak was the head of the preachers in the days before festivals; and every day, before preaching, he reviewed his sermon together with R. Ada b. Abba. On that day, however, on which R. Ada b. Abba died, R. Papa and R. Huna b. R. Joshua detained him, so that he should explain to them what Rabha lectured on the last Sabbath concerning cattle tithe, and he repeated for them all that Rabha said. Meanwhile the time for R. Na'hman's preaching arrived, and R. Ada did not call him. Said the rabbis to R. Na'hman: Why does the master sit? It is already dawning, and you have to go to preach. And he answered: I am sitting and waiting for the coffin of R. Ada. And, indeed, R. Ada's death was soon announced. It seems, therefore, that R. Na'hman had punished him.

MISHNA IV.: If one's wall is attached to that of his neighbor, he must not build a wall parallel to it unless he leaves an interval of four ells. One must also not build a wall opposite the windows of his neighbor, wherever they are to be found, unless it be at a distance of four ells.

GEMARA: But the Mishna declares that his wall was already attached to that of his neighbor. Who gave him the right to do so? Said R. Jehudah: It means that if one wished to do so he must not, unless he left the above-mentioned space. Rabha opposed: "But the Mishna states that it was already attached?" Therefore he said that the Mishna meant to say thus: If there was already a wall at a distance of four ells from that of his neighbor, and it fell, he must not build another one unless at the same distance, as the treading upon the earth between the two walls is useful for the strength of their foundations. 1 Rabh, said: "The Mishna treats only about a wall of a garden (because, as inside there is no treading upon the earth near the wall, it needs the treading outside); but concerning a wall of a yard, it does not matter. R. Oshia, however, maintains that the same is the case with a wall of a yard also. Said R. Jose b. Hanina: And they do not differ; as the former speaks of an old town (where the ground is already trodden), while the latter speaks of a new town.
Our Mishna states that, for windows, wherever they may be placed, a space of four ells is needed; to which a Boraitha adds: "If a window is placed at the top, the wall in question must reach such a height that when the owner stands upon it and stoops, he should be unable to see anything by looking in at the window. And if a window is placed at the bottom—to such a height that he could not see when standing upon it. And if the window be opposite the wall, he must leave such a space as would not darken the window." We see, then, that the reason of the regulation concerning a parallel wall is the darkening, but not the treading mentioned above? The Boraitha speaks of a side-wall. How much space, however, must one leave, in order that the window will not be darkened? Said R. Jyobha, the father-in-law of Ashian b. Nadbach, in the name of Rabh: As much as the width of the window. But from such a height one can still look in at the window? Said R. Zebid: He speaks of a wall with a gable-top. But does not the Mishna state four ells? This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha speaks of one side-wall to which the space of the width of a window suffices; and our Mishna speaks of two side-walls; then four ells are needed, so that the window be not darkened. Come and hear: One must leave a space of four ells near the drains of his neighbor's roof, so that the latter may be able Ito place a ladder there. (It speaks, in case the owner of the house. is allowed to direct his drains to the neighbor's yard; and, while he allows him this, he must also allow him a space for a ladder.) We see again that the purpose of leaving the space is for placing a ladder, and not for treading upon the earth? It speaks of a slanting roof overhanging the neighbor's yard, with the drains placed at the edge, which does not prevent the treading in the yard under it; and, therefore, there could be no reason but the latter.

MISHNA V.: One must remove the ladder in his yard from his neighbor's pigeon-coop to the distance of four ells, that a weasel should be unable to jump from it to the latter; and also his wall from his neighbor's roof-drains to a distance of four ells, to enable his neighbor to place a ladder there.

GEMARA: Shall we assume that our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jose, who says farther on that everybody may do on his property what he pleases? This Mishna can also be in accordance with him, as R. Ashi said: When I was at the house of R. Kahana, he said that R. Jose admitted that one is responsible for any damage done to his neighbor by his arrows (e.g., if he places a ladder so, that it would be easy for a weasel to jump from it to the pigeon-coop). But, after all, this is not direct damage, but germon? (See First Gate, p. 125.) Said R. Tubi b. Mathna: We infer, then, from this, that to cause damage by germon is forbidden (i.e., indirect damage).
R. Joseph had in his yard small date-trees, under which barbers used to perform venesection; and ravens, while coming to consume the blood, caused harm to the dates; and R. Joseph commanded: "Remove the cur-cur from my property!" (i.e., that the barbers should not be allowed any more to do their work there, and then the ravens would not come for the blood). And to Abayi's question: Are not the barbers a germon? he answered with the declaration of R. Tubi b. Mathna just quoted. But had not the barbers already made there a hazakah? To this R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu said: There is no hazakah concerning damages. But was it not taught that, regarding this, R. Mari said: "As, for instance, smoke, which injures the eyes," and R. Zebid said: "As, for instance a toilet, which is disgusting to the sight"? Said R. Joseph: To me, who am tender-hearted, the blood is as disgusting as the things just mentioned.

MISHNA VI.: A pigeon-coop must not be placed within fifty ells of the town: nor has one a right to make a pigeon-coop on his own property, unless his property extends to fifty ells on each side. R. Jehudah said: "He must have four kurs on each side—the space which a dove can cover at one flight without resting." If, however, one has bought one, he is in his right even when there is only a quarter of a kur of space.

GEMARA: Are fifty ells sufficient for this? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that a net for doves must not be spread unless the locality be thirty riss distant (four miles) from an inhabited place? Said Abayi: "As far as flying goes, it is to a great distance; but with fifty ells it usually gets enough of food" (after which it flies thirty riss; hence beyond the fifty ells it does no harm to the gardens or vineyards). But does not a Boraitha state that in an inhabited place even within a hundred miles one must not spread a net? Said R. Joseph: This speaks of the case when there are vineyards, so that they fly from one vineyard to another, and so they can fly through a much greater distance. And Rabha said that it speaks of a case where there are many pigeon-coops. If it is so, why does the Boraitha state that one hundred miles from a city one must not do so, because he can catch doves from another pigeon-coop, even not in the city? It may be said that the pigeon-coops in question were his own, or they were ownerless. "He is in his right," etc. Said R. Papa, and according to others R. Zebid: From this it is to be inferred that the court has to open the mouth of a buyer or of an heir to claim hazakah. (I.e., if the plaintiff claims that the estate is his and brings evidence that such estate is his or his parents', and the defendant says, "I inherited it from my parents," or "I bought it from so and so, who has occupied it for so many years," and brings witnesses to his statement, but the witnesses cannot testify that he who occupied it before bought it or inherited it from some one, then the court must consider the defendant's claim; and by the expression "open the mouth," it is meant that the court may say to the defendant: Look for evidence that the one from whom you bought it or inherited it had it in his occupancy for so many years.) What news do they come to teach us? Does not a Boraitha state farther on that if the defendant claims inheritance it is not necessary for him to say when the bequeather bought it? It was necessary for them to teach that the same is the case when the defendant claims "I bought it." But this is also stated farther on [Chapter III., Mishna 10]? Their statement was nevertheless necessary, for the following reason: From the case in the quoted Mishna one might say that, because it speaks of a yard which was near the public thoroughfare, the claim is to be considered a right one; for if it were not as he says, the public would prevent him; or, at his request, the public have relinquished their right to that yard. But here, in a private case, it is different; and if this case only were stated, one might say that it is to be taken into consideration, as a private party usually settles the difference, or else he relinquishes his right; but there, in the case of the public, with whom can he settle, or who can relinquish? Therefore both cases were necessary to be stated.

Again—"he is in his right" (hazakah). But did not R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu say that there is no hazakah in regard to damages? Said R. Mari in the name of Rabh: This is said only concerning smoke, as mentioned above.

MISHNA VII: A little dove that is found within fifty ells of a pigeon-coop belongs to the owner of the latter; if outside of fifty ells, it belongs to the finder. If it is found between two pigeon-coops, it belongs to the nearer one; but if in the exact middle, it is to be divided.

GEMARA: Said R. Hanina: In a case which we should judge by a majority, it would be so; and if, according to proximity, it would be different, the decision by a majority must be taken into consideration; and although both majority and proximity are biblical, nevertheless majority has the preference.

R. Zera objected: It is written [Deut. xxi. 3]: "The city which is the nearest," etc. Does it not mean even if there are other cities which are more populous than the nearest one?

Nay; it means if they are not. But even then, why should not the majority of the world be considered? It means, if the city in question is situated among the mountains, where it is not usual for robbers to come from a distant place. But does not our Mishna state that a dove within fifty ells of the pigeon-coop belongs to it, even when there are others outside of the fifty ells which have more doves than the nearest one? Nay; it means when there are not. If it is so, how is the latter part, which states, "if outside of fifty ells, it belongs to the finder," to be understood? If there are no other pigeon-coops, it can only be from that one? It speaks of a pigeon which can hop only; and R. Uqba B. Hama said that a pigeon which hops cannot do so more than fifty ells. R. Jeremiah then questioned in the college: How is the law if one foot was within the fifty ells and the other without? And for this question he was driven out of the college.

Come and hear another objection from our Mishna, which states that if it is found between two pigeon-coops, it belongs to the nearer one. Does it not mean even when the farther one has more doves? Nay; it means when both have an equal number. But why, then, should the majority of the world not be considered? It speaks of a case when vineyards occupy the whole distance between the two pigeon-coops, and the pigeon is found on a walk within the vineyard; and then it cannot be supposed that it came from anywhere else, as it is known that a hopping dove does not go out of sight of her pigeon-coop. Hence she must be from one of these two in question; as, if she were from another one, she could not see it on account of the trees and partitions.

It was taught: A barrel of wine floating on a river, if found opposite a city of which the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, it may be used; if opposite a city of a majority of Gentiles, it must not be used. So said Rabh. Samuel, however, maintains that even when the majority are Jews it is also prohibited, lest perhaps it came from Dagra (a country near the river Euphrates, where there were no Jews). Shall we assume that their point of difference is the above statement of R. Hanina—that one is in accordance with him and the other is not? Nay; both agree with R. Hanina, and the point of their differing is thus: One maintains that if this were from Dagra, it would have sunk while floating in the bays formed by the projecting rocks along the coast from Tyre to Accho, and in the shallow waters caused by melting snow; and the other maintains that because the stream in the river is strong, it could reach here.

A pitcher of wine was found in a vineyard of arla (the third year after planting); and Rabhina allowed to use it. Shall we assume that he did so because he holds with R. Hanina's theory? Nay; his reason was because if it were stolen from this vineyard they would not have hidden it in the same. This is only concerning wine (because the thief would not leave the wine lest the presser of the grapes should find it); as for grapes, however, they would not fear to leave them where they were stolen and take them away afterwards. There were some leather bags of wine which were found among the vines of a vineyard belonging to a Jew; and Rabha permitted their use. Shall we assume that he did so because he does not hold with R. Hanina's theory (as the majority of men are Gentiles, and not Jews)? Nay; his reason is that all the pressers and those that pour the wine into barrels are Jews. This law, however, applies only to large leather bags, but not to small ones, for fear that they were dropped by travellers, the majority of whom are Gentiles; and even if there were large ones with them, the law nevertheless applies, for fear that they were dropped by a traveller upon an ass, who had hung them on both sides of the ass. 1 MISHNA VIII.: In planting a tree, a space of twenty-five ells must be left outside of the town; for a carob or a sycamore, fifty ells are needed. Aba Shaul said: "For a wild tree, fifty ells." If the city was built first, the tree might be cut down without paying for it; but if the tree was planted first, it is to be cut down and paid for; if doubtful as to which was there first, it is to be cut down without paying for it.

GEMARA: What is the reason of all this? Said Ulla: "Because of the beauty of the city." But why not because it is not allowed to make a field of the open space around the town, and vice versa? It means to say that even according to R. Elazar, who hold., that this is allowed, here it is not to be tolerated, because it spoils the beauty of the city. And also according to the rabbis, who allow to plant trees in an open space belonging to the city, but not seeds; here, concerning a single tree they would not allow it, as it spoils the beauty of the city. And whence do you know that the rabbis make a difference between seeds and trees in this respect? From a Boraitha [Erubhin, p. 57]: "If a wood-shed of more than two saahs . . . was used to sow grain . . . things must not be moved therein . . . If, however, trees were planted in the greater part of it, things may be carried therein." The Mishna states that if the tree was planted first, it must be cut down and paid for; but why should the: owner of the tree not claim that it should be paid for, and then, cut down? Said R. Kahana: Because a pot belonging to partners is neither warm nor cold (it means that one relies upon the other to warm it or to cool it, and it remains as it was); and here also, if he should wait until he got the money, each of the inhabitants would refer him for payment to the next one, and so the trees would remain indefinitely; therefore it is to be cut down, and the money should be collected through the court. "If there is a doubt," etc. Why is this case different from that of a tree and a well, concerning which, if there is a doubt as to which was there first, the tree must not be cut down? Because there, if it is certain that the tree was there first, it must not be cut down, the same being the case when there is a doubt; while in our case, even when it is certain that the tree was planted first, it must be cut down, the same being the case when there is a doubt. And concerning the payment for it the city may say: Bring evidence that your tree was planted first, and then you will get the money.

MISHNA IX.: A barn must not be placed within fifty ells of the town; the same is the case if one wishes to make a barn on his own property-he may do so, provided he has fifty ells of space on each side of it. One must also remove a barn from the plants and from the newly ploughed field of his neighbor (which must wait a year before sowing), to a distance sufficiently great to prevent any harm to the plants or the field.
GEMARA: Why, in the first part, is a space of fifty ells required, and in the second part a space only large enough to prevent harm. Said Abayi: The latter part of the Mishna speaks of a temporary barn, and not of a permanent one. What is called a temporary barn? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: If one does not winnow with the shovel. R. Ashi, however, maintains that there are no two parts in the Mishna at all, only the latter part is an explanation of the first, thus: Why must a permanent barn be removed from the city fifty ells? For the purpose that it shall not do any harm to the city. An objection was raised from the following: "A permanent barn must be removed fifty ells from the town, and the same distance must be allowed to one's cucumbers, plants, and a ploughed field, to prevent damage." Now this is correct only according to R. Ashi's explanation; but it contradicts Abayi. The difficulty remains.

However, it is correct only concerning cucumbers, etc., as the dust of the barn settles upon their hearts and spoils them; but what harm can this do to a ploughed field? Said R. Aba b. Zabda, according to others b. Zutra: Because the dust of the barn increases the amount of manure in the field (and spoils the seeds).

MISHNA X: Carcasses. cemeteries, and tanneries must be removed to a distance of fifty ells. A tannery must not be established except on the east side of the city; R. Aqiba, how ever, maintains that it may be established on every side except the west, and a space of fifty ells is to be left. One must also remove his pond for steeping flax from a neighbor's herbs; garlic from onions; and mustard from bees. But R. Jose allows mustard.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: What does R. Aqiba mean? On each side he may establish without the space of fifty ells, excepting the west side, where the fifty ells are necessary; or does he mean that on each side he may establish, provided he leaves the space of fifty ells, except the west side, where he must not do so at all? Come and hear the following Boraitha: "R. Aqiba said: On each side one may establish a tannery, if he leaves a space of fifty ells, excepting the west side, where he must not do so at all because of its frequency." Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: "What does the expression frequency mean—does it mean frequent winds? Did not R. Hanan b. Aba say in the name of Rabh, that four winds are blowing every day and the north wind blows with them? Therefore the expression frequency means that the Shekhinah rests there frequently." As R. Joshua b. Levi said: "We must be grateful to our forefathers for having informed us of the place where we are to pray; as it is written [Neh. ix. 6]: And the host of the heavens bow down before thee.'" R. Aha b. Jacob opposed: "Perhaps it means, on the contrary, that they are praying at the east side, and then they step backwards, as a slave does usually before his master; and when they come to the west side, they bow." Hence the Shekhinah is in the east side. The objection remains.

R. Jose, however, holds that the Shekhinah occupies every place, as he said: It is written [ibid., ibid.]: "Thou indeed art the Eternal One alone: it is thou that hast made the heavens," etc. Thy messengers are not as the messengers of human beings, who usually return from the place to which they were sent, to that whence they were sent, announcing that they have fulfilled their duty. Thy messengers, however, are doing the same in the very place to which they were sent; as it is written [Job, xxxviii. 35]: "Canst thou send out lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, 'Here are we'?" It does not read that they come and say "Here are we," but that they go and say it in the place to which they were sent: hence the Shekhinah occupies every place. And R. Ishmael also holds the same, inferring it from [Zech. ii. 7]: "And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went out, and another angel came out to meet him." It does not read after him (achrov), but against him (likrono): from which it is to be inferred that the Shekhinah is everywhere. And R. Shesheth also holds so, as he (who was blind) said to his servant: Raise and turn me for praying to any side of the world excepting the east; not because the Shekhinah is not resting there, but because the minim have decided that one must pray only towards the east side. R. Abuhu, however, maintains that the Shekhinah is resting in the west, as he said: Why is the west side called Oriah? Because it is filled with the air of God. 1 R. Jehudah said: It is written [Deut. xxxii. 2]: "My doctrine shall drop as the rain"; which means the west wind, which comes from the neck of the world; 2 "my speech shall distil as the dew," which means the north wind, which makes gold cheap (because it brings hunger, and that renders gold cheap), as it is written [Is. xlvi. 6]; 3 "as heavy rains upon the grass," means an east wind that makes storms in the world; 4 "and as showers upon herbs," Means a south wind, which brings beneficent rain and causes growth of grasses.

There is a Boraitha: R. Elazar said: The world is like a balcony without the fourth wall; and when the sun arrives in the evening at the northwest corner, it is diverted by this wind and ascends above the sky. And R. Joshua said: The world is like a tent which is fenced on all sides, and when the sun arrives in the evening at the northwest corner, it turns around and returns beyond the sky; as it is written [Eccl. i. 6]: "Going toward the south, and turning round toward the north, the wind moveth round about continually; and around its circles doth the wind return again." "Going toward the south"—during the day; "and turning round toward the north"—during the night; "moveth round about"—means facing east and west, so that sometimes, when the days are long, it goes through them, and when the days are short, it goes around them. R. Elazar used to say [Job, xxxvii. 9]: "Out of his chamber cometh the whirlwind," which means the south wind; "and out of the north, the cold," which means the north wind. "From the breathing of God ice is given"—means the west wind; "and the broad waters become solid"—means the east wind.—But did not the master say that the south wind brings beneficent rain' etc.? This presents no difficulty: If the rain comes slowly, it makes the grass grow; but if it comes down in torrents, it does harm.

R. Hisda said: It is written [ibid., ibid. 22]: "The golden light that cometh out of the north"—it means the north wind, which makes gold cheap, as it is written in Isaiah, verse cited above.

Raphram b. Papa in the name of R. Hisda said: "Since the Temple was destroyed, the south wind has never brought rain, as it is written [Is. ix. 9]: 'And he snatcheth on the right hand, 1 and is yet hungry; and he eateth on the left hand, and is not yet satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.' It is written also [Ps. lxxxix. 13]: 'The north and the south—these hast thou created,' etc." The same said again in the name of the same authority; "Since the Temple was destroyed, the rains do not come from the good treasure; as it is written [Deut. xxviii. 12]: The Lord will open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land,' etc. From which it is to be seen that when Israel did the will of the Omnipotent, and Israel was in his own land, the rain came from the good treasure; and now that Israel is no more in his own land, the rain does not come from the good treasure."
R. Itz'hak said: He who desires to increase his wisdom shall recite his prayers towards the south; and he who desires to become rich shall do so towards the north; and as a mark in aid to remembering this direction, may be taken the fact that in the tabernacle the golden table was placed on the north, and the candelabrum, which gives light (wisdom)—on the south. And R. Joshua b. Levi said: One shall always recite his prayers towards the south, as when his wisdom shall increase, he shall also become richer; as it is written [Prov. iii. 16]: "Length of days is in her right hand: in her left are riches and honor." But did not R. Joshua b. Levi say that the Shekhinah is in the west? He does not mean that he should stand in the south exactly, but that he should stand in the west (southwest corner) and incline himself towards the south.
Said R. Hanina to R. Ashi: Ye who are located on the north side of Palestine must recite your prayers towards the south (so that you shall face Jerusalem). And whence do we know that Babylon was situated north of Palestine? From [Jer. i. 14]: "Out of the north shall the evil break forth," etc. "A pond for steeping flax," etc. There is a Boraitha: "R. Jose allows mustard; as the owner of it may claim: 'Instead of telling me that I should remove my mustard from your bees, it is for you to remove your bees from my mustard, for they come and consume its blossoms.'"

MISHNA XI.: From a well a distance of twenty-five ells must be left when planting a tree; and fifty ells when planting sycamores or carobs. It makes no difference whether it be above or alongside. If the well has been there first, the tree must be cut down and paid for; but if the tree has been there first, it may remain. The same is the case when there is a doubt. R. Jose, however, maintains that even when the well was there before the tree there is no necessity for cutting down the latter, as one digs on his property while another plants on his own.
GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: "It makes no difference whether the well be below the tree or vice versa"? This would be correct when the tree is above the well, as its roots injure it; but if the well be above the tree, what harm can be done? Said R. Haga in the name of R. Jose: Because the roots render the earth friable, and thus harm the bottom of the well. "R. Jose, however, maintains," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Jose. And R. Ashi said: When I was with R. Kahana, we came to the conclusion that R. Jose admits that when one's arrows do damage, etc. (see above, p. 68). Papi di Unaha, who was poor and afterwards became rich, built a palace. In the neighbor. hood were established poppy presses; and when they were in operation the palace used to shake. He came to complain before R. Ashi, who told him what R. Kahana said to him. But how much should the palace shake to make the presses responsible? When a pitcher is on the roof of the palace and its cover shakes.

The disciples of Bar Marian b. Rabbin used to card flax, and the dust of it harmed the men that passed by; and they came to complain before Rabhina, who said to them: That which was said, that R. Jose admits that one should be made responsible for the damage caused by his arrows, was said only when they come from him directly; here, however, as the dust does not come directly, but is blown by the wind, there is no responsibility. Mar b.. R. Ashi opposed: Why should it be different in the case of winnowing, when the wind assists one, concerning which it is said, in the First Gate, that he is responsible? When this was said before Miramar he decided that Mar was right in his supposition, and Marian's disciples were responsible. But to Rabhina: Why should this case be different from that of a spark that proceeds from under the hammer and does damage, in which case he is responsible? "There one is pleased that the sparks should escape outside and not inside—where they may cause harm; but in our case they are not pleased at all that the dust should escape where men pass."

MISHNA XII.: One must not plant a tree near to his neighbor's field, unless it be at a distance of four ells; and it makes no difference whether it be vines or other trees. If, however, there is a fence between the two estates, each of them may plant on his side of the fence. If the roots spread to the estate of one's neighbor, the latter may replace them three spans deeper, so that they shall not hinder in ploughing. If he has to dig a pit or a cave, he may cut off the roots which prevent him from doing so, and the fuel is his.

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: "The four ells in question are for the purpose that the owner of the vineyard should be able to work it up." Said Samuel: "This is said only concerning Palestine, where they have long ploughs; but in Babylon, where the ploughs are short, two ells suffice." And the same is stated in the following Boraitha: "One must not plant a tree near his neighbor's field, unless he leaves a space of two ells."

And as this contradicts our Mishna, which states four ells, it must be explained that the Boraitha speaks of Babylon, and is in accordance with Samuel's theory. Infer from this that so it is.

Rabha b. R. Hanon had trees at the boundary of R. Joseph's vineyard; and birds which used to rest on the trees descended into the vineyard and did harm. And R. Joseph told him to cut down his trees. And to his claim that the trees were placed at the prescribed distance, R. Joseph said: "This is prescribed only for trees, but for vines more space is required." But does not our Mishna state that there is no difference between vines and trees? R. Joseph rejoined that it means a tree from a tree, and vines from vines; but from a tree to vines more space is required. Said Rabha: "I shall not cut it down; as Rabh said that a tree which bears fruit to the measure of a kab is forbidden to be cut down; and also R. Hanina said: 'Shakkhath, my son, would not have died if he had not cut down a fig-tree before the time; but you, masters, may cut it down if you like.'"

R. Papa had trees at the boundary of R. Huna b. R. Joshua's estate. At one time he found him digging and cutting off its roots; and to the question why he did so, R. Huna answered: In accordance with our Mishna, which states that one may replace the roots to the depth of three spans, in order not to prevent ploughing. Said R. Papa to him: But the master digs deeper. And he answered: I am digging an excavation, and our Mishna allows to do this. Said R. Papa: I tried to repeat for him many supports to the statement that he was not doing right, but he did not listen to me; until I reminded him about the decision of R. Jehudah, that a path that is used by the majority was forbidden to be spoiled. After R. Papa went out, R. Joshua said to himself: Why did I not oppose also this claim of his, with that this was said only within sixteen ells from a tree; but in my case it was outside sixteen ells, and the cutting off of the root could do no harm to the tree. "And the fuel is his," etc. Jacob of Daiba questioned R. Hisda: Who is meant by 'his'? And he answered: This we have learned in the following: "From roots of a tree belonging to a private man, which spread into the estate of the sanctuary, must not be derived any benefit; but if one has so derived, he is not liable for a sin-offering. This can be correct only when it is said that the roots go with the tree; therefore one is not liable for a sin-offering. But if it should be said that they go with the estate wherein they spread, why should one not be liable? But if the theory that the roots go with the tree remains, how is the latter part of the Mishna to be understood: If the tree is from the sanctuary, and its roots spread into a private estate, the same is the case? Now, if the roots go with the tree, why is one not liable when he derives benefit from it? This objection cannot hold good, as it speaks of a root that grew after the tree had already been sanctified; and there is a Tana who holds that upon the growth which takes place after sanctification no transgression is considered. Rabhina, however, says that there is no contradiction in that Boraitha, as the first part speaks of the roots which were within sixteen ells of the tree, and the latter part of those which were outside of the sixteen ells. Hence the Mishna, which states "his," means the owner of the tree.

Ulla said: A tree which is within sixteen ells of the boundary of another's estate is considered robbery, as it derives its nourishment from another's estate, and its fruit must not be used for the firstfruit offering. Whence did Ulla deduce this? Shall we assume from the Mishna [Sh'byith, I. 7]: "Ten plants which are scattered within a field which a saah of grain can be sown in, the entire piece of land may be ploughed for the sake of the trees until the new Sabbath year comes (as the trees derive nourishment from the entire field in which they are scattered, which is not allowed in a field for sowing seeds)." How many ells are there altogether in a piece of land which is fifty ells square (this is the extent of ground in which a saah of grain can be sown), if divided into strips of one ell? Two thousand five hundred. Then each tree needs for its nourishment two hundred and fifty; and this would not correspond with Ulla's theory, as he requires sixteen ells on each side, which means thirty-two ells square. And if it should be divided into strips of one ell, it would be 1,024 ells. And shall we say from the Mishna (ibid., ibid. 5): A field with three large trees (which are scattered in the above space), belonging to three different persons, according to the Sabbatic law it counts as a tree field, so that it may also be ploughed until the new Sabbatic year? Then, of the two thousand five hundred ells each tree derives its nourishment from 833 1/3 ells; but even then the quantity prescribed by Ulla differs by still more. Ulla was not particular. But non-particularity may be applied when the matter is taken rigorously; but when taken leniently (as, e.g., in Ulla's case, in which the tree becomes free from the firstfruit offering), it must not be applied. Ulla meant to say, not sixteen ells square, but sixteen ells in a circle, and as a square measures more than a circle by one-fourth, it makes only 768 ells for nourishment; and, according to the cited Mishna, each tree would need 16 2/3 ells for nourishment, hence he was not particular in the two-thirds, and this makes it more rigorous—to which non-particularity applies. 1 But why only sixteen ells—does not our Mishna state that a space of twenty-five ells must be left from the tree to the well? Said, Abayi: "The roots spread much farther, but to a distance of sixteen ells they nourish and render the earth poor; while beyond that distance they do not." When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan that from a tree near the boundary, as well as from a tree whose branches are inclined towards another estate, the firstfruit offering might be brought; and there might be read in this connection the passages from the Scriptures referring hereto, as with this stipulation did Joshua bequeath the land to Israel.

MISHNA XIII.: If the branches of a tree are inclined towards another field, the owner of the field may cut them off to a sufficient extent, so as not to hinder a team of oxen from passing with the plough. In the case of a carob or a sycamore, however, it must be measured with a plummet (cutting off all the branches as far as they hang over the border line); and if the field is of dry land, the branches from any tree, which overhang it, may be cut off. Aba Shaul said that the same is the case with every wild tree.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: Does Aba Shaul mean to oppose with his decision the first part of the Mishna, saying that even if it be not dry land the branches of a wild tree must be cut off; or the second part, which states that the branches from any tree must be cut off—he opposes, saying only of a wild tree, but not of a fruit-tree? Come and hear the following Boraitha: "Aba Shaul said: Every tree of which the branches overhang a dry field must be measured with a plummet, because the shade harms a dry field." Hence his opposition was to the first part. Said R. Ashi: "Even if the Boraitha did not state it so plainly, this could be understood from R. Shaul's expression in our Mishna, as it states every wild tree; and if he opposed only the second part, he would have specified a wild tree. Hence his opposition is to the first part."

MISHNA XIV.: The branches of a tree which overhang public ground may be cut off, so that a camel with its rider may pass freely. R. Jehudah says: A camel loaded with flax or with bundles of branches. R. Simeon says: Every tree of that kind must be measured with a plummet, because of the law of defilement.
GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds that concerning damages we have to consider only the present time, and not the future? (As the Mishna states, it must be cut off only for a camel; and does not consider that the branches grow up again.) Said Resh Lakish: Tanaim differ in this case; and our Mishna is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who allows in a Mishna farther on to dig caves and excavations under a public ground, of a size sufficient for a wagon loaded with stones to pass. R. Johanan, however, maintains that our Mishna may be also in accordance with the rabbis of that Mishna who prohibit this, as there it is to be feared that it may fall suddenly; but here, each branch that grows up can be cut off. "R. Simeon says," etc. A Boraitha adds to this "for the purpose that it may not form a tent of defilement." Is this not to be understood from the Mishna itself? (As what other law of defilement can it mean?) If from it one may say that it meant, for fear a raven should bring something unclean and deposit it on the tree; and then it would be sufficient to cut off some branches, so that the branches should not hold anything, it comes to teach us that it means it shall not form a tent, and then it must be measured with a plummet.

Footnotes

63:1 The Scriptures were then written without vowels, these being added at a later time.

67:1 This explanation of Rabha does not very well justify his own opposition, and it is, indeed, objected to by Tothpath, without any answer following it.

72:1 The term in the text is abruri, and Schönhack maintains that it originates from the Greek άβαρης, which means without weight, the first Hebrew r being interpolated.

75:1 Rashi says he has heard that in the Persian language Oriah means west; he himself, however, maintains that, on the contrary, Oriah (orient) means east. And it is so called because the Shekhinah rests on the west side, facing east. Hence the east side is His air; avir, which contains the first four letters of Oriah, in Hebrew means air.

75:2 The word in Hebrew is yaarof; and ohraf means neck.

75:3 The term in Hebrew is zol in both passages—literally, cheap. The translation certainly differs in both, according to the sense.

75:4 The term is sair, which means also storm.

76:1 The expression for right hand is yomin, and in the Psalms the expression for south is also yomin; hence the analogy.

81:1 There are many commentaries on this calculation, which would be too complicated for translation, and we leave it to the mathematicians. To omit this, however, would be against our method.

CHAPTER III.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING OCCUPANCY (HAZAKAH)—AT WHAT TIME AND IN WHAT RESPECT IT GIVES TITLE. REPLEVINS BY COURT. PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY A DEFENDANT WHO IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PLAINTIFF BUT EQUAL IN EVIDENCE. A PROTEST AGAINST OCCUPANCY IN ONE'S PRESENCE: OR ABSENCE BY ONE'S OPPONENT. THE WRITING OF BILLS OF SALE AND DEEDS OF GIFT. OCCUPANCIES WHICH CAME FROM INHERITANCE. THE OCCUPANCIES OF SPECIALISTS, PARTNERS, GARDENERS, AND GUARDIANS. OBTAINING PROPERTIES FROM THE CONTRACTING COLLECTORS OF DUTIES AND TAXES. BAILMENTS—OF WHOM THEY MAY BE ACCEPTED. PERSONAL PROPERTIES TO WHICH THE LAW OF OCCUPANCY DOES AND DOES NOT APPLY. OPENING OF WINDOWS AND DOORS TO NEIGHBORS' OR PARTNERS' PROPERTIES, AND BUILDING OF CAVES, PITS, ETC., UNDER PUBLIC GROUND . MISHNA I.: The law of hazakah (occupancy) is, if one has occupied any property for three years from date to date (without any protest from another party), and this applies to houses, pits, excavations, caves, pigeon-coops, bath-houses, press-houses, dry land, slaves, and the same is with all other articles which bring fruit frequently. However, to a field not artificially watered, the three years of hazakah must not be counted from date to date. Thus, according to R. Ishmael: If one had occupied it eighteen months—viz., three months in the first year, the following whole year, and three months of the third, it is considered three years, and constitutes a hazakah. R. Aqiba, however, said: "Fourteen months—viz., one month of the first, one month of the third, and the whole second year suffices to constitute a hazakah." Said R. Ishmael: This is said of a grain field of which the products are harvested at one time; but if an orchard were within, bearing olives and figs, then, if one has harvested the grain, pressed the olives, and dried the figs, it is considered three years.

GEMARA: R. Johanan said: I have heard that the Sanhedrin of Usha used to say: Whence do we know that to constitute a hazakah three years are needed? From the law of a goring ox; as an ox, when it gores thrice, comes out of the category "not vicious" and is placed under the category of "vicious." So, also, if one has occupied a property three years (without protest), it comes out from the control of the seller and is placed under the control of the buyer.

But if this is so, it can be said that as a vicious ox is not guilty unless he gores the fourth time, so also should it be with the hazakah, that it shall not be considered until the fourth year. Nay, that is no comparison. An ox which gores three times becomes vicious; but even then, if he has not gored oftener, what shall he pay? But here, when one has occupied any property for three years, it becomes his. But according to this, let an occupancy for which no reason can be given by the occupant be considered; and this is not permissible, since a Mishna further teaches that such is not to be considered? The reason that three years are considered a hazakah is because it approves the claim of the occupant—e.g., if the plaintiff claims, "You have stolen it," and the defendant says, "I have bought it," the occupancy of three years approves the fact that the defendant tells the truth. But if to the question, "What are you doing on my property?" he has no answer, what shall the hazakah approve? Shall the court make for him such a claim as he himself does not? R. Avira opposed: If hazakah is inferred from a vicious ox, then a protest not made in the presence of an occupant should not be considered, as concerning a vicious ox the maiming must be in his presence [Ex. xxi. 29]? Nay; in this respect, there is no comparison, as there the Scripture directs that the warning shall be in the presence of the owner. But here the protest is only to show that he had not relinquished his ownership, and if he has protested for other people it suffices, as he (who has heard the protest) has a colleague, and his colleague has another, etc.; and if it is said in public, it will certainly reach the ear of the occupant. According to this, if he has occupied it three months and consumed the fruit which grew each month—e.g., a pastio—let it be considered a hazakah? Was not R. Ishmael 1 of the Sanhedrin of Usha? And according to him this law holds good; as it is stated in our Mishna that if he has harvested his grain, etc., it is considered three years, according to R. Ishmael. But what is the reason of the decision of the rabbis? Said Rabha: Because for the first three years one usually takes care of his deed; but not for more than this. Said Abayi to him: According to your theory, let a protest which is not in his presence not be considered; as the occupant might claim, "If you gave the protest to me, I would take care of the bill of sale," this claim cannot be considered for the reason stated above, "that your colleague has a colleague," etc.

R. Huna said: "The three years in question must be uninterrupted." What does he come to teach us? Is it not stated in our Mishna, three years from date to date? Lest one say that it means to exclude the case which is told in the Mishna, of a field which is not artificially watered, but if one has occupied it three years on an average it is considered a hazakah even if it was with interruption, he comes to teach us that it is not so. Said R. Hamma: R. Huna admits that in places where it is usual to let the fields rest one year, the three years are considered hazakah, although there is interruption. Is this not self-evident? The case was when he had his field in a pagus, where some let it rest while others did not: lest one say that the plaintiff might claim, "If it were yours, you would not make any interruption," he comes to teach us that the defendant might claim, "It was more agreeable for me this way, because after it rests a year it brings more produce." But does not our Mishna apply hazakah to houses to which testimony could be given for occupying in the day-time, but not in the night-time? (Hence a hazakah is considered even when there is no testimony that it was not interrupted.) Said Abayi: Who testifies as to the occupancy of houses? Neighbors. And neighbors are aware of the nights as well as of the days. Rabha said: The Mishna means when two witnesses came and testified: "We have rented the house from the defendant, and lived in it three years, day and night." Said R. Jimir to R. Ashi: Are the witnesses not interested in it; for if they would not so testify, they would be told to pay their rent to the plaintiff? Answered he: "Ignorant judges would give such a decision. May it not be the case that the witnesses hold the rent of the house, asking, To whom shall we pay?" Said Mar Zutra: Nevertheless, if the plaintiff requires that the defendants should bring two witnesses who should testify that they lived in the house three years, day and night, the court must listen to him. And Mar Zutra admits, if the plaintiff was a traveller who had travelled in large cities with his stock that although he does not require the testimony for day and night, the court may claim it for him. And R. Huna admits, that in stores like those of Mehusa, which are usually occupied in the daytime only, three years is considered a hazakah.

Rami and R. Uqba, the sons of Hamma, bought a female slave jointly: one kept her the first, third, and fifth years, and the other the second, fourth, and sixth. And thereafter a claim was made concerning this slave. And they came before Rabha. Said he to them: Why did you do so—to the end that neither of you should be able to claim hazakah? As it is not a hazakah for each of you, so it is not considered a hazakah for the whole world. This, however, applies because there was no written agreement between you that she should serve you in such a manner. But if such had been written, it might be regarded the same as if it were made public, and no claim is to be considered. Rabha said: If one has used a whole field the years of hazakah, except a quarter of a saah, he acquires title to the whole field except to that which he has not used. Said R. Huna to R. Joshua: It is so if this piece was also fit for sowing. If, however, it was not fit for that, title is acquired to it also, with the field. R. Bibi b. Abayi opposed: According to your theory, how should one make a hazakah on rocky ground, if not by putting cattle or drying fruit there? The same ought to be done with that which was not fit for sowing; and because he has not done so, title is not acquired.

There was one who said to his neighbor: "What are you doing in this house?" to which he answered: "I bought it from you and have occupied it the years of hazakah." Said the plaintiff: "I used to live in the front rooms, passing through yours, and therefore I did not care to protest." And when the case came before R. Na'hman, he said to the defendant: Go and bring evidence that you have occupied the whole house alone. Said Rabha to him: Does not the law dictate that it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence?
The following case, however, contradicts both R. Na'hman and Rabha. It once happened that one said to his neighbor: "I sell you all the properties which formerly belonged to Bar Sisin." There was, however, another estate which also bore the name of Bar Sisin estate, and the buyer wanted to take possession of it; but the seller claimed that this had never belonged to Bar Sisin, and that it was only so called. And when the case came before R. Na'hman, he decided that it belonged to the buyer; and Rabha said to him: Does not the law dictate that it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence? Hence the decision of this case contradicts the former entirely? Nay; in the former case the plaintiff was the owner of the house, and in the latter case the buyer was the plaintiff. Hence Rabha did not change his decision. And concerning R. Na'hman, he also did not contradict himself; but merely because it was named Bar Sisin, he held that it was formerly owned by Bar Sisin, and it was for the claimant, who said it was not so, to bring evidence. And this case is similar to a case where one wants to deny hazakah with a note. Would it not be said to him: Bring evidence that the note is a right one, and then only you can have this?

There was one who asked his neighbor, "What are you doing in this house?" and he said, "I bought it from you, and I have occupied it the years of hazakah." But the owner claimed that he was always out of the city and was not aware that he had been occupying this house, and therefore no protest was made. The defendant, however, stated he had witnesses to the fact that thirty days each year the owner used to be in the city, to which the plaintiff again answered: "These thirty days I was always busy in the market, and I never thought about my house." When the case came before Rabha, he decided that the owner of the house was to be trusted.

There was another who asked his neighbor, "What are you doing on my estate?" to which he answered, "I bought it from so and so, who told me that he bought it from you." Then he said: "You admit, however, that the estate was mine and that you have not bought it from me. Then go (and see the man you bought it from). I, however, have nothing to do with you." And Rabha decided that the plaintiff's claim was in accordance with the law.
There was another who answered to the same question as above: "I bought it from so and so, and occupied it the years of hazakah." But the owner answered: "That man is known as a robber." The defendant, however, claimed that he had witnesses that at the time he bought it he took the owner's advice. To which the plaintiff answered: "It is true I advised you to buy it, because it would be easier for me to take it away from you than from the robber." Upon which, Rabha decided that the plaintiff's claim was in accordance with the law. Is this in accordance with Admon of the following Mishna: "If one claims that this estate belongs to him notwithstanding the fact that he was a witness on the bill of sale to this field, it may be considered, because he may claim that from this man it is easier for me to take it away than from the first. So is the decree of Admon. The sages, however, maintained that when he was qualified as a witness he lost his right." It may be even in accordance with the rabbis, as in the case of the cited Mishna he was a witness in writing; but here he only gave his advice in words and had not lost his right.

There was another case where one questioned and answered the same as above. Said the defendant: "I have witnesses that you called upon me on that evening and requested me that I should sell it to you, without your mentioning that it belonged to you." And the plaintiff replied: "I thought I would buy my estate for a small amount, instead of taking the matter into court." And Rabha, before whom the case came, decided that such a claim might be considered.

There was another case in which the defendant claimed that he bought it from so and so, and had occupied it the years of hazakah, to, which the plaintiff opposed: "Here is a bill of sale, showing that I bought it four years ago from the same man you claim you bought it from." To which the defendant answered: "Do you think by the expression 'the years of hazakah,' I meant three years? I meant many years—so that I had occupied it three years before you bought it." And Rabha decided that people call many years the years of hazakah. But this can hold good only when he has occupied it seven years, so that the years of hazakah have preceded the bill of sale; but if he has occupied only six years, then the claim of hazakah cannot be considered, because the bill of sale is the greatest protest.

If two persons come before the court, one claiming, "This estate was my parents'," and the other claiming, "It was my parents'," and one of them brings witnesses that it was his parents', and the other witnesses that he had occupied it the years of hazakah? Said Rabha: The one who brings evidence that he occupied it the years of hazakah is to be trusted, since, if he wished to tell a lie, he could claim, "I bought it from you and have occupied it the years of hazakah." Said Abayi to him: "The supposition if he cared to tell a lie cannot be applied in a case where there are witnesses. "If thereafter, however, the plaintiff claims: "It is true it was your parents' estate, but I bought it from you. And by what I said before, I It was that of my parents,' I meant that this estate was so long in my possession that I looked upon it as if it were bequeathed to me by my parents"—may one change his claim before the court, or not?

According to Ula he may do so by giving a good reason; but according to the sages of Nahardea, he may not. Ula, however, admits that if the first claim was, "It was my parents', and not yours," it cannot be changed in any circumstances. The same is also the case if, before the court, he claimed so, and afterwards, as he was going out, he claimed otherwise, since it is to be supposed that to such claims he was advised by some one else, and they must not be considered. The Nahardeans, however, admit also that if this man claims, "When I said my parents' estate, I meant that my parents bought it from yours," such a claim is to be considered; and also that if one, in discussing a case outside of the court, did not mention anything of that which he is now claiming before the court, he cannot be accused of not having said so before, as it may be supposed that one does not like to tell his right claim to people in absence of the court. Said Amemar: "I am a Nahardean, and nevertheless hold that if there is a good reason one may change his former claim." And so the Halakha prevails.

If one claims, "It was from my parents," and the other claims the same, and one brings evidence that it was his parents' and that he occupied it the years of hazakah, and the other also brings evidence that he has occupied it the years of hazakah? Said R. Na'hman: Disregard the claims of hazakah which contradict each other, and decide it under the evidence that it was from the parents, which was not denied. Said Rabha to him: But do not the witnesses contradict each other, and in such a case not one of them ought to be taken into consideration? And he answered: They contradict each other as to the years of hazakah, but do they contradict themselves with regard to the parents?

Shall we assume that Rabha and R. Na'hman differ in the same way as R. Huna and R. Hisda differ? As it was taught. If two parties of witnesses contradict each other, they may be listened to in another case where there is no contradiction. R. Hisda, however, maintains that, it being manifest they are perjurers, nothing must be trusted to them.
Shall we then assume that R. Na'hman is in accordance with R. Huna, and Rabha with R. Hisda? Nay; if the decision were in accordance with R. Hisda, Rabha and R. Na'hman would not differ (as, according to R. Hisda, such witnesses cannot be used again in any case). Therefore we must say that both are in accordance with R. Huna; and nevertheless they differ, as Rabha maintains that even according to R. Huna the witnesses are fit for another case, but in this case they must not be listened to in any circumstances. The man who previously brought evidence that he had occupied it the years of hazakah, found thereafter witnesses that the estate was his parents'. Said R. Na'hman: We dispossessed the defendant of that estate (for a good reason), and now that the circumstances have changed we may bring him in again, without fear that this would be a humiliation to the court. Rabha, or, according to others, R. Zera, objected from a Mishna in Tract Kethuboth, which states, concerning marriage, that after the court has decided no change is to be made, even in the event of new evidence being introduced. Said R. Na'hman to him: I was about to practise according to my theory. Now, as you object, and R. Hamnuna of Suria does the same, I shall not do so. However, thereafter R. Na'hman acted according to his theory. One who had seen him doing so thought it was an error on his part. In reality, however, it was not, as he did so on the basis that many other great men had decided that the humiliation of the court must not be taken into consideration.

There was one who said to his neighbor, "What are you doing on this estate?" to which he answered, "I bought it from you, and here is the deed," to which the defendant opposed that the deed was false: The plaintiff bent and whispered to Rabba: Concerning this note, his claim is right. However, I possessed, but lost, the true one; and this is a correct copy. Said Rabba: He may be trusted, since if he wished to tell a lie he would claim that the document was genuine. Said R. Joseph to him: "But, after all, what is the basis of the plaintiff's evidence? Is it not the deed in question in reality nothing else but a broken piece of clay, as he has himself admitted that it was made by him?"

There was another case similar concerning a hundred zuz in cash, in which the plaintiff admitted that the note in his hand was a false one, made instead of the genuine, lost; and Rabba took it into consideration for his reason stated above, and R. Joseph opposed him as above. And R. Iddi b. Abbin said: The Halakha prevails in accordance with Rabba if the case dealt with real estate, because we leave the estate in the possessor's hands. And the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Joseph if the case concerned ready-money, for the same reason that we have to leave the money in the hands of the possessor (i.e., according to the rule that it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence).
There was a surety who claimed that he had paid to the lender for the borrower one hundred zuz, by showing the note. Said the borrower: "Did not I pay you?" And he answered: "But did you not take it again from me." When the case came before R. Iddi b. Abbin, he turned it over to Abayi, and Abayi sent a message to R. Iddi: Why are you doubtful in this case? Was it not you who said that the Halakha prevails with R. Joseph in case of ready-money—that is, that we leave the money with its possessor? This law, however, holds good when the surety claims he lent it again, without giving any reason; but if he claims, "I returned the money because it was not circulating," this claim must be considered, and the note is in force.

It was murmured among people that Rabha b. Sharshum had appropriated land belonging to orphans; and Abayi sent for him and asked him to tell him about the case. And he told him thus: This estate was pledged to me by the father of the orphans. I, however, had other money with him without any pledge; and after I had collected the first debt from the product of the pledge I knew, if I turned over the estate to the orphans and claimed that I had other money with their father, I should have to take an oath in accordance with the decision of the rabbis (stated above, p. 10). Therefore I kept the pledge, with the deed, until I should collect from the products what was due me, and then I would return it. And the court must take my claim into consideration in accordance with the theory of "because"—that is, because I could claim that I had bought the estate from the deceased, and I would be trusted after I had occupied it the years of hazakah, therefore my claim that I had money with the deceased must be regarded. Said Abayi to him: You could not claim you had bought it, as people are still murmuring that the estate belongs to the orphans. Therefore you must return the estate to the orphans, and when they shall be of age, you can sue them.
A relative of R. Iddi b. Abbin died, and left a tree, and another relative took possession of it. But R. Iddi claimed that he was a nearer relative, and that it belonged to him, while the other claimed that he was a nearer relative. Finally the other party admitted that R. Iddi was a nearer relative, and R. Hisda transferred the tree to R. Iddi. Said R. Iddi to R. Hisda: This man must return to me all the product of this tree which he has consumed since the death of the owner. Said R. Hisda to him: Are you the man about whom it is said that he is a great man? Your claim relies upon his admission that you are a nearer relative, after you gave evidence; but until that time he felt sure that he was a nearer relative. Consequently he has consumed the fruit rightly, and his admission now is to be considered as if he made you a present. Both Abayi and Rabha disagreed with R. Hisda, as his admission now must be taken into consideration, even concerning the previous product.

There was one who questioned his neighbor as to what he was doing on his estate, and he answered: "I bought it from you, and occupied it the years of hazakah." However, he found witnesses for the occupancy of two years only; and R. Na'hman decided he should return the estate, and also the value of the fruit he had consumed in two years. Said R. Zebid: If he were to claim: "I did not intend to keep the estate, but had the right to consume the fruit thereof, because I rented it," he is to be trusted; for did not R. Jehudah say: If one holds a scythe and a basket, saying, "I am going to gather the dates of such and such a tree, which I bought," he is to be trusted, because one would not dare to take possession of a tree which does not belong to him? And the same is the case here, for no one would dare to consume fruit which did not belong to him. If so, why should this law not apply to an estate also? For land a deed is demanded (as nobody would buy an estate without a deed); but in hiring products, a deed is unusual, and therefore it cannot be demanded.
There was another man who questioned his neighbor as to what he was doing on his estate, and he answered, "I bought it from you and occupied it the years of hazakah," to which he brought one witness. The rabbis who were in the presence of Abayi, before whom the case was brought, were about to say that this was similar to the following case: One snatched a piece of silver from his neighbor, and the case was brought before R. Ami, in the presence of R. Abba, and the plaintiff brought one witness that he snatched. And the defendant answered: "Yes, I took it; but I did so because it was mine." And R. Ami was deliberating," How decide this case?" Shall he repay it? There are no two witnesses. Shall we free him? There is one witness. Shall we give him an oath? The plaintiff claims that he snatched it, which is robbery, and a robber is not to be trusted with an oath. Said R. Abba to him: Consequently this man is obliged to take an oath, for which he is not to be trusted. And the law is, that he who is obliged to take an oath and cannot swear, must pay. Said Abayi to them: What comparison is this? A case similar to R. Abba's would be if the plaintiff had brought one witness that he had consumed the product two years; then he would have to pay, because he would not be trusted with an oath, as concerning the consumed fruit he would be considered a robber. 1 But here, the defendant has brought a witness to support himself; and if he had another, we would leave the whole estate in his hand. Hence he cannot be considered a robber who is not to be trusted to take an oath, and therefore we cannot make him pay.

There was a boat about which two parties quarrelled, each claiming that it was his, and one came to request the court that it should take charge of the boat until he should be able to get witnesses that it was his. Should his request be granted, or not? According to R. Huna, it should; and according to R. Jehudah, it should not. But in case the request was granted and the court took charge of it, and the other party, seeing that his opponent could not find evidence, requested that the court should resign its charge and leave it to the parties, so that he who could, should take possession of it—should this request be granted, or not? According to R. Jehudah, it should not; but according to R. Papa, it might. The Halakha, however, prevails that in such a case the court should not take charge of it; but, if it was already done, it should not be released before the question was decided.

If each of the parties claim: "This estate belonged to my parents"—said R. Na'hman: "In such a case, the law of the stronger is to be applied." But why should this case be different from a case where two notes are given out on the very same date to two different persons, and the property of the debtor is sufficient for the payment of one note only, in which Rabh's decision was that the property should be divided between both creditors equally; and Samuel's, that it must be left to the consideration of the judges, so that they might give the preference to him who had more right according to their opinion?

It is because there is no hope that one of them would bring evidence that he has the preference (since the notes were written on one and the same day, and even if one should bring witnesses that his note was written before the other, there is a rule that there is no priority in a matter of hours); but in one case there is hope that one of them may bring evidence. But why should this case not be equal to the one in Mishna 4, p. 261, Middle Gate, about the doubt when the young ass was born, and it was decided that it should be divided? There each of the parties, claiming it was born while under his control, has an equal chance; but here each of them claims the whole article to be his own, and the court cannot decide that it should be divided, since, if the claim of the one be true, the other has never had any right to it.

Said the Nahardeans: If a third party from the market came and took possession of it, the court has no right to take it away from him, because there is no plaintiff. As R. Hyya taught: If one steals an article belonging to many persons, he cannot be considered a thief whom the court can compel to return it, as there is no plaintiff. Said R. Ashi: R. Hyya meant to say that he cannot be considered a thief who atones by returning the article, for he does not know whom he robbed; but the court may compel him to place the article under its charge. "Three years from date to date," etc. Said R. Aba: If there are witnesses who testify that the plaintiff has loaded a basket of fruit from this field on the shoulders of the defendant, the hazakah is effected immediately.

Said R. Zebid: If, however, the plaintiff claims, "I have let him this field for the products only," he is to be trusted, provided this claim was made during the three years of hazakah, but not afterwards. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: Why should not his claim be regarded even after three years, as, if he sold (for three years) him the fruit, what should he do before the time had elapsed? Answered R. Kahana: He should have protested before the time the hazakah elapsed, so that it should be known that the estate belonged to him. If this were not the case, the pledges of Sura, in the documents of which are written: "After the time of these pledges elapses, this estate shall be returned without any payment," how is it if the possessor of the estate should hide the pledged deed after three years, and claim, "I have bought it"—should he be trusted?

Would, then, the rabbis enact such a thing as could do harm to the pledger? We must then say that the pledger, before the lapse of the time, must proclaim his protest, so that it shall be known that the estate belongs to him. The same is the law in our case.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: An Israelite who has bought a field of a Gentile, who has occupied it the years of hazakah, claiming to have bought it from another Israelite, but had not shown any deed, the law of hazakah does not apply to the last buyer, even if he has occupied it three years or more, because he relies upon the Gentile, and the law of hazakah does not apply to Gentiles (who are mightier); and it may happen that he has occupied the estate without any right, because the Israelite was afraid to claim it (unless he shows a deed).

Said Rabha: If the last buyer claims, "I was told by the Gentile that he bought it from you," he is to be trusted, because he could claim, "I myself bought it from you, and occupied it the years of hazakah." But is such a thing possible, that if the Gentile should claim the property in his own name he would not be relied upon because the law of hazakah does not apply to him, and when the Israelite claims in the Gentile's name he is to be trusted?

Therefore Rabha's statement was thus: If the last buyer claims, "In my presence the Gentile bought it from you, and then he sold it to me," he is to be trusted, because he could claim, "I bought it directly from you." R. Jehudah said again: If one holds a scythe and a basket, saying, "I am going to cut off the dates from the tree which I bought of its owner," he is to be trusted, as one would not dare to go publicly to cut off products which do not belong to him. The same said again: If one has occupied a piece of land which was outside the fence of one's field (which they usually sowed for the wild beasts to feed on), he cannot claim hazakah, as the owner may say, "I did not protest because I could not have made use of it anyhow, for the wild beasts would have consumed the produce." If one of the years of hazakah happened to be a year of arla, it is not to be considered.

And so, also, we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one of the years was a Sabbatic or an arla year, or one has sown it with Kilaim, it must not be considered. R. Joseph said: If in the hazakah years he harvested the stalks while yet unripe, it is not to be considered (because he has not occupied it as usual). Said Rabha: But if this was around the city of Mehusa it is to be considered, because all the farmers, on account of their cattle, are in the habit of doing so. R. Na'hman said: To land which is full of pits and cannot be worked up properly the law of hazakah does not apply, because the owner may claim, "As it was of no use to me, I did not protest." The same is the case with such fields as return no more than was sown in them.

And also in the case of exilarchs, to an estate which is bought from them, or which they buy, the law of hazakah does not apply, because they are mighty, and no one would dare to protest against them; and, also, they themselves do not care to protest. "Slaves." Does the law of hazakah apply to slaves? Did not Resh Lakish say: To every living creature the law of hazakah does not apply? Said Rabha: He means to say it does not apply before three years (i.e., one cannot claim that he bought it as he may do with other personal property for which no evidence is needed when found in his possession), but after three years it does. And Rabha said again: If this slave was an infant lying in his cradle, the law of hazakah applies immediately. Is this not self-evident? He means even in case it has a mother; and lest one say that it is to be feared that its mother left it there, it comes to teach us that this is not to be feared, because usually a mother does not forget her child.

There were goats that consumed peeled barley in the city of Nahardea, and the owner of the barley caught them and would not return them until the value of the barley was paid. And his claim was of considerable amount, and the father of Samuel decided that he might claim the value of all the goats, as if he were to claim that he bought them he ought to be trusted, seeing that they were found in his possession. But did not Resh Lakish say that the law of hazakah does not apply to living creatures? Why did the father of Samuel decide (Middle Gate, pp. 306 seq.) that he could collect the whole value of the goats? (See there.) With goats it is different, as they are usually transferred to the shepherd. But do not goats go in the morning and evening without the shepherd? In the city of Nahardea thieves were frequently found, and the shepherds used to deliver the cattle into the hands of their owners. "Three months in the first year," etc. Shall we assume that the point of difference between R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba is that one holds ploughing is a hazakah (i.e., if one ploughs a field and the owner does not protest, it is supposed that he bought it from him). And one holds that it is? But how can you bear in mind that R. Aqiba holds ploughing to be a hazakah, when he means a whole month in two hazakah years? Is one day not sufficient for ploughing? Therefore we must say that, according to all, ploughing is not considered a hazakah, and the point of their difference is ripe and unripe fruits. According to R. Ishmael, the hazakah applies only to ripe fruits, and according to R. Aqiba also to unripe ones.

The rabbis taught: Ploughing is not a hazakah. According to others, it is. Who are the others? Said R. Hisda: It is R. Aha of the following Boraitha. If one has ploughed it one year and sown it two, or vice versa, it is not a hazakah. R. Aha, however, says it is. Said R. Ashi: I have questioned all the great men of this generation, and they have told me that ploughing is a hazakah. Said R. Bibi to R. Na'hman: The reason of him who holds that ploughing is a hazakah is because that usually one would not keep silent if a stranger came and ploughed his land. And the reason of him who holds that ploughing is not a hazakah, is because the owner might think: "I can derive benefit from every furrow he makes with the plough on my land, so I will protest afterwards."

The inhabitants of the city of Pumnahara sent a message to R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda thus: Let the master teach us if ploughing is a hazakah or not. And he answered: R. Aha and all the great men of this generation have decided that ploughing is a hazakah. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It was too much of him to assert, "All the great men." Are not Rabh and Samuel in Babylon, and R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba in Palestine, who bold that ploughing is not a hazakah? R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba we hear saying so in our Mishna, but where did Rabh and Samuel say so?
As R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba were a minority of the sages, but the majority of the sages held that a hazakah is three years from date to date. And this was certainly to exclude ploughing. And concerning Samuel. said also R. Jehudah in his name: This was the opinion of R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba only; but all the other sages held that the hazakah does not apply unless one has harvested, gathered the vintage, and pressed olives, each of them three times. What is the difference between Rabh and Samuel—as, according to both, three years are needed? Said Abayi: A young tree which bears fruit on the average three times in less than three years, according to Samuel it is a hazakah, and according to Rabh it must be from date to date. "Said R. Ishmael . . . a field for grain," etc. Said Abayi: From R. Ishmael's decision, that three harvestings suffice to constitute hazakah, we can understand the opinion of the rabbis opposing him: If the field contains thirty trees, each ten of which take up a space where a saah of grain can be sown, and the defendant has used ten the first year, ten the second, and ten the third, it is a hazakah, although three years have not yet elapsed (as he has consumed in each year what was ripe). And this is to be inferred from R. Ishmael's statement that each performance of the three articles is counted as if it were done thrice, to constitute a hazakah. The same is the case with the thirty trees: the consuming of each ten is counted with the consuming of the others, and therefore it constitutes a hazakah. But this is only the case when but ten of them were ripe each year; but if more were ripe, and he only consumed ten, it is not. And the same is the case if the ten trees were ripe in one place only the first year, ten in another place the second, and ten in a third place the last year; for in order to constitute a hazakah, the trees must be scattered throughout the whole field, three or four of them growing in the space of a saah each year.

If one has made a hazakah on the trees and another upon the ground, each of them acquires title to what he holds. So said R. Zebid: R. Papa opposed; for, according to this theory, the one who has made a hazakah on the trees has nothing in the ground. So let the owner of the field say to the owner of the trees, "Cut down your trees and go." "Therefore," said he, "in such a case one has acquired title to the trees and half of the ground, and the other to the other half of the ground."

It is certain if one has sold his ground and left the trees, the ground required by the trees must be left for them; for even according to R. Aqiba, who said elsewhere that usually when one sold a thing he did so with a good eye (i.e., with the intention of benefiting the buyer), this is only in case he sold him a well. We must say the stone-walls to the well on his property are also sold to him. But in this case, where he retains the trees, which make the ground poor, and also their roots may hinder the plough, it is certainly his intention that the ground needed for the trees shall remain his, as otherwise the buyer will have a right to demand from him that he shall cut down his trees. But if he has sold the trees and retained the ground, in this case the rabbis and R. Aqiba differ. According to R. Aqiba, who holds that usually the seller sells with a good eye, the buyer has a right to the growing of the trees. But according to the rabbis, who do not hold so, the buyer has no such right. And even according to R. Zebid, who said above, in the case of hazakah, that each of them has nothing in that which the other has occupied, it is only as to buyers that the one who has occupied the ground can say to him who possesses the trees, "As I have nothing in your trees, so you have nothing in my ground."

But in case of selling, according to the rule that a seller sells with a good eye, this claim cannot apply even in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis. And even R. Papa, who said above that the owner of the trees has a share in the ground, it is only in the above case where there were two buyers—the one who buys the trees and the buyer of the ground—that each of them can claim, "As the owner sold to you with a good eye, so did he to me." But in this case, according to the rabbis, who hold that a man usually sells with a bad eye (i.e., with the intention of benefiting merely himself), R. Papa may also agree that, according to the rabbis' theory, the buyer of the trees has no claim to the ground. The Nahardeans said that if, of the above-mentioned thirty trees, fifteen of them were planted in the space of a saah, although he had consumed the product of all of them three years successively, it is not considered a hazakah, because he has not done as people do (i.e., fifteen trees in the space of a saah cannot bear good products, and the one who possesses such usually cuts out many of them to make room for the others; and as he did not do so, it seems that he does not consider this to be his property). Rabha opposed this. For, according to this theory, one could never acquire title to a bed of a pastio, which is usually sown three times a year, and the overcrowding is thinned out to make space for the remainder (and when the occupant has only consumed them, and not thinned out, he does not acquire title). "Therefore," said he, "in such a case he acquires title to the trees, and not to the ground." Said R. Zera: In this case the Tanaim of the following Mishna differ: A vineyard which was planted in less than four ells' space, R. Simeon said: Concerning Kilaim, it is not considered a vineyard at all. The sages, however, maintained that it is so considered, and the middle ones are to be considered as if they did not exist (i.e., the law of a vineyard, which should interfere with other kinds of seeds, is that it must be planted so that between each row of the vines four ells of space must be left; and if not, it is not called a vineyard. But according to the rabbis, the middle one is not considered; consequently there is more than four ells' space between them, and it does interfere-hence, according to this theory, of the trees in question which were overcrowded, fifteen in the space of a saah, the middle ones are not to be considered, according to the rabbis; but they are considered, according to R. Simeon).

The Nahardeans said again: If one has sold a tree to his neighbor, the buyer acquires title to it from beneath it unto the deep. Rabha opposed. Why should it be said that the whole ground unto the deep shall be sold to him? The seller may claim: I sold it to you as people used to sell a saffron tree, of which the buyer derives the benefit as long as the tree yields fruit, but after it became withered, the buyer had to remove it and leave the ground to the seller. Therefore said Rabha: This applies only to him who claims that he bought it with the stipulation that if the tree dies he may plant another one in its place, and after he possessed it the years of hazakah. Said Mar the Elder, the son of R. Hisda, to R. Ashi: Even if it was a saffron tree, and in such a case the buyer usually cares for the valuable saffron, and not the ground beneath, what should the seller do if, after the three years, the buyer claims he has also bought the ground (so that he can plant another one)? And he answered: The seller should protest before the years of hazakah elapse, as is said above.

MISHNA II: There are three lands concerning the law of hazakah: The land of Judea, the land on the other side of the Jordan, and of Galilee. If the owner of the estate was in Judea, and one has made a hazakah in Galilee, or vice versa, it is not considered a hazakah unless the owner of the estate should be with the occupant in one and the same country. Said R. Jehudah: The law of three years is made only for the purpose that if the owner, for instance, was in Spain, and his estate was in Judea, which is a year's journey from there, if one has occupied his estate while on the road, a year's time is given for him to be notified, and another year for his return (i.e., no matter where he is, three years suffice for hazakah).

GEMARA: Let us see! What does the first Tana of the Mishna hold? If a protest in the absence of the occupant is considered, then, even when one was in Judea and the other in Galilee, he could protest; and if it is not considered, then even if both were in one country, when they are not in one city, the hazakah should not apply, as he could not protest. Said R. Abba b. Mamal in the name of Rabh: He holds that a protest not in his presence is to be considered. But our Mishna treats of a case of war, during which this protest would be of no use (because there would be no one to notify him). And why does he mention Judea and Galilee? To teach that these two countries are always considered as if there might be a war between them, as caravans going from one country to the other are very rare.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: If one runs away from a city because of crime, etc., and one occupies his estate, the law of hazakah applies. And R. Jehudah continued: After Rabh's death I said this Halakha in his name before Samuel, and he said to me: Is this not self-evident? Must, then, a protest be in one's presence? (Says the Gemara:) And, indeed, what news did Rabh teach with this statement, unless that a protest not in one's presence is considered? He already said so elsewhere. With this statement he teaches us that, even when the protest was before two witnesses who were not able to notify the occupant, it is nevertheless considered a protest. As R. Anan said. Mar Samuel has explained to me his opinion that only when one protested in the presence of two witnesses who are able to notify the occupant, it is considered; but not otherwise. Rabh, however, is of the opinion: "Thy colleague has another colleague," etc.; and so, when protested before two, it will become known. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails that the law of hazakah does not apply to the property of one who runs away, and also that a protest which is not in one's presence is considered. Are not the two Halakhas contradictory of each other? This presents no difficulty. If one runs away because of money matters, he is not afraid to protest, as he does not care whether his residence is made known; but if one runs away on account of a crime, then he cannot protest, as this would make known his hiding-place.
How should one protest? Said R. Zebid: If the protest was, so and so is a robber; it does not suffice, but he must protest: "He is a robber who has robbed me of my estate, and as soon as it is possible I shall summon him." But how is the law if he added to this protest, "Do not notify him of my protest"? Said R. Zebid: How can this be considered, when he plainly says: Do not notify him. R. Papa, however, is of the opinion that it means: Do not notify him, but tell it to other people, so that he will become aware of it afterwards. How is the law if the witnesses told him: We will not notify him? According to R. Zebid, such a protest is not to be considered, and according to R. Papa, it is, because although they should not notify him, they will nevertheless tell it to other people. But how is it if the protestor said: Do not mention it to any one? According to R. Zebid, it is certainly not to be considered. But how is it when they said: We will not mention this to any one? According to R. Papa, it is not to be considered. R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua, however, maintains that, even then, it is a protest, as a thing which does not belong to a man, he will talk about it some time, and it will become known.

Rabha said in the name of R. Na'hman: A protest not in one's presence is to be considered; and he opposed him from the statement of R. Jehudah in our Mishna, who said that a year is allowed for notifying him and a year for returning. And if a protest not in one's presence should suffice, why must he come back? And he answered: R. Jehudah's statement is only an advice for one that he had better come himself, so that he should be able to take possession of the estates and products. (Says the Gemara:) From that which Rabha objected, it must be said that he himself does not hold with him concerning a protest in the absence of the occupant; and above it was said that Rabha himself had so decided? After he had heard it from R. Na'hman, he accepted it.

R. Jose b. Hanina happened to meet the disciples of R. Johanan and questioned them as to whether R. Johanan had said before how many people a protest must be made. R. Hyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: In the presence of two. And R. Abuhu said in his name: Three are needed.

Shall we assume that the point of their differing is the saying of Rabba b. R. Huna: "Everything which is said in the presence of three persons cannot be considered slander"? Now he who holds that two persons are sufficient does not agree with Rabba, and he who holds that three are needed does so, because he holds with him? Nay, all agree with Rabba, and the point of their differing is-a protest not in one's presence: he who says that two are sufficient, because such is not to be considered (and therefore he needs two, so that they shall testify that the occupant was present at the protest). 1 And he who holds that three are needed does so because a protest not in one's presence is considered, and therefore three are needed in order to make the protest public. If you wish, it may be said that all agree that such a protest is to be considered, and the point of their differing is that one holds that for this purpose witnesses are needed, and the other one holds that it is only necessary to make it public.
Giddle b. Minjumi had to make a protest against some one, and happened to meet R. Huna, Hyya b. Rabh, and R. Hilkiah b. Tubi, who were sitting together, and he made his protest before them. The next year he came again to protest. Said Hyya b. Rabh to him: The protest from last year is sufficient. Said Resh Lakish in the name of B. Kapara: It is, however, necessary for one to repeat his protest after the lapse of every three years. R. Johanan, however, doubted concerning this decision, saying: Does the law of hazakah apply to a robber? A robber! Is it, then, certain that he is a robber? (Does he not claim that he had a deed, that it was lost?) He means to say that, as after the first protest he has done nothing to find the deed or to bring any other evidence, he is so considered, and the law of hazakah should not apply to him. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails that one has to repeat his protest after each three years.

Bar Kapara taught: If one has protested once, twice, and three times, if the second and third times he has claimed the same that he claimed the first time, the occupant has no hazakah; but if he comes with other claims, the hazakah prevails with the occupant.

Rabha said in the name of R. Na'hman: When a protest is made before two persons, there is no necessity to ask that it be written down. The same is the case with an announcement. (There is a law that if one is compelled to sell his property, or to do any other thing against his will, he may announce it before two persons, and afterwards he can sue the buyer.) For an admission, however (that he owes something to one), he must ask the two witnesses to write it down. The ceremony of a sudarium must be done before two persons without writing. The approval of an oath, however, must be done by three persons. Said Rabha: I could not understand why the sudarium should be made before two. If it is considered an act of Beth Din, then three are needed; and if it is not considered such, why should it not be written down? After deliberating, however, he said: This act is not considered as an act of Beth Din, and writing down is not needed, because this act is as good as if it were written. (This is the final conclusion of the act, and cannot be denied.)
Rabha and R. Joseph both said: We do not write down an announcement unless in a case where the defendant does not listen to the court. Both Abayi and Rabha, however, said that even for such people as we are, it may be written down. The Nahardeans said: An announcement in which it is not written: "We witnesses testify that it was known to us that this man was compelled," etc., is not to be considered. What kind of an announcement do they mean? If concerning a divorce or a gift, it is sufficient when it is made public only. And if for a sale, did not Rabha say elsewhere: We do not write announcements about things sold? It means of a sale, and Rabha admits that when one was compelled to sell against his will, as, for instance, in the case of certain vineyards (Middle Gate, p. 176), we do write such announcements.

R. Jehudah said: A hidden deed of gift is not sufficient for collection. What does this mean? Said R. Joseph: If one said to the witnesses, "Go to a place which is invisible, and write him a deed of gift." According to others, R. Joseph said: If the giver did not say to the witness, "Go to the market, and in the presence of the people you shall write him this deed." And the difference between these two sayings is when he said to them: "Go and write," without any addition. Said Rabha: Such a deed is sufficient to be an announcement in case one has to render the same to another.

Said R. Papa: This statement attributed to Rabha was not plainly said by him, but it was inferred from his decision of the following act. There was a man who wanted to marry a certain woman, and she said to him: "If you will transfer all your property to me, I will be yours, and not otherwise." And he did so. Then came his older son, and said to him: "What then becomes of me?" And the father told two witnesses they should hide themselves in a certain place and write a deed that the property belonged to his son. And when the case came before Rabha, he decided that none of them had acquired title to the property (the son, because it was written in a hidden place; and the woman, because the first deed was an announcement against the latter deed). This, however, was only a supposition by those who heard this decision. In reality, however, Rabha did so because any one could see that the deed to the woman was written only under compulsion. But in the above case of a hidden deed, it could not serve as an announcement, because the latter was made in public. And it is to be assumed that he did so because such was his will, and the former was done unwillingly; and therefore he told the witnesses to write it in a secret place.
The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it when he told them to write a deed of gift without any explanation? (The question is concerning the two sayings of R. Joseph mentioned above.) According to Rabhina, it is considered proper; and according to R. Ashi, it is not proper (unless he told them to make this publicly). And so the Halakha prevails.

MISHNA III.: A hazakah to which there is no claim is not to be considered. How so? "What are you doing on my property?" And if he answered: "Because there was no claim against it," it is not to be considered. But if he says: Because you have sold it; or, You had presented it to me; or, Because your father did so, this is to be considered. A property, however, which one possesses by inheritance does not need any explanation (which means that the claim, "I have inherited," is sufficient).

GEMARA: Is not the first statement in the Mishna self-evident? Lest one say: As the man has occupied the estate, it must be supposed that he has bought it, but has lost the deed; and the reason why he does not claim "bought," is because he feared that the plaintiff would ask to see the deed, therefore it is for the court to ask him: "Perhaps you had a deed, which was lost?" as it is written [Prov. xxxi. 8]: "Open thy mouth for the dumb," etc.; it comes to teach us that it is not so.

It happened that an overflow took away the fence of R. Anan's field, and he built a new one in the space belonging to his neighbor. And his neighbor complained before R. Na'hman, who decided that he must remove it. Said R. Anan to him: But I have made a hazakah on it. And he answered: You desire that I shall decide in accordance with R. Jehudah and R. Ishmael, who said that if it was done in the presence of the plaintiff, it is immediately considered a hazakah. The Halakha does not prevail according to them. Said R. Anan: But this man has relinquished his right to me, as he himself assisted me in making the fence. And he answered: Such a relinquishment was only an error, and cannot be considered; as you yourself, if you were aware that you were building the fence on a space which did not belong to you, would not do it. And so was it with your neighbor: he, also, was not aware that the space belonged to him.
The same happened to R. Kahana, and his neighbor came to complain before R. Jehudah, bringing two witnesses. One testified that R. Kahana had occupied two rows of his neighbor's estate, and the other testified three. And R. Jehudah decided he should pay him for two of the three rows. Said R. Kahana to him: Is not your decision in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar, who said elsewhere that the school of Hillel agrees that the smaller amount is included in the larger one (i.e., as there is no contradiction to the two rows, it is considered as two witnesses for two rows which must be paid for)? But I can bring you a letter from Palestine that the Halakha does not prevail with R. Simeon b. Elazar. And he answered: If you will bring me this letter, we shall see.

It happened in the city of Kashta that one had lived in an attic four years, and then the owner of the house came to ask him what he was doing in the house. To which he answered: I bought it from so and so, who bought it from you. And the case came before R. Hyya, who said to the defendant: If you will bring witnesses that the man from whom you bought it lived in this attic even one day, I will leave the attic in your possession, but not otherwise. Said Rabh: I used to sit then before my uncle, and I said to him: Can it not happen that one should sell out his property in the night-time, and leave it immediately? And I understood from my uncle's appearance that if the defendant should claim: "I was present when my seller bought it from you," he would trust him, because, if he wished to tell a lie, he could claim: I bought it from you directly. Said Rabha: It seems to me that R. Hyya was correct in his decision, as our Mishna states that if the defendant claimed inheritance, no other explanation is needed, which means an explanation is not needed, but nevertheless evidence that he inherited it is needed. (Said the Gemara:) This support does not hold good, as it may be said that the expression, "no explanation is needed," means also no evidence. Furthermore, the claim "bought" should have more chance than an heir; for if it were not known to him that the seller had a right to sell it, he would not throw away his money.
The schoolmen propounded a question: If the seller was seen on this property, not as a tenant, but as the owner, to measure it, would this be sufficient, according to R. Hyya? Said Abayi: "Aye." Rabha, however, maintains that it may happen that one shall measure his property without any intention of selling. If there were three buyers to one estate (i.e., A sold it to B, who occupied it a year, and thereafter sold it to C, who also after a year's occupancy sold it to D, with a bill of sale: then came A and claimed that the estate was his—he never sold it—and B does not possess any bill of sale, shall we say that, as between B, C, and D three years of hazakah have elapsed, and as A has not protested, D is entitled to it? or, as each of them has not occupied it the years of hazakah, A's claim is to be considered), the years of occupancy count. Said Rabh: This is only when both C and D possessed their deeds, but not otherwise.

Shall we assume that Rabh holds that only a deed is considered to be known by the people, but not witnesses; and the reason why he said elsewhere that he who sells his field in the presence of witnesses, and thereafter it was taken away from the buyer, the buyer has a right to collect his money from encumbered estates, is because the people who bought their estates afterwards from the seller had to investigate whether he had not sold his estates previously with security, but not because witnesses are considered known to the people? But how could Rabh say so? Is there not a Mishna farther on which states that if by witnesses only, he may collect from unencumbered estates only? And lest one say Rabh is a Tana who has a right to differ with a Mishna, did not Rabh and Samuel both declare that a loan which was made orally is not collectible either from heirs or from buyers? You contradict a case of a loan with a case of selling. They are entirely different, as he who makes a loan does it privately, as he would not like people should know he needed money, and the value of his estate would decrease. But he who sells an estate does it publicly, as he is searching for a buyer who will give him a better price.

The rabbis taught: If the father has consumed one year and his son two, or visa versa, or each of them one year, and the buyer from them one year, it is considered a hazakah. Shall we assume that it is a hazakah because a sale is considered known to the people, and therefore the owner ought to protest? Does not the following contradict: If one has occupied or consumed in the face of the father one year, and in the face of his son two, or vice versa, or in the face of each one year, and in the face of the buyer who bought it from the son one year, it is considered a hazakah for the occupant? Now, if you would bear in mind that selling and buying are considered known to the people, why is the selling itself not considered the greatest protest? Said R. Papa: This may not contradict, as the cited Boraitha may treat of one who sold the field among his other fields. (And so the sale of this particular field was probably not known to the people, and therefore it cannot be considered a protest.)
MISHNA IV.: The law of hazakah does not apply to the following: specialists, farmers, partners, gardeners, and guardians. There is also no hazakah to a husband on the estate of his wife, and vice versa; and no hazakah to a father on the estate of his son, and vice versa. All this is said concerning hazakah, but concerning a gift or an inheritance of brothers, or one who takes possession of the estate of an heirless proselyte, if he has done any work whatever (e.g., if he has locked it, or made any partition, or torn down the old one), it is considered a hazakah.

GEMARA: Both the father of Samuel and Levi taught: There is no hazakah to a partner, and so much the less to a specialist. Samuel, however, taught: There is no hazakah to a specialist, but to a partner there is. And Samuel is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that concerning partners the law of hazakah applies. They also may be witnesses for each other, and they are also considered bailees for hire to each other. R. Abba raised the following contradiction to R. Jehudah "At the cave of R. Zakkai." How can you say that Samuel holds that hazakah applies to partners? Did not he say that when one works on his partner's estate, it is to be considered as if he had done this with the permission of his partner. Is this not to be understood to mean that a partner has no right of hazakah? This presents no difficulty. One of Samuel's decisions speaks of when the partner has consumed the products of the whole estate which belongs to both, and the other decision treats of when he took possession of a half share, claiming that they had divided their estates long before and that he had made a hazakah on the part he now holds. To which his partner objects, saying: Our stipulation was such that you should keep it three years, and then I should keep it three years.

In explaining this, two parties differ. One maintains that Samuel's decision that a partner has a right of hazakah is in case he has consumed all the products of the estate belonging to both. For a partner usually consumes the products of half of the estate, taking them from one half one year and from the other half the following, in order to equalize matters. And as we see that one has taken possession of the entire estate for three years in succession, it is to be supposed that he bought the same. And the other decision of Samuel speaks of when they do as is customary, consuming the products of the same half three years in succession: no hazakah applies, because his partner may claim that such was the stipulation, as stated above.

And the other maintains to the contrary. If he consumes the whole, there is no hazakah, because it may be that that was their arrangement; namely, that one should use the products the first three years and his partner the three years succeeding. But if one utilizes exactly half for three years in succession, it may be said that he bought it, and therefore hazakah applies. Rabhina, however, says that both of Samuel's decisions may apply to the case that one has consumed the whole estate; but the decision that he has a hazakah speaks of a field which contains the prescribed quantity for division. Consequently, if one consumes the whole field (without any protest from his partner), it is to be supposed that he bought it. And the decision that there is no hazakah speaks of a field which has not the prescribed quantity. And it is to be supposed that their arrangement was that each should use it for three years, as said above.

The text says: "Samuel holds that when one works on his partner's estate," etc. What did Samuel mean to teach, that in partnership the law of hazakah does not apply? Let him then say so plainly. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: He means to say that when one takes his partner's field, which is fit for sowing only, and plants trees in it, he is not liable for damages, as it is considered to be done with his partner's permission, and, moreover, his partner can claim half of any profits which may accrue after the expense of planting has been deducted. Farther on Samuel says: "They may bear witness for each other," etc. Why? Are they not interested in each other's affairs? He means to say, in case one of them gave a deed to the other, saying he had nothing further to do with the field. But even then, what is it? Have we not learned in the following Boraitha: If one says to his partner: "I have no claim on this field," "I have nothing to do with it," or, "I keep my hands off it," he says nothing (i.e., unless he distinctly says, "It is yours, and I shall have nothing further to do with it," it is not to be considered, because it may be that he said it in a manner indicating that he wished he would have nothing to do with it, etc.)? It means that this was done with the ceremony of a sudarium (and then certainly he has nothing to do with it). But, after all, he is still interested in this case, for if the plaintiff should win the case, and the estate were taken away from the defendant, it might be appraised insufficient to cover the debt made while he was still a partner, and then it would devolve upon him. And he may also be interested in seeing that this estate shall remain with his partner, as it may happen afterwards that some one should claim that his partner had borrowed some money while they were still partners, and when his partner should have no estate, the debt be turned over to him? This means that when he transferred his property to him he at the same time in writing took upon himself the responsibility. The responsibility of what? If the responsibility of this estate, in case it were taken away by some one, should devolve on him, then he is certainly interested in this case; and if it means he takes the responsibility of claims which may be upon the estate for his own debts, then he has nothing to do with any other claims: he is disinterested in so far as he has nothing to do with the estate itself—only the making good of his own debts. But has he a right to cut himself off from all other liabilities? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that if Holy Scrolls were stolen from a city the thieves must not be tried by the judges of that city, and also no witnesses from that city should be brought as evidence?

Now, if one should have a right to say: "I have cut myself off from this estate entirely," it would be possible, in the above case, for two judges to say, "We have relinquished our shares in the Holy Scrolls," and witnesses the same way, and then the judges could decide the case and the evidence of the witnesses be used. With Holy Scrolls it is different, as they are made for reading, and one cannot help hearing them. Come and hear! If one say: Give a manna to the poor of that city—if there is a trial about this, the case must not come before the judges of that city, and no evidence of witnesses of the same city should be admitted. Now, how can you maintain, because the poor of the city take the charity, that the judges of the city should not be eligible to decide the case? You must say, then, that the judges must not be of the poor who take charity, nor witnesses who have benefit therefrom. And why let the judges or the witnesses relinquish their share in this charity and be used? The Boraitha speaks also When the manna in question was given for Holy Scrolls, and the expression "poor" is because concerning the Holy Scrolls all are considered poor; and if you wish, it may be said, the expression "poor" is to be taken literally, and it speaks of the poor whom the judges or witnesses are obliged to assist. And therefore the trial could not come before them, because they are interested in it (i.e., if the poor should win the case, their share of assistance would be less than before). And even if the judges or witnesses were taxed to assist the poor of that city with a certain sum per annum, they are still considered interested in that case, for they are pleased at the poor receiving more support.

Samuel says further: "They are also considered bailees for hire," etc. Why so? Is this not a guard in the presence of its owner, and it is said above that in such a case he is not responsible? Said R. Papa: He means to say, if one said to his partner: Guard for me to-day and I will guard for you to-morrow.

The rabbis taught: If one sells another a house or a field, he is not allowed to be a witness, because he is always responsible for it, if there should be a claim against it. But if he has sold him a cow or a garment, he may be a witness, because he has nothing more to do with them. What is the difference between the former and the latter facts? Is the seller not responsible in case it should be found that the cow or garment in question was stolen by him? Said R. Shesheth: The first part speaks of the following case: If A has robbed B of a field and has sold it to C, then D comes with a claim, B then has no right to be a witness for C, because he is interested in having it returned to A, so that he can establish his claim. But if B should be a witness that C is right, how can he claim afterwards that the field is his? He can only testify that D's claim is wrong.

But could not B exercise his right, even if it were D's? He may think that C, who is not .so mighty, might settle with him, while with D it would not be so easy. And if you wish, it may be said that it speaks of a case as follows: B has witnesses that this property belongs to him, and D has witnesses who contradict B's witnesses. And in such a case, usually the judges decide that the property shall remain with its present owner. And therefore B is interested in it, .and must not be trusted as a witness. But why was it necessary for R. Shesheth to illustrate this Boraitha in case the robber had sold the field to another? Could he not illustrate this by saying that C had announced his claim while the field was still in the hands of the robber A—then B cannot be a witness?

Because it has to teach in the last part that if he has sold movable property to some one, which means the one who robbed the property in question and sold it, the one who has been robbed may be a witness, and this can only hold good in case of movable property which was passing into another's hands and of the renouncing of the hope to regain it by the owner. As the law dictates that these two things give title to the possessor, consequently the robbed one, who has nothing more to do with these articles, may be a witness. But if the article were still in the hand of the robber, the robbed one would not renounce his hope of regaining .it, and it would still be considered his property, and consequently he cannot be a witness. Therefore he illustrated the first part also in the same manner.

But, after all, although the robbed one renounced his hope of regaining the article, did he do the same about the value of it? He speaks when the robber no longer exists—when he has no further hope even for the value, as we have learned in a Mishna that if one robbed movable property and bequeathed it to his children, they are free from paying for it. But why does not R. Shesheth explain this Boraitha as speaking of an heir (it means if the robber dies and leaves it for his heirs)? This objection would not hold good, in accordance with him who, holds that the control of an heir is not equal to the control of a. buyer. But to him who holds that they are equal, what can be said?

Furthermore, there was a difficulty to Abayi: Why does; the Boraitha use the expressions "responsible" and "not responsible"—as, according to R. Shesheth's explanation, it ought to be said, because this is "returning" and "not returning"? Therefore the Boraitha must be explained in accordance with Rabbin b. Samuel, who said in the name of Mar Samuel as follows: If one sold a field to his neighbor without security, he has no right to qualify as a witness concerning it, because in case of a creditor he can show this as a source of collection. But this. can only be in case of a house or other real estate, and not of movable property; and not only when it was sold without any stipulation that collection is not to be made on movable property for the claim of a creditor, but even in case it was written, "You shall collect your money from the garment which is on my shoulders," he can do it only when the movable property is still in his; possession, but not otherwise. As even then the property in question has been made a hypothec, he can only collect when it is yet under the borrower's control; but when it is not under his; control, he cannot. As Rabha said (First Gate, p. 19): If one has made his slave a hypothec, and thereafter he sold it, a collection can be made; but if the hypothec was an ox or an ass, and he has sold it, the creditor cannot collect. Why so? Because real estate, when it is sold, people talk about it, which is not the case with movable property. But let it be feared that the owner of the movable property has mortgaged it together with the real estate. As Rabba said elsewhere: Such an agreement holds: good to collect also from the personal property. And R. Hisda. added to it that this law holds good only when the borrower mentioned in his agreement that this should not be considered, an asmachtah, or a copied agreement? It speaks of a case in which the movable property was bought and sold immediately.

Let it still, however, be feared that he wrote in the mortgage of the real estate: "All the personal property which I possess and which I shall possess hereafter." Shall we assume that because such is not feared, a similar agreement is not to be considered? And if in spite of such agreement he has sold out or bequeathed his movable property, the sale is valid? Nay; it may be said that the above case treats of when there are witnesses who testify that this man never possessed any real estate. But did not R. Papa say that although the rabbis had enacted that if one sold out real estate without security, and a creditor took it away from the buyer, the latter could not claim the money from the seller? If, however, the investigation shows that the seller has never possessed this estate, he must pay?

It speaks that the buyer was aware that the ass in question was born from his cattle. R. Zebid, however, maintained that if sold without security, even if it was found afterwards that he never possessed it, the buyer could claim his money, because the seller might claim that on this account it was sold without security.

It is said above, in the name of Samuel, that he who has sold a field without security cannot be a witness concerning this estate, as he is interested in it; in case his creditor came, he can show him this field for collection. Let us see how the case was. Does the seller possess other real estate? Then certainly the creditor will make his claim against that estate first, as there is a rule that no collection should be made from encumbered estate when there are unencumbered estates of the defendant. And if he does not possess any others, then what can the creditor take from him, even if it remains with the buyer? It may be said that he does not possess other estates. Nevertheless, he may say: "I do not want to be wicked," that the verse in Ps. xxxvii. 21, "The wicked borrowed and repayeth not," should apply to me. But would not the same verse apply to him concerning the buyer? Nay; as he may say: I plainly told him that I would not secure this field to him. Consequently he was willing to buy it, even though it might be taken away from him afterwards.

Rabha, according to others R. Papa, announced: It shall be known to them who are ascending to Palestine or descending to Babylon, that if one Israelite sold to another an ass, and a Gentile came and took it away, claiming that it was stolen from him, it is but right that the seller shall settle with the buyer, so that he shall not suffer the whole damage. This, however, is said when the buyer was not aware that this ass was born among his animals. But if the buyer was aware of it, he cannot expect any settlement (as such was his fate). And even in case he was not aware, he may do so when the Gentile takes away the ass only, but when he takes away the saddle and also the man, since he takes not only what belongs to him, but all that the buyer possessed, then again it is his fate.

"Specialists," etc. Said Rabba: "This is said when the owner has transferred to the specialist in the presence of witnesses; but otherwise, because he may claim that he never took it from him, he is to be trusted if he says that he bought it from him. Said Abayi to him: According to your theory, even if it was in the presence of witnesses, he should also be trusted, because he could claim that he has returned it already. Answered Rabba: Do you mean to say that if one deposits an article with his neighbor in the presence of witnesses the depositary should return it to him without witnesses, and that it should not be born in mind (that he used witnesses when presenting)? The latter must do the same when returning; for, if not, he will not be trusted when he claims to have returned it.

Abayi objected from the following: If one has seen his slave learning a trade at a specialist's, or his garment at a cleaner's, and to the question, "What does it concern you?" he answers, "You sold it, or made it a present to me," he said nothing. But if he claims: "I was present when you told so and so to sell it, or give it for a present," he may be trusted. And to the explanation of the difference in the law between the first part and the latter, said Rabba: The latter part means to say: If the article in question came to the present possessor from a third hand, and the latter said to the plaintiff: In my presence you told so and so that he might sell it, or give it as a present. And the reason is because, if he wished to tell a lie, he could claim: I myself bought it from you. Now we see that the first part states, "If one has seen." And what does it mean?

If there were witnesses, why the expression "seen"? He should bring his witnesses and take it away. We must say, then, that there were no witnesses; yet, as soon as he has seen it, he may take it away (hence this contradicts your statement that if there were no witnesses he is to be trusted, claiming, "I bought it from you"). Says Rabba: Nay; it means that there were witnesses (when he presented it to him), and even then only when he saw it in his possession. (Said Abayi:) But did you not declare that he who has deposited an article in the presence of witnesses, the returning must also be done in the presence of the same? And he answered: I retract that statement.

Rabha, however, objected to Abayi, and brought the following as a support to Rabba: If one has given his garment to a specialist, the latter claiming, "The stipulation was that you should give me two zuz," and the owner claims the stipulation was for one zuz, so long as the. article is in the hand of the specialist, it is for the owner to bring evidence. If, however, the specialist has already returned it to the owner, if he announced his claim in time (i.e., before sunset, at which time a laborer has to get his payment), then he takes an oath and gets the full payment. But if it was after that time, he is the plaintiff, and it is for him to bring witnesses. Now let us see how was the case. If there were witnesses, then it must be done as the witnesses testify. It must be said, therefore, that there are no witnesses, nevertheless the specialist is trusted.

Is this not because he could claim, "I bought it," so that he would be trusted? So is it when he claims his payment? Nay; it treats of when there were no witnesses, and also when the owner of the article did not see it in the hands of the specialist (so that the specialist could claim that he had returned it).

R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak objected from our Mishna, which states that a specialist has no hazakah, from which it is to be inferred that only a specialist has not, but a common man has. And this is certainly the case if there were no witnesses; for if there were, why should he? Hence we see that a specialist has no hazakah even when there were witnesses. And this contradicts Rabba's above statement, and this objection remains.

The rabbis taught: If one has exchanged his utensils for another's in the house of a specialist, he may use them until the owner shall come and recognize his. If the same was done at the house of a mourner or at a house of a wedding, he must not use them before they shall be recognized. And what is the reason for the difference in the two cases? Said Rabh: I used to sit before my uncle, and he explained it to me that it might happen that the owner of an article might say to a specialist, "Sell this article for me" (hence the article might be given to him, not by an error but intentionally by the specialist, who has a right to sell it), which cannot be the case in the house of a mourner or of a wedding. Said R. Hyya b. R. Na'hman: Then it may be used only when the specialist himself has exchanged it; but if this was presented to him by his wife or children, he must not use it.

And even when it was presented by the specialist himself, the law holds good if he said to him: "Here is this article"; but if he said to him: "Here is your article," then he must not use it, as we see that the specialist has erred in giving it to him. Said Abayi to Rabha: Come and I will tell you what the swindlers of Pumbeditha are doing. If one claims: "Give me up my mantle which I have given to you for repairing," the other answers that this never occurred. And if he claims: "I have witnesses who saw it at your place," he claims it was another's. "But bring it forth and let us see it." He answers: "No, indeed! I have no right to show you the goods of others." Answered Rabha: Although he is a swindler, nevertheless he does it in accordance with the law, as the Boraitha states plainly, when he sees it with his eyes. Said R. Ashi: If the claimant is a clever man, he can make the specialist show him the article in question, saying: I understand that you keep it because you are afraid I shall deny the debt which I owe you. I admit to you in the presence of witnesses that I owe you, and will pay you when you shall bring forth this garment and it shall be appraised. Then you will take yours, and I shall take mine. Said R. Aha b. R. Ivya to R. Ashi: The swindler may answer: I do not need your appraisement, as it was appraised long ago by more competent men than you are. "Gardeners," etc. Why so? Until now he took only the half, and now we see he has consumed the whole of it for three years, why has he no hazakah? Said R. Johanan: It speaks of family gardeners (i.e., the same gardeners used to guard and work up the fields as gardens of that family since it was in its possession, and as this was a kind of inheritance, the owners could not discharge them by substituting others, and with such gardeners it might happen that they consumed the fruit for three years in succession and thereafter the owners consumed the fruit for the same period, and therefore no hazakah applies to them. But to ordinary gardeners, if they consume the fruit for three years, hazakah does apply. R. Na'hman said: A gardener who has hired other gardeners to substitute him for the years of hazakah (even if he was of the kind mentioned by R. Johanan), hazakah may be considered, because in such a case the owners would protest. R. Johanan said again: To a gardener of the above sort, who has divided the work which is needed for the gardens, to hired gardeners, hazakah does not apply, as it may be supposed that he does so with the permission of the owner (as he himself could not do the whole work).

R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda sent a message to R. Na'hman b. Jacob: Let the master teach us. May a gardener be taken as a witness in case of a claim, or not? R. Joseph was sitting before the latter when the message came, and said to him: "So said Samuel: A gardener may be a witness." But is there not a Boraitha which states that they must not? This presents no difficulty. If there are products still on the estate, the gardener may not qualify as a witness; but if there were none, then he may.

The rabbis taught: A surety maybe a witness for the borrower in case the latter has other property besides that to which the claim refers. And the same is the case with a lender. The first buyer may be a witness to the second (e.g., if A sold one field to B and another to C, and D claims that the field sold to C belongs to him as A has robbed him of it, B may be a witness in that case in behalf of C in case A has other property), so that if there should be another claim he should be able to pay from the remainder.

A receiver (i.e., one who receives the money from the lender and forwards it to the borrower, as to which the law dictates that the lender has a right to collect from whomsoever he chooses—either from the receiver or from the borrower)—according to some he may, and according to others he may not be a witness. He who permits this maintains that the receiver is considered an ordinary surety whom the law permits to be a witness, and he who forbids it maintains that the receiver is always pleased when the borrower has more estates, so that in case a creditor should appear he will be able to pay him from his middle estate.
R. Johanan said again: A specialist has no hazakah, but his son has; and the same is the case with a gardener. A robber, however, neither he nor his son has hazakah, but his grandson has. Let us see how was the case? If all mentioned above claimed that the estate was their fathers', then they also should not have any hazakah; and if they claim for themselves, it means that they themselves bought it. Why should this law not apply to the son of the robber also? He speaks of a case where there are witnesses who testify that the owners have admitted to their fathers in their presence that they sold it; and then the sons of a gardener or a specialist are to be trusted if they claim to have inherited from their fathers; but the son of a robber is not to be trusted even in such a case. As R. Kahana said: It may be feared that the owner has admitted to the robber only for fear lest he make him more trouble. Said Rabha: It may happen that even the grandson of a robber shall not have any hazakah. It is when the basis of his claim is his grandfather. Who is to be considered a robber, so that the law of hazakah should not apply? Said R. Johanan: When he has occupied a field which does not belong to him (and as he was an influential man, the owner was afraid to sue him). R. Hisda, however, maintains that it means only people like a certain family of N, who used to kill men when they opposed them in money matters.

The rabbis taught: A specialist has no hazakah so long as he keeps up his profession, but otherwise when he has ceased. And the same is the case with a gardener when he has given up his gardening. The same is the case with a son who has separated himself from his father, and with a woman who was divorced from her husband—all of them are considered, in a case of hazakah, with men in general. It is correct to teach about a son who has separated himself, lest one say that usually a father relinquishes his right to a son; but was it also necessary to teach about a divorced woman? Is not this self-evident? It means that the divorce was made by such a document as is doubtful in legality, and in such a case she is considered divorced and not divorced; and it is in accordance with R. Zera, who said in the name of Jeremiah b. Abba, quoting Samuel, that in a case where the sages say, "She is divorced and not divorced," her husband is obliged to support her.

R. Na'hman said: Huna told me that all the persons mentioned above who have not the right of hazakah, if they bring evidence, it is to be considered, and the court may leave the property in their possession; except a robber, for even if he brought evidence, it must not be considered, and the court replevins the estate. But what news comes he to teach us? Have we not learned this already elsewhere, that if one has bought estates from a sicarius (a man who took away the estate by threatening murder if it was not given to him), and afterwards he got a bill of sale from the owner (without giving him any money), the bill of sale is not considered and he has no title (hence it is already taught that a robber and all those who base their claims upon his actions, even if they bring evidence, are not to be considered)? This teaching was necessary to deny Rabh's theory, who said that the cited Mishna speaks only of a case in which the owner told the buyer: "Go make a hazakah on the estate and acquire title," but has not furnished him with any deed.

But if he gave him a deed, title is acquired. R. Huna comes to teach us that the Halakha prevails in accordance with Samuel, who said that in such a case, even if he gave him a deed, title is not acquired unless he take the responsibility for the future. And R. Bibi has added to the above statement of Huna in the name of R. Na'hman, that the estate does not remain in his possession, but the claim for his money, in case he paid afterwards to the robbed one, is to be considered, provided witnesses testify that he gave him the money in their presence. But if they testify that in their presence the robbed one has admitted to the robber that he was paid for it, it is not to be considered. As R. Kahana said elsewhere: Such an admission may have been made only because of fear that he would be killed. R. Huna said: If one sold his estate by duress, the sale is valid. Why so? For if one sells every estate which belongs to him, he usually does so because he is compelled to do so by circumstances, and nevertheless the sale is valid.

But perhaps there is a difference between the pressure of his private circumstances and duress, which is a pressure by others? This is to be explained as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. i. 3]: "Shall he bring it," which means that he may be compelled to bring it—that it may be Lirzuno (literally, according to his will). And what does this mean—that he shall be compelled until he shall say: "I am willing to do so." But still it may be that there is a difference, because one likes to atone (and consequently he does it, finally, with good will). Therefore we may infer the same from the latter part of the cited Mishna: And the same is the case with divorced women—he may be compelled until he says: "I am willing to do so." But still it may be that this is to be done because it is a meritorious act to listen to the law (which is not the case with R. Huna's theory). Therefore we must say that R. Huna's decision was from a commonsense standpoint, that when a man is in such circumstances he resolves to give title to the buyer. R. Jehudah objected from the following: A divorce which was compelled by the court of Israelites is valid. By Gentiles, it is not, unless they beat him, saying: "Do as the Israelite court dictates to you." Now, if you say because of the circumstances he resolves to give title, why should the divorce be invalid, even at a court of Gentiles? It may also be supposed that because of circumstances it was resolved to give the divorce legally. The answer is: Was it not taught in addition to this that R. Mesharshiah said: Biblically the divorce is valid, even when it was obtained in a court of Gentiles. And why did the rabbis enact that such should be invalid—that every woman who did not like her husband should not go to the Gentile court to be divorced from her husband? R. Hamnuna objected from the above-cited Mishna: If he bought of a sicarius, etc. Why, then, should it not be said in that case also, that because of the circumstances he resolved to give title? Of this, also, it was taught that Rabh said that this holds good only when there was no deed (as said above). But still there would be an objection to Samuel, who said above that even with a deed the same is invalid?

Samuel himself. agrees that such a sale is valid in case the buyer has paid the owner in cash. But would not R. Bibi's above statement in the name of R. Na'hman contradict R. Huna? Bibi's statement is not a Boraitha and not a Mishna, but only a saying, to which R. Huna need not pay any attention. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails that if one sells his goods under duress the sale is valid, provided he was compelled to sell one of his estates, and he himself has made the selection. But if he was compelled to sell this field, the sale is not valid, provided he did not count the money given him for it (as this shows that he does it unwillingly); but if he has counted the money the sale is valid. And all this is said in case he has no opportunity to extricate himself; but if he had, and did not take advantage of it, the sales are valid. (Says the Gemara:) In reality, the Halakha prevails that in all these cases the sale is valid, even if he was compelled to sell this field, as a woman is similar to this field; and Amemar said that if a woman is compelled to betroth herself under duress the betrothal is valid. Mar b. R. Ashi, however, said that in case of a woman the betrothal is null and void. Because he has acted unlawfully, he must also be treated unlawfully, and the rabbis deny his betrothal and consider it void.
Tabba hung Pappi on a tree called khidra, to compel him to sell him his field, and he did so. And Rabha b. b. Hana signed his name on both—on the protest of Pappi made before being compelled, and on the bill of sale made under duress. Said R. Huna: He who has signed his name to the protest, and also he who has signed his name on the bill of sale, did well. How is this to be understood? If there was a protest, the bill of sale cannot hold good, and vice versa? He meant to say that if there were no protest, he who signed his name on the bill of sale did well, for according to his theory a sale under duress is valid. But why should the protest annul the bill of sale, when the same witnesses who signed the protest signed the bill of sale also? Did not R. Na'hman say: Witnesses who testify that they signed their names to a note whose amount was not yet paid, hut which was prepared by the borrower in case he should find some one who would make him the loan, are not to be trusted? And the same is the case if some one has sold a bill of sale, and the witnesses whose signatures were on the same testified that the one who made the bill of sale made also a protest previously "before us, that he was compelled to make this bill of sale, and we have acknowledged the truth of his protest."

Why, then, said R. Huna that if not for the protest the sale would be valid? Let him say it is valid, notwithstanding this protest, in accordance with R. Na'hman's decision just stated? R. Na'hman's statement was when the protest was oral, as such cannot harm a written document. In our case, however, the protest was a written one, and therefore it annuls the bill of sale.

Mar b. R. Ashi, however, maintains that if witnesses testify, "We signed our names before the money was given" (as explained above), they are not to be trusted; but if they testify that this bill of sale was previously "protested before us and acknowledged by us," they may be trusted. Why so? Because in the first case, after the witnesses signed their names to the fact that so and so had borrowed money from so and so, they could not sign another document that the borrower had not received the money as yet, as it would contradict their first statement, and it would seem that they had made themselves liars; and, therefore, if they testify so, they are not to be trusted, as there is a rule that one cannot make himself wicked; i.e., if one comes before the court, and says, "I am a liar," or "wicked," for the purpose that another shall have benefit from this confession, he is not to be trusted. But in the other case, however, both documents may be written by the very same men; i.e., if they see a man in trouble, they may listen to his protest, write it down, and sign it, and thereafter also sign the bill of sale to which he was compelled. And therefore, even if the protest was not written by them, they may be trusted if they testify that they have heard the protest and acknowledged to the truth of it. "No hazakah to a husband," etc. Is this not self-evident? As he has a right to use the fruit of her estate,. how can it be considered a hazakah? It speaks of even when he gave her a document that he has no interest in her estate. But even then, what is it? Have we not learned in a Boraitha above (p. 109), that if one says: "I have nothing to do with this field," "I have no claim to it," and, "I keep my hands off it," he says nothing? Said the disciples of R. Yanai: Our Mishna treats of when he gave her such a document when she was still betrothed. And this is in accordance with R. Kahana, who says of an estate which one expected to take possession of in the future, he has a right to make a stipulation that he should not inherit it. And it is also in accordance with Rabha, who said: If one declares: "I do not care to have the privilege of the enactment by the sages in a thing similar to the above," he may be listened to. What does this mean? That which R. Huna said in the name of Rabh: A woman has a right to say to her husband "I do not wish to be supported by you and also would not wish to do any work for you."

Now the Mishna states that the consuming of fruit does not make a hazakah; but if he brings evidence that she sold her estate to him, it would be a hazakah. Why? Let her claim that she had done so only to please her husband. Have we not learned in a Mishna: If one bought an estate from another whose properties were encumbered by the marriage contract of his wife, and afterwards he also took a deed from his wife, the sale is invalid? Is it not because she may say: I did so only with the intention of pleasing my husband, but not with the intention of selling it?

Was it not taught in addition to this Mishna that Rabha b. R. Huna explained it that the Mishna treats of certain three fields—namely, one, of one he had set apart in the marriage contract before marriage; and another, of one of which he had made a hypothec in the marriage contract after marriage; and the third, of one which she brought him as a gift from her father, which was appraised at a certain amount of money, for which the husband became responsible in the marriage contract? What does he mean to exclude? Shall we assume to exclude all other estates which were also encumbered to her? Then, certainly, it would create so much the more animosity between her husband and herself, because he would say: You did not want to sign this because you are expecting my death or to be divorced. Hence the claim that "I have done so to please my husband" would be right.

And shall we say that he means to exclude the usage of fruit? Did not Amemar say that if the husband and his wife have sold the usage of fruit from her estate, it is not to be considered (because of the same claim, "I have done it only to please my husband")? He means to exclude the use of fruit; and Amemar's statement was only in case he had sold out and died, that she might, after his death, make use of that claim, or in case of her death, he had a right to make use of such a claim, according to the enactment of the rabbis. And it is as R. Jose b. Hanina said (First Gate, p. 197). But when they are both alive and have sold out, and even when the husband only has sold out, the sale is valid.

And if you wish, it can be said that Amemar's statement is based upon R. Eliezer's elsewhere, that an article which does not bear the name of its owner—as, for instance, the fruit of the wife's estate, which cannot be said to belong to her or to belong to him—cannot be sold by either of them. And Rabha said that R. Eliezer based his statement on [Ex. xxi. 21], "for he is his money," which means the money which belongs to him alone. "On his wife's estate." But did not Rabh say that a married woman must protest (in case one has occupied her estate). Who is the one who has occupied her estate? Shall we assume any one? Did not Rabh say: "There is no occupancy in the estates of a married woman"? We must therefore say, he means even when her husband has occupied her estate?

Said Rabha: He means the husband, and in case he has dug in her estate excavations, pits, and caves, then she must protest, as he has the right to her estate only for usage of fruit; and if she did not, he has a hazakah, as, if he had not bought it, he would not dare to dig in it. But did not R. Na'hman say in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu that there is no hazakah concerning damages (hence if the husband has damaged her estate, she. has not had to protest).

Was it not taught in addition to this (above, p. 69), R. Mari said: Concerning smoke, etc.? R. Joseph, however, said: Rabh means a stranger, and he speaks in case he has occupied it at a certain time while her husband was still alive and three years after his death; and because the occupant could claim, "I bought it from you" (as three years have already elapsed since her husband's decease), he is to be trusted if he claims, "You sold out your estate to your husband, and I bought it from him." The text states: Rabh says: There is no occupancy in the estate of a married woman. The judges of the Exile, however, maintain that there is. And Rabh himself, when he was told of this, said: The Halakah prevails in accordance with the judges of the Exile.

(Samuel and Karna were called the judges of the Exile.) And to the question of R. Kahana and R. Assi: Has the master receded from his statement? he answered: I meant to say, as it was illustrated above by R. Joseph. 1 "And vice versa." Is this not self-evident? Has she not to be supported from the estate of her husband? It treats in case he has set aside another estate for her support. But how is it if she brings evidence that she has paid him for it? Has she the right? Let him claim: I intended only to discover the money which she had hidden from me, and therefore I told her I would sell it, never intending, however, actually to transfer it to her. And because it was not stated, let it be inferred from this that if a husband sold his estate to his wife, the above claim should not be taken into consideration? Nay; it may be said that the Mishna means evidence in the form of a transfer as a gift.

R. Na'hman said to R. Huna: "The master was not with us yesterday, in our college, and there were taught many good things." "And what were they?" "That when a husband sells his estate to his wife, she acquires title, and the claim, 'I did it only to discover her money,' etc., is not to be considered." And Huna answered: This is self-evident, as if you take away the fact that she has given him money, the bill of sale gives her title. For have we not learned in a Mishna that real estate may bought with money or a document, or with hazakah? Rejoined R. Na'hman: But was it not taught, in addition to it, that Samuel said that it speaks only of a bill of a gift, but a bill of sale gives no title unless he paid the money for it? Said Huna: But was this not objected to by R. Hamnuna, from the following: With a document—how so? If he wrote on a piece of paper [or on a piece of broken clay, although it has no value whatever], "My field is sold to you," or, "My field is bought from you," it is sold and transferred to the buyer? And R. Na'hman answered to this: Did not R. Hamnuna himself answer his objection that it speaks of one who sells his estate because of its barrenness? R. Ashi, however, answered (the objection of Hamnuna): The cited Boraitha speaks of a gift which was written in the manner of a bill of sale, to strengthen its power (i.e., the seller has to make good all claims to it). An objection was raised from the following: If one borrowed from his bondsman, and encumbered his estate for him by a document, and afterwards he freed him, or from his wife and thereafter he divorced her, they have nothing to claim. Must we not assume that the reason is because we suppose that he only intended to discover the money which was hidden from him? That case is different, as one would not like to make himself a slave to the lender ([Prov. xxii. 7]: "The borrower is servant to the lender").

R. Huna b. Abbin sent a message to the college relating that if one sold out his field to his wife, she acquires title, but he has still a right to use the products. However, R. Abba b. Abuhu, and all the great men of the generation, said that such a bill of sale is to be considered a deed of gift, but it was written in the manner of a bill of sale for the purpose of strengthening its power. This message was objected to by the college, from the Boraitha just cited, and was answered with the same reply.

Rabh said: If one sold his field to his wife, she acquires title, and the husband uses the products. If, however, he has presented it to her as a gift, she acquires title, and he must not use the fruit. R. Elazar, however, maintains that in both cases title is acquired, and the husband has no right to use the fruit. R. Hisda acted in accordance with R. Elazar. Said Rabban Uqba and Rabban Nehemiah, sons of Rabh's daughter, to R. Hisda: "Does the master put aside the great men and act like the small ones?" (R. Elazar was only a disciple of R. Johanan.) And he answered: I have also acted according to the theory of the great men, as when Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan that in both cases she acquires title, and the husband has no right to use the products. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails that if one sells his field to his wife she does not acquire title, and the husband may use the fruit; and if a gift, she acquires title, and he may not use the products. Does not Rabha contradict himself? (He says she does not acquire title, and it is self-evident that he may use the fruit; and when he says he may use the fruit, it means although she has acquired title.) This presents no difficulty. If she bought with the money which was hidden from her husband, she does not acquire title at all; but if with money which was not hidden from him, she acquires title; but he may, nevertheless, use the fruit. So was it said in the name of R. Jehudah.

The rabbis taught: One must not accept bailments from women, from slaves, or from children: If, however, one has accepted from a woman, he must return it to her; and in case she dies, he must return it to her husband. From a slave, he must return to him; and in case he dies, then to his master. If from a minor, he should invest it in such a thing as will bear good fruit until he shall be of age, and in case of death return it to his heirs. All of them, however, if they said, while dying, "This belongs to so and so," he must act accordingly (even when the depositor was a minor); and if they have declared nothing, he may do in accordance with his conscience—(i.e., he shall return it to him whom he thinks to be the proper heir. The wife of Rabba b. b. Hana while dying said: These earrings belong to Martha, and to the sons of his daughter. And Rabba came to question Rabh what he she should do. And he answered: If these people whom she mentioned are worthy, so that they can afford to keep bailments with her, then do as she declared; and if not, then you may explain her declaration as you please. "From a minor, he should invest," etc. R. Hisda maintains in Holy Scrolls; and Rabha b. Huna said: A tree which bears dates. "A father on the estate of his son," etc. Said R. Joseph: Even if they have separated themselves. Rabha, however, maintains that in case of separation the law is different. Said R. Jeremiah of Diphti: R. Pappi has acted in accordance with Rabha's statement. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: I was told by R. Hyya of Hurmiz Ardshir that he was told by R. Aha b. Jacob, quoting R. Na'hman b. Jacob, that when they have separated themselves each of them has a right of hazakah. And so the Halakha prevails.

It was taught: If one of brothers who was the business man of the house, and the bills of sale and notes were in his name, claims: "All this is my own, inherited from my mother's father," according to Rabh, the burden of proof lies upon him; and according to Samuel, it lies upon his brothers. Said Samuel: Abba admits that in case he dies the burden of proof is thrown upon his brothers. R. Papa opposed: Should we make for orphans such a claim as their father while alive had not any right to (i.e., when this brother was alive, it was for him to bring evidence, and if he could not, the goods belong to all the brothers, and because he is dead, shall we say that the brothers have to bring evidence, and if they cannot it belongs to his orphans)? Did not Rabha levy upon a pair of shoes and a book of Hagadah from orphans without any evidence that they were things which are usually hired and borrowed? And he did so in accordance with the message of R. Huna b. Abbin, that of things which are usually borrowed and hired one is not trusted to say, "They were bought by me." This difficulty remains.

Said R. Hisda: The decision of Rabh concerning the brother who manages the business of the house, holds good only when all the brothers are not separated in the household—even in the dough of bread which they take for the house. But if they are, he may claim that he has spared from his householding the amount which he has in his hand, and the brothers have nothing to do with it. The evidence mentioned in Rabh's decision—what should it be? According to Rabba, the evidence should be with witnesses that he has saved the money or it came from other sources; and according to R. Shesheth, it is sufficient when the court has approved the bill of sale or other notes which bear his name (as it is to be supposed that the court would not approve if it were not sure it belonged to him only).

Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: There are Rabh and Samuel, with Rabba and R. Shesheth, who discuss this matter, and I would like to know the opinion of you, master—with whom you agree. And he answered: I am aware of the following Boraitha: One of brothers who was the business man of the house, and there were bills of sale and other notes bearing his name only, and he claims: "They are my own, inherited from my mother's father," the burden of evidence rests with him. And the same is the case with a woman who was managing the business in a house and there were documents bearing her name only, and she claims that they are her own property which came from her grandfather on the father's or mother's side—it is upon her to bring evidence.

(Says the Gemara:) It was necessary for the Boraitha to declare the same law in the case of a woman, lest one say that because it is an honor for a woman to be trusted with the management of a house, she would surely take care not to rob the orphans, and therefore she ought to be trusted without evidence, it comes to teach that it is not so. "Concerning a gift or an inheritance of brothers," etc. How is this to be understood? Does not the law of hazakah apply to the persons mentioned farther on in the Mishna?

The Mishna is not complete, and should read thus: All this is said of a hazakah to which there is a claim; as, for instance, the seller says, "I did not sell," and the buyer says, "I have bought." But a hazakah to which there is no claim, as, for instance, who presents a gift or an inheritance of brothers, or who takes possession of the property of a proselyte, to which the law prescribes that he needs to acquire title by doing something-if he has locked it or made any partition, etc.—it is a hazakah. R. Houshia taught: In a Tosephtha of Tract Kidushin, written by the school of Levi, "If he locked it," etc., in the face of the other party—it is a hazakah. Is this to be understood, only to his face, but not in his absence?

Said Rabha: He meant to say: If this was in the face of the other party, it is not necessary for the latter to tell him: "Go make a hazakah, and acquire title." But if not to his face, it is not considered a hazakah unless he distinctly said to him the words just mentioned. Questioned Rabh: How is the law concerning a gift, according to the Boraitha just mentioned (must the giver also tell the receiver, "Go and make a hazakah," or not)? Said Samuel: Why was Abba doubtful? When, concerning a sale for which the seller gets money, it is not a hazakah unless he tells him, "Go and make a hazakah," so much the less it must be so with a gift, for which he has received nothing. Rabh, however, maintains that he who makes a gift usually makes it with a good eye, and no explanation is needed.

The Mishna states: "Any work whatever." What does this mean? As Samuel said: If he has completed the partition which was there already to the size of ten spans, or he has broken a hole in the partition through which he can go in or out, it is considered a hazakah. Let us see how was the partition! If it was placed in such a position that one could not climb over it to the estate, and after its completion by the occupant it is also the same, what, then, has he done that shall be considered a hazakah? And if in its previous condition one could climb over it, and after its completion one cannot, then he has done much that does not correspond with the expression "whatever"? It means that in the previous condition one could easily climb over it, and after it was completed it is not so easy for one to do so; and the same is the case with a hole in a partition, by which, in the previous condition, it was not easy to enter, and one broke it to such an extent that it is easy to enter. R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan said: If the occupant of the property of a proselyte put a little piece of wood too near the hole which was in the partition and with this he has improved it, or he took out a piece of wood and with this he has improved it, it is considered a hazakah. What does he mean by the expression, "he put . . . or he took out"? Shall we assume that with this piece of wood he closed the hole so that it prevents the water from going in, or he took out a piece of wood, and with this he has made place for the water gathered in to come out? Why should it be considered a hazakah? Is it not the duty of every Israelite to save the property of his neighbor from damage when seeing danger is near? Therefore it must be supposed that he means he has put in a piece of wood with the purpose that the water which is useful to the estate shall remain, or he took out a piece of wood so that he opened a channel permitting water to reach the estate. The same said again in the name of the same authority: If there were two estates left by a proselyte and there was a boundary between them, and one has made a hazakah in one of them with the purpose of acquiring title to it, it is acquired. If for the purpose of acquiring title to both, title is acquired only to that on which he has made a hazakah, but not to that which was on the other side of the boundary; and if for the purpose of acquiring title to the latter, even to that in which he has made a hazakah, title is not acquired.

R. Zera questioned: If one has made a hazakah for the purpose of acquiring title to it, to the boundary, and to the estate which is beyond it, how is the law? Shall we assume that, because all are connected title is acquired, or because the boundary intervenes between them it is considered as if they were separated and title is not acquired? This question remains undecided. R. Elazar questioned: How is it if this man has made a hazakah on the boundary itself with the purpose of acquiring title to both? Should the boundary be considered a breadth of the earth which joins the two fields, and therefore title is acquired, or the fields are nevertheless considered separated and title is not acquired?

This question also remains undecided.

R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: If there were two houses, one inside of the other, and one has made a hazakah on the outer one for the purpose of acquiring title to it, title is acquired. If for the purpose of acquiring title on the inner one also, the outer one is acquired, but not the inner. For the purpose of acquiring the inner one only, even the outer one is not acquired. The same is said again in the name of the same authority: If one has built a palace on the property belonging to the proselyte in question, and another comes and puts doors to the palace, the latter has acquired title to the whole of it. Why so? Because the work of the first is considered as if he had only turned bricks without using them, as the doors to it are the main thing.
R. Dimi b. Joseph in the name of R. Elazar said: If on the estate of the proselyte in question there was a palace and one has coated one of the walls with lime, or painted one of the pictures therein, title is acquired. How much of the wall must he coat or how large must he paint the picture? Said R. Joseph: One ell. And R. Hisda added that this ell must be opposite the door (but at another place he must coat or paint more than this).

R. Amram said: The following was told to us by R. Shesheth, who to enlighten our eyes explained a Boraitha. He said: If one has prepared his bed in the estate of the proselyte in question and slept there, he acquires title to the whole estate. And he enlightened our eyes to the Boraitha as follows: How can one acquire title to a bondsman with hazakah? If the slave has put on the shoes of the master or taken off his shoes, or has carried his garments after him to the bath-house and undressed him and washed him, anointed, rubbed, dressed him, put on his shoes, or even lifted him up, title is acquired.

Said R. Simeon: There cannot be a better hazakah than lifting up, as this act gives title to one in everything. How is this to be understood? The Boraitha says that if the slave has lifted up his master it gives title to the master; but if vice versa, it does not. And to this answered R. Simeon: There is no better hazakah than lifting up, which means that this gives title even if the slave was lifted up by the master. R. Jeremiah of Bira in the name of R. Jehudah said: If the estate of the proselyte in question was already ploughed and one put radishes in the furrows, it is not considered a hazakah, because at the time he put the radishes in, without covering, there was no improvement at all; and even if in a few days afterwards these begin to grow, it is not considered as if done by him, but from itself.

Samuel said: If one peels off the bark of a tree, if he has done it for the improvement of the tree, title is acquired; and if for food for his cattle, it is not. [And how can we know this? If he peels off the tree from both sides, it is supposed that he does it for the improvement of the tree; but if from one side, it is for his cattle.] He said again: If one cleans off the estate in question, if he has done this for the improvement of the earth, title is given; but if he has done so with the idea of using it for fuel, it does not. [And how shall this be proved? If he takes off all there is, it is supposed that he does it for the improvement; but if he chooses the larger pieces and leaves the smaller ones, it is to be assumed that he does it for the purpose of using it for fuel.]
And the same said again: If one engaged himself to level ground for the sake of the earth itself, it gives him title; and if with the intention of placing a temporary barn there, it does not. [And how shall this be proved? If, for instance, he takes off the superfluous earth from the hills and puts it in the hollows (and so he has done with all of them), it is to be supposed that he does it for the improvement of the ground; but if he only made the hills lower, and only at the edges of the hollows he filled these in, then it is to be supposed that he does so with the intention of putting up a temporary barn.] He also said: If he opens a stream of water to this ground, if he does so for the improvement of the earth, title is given to him; but if with the idea of catching fish, it does not. [And how shall this be proved? If he opens both sides of the estate, one for the purpose of letting the water enter and the other side for letting it out, it is supposed that he does so with the intention of catching fish; and if he open only one side, so that the water may enter, it is assumed that he does so for the improvement of the earth.] There was a woman who peeled off on one side trees of the estate of the proselyte in question for thirteen years. Another man came who dug a little under the tree; and the case came before Levi, according to, others before Mar Uqba, and he left it in the possession of the latter. And this woman came and protested, and he said to her: What can I do for you, in that you have not made the hazakah as it ought to be?
There was a woman who had made a partition to that which was already there in the estate of a proselyte. Another man, however, came and digged in the estate; and when the case came before R. Na'hman, he left the estate with the latter. And this woman came and caused a disturbance, and R. Na'hman answered: What can I do for you, as you have not made a hazakah as people ought to do? 1 Rabh said: If one paints in the estate in question a likeness of an animal or a bird, title is acquired. So Rabh himself made such a hazakah at a garden which was near his college, left by a proselyte who died without children.

It was taught: A field which was marked out by boundaries on four sides, said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: As soon as one has dug one spadeful of earth he acquires title to the whole field. Samuel, however, maintains that he acquires only the place he has dug. And what is the law concerning a field not marked off by boundaries? Said R. Papa: If he digs in it as much as a team of oxen in one furrow and the return.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: The estate of idolaters, if sold to an Israelite and the latter has not made a hazakah on it, it is like a desert; and the first who makes a hazakah on it acquires title. Why so? Because the idolater, as soon as he gets the money, cuts himself off from it; and as the Israelite has not as yet acquired title to it until he gets the bill of sale, it is therefore like a desert, and every one may try to take possession of it (returning the money to the buyer). (The commentator Rashbam, however, maintains that from the expression, "It is like a desert," it is to be understood that the occupant has to pay nothing, and the buyer has to sue the seller if he can do so.) Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Is it possible that Samuel should say so? Did he not declare elsewhere that the law of the government must be respected as the law of the Torah, and the government dictates that title is acquired only by a deed, and not otherwise? Hence the other one who has made a hazakah is also without the deed needed. And he answered: I know it only from experience. As it happened in the village Dura of the shepherds, an Israelite bought an estate of idolaters, and the Israelite came and dug a little on this estate, and when the case came before R. Jehudah, he left it in the hand of the latter. And Abayi rejoined: Do you want to compare any other cases to the case of the village Dura? There was a pagus with estates hidden from the government, and the possessors of those estates did not pay taxes for it. And the government dictates that he who pays the taxes owns the land.

R. Huna bought an estate from an idolater and another Israelite digged in it; and the case came before R. Na'hman, and he left it in the hands of the latter. Said Huna to him: The basis of your decision is what Samuel said, that the estates which are sold by an idolater are like a desert, and who takes possession thereof acquires title. Why should the master not decide in accordance with the other saying of Samuel, that the digger acquires title only at the place where he dug? And he answered: In this respect I hold in accordance with Rabh, in whose name R. Huna said: As soon as one has digged one spadeful he acquires title to the whole of it.

R. Huna b. Abbin sent a message: If an Israelite buys a field from a Gentile, and another Israelite comes and takes possession of it (before the bill of sale reaches the buyer), the court has no right to take it away from the latter. And to this, R. Abbin, R. Elaa, and all our masters at that time agree.

Rabba said: I was told by the Exilarch Uqban b. Nehemiah, in the name of Samuel, the following three things: (a) That the law of the government should be respected as the law of the Torah. (b) The hazakah of the Persians is no less than forty years. (c) And the rich farmers who buy land from the officers of the government for the taxes which were not paid by the previous owners, the sales are valid. But this is only when the owners owe to the government taxes. But if the land was taken for poll taxes, the sale is not valid. Why so? Because the poll taxes rest upon their heads, not upon their land. R. Huna b. Jehoshua, however, maintains that even the barley in the pitcher is mortgaged to the poll taxes (i.e., when the land was taken away for poll taxes, they have a right to sell it). Said R. Ashi: Huna b. Nathan told me that Amemar objected to the decision of R. Huna, saying: According to this theory, the rule prescribed by the Scripture, that a first-born shall take two parts in the inheritance, should be abolished, as if the whole estate is encumbered to the government for poll taxes, the bequeathed estate will be fit only in the future for inheritance, but not as yet. And there is a rule that the first-born has a right to take a share only in that which is already fit. And he answered: Why this objection to poll taxes? The same can be raised concerning land taxes also. But to this it can be answered that he speaks of when one dies after he paid the land taxes, and the same can be said with poll.

R. Ashi said: Huna b. Nathan told me: I asked the scribe of Rabha, and he told me that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua. (Says the Gemara:) In reality it is not so, as the scribe of Rabha says this only to approve his acts. R. Ashi said again that an απραχτοσ (a man who goes idle) must bear the taxes of the city. But this is said only when he was freed by some of his friends in that city who told the chief that he owned nothing from which to pay and he let him go; but if the chief himself or the officers who were appointed by the government do not like to collect from him because he is idle (although they collect his share from the other townsmen), it is to be considered as a divine help to him and he must not be troubled again. R. Ashi said in the name of R. Johanan: A boundary or a tree which is found between two estates of a proselyte is considered an intervention concerning hazakah, but not concerning corner tithe and concerning defilement. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: It is considered an intervention concerning the two last-mentioned as well.

But how is the law if there was no boundary and no tree, and nevertheless they were separated? R. Mrinus in the name of R. Johanan explained that he acquires title to the whole field which is called after his name. What does this mean? Said R. Papa: If people call it the field which the proselyte used to water from his valley. R. Aha b. Ivya was sitting before R. Assi, and said in the name of R. Assi b. Hanina that a hazuba makes an intervention in the estate of a proselyte. What is a hazuba? Said R. Jehudah. in the name of Rabh: This was a mark by which Joshua marked the land which he divided among the tribes of Israel. He says again in the name of the same authority: Joshua did not count but the cities which were placed on the boundaries (i.e., the cities which are enumerated in the Book of Joshua). He said again in the name of Samuel: All that the Holy One, blessed be He, had shown to Moses from the land of Israel was subject to tithes. (It means that from the products growing in those places tithes must be separated biblically.) What does it mean to exclude? The land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites [Gen. xv. 19].

MISHNA IV.: If there are two witnesses that the occupant has consumed the products of a field three years, and after investigation it is found that they were collusive, the witnesses have to pay the whole value of the products from the last three years to the plaintiff. If, however, two have testified for the first year and two others for the second year, and still two others for the third year (and all of them had witnessed falsely), the payment mentioned above must be divided among them, of which each of the parties has to pay a third.

If there were three brothers witnessing, and one stranger testified the same as they had, they may be considered as three parties of witnesses—i.e., one of the brothers said: I am aware that the defendant has occupied this property the first year; the second: I am aware that he has occupied it the second year; and the third testified for the third year. If the stranger, how. ever, says: I testify that the defendant has occupied it all the three years, his testimony is counted to each of them, so that for each year there are two witnesses. If, however, the testimony was found to be collusive, they ought to be considered as one party of witnesses, and the brothers have to pay the whole claim.

GEMARA: Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Aqiba of the following Boraitha: R. Jose said: When Abbah 'Halaftha went to study the Torah from R. Johanan b. Muri, according to others the reverse was the case, he questioned him: How is it if one has occupied a property the first year in the presence of two witnesses, and the second in the presence of two others, and the third in the presence of still two others, should this be considered a hazakah, or not? And he answered: It is. Rejoined the former: I am of the same opinion; but R. Aqiba opposes, as he used to say: It is written [Deut. xix. 15]: "A case be established." A case, but not half a case (i.e., as each party testifies only for one year, they are testifying to only half a case; but not the whole case).

R. Jehudah said: If one of the witnesses testifies that the occupant has occupied the estate all the three years with wheat, and the other testifies with barley, it constitutes a hazakah. R. Na'hman opposed: According to this theory, if one testifies that he has occupied it the first, third, and fifth years, and the other for the second, fourth, and sixth, should this also be considered a hazakah? Answered R. Jehudah: What comparison is this? In your case one testifies for this year, and the other for other years; but in my case both are testifying for the very name year. The difference is only concerning barley and wheat, about which people are not used to be too particular. "If there were three brothers," etc. There was a promissory note signed by two witnesses, of whom one died, and his brother with a stranger comes before the court to testify that the signature of the deceased is a right one. Rabhina was about to say that this case was familiar to our Mishna, which states that three brothers and one stranger are counted legal witnesses. Said R. Ashi to him: There is no similarity at all. In the case of the Mishna half the amount of the claim is collected, because of the testimony of the brothers, and the other half because of the testimony of the stranger. In this case, however, the brothers' testimony collects three-quarters of the whole amount (i.e., the signature of the deceased witness gives the right to collect half the amount. Now when this brother came to testify concerning the signature, his testimony is for a quarter of the whole amount, and the testimony of the stranger who was with him for the other quarter. Hence three-quarters of the whole amount are to be collected by the testimony of the brothers, which is not legal.

MISHNA V.: There is a difference in usage of articles: In some cases the law of hazakah applies, and in some it does not. E.g., if one used to keep his cattle in the yard of his neighbor, or a stove, oven, or handmill, or raised there hens, or he kept there his manure, it is not considered a hazakah. However, if he has made a partition ten spans high for his cattle, or for the other articles mentioned above, or he has kept his hens in his neighbor's house, or has dug three spans in the ground of his neighbor for his manure, or he has made a heap of it three spans high on the same ground, it is a hazakah.

GEMARA: Why should the law differ in the latter part from the first part (is it not a fact that the owner of the yard would protest when a stranger kept his cattle therein without any right)? Said Ula: It is because of the following rule: Usage which does not give title to the property of a deceased childless proselyte, it also does not give it to the property of one's neighbor; and usage which does give title in that case, gives also title in the latter case.

R. Shesheth opposed: Does this rule always hold good? Is it not a fact that ploughing, which is not considered a hazakah concerning the estate of one's neighbor, gives title when it is done on the estate of a proselyte? On the other hand, usage of fruit, which is considered concerning a neighbor's estate, does not give title to the estate of a proselyte. "Therefore," said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, "the Mishna treats of a yard belonging to partners, who usually are not particular if one of them keeps his cattle there; but they are, if one separates his cattle by a partition." Is that so? Have we not learned in a Mishna: If partners have vowed not to derive any benefit from one another they must not enter in their yard, as by entering one derives benefit from the share of his neighbor. Therefore R. Na'hman's above saying was concerning a rear yard, in which usually one is not particular if his neighbor leaves there his cattle. But concerning a partition, they would be particular. R. Papa, however, maintains that both our Mishna and the cited one speak about a yard belonging to partners; but some are particular concerning leaving cattle and some not. Therefore, in a case that may lead to an offence, as in the cited Mishna, it is decided rigorously; and concerning money matters it is decided leniently. Rabhina, however, maintains that partners are never particular with one another. And concerning the case of deriving benefit, the Mishna which treats about vows is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who holds that even a little gift that is usually presented by the storekeepers to their customers is prohibited to him who has vowed not to derive any benefit from his storekeeper, which the rabbis allow.

R. Johanan in the name of R. Bnaha said: Everything (which is not in the agreement) may partners prevent each other from doing in the yard belonging to them except washing, because the daughters of Israel must not be left to disgrace themselves by washing at the bank of the river (as they must stand there with bare feet). And Hyya b. Aba said: It is written [Is. xxxiii. 15]: "And shutteth his eyes against looking on evil," meaning him who does not look upon women when they are occupied in washing. How is this to be understood? If there is another way to pass, and one passes by that way for the purpose of looking, then he is wicked; and if there is no other way, what can he do, as he is compelled to pass them? It means even in the latter case, and nevertheless one must manage not to look upon them.

R. Johanan questioned R. Bnaha 1: What is meant by a shirt of a scholar? And the answer was: It covers the whole body, so that no part of it may be seen. And what is meant by a garment of a scholar? If it covers the shirt so that a fragment of it not more than a span should be seen. What is meant by a table of a scholar? That the table-cloth covers two parts of the table, and the third part is uncovered to place there plates and herbs, and the ring of the table (they used to have a ring in order to keep together the table-cloth, to hang it up after the meal), and the ring should be outside. [But have we not learned in a Boraitha that the ring must be inside? This presents no difficulty, as one Boraitha speaks of when there is a child sitting by the table—then it must be inside; or it speaks of the night meal, when it is better it should be inside, so that the servant should not touch it while it is dim; and another Boraitha speaks of a day meal, without a child.] And that of a common man looks like a tam, as the dishes are placed around and the bread is in the middle. What is meant by a bed of a scholar? If under it nothing is to be found but sandals in summer-time and shoes in the rainy season; and the bed of a commoner looks like a treasure of vilis wherein you may find everything?
R. Bnaha used to mark caves of the dead (for the purpose of defilement). When he came to the cave of Abraham (the Patriarch), he found Eliezer his servant standing outside, and to the question, What is Abraham doing now, he answered: He sleeps in the arms of Sarah, and she looks on his head. And Bnaha asked Eliezer to beg permission for him to enter. He said to Abraham: Bnaha is waiting at the door. Said Abraham: Let him come in: it is known that the evil spirit does not remain in our world. Bnaha then entered, took the measure of the cave, and went out; when he arrived, however, at the cave of Adam the first, he heard a heavenly voice saying. Thou hast seen the image of Adam; but in the face of Adam himself, who is the work of (the Lord), thou hast no right to look. And to the protest: I need to mark the measure of the cave, he was answered: The measure of the outside of Abraham's cave equals the inside of Adam's.

Said R. Bnaha: I have seen the heels of Adam and they appeared to me as the circumference of the sun. Beside the face of Sarah, that of every one else looks like the face of an ape to that of a man. And Sarah's to that of Eve is also like the face of an ape to that of a man; and Eve's to that of Adam himself is also like the face of an ape to that of a man. The beauty of R. Kahana is similar to that of R. Abuhu, etc. (See Middle Gate, pp. 212, 213.)

There was a Magus who used to dig after the dead for the purpose of taking away their shrouds. When he arrived at the cave of R. Tubi b. Mathna, he grasped him by the beard, and Abayi came and requested him to leave him, and he did so. The next year the Magus came again to this cave, and Tubi again grasped him by the beard, and Abayi's request was refused, until scissors were brought and the beard was cut off.

There was a man who said while dying: I bequeath one barrel of earth to one son, a barrel of bones to another, and one barrel of down to the third. And they did not understand what he meant, and came with this question to R. Bnaha. And he asked them if they possessed estates. They said: Yea. Have you cattle? Yea. Have you also vestes-stragula (blankets, quilts, mattresses)? Yea. Then he said: If so, this is what your father has bequeathed to you (it means, one shall have the estate, one the cattle, etc.).
There was a man who heard his wife saying to her daughter: Why are you not careful in your unlawful acts? I have ten sons, and only one is from your father. When he was dying he said: I bequeath all my properties to one son (as he did not know which one was his). And as they did not know to which of the sons, the case came to R. Bnaha, who advised them to go and knock on the father's grave until he should come and explain whom he meant. Nine of the sons did so, but the one who was his did not. Then R. Bnaha decided that all the estates should be given to this one. His brothers then denounced him to the government, saying: There is one man among the Jews who collects money without witnesses and without any evidence. And he was arrested. His wife then came complaining: I had a slave. People came and cut off his beard, removed his skin, consumed his flesh, filled the skin with water, which they gave to drink to their comrades, and they did not give me any of the money or some other equivalent for it. The officers did not understand her, and decided to question the vise of the Jews; perhaps he would understand what it meant. They did so, and he answered: She is complaining about a leather-bag (it means she had a buck: they stole it from her, killed it, consumed the meat, and from the skin they made a leather-bag for water to drink from. They said then: Because he is so wise, he shall sit at the court and judge. He saw, then, that it was written on the αμβολαη: A judge who is summoned cannot be named a judge. Said R. Bnaha to them: If so, then any one may come and summon the judge (though he had never any business with him). Should he be no longer qualified to be a judge it ought to be thus: A judge who is found liable in the court, so that money is to be collected from him, is no longer qualified as a judge. And they thus corrected this: However, the sage of Judea maintains that a judge from whom money is collected by a judgment is not considered a judge.

He saw again that there was written at the head of each dead, I, blood, am the cause; and at the head of each life, I, wine, am the cause. And he said to them: According to this, if one falls from the roof or a tree and dies, does also the blood kill him; and also, if you see one dying, give him wine and he will revive? It ought to be written thus: In the head of every sickness, I, blood, am the cause; and in the head of every medicine, I, wine, am the cause. And they corrected thus: In the head of all sickness, I, blood, am the cause; in the head of all medicines, I, wine, am the cause (i.e., if the man would use wine in accordance to his health he would never come to sickness, and only in places where there is no wine is medicine needed—i.e., because there is no wine, sickness is frequent). On the gates of the city of Kaputkaya was written: Anipak, Anbag, and Antell are all of equal measure (so that there is no claim that if one bought an Anpak and received an Anbag, etc.). These measures are equal to a quarter of a biblical lug (said the Gemara).

MISHNA VI.: The law of hazakah does not apply to movable pipes attached to the roof-gutters (drains), but does apply to the places of them and also to spouts. It does not apply to an Egyptian ladder or to an Egyptian window; but to both of Tyre it does apply. What is to be considered an Egyptian window? If a human head cannot enter in it. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: If it has a frame, although a human head cannot enter it, the law of hazakah applies.

GEMARA: How is it to be understood that the pipes have no hazakah, and the place has? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It means thus: The movable pipes have no hazakah at one side (i.e., if the pipes were fixed that water should come out; e.g., on the north side of his neighbor's yard, so that if the owner of the yard needs this place he has a right to compel the owner of the house to remove them to the south side). However, he has no right, after long usage undisturbed, to insist that the gutters or pipes be entirely removed. R. Hanina, however, explained the Mishna thus: The law of hazakah does not apply to pipes in the respect that, if they are too long, the owner of the yard may insist that they be shortened; the place, however, has a hazakah, so that if the owner claim that they shall be removed, he is not to be listened to. And R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: It means if the owner of the yard wishes to build something beneath, he may; but he has no right to insist on their removal. An objection was raised from our Mishna, which states that the law of hazakah applies to a spout, which is correct in the two first explanations (as a spout, which is more stationary than a pipe, must not be removed or shortened); but in the third, that one may build beneath, to what purpose does the Mishna teach it? Why not? What harm can be done with this to the spout? The Mishna speaks of when the spout was surrounded by a stone building, so that the owner of it may claim that the new building would weaken the stone building surrounded by the spout.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: Drains which discharge water in the yard of one's neighbor, and the owner of the roof wants to stop it—the owner of the yard has a right to pre. vent him, claiming, As you have acquired title to my yard for discharging the water of your roof, so I have acquired title to that water of your roof.
It was taught: R. Oshyah said: He may prevent. And R. Hamma said: He may not. He then went and questioned R. Bissa (his father, who was also the grandfather of R. Oshyah) and he decided that he might prevent. Rammi b. Hamma then applied to him the verse [Eccl. iv. 12]: "And a threefold cord cannot quickly be torn asunder," which means R. Oshyah, the son of R. Hamma, the son of R. Bissa. "To an Egyptian ladder." What is called an Egyptian ladder? Said the school of R. Yanai: Such as has not four steps. "An Egyptian window," etc. Why does the Mishna explain what an Egyptian window means, and did not so do concerning an Egyptian ladder? Because to the. latter it had to state the opinion of R. Jehudah.

R. Zera said: The window in question has a hazakah when it is placed lower than four ells from the ground only; and one can prevent his neighbor from opening such in a building which adjoins his yard only when it exceeds four ells. R. Ailah, however, maintains that the same is the case even when it is higher than four ells. Shall we assume that the point of their difference is, if the court has to coerce one who acts after the manner of the Sodomites (e.g., if one derives benefit from a thing which does not harm any one, the preventer is equalled to the Sodomites, and the question is, Must the court overrule such a preventer or must it be left to the conscience of this man, and the court has nothing to do with it?). Nay; all agree that in such a case the court shall overrule the preventer. Here, however, it is different, as the neighbor might say: It might happen that you would take a footstool, stand upon it to look in at my window, and then will be visible to you what is going on in my house.

There was one who wanted to open a window higher than four ells to his neighbor's yard, and the case came before R. Ami; and he referred it to R. Abba b. Mamal, who decided in accordance with R. Ailah. Said Samuel: To a window which is to be opened for light, whatever size it may be, the law of hazakah applies.

MISHNA VII.: To an enclosure the size of a span in width hazakah applies; and if one came to make it in his building which faces his neighbor's yard, the latter has a right to protest. To less than the above size hazakah does not apply, and also no protest can be made against it.
GEMARA: R. Assi, or R. Jacob in the name of R. Manni, said: If he has made a hazakah with the enclosure which was the width of one span, he has made it for four spans. How is this to be understood? Said Abayi: He means to say that if the enclosure one span wide has the length of four spans, he may increase it to four spans square (as his neighbor does not disturb him from taking the space of four spans in the length, it would be the same as if it were square). "Less than that size no hazakah," etc. Said R. Huna: This is said concerning the owner of the roof only, but the owner of the yard may prevent his neighbor from making an enclosure even less than a span. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that neither of them can prevent the other. Shall we assume that the point of their difference is, if harm done by looking is considered damage, or not? Nay; all agree that it is considered. But in this case such an enclosure not being fit for use, except to hang something in it, is different, as one may say: I can do it without looking into your property. The one, however, who forbids this, maintains that his neighbor may claim: It can happen that while hanging his things in this enclosure he will be frightened, and even unwillingly his face will be turned to my property, and will see what I should not like.

MISHNA VIII.: One must not open windows to the yard even when he is a partner in it (without the consent of the other partner). If he bought a house in another yard, he must not open a door to that yard in which he is a partner. If he built an attic upon his house, he must not make its entrance in the yard in question. He may, however, divide a chamber inside of his house, and build an upper chamber upon it, so that the entrance should be through his house.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna treat about a yard of partners? Is it not the same with the yard of one's neighbor, without any partnership? It means to say not only to one's neighbor's yard is he not allowed, but even to that in which he is a partner. Lest one say: As his partner has to hide from him (such things as he would not like his partner to see) in the yard anyhow, it does not matter if he should open a window to that part which belongs to him; it comes to teach us that his partner may say: Until now I had to hide myself from you in the yard only; but by opening a window from which my house will be visible, I shall have to hide myself in my house also.
The rabbis taught: It happened with one who opened his windows to a partner's yard, and he came before R. Ishmael b. R. Jose, who said to him: My son, thy hazakah is valid, as thy partner has not protested. When this case came up again before R. Hyya, he said: You have troubled yourself to open it, trouble yourself to close it. Said R. Na'hman: If one of the partners built a wall against the window which was opened to the yard in question and was not disturbed by the owner of it, it is considered a hazakah immediately; as one would not tolerate that his light should be shut off in his face and be silent. "If he bought a house . . . he must not open a door to that yard," etc. Why so? Because he increases walkers through the yard (and this would be disagreeable for the inhabitants of it, as their work in the yard would be visible to people, which they would not like). But if so, why then, does the latter part allow to build an upper chamber inside of one's house? Does he also not increase walkers with this? Said R. Huna: It means that he may divide his chamber horizontally, so that it should serve for an attic; but not to enlarge the building.

MISHNA IX: One must not open in a yard belonging to partners a door or window opposite his partner's door or window: If there is a small one, he must not enlarge it; and if there is one door, he must not make two of it. All this, however, may be done to the public street.
GEMARA: Whence do we deduce all this? Said R. Johanan: From [Num. xxiv. 2]: "When he saw Israel encamped according to their tribes." What did he see? That their doors were not exactly opposite each other. And then he said: They are worthy that the Shekhinah should rest upon them. "He must not enlarge it." Rammi b. Hamma was about to say, e.g., that if it was the size of four ells, he must not make it eight; because he takes four ells space from the yard. But if it was two ells, he might enlarge it to four. Said Rabha to him: His partner may claim: When you had a small door, I could hide myself from you, which is not the case with a large one. "If there was one," etc. Rami b. Hamma was about to say, when the door was four ells wide, he must not divide it into two each; but if it was eight ells wide, he might divide it in two—each of four. Said Rabha to him: His partner may claim when he had one door: I could hide myself from you, which is not the case when you will have two. "To the public street." Because one may say: It does not matter that my door is open just opposite yours, as you must anyhow hide from the passers-by.

MISHNA X: One must not make a hole in public ground; viz., pits, excavations, or caves. R. Eliezer, however, permits this, if the surface of the ground remains strong enough to bear wagons loaded with stones.

One must not build enclosures or balconies on the space belonging to public ground; he may do so, however, on the space of his property which faces the public ground. If one bought a yard and there were enclosures or balconies upon public ground, it constitutes a hazakah and may remain so.

GEMARA: Why do not the rabbis permit the same as R. Eliezer illustrated? Because it may happen that it shall break suddenly and will cause damage. "Enclosures," etc. There were enclosures from R. Ammi's property facing an alley, and there was also another man whose property was facing the public ground; and the public complained, and the case came before R. Ammi, who decided that the enclosure should be cut off. Said the defendant: Does not the master's enclosures face the alley? And he answered: My enclosures are facing an alley, the inhabitants of which have relinquished their right in my behalf; yours, however, are facing the public ground. Who can relinquish to you? R. Yanai had a tree bending over public ground, and another man had the same, of which the public complained (that a mounted camel could not pass).

And defendant came before R. Yanai, who, told him to leave him to-day and come to-morrow. On that night R. Yanai ordered the removal of his own tree. And when the defendant came in the morning, he told him to remove it. And to the question: Does not the master himself possess such? he answered: Go and see if mine is not removed; if not, yours can remain; but if it is, you must do the same. But why did not R. Yanai remove it before that case came before him? He previously thought that the passers-by were pleased to sit in its shadow; but when he saw that they were complaining, he ordered the removal. And why did he not order the defendant to remove the tree before removing his? Because of what was said by Resh Lakish (Middle Gate, p. 287): Correct first thyself, and then others.

"In the space of his property." The schoolmen propounded a question: If one left space for it, but has not yet made the enclosure, may he do it afterward, or not? According to R. Johanan he may; according to Resh Lakish he may not. Said R. Jacob, to R. Jeremiah b. Thalipha: I am able to explain to you that there was no difference between the two rabbis just mentioned, concerning the enclosures in question, as both agree that they may be made even at any time. In what they do differ is, if one wants to replace the walls of his property in their former position, and their decision was just the reverse. According to R. Johanan he may not; because of that which was said by R. Jehudah (above, p. 35): A path which is used by the majority must not be destroyed. And according to Resh Lakish he may; because even then there is still place for passing.

"If one bought a yard," etc. Said R. Huna: If the wall of the yard in question fall, he may rebuild it with the former enclosures. An objection from the following Tosephtha: One must not paint his house with whitewash or any other colored dye at this time to show that he is mourning for the destroyed Temple. However, if he bought such already painted, he may keep it as it is; but if it falls, he must not furnish the same painting to the ones rebuilt. (Hence the refurnishing is prohibited.) You cannot oppose mourning for the Temple to common money matters.

The rabbis taught: When the second Temple was destroyed, many of Israel separated themselves from eating meat and drinking wine. And R. Joshua approached them, saying: My children, why do you not eat meat and drink wine? They replied: Should we eat meat of which sacrifices were brought, or drink wine which was offered at the altar? Said R. Joshua to them: If so, let us not eat bread, as the meal-offering is also abolished?
Then we can live on fruit? They replied: But was there not also the firstfruit offering? And was it not also the custom to put water on the altar, which no longer exists? Let us, then, cease the use of fruit, and of water also. And they were silent. Then said R. Joshua to them: My children, come and listen to me. It would be wrong not to mourn at all, because the evil decree is executed. But to mourn too much is also impossible, as there must not be decreed a prohibition for the congregation which they could not stand, as it is written [Mal. iii. 9 1]. And therefore the sages said: When one paints his house, he shall leave part unpainted as a sign of mourning. [How much? Said Rab Joseph: An ell square. And Rab Hisda said: This must be opposite the door.] One may prepare all that he needs for his meal, leaving out some little things as a sign of mourning. And the same is the case with a woman: she may dress with all her ornaments, leaving out some of the unimportant for that purpose. As it is written [Ps. cxxxvii. 5]: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget. May my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember thee; if I recall not Jerusalem at the head of my joy." What is meant by at the head of my joy? Said R. Itz'hak: It is the custom to put some ashes on the head of the groom on the day of marriage. And R. Papa said to Abayi: They used to place it on their foreheads at the place of phylacteries, as it is written [Is. lxi. 3]: "To grant unto the mourners of Zion—to give unto them ornament," etc. And every one who is mourning for Jerusalem will be rewarded by seeing her joy. As it is written [ibid. lxvi. 10]: "Be highly glad with her, all ye that mourn for her."

There is a Boraitha: R. Ishmael b. Elisha said: From that day when the Temple was destroyed it would be only right we should take upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine; but such a thing must not be decreed, which the majority of the congregation could not endure. And from the day that the Roman government put upon us evil decrees, prohibiting to us the Torah and its commandments, did not allow us to circumcise and redeem our children, it would be only right we should take upon ourselves not to marry and have children, so that the children of Abraham would be destroyed by themselves; but leave Israel, let them do as they please, as it is better they should sin unintentionally than intentionally (as if this should be ordered, they would certainly not observe it).

Footnotes

84:1 Rashbam says it is unknown to him wherefrom the Gemara took it that R. Ishmael was among the Sanhedrin in question.

93:1 The text contains only a few words, but very complicated; the commentators try to explain it at length, but they differ as to the meaning, and their interpretation is no less complicated. We have done the best we could, that the reader should have an idea of it.

102:1 This is according to Rashbam. R. Gershom, however, maintains that the two who witnessed the protest would notify the occupant, as only for this purpose were they appointed. From the text, however, it is impossible to decide which of the commentators is right, as there are only a few words. The one who holds that "two" suffice is of the opinion that "a protest in absence" is not considered.

124:1 R. Joseph was two generations after Rabh. But it is the custom of the Gemara to write as if Rabh would have said: "I illustrate this as R. Joseph has done it."

131:1 This paragraph is transferred from Erubhin, 25a, as this is the proper place.

137:1 This is placed here in text because all that was said and done by Bnaha should be together.

145:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond at. The commentators try to explain it, but do not succeed. We have, therefore, omitted the translation of the verse, leaving, however, the reference to it.

CHAPTER IV.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING UNCONDITIONAL AND CONDITIONAL SALES OR GIFTS OF BUILDINGS, HOUSES, AND PALACES: WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED; AND ALSO CONCERNING YARDS, BATH-HOUSES, AND PRESS-HOUSES FOR OIL AND WINE. SALES OF WHOLE CITIES, VALLEYS, FIELDS, WELLS, ETC.

MISHNA I.: If one sells a house unconditionally, the yeziah which is upon it is not included in the sale, even when it is open to the house, neither the chamber which is inside, nor the roof if it has a railing ten spans high. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that if it has the appearance of a door, although it is less than ten spans high, it is not included in the sale.

GEMARA: What does yeziah mean? Here (in this college) it was explained as αετο—gable. 1 R. Joseph, however, maintains that it is an upper floor with windows. According to the first explanation, the latter one, which is more valuable, it is self-evident is not included in the sale. But according to the latter explanation the first one is included. R. Joseph taught: We find two additional names to yeziah, mentioned in I Kings, vi. 5: "And he built on the wall of the house a gallery (yeziah) round about." It is also named Zelah [Ezek. xli. 6]: "And the side chambers—Zelah," etc. And also To [ibid. xl. 7]: "And every cell (To)," etc. The last is also used in Midoth, IV. 6: Said Mar Zutra: All that is mentioned above applies only when it contains four ells.

Said Rabhina to him: According to your theory, the succeeding Mishna, which states: "Not the well (it does not matter whether the well is merely dug in the ground or is surrounded by stone walls), although it was written in the bill of sale that he sold to him all that was in the height and depth, it is not included in the sale"—means, also that if it does not contain four ells it is (and this is certainly not so)? What comparison is this? The use of a well is not the same as the use of a house, while the use of an upper floor is identical with the use of the house; if it contains four ells, it is of value and it is not included in the sale; but if less than this, it is not of value. "Neither the inner chamber." Was it necessary to teach this? If the yeziah is not included, is it not self-evident that much less is the chamber?

It speaks of a case in which in the bill of sale were noted some boundaries of the inner chamber, and lest one say that in such a case it is included, the Mishna comes to teach us that it is not so. And this is in accordance with R. Na'hman, who said in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu that if one sells a house depending on a palace, although in the bill of sale were noted the boundaries of the palace, the buyer cannot claim that he sold him the whole palace, as it is to be considered that the boundaries were noted only to make known where the palace was situated. (Says the Gemara:) Let us see how was the case. If people make a distinction in calling the one a house and the other a palace, and the bill of sale specifies a house, then certainly he sold him a house, not a palace.

And if people call the whole building a house (not a palace), then he certainly sold him the house with all its contents? It speaks of a case in which the majority calls it a house, but the minority names it palace. One might say that he sold him the entire building. R. Na'hman comes to teach us that in such a case he ought to write in the bill of sale: "The entire building is sold to you, and I reserve nothing for myself." And because this was not mentioned, it is to be considered that he sold him only one house of this building and the remainder he left for himself. The same said again in the name of the same authority: If one sold a field situated in a valley, although in the bill of sale are specified the boundaries of the valley, he sold him only the field and not the entire valley, as the specifying is to be considered necessary in defining the situation of the valley only.

Let us see how was the case? If people make a distinction in calling the one field and the other valley, and the bill of sale specifies a field, then certainly he sold him a field (etc., etc., as above). And the answer is also the same as above, that because it was not written in the bill of sale that he had reserved nothing for himself, he sold him only one field. And both cases were necessary for R. Na'hman to teach; since, if he had taught only of a house, one might say that there is a difference between using a palace and using a house. But in case of a valley of which the use of every part is equal, the entire valley is sold.

And if he would teach from a valley only, one might say that because there was no necessity for the seller to specify which field of the valley he sold him, as every part of it is used for one and the same purpose, therefore it is considered that he sold him only one field. But in case of a palace the chambers of which are for different uses, it ought to be specified in the bill of sale which house was sold; and as it was not, the entire building was sold: therefore both were necessary.

According to whom is the statement of R. Mari, the son of Samuel's daughter, in the name of Abayi, that if one sells to his neighbor a property, he must write in the bill of sale: "I reserve nothing of it for myself"? In accordance with R. Na'hman's statement in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu.

There was one who said to his buyer: I sell to you the ground of B. Hyya. And there were two pieces of ground that were called B. Hyya (and the buyer claimed that both were sold to him, while the seller insisted that only one was sold to him). When the case came before R. Ashi, he decided that only one was sold (as the seller said to him, "I sell you the ground"—singular, and not the "grounds"); and if even the seller had said the grounds, then it would signify two. And if such were three, the third would not be sold unless he should say: "I sell you all the ground I possess." And even then, if the seller possessed, besides this ground, orchards and vineyards, the latter would not be sold. And if the seller should say, "I sell you my zihra"(which means in the Persian language fields and plants), then the orchards and vineyards belong to the buyer, but not houses nor slaves, unless he said, "I sell to you all properties I possess."

If in a bill of sale for real estate there was specified a boundary of a length of one hundred ells on the west side, and of the length of fifty ells only on the east side? Said Rabh: Title is given to the buyer corresponding with the shorter boundary only (i.e., that the specifying of the one hundred ells on the west side is to be considered only a mark to identify the beginning of his field).
Said both R. Kahana and R. Assi to Rabh: Let it be considered that he sold to him a triangle (i.e., that it should be measured from the end of fifty on the east side to the one hundred of the west side, and the other estate should not belong to him). And Rabh did not answer. (Says the Gemara:) If the adjoining fields on the west side belonged to A and B, and on the east side to C and D, and in the bill of sale was specified from the boundary of A and B to the boundary of D on the other side, then even Rabh admits that it is to be considered he sold him a triangle, as the boundary of C was not mentioned.

If E owns a field adjoining A's field from east to west, and B's from north to south, and he comes to sell it, he must write in the bill of sale: "I sell you the field adjoining A's field from both sides, and also B's from both sides." And it is not sufficient that he should write: "My field, which is between A's and B's fields," as then he could claim that he sold to him the half of it only (i.e., a half on west side adjoining A's and a half on south side adjoining B's, and the remainder he reserved for himself). If in the bill of sale the three boundaries of the field were specified, but not the fourth, according to Rabh title is given to the buyer from all three boundaries, except a bed of the fourth, which was not specified in the bill of sale. Samuel, however, maintains that title is given to the whole, even to the fourth. But R. Assi maintains that title is given to the buyer for one bed all over this field only. And the reason of his theory is that he agrees with Rabh, that from the fact that the fourth boundary is omitted in the bill of sale, it is to be assumed that he reserved it for himself. And this being reserved for himself, so was his intention with the other boundaries, and the specifying of the three was meant to give him title to one bed all over the field.

Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails that the buyer acquires title to the whole field, even to the fourth boundary, provided it is contained in the three boundaries; but if it is not contained, title is not given. And even if it is, but it contains inoculated trees, or the fourth boundary was of a size in which nine kabs of grain could be sown, it is excluded.

Let us see! Rabha states that if there were inoculated trees, or it were nine kabs, title is not given, from which it is to be understood that if it is not contained properly, title is not given to the fourth boundary, although it does not contain the above. We may infer from this statement that although he has not written in the bill of sale that he reserved nothing for himself (as is said above that so it must be written in a bill of sale), it is supposed that he reserved nothing for himself, and also that the Halakha prevails that if it is contained title is given, provided there were not trees, and the size was less than nine kabs. But if there were, title is not acquired. However, it was taught in the name of Rabha just the reverse; and therefore, if such a case came before a court, we must leave it to the consideration of the judges.

Rabba said: If A and B were partners in a field, and A sold his share to C, stating in the bill of sale, "I sell you the half I have of this ground," then all his share is sold, and he has reserved nothing for himself. If, however, it states, "Half of the ground I possess," then he sold him only a quarter of the whole field, which is half of his. And to the question of Abayi: "Why should we make a difference between the two statements (is it only because in the first statement the 'ground' was mentioned later, and in the other statement the expression 'ground' is mentioned first)?" Rabba kept silent. Said Abayi: I thought that because he was silent he receded from his statement, and accepted my opinion; but it was not so, as I have seen the bills of sale which were approved by the court of my master, and in reference to the expression, "I sell the half which I possess in the ground," the court has marked in its approval "that a half of the whole field is sold to so and so," and in reference to the bill of sale which was written, "A half of the ground I possess," the court's approval was: "A quarter of the whole field is sold to so and so." Rabha said again: If two partners have divided their estate, and one of them says to another, "I sell you my share in the ground," and he shows him the boundary, that it begins from the ground belonging to his partner after the division, then all his share is sold. But if the same shows him the boundary of his estate not from the place which belongs after the division to his former partner, but from the opposite side, then a field of nine kabs from his share is sold to him, but not his entire share. 1 And also here Abayi questioned him the reason of the different decisions, at which he again kept silent; and the schoolmen who heard this thought that he had receded from his statement, and in both cases his whole share was sold. In reality, however, it was not so. As R. Youmar b. Shlamjah said: Abayi explained to me that there is no difference whether he has shown him the boundary from which he has divided, or the opposite side. If he has added to his statement, "and all of its boundaries," then his entire share is sold; but if he has added nothing, then a field of nine kabs only is sold.

It is certain that, if a sick man said in his last will, "So and so shall share my properties," he meant the exact half; but how is it if he said, "Give a share to so and so in my properties"? Said Rabhina b. Kisi: Come and hear the following Boraitha: If one said, "Give a share to so and so in my well"—said Symmachos: No less than a quarter is meant (as it is certain that he wanted to help him out in watering his fields, and the rabbis suppose that a quarter of the well suffices for this purpose). If, however, he said: "Give a share from my well in his barrels" (in which the above purpose cannot be supposed), not less than an eighth part is meant. (This Rashbam explains as implying that he wished to help him out in watering his cattle. R. Gershom maintains: So was then the custom—to fill their barrels with water, for the purpose of using it the whole year.) And if it was said: "Give him a share from my well for his pots," not less than a twelfth part is considered; and if it was said: "Give him for his small vessels," then a sixteenth part 1 of the well is meant.

Hence we see that, according to Symmachos, if he said, "Give him a share in my well," without any additional remarks, a quarter is meant; and the same is the case when he said, "Give him a share in my properties."
The rabbis taught: A Levite who sold a field to an Israelite with the stipulation that the tithes of the field (which the Israelite must separate) should belong to him, this stipulation is valid; and if the stipulation was, "to me and to my children," if the Levite dies, the tithe must be given to his children. But if he said, "So long as the field may be in your hands," then, if the Israelite should sell it and rebuy the same thereafter, the Levite has nothing more to do with it. But why should the tithe belong to him? Is there not a rule that one cannot grant a thing which is not as yet in existence, and as the products of the field have not as yet come forth, consequently the tithe is not in existence? The above stipulation is to be considered as if he should say: The space in which the first tithe shall grow I reserve for myself.

Said Resh Lakish: From this we may infer that if one sold a house with the stipulation, "The upper diæta (chamber) shall remain for him," the stipulation is valid. To what purpose does he state so? Is it not said above that even without any stipulation, if it is not plainly stated in the bill of sale that this diæta goes with the house, it remains the owner's? Said R. Zebid: Resh Lakish meant to teach that if there was such a stipulation, then the owner has a right to make enclosures in the attic, facing the yard of this house, and the buyer cannot prevent him, as the stipulation was for this purpose. And R. Papa maintains: If the seller wants to build another attic upon that one, he may do so.

(Says the Gemara:) According to R. Zebid's explanation, it is correct, what Resh Lakish said: "From this we may infer," as the above Boraitha teaches that his stipulation is to be considered as reserving space for himself. So also with the stipulation as to the attic—he reserves space for himself to make enclosures, etc. But according to R. Papa's explanation, how can this case be inferred from that Boraitha? This difficulty remains.

R. Dimi of Nahardea said: If one sells a house with the intention of giving title to all its contents, although the bill of sale states from the bottom to the top, title is not acquired in wells, etc. (if such there were), unless he writes: "You shall acquire title from the depth of the earth to the height of the sky." And it is not sufficient to state: "From the depth to the height of this house is sold to you"; and the reason is because the last expression gives title only to that which is beneath the house, like a cellar, basement, etc., and also to the roof and the attic, but it does not suffice for the well and its stone walls, which are not included in the same. However, the expression, "from the depth of the earth to the height of the sky," includes them also, and other caves which may be found beneath the house, and also above the roof, if there is an attic that measures more than ten spans in height and width.
The schoolmen 1 propounded a question: If one has sold or presented the house to one man and the diæta to another, should it be considered a reservation, or, because he sold the diæta to some one else, he reserved nothing for himself, and it cannot be considered? And if you will say that such is not considered, how is it if the seller said: "The house is sold to you except the diæta" (but did not say, "I reserved it for myself")? Said Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman: If we conclude that the house to one and the diæta to another is not considered a reservation, the latter case, besides the diæta, is to be considered, and it will be in accordance with R. Zebid, who said above that if he likes to make enclosures, etc., he may do so. Hence we see that, as he left the diæta for himself so he did with the space of the enclosures.

MISHNA II.: Title is not given to a well, or to the stone wall thereof (if this was not plainly mentioned in the bill of sale of the house), although there is mentioned that he sold him the depth and the height; however, the seller must buy a way to the well from the new owner of the house. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. The sages, however, maintain that it is not necessary; and R. Aqiba admits that it is not necessary for the seller to buy a way if he said plainly that the well in question was not included in the sale. If, however, the house was sold to some one, and the well to some one else, it is not necessary for the latter to buy the way to it from the owner of the house, according to R. Aqiba; but according to the sages it is.
GEMARA: Rabhina was sitting and deliberating the difficulty of the expressions in the Mishna, Bour (well) and Duth (a well surrounded by a stone wall). Are they not for the same purpose? Why, then, was it needed to mention both? Said Rabha to him: Come and hear the following Boraitha: Bour and Duth both meant a well which is dug in the ground, but the first means solid ground without a wall for containing water, and the second means surrounded by a stone wall. (Hence if the Mishna should mention the first, one might say that because it is not surrounded by masonry it is not included in the sale; but the second, which is a kind of building, is included. And if the second were mentioned, one might say that because it is a separate building and of value, therefore it is not included; but the first, which is not of great value, is; therefore both are needed.) And so also explained Mar the Elder, the son of R. Hisda, to R. Ashi. "He must buy a way," etc. And the point of their differing is that R. Aqiba holds that usually the seller sells his goods with a good eye (explained above, p. 98), and the rabbis hold the contrary. And wherever it is said: "R. Aqiba is in accordance with his theory that the seller sells his goods with a good eye," the argument is based upon this statement. [And lest one say that the point of their differing is something else, as, e.g., the seller could not intend that one should fly to his well through the air, etc., therefore there is repeated in the latter part of the Mishna the same difference of opinion, to teach that only in the supposition of a good and bad eye is the point of their differing.]

It was taught: R. Huna in the name of Rabh said: The Halakha prevails in accordance with the sages; and R. Jeremiah b. Aba in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Aqiba. Said the latter to the former: Why, many times I said before Rabh that the Halakha prevailed in accordance with R. Aqiba, and he said nothing to me. And he rejoined: "That was because you taught before him the reverse—that R. Aqiba was of the opinion that the seller sells with a bad eye." 1 Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Shall we assume that both Rabh and Samuel decided in accordance with their theories elsewhere (Chap. I., p. 16), where they differ also concerning brothers who have divided their inheritance; and if it is so, why have they repeated this statement twice? (Answered R. Ashi:) It was necessary, as, if one of the two were cited, one might say that Rabh so decided concerning brothers, as one might claim: "I like to dwell in the house wherein my parents dwelt." As it is written [Ps. xlv. 17]: "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children." But in the other cases he would agree with Samuel. And if the other case were stated, one might say that only in this Samuel differs with Rabh, but concerning brothers Samuel agrees with him. Therefore both statements were needed.

Said R. Na'hman to R. Huna: Should the Halakha prevail as we declare, or in accordance with you? And he answered: The Halakha should be established in accordance with you, as you are nearer to the Exilarchs, whose judges are competent and can be relied upon.
It was taught: 2 Two houses, one beyond the other, so that one has to pass the other in going to the street or the yard, and both are sold, or presented as a gift, to two different persons—- neither of them has the right to pass the other's house without his permission, and much less when the inner house is sold and the outer is presented as a gift. But how is the case if the outer house is sold, and the inner is presented as a gift? The schoolmen were about to say that the same is the case. However, they were opposed from the following Mishna, which states, in the last Mishna of this chapter, that "there is a difference with a gift," etc., from which we see that all agree that he who makes a gift does so with a good eye. The same is the case here, when the owner of the house has at one time sold the outer, and made a gift of the inner, as it was with a good eye, so that he shall have a right to pass.

MISHNA III.: If one sells a house, the door is sold, but not the key to it; the stationary mortar in the house, but not the movable—the ετροβιλοσ (every revolving body—here, however, is meant the lower stone of a handmill), but not the mill-funnel, nor an oven or a stove. If, however, he said to him, "The house with all its contents," all of these are sold.

GEMARA: This Mishna is not in accordance with R. Meir, who said: If one has sold a vineyard, he has sold all the vessels which are used for same.

The rabbis taught: If one has sold a house, he sold with it the door, the bolt, and lock, but not the key; the engraved mortar, but not that which is only attached; the lower stone, but not the mill-funnel, nor the oven or stove nor the handmill. R. Eliezer, however, maintains that all that is attached to the ground is to be considered as the ground proper. If, however, the seller said, "The house and all its contents," all of them are sold. But in any case, the well, the surrounding stones thereof, and the yeziah are not sold.
R. Nehemiah b. R. Joseph sent a message by a woman to Rabha b. R. Huna the minor 1 in the city of Nahardea: When this woman shall appear before you, you shall collect on her behalf the tenth of all the properties belonging to her father, for her support, even from the lower stones of the handmills. Said R. Ashi: When we were with R. Kahana we used to collect for such a purpose even from the rent of the houses (the law is, that for the support of a daughter a tenth of the real estate is to be collected, and R. Ashi holds that the rent of real estate is to be considered the same for this purpose).

MISHNA IV.: If one sold a yard, the houses, wells, cellars, and caves are included, but not movable property. If, however, he said, "with all their contents," all is sold; in any case, if there were bath or press houses, they are not included. R. Eliezer, however, maintains: If one has sold the yard without any explanation, he has sold only the ground thereof, but nothing else. (Even if, according to the amount which was paid by the buyer, it seems that all its contents are sold, as the law of deceiving does not apply to real estate.—Rashbam.)
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If one sells a yard, the outer houses, the inner ones, Beth Hulsauth, 1 and stores which are open inside are included in the sale, but not those which are open outside. If, however, they are open on both sides, they are included. R. Eliezer, however, maintains that if one sold the yard he sold only the moles (i.e., the great mass of the air). The text says if they are open from both sides they are sold with it; but has not R. Hyya taught that they are not? This presents no difficulty. Our Boraitha speaks of that of which the main use was inside, and R. Hyya speaks of that of which the main use was outside. "Eliezer said," etc. Said Rabha: If the seller said: "I sell you this foreyard," all agree that the houses are included; but if he said: "I sell you the yard," they differ. According to the rabbis, the yard with all its contents is meant, as the yard of the tabernacle, which is written, "the length of the yard" [Ex. xxvii.], and all its contents is meant; and R. Eliezer holds that with the word "yard" is meant the air only.
Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: If one has made a hazakah on the Chulsu, title is acquired in the ground to a depth at which silver or gold, if found, belongs to him. Is this not self-evident? Has not Samuel said: If one sold ten fields in ten different countries, as soon as he has made a hazakah on one of them, title is acquired to all? Lest one say that there is a difference, as the surface of the earth is alike everywhere, and the fields are similarly adapted for planting, they are therefore considered as if they were joined each to the other; but in our case the use of the two things mentioned is different, and one might say that title is not given to the ground-therefore Rabha's statement.

MISHNA V.: If one sells a press-house, the sale includes the trough, the press-beam or press-stone, and the poles, but not the boards that are put on grapes while pressing; neither the wheel nor the treading rod. If, however, he told him, "This press-house, with all its contents," all is sold. R. Eliezer, however, maintains that the expression "press-house" means the treading-rod only.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If one sell a press-house, the sale includes the bronze plates that prevent the grapes from scattering, the trough, the press-beams, and lower stones of the handmill, but not the upper stones. If, however, he said, "With all its contents," all is sold. In any case, neither the boards which are put on the grapes while pressing, nor the sacks, nor the packing-bags are sold. R. Eliezer, however, maintains that he who sells a press-house sells the treading-rod also, as the expression "press-house" means chiefly the "treading-rod."

MISHNA VI.: If one sell a bath-house, the sale does not include the boards on the floor (the baths at that time were heated beneath the stone floors, and boards were placed on the floor for stepping upon), the basin, neither the curtains on the doors. If, however, he said, "With all its contents," all is sold; but in any case the sale does not include the channels with water, nor the wood piles prepared for the bath-house.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If one has sold a bathhouse, the sale includes the separate houses for keeping the boards, the tubs, the basins, and the curtains; but not the boards proper, neither the tubs, nor the basins, nor the curtains. If, however, he said to him, "With all its contents," all is sold. In any case, however, the channels that contain water for the use of bathing in the summer and rainy seasons are not sold, nor the houses for storing the wood, unless he said: "The bathhouse with all its implements," then the sale includes everything that may be used for bathing purposes.
There was a man who said: "I sell you the press-house with all its implements," and there were some stores outside of the press-house, in which poppy was spread out for drying purposes, and the buyer claimed that they were also included, while the seller claimed they were not. The case came before R. Joseph, who decided in accordance with the Boraitha just cited, that in such a case everything that maybe used for that purpose is sold. Said Abayi to him: But does not R. Hyya teach the contrary? Therefore said R. Ashi: It must be investigated how the sale was; if he said, "the press-house with all its implements and also its boundaries," then title is given to all of them, but not otherwise.

MISHNA VII.: If one sells a town, the sale includes houses, wells, caves, bath and press houses, pigeon-houses, and also Beth Hashal'hin, but not the movable property, unless he said, "the town with all its contents"; then, even if there were cattle or slaves, they are also included in the sale. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He who sells a town sells also the santer (the meaning will be explained farther on).
GEMARA: Said R. A'ha b. R. Ivya to R. Ashi: From this Mishna is to be understood that slaves are considered movable property; as, if they were to be considered real estate, then they would be sold with the town without any stipulation. Answered he: Even according to your theory that they are considered movable property, why does the Mishna state that if he said, "even with all its contents," slaves are sold also, from which is to be understood that they are not movable property proper? And what could you answer to this—that there is a difference between movable property that must be carried and that which is self-moving? The same answer can apply also to the theory that slaves are considered real estate, as there is a difference between stationary real estate "and that which is self-moving." "Sold the santer." What does this word mean? Here in Babylon they explained it "guardsman," or "bailiff" (a slave). Simeon b. Abtulmus said: It means a pagus (land that surrounds the town). According to him who explains it as "guardsman," etc., so much the more is the pagus included in the sale; but according to him who explains it as a pagus, the guardsman is not included. An objection was raised from our Mishna, which states: "press-houses and Beth Hashal'hin," and the schoolmen explained the expression shal'hin (which everywhere means dry field) as meaning the gardens around the town, which also usually ought to be watered. And this is correct only for him who explains the word santer as a pagus, when the Mishna is to be explained thus: The first Tana holds that only the gardens around the town are included, but not anything else; and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel came to add the pagus; which, according to his opinion, is also included. But according to him who explains santer as a "guardsman," if it be assumed that the first Tana speaks about gardens, should R. Simeon answer him with a "guardsman"? Nay! The explanation of the word shal'hin is not gardens, as you thought, but, as is everywhere explained, dry land, which means pagus. [And this explanation is correct, as it is written [Job, v. 10]: "And sendeth out waters," etc., which is the translation of Veshilea'h.] And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel came to say: Not only a pagus, but even the "guardsman," is also included.

Come and hear another objection! R. Jehudah said: The santer is not included, but the anqlmus (the scribe of the city, who was usually a slave to whom all the surrounding fields on which the taxes were to be collected was known). Hence as the scribe anqlmus means a man, so also must santer mean a man? Why? Santer may mean a pagus, and anqlmus a man. But this cannot be, because of the latter part of the said Boraitha, which states: It does not include, however, the shirih, neither the villages around the town, nor the forests which are near it, and also not the vivarium of wild beasts, fowl, or fish. And to the question, What means the word shirih? it was said by R. Aba: It means pieces of paguses (i.e., dry land surrounding the town, broken by rocks). Now can you say that part of the pagus is not sold, while the whole pagus is? Reverse the names! R. Jehudah said: The anqlmus is not sold, but the santer is.
But how can you say that R. Jehudah is in accordance with R. Simeon? Does he not hold with the rabbis, who said: "The villages that surround the town are not sold," while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said plainly in a Boraitha: The sale of the town includes the villages near by also? It does not matter. R. Jehudah may agree with him in one thing, and differ in another. "'Vivarium' of wild beasts," etc. There is a contradiction from the following Boraitha: If villages belong to the town, they are not sold with it; if the town contains one part of the sea, or it has a vivarium of wild beasts, fowl, or fish, they are sold therewith. This presents no difficulty! One Boraitha speaks of when the entrance to the vivarium was from the city, and the other speaks of when the entrance was from the field. But does not the first Boraitha state: Nor the forests which face the town (which means also the entrance from the town)? Read: The forests that are separated from it.

MISHNA VIII.: If one sells a field, the sale includes the stones which are needed for its use; and if it was a vineyard, the sticks which are used for keeping the vines in order. Also the stalks that are attached to the ground, the reed-bushes if they take a space less than that in which a quarter of a kab can be sown, the hut (where the watchman guards) if it is not smeared with clay, and a carob or a sycamore uninoculated; but not the stones, the sticks of a vineyard which are not for use at that time, neither the grain that is not attached to the ground. If, however, he says, "with all its contents," all is sold. In any case, however, the sale does not include the reed-bushes if they take more space than said above, and not the hut if smeared with clay, and not a carob or sycamore when inoculated.

GEMARA: What stones are to be considered to be needed for use? Here in this college it was explained, stones which are prepared for laying upon the sheaves, that they may not be scattered by the wind. Ula, however, said: It means stones that are arranged for a wall.

But did not R. Hyya teach: The stones that were gathered in heaps for this purpose? Read: arranged. To him who explains the stones as for laying upon the sheaves—according to R. Meir, who says elsewhere that if one sells a vineyard all the things which are useful for it are sold therewith, the stones in question are included, even when they are placed outside the field; and according to his opponents, only when they are placed in the field and prepared for this purpose. And to Ula's explanation that it means stones for a wall—according to R. Meir even when they were not arranged, and to his opponents only when they were arranged. "The sticks," etc. The school of R. Yanai says: It means posts for supporting the vine, in order to prevent its bending. And according to R. Meir, even when they were not prepared for this purpose; and to the rabbis his opponents, however, only when already placed under the vine. "Stalks which are attached," etc. Even when they are ripe for harvesting. "The reed-bushes," etc. Although they are growing separately, or thick ones, which have nothing to do with the vineyard. "The hut," etc. Although it was not attached to the ground. "And the carob," etc. Although thick and strong. "But not the stones," etc. According to R. Meir, when they were not prepared for this purpose, and according to the rabbis when they were outside of the field; and also to Ula's explanation—according to R. Meir, when they were not prepared, and to the rabbis, when they were not arranged. "The posts for supporting," etc. According to R. Meir, when they were not prepared, and according to the rabbis, when they were not placed under the vine. "When they were not attached," etc. Even so they still needed the ground for drying. "And not the reed-bushes." Although they are still small. And R. Hyya b. Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: Not reed-bushes only, but even if there was a small bed of spices, having a separate name, it is not included in the sale. Said R. Papa: Provided they are called the spices of so and so. "And not the hut," etc. Although it were attached to the ground. "Nor the carob," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: From [Gen. xxxiii. 17]: "And the field of Ephron . . . and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all its borders round about, were made sure"; from which is to be understood that all those without the borders were excluded (and so also the inoculated carob, etc., are of separate value and had nothing to do with his field). Said R. Mesharshia: From this passage we infer that the boundary is sold to the buyer with the field biblically; i.e., because it is written "round about," which is the boundary, and was sold by Ephron with the field.

R. Jehudah said: It is advisable for one who sells his estate to write in the bill of sale "acquire title to the trees, to the young plants, also to those trees that do not yield fruit." And although title is given to all these, even if it were not so written, it is better for the bill of sale to contain the words just mentioned. If one said: "I sell you the ground and date trees," then, if there were such on his estate, he must give him two of them; and if there were not, he has to buy two for him; and if he possesses them, but they were mortgaged, he has to redeem two for him. If he said: "I sell you the estate with the date trees," if the estate contains such the sale is valid; and if not, the sale is void. If he said: "An estate on which there are date trees," and there were none, the sale is valid; for he meant, it is fit for them. If he said: "I sell to you this estate, except such and such a tree," it is to be investigated whether this tree is a good one that yields much fruit—then he reserves it for himself; but if it was a bad one, which yields no fruit at all, or only a little, and in this field were better ones, so much the more does he reserve them for himself. If he said: "I sell you this field, except the trees," if there were many kinds of trees they are certainly not included; but even if it contained only date trees or vines, they are excluded also. If, however, there were trees and vines, the trees only are excluded; and if there were date trees and vines, the date trees are excluded but not the vines.

Rabh said: A date tree is considered a reservation only when he must ascend with a rope for gathering the fruit; but if not so high, it is not considered a reservation. The judges of the Exile (Samuel and Karna), however, maintain: If it does not hinder the yoke of oxen which are ploughing around it, it is not considered a reservation; but if it does hinder, it is. However, they do not differ, as Rabh speaks of a date tree and they treat of other trees.

R. A'ha b. Huna questioned R. Shesheth: How is it if the seller says: Accept the half of such and such a carob? It is certain to me that he does not acquire title to other carobs; but I doubt whether he acquires title to the half of the carob in question? And the answer was: He does not. He objected to him from the following Boraitha: If he said, "Accept the half of such and such a carob," title is not acquired to the other carobs, by which is to be understood that he does not to the other carobs, but he does to the half in question? And he answered: Nay! Even to the half left to the buyer, title is not given, this case being similar to one in which it was said, "I sell you this field, except the half of such and such a one." Were we to assume that the buyer acquires title to all his fields except the half in question, although he said plainly, "I sell you this field," it must be said he does not acquire title to any except to that which he had shown him; and that his remark, "except the half field," etc., was but redundance. The same is the case here. If he said, "I sell you this field, except the half tree," the last word is to be considered redundance.
R. Amram questioned R. Hisda: If one has deposited something with his neighbor, and taken from him a receipt (approved by witnesses), and thereafter the depositary claims that he has returned the bailment, how is the law? May it be said that, because if he were to claim that the bailment was taken away from him by force, he would be trusted, the same should be the case with the claim, "I have returned," or the depositor has a right to say: If it were so, how comes thy receipt in my hands? And he answered: He is to be trusted when he takes an oath, the same being the case when the depositary claims "it was taken away from me by force"—he must take an oath.

Shall we assume that R. Amram and R. Hisda differ on the same point as the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: If one holds a document which witnesses to an amount of money given by him to his deceased partner for a half profit, and claims that the amount was not returned to him, while the orphans say that they are not certain whether the amount was returned? The judges of the Exile said: The plaintiff has to take an oath, and collects the whole amount. The judges of Palestine, however, maintain that he collects only the half with this oath. And all of them agree with the sages of Nahardea, that of the money which is given for the purpose of a half profit half of the amount is considered a loan and the other half a deposit. (See Middle Gate, p. 277.) Now is it not to be supposed that the point of their differing is that one party holds that the claim of the plaintiff, "The document in my hand gives evidence that the amount was not returned," is to be listened to, and the other party (who says that with the oath he collects the half only) maintains that such is not considered evidence? Nay! All agree with R. Hisda, and the point of their differing is, that one party holds if the deceased had returned, he would have notified his heirs, and the other holds it may be that death prevented him from doing so.
R. Huna b. Abi sent the following message: A depositary who claims that he had returned the bailment, although his receipt is still in the hands of the depositor, is to be trusted (with an oath), and with a document of a half profit in the hands of the plaintiff suing the orphans, he may swear and collect the whole amount. Do these two statements contradict each other (as in the case of a depositary the document is in the hand of the plaintiff, and the defendant is trusted with an oath, and in the case of a half profit the plaintiff is trusted with an oath)? The latter case is different, because, if the deceased had made return, he would have notified his heirs. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails concerning orphans, that he takes only the half with an oath. Mar Zutra, however, said: The Halakha prevails with the judges of the Exile. And to the objection of Rabhina, that Rabha had long ago decided that he takes only the half with an oath, he answered: We have learned the reverse; i.e., that the judges of the Exile hold that he takes the half only with an oath, and the Palestinians, that he collects the whole amount. Hence my decision is the same as Rabha's.

MISHNA IX.: In selling a field, if it contains a well, cistern, or pigeon-house, no matter whether they are still in use or damaged, they are not included in the sale. However, the seller must buy a way from the buyer for passing to them. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. The sages, however, say that it is not necessary. R. Aqiba, however, admits that if the bill of sale states, "except the above things," he need not buy a way. If the seller sold the above separately to another—according to R. Aqiba it is not necessary for the buyer of them to buy a passage, and according to the sages it is. This is all said concerning a sale; but if the owner of the field has made a gift of it, title is given to the field with all its contents. The same is the case when brothers divide their inheritance, and the field falls in a share of one of them: he acquires title to all its contents.

If one made a hazakah on the estate of a childless proselyte, the hazakah applies to all the above-mentioned things, if they were to be found on it. If one consecrate his field, all that is to be found in it is sanctified. R. Simeon, however, said: The above-mentioned things are not included in the sanctification; but if there was an inoculated carob or a trunk of a sycamore, it is included, because while growing they are nourished by the sanctified ground.

GEMARA: What is the difference between a sale and a gift? Jehudah b. N'qusa explained before Rabbi: The one who makes a gift, if he desires to reserve any part of it for himself, he ought to state so plainly, which is not the case with a seller, who needs money: the details of the sale must be determined by the buyer, and if not so done, the seller has the preference.

There was a man who said in his will: Give to so and so my house that contains a hundred barrels (i.e., that within the width, length, and height of the house ten barrels square could be placed). After investigation it was found that the house contained one hundred and twenty barrels (i.e., twelve rows, each of ten barrels), and no other house was found on the deceased's estate. And Mar Zutra said: The will states a hundred, but not a hundred and twenty. Said R. Ashi to him:
Did not our Mishna state: All this is said concerning a sale, but concerning a gift title is given to all; and the reason is that he who makes a gift does it with a good eye? The same is the case here. The deceased thought that it contained a hundred only. He therefore said so, that the donee should be aware that he bequeathed him such a big house, but not to exclude it if it contained still more than he thought, as it must be supposed it was given to him with a good eye. "If one consecrated his field," etc. R. Huna said: Although the rabbis have declared that he who buys two trees that are between others does not acquire title to the ground beneath, if the seller has sold the ground with the trees, but reserved two trees for himself, the ground beneath belongs to him. And even R. Aqiba's theory, that usually a seller sells with a good eye, is only concerning a well, etc., which does not cause any harm to the ground; but as for trees, which while nourishing do so, if the buyer should not agree that the ground beneath should belong to the seller, he would tell him to cut down the trees and go; and if he did not do so, it must be supposed that he was willing that the trees with the ground beneath should remain to the seller forever, so that in case the trees should wither he might plant others instead.

Footnotes

147:1 The commentator Rashbam explains it as a shelter in the rear; and R. Joseph's explanation means the same, but with windows. Our explanation, however, is in, accordance with Schönhak's Dictionary, which seems to us to be the proper one.

151:1 In the text are only a few words, their meaning being very obscure. The commentators Rashbam and Rabana Gershom differ in their explanation, and in the first saying of Rabba we have adopted Rashbam's interpretation, and in the second Gershom's, though both are very complicated and difficult.

152:1 The reason is, according to Rashbam, that all those quantities were known for said Purposes. However, he himself was not satisfied with this exposition, and explained it in accordance with Symmachos's theory elsewhere, that all doubtful moneys or properties must be divided. But it is very complicated, and therefore we leave its interpretation to the reader.

153:1 Transferred from 148b in this Tract.

155:1 This explanation is the best we can offer, not to contradict Rashbam and R. Gershom (q. v.).

155:2 This is a Boraitha with the unusual expression Itemar. See Explanatory Remarks (back of title page).

156:1 According to Halpern he was of the time of R. Huna the Exilarch, and was called "minor" to distinguish him from the former. Others, however, say that it must be Hamnunah.

157:1 A Beth Hulsauth, according to Rashbam, means sand of which glass is made; to Gershom, it means rock. Schönhak, however, maintains that it is a Greek word, meaning bank. The reader may choose.

CHAPTER V.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SALES OF SHIPS, BOATS, ANIMALS, AND TEAMS; CONCERNING BROODS OF PIGEONS AND BEASTS; TREES, WITH THE GROUND AND WITHOUT. HOW TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO FRUIT AND FLAX. OF ARTICLES WHICH BECAME DEARER OR CHEAPER BETWEEN THE TIME OF SALE AND DELIVERY. AT WHAT TIME THE WHOLESALERS AND STOREKEEPERS HAD TO CORRECT THEIR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, AND OF WHAT MATERIAL THE WEIGHTS MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE MADE.

MISHNA I.: If one sells a boat, the sale includes the mast, the flag, the shovels, and all things pertaining to the leading of the boat, but not the slaves, and the sacks for carrying goods, nor the entheca. If, however, he sells the boat with all its contents, all is sold.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If one sold a boat, the sale includes the scala, and also the well with water therein. R. Nathan said: The sale includes also the safety boats. And so also said Symmachos, but he named them dugit as in Palestine, while R. Nathan named them bizit as in Babylon. 1 It was taught: To acquire title to a boat, according to Rabh, as soon as one made a little drawing on it title is given. Samuel, however, maintains that title is not given unless he moved the entire boat. Shall we assume that they differ in the same way as the Tanaim of the following Tosephtha do: How does one acquire title by transferring? By taking hold of the feet of the animal or its hair, its saddle or the load that is upon it, the bridle, the bell on its neck (although the animal has not moved from its place), title is given. And how does one acquire title by drawing? By calling it and it follows the voice, or by striking it with a stick and it runs from him: as soon as the animal has moved hand or foot, title is acquired. R. A'hi, and according to others R. A'ha, said: Not unless it has moved its whole body. Hence it is to be assumed that Rabh holds with the first Tana and Samuel with R. A'ha? Nay. Rabh may say: My decision is in accordance with R. A'ha's also, as R. A'ha speaks of a living body, which, even if it raised hand or foot, it remains still on its place without moving from it (and therefore he requires the moving of its whole body); but I speak of a boat, which, if one draws it a little, the entire body thereof is set in motion. And Samuel also may say: My decision can be also in accordance with the first Tana, who speaks of a living body which lifts its hand or foot, and usually it is to move the other one also; but concerning a boat, it is not considered a drawing unless he moves the entire boat.

Shall we assume that they differ in the same way as the Tanaim of the following Tosephtha do? To a boat, title is given by drawing. R. Nathan says: To a boat, and also to promissory notes, title is given by drawing, or by a bill of sale. And to the question: Where are promissory notes mentioned, so that R. Nathan's statement should apply? it was answered that the Tosephtha is not complete, and is to be read thus: To a boat, title is given by drawing, but to promissory notes by transferring. R. Nathan, however, maintains that to both title is given by drawing, as well as by a bill of sale.

But is, then, a bill of sale needed for a boat—is it not movable property, for which drawing is sufficient? It must then be said it was taught thus: To a boat, title is given by drawing, and to promissory notes by transferring. R. Nathan, however, says: To a boat by drawing, and to promissory notes by a bill of sale. And as R. Nathan's statement concerning a boat would be superfluous if his decision were the same as the first Tanaim, we must then say that they differ in the same way as Rabh and Samuel differ (i.e., that R. Nathan requires that the whole body of the boat should be moved, while according to the first Tana a little drawing suffices)? Nay; both may agree with Rabh or with Samuel, and they do not differ at all concerning a boat. Wherein they differ is but as to promissory notes. Said R. Nathan to the first Tana (of the above Tosephtha): Concerning a boat I certainly agree with you, but concerning promissory notes I hold to my opinion that if there were a bill of sale the transferring gives title, but not otherwise. And they differ in the same point as the Tanaim of the following Boraitha do: To promissory notes title is given by transfer.

So is the decree of Rabbi. The sages, however, say: Title is not given by writing (as to all the debts contained in the promissory notes) unless the notes in question are transferred to the buyer, and the same is the case when the notes were transferred without a bill of sale: as to such things, both writing and transferring are needed.

Now let us see. The above Boraitha is explained in accordance with Rabbi. Let, then, the case of the boat also be explained in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that to a boat title is acquired by transfer, inasmuch as we have learned in the following Boraitha that such is the decree of Rabbi. But the sages say that title is not given unless he makes a drawing or he hires the place in which it is then placed? This presents no difficulty. Rabbi speaks of when the boat was placed on a public ground (as then drawing could not be made, because he must draw to a place which is under his control, which is not the case when it is in public ground; and the Boraitha speaks of when it was in a place where he could make a drawing to one under his control). Now we see that the Boraitha just cited speaks of a boat that was placed in public ground. How, then, is to be understood the latter part of it, which states: And the sages say title is not given unless the buyer makes a drawing? Now, if it was in public ground, from whom could the buyer hire the place so that a drawing should suffice? And aside from this, does, then, a drawing give title in public ground? Did not both Abayi and Rabha say: Transfer gives title in public ground, and also in a yard that does not belong to both (the seller and the buyer)? In a semita (path), however, or in a yard belonging to both, drawing gives title, and "lifting up" gives title everywhere? The expression "unless he makes a drawing" means that he shall move from the public ground to the semita, and the expression "unless he hires the place" is also to be explained as meaning that if it happens to be placed on premises belonging to one of them title is not given unless he hires the place.
Shall we assume that Abayi and Rabha both are in accordance with Rabbi (who holds that transferring suffices for a boat)? Said R. Ashi: If he should say: "Go make a hazakah and acquire title," then title would be given. Here, however, it is understood the seller told him, "Go make a drawing and acquire title." And the point of their differing is, one holds that the seller was particular with his words, that only by drawing title should be given (but not otherwise), and the other holds that his expression is to be considered only as if he should show him the place where it is to be found (i.e., "If you wish to make a drawing, here it is").

R. Papa said: If one sells a promissory note, he must write in the bill of sale, "Acquire title to it, and to all the debts it contains."

Said R. Ashi: I have explained the Halakha before R. Kahana and questioned him: How would it be if this were not inserted—would not title be given? Did, then, the buyer need it for the purpose of covering a glass with it (is it possible that a man should invest his money in a piece of paper that he cannot use but to cover something—must it not be assumed that he bought the debts which it contained)? And he answered: Yea! for this purpose he bought it. (And if the amount shows that it was double the value of the paper, then the sale would in any case be null and void, as exacting beyond a sixth makes the sale void.)
Amemar said: The Halakha prevails that to promissory notes title is given by transfer in accordance with Rabbi. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Is your decision traditional or according to common sense? And he answered: Traditional. Rejoined R. Ashi: It is also according to common sense, as promissory notes are only words. (The note proper does not contain the debts or any money, but the promise of the borrower, which are words, and title cannot be given by words only.) "But not the entheca." What does this mean? It means the contents of the entheca.

MISHNA If.: If one sold a wagon, the bill of sale does not include the mules for it (when not hitched), and vice versa. If the yoke with the wagon were sold, the oxen when not hitched were not included, and vice versa. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: The amount paid may serve as evidence. How so? If one said: Sell to me your yoke for two hundred zuz, it is self-evident that he meant the whole team, as there is no yoke that could be worth two hundred zuz. The sages, however, say that such cannot be taken for evidence (as it may be he desires to make him a present without humiliating him).
GEMARA: R. Ta'hlipha b. Merba taught a Boraitha before R. Abuhu: If one has sold a wagon, the sale includes the mules. Said R. Abuhu: But our Mishna teaches that it does not. Rejoined the former: Then ignore my Boraitha. Said Abuhu: It is not necessary, as it can be explained that your Boraitha speaks of when the mules were hitched to the wagon. "If one has sold the yoke," etc. Let us see how was the case? If people by the expression "yoke" mean the yoke without the cattle, then it is self-evident that he sold him the yoke only; and if the expression means "a team," then he certainly sold him the whole team? It speaks of a place in which some people by yoke mean the entire team, while others by this expression mean the yoke with harness, but not the cattle. According to R. Jehudah this can be ascertained from the amount; but the rabbis hold that the amount cannot be taken as evidence (as it is for the buyer to explain his desire plainly, as there are some who by yoke mean the wagon prepared for the oxen, not including them, and therefore the preference is given to the seller).

But even if the amount is not an evidence, let the sale be void if there was an exaction beyond a sixth of the value. And should you say that the rabbis do not hold to the theory that an exaction beyond a sixth makes void the sale but that they hold that the sale is valid, and the seller has only to return the amount which was overcharged, the answer is: This is not so, as we have learned in Middle Gate, Mishna, p. 132, that the rabbis hold this theory? Yea! They hold the theory only in a case where an exaction could be made (i.e., in a sixth or more of the value); but in our case (two hundred zuz for the yoke only), where exaction cannot be made, it may be assumed that the buyer wishes to give a present to the seller (but does not wish to humiliate him, and so presents him the money for the yoke).

MISHNA III.: If one sells an ass, the harness is not included. Nahum the Modaite, however, maintains it is. Said R. Jehudah: At one time they may be sold, and at some other time they may not. How so? If the ass with its harness was before him, and the buyer says, "Sell me this ass," and the seller agrees, the harness is also sold; but if he says, "Is this your ass? sell it to me," then the harness is not included.

GEMARA: Said Ula: The first Tana and Nahum differ only in the sacks and disacos and khumni, as the first Tana holds that usually an ass is bought for riding (consequently the utensils that are not for this purpose are not included); but Nahum maintains that an ass is usually sold for carrying burdens, consequently the utensils for this purpose are included, as the saddle, sumpter-saddle, belt, and girdle.

An objection was raised from the following: "I sell you the ass with its harness": the saddle, the sumpter-saddle, the belt, and the girdle are sold, but not the sack, the disacos, nor the khumni, unless he said, "it and all pertaining to it"; then all is sold. We see, then, that only when he said, "the ass with its harness," the saddle, etc., are sold; but not, if he did not mention the harness? Nay; the same is the case even if he did not so mention, and the Boraitha comes to teach that the sack, etc., are not sold, even if he said, "the ass with its harness."

What does khumni mean? Said R. Papa b. Samuel: A saddle used by females only.

The schoolmen propounded a question: Does the Mishna treat of when the things mentioned above were upon the ass, so that, if they were not so, Nahum the Modaite would agree with the first Tana, or, on the contrary, does it treat of when the ass was not dressed in them, in which case the first Tana would agree with Nahum? Come and hear! If, however, he said, "it and all that is upon it," all is sold. And this is correct according to the supposition that they differ when the ass was dressed in these things, and the Boraitha is in accordance with the first Tana of our Mishna; but on the supposition that they differ when the ass was not dressed, according to whom would be the Boraitha? Nay; this cannot be taken for a support, as it may be that they differ even when the ass was not dressed, and the cited Boraitha is to be read: If he said, "the ass and all those things in my possession fit for its use."

Come, then, and hear what R. Jehudah says in our Mishna, and there is no doubt that he speaks of when the ass was dressed in them, as his expression "this ass" means all is sold. Is it not to be assumed that this was an answer to the first Tana (who said that even in such a case the things are not sold)? Nay! R. Jehudah was not answering, but taught a separate Halakha. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Did not R. Abuhu say, replying to R. Ta'hlipha (above, in the Gemara to the second Mishna): Explain your Boraitha, "When they were hitched," etc.? from which is to be inferred that the Mishna speaks of when they were not hitched; and when the second Mishna treats of them not hitched, it must be assumed that the third Mishna also speaks of the same case? On the contrary, take the first Mishna, which states, "not the slaves nor the entheca"; and to the question what does entheca mean, R. Papa answered: The contents of the entheca. Hence the Mishna treats of when the load was upon it, from which is to be inferred that the second Mishna speaks also of when they were hitched (and this is not so). Therefore you cannot object or support from their teachings, as each Mishna speaks of a different case.

Abayi said: R. Eliezer, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Meir, R. Nathan, Symmachos, and Nahum the Modaite all hold that if one sells a thing the sale includes also all those things that are used with it-Eliezer, who said: If one sells a press-house, the treading-rod is included; Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said: If one sells a town, the santer is included; R. Meir, who said: If one sold a vineyard, all the vessels in use for the same are included; Nathan and Symmachos, who said above that the safety boats are included in the sale of the boat; and Nahum the Modaite with his statement in our Mishna. "R. Jehudah said," etc. What is the difference whether he said "this ass," or "is this your ass"? Said Rabha: If he said "this ass" he was sure that the ass belonged to him, and with the word "this" he meant the harness; but if he asked him, "Is this your ass?" he was not sure it was his. And he asked, if it was his, that he should sell it to him, meaning the ass only, without the harness.

MISHNA IV.: If one sold a she-ass, its foal is sold; but if a cow, the calf is not. If he sold the place where the manure is kept, the manure in it is sold therewith; a well, the water it contains is included; a beehive, the bees are included; a pigeon-coop, the doves it contains are included.
GEMARA: Let us see how was the case? If he said, "with its offspring," even if it is a cow why should the offspring then not be included; and if he did not say so, why should the offspring of an ass be included? Said R. Papa: It speaks of where he told him: I sell you a nursing ass, or a nursing cow. Of the latter the buyer can use the milk, but to what purpose did he say a nursing ass? We must assume that he means the nursing ass with its offspring. 1 "A well, the water it contains is sold." Said Rabha: Our Mishna is in accordance with an individual Tana of the following Boraitha (but the majority do not agree with him). If one sells a well, the water it contains is not included. R. Nathan, however, maintains it is.

MISHNA V.: If one buys the brood of a pigeon-coop (e.g., if he buys in the month Nisan all the pigeons to be hatched during the whole year, but not the old ones, and usually each dove hatches two young ones every month, male and female, and those pigeons after two months hatch also, and so it is during the entire year, the month Adar excluded), he must leave the first pair of little ones with the parents. If one buys the brood of a beehive, he has to take the first three broods, after which the owner may make the bees impotent of propagation. If he buys the honey in combs, he must leave two with the beehive. If one buys olive trees for the purpose of cutting them down, he must leave the branches which are only two spans high for the seller.
GEMARA: But have we not learned in a Boraitha, concerning a pigeon-coop, that he must leave the first and second pair? Said R. Kahana: This presents no difficulty. The Mishna speaks of the old dove, and the Boraitha of both mother and daughter which have hatched—one pair for the old and one for the young mother. But why should not the pair left for the old mother suffice also for the young one, as she would not leave the pigeon-coop, because her mother and the pair remaining would bind her to stay there, even as the old dove is bound to the same? The old one is bound to both—to the young mother as well as to the pair left, while her daughter, as soon as she has hatched, has no longer anything to do with her mother, but is bound to her children. "Three broods," etc. By what means does one make them impotent? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: By feeding them with mustard. In Palestine, however, it was said in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina: Not the mustard, but the honey which they consume after having eaten the harsh mustard, causes the impotency. R. Johanan said: He must not take the three broods at one time, but gradually, taking one and leaving one, etc.; and a Boraitha states that the first three he may take one after another, and after that he takes one and leaves one. 1 "Olive trees," etc. The rabbis taught: If one buys a tree for the purpose of cutting it down, he must begin a span high from the ground; if it was an uninoculated sycamore, he must leave three spans; and if a trunk of a sycamore, two spans. If sticks or vines, from the knots upwards. If date and cedar trees, he may take them with the roots, for if they were cut at the top they would not grow again.

Do we need three spans for an uninoculated sycamore? Have we not learned (Shebiith, IV. 5): One must not cut an uninoculated sycamore on a Sabbatical year, because it is considered a labor in a field? R. Jehudah said: One must not do it in the usual way, but higher than ten spans he may, or he may cut it at the level of the ground. Hence we see that it harms only if it is cut at the level of the ground, but not if a little higher than three spans. Said Abayi: If exactly three spans, it is beneficial for the growth of the tree, and at the level of the ground it surely harms it, but up to three spans it does neither good nor harm. Concerning a Sabbatical year, only what harms may be done; and concerning buying and selling, only things which are beneficial.

It is said that date and cedar trees one may take with the roots, because if cut at the top they will not improve. Has not R. Hyya b. Luliyni lectured that it is written [Ps. xxxii. 13]: "The righteous shall spring up like a palm tree, like a cedar," etc.? Why are both trees mentioned? If it mentioned the cedar only, one might say: As the cedar does not yield any products, so is the upright. Therefore it mentions the palm tree. And if the latter only were mentioned, one might say: As a palm tree does not improve after being cut off, so is the righteous. Therefore both are mentioned. Hence we see that a cedar does improve? This speaks of another kind of cedar which does so. As Rabba b. R. Huna said (Taanith, p. 75): There are ten different kinds of cedars.

MISHNA VI.: If one buy two trees within his neighbor's field, the ground beneath is not sold. R. Meir, however, maintains it is. If the branches were wide-spreading, the seller has no right to cut them off, though the shade of them harms his field. That which grows from the trunk belongs to the buyer, and that from the roots to the seller. If the trees die, the buyer has no right to the ground; however, if he bought three trees, the ground is included, and if the branches become wide-spreading, the owner of the ground may cut them off, and all that is growing from both trunks and roots belongs to the buyer; and if the trees die, he has the right to plant others.
GEMARA: There is a Mishna (Bikurim, I. 6): If one buy two trees within his neighbor's ground, he may offer the firstfruit, but he must not read [Deut. xxvi. 10]: "The soil which thou hast given to me," as the earth is not his. R. Meir, however, said: He may offer and also read. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: According to R. Meir, one is obliged to offer the firstfruit, even if he bought it in the market. And whence has he inferred it? From the superfluous Mishna—i.e., it is already said in our Mishna that he who buys even two trees has bought the ground therewith according to R. Meir. Why, then, was it necessary to repeat that in the cited Mishna? We must say that only to teach that, seven if one does not possess any ground, he is nevertheless obliged to offer the firstfruit if he possesses such, even from the market (and the cited Mishna is to be explained thus: R. Meir said to the first Tana: Even if I should agree with you that the one who buys the two trees does not possess any ground, he is nevertheless obliged to offer the firstfruit). But is it not written [Deut. xxvi. 2]: "Which thou shalt bring in from thy land"? This is to exclude the land outside of Palestine. But is it not written [Ex. xxiii. 19]: "The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring," etc.? This is to exclude the ground of a Gentile. But is it not written [Deut. ibid.]: "Which thou hast given me"? This means, thou hast given me money to buy."

Rabba objected from the following: If one bought one tree within the trees of his neighbor, he may bring the firstfruit; but does not read, " . . . thou hast given," because he has no ground. So is the decree of R. Meir. Hence we see that if he has no ground he cannot read, "the earth thou hast given." This objection remains.

Said R. Simeon b. Elyakum to R. Elazar: On what reasons did R. Meir base his theory concerning one tree, and the rabbis theirs concerning two trees—that the men should bring the firstfruit and should not read? Does not the Scripture exclude him from bringing also? Said R. Elazar to him: Concerning a thing for which one previous master gave no reason you are questioning me in the college for the purpose of bringing me to shame? Said Rabba: I do not see any difficulty in it, as it may be assumed that the rabbis, as well as R. Meir, were doubtful as to the accuracy of the law: the rabbis could not absolutely decide that he who bought two trees had no ground, and R. Meir could not be certain concerning one tree, and therefore they decided he should bring, but not read.

But how can you say that R. Meir was doubtful-did he not plainly say above, because he has not acquired title to the ground? Read: "Perhaps he has not acquired titles," etc. But according to both, why should the man in question bring? Suppose that, according to law, they are not considered firstfruit at all, and that he brings common fruits to the sanctuary, which is prohibited—i.e., that he first sanctified them. But the fruit must be consumed by the priests, and if they are not considered firstfruit, they are consecrated for an offering or for another purpose, and it is prohibited that any one should derive benefit therefrom—i.e., after he brings them, he redeems them. But even then, if they are not considered firstfruit, they are liable to separate "heave-offering and tithe"; and by bringing them he exempts them from these duties—i.e., he previously separates the above from them. This can be correct concerning heave-offering, which belongs to the priest, and the same concerning "second tithe"; and also the "tithe for the poor" he may give to a poor priest, but to whom shall he give the first tithe that belongs to the Levite, as the Levite must not derive any benefit from consecrated things? This he may also give to the priest in accordance with R. Elazar b. Azaryha of the following Boraitha: Heave-offering must be given to the priest, first tithe to the Levite. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. R. Elazar b. Azaryha, however, maintains that even the first tithe may be given to the priest (after Ezra fined the Levites). But if they are considered firstfruit, the reading of the passages is obligatory? The obligation does not prevent the bringing. As R. Jose b. Hanina said elsewhere: If one has gathered the firstfruit, and sent it by a messenger who died while on the road, then the firstfruit may be brought into the sanctuary; but the passages should not be read, for it is written [Deut. xxvi. 2]: "Thou shalt take," and farther on, "Thou shalt go," etc., which means that the gathering as well as the bringing should be done by one person, and as the messenger is dead the reading cannot take place.

Said R. A'ha b. R. Ivya to R. Ashi: Let us see I The reading consists of passages from the Scripture, which are allowed to be read by every one and at any time. Let him then read, "And he answered": when he reads this with the bringing, it looks like a lie, which is not the case when he reads the Scripture.
R. Mesharshia b. R. Hyya said: The reason is that if the reading were allowed, another, who has similar fruit, might think that such is really considered firstfruit, and will not separate the heave-offering therefrom. "If the branches were wide-spreading." What is to be considered trunk, and what roots? Said R. Johanan: All above the surface of the ground is considered trunk, and beneath roots. But suppose that an upheaval should occur that will cover the trunk so that the branches shall have the appearance of three trees, and then the buyer may claim: You sold me three trees, and I have a right to the ground. Therefore said R. Na'hman: The expression in the Mishna, "from the trunk belongs to the buyer," means as to cutting it down, but not to leaving it. And thus also said R. Johanan.

R. Na'hman said: We have a tradition that a date tree has no trunk. R. Zebid was about to explain R. Na'hman's statement by what our Mishna states, that if such a tree is cut on the top it does not further increase, and therefore the buyer cannot claim a right to the outgrowth of the trunk, as, the remainder of the tree being only for removal, he renounced his hope to derive any benefit therefrom. To which R. Papa opposed the statement in our Mishna that he who bought two trees which are also for removal has no right to the ground, and nevertheless he has a right to the outgrowth of the trunk? "Therefore," said he, "R. Na'hman means that it can never occur that trunks of date trees may bring forth outgrowths."
But does not the Mishna oppose R. Zebid's theory? He may say: The Mishna treats of a case in which the buyer bought the trees for the term of five years (i.e., if it should happen that in the meantime they shall die, he has a right to plant others instead), and therefore he has a right also to the outgrowth of the trunks. "If he has bought trees," etc. To what extent of ground has he acquired title? Said R. Hyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: He acquires title to the ground beneath the branches and that between them; and outside, to the extent that he may stand with his basket to gather the fruit from the outside branches. R. Elazar opposed: How is it possible that this should be granted to the buyer, when even a path through the field is not granted, as he has not any right to the ground which is outside of the trees?
Said R. Zera: From the teaching of our master (R. Elazar) we may learn that if he bought three trees he has no path, but if he bought two trees he has, as he may claim: The trees are situated on your ground, and as you have sold me trees situated on your ground, so also have you granted me a path to them.

Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak to Rabha: Shall we assume that R. Elazar does not agree with his master Samuel, who said that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Aqiba, who holds that usually the seller sells with a good eye (and according to this theory, if he sold him three trees he granted him also a path to them). And he answered: Our Mishna cannot be in accordance with R. Aqiba, as it states that when the branches are wide-spreading the seller has the right to clear them, and in accordance with R. Aqiba, this right could not be given to him, for the supposition is that he sold them with a good eye. Rejoined R. Na'hman: We have heard R. Aqiba saying so only concerning a well, etc., which does not impoverish the ground; but have you heard him saying so concerning a tree, which does? Does not R. Aqiba agree that, in a case in which the branches of a tree overhang the field of another, he may clear the size of a plough handle?

There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Hyya b. Aba that the buyer of three trees acquires title to the ground beneath, between, and outside to the extent that he can stand there with a basket in the hand. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Who has a right to sow the outside ground that belongs to the buyer (the buyer of the trees, to whom it belongs, or the owner of the ground, who allows the buyer to be present there only at the time of gathering—therefore he may sow it, and the buyer has a right to step on it at that time)? And he answered: This we have learned in the Mishna farther on, that the outsider may sow the path which leads to the inside field. Rejoined Abayi: What comparison is this? There the buyer of the inner field does not suffer any damage when he steps on the sown path to his field; but here, if the owner of the ground should sow it, there is a damage to the buyer of the trees in not having the products of the ground belonging to him. Therefore if this case should be compared to the one in the cited Mishna, it is only to the latter part, which states that neither of them has a right to sow. There is a Boraitha in accordance with Abayi, which states plainly that neither of them has a right to sow.

How much space is to be left between the trees in question, that it should be considered the buyer's? R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: From four to eight ells. And Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman, quoting Samuel, said: From eight to sixteen. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Do not quarrel with R. Na'hman, as there is a Mishna (Kilaim, IV. 9) in accordance with him: If one has planted his vineyard sixteen ells square, he may sow other seeds between the rows. And R. Jehudah said: It happened in the city of Zalmon that one had planted his vineyard sixteen ells square. One year he trained the branches of every two rows in one direction, and sowed in the opposite direction; and the next year he trained the branches in another direction, and sowed on the ground that had lain fallow. And when the matter was brought before the sages, they sanctioned it [his manner of proceeding]. And he answered: I took my theory from such a case as happened in the village of the shepherds, which was brought before R. Jehudah, and he decided to give them space for a yoke of oxen with the harness thereof; but I did not know the measure of such a space, and after I had given my attention to a Mishna stated above, as follows: "One must not plant a tree near his neighbor's field unless he leaves four ells space," and a Boraitha in addition to this states the four ells mentioned are for the purpose of working up a vineyard (as explained above, p. 78), I inferred from this that the measure of a yoke with the harness is four ells. But is there not a Mishna (Kilaim, IV. 9) in accordance with R. Joseph: Beth R. Meir and R. Simeon say: If one plants his vineyard eight ells square, he is permitted to sow other seeds therein? Yea; nevertheless, a practised act is more important for evidence.

It is correct in accordance with R. Joseph, which is according to R. Simeon's theory, as we have heard that R. Simeon's theory equals both cases, when the vines are scattered and also when they are growing together—"scattered," from the Mishna just cited, and "growing together," from the following Mishna. A vineyard which is planted in less than four ells is not to be considered a vineyard at all. So is the decree of R. Simeon, etc. But according to R. Na'hman, who is in accord with the rabbis' theory, we have heard their opinion concerning scattered ones (as said above in the case of Zalmon); but have you also heard their opinion about growing together? This is common sense. As R. Simeon considers the half space in his theory of growing together, the same is the case with the rabbis: they also consider the half space in their theory of growing together.
Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails—from four to sixteen ells; and there is a Boraitha which supports him as follows: What is meant by being near one to another? Four ells. And what is meant by being far? Sixteen ells. In the latter case, if one bought the trees he bought also the ground, and also the shrubs between; and, therefore, if it happens that a tree withers or is cut off, the ground remains his. If, however, it were less or more than the above space, or he bought the trees not at one time, but one after another, the ground and the shrubs between do not belong to him; and, therefore, if a tree becomes withered or is cut off, he has no right to the ground (to plant another instead).

R. Jeremiah questioned. How should the ground belonging to the buyer be measured—from the end of the branches or from the trunk (so that he would have more space than by measuring from the branches)? And R. Gibiahh from the city of Khthil said to R. Ashi: Come and hear the following Mishna [Kilaim, VII. 1]: If a vine has been bent in such a manner that the main stem is out of sight [underground], the measure [as to legal distance] must be calculated from the second stem—i.e., the place where it rises from the ground and again becomes visible. R. Jeremiah questioned again: How is the law if one has sold a tree of which the branches are separated by four ells from one another: And the above R. Gibiahh said to R. Ashi. Come and hear the second Mishna [ibid., ibid.]: If three vines are bent [and partly covered with mould] and their stems remain visible, R. Elazar ben Zadok said: If there remain between them not less than four and not exceeding five ells in width, they [the vines] must be looked upon as connected; otherwise, they are not to be so considered.

R. Papa questioned: If one has sold two trees situated in his field and one on the boundary, are they to be counted together, or not? The same question arises when one has sold two situated on his own ground and one on his neighbor's, and both questions remain undecided. R. Ashi questioned: (If in the above questions it were decided that they should be counted together,) how is the law if there were a well, or a channel, or intervention by a public ground or a row of young trees? This question also remains undecided.
Hillel questioned Rabbi: If a cedar tree intervened, how is the law? And he answered: Then title is given to him in the trees, as well as in the cedar. How should the trees be situated so that the sixteen ells in question should be measured? According to Rabh in a row (. . .) and according to Samuel diagonally (' . '); and the difference is, that according to him who said "in a row" the ground belongs to the buyer, so much the more when they are situated diagonally; while according to him who says "diagonally," if they are in a row the ground does not belong to the buyer, as if in a row the ground between is fit for sowing. R. Hamnuna opposed: According to the theory that if they were placed diagonally the ground belongs to the buyer only for the reason that such a ground is not fit for sowing, how would it be if one should sell three thorns which are called Higi Runiitha, the ground between which is also unfit for sowing—shall we also assume that the ground belongs to him? And he was answered that the thorns in question are of little value, which is not the case with the trees in question (and the law dictates both that the trees should be of value and the ground between unfit for sowing).

MISHNA VII.: If one sold the head of a cow, the feet are not included, and vice versa; the windpipe, the liver is not included, and vice versa. However, concerning a calf, the feet are included in the sale of a head, and vice versa; and the same is the case with the windpipe and the liver.

There are four legal customs concerning sales: If one alleges having sold good wheat and thereafter it was found to be bad, the buyer may retract; if he alleged having sold bad and thereafter it was found good, the seller may retract. If, however, it was found as alleged, neither of them can retract (although from the sale of the wheat to the delivery the price for same has increased or decreased). If one sold dark red wheat and it was found to be white, or vice versa; trees of olives, and they were found to be sycamore, or vice versa; wine, if it was found to be vinegar, or vice versa—both have a right to retract.

GEMARA: Said R. Hisda: If one has sold wheat worth five zuz for six, and subsequently it increases to eight, who was imposed on prior to the increase? The buyer. Therefore the right of retraction from the sale is given to him only, but not to the seller, as the buyer may say: If you had not imposed on me in the beginning, you could not retract from the sale even if the price increased, and having imposed on me, should you have the right to retract? And it was learned in our Mishna that if one alleged having sold good and it was found bad, the right of retraction was given to the buyer and not to the seller, even if it had increased in price more than the seller took.

The same said again: If one has sold for five the value of six, and thereafter it lowered to three zuz, who was imposed on prior to that decrease? The seller. The right to retract is only for him and not for the buyer, for the reason stated above, that the seller may say to the buyer: If I had not been imposed on in the beginning, you could not retract though the price should decrease, and inasmuch as I have been imposed on, should you have such a right? And so teaches our Mishna: If one alleges having sold bad, and thereafter good was found, the right of retraction is given to the seller and not to the buyer.
But what then came R. Hisda to teach? Does not the Mishna state so? Without his statement, one might say that according to the Mishna, in those cases illustrated by R. Hisda, both have a right to retract, as there was imposition in the beginning of the sale (while the Mishna treats of where no imposition took place), and therefore R. Hisda came to teach us that the Mishna must be interpreted according to his illustration. "Wine, and it was found vinegar." Shall we assume that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi, and not with the rabbis of the following Boraitha? Wine and vinegar are considered one kind, concerning heave-offering (so that if he has separated troomah from the wine for the vinegar also, or vice versa, it is valid). Rabbi, however, maintains that it is not, because they are two separate kinds? Nay! Our Mishna may be in accordance with the rabbis also, as they differ with Rabbi only concerning tithe and heave-offering, and it is in accordance with R. Ilaha, who has inferred elsewhere from the Scripture that if one has separated tithe or troomah from the bad, for the good ones of the same kind (grain or fruit), his action is valid; but concerning selling and buying the rabbis also agree that the one who desires wine cannot be satisfied with vinegar, and vice versa.

MISHNA VIII.: If one has sold fruit, and the buyer has made a drawing on it, although it was not as yet measured, title is given, but not if it was measured for him, and the drawing has not taken place; and if the buyer were shrewd, he would hire the place where the fruit is to be measured, so that the seller should not have the right to retract even before the drawing is made.

If one buys flax, title is not given unless he removes it from one place to another; but if the flax was still attached to the ground, and the buyer pulled up some of it, title is given.
GEMARA: Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: If he has measured it, and placed it on the semita (path) for the buyer, title is given. Said R. Zera to him: Perhaps the master has heard from R. Johanan that he has measured and put it in the basket of the buyer. And he answered: The question of this scholar is similar to that of men who do not understand a Halakha at all, for is it then needed to teach that title is given if the seller puts it in the basket of the buyer?

(Says the Gemara:) Has R. Zera accepted R. Assi's theory, or not? Come and hear! R. Yanai said in the name of Rabbi: If the yard where the fruit was placed belonged to both the seller and buyer, title is given to the latter.

Is it not assumed that title is given even if it was placed on the ground of the yard? Nay; it means if it was placed in the basket of the buyer; and it seems to be so, as R. Jacob in the name of R. Johanan said. If after measuring he puts it on the semita, title is not given. And as this would contradict the above statement of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan, we must then say that one has heard from him when the basket of the buyer was placed on the semita, and from the other, when the basket of the buyer was not. Infer from this that R. Zera had not accepted. Come and hear another objection! But when measured, and a drawing was not made, title is not given. Does this not mean in the semita? Nay; it means "public ground." If so, how is the first part to be understood: "If he has made a drawing, but not measured, title is given." Does, then, a drawing give title in public ground? Is it not said above, p. 169, that in public ground only transferring gives title, but not drawing? The expression "drawing" means that he removed it from the public ground to the semita. But how about the latter part: "If the buyer is shrewd, he hires the place," etc.? If it speaks of a public ground, from whom can he hire it? It means to say, if it still remained on the premises of the owner, then if the buyer is shrewd he will hire the place.

Both Rabh and Samuel said: The vessels of the buyer give title to him in every place, except on public ground. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both are of the opinion that it gives title even when on public ground. Said R. Papa: The above parties do not differ, as the latter speaks of a semita; and why they call it public ground is because it is not private ground. (Says the Gemara:) It seems to be so, as R. Abuhu said in the name of R. Johanan: The vessels of one give him title in every place where it is permitted to him to place them. Hence we see that only to those places where it is permitted to him to place them is title given, but not to public ground where one is not permitted to place one's vessels. Come and hear the following Tosephtha: There are four legal customs concerning sellers: (a) If the measure does not belong to both of them and it was placed on public ground, or in a yard that does not belong to both, then, if the measure was not as yet filled up and the seller wishes for some reason to recede from his sale, he may do so; but if it was filled up, then it is considered already the buyer's (as it is supposed that for this purpose it was lent to the buyer, that as soon as filled he might take it with its contents); (b) if the measure belongs to one of them, to every atom that is put in the measure the owner of the measure acquires title, provided it was at those places named above; (c) if it was on the premises of the seller, the buyer does not acquire title unless he lifts it up or removes it from the seller's premises; and (d) if it was on the premises of the buyer, as soon as the seller agreed to sell him the grain for such and such a price the buyer has acquired title. If, however, the grain in question was deposited previously by the seller without the intention of selling it, and thereafter the depositary bought it from him, title is not given unless the seller agrees to renounce his right to the place where the grain is now placed, or the buyer hires it. We see, then, that if the measure was filled up title is given to the buyer, even if it was on the public ground? Also, here, by public ground is meant a semita; but if so, why the repetition, "a yard that does not belong to both"? Is it not the same as a semita? By this expression is also meant that the whole yard does not belong to one of them, as they were partners in it.

R. Shesheth questioned R. Huna: If the vessels of the buyer were placed on the premises of the seller, does the buyer acquire title or not? And he answered: This we have learned (Githin, I. 1): "If he put the divorce in the pocket of her dress or in her basket, she is divorced" (hence we see that one's vessels give him title). Said R. Na'hman to R. Huna: Why have you decided this question from that Mishna which was objected to, and there were about a hundred explanations of the meaning of it (q.v.)? You should decide this from the Tosephtha cited above: If it was on the premises of the seller, title is not given unless he lifts it up, or removes it; and it is to be assumed that it speaks of when the measure was the buyer's. (Answered he:)

Nay; it means if the vessels belong to the seller. (Rejoined he:) If the first part speaks of when the vessels belong to the seller, the second part must also treat of the same. How, then, is the decision to be understood: "If it was on the premises of the buyer, as soon as the seller has agreed," etc., title is acquired? Why, then, is it not still in the hands of the seller? Nay; the latter part speaks of when the vessels belong to the buyer. But what compels you to explain the two parts of it in different applications? Because, generally, if on the premises of the seller his measures are used, and on the premises of the buyer his are used.
Said Rabha: Come and hear another objection: If the buyer or his servants have led the asses of the seller, with the load, to his premises (and the load was still upon the asses or in the hand of the servants), whether the price was made but no measure taken, or measure taken but no price made, both have a right to retract. If, however, they were unloaded in the street and one brought the stuff to his house, if the price was made before measuring neither of them can retract; but if measured before the price was made. the sale is not considered settled, and both may retract. Now, as we see that the vessels belonging to the seller, if they are on the premises of the buyer, do not give title, it must be the same with the vessels of the buyer on the premises of the seller—neither do they give title? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak, it speaks of when the buyer removed it from the vessels and placed it on his premises. Rabha became angry at this explanation: Does not the Tosephtha plainly teach "unloaded," and he says, "removed it and placed it on his premises"? Said Mar b. R. Ashi: It can be explained that the load was of bundles of garlic of which the unloading itself makes it rest on the premises of the buyer, and it needs no more work. Said Huna b. Mar Zutra to Rabhina: Let us see. It states "unloaded" (from which it must be supposed that he did it with the consent of the owner). What, then, is the difference whether the price was made or not? (Is it not said above that if on the premises of the buyer, as soon as agreed on, no retraction can take place, as the premises of the buyer give title?) Why, then, should a retraction take place in such a case? And he answered: If the price was made, the seller relies upon it, and the sale is made; but if otherwise, he does not. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Come and hear what both Rabh and Samuel declared above: The vessels of one give him title at every place. Is this not equivalent to saying even on the premises of the seller? Yea, provided he told him: Go and acquire title.

There is a Mishna (Kidushin): To real estate title is acquired by money, deed, or hazakah, and to personal property title is given by drawing only. As to which in Surah it was taught in the name of R. Hisda, and in Pumbeditha in the name of R. Kahana, according to others in the name of Rabha, as follows: This is said concerning things which it is not usual to lift up; but to those which it is usual to lift, title is given only by lifting up, but not by drawing.

Abayi was sitting repeating this Halakha, and R. Ada b. Mathna objected to him from the following: If one steals a purse on Sabbath and takes it into the street, he is obliged to pay for the purse, because he was culpable of stealing before the violation of the Sabbath was committed. (There is a rule that if in one and the same thing a liability for money and a crime were committed, the punishment for the crime absolves him from payment.) In such a case. however, two separate crimes are considered, as after he steals the purse it becomes his (and the violation of the Sabbath is done with his own). If, however, he drew the purse little by little, and he picked it up when it was already on public ground, he is absolved from payment, as both crimes were committed together. Now a purse is certainly a thing which is usually lifted up, and nevertheless one acquires title to it by drawing; for should it not be Sabbath, he would be obliged to pay for it, even if he should not have lifted it up until it reaches the street? And he answered: It speaks of a purse fastened with a cord, of which drawing is usual. Said R. Ada: I also speak of such a kind of purse. And he rejoined: I mean such a big purse as could not be lifted up except by drawing it by the cord. It was objected again from the above Tosephtha that if on the premises of the seller, title is not given unless he lifted it up or drew it, from which we see that to a thing that can be lifted up title is acquired by drawing also. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak. It is meant in parts. To a thing which is usually lifted up, title is given by lifting, and usually drawn, by drawing.
Come and hear! If one sold fruit, if he made a drawing although not measured, title is given. Now fruit is usually carried, and nevertheless drawing suffices? It means big loads of fruit. If so, how is the latter part to be understood: "If one buys flax, title is not given unless he removes it to another place"? Is it not usual for flax to be in big loads? With flax it is different, because it is usually detachable in big loads.

Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Come and hear! To a cow, title is given by transferring; and to a calf, by lifting up. So is the decree of R. Meir and R. Simeon b. Elazar. But the sages say: To a calf, by drawing also. Now a calf can be lifted up, and nevertheless drawing gives title? With a calf it is different, as it resists. Therefore it is difficult to lift it up.
Rabh and Samuel both said: If one says: I sell you a kur of thirty saahs for such an amount, the seller has a right to retract even at the last saah. If, however, he said: I sell you a kur of thirty saahs, each saah for a selah, title is acquired to every saah as measured. Come and hear! If the measure belongs to one of them, to every atom that was put in title is acquired, although the whole measure was not as yet filled. Hence we see that title is given even when one did not say: I sell you each measure for a certain price? It speaks of when in the measure were marks, as where one said: I sell you a bin for twelve selahs, each lug for a selah. And R. Kahana illustrates thus: There were marks in the bin for one, two, three lugs, etc. The same is it with the measure in question: there were marks for each saah. Come and hear! If one hires a servant to work for him in the barn (not in harvest-time) for one dinar a day, with the stipulation that he shall work for him for the same price in the harvest-time, although at that time the price is a selah a day (and advances him the wages for the whole time), it is prohibited to do so, as it looks usurious; but if he hires him for one hundred days from to-day for a dinar a day, and advances him one hundred dinars, although during the time the harvest begins and each day is worth a selah, it is permissible. Now, if you say that to a kur of thirty saahs, each saah for a selah, title is given for each saah measured, it ought to be the same with the days in question—for each working day a dinar shall be charged, and when the harvest comes he shall add every day for the increase in price at that time, and by not doing so it is to be considered usury? Said Rabha: Whence did you obtain that it is not permissible to one to lower the price for his work? Hence this does not contradict the statement of Rabh and Samuel at all. But if so, why is there a difference between the first part of the Boraitha and the latter? In the first part it does not say: Work from to-day. And if he begins his work at the harvest-time for a lower price, it looks usurious, as he has lowered the price for advancing the money. In the second part, however, where he begins to work immediately, and works every day for the same price, it cannot be considered usury if he does not increase the price at harvest-time. "And the buyer pulled up some of it," etc. Because he pulled up some of it, he acquires title to the whole? Said R. Shesheth: It treats of a case in which the seller said to him: Fix something in the ground, and acquire title to all that is attached thereon.

MISHNA IX.: If one sold wine or oil, and it became dearer or cheaper, if before the measure was filled it is to be charged to the seller; and if afterwards, to the buyer. If the sale was made through a broker, and it happens that a barrel leaks, it is to be charged to the broker, and the seller is obliged to add a few drops to the measure. After the seller has turned over the measure, and some of the liquid has gathered, it belongs to the seller; the storekeeper, however, is not obliged to keep the measure until the last three drops are leaked out. R. Jehudah says that on the eve of Sabbath, when it grows dark, one is exempt from this duty.
GEMARA: Let us see to whom the measure in question belongs? If to the buyer, why should it be charged to the seller, even if it was not filled; and if to the seller, why should it be charged to the buyer, even if it was filled up? Said R. Ilaah: It speaks of when the measure was the broker's. But does not the Mishna state in the latter part, "if there was a broker," from which it is to be inferred that the first part means without a broker? The first part speaks of the broker's measure in his absence; and the latter, in his presence. "After the seller has turned over the measure," etc. When R. Elazar reached Palestine, he met Zeeri and asked him- Is there here some scholar whom Rabh has taught the laws about measures? And he showed to him R. Itz'hak b. Abdimi. And be asked him: What is your difficulty? The statement of our Mishna, which says that this belongs to the seller, and another: If, of troomah which was given to the priest, after the barrel was turned over and leaked out there was still some remainder, it is troomah (hence we see that it belongs to the buyer)? And he answered: This presents no difficulty, as additional to our Mishna was taught by R. Abuhu: The reason is that usually the seller renounced his right to such a trifle (which cannot be said there, as who can renounce troomah?). "The storekeeper," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question:

Does R. Jehudah with his statement mean to say that the wholesaler is exempt from adding the drops on the eve of Sabbaths, therefore being more lenient than the first Tana, or does he mean the storekeeper, and is rigorous, as he exempts him on the eve of Sabbaths and not on week-days? Come and hear the following Boraitha, which states plainly: R. Jehudah said on the eve of Sabbaths the storekeeper is exempt, for he is then busy.

MISHNA X.: If one sends his little son to the storekeeper with a pundiun (dupondius) to buy one issar's worth of oil and to get one issar change, and the storekeeper so acts, but the child loses the issar and breaks the glass containing the oil, the storekeeper is responsible. R. Jehudah, however, frees him, as for this purpose the child was sent. The sages, however, admit that when the glass was in the hand of the child and the storekeeper poured the oil into it, the storekeeper is free.
GEMARA: It is correct, in their difference concerning the oil and the change of the issar, that according to the rabbis the child was sent only to notify the storekeeper of his want, so that the storekeeper shall supply it, and according to R. Jehudah that it was sent to bring it; but why should the storekeeper be responsible for the glass, which the father should not have intrusted to the child, who was unable to take care of it? Said R. Houshiah: The Mishna treats of when the sender was a glass-dealer, and the storekeeper took it to examine it and it broke. And it is in accordance with Samuel, who said elsewhere that if one takes a vessel to a specialist for examination, and it was destroyed by an accident, the latter is responsible. Is it to be assumed that in this simple statement of Samuel the Tanaim differ? Therefore said both Rabba and R. Joseph: It treats of when the storekeeper was a glass-dealer also, and he gave the glass to the child; and R. Jehudah's decision that the sender is nevertheless responsible for the glass also is because it was sent for the purpose of bringing the oil (and as the father gave no vessel, the storekeeper did only what was demanded); and the rabbis are in accordance with their theory that the storekeeper had to supply. But if so, how is the latter part, "If the glass was in the hand of the child," etc., to be understood? Is it not said that the child was sent only to notify him? Therefore Abayi and R. Hanina, sons of Abin, both said: The Mishna speaks of a case in which the storekeeper took the glass to measure with (and although the storekeeper had not requested that such should be sent to him, as soon as he took it for the purpose of measuring he is responsible). And this is in accordance with Rabba, who said (Middle Gate, p. 69): "If he has struck the animal, although he was not obliged to return it, he is responsible. But Rabba's statement was concerning a living thing, which usually runs away when struck. Have you also heard him stating in such a case as ours? Therefore said Rabha: I and the lion of our society, which is R. Zera, have explained thus: The Mishna treats of when the storekeeper took the glass for measuring to other customers—and the point of their differing is, "a borrower without consent." According to one, he is considered a robber and is responsible; and according to the other, he is considered a borrower who is not responsible for an accident.

The text says: Samuel said: "If one took a vessel from a specialist, to examine it, he is responsible for an accident." This is only when the price of the article was fixed.

There was a man who entered a butcher shop and lifted up a shoulder of meat, and while examining it a crusher came and took it away from him; and when the case came before R. Ziemar, he made him responsible, as the price for it was already made.

There was a man who brought cucumbers to the city of Pumnahara, and a crowd arriving, each of them took one for the purpose of buying, but the seller could not see of whom to demand the money. And he exclaimed, "All of them are consecrated for heaven." When the case came before R. Kahana, he decided that one cannot consecrate a thing not belonging to him (and as the price for each cucumber was fixed and they were in the hands of the buyers, they had acquired title to them even before paying; but if the price were not fixed, they would be still under the control of the owner and the consecration valid).
The rabbis taught: If one were examining herbs in the market, selecting from them and putting the same aside, even if he did so the whole day title is not acquired, and there is no obligation for tithe. (It treats of when the seller was one of the common people who was suspicious that he did not separate tithe therefrom.) If, however, he had made up his mind to buy, title is acquired, and they become a subject for tithe. In case of reconsidering he has no right to return, because they are already a subject obligatory for tithe; and also he has no right to separate the tithe if he intended to return, as he would diminish the value. Therefore he can do no other than separate the tithe and pay the owner for them.

But is it so, that because one has made up his mind to buy he acquires title and makes a thing subject for tithe? Said R. Houshiah: The Boraitha treats of one who fears heaven like R. Saphra, who always acted as it is written [Ps. xv. 2]: "And speaketh the truth in his heart."

MISHNA XI.: The wholesaler has to clean his measures once within thirty days (because the stuff sticks to them and impairs accurate measuring). A retailer, however, has to do so once within twelve months. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that the reverse is the case. (With the wholesaler, who measures continually, the stuff does not stick, and it is sufficient to clean them once within a year; but with the retailer, who does not measure continually, the stuff sticks, and he is obliged to clean them once within thirty days.) The storekeeper must do the same with his measures twice a week, and the weights once a week (as he takes hold of them with wet hands, and consequently they become heavier, and when he buys something, in weighing the stuff he deceives the seller). The scales, however, he must clean before each weighing thereon. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: All this is said when he sells liquids, but otherwise it is not necessary. The storekeeper is obliged to bend the cross-bit the size of a span to the scale that contains the stuff sold (in case he sells a litra or more). If, however, he weighs strictly, he must give him the overweight due—one-tenth of a liquid and one-twentieth of a dry thing. Where it is customary to measure with small measures, one must not do it with large ones, and vice versa. Where it is customary to smooth the measures, it must not be heaped; and to heap, it must not be smoothed.
GEMARA: Whence is all this deduced? Said Resh Lakish: From [Deut. xxv. 15] "A perfect and just weight shalt thou have"; and as the word "just" is superfluous, it is to be explained thus: justify the perfect measure from thy own. If so, how is the latter part, "if he weighs strictly," to be understood? (If it is a biblical obligation to add to the exact weight, tow can it be allowed to weigh strictly?) Therefore it must be aid that the first part of the Mishna treats of places where it is o customary, and the interpretation of Resh Lakish refers to he latter part, which states that he must give him the overweight. And to the question, Whence is this deduced? Resh Lakish interpreted the above-cited verse. And how much shall the overweight be? Said R. Abba b. Mamal in the name of Rabh: A tenth of a litra in liquid to a quantity of ten litras. "One-tenth to liquid," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: Does it mean one-tenth of a liquid to ten wet measures and one-twentieth to twenty dry measures, or one-tenth to ten liquid and to twenty dry ones? This question was not decided.

R. Levi said: The punishment for false measuring is harder than for adultery, as concerning the first the expression in Scripture is [Lev. xviii. 24], "with all," and the latter [Deut. xxv. 16], "with iele." And whence is it inferred that these words mean hard punishment? From [Ezek. xvii. 13]: "But the mighty (iele) did he take away."

And what is the reason? Concerning adultery one can atone by repentance, which is not the case with an unjust measure, as he cannot know whom he has cheated, in order to make amends.

The same said again: It is harder for the cheating of a commoner than for the cheating of the sanctuary, as the punishment for robbing a common man is more severe than for robbing the sanctuary. 1 Concerning a commoner it is written [Lev. v. 21]: "If any person sin and commit a trespass against the Lord—if, namely, he lie unto his neighbor . . . in a thing taken away," etc. Hence even in the beginning of the deception the passage calls him sinner, while concerning the robbing of the sanctuary [ibid., ibid. xiv. 15], "If any person commit a trespass," etc., he is not called sinner at the time he took it, unless he derived benefit therefrom.

The rabbis taught: Whence is it deduced that it must not be smoothed where the custom is heaping, and vice versa? From [Deut. xxv. 15]: "A perfect and just measure shalt thou have." And whence is it deduced that if one say, where the custom is not to smooth, "I will smooth and diminish the amount," or, in places where it is smoothed, "I will heap and increase the amount," he must not be listened to? From the same cited verse and from the superfluous word "just," as stated above.
The rabbis taught: Whence is it deduced that one must not weigh accurately where it is customary to add to the weight, and vice versa? From the same cited verse: "perfect and just weight." And if one cared to do otherwise than according to custom, and pay the difference? He must not be listened to, as said above.

Said R. Jehudah of Sura: It is written [ibid., ibid. 14]: "Thou shalt not have in thy house," etc. (the term "in thy house," which is superfluous, is to be interpreted thus: thou shalt not have money in thy house, for the purpose of smoothing where it is the custom of heaping, and vice versa, or for overweight, etc.), because this would bring one to keep in his house two divers measures. And the same explanation is to be given to [ibid., ibid. 13]: "As it is desired of every one to have one weight and one measure, just and perfect."

The rabbis taught: From the same verse is to be inferred that gradums must be appointed to investigate measures, but not to investigate prices. The Exilarchs used to appoint gradums for both (measures and prices). And Samuel said to Karna: Go and lecture to them that gradums should be appointed for measures only. He, however, lectured that for both (measures and prices) gradums must be appointed. And Samuel cursed him for this. However, Karna did it in accordance with Rami b. Hama, who said in the name of R. Itz'hak: Gradums should be appointed for measures as well as for prices, because of cheating.

The rabbis taught: If one desires a litra, a half, or a quarter, it may be given to him with its weight, but for less than this no weight should be made; but he may give it to him according to the money or by weight of coins.

The rabbis taught: If one desires three-quarters of a litra, he has no right to demand one shall weigh him each quarter separately (and give him overweight to each of them); but one may weigh him a litra, and leave the fourth quarter for overweight. The same is the case if he needs ten litras: he has no right to demand he shall weigh him each litra separately with an overweight; but he weighs him all the ten in one scale, and gives one overweight to all.
The rabbis taught: The scales must be hanging three spans in the air—i.e., three spans from the ceiling or three spans from the ground; and the cross-bit with the cords of the scales must be the size of twelve spans; for wool and glassware two spans, and the cross-bit with cords of the scale nine spans; the storekeeper and privates, however, one span, and the cross-bit with cords of the scale six spans; and for gold and silver three fingers in the air, and of the cross-bit and the cord of the scales I do not know the size (the Tana of this Boraitha says so).

(Says the Gemara:) For what purpose is the first-mentioned scale of which it is not stated what should be weighed upon it? Said R. Papa: For gravita (of iron and copper smiths, who weigh pieces of one hundred litras on one scale., according to others, their filings).

Said R. Mani b. Patish: The same sizes of scales are needed to make a subject for defilement (this will be explained in the proper place).

The rabbis taught:. Weights must not be made of tin, lead, cassiterite, or other kinds of metal, but they may be made of granite or glass.

The rabbis taught: The roller for smoothing must not be made from a melon stem, as it is too light; nor of iron, as it is too heavy; but of olive, nut, sycamore, or box tree.

The rabbis taught: The roller must not be made thick at one end and narrow at the other; one must not strike rapidly, because this would be a benefit for the buyer and a disadvantage to the seller; and also not too slow, which is a disadvantage to the buyer and beneficial to the seller. And to all this was said by Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai: It would be painful to me to declare the art of measuring, as this would serve as a lesson for swindlers, and also painful not to declare it, as swindlers would say that the rabbis have no idea of the art of our profession.
And to the question of the schoolmen: Did R. Johanan declare so, or not? said R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak: He did; and on the basis of the following verse [Hos. xv. 10]: "For righteous are the ways of the Lord, and the just shall walk in them, but the transgressors will stumble through them." 1 Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: One must not keep in his house an unjust measure, even if he uses it for a chamber. Said R. Papa: This is said of places where measures are not stamped; but in places where they are it does not matter, for no one would take a measure without being stamped. And even where they are not stamped, it is prohibited to keep them when they are not examined by the government; but if they are, it does not matter.
(Says the Gemara:) In reality, however, it is not so, as it may happen that one may measure with it by twilight. And so also we have learned in a Boraitha: One must not keep in his house an unjust measure, even if he uses it for a chamber. He may, however, keep a saah, a tarkab, a half of it; a kab, a half, or a quarter of it; a thuman or a half of it; and an ukla. [And how much is an ukla? A fifth of a lug.] And of liquids—a hin, a half, a third a quarter; a lug, a half, a quarter, and an eighth, and an eighth of an eighth, which is named kartub. But why is it not allowed to keep a measure of two kabs? for one may take it for a tarkab. We see, then, that a mistake can be made in a third. Then it ought not to be allowed to keep a kab, as we may take it for a half tarkab. Therefore we must say that a measure of two kabs is not allowed, for one may take it for a half tarkab. We see, then, that a mistake can be, made in a quarter, as a half tarkab measures a kab and a half. Why, then, is it allowed to keep a half thuman and ukla? Said R. Papa: Small measures are known to the people, and no mistake can be made. But why is it allowed to keep a third and a quarter of a hin? Because these measures were used in the Temple, the rabbis would not care to prohibit them. But why were they not prohibited in the Temple also? Because the priests were always careful.

Samuel said: If the elders of the city want to enlarge the measures, it must not be more than a sixth of them; and the same is the case when they want to enlarge a coin. And the seller should not fix his profit at more than a sixth (provided the price of the stuff has not increased; but if it has, then the profit may be even twofold).
Let us see what is the reason of Samuel's decision? Shall we assume that the reason is, if the wholesalers do not increase the price more in proportion, then they may do so even when it is enlarged to one-sixth exactly? And if the reason is not to make void the sale (as exacting more than a sixth makes the sale null and void)? Did not Rabha say: Every sale by measure, weight, or number, if there should be an exaction of even less than the law prescribes, it may be retracted? Therefore it must be said that the reason is that an outside seller should not suffer any damage (i.e., if an outside seller, who is not aware of the increase, sells for the same price as before, and his profit is usually a sixth, if it was enlarged to a sixth only then he derives no profit, but neither does he suffer any damage in the cost price). Is that so? Does not the seller need to make profit on his sale? Should one who sells at cost be called a merchant? Therefore said R. Hisda: Samuel took as a basis for his decision the following verse [Ezek. xlv. 12]: "And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: (in pieces of) twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh." Was, then, a maneh sixty shekels, which makes two hundred and forty zuz? Therefore from this verse may be inferred three things: (a) That the maneh of the sanctuary was in value twice as much as the common shekel; (b) that it is allowed to increase a sixth, but not more; and (c) that the sixth may be added even from outside (e.g., to add ten to fifty, so that the sixth may be reckoned after being added, as the maneh of Ezekiel is sixty shekels, while a maneh in general contains twenty-five shekels).

R. Papa b. Samuel made a kielah of three kpiz. 1 And to the question: Did not Samuel say there must not be added more than a sixth? answered he: I have invented a measure entirely new. He sent it to Pumbeditha, and it was not accepted; but the city of Papunia accepted it, and called it Rus-Papa (i.e., the measure of Papa).

The rabbis taught: "Those who forestall fruit," etc. (here as in Derech Eretz—Rabba, Vol. IX., p. 1, line 17 seq.—q. v.). Those who forestall fruit—who are meant thereby? Said R. Johanan: People like Sabbati, the forestaller of fruit (whose custom was to buy fruit only for the purpose of selling it to the poor at a high price; but if one buys fruit at the cheap season not for this purpose, and the price increases, and he sells it at the existing price, it does not matter). The father of Samuel used to buy grain at harvest-time, and sold it at the same price. Samuel his son, however, used to store up the grain he bought in harvest until the price became higher, and then sold it at the same price as in harvest-time. And from Palestine a message was sent that the acts of the father were more meritorious than those of his son. Why so? Because through the acts of the father the wholesaler could not increase the price, while the acts of the son did not prevent the increase of price, and his selling cheap could not affect the high price which was already fixed.
Rabh said: One may store up the grain he has harvested from his field (as it is prohibited only to buy in the market at harvest-time for the purpose of increasing the price). And so we have also learned in the following Boraitha: One must not forestall fruit, grain, etc., by which a livelihood is made, as, e.g., wine, oil, and fine flour; but spices, pepper, etc., one may. This is said, however, if one buys it from the market; but from one's own field it is allowed to store everything. One is also allowed to store up in Palestine for the following three years—for the eve of a Sabbatic year, for the Sabbatic year itself, and for the succeeding year (as in the last year people must wait for the new crop). In famine years, however, even a kab of carobs must not be stored up, for it produces a curse to the prices. R. Jose b. Hanina said to Puga his servant: Go, store up for me grain for three years—for the eve of the Sabbatic year, the Sabbatic year itself, and the succeeding year.

The rabbis taught: There must not be exported from Palestine things by which a livelihood is made, as wine, oil, and fine meal. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra allows to export wine, because it diminishes intoxication; and even from Palestine to Syria the export of the above is prohibited. Rabbi, however, allows export from the last province of Palestine to the first province of Syria which bounds it.

The rabbis taught: One must not buy from the farmer things by which a livelihood is made for the purpose of selling in the market at a higher price in the provinces of Palestine; but for the farmer himself it is allowed to sell in the markets.

It was said, however, that R. Elazar b. Azarya used to sell wine and oil to the retail dealers, and they sold it at a higher price; and the reason was, that he holds with R. Jehudah concerning wine; and oil was abundant in the markets of his place, so that the retail dealers could not affect the price.

The rabbis taught: One must not derive twice a profit on eggs. Said Mari b. Mari: In the interpretation of the Boraitha Rabh and Samuel differ. According to one, it means one shall not double the price; and according to the other, it means one seller shall not sell it to another seller so that he has profit, and the seller in the market will also make a profit—but he himself must sell it in the market.

The rabbis taught: It may be prayed by blowing of horns, even on Sabbath, when business becomes dull. Said R. Johanan: This is to be done in case remnants of flax become very low in Babylon, and wine and oil in Palestine. Said R. Joseph: Provided that the stuff was lowered to near half-price.

The rabbis taught: One must not emigrate from Palestine to other provinces, unless the price of grain has increased to the extent of a selah for two saahs. Said R. Simeon: This is only when one could not find any grain at all to buy; but if he can get it even at the price of a selah for each saah, one must not emigrate. And so also was the opinion of R. Simeon b. Johai, who used to say that Elimelech, Mahlon, and Kilyon were the great men of their generation, and were their leaders; and they were punished only because they emigrated from Palestine. As it is written [Ruth, i. 19]: "All the city was in commotion about them, and people said, Is this Naomi?" And to the question: What does it mean? said R. Itz'hak: It means: See what has become of Naomi, who emigrated from Palestine.

He said again: At that day when Ruth reached Palestine, the wife of Boaz had died; and this is what people say, that before the deceased departed the substitute for managing the house was already prepared. Rabba b. R. Huna in the name of Rabh said: Boaz is identical with Ibzan. What came be to teach us? That which was said in his name elsewhere, viz.: One hundred and twenty banquets Boaz made for his children. As it is written [Judges, xii. 9]: "And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in for his sons from abroad," etc. And at each marriage two banquets were given—one in the father's and one in the father-in-law's house—and to not one of them did he invite Manoah, saying: What return can I expect of this childless man? And there is a Boraitha that all the children died when he (Boaz) was still alive. And he remarried and begat one who was better than all the sixty, the same was Obed, who was born by Ruth, from whom David descended.
R. Hanan b. Rabha in the name of Rabh said: Elimelech, Shalman the kinsman, [Ruth, iv. i] and the father of Naomi all were the descendants of Nahshon ben Aminadab. To what purpose was it said? To teach that even him who is a descendant of such great men, the meritorious acts of his parents do not absolve him when he emigrates from Palestine. The same said again in the name of the same authority: The name of Abraham's mother was Amthlai bath Khrubu, and the name of Haman's mother was Amthlai bath Urbthi; the name of the mother of David was Nzb'th bath Edal; the mother of Sampson, Z'llpunith, and his sister N'shiin. To what purpose was this said? For an answer to the Epicuristen (who deny all the legends of the Bible, saying, for instance: If Abraham existed, why was his mother's name not mentioned, as doubtless his father had many wives, and the mother of Abraham should be distinguished, the same being the case with the others mentioned above? and we answer them that all their names are known to us traditionally).

The same said again in the name of the same authority: Abraham our father was in prison ten years three in the city of Khutha and seven in Qurdu. R. Dimi of Nahardea, however, taught the reverse (seven in Khutha and three in Qurdu; some say that he was imprisoned by Nimrod and others by his father, because he broke his idols). R. Hisda said: The city Eibra-Zeira of Khutha is the city Ur Kasdim mentioned in the Bible.

R. Hanan b. Rabha in the name of Rabh said again: On the day when Abraham our father departed from this world, all the great men of the nations stood up in a file and said: Woe to the world, that has lost its leader! and woe to the ship, that has lost its χυβερνηϩης (steerer)!

It is written [I Chron. xxix. 11]: "And thou art exalted as the head above all." And the above said in the name of Rabh: Even an officer of wells (who has to keep order in using them for watering the fields) is appointed by Heaven (i.e., that even such an insignificant office is not filled without the decree of Heaven; and he takes the verse literally, "and thou art exalted over all the heads that arc appointed by thee").

R. Hyya b. Abin in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Karsha said: Elimelech would not emigrate from Palestine, if he could get even bran-flour for use. But why was he punished? Because he ought to have prayed for his generation, which he did not. As it is written [Is. lvii. 13]: "By thy crying thou canst be saved with all who are gathered with thee." 1 Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: One must not emigrate from Palestine when money is cheap, but the grain high; but if vice versa, even when the price of four saahs is only one selah, one may. As R. Johanan said: I remember a time when there were four saahs for one selah, and there were many who starved, as they did not have an issar. And he said again: I remember that working people did not wish to take work on the east side of the city, as the smell of bread (which the west wind carried to them) would kill them, as they had not eaten fresh bread for a long time. The same said again: I remember when a child used to break a piece of carob, threads of honey would leak out and moisten his hands. R. Elazar said: I remember, when a raven would catch a piece of meat, a thread of fat would be seen dropping from the height to the ground. R. Johanan said again: I remember times when a young girl of sixteen and a boy of seventeen walked together and did not sin. He said again: I remember what was said in college: Who yields to idolaters in discussion, the end will be that he will fall into their hands; and he who confides in them, all that he possesses will remain in their hands.

It is written [Ruth, i. 2]: "Mahlon and Kilyon," and in [I Chron. iv. 22]: "Joash and Saraph." Rabh and Samuel differ. One said that the real names were Mahlon and Kilyon; but why were they named Joash and Saraph? Joash, because they despaired of redemption, and Saraph, because they were liable to burning. And the other says their real names were Joash and Saraph; and why were they named Mahlon and Kilyon? Mahlon, because they made themselves very common by their emigration, and Kilyon, because they were liable to destruction. 1 It seems that Mahlon and Kilyon were their real names, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [ibid., ibid.]: "And Jokim and the men of Coseba, and Joash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab and Jashubi-lechem. And these are ancient things."

Jokim means Joshua, who had confirmed the oath which was given to the men of Gibeon; and "the men of Coseba" 2 means the men of Gibeon, who lied before Joshua. Joash and Saraph were Mahlon and Kilyon; and why were they named Joash and Saraph? Because they despaired of redemption, and for this they were liable to burning. "Who had dominion in Moab" means that they had married daughters of Moab. "And Jashubi-lechem" means Ruth the Moabitess, who had returned and was attached to Beth-Se'hem. "And these are ancient things" means the above was said by Him who is older than the days. As it is written [Ps. lxxxix. 21]: "I have found David my servant." It is also written [Gen. xix. 15]: "And thy two daughters, that are found." 1 It is written [I Chron. iv. 23]: "These were the potters (Hayozrim), and those that dwelt in plantations and sheepfolds; for the king's sake, to do his work, they dwelt there." Hayozrim 2 means the children of Jonadabh b. Rechab, who preserved the oath of their father. "In plantations" means the king Solomon, who was a plant in his kingdom. Vegidroh (sheepfolds) means the Sanhedrin, who had fenced the broken partition of Israel. "For the king's sake," etc., means Ruth the Moabitess, who lived to see the kingdom of Solomon her great-grandson. As it is written [I Kings, ii. 19]: "And placed a chair for the king's mother." And R. Elazar said that it means "to the mother of the kingdom."

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxv. 22]: "Shall ye eat yet of the old harvest," which means without need of preserving. How is this to be understood? Said R. Na'hman: It will not be worm-eaten. And R. Shesheth said: It will not be singed. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Na'hman: "Of the old harvest," lest one say that Israel must wait for the new crop, as the old has already gone, therefore it is written [ibid., ibid.]: "Until its harvest come in," which means, until the harvest shall come by itself (and he will not need to take it before it is ripe, and make it fit for use by drying).

And there is also a Boraitha in accordance with R. Shesheth: "Ye shall eat yet from the old harvest," lest one say that Israel would have to wait for the new harvest because the old one became spoiled, therefore it is written, "Until its harvest come in," which means that the old will suffice until the new shall come in its natural way, without any need to take it before it is ripe.
The rabbis taught: It is written [ibid. xxvi. 10]: "And ye shall eat very old store." From this may be inferred that a thing that is older is better, but this is said of things which are used to be preserved. But whence do we know of things which are not to be preserved? Therefore it is written: "Joshon Noshon" (literally, old, old) [ibid., ibid.],"and the old ye shall remove because of the new," from which is to be inferred that at that time all their granaries were filled up with the old crop and their barns with the new. And Israel used to say: "Why should we remove the old, which is as good as the new, for the latter?"

Said R. Papa: All old things are good, except dates and the beer thereof, and harsnah (a dish at that time used by the poor—see Aboda Zara, 73a).

Rabba said: 1 Sailors told me the wave that usually makes the ship sink is visible by a ray of whitish light, and we struck it with a stick, upon which is engraved, "I will be that I will be" [Ex. iii. 14]. Then it became quiet. He said again: The sailors told me that from one wave to the other are three hundred parsas, and the height of each wave is also three hundred parsas. It once happened that I was on the boat, and a wave lifted me up to such a height that I could see the basis of a little star, and in my eyes it looked as a space where forty saahs of mustard could be sown. Should the wave have lifted me up higher, I would have been burned by the heat of that star; and I heard a voice, one wave speaking to the other: My colleague, did you leave something in the world which thou hast not destroyed, that I may accomplish it? And the answer was: Go and see the Might of thy Master, as there is only one row of sand that separates the sea from the land; and yet I could not step over it. As it is written [Jer. v. 22]: "Will ye not fear me? saith the Lord; will ye not tremble at my presence, who have placed the sand as a bound for the sea by an everlasting law, which it never can pass over? and though the waves thereof be upheaved, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."
He said again: I have seen Hurnim bar Lilith, who jumped on the top of brick-houses of the city of Mehusa, and was running so fast from one to the other that a rider could not overtake him. Once it happened that two mules were saddled for him on the two bridges over the river Druggring, which were far from each other, and he jumped continually from one saddle to the other, while holding two cups of wine, pouring from one into the other continually without spilling one drop, and this day was such a stormy one, as illustrated [Ps. cvii. 28], until the government took notice of him, and he was slain. 1 He said again: I have seen a roebuck one day old, which was like the mountain of Tabur, which measures four parsas; and the length of its neck was three parsas and the space covered by its head one and a half parsas; and when it emitted excrement it stopped the Jordan.

Rabba b. b. Hana said again: I have seen an alligator as large as the city of Hagrunia, which contained sixty houses. A snake came and swallowed it, and a large-tailed raven came and swallowed the snake, and then the raven sat on a tree. Come and see how strong was that tree! R. Papa b. Samuel said: If I had not been there, I should not have believed it.

Rabba said again: At one time when on board of a ship I saw a fish into whose gills a reptile crept from which it died, the sea throwing it out on land. And sixty streets were destroyed by its fall, and sixty streets consumed its flesh, and sixty other streets salted the flesh that was left; and from one eye they filled three hundred measures of oil; and when I returned thither after twelve months, I saw its bones being sawed to restore the streets that were destroyed by it.

He said again: At one time I was on board of a ship, which was driven between two fins of a fish, three days and three nights the fish was swimming against the wind and we were sailing with the wind [and lest one say that the ship did not go fast enough, when R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that ft was so fast that in the time of heating a cumcuma of water the ship ran sixty parsas, and a rider shooting an arrow at the same time could not be swifter than the ship]. And R. Ashi said that this was one of the smallest fishes of the sea which has two fins.

The same Rabba said again: It once happened that I was going on a boat, and saw a fish on which sand was gathered and grass grown thereupon. And we thought it was an island, descended, baked and cooked upon it. When the back of the fish grew hot, it turned over, and had the ship not been so near we would have been drowned.
The same Rabba said again: At one time while on board of a ship I saw a bird which was standing in water that reached only up to its toes; its head, however, reached the sky, and we thought the water was shallow, so we were about to bathe there, when we heard a heavenly voice. Do not go down, for a carpenter here lost an axe seven years ago, and still it has not reached the ground—not because it is so deep, but because of the current. Said R. Ashi: This bird is the Zeez Sodai mentioned in Ps. l. 11.

Rabba b. b. Hana said again: It happened once, while in the desert, that I saw geese of which the feathers fell out owing to their fatness, and a whole river of fat was beneath them, and to my question, "Have I a share in you in the world to come?" one of them lifted up its wing, and one of them a foot. When I told this to R. Elazar, he said: Israel will be punished for them, as by his sin Messiah does not come, and the geese must endure their fatness.

The same Rabba said again: Once while in the desert we were accompanied by an Arabian merchant who used to take a clod of earth, smell it, and say: This way leads to such a place, and this to such a one. And we asked him: How far are we from water? And he smelt the earth, saying: Eight parsas. Thereafter we gave him other earth to smell, and he said: Three parsas. I changed the clods of earth, but we could not deceive him, and he said to me: Come with me. I will show you the corpses of the dead in the desert at the time of Moses. I did so, and their appearance was as fresh as if they went to sleep while drinking. All of them were lying on their backs. The foot of one of them, however, was lifted up, and the merchant, while riding and holding a spear in his hand, passed beneath it, without reaching the joint of his knee. I took and cut off a corner of one's taliths, 1 in which were tsitsith. Then neither we nor our cattle could stir. Said the merchant to me: Perhaps you have taken something belonging to the dead, as I have a tradition that if one takes something from them he cannot stir. When I told this to the rabbis, they said: The whole Abba is an ass, and the whole Bar Bar Hanah is nonsense (all his stories are). For what purpose didst thou take it? To know with whom the Halakha concerning tsitsith prevails—whether with the school of Shammai 2 or with the school of Hillel? Then thou oughtest to have investigated their tsitsith by counting the threads and knots. Then (continued Bar Bar Hanah) the merchant said to me: Come and I will show you the mountain of Sinai. I followed him, and saw that it was surrounded by serpents. All of them were standing, and looked like white asses. I also heard a heavenly voice saying: Woe is me that I have sworn; and now after having so done, who will absolve me from that oath? When I told this before the rabbis, they said again: The whole Abba is an ass, etc. Why didst thou not say: Thou art absolved, thou art absolved? [He, however, did not do so, because he thought: Perhaps it means the oath for the deluge, referring to what is written in Is. liv. 9: "As I have sworn that the waters of Noah," etc. The rabbis, however, were right in accusing him, as if it were about the deluge, why, then, "woe is me"?] The same merchant said to me: Come and I will show you the place where the children of Korah were swallowed. And I saw two crevices in the ground from which smoke issued. I took a piece of wool, wetted it with water, put it on my spear, placed it in the crevice, and when I took it out it was smudging. And the merchant said to me: Stoop down and hear. And I heard them saying: Moses and his Torah are true, and we are liars. Said the merchant to me: Each thirtieth day of the month, Gehenna turns them over here, like meat in a kettle, and they (the swallowed) repeat the above.

He said again to me: Come and I will show you where the sky and earth meet. I followed him, took my basket, and put it on the window of the sky. After praying, I searched for it but could not find it. Then I said to the merchant: Are there, then, thieves here? And he answered: It was the wheel of the sky which took it with it. Wait until to-morrow at this same time and you will find it.

R. Johanan used to tell: Once while on board of a boat I saw a fish which raised its head out of the water, and its eyes looked like two moons; water was pouring from both of its nostrils like the two rivers of Sura.

R. Saphra used to tell: Once while on board of a boat I saw a fish which had horns raising up its head from the water, and on its horns was engraved thus: "I am of the small creatures in the sea and measure three hundred parsas, and I am going into the mouth of the leviathan." Said R. Ashi: This is a sea-goat that digs with its horns the ground of the sea.
R. Johanan told again: Once while on board of a boat I saw a χαρταλος (a kind of basket) which was set with diamonds and pearls and surrounded by a kind of fish called karshah, and a diver descended in order to catch it; but the basket made a motion and threatened to break his leg. He, however, threw a leather bag containing vinegar (according to others a leather bag with sand) towards it, and the basket sank. At the same time a heavenly voice spoke to us: What business have ye with this kartilitha, which belongs to the wife of R. Hanina b. Dosa, who will deposit in it the purple for the upright in the world to come?

R. Jehudah of Mesopotamia used to tell: Once while on board of a ship I saw a diamond that was encircled by a snake, and a diver went to catch it. The snake then opened its mouth, threatening to swallow the ship. Then a raven came, bit off its head, and all water around turned into blood. Then another snake came, took the diamond, put it on the carcass, and it became alive; and again it opened its mouth, in order to swallow the ship. Another bird then came, bit off its head, took the diamond, and threw it on the ship. We had with us salted birds, and we wanted to try whether the diamond would bring them to life, so we placed the gem on them, and they became animated, and flew away with the gem.

The rabbis taught: It happened with R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua who were on a ship, that R. Eliezer was asleep and R. Jehoshua awake. The latter became frightened, so that R. Eliezer awoke, and said: What is the matter, Jehoshua? What have you seen that frightened you? And he answered: I have seen a great light on the sea. Rejoined R. Eliezer: Perhaps you have seen the eyes of the leviathan about which is written [Job, xli. 10]: "And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning dawn."

R. Ashi said: Huna b. Nathan told me: It happened once, while I was in the desert, and we had with us a leg of meat, that we cut it, made it legal for eating, put it on the grass, and went to gather wood for roasting. When we returned, the leg had resumed the shape it had before it was cut; and we then roasted it. When we returned after twelve months, the coals upon which it was roasted were still alive. When I told this to Amemar, he said that the grass was samtrie, that has the quality of combining things which were previously separated; and the coals were of broom-brush, which when ignited remains alive for a long, long time.
It is written [Gen. i. 21]: "And God created the great sea monsters." Here in Babylon they translate this the reem of the sea. R. Johanan, however, says: It means leviathan—leviathan male and female, as it is written [Is. xxvii. 1]: "On that day will the Lord punish with his heavy and great and strong sword leviathan the flying serpent and leviathan the crooked serpent, and he will slay the crocodile that is in the sea."

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: All that the Holy One, blessed be He, created, was male and female, and also the leviathan—the flying serpent male and the crooked serpent female; and if they should have intercourse they would destroy the world. Therefore the Lord made the male impotent, and killed the female and salted it for the upright in the world to come, as it is written [ibid.]: "And he will slay the crocodile," etc. "and also the cattle upon a thousand mountains" [Ps. 1. 10]. He created them male and female, and if they should have intercourse they would destroy the world. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, made impotent the male and made cold the female, and preserved it for the upright in the world to come, as it is written [Job, xl. 16]: "only see (how great) is the strength in his loins," meaning the male, "and his force in the muscles of his belly," meaning the female.

But why did He not make cold the female of the leviathan also? Because a salted female has a better taste. And why did He not salt the females of the cattle in question? Salted fish gives a good taste, but salted meat does not.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, willed to create the world, He said to the ruler of the sea: Open thy mouth, and swallow all waters that are to be found in the world. And he said: Lord of the Universe, is it not enough that I swallow the water under my dominion? And he was therefore killed immediately, as it is written [ibid. 12]: "By his power he split in pieces the sea, and by his understanding he crushed Rahab." Said R. Itz'hak: Infer from this that the name of the ruler of this sea is Rahab, and did not the waters of the sea cover the body, not one of the creatures could remain alive owing to the bad smell, as it is written [Is. xi. 9]: "They shall not do hurt nor destroy . . . as the waters cover the sea." Do not read "cover the sea," but "cover the ruler of the sea."
R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said again: The Jordan discharges by the cave of Pmias. There is also a Boraitha: The Jordan discharges by the cave of Pmias, and flows to the sea of Sipchi, of Tiberias, until it reaches the ocean; and through it it flows until it reaches the mouth of the leviathan, as it is written [Job, xl. 23]: "He remaineth quiet, though a Jordan rusheth up to his mouth."

Rabha b. Ula opposed: "Did not this verse speak of the cattle on the thousand mountains? Therefore," said he, "this verse must be interpreted thus: When are the cattle in question sure that they shall remain alive? When the Jordan reaches the mouth of the leviathan (i.e., so long as the leviathan lives, they are sure that they shall remain alive, as all are prepared for the world to come when the Messiah shall appear)."

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: It is written in Ps. xxiv. 2: "For upon seas he hath founded it, and upon rivers he hath established it." It means the seven seas and four rivers which surround the land of Israel (Palestine); and they are the sea of Tiberias, Sodom, Chirat, Chiltha, Sipchi, Aspamia, and the Ocean: these are the seven seas, and the four rivers are Jordan, Jarmuch, Kirumyun, and Phiga.

The same R. Dimi said in the name of R. Jonathan: The angel Gabriel will go hunting for the leviathan, as it is written [Job, x1. 25]: "Canst thou draw out the crocodile (leviathan) with a fishhook? or cause his tongue to sink into the baited rope?" And should not the Holy One, blessed be He, help him, he would not conquer him, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 19]: "He is the first in rank . . . he that hath made him can alone bring his sword near to him."

The same said again in the name of R. Johanan: When the leviathan becomes hungry, he expels from his mouth a gas which makes boil all the waters in the deep, as it is written [ibid. xli. 23]: "He causeth the deep to boil." And should he not enter his head in paradise, not one of the creatures could withstand the bad smell of the gas, as it is written [ibid., ibid.]: "He rendereth the sea like an apothecary's mixture." And when he gets thirsty, he makes the sea hollow like beds, as it is written farther on: "Behind him he causeth his pathway to shine." And R. Aha b. Jacob said: The deep does not come to its natural way before seventy years, as it is written: "Men esteem the deep to be hoary"—and hoary is not less than seventy years.
Rabba said in the name of R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, will make a banquet for the upright from the flesh of the leviathan, as it is written [ibid. xl. 30]: "Yichrov 1 Olof Chahvierim." Yichrov means a banquet, as it is written [II Kings, vi. 23]: "And he prepared for them a great meal" (the expression in Hebrew being Veyichre, etc.); and Chahvierim means scholars, as it is written [Solomon's Song, viii. 13]: "Companions (Chaverim) listen for thy voice," etc. And the remainder of it will be cut in pieces, and be sold in the markets of Jerusalem, as it is written [Job, xl. 30]: "Divide him among merchants."

The same said again in the name of the same authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, will make a booth for the upright from the skin of the leviathan, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 31]: "Canst thou fill his skin with Soukoth." 2 If the upright is to have a booth, a booth is made for him from it; and if less, a little hut; and if still less, a necklace will be made for him, as it is written [Prov. i. 9]: "And chains for thy throat -; and if still less, an amulet will be made for him, as it is written [Job, xl. 29]: "And tie him up for thy maidens"? And the remainder of the skin the Lord will spread on the walls of Jerusalem, and the brightness of it will shine from one end of the world to the other, as it is written [Is. lx. 3]: "And nations shall walk by thy light, and kings by the brightness of thy shining."
It is written [ibid. liv. 12]: "And I will make of kadkad (rubies) thy battlements," etc. Said Samuel b. Nahmeni: Two angels—in heaven, Gabriel and Michael, according to others two Amoraim of Palestine, and they are Jehudah and Hiskiyah the sons of R. Hyya—one says it means shoham (onyx) and others jasper, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let it be as both say. [Is. liv. 12]: "And thy gates," etc. This is as R. Johanan lectured while sitting: The Holy One, blessed be He will bring jewels and pearls the size of thirty ells square, twenty ells in height and ten in width, and will place them on the gates of Jerusalem. And one disciple ridiculed him: We do not even find a jewel as large as the egg of a dove, and he lectured about such sizes? Thereafter it happened that the same disciple was on a boat on the high sea, and he saw angels who sawed jewels and pearls the size of thirty ells square, boring holes in them twenty in height and ten in width. He asked them: For what purpose? And they answered: The Holy One, blessed be He, will place them on the gates of Jerusalem. And when he returned he said to R. Johanan: Lecture, Rabbi, for all you said is true, as I have myself seen. And R. Johanan said to him: Ignoramus, if you had not seen it, you would not have believed. So you would ridicule the words of the sages? He cast his eyes on him, and he became a heap of bones.

An objection was raised: It is written [Lev. xxvii. 13]: "I will lead you qummiuth." 1 R. Meir said: It means two hundred ells, double the height of Adam the first, who was one hundred ells in height. R. Jehudah, however, said: It means one hundred ells, the size of the Temple with its walls, as it is written [Ps. cxliv. 12]: "So that our sons may be like plants grown up in their youth, our daughters like corner-pillars, sculptured after the model of a palace." (Hence we see that according to both the height of the Temple will be one hundred ells at least. Why, then, said R. Johanan only twenty in height?) R. Johanan only meant for the windows in the gates that let in air.

Rabba in the name of R. Johanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, will make seven canopies (chupas) for each upright, as it is written [Is. iv. 5]: "And then will the Lord create upon every dwelling of Mount Zion, and upon her places of assembly, a cloud and smoke by day, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be a covering (chupa)." Whence we deduce that the Holy One, blessed be He, will make a chupa to each upright according to His dignity. But why smoke to a chupa? Said R. Hanina: Each one who looks with a bad eye upon the scholars in this world, his eyes will be filled with smoke in the world to come. And why fire (in the chupa)? Said R. Hanina: Infer from this that each of the upright will be burned by the chupa of his neighbor. And woe to such a burn and such a shame! (i.e., the neighbor's chupa is so beautiful and large that my chupa looks like a small hut against his). Similar to this is what is written [Num. xxvii. 20]: "And thou shalt put some of thy greatness upon him." But not all of it. The elders of that generation used to say: The appearance of Moses was like the sun, and the appearance of Joshua like the moon. Woe to such a burn! woe to such a shame!
R. Hama b. Hanina said: Ten chupas were made by the Holy One, blessed be He, for Adam the first in paradise, as it is written [Ezek. xxviii. 13]: "In Eden the garden of God didst thou abide; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the chrysolite, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold.—(From the word sardius, including the word gold, are ten different kinds.) Mar Zutra says: Eleven—as he counts all the precious stones also. Said R. Johanan: The gold was less in value than all (as it is placed last). What is meant by the continuation of the same verse: "Thy tabrets and thy flutes," etc.? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Hiram the king of Tyre: When I created the world, and saw that thou wouldst rebel, deeming thyself a god, I therefore created holes and flutes in men, in order that thou shouldst be known as human. And according to others He said: "I saw that thou wouldst rebel," etc. I have therefore punished Adam the first with death, so that it should be known that thou wast human. What mean the words, "upon her places of assembly" (Isaiah, in the above cited verse)? Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: Jerusalem in the world to come is not like Jerusalem of this world. In the latter every one who likes to enter does so, but in that of the world to come only those invited will enter.

He said again in the name of said authority: In the world to come the upright will be named with the names of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Is. xliii. 7]: "Every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed; yea, whom I have made."

Samuel b. Nahmeni said in the name of R. Johanan: The following three will be named with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He: the upright, as said above; the Messiah, as it is written [Jer. xxiii. 6]: "And this is his name whereby he shall be called—The Lord Our Righteousness"; and Jerusalem, as it is written [Ezek. xlviii. 35]: "And the name of that city shall be from that day, The Lord is there" (shamah). Do not read shamah (there), but shmah (her name).

R. Elazar said: In the future, holy will be said before the upright as now it is said before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Is. iv. 3]: "And it shall come to pass that whoever is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy—every one that is written down unto life in Jerusalem."

He said again in the name of the same authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, will increase Jerusalem three parsas, as it is written [Zech. xiv. 10]: "And she herself shall be elevated, and be inhabited on her former site," which means that it will be increased to its former size. And whence do you know that the size of the former Jerusalem was three parsas? Said Rabba: There was a certain old man who told me that he had seen the first Jerusalem, and the size thereof was three parsas. And lest one say that it would be difficult to ascend, therefore it is written [Is. lx. 8]: "Who are these that are like a cloud," etc. Said R. Papa: Infer from this that the clouds are at a height of three parsas from the ground.

R. Hanina b. Papa said: The Lord wanted to give a measure to Jerusalem, as it is written [Zech. ii. 6]: "To measure Jerusalem." And the angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, there are many great cities thou hast created in thy world, belonging to the nations, of which thou hast not determined their length and their breadth. For Jerusalem, upon which thy name rests, where is thy Temple, and dwell the upright, thou dost determine a measure.

[Ibid. 8]: "And he said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Without walls shall Jerusalem be inhabited, because of the multitude of men and cattle in her midst."

Resh Lakish said: The Holy One, blessed be He, will add a Litsuy (probably a suburb) to Jerusalem a thousand times the area of one containing country seats and twelve hundred T'trplirus, a thousand towers and one hundred and sixty-nine thousand gardens, and each of all that is said above will be like Ziporias in her glory. And there is a Boraitha which states: R. Jose said: I have seen Ziporias in her glory, and there were one hundred and eighty thousand markets in which only spices for dishes were sold. It is written [Ezek. xli. 6]: "And the side chambers were three one over another, and thirty times." What does that mean? Said R. Levi in the name of R. Papi, quoting R. Jehoshua of Skhui: If there were three Jerusalems, each of them had thirty chambers on the top; and if thirty Jerusalems, each of them had three chambers on the top.
END OF FIRST PART OF TRACT BABA BATHRA AND OF VOL. V. (XIII.) .

Footnotes

167:1 Here in text are the well-known legends of Rabba b. b. Hana among the other Hagadah, which we find necessary to transfer to the end of this chapter.

173:1 The Hagadah here we also transfer to the end of the chapter, as it has nothing to do with this text.

174:1 In the text there is a statement of R. Elazar repeated several times, which we leave for the forthcoming Tract Uktzin at the proper place.

193:1 The Hagadah in text will be placed at the end of this chapter.

195:1 Here is repeated matter in pp. 147-148 of Vol. XII. to "Rabha said."

197:1 A kpiz was nine lugs, or a kab less one lug; according to others, one tug, and the kielah was the same as a half tarkab, which contains one and a half kabs.

200:1 Leeser translates differently; the Talmud, however, takes it literally.

201:1 Joash means despair; Saraph, burn; Choolin, common; and Kilyon, destroying.

201:2 Khzb in Hebrew means lie.

202:1 Leeser translates "they are here"; but in the Bible is written Hninzouth, literally, "who are found."

202:2 Nozar in Hebrew means preserved.

203:1 This matter is transferred from its place at p. 167. See foot-note there.

The Hagadah is known under the name Rabba's or Rabha b. b. Hana's Legends. The scores of commentators thereon say that this is allegoric, and each of them tries to explain after his manner (e.g., philosopher, philosophically, moralist, morally, etc.). We, however, translate literally, without any explanation, leaving it for the consideration of the reader.

204:1 Whether he was a human being or a demon, it is hard to say. As to this, commentators differ, and also as to which government—whether natural or supernatural.

205:1 The garment in which tsitsith are woven.

205:2 In Tract Menachoth the schools differ in the number of threads and knots.

210:1 Leeser's translation could not be used here.

210:2 In the Scripture it is written with Seen, which reads like Samach, and Sukkah means a booth. Leeser's translation cannot here be used.

211:1 Quomah means the height of a person, qummiuth means two heights. Leeser's translation cannot be used.

APPENDIX TO MISHNA I, CHAP. III., PAGE 83.

WE deem it necessary to call the attention of the reader to the fact that the law of occupancy was chiefly taken from the ancient Roman law 1 about usucapio (occupancy), which dictates that each usucapio without titulius (claim) is not considered. The claims must be pro emptore (purchase) or pro donato (gift), pro legato, pro dote, or pro herede (inheritance); and with usucapio, which is based upon inheritance, no other claim was necessary. The law applied even when it was known that the occupant never had a deed to what he had occupied, and the reason was because the plaintiff had time to protest three years, or at three harvestings, and when he did not make any claim nor any protest, it was evident that the occupant had a right to occupy, and no other evidence was needed. There is also a difference between præsentes and absentes of the occupant. However, concerning servitutes (service) there was also usucapio, in the reverse; namely, pro libertate (liberty), which means that the servant or bondsman had a right to free himself by non usus—namely, when during three years he was never put to any work by his master he became free. But there was no usucapio by using the bondsman, even if for several years: property in him was not acquired if he had no other evidence. (See Ltf. Schweppe, § 305.) According to this, Abraham Krochmal, in his Scholia to the Babylonian Talmud (p. 278) maintains that the term "to slaves" in the Mishna in question means that the law of occupancy applies to these slaves themselves; viz., after three years' rest from any service to their masters, the slaves become free, but not, in accordance with the Gemara, conversely. And so he also explains Resh Lakish's statement (p. 96), "that the law of hazakah does not apply to a living creature," as unchangeable, and it seems to us that so it is.

Footnotes

214:1 The law of occupancy also existed in Persia, but it prescribed no less than twenty years. See text, p. 101.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles:

I. Tenan of the original—We have learned in a Mishna; Tania—We have learned in a Boraitha; Itemar—It was taught.

Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately followed by the answers, without being so marked.

When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase, Lishna achrena or Waïbayith Aema or Ikha d'amri (literally, "otherwise interpreted:), we translate only the second.
As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation from the latter, s. Words or passages enclosed in round parentheses ( ) denote the explanation rendered by Rashi to the foregoing sentence or word. Square parentheses [ ] contain commentaries by authorities of the last period of construction of the Gemara.

COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

COPYRIGHT 1916, BY NEW TALMUD PUBLISHING SOCIETY

TO THE REVEREND GENTLEMEN

HERRN GEHEIMER REGIERUNGSRATH

MORITZ LAZARUS, P H.D., D.D. UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR

AND

M ONS. ZADOC KAHANA GRAND RABBIN

DU CONSISTOIRE CENTRAL DES ISRAÉLITES DE FRANCE

WHOSE NAMES ARE FAMOUS

IN THE SCHOLARLY WORLD ALL OVER THE GLOBE

THIS FOURTEENTH VOLUME

IS MOST SINCERELY INSCRIBED BY THEIR ADMIRER AND

PERSONAL FRIEND

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

New York, Eve of Passover, 5662 (April 21st, 1902)

CONTENTS.

(PART II.)

CHAPTER VI.
RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SALE OF SEEDS WHICH BECOME SPOILED, THE QUANTITY OF DUST WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE MEASURES OF GRAIN AND FRUIT, AND WINE WHICH BECOMES SOUR AFTER SALE BEFORE DELIVERY.—CONCERNING CONTRACTORS FOR HOUSES AND STABLES, WELLS AND GARDENS, SITUATED IN NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES OR PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES IN PRIVATE GROUND, AND CONCERNING GRAVES AND CAVES FOR BURYING

215

CHAPTER VII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING ROCKS AND PITS IN GROUND SOLD; THE QUANTITIES OF GREATER OR LESS MEASURE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT VOID A SALE OF FIELDS, VILLAGES, ETC.

231

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING BEQUESTS TO AND INHERITANCE BY NEAR AND DISTANT RELATIVES, MALE AND FEMALE SLAVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, FIRST BORN AND HUSBANDS. ONE MAY OR MAY NOT WISH TO BEQUEATH HIS ESTATE TO STRANGERS WHEN HE HAS CHILDREN. WHICH WILLS MUST BE CONSIDERED AND WHICH WILLS MUST NOT. THE DIVIDING OF AN INHERITANCE BETWEEN GROWN-UP AND MINOR CHILDREN, MALE AND FEMALE

241

CHAPTER IX.
RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SUPPORT OF UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, IF AMONG THE CHILDREN WERE AN HERMAPHRODITE OR AN ANDROGYN. MAY OR MAY NOT ONE BEQUEATH HIS ESTATE TO STRANGERS IF HE HAS CHILDREN? DOES THE SECOND WILL ABOLISH THE FIRST? IF A SICK PERSON RECOVERS AFTER MAKING A GIFT WHILE SICK, MAY HE RETRACT OR NOT? IF SUDDEN DEATH OCCUR TO MANY PERSONS, AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO DIED FIRST, AND EACH OF THE HEIRS CLAIMS FOR HIS BENEFIT

312

CHAPTER X.

HOW DEEDS SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND WHERE THE WITNESSES SHOULD SIGN. CONCERNING ERASURES OF SOME WORDS IN DEEDS. IN WHICH CASES BOTH PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT AT THE WRITING OF THE DEEDS, AND IN WHICH ONE OF THEM SUFFICES. CONCERNING A DEPOSITED DEED WHICH WAS PAID IN PART. HOW SHALL THE COURT APPROVE AN ERASED DOCUMENT? PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE USE WHICH WAS LEFT TO POOR AND RICH BROTHERS

358

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

OF

TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE).

(PART II)

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNAS I. TO VIII. If one sold fruit and it did not sprout, or an ox and thereafter it was found a goring one. May the trouble of slaughtering and selling the meat be taken into consideration? If an ox was found killed at the side of another pasturing one. Between majority and hazakah, which should be preferred (see footnote p. 217)? All hold the theory of majority. If one delivered wheat for grinding to fine meal, but the miller did not properly grind it; or if meal were delivered to a baker and he did not bake it properly. If one buys fruit, he has to accept a quarter of a kabh of dust on a saah. If he sold a cellar of wine, he must accept ten harsh barrels on each hundred. If wheat, a quarter of a kabh of peas; if barley, a quarter of chaff; if lentils, of dust. If the buyer has found more than the above prescribed quantity. The difference between a cellar and this cellar, and also if for keeping was added. May or may not wine which is sold in retail stores be considered products of the vine? If one sells wine, and it turns sour. Which wine is considered an old one. If one is proud, he is not tolerated even by his family. A commoner who disguises himself in the garment of a scholar cannot enter into the habitation of the Holy One, etc. If one sells, or a contractor undertakes to build, a wedding or a widow house. A groom who resides in the house of his father-in-law is lighter than bran, and still lighter is an invited guest who brings with him an uninvited one, and still lighter is he who answers before hearing the question. If one wishes to build a stable. If one possesses a well, situated on the other side of his neighbor's house, or a garden inside of his neighbor's. If there was a public thoroughfare through one's field, etc. If one sells a place for digging a grave, or an undertaker makes a place for one, the inside of the cave must be four by six, etc., 215-230

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNAS I. TO VI. I sell you earth of the size whereon one kur can be sown, etc., or measured with a line. In case the buyer has to make return, it shall be in money. If the seller said "the size of a kur," without any addition, how is the law? "I sell you the estate," with a measurement a trifle more or less; or, "this estate . . . with its marks and boundaries." If two versions of the seller contradict each other, which is to be considered? The difference in opinion of the Amoraim in the explanation of Mishna IV. R. Papa bought an estate said to be twenty saahs—after it was measured it was found only fifteen. To two brothers who had divided their inheritance came a third brother (of whose existence they were not previously aware). If brothers divided their inheritance, and a creditor of their father came and took away the share of one of them. If the members of the court differ in the amount, upon appraisement brought before them. "I sell you the half of the field"; "The southern half of this field," etc.—the seller has to give space for a partition, etc., 231-240

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNA I. There are those who bequeath, and also inherit, others who inherit but do not bequeath; and also those who neither bequeath nor inherit. The passage [Num. xxvii. 8] in the Scripture does not correspond with all that is taught above. Who were the grandfathers of Pinchos ben Elazar on his mother's side. If one is about to marry, it is advisable for him to investigate the character of the bride's brothers, It is better for one to hire himself to Abhada Zarah (idolatry) than to rely upon people that shall support him. Abhada Zarah means "idolatry." Literally, however, it is "a strange service." Is the tribe of the mother's side equal to the tribe of the father's side? What happened to Janai and Jehudah the second when they came together? The husband from his wife. Whence is this deduced? Whence came Pinchos ben Elazar to have a mountain which his father did not possess?

Whence is it deduced that the husband does not inherit the estate to which his wife during her life is only heir apparent? In the case of a gift with the ceremony of a sudarium, whether healthy or sick, what time may be given him to retract, 241-255 MISHNAS II. TO IV. The order of inheritance is thus, etc. If one decides that a daughter shall inherit, when there is a daughter of a son, even if he were a prince in Israel, he must not be listened to. What happened to Rabban Johanan with the Sadducean? "The daughters of Z'lophchod have inherited," etc. The land, of Israel was divided among the ascendants from Egypt, and not among their children. Joshua and Caleb inherited the shares of the spies. Whence is this deduced? May or may not a disciple be honored in the presence of his master? Why is the order in mentioning the daughters of Z'lophchod different in the Scripture?

If a woman marries at less than twenty years of age, she bears children until sixty; but when she marries after forty, she does not then bear children. There were seven men who encompassed the whole world since its creation until now, etc. How was the land of Israel divided—into twelve parts, or among the people severally? The land of Israel will be divided among thirteen tribes. A son and a daughter are equal concerning inheritance, etc. How shall the double share of the first-born be counted—double as to each brother or as to the whole estate. What is the reason that Jacob took away the privilege of the first-born from Reuben and gave it to Joseph? Jacob's children, who came to Egypt, in sum you find seventy; however, if you will number them in detail, you will find only sixty-nine.

In the case of inheritance of a promissory note, the first-born took a double share, etc. A first-born does not take a double share in a loan. The Palestinians, however, say he does. What is to be done with an estate bequeathed for life only, which the in. heritor has sold? A first-born does not inherit property to come in the future, and the same is the case with a husband. If the first-born protests when his brothers come to improve the estate left by their father, 255-271 MISHNAS V. TO VII. A will which is against the law of the Scripture must not be listened to; however, if it is as a gift, it may. "My son is my first-born," he takes a double share; "My son is a first-born," he does not.

"Go to Sh'kh'at my son, who is a first-born, whose spittle cures eyes." If two wives of one have born two sons in a secret place which was dark, and it is not known who was born first, they may write a power of attorney each to the other, etc. If one was known to the people as a first-born, and his father said of another, etc. A creditor may collect from bondsmen belonging to orphans for their father's debt. A second-cousin, a third-cousin, may be a witness (according to the law). If one says, "This child shall inherit all," or "My wife shall take an equal share with one of my sons," he is to be listened to. If the word "gift" was mentioned in the beginning, etc. How is this to be illustrated If one wrote, "The field on the east side shall be given to A, and B shall inherit that on the west side," is title given or not? All that is said in one speech is valid, except as to idolatry.

If one says: "A shall inherit my estate," and he has a daughter, he said nothing; or, "A shall inherit my estate instead of my daughter," or, "My daughter instead of my son"—how is the law? A Halakha must not be taken for granted from a discussion or from an act, unless one is told to do so. Rabbi said: My youth made me presume to contradict Nathan the Babylonian. If one bequeath all his estates to his wife, he makes her a guardian only. (All that is said above treats of a will by a sick man.) How is it if this was done while in good health? If one has bequeathed all his estates to his sons, but has left to his wife a small portion of ground.

How is it in a similar case when one is in good health? A sick person who has bequeathed all his estate to a stranger, it is to be investigated if the latter is in some way fit to be called a direct heir. An inheritance has no interruption, and goes direct to the heirs of the inheritor. The rabbis condemned one who bequeathed his estate to strangers, leaving out his children. What happened to Shamai the elder with Jonathan b. Uziel, 271-297 MISHNAS VIII. TO XII. "This is my son," he is to be trusted; "My brother," he is not. if one testify he has divorced his wife, he is to be trusted. If a short period of time, can one's testimony be divided—that for the past he should not be trusted, and for the future he should? If a sick person said to witnesses: "Write, and give a mana to so and so," and before they did so he dies. How is it if the same was said by one in good health? If one wishes to bequeath his estate to his children, etc. How if he has written "from to-day and after my death"? If a sudarium is mentioned, no matter what version was used, nothing is needed to be added. "My estates are bequeathed to you, and after you to B," etc. Who is called a crafty villain? To a gift presented by one who is dying, at what time is title given? There was a woman who had a tree on the estate of R. Bibbi b. Abayi, etc. If A said to B, "I give you this ox as a present, with the stipulation that you shall return it to me." If a sick man said, "I have a mana with so and so," the witnesses may write this, etc. The Halakha prevails that it must not be feared the court will err. The father has the right to gather the products bequeathed to his son, etc. If he left grown-up and minor sons, the grown ones have no right to derive any benefit on account of the minors, etc. How is it if a woman has borrowed money, consumed it, and thereafter she married without paying her debt, and brought estates with her at marriage? "The following is not to be returned in the jubilee year," etc. (p. 310). In some respects the husband should be considered as an heir, and in some respects as a buyer, 297-311

CHAPTER IX.

MISHNAS I. AND II. If one leave sons and daughters, if the inheritance is of great worth, the daughters must be supported from it; if a moderate one, the daughters must be supported, and the sons may go a-begging. If the estates were of great worth, but there was a promissory note in the hands of a creditor. If the deceased left a widow and a daughter, and the estates left could support only one of them. If one leave sons, daughters, and an hermaphrodite. "If my pregnant wife shall bear a male," etc. A child of one day inherits and bequeaths, etc. All that was said here was taught in the city of Sura. In Pumbeditha, however, it was taught otherwise, etc. One said, "I bequeath my estate to the children who shall be born of you by me," etc. One said, "My estate shall be for you and your children." And R. Joseph decided: One half of the estate belongs to her, and the other half to her children. There was one who had sent home pieces of silk, without any order to which member of his household they belonged, 312-321 MISHNAS III. TO VII. If one left grown-up and minor sons, and the former improved the estate, etc. If one has made the wedding of his son in one of his houses, the son acquires title to the house, etc. Three things the rabbis enacted as laws without giving any reason. Brothers partners in business; if one of them was taken by the government to work, etc. If one of the brothers took two hundred zuz to begin the study of the Torah or to learn a trade, etc. Wedding presents may be replevined by the court. If one has betrothed a woman and dies before marriage, a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one hundred zuz. Five things were said about wedding presents: (a) They may be collected by the court; (b) they are returned at the time when the donator marries, etc. Who is like unto a wealthy man who is known to be rich by his many cattle and estates, etc.? The different explanations of Prov. xv. 15. If one sends presents to the home of his betrothed's father, to the value of one hundred manas, and has partaken of the betrothal meal, even for one dinar, they are not to be returned. How is it when the presents have improved, etc.? If a sick person had bequeathed all his estates to strangers, etc. Three things Achithophel charged his sons, etc. If a sick person said: "A shall reside in such a house," or, "B shall consume the products of such and such a tree," etc. A sick person who has bequeathed all of his estates to strangers, it must be investigated how was the case. If a sick person has bequeathed all his estates to strangers and thereafter is cured. The expressions, "He shall take," "shall be rewarded."

How shall it be done if he expresses himself A is the one who shall derive benefit from my estates? If a sick person has confessed, "I owe so much to so and so," shall it be taken for granted, etc.? In five cases the act of a gift is not considered unless the bequeather writes "all my estates." What is considered estates? How is the case with the Holy Scrolls—as they must not be sold, are they considered estate or not, etc.? The mother of Rami b. Hama bequeathed to him her estates on one evening. The mother of R. Amram the Pious possessed a bundle of deeds, etc. Concerning a gift in part of a sick person-in one respect it is equal to a gift by one in good health, etc. A sick person who has bequeathed all his estates to strangers, although made with a sudarium, if he was cured he may retract. If one bequeathed first to one and thereafter to another, etc., 321-345 MISHNA VIII. If in the deed it was not mentioned that he was sick, and he claims that he was sick at the time of writing and had a right to retract. What kind of evidence is required, etc. It happened in the city of Bene Brack, that one sold the estate of his father and died; and his relatives complained that he was not of age when he died. What must be the age of one who has the right to sell the estates left him by his father? How is he to be considered during the nineteenth year—nineteen, which is still not of age, or twenty? There was one lad less than twenty, who had sold the estate of his father. If a lad of thirteen years and one day presented a gift to some one, his act is valid. If one divides his estates verbally, no matter if he was in good health or dangerously sick, according to R. Elazar to real estate title is given by money, etc. It happened with an inhabitant of the city of Mruni, who was in Jerusalem, that he possessed much valuable property which he desired to present to different persons, etc. If it happens that a sick person divides his estates verbally on the Sabbath, etc. Suppose a house falls upon A and his father or on any persons, that one of them has to be bequeather and the other inheritor, and it is not known who dies first. If a son has sold his share of the inheritance of his father to some one, and dies while the father was still alive, and thereafter his father died, the son of the seller has a right to take away the goods from the buyer. And this is a complicated case in the law of money matters. A son inherits from his mother when he is already in the grave, so that his brothers from his father's side should inherit from him, 345-357

CHAPTER X.

MISHNAS I. TO V. A simple get (document) the witnesses must sign at the end of the contents. A folded one, however, the witnesses must sign outside, etc. In what place should the witnesses sign a folding document? If the signatures of the witnesses were separated by a space of two lines from the writing, the document is invalid; is it meant with their usual space or without? There was a folding document which came before Rabbi, and he said: "There is no date to it," etc. All must be done as is customary in the country.

If there was only one witness to a simple, etc. If in the document was written "hundred zuz," which make twenty selas, etc. If on the top of the document was written "a mana," and on the bottom "two hundred zuz," or vice versa, etc. There was a document in which was written, "six hundred and a zuz," etc. There was a toll-master of a bridge who was a Jew who said to Abayi: "Let the master show me his signature," etc. A divorce may be written by the court for a husband in the absence of his wife-the husband must pay the fees. Documents of arbitrating and all other acts of mediating by the court must not be written unless both parties are present-at the expense of both. There was a receipt approved by Jeremiah b. Abba.

However, the same woman came into his court to claim her marriage contract several years later, etc. If one has paid a part. of his debt, and deposited his document with some one. If it happened to one that a promissory note became erased, he must find witnesses. The approval must be written: "We three, E, F, G, the undersigned, were sitting together, and before us was brought by A, the son of B, an erased note," etc. If one comes before the court claiming that he has lost a promissory note from so and so, etc. If one has presented a gift to his neighbor by a deed, if the deed was returned by the beneficiary the gift is considered returned. The following is the order of claims before the court.

The lender comes to the court to complain that the borrower does not pay his debt, etc. Concerning deeds, they may write another one without mentioning the responsibility of the seller for the estate, etc. There was a woman who gave money to one that he might buy estates for her, etc. If one came to claim a field saying that he possesses a deed, and also that it was in his possession the years of hazakah, etc. If there was any forgery in the document, or there were incompetent witnesses, the transferring is not considered, 357-379 MISHNAS VI. TO IX. If one has paid a part of his debt, according to R. Jehudah the promissory note must be changed. According to R. Jose. the lender has to give a receipt for the amount paid.

The Halakha prevails neither with R. Jehudah nor with R. Jose, etc. If the document was written at the date used by the government, and such a date fell on a Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, etc. It happened with R. Itz'hak b. Joseph, who had money with R. Abba, etc. Abba said to his scribe.

"When it shall happen that you have to write a document with a later date, you must write as follows: this document was postdated by us for a certain reason," etc. If one holds a promissory note for a hundred zuz, and requests that it shall be rewritten in two notes each of fifty zuz, etc. If there were two brothers, one rich and one poor, and they inherited from their father a bath-house, or an olive-press house, if for business they must share equally; but if for private use, etc. If there are two persons who bear one and the same name, they cannot give promissory notes to each other, nor to any of the inhabitants.

If a promissory note was paid, etc. If one (while struggling with death) says to his son: "A promissory note among the notes I possess is paid, but I do not remember which," etc. If one made a loan to his neighbor through a surety, he must not collect first from the surety, etc. Whether a surety has to pay or not, R. Jehudah and R. lose differ, etc. If the surety said: "Lend to this man, and I am the surety," etc. If the expression was, "Give to him, and I will return you," then has the lender nothing to do with the borrower. There was a judge who transferred the estate of the borrower to the lender. before the lender had demanded his money from the borrower, etc. There was a surety for orphans who had paid the lender before he notified the orphans. If one was put under the ban because he declined to pay his debts.

If the promissory note of the deceased was in the hands of the surety, who claims to have paid the lender, etc. There was a surety for a deceased debtor to a heathen, who paid the heathen before he had demanded his debt from the Orphans. If one made himself surety to a woman for a marriage contract, etc. A sick person who has consecrated all his estates, and at the same time said "So and so has a mana with me," he may be trusted. A sick person who said: "A has a mana with me," and thereafter the orphans claimed that they have paid, they are to be trusted. If one borrows money on a promissory note, the lender has a right to collect from encumbered estates. If it happen that a creditor sees his debtor in the market, grapples him by the throat and one passes by and says, "Leave him alone, I will pay," he is nevertheless free, because the loan was made not upon his surety.

Biblically there is no difference between a loan on a document and by word of mouth, and it should be collected from encumbered estates. A verbal loan is not collectible—neither from heirs nor from buyers. If the surety signed before the signatures, it may be collected from encumbered estates. Only a surety in the presence of the court is free from a sudarium, but all others are not. 379-395

TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE).

(PART II.)

CHAPTER VI.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SALE OF SEEDS WHICH BECOME SPOILED, THE QUANTITY OF DUST WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE MEASURES OF GRAIN AND FRUIT, AND WINE WHICH BECOMES SOUR AFTER SALE BEFORE DELIVERY.—CONCERNING CONTRACTORS FOR HOUSES AND STABLES, WELLS AND GARDENS SITUATED IN NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES OR PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES IN PRIVATE GROUND, AND CONCERNING GRAVES AND CAVES FOR BURYING . MISHNA I.: If one sold fruit or grain (without any stipulation), and the buyer sowed it but it did not sprout, even if this were seed of flax, the seller is not responsible. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that if he sold seeds for gardens, which could not be used for eating, the seller is responsible.
GEMARA: It was taught: If one sold an ox, and thereafter it was found it was a goring one, the sale is void according to Rabh. Samuel, however, said: The seller may say: "I sold it to you for slaughtering." Let us see: If the buyer was one of those that buy for slaughtering (e.g., a butcher), why then should the sale be void according to Rabh? And if he was one who buys for working purposes (e.g., a farmer), why should the sale be valid according to Samuel? It treats of one who buys for both purposes (e.g., if he was both a farmer and a butcher). But even then, let us see the amount he paid for it, from which we can judge whether he bought for slaughtering or for work. It treats of where the meat has increased in price to the extent of the value of an ox for working. If so, what is the difference (the buyer gets the full value for his money in any case,)? The difference is, if the trouble of slaughtering and selling the meat should be taken into consideration (according to Rabh it should, and therefore the sale is void; and according to Samuel it should not). Again, let us see how was the case. If the seller has no cash to return, why, according to Rabh, should the sale be void, so that the buyer has to return the ox? Let him keep the ox for his money; as people say: "If you keep something in hand belonging to your debtor, even if it is bran, take the trouble to make money by it." It means when the seller is not lacking in cash. According to Rabh, the sale is void because the majority must always be taken into consideration, and the majority of cattle-buyers are traders; and Samuel maintains that only in prohibitory laws the majority is to be taken into consideration, but not in money matters.

Come and hear an objection from the following (First Gate, V., Mishna I.): "Should an ox gore a cow and the new-born calf be found dead at her side, and it be not known," etc. (see there, end of the Mishna, p. 106). Now, according to the theory of our Mishna, the decision of the cited Mishna would not be correct, as the majority of cattle should be taken into consideration, which conceive and bring forth living offspring. Hence the dead one found at her side is dead because of the goring. Why, then, is it considered doubtful there? The doubt was, if the ox gored the cow in front, so that the premature birth took place because of terror before goring, or if the cow was gored in the back, and the premature birth was occasioned by the goring, and therefore the extent of the injury is considered doubtful. And there is a rule that such be divided.
Shall we assume that the point of difference between Rabh and Samuel is the same as that in which the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ? "If an ox was pasturing and another one was found killed at his side, although investigation shows that the death occurred from goring, and the pasturing ox was vicious in goring, or the death occurred from biting, and the pasturing ox was vicious in biting, it is still uncertain that this ox has gored or bitten the other." R. Aha, however, said: If there was found a camel killed at the side of a biting camel, although the latter was not yet vicious, it must be taken for a certainty that he killed the other. The schoolmen thought majority and hazakah 1 identical; for as a goring or a biting animal has a hazakah to gore, bite, and kill, it is to be taken for a certainty that the gored or bitten one found at his side was killed by him, and the same is the case with the majority.

Is it not to assume that Rabh holds with R. Aha, and Samuel with the first Tana?

Nay! Rabh may say: My decision is correct, even in accordance with the first Tana of the cited Boraitha, as the reason of his decision is not majority, but hazakah"—i.e., there was not a majority of vicious oxen, but one, which had a habit (hazakah) of goring or biting, as hazakah and majority are not identical; but if there should be a majority, it would be taken into consideration. And, also, Samuel may say: My decision is correct, even in accordance with R. Aha, as his reason is the habit (hazakah) of that animal which was found near, and a majority would not be taken into consideration.

Come and hear an objection from our Mishna, which states that the seller is not responsible, even for seeds of flax. Does not the term "even" mean, although the majority is for sowing, and nevertheless it is not taken into consideration? Hence it opposes Rabh? In this point the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: "If one sold fruit, and the buyer has sown it but it did not sprout, if it was garden seed, which could not be used for eating, he is responsible; but if it was seed of flax, he is not." R. Jose, however, said that the seller has to return to the buyer the value of the seed, as the majority buy it for sowing only. The sages, however, answered him: There are many who buy it for other purposes.

But who of the Tanaim in this Boraitha hold not the theory of majority? Shall we assume that it means R. Jose; and the sages answered him that there are many people who buy seeds, etc.? Then all of them hold the theory of majority, but one takes into consideration the majority of the seed (i.e., the majority of seed which is bought for sowing, and the other the majority of men)? Therefore we must say that it means, the difference of opinion between the first Tana and R. Jose, or the difference of opinion between the first Tana and the sages, who answered him (i.e., the statement in the Boraitha, "and they said to him," means the first Tana, not R. Jose).

The rabbis taught: "The seller has to return to the buyer the value of the seed, but not the expenses for ploughing, sowing, etc.; according to others, however, the expenses also." Who are the others? Said R. Hisda: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Which R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? Shall we assume from our Mishna, which states that for seeds which could not be used for eating, he is responsible, and from the first Tana's statement, that the seller is not responsible for seeds of flax, that it is to be inferred for seeds of flax only, but for other seeds which cannot be used for eating, the Tana is also of the opinion that the seller is responsible? Then they do not differ at all. Therefore it must be said that they differ in the expenses, the first Tana holding the seller must return the value of the seeds only, and R. Simeon all the expenses also (and so R. Hisda means R. Simeon of our Mishna). But perhaps the reverse is the case—R. Simeon holds the value of the seeds only, while the first Tana holds the expenses also? This presents no difficulty; for as usual the second Tana adds something. But perhaps the entire Mishna is in accordancewith R. Simeon and is not complete, but should read thus: If one sells fruits and they were sown and did not sprout, even if they were seeds of flax, he is not responsible. Such is the decree of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who holds that only for garden seeds that cannot be used for eating the seller is responsible. Therefore we must say that R. Hisda means R. Simeon b. Gamaliel of the following Boraitha: "If one delivered wheat for grinding of fine meal, but the miller did not properly grind it, but made it into bruised grain or bran; or if meal were delivered to a baker and he did not bake it properly, but when he took it out it fell to pieces; or if an ox were delivered to a slaughterer, and he made it illegal, each of these persons is responsible, as they are considered bailees for hire." R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, that they not only have to pay the damages, but also for the shame of the owner in the eyes of the guests who were invited to the meal, as well as for the shame of the guests themselves; and so the same R. Simeon used to say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem, if one ordered a banquet for guests, and the host spoiled it, he had to pay for his own shame, and for the shame of the guests. There was also another great custom in Jerusalem: "a flag was put at the door where a banquet was to be given, and the invited guests had to enter only when the flag was still at the door, but when it was taken off they were not to enter any more."

MISHNA II.: If one buys fruit, he has to accept a quarter' of a kabh of dust on a saah; of dry figs, he has to accept ten wormy ones in a hundred; on a cellar of wine, he must accept ten harsh ones on each hundred; if he sells him earthen jugs made in Sharon he has to accept ten unglazed ones on each hundred.

GEMARA: R. K'tina taught: By a quarter of a kabh of dust is meant peas, but not earth proper. Is that so? Did not Rabba b. Hyya Ktuspha'h say in the name of Rabba: If one has cleaned off little stones from the barn of his neighbor he has to pay him the value of wheat (i.e., as if they were there, he may put them in the measure, but to put them intentionally he is not allowed)? Peas, he has to accept a quarter of a kabh on a saah, but dust he has also to accept, although a less quantity. You say less than a quarter of dust, but did not the following Boraitha state: "If one sells wheat, he has to accept a quarter of a kabh of peas on a saah; if barley, a quarter of chaff on a saah; and if lentils, a quarter of dust." Is it not to assume that a quarter of dust is to be accepted for wheat and barley also? With lentils it is different, because they are not cut, but torn out from earth, and therefore usually a great deal of dust remains with them, which is not the case with wheat and barley; but if it is so, infer from this that for wheat and barley no dust must be accepted at all, while it is stated above that less than a kabh is to be accepted? Nay, from the statement that for lentils he has to accept a quarter nothing is to be inferred; this being stated, lest one say because there is usually much dust more than this quantity is to be accepted, it comes to teach us that it is not so.

R. Huna said: If the buyer has found more than the above prescribed quantity and sieves it, he may sieve the whole quantity he bought, without leaving any dust at all, and the seller has to fill the measure without allowing for the prescribed quantity. According to some it is the strict law, as usually one gives his money for clean fruit, but if for a trifle of dust, as much as a quarter of a kabh on a saah, the buyer is not very particular and does not take the trouble to sieve it; but in our case, when he is compelled to trouble himself with sieving, he may make the whole fruit extremely clean; and according to others, it is a fine, as usually no more than a quarter of a kabh ought to be found in a saah, and when there was found more, it is presumed that the seller put it in intentionally, and therefore he is fined by the rabbis.

Come and hear an objection from the following Boraitha: "If a planter undertakes to plant a field with fruit trees, the owner of it must accept empty space for ten trees on each hundred, but if, however, it was found empty for more than this, he has to plant trees on the whole empty space." Hence is R. Huna's above statement law? Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: This is not a support to R. Huna, as an empty place for more than ten trees is to be considered as a separate field, and the planter who undertook to plant the owner's fields is to be considered as if he had to begin the planting in this empty field, and therefore he has to plant the whole field, which case is not similar to that of R. Huna. "If he sold a cellar of wine," etc. Let us see how is the case. Whether the seller said to the buyer, "I sell you a cellar of wine" or "this cellar of wine," it is a difficulty from the following Boraitha. "If he said 'I sell you a cellar of wine,' all of it must be good; if 'this cellar of wine,' he must give him wine which is sold in the retail stores; but if he said, 'I sell you this cellar,' even if it was found to be all vinegar, the sale is valid." Our Mishna speaks of the case wherein the seller said, "a cellar of wine," and there is no contradiction of the cited Boraitha as it should read, and the buyer has to accept the ten spoiled ones in the hundred. But has not R. Hyya taught: If one sells a barrel of wine, he must give the buyer all good wine? With one barrel it is different, as a barrel contains only one kind of wine; but has not R. Z'bid in the name of the school of R. Ossiah taught in "a cellar of wine" all must be good, in "the cellar of wine" the seller must give the buyer all good wine, but the latter must accept ten bad in the hundred; and this is the word Outzar ("treasure of wine") which the sages have taught in our Mishna? Therefore it must be said that our Mishna treats of the case wherein the seller said "this cellar," and the contradiction from the above Boraitha in the case, if "this cellar," presents no difficulty, as R. Z'bid says, if the seller told the buyer, "I sell you wine for keeping," and the Boraitha says the words "for keeping" were not said, and therefore (the Halakha prevails thus) if the seller said, "a cellar of wine for keeping," all of it must be good; if "this cellar of wine for keeping," the buyer must accept ten in the hundred; if "this cellar of wine," without the addition "for keeping," the seller may give the buyer wine that is sold in retail stores.

The schoolmen propounded a question; How is it if the seller said, "a cellar of wine," without the addition "for keeping"? On this point R. Aha and Rabhina differ. According to one the buyer has to accept ten in the hundred, and according to the other he has not, the one who says "he must accept" inferring it from R. Z'bid, who states in the case of "a cellar of wine," all of it must be good, and it was explained above that he speaks of the case in which the seller added "for keeping," from which it is to be inferred that if these words were not added, the buyer must accept; and the other, who says the buyer must not, infers from the above Boraitha, which states in the case of "a cellar of wine" all of it must be good; and it was explained above that the Boraitha treats of the case wherein "for keeping" was not said. But to him who infers from R. Z'bid, is not the Boraitha contradictory? He may say the Boraitha is not completed, but should read thus: This is said, if the seller told the buyer "for keeping," but if not, the buyer must accept, and if the seller said "this cellar of wine" without any addition, he may give the buyer wine which is sold in the stores; but to him who infers from the Boraitha, is not R. Z'bid contradictory who, as explained, said that the seller told the buyer the wine was "for keeping"? He may say that the same is the case if the seller did not say "for keeping," and the above explanation was only in order that the Boraitha and R. Z'bid might not contradict each other; in reality, however, R. Z'bid does not agree with the Boraitha.
R. Jehudah said: On wine which is sold in stores the usual benediction may be made. (The benediction is, "Blessed be Thou the Lord our God King of the Universe who hast created the products of the vine.") and R. Jehudah means to say that although the wine in stores is usually bad, it is still called the product of the vine. R. Hisda, however, said: What have we to do with such a wine (i.e., how can such wine be called a product of the vine)?

An objection was raised: In the case of moulded bread and sour wine, and any dish of which the appearance is spoiled, the benediction should be "That all is created by His words" (hence it contradicts R. Jehudah). Said R. Z'bid: R. Jehudah admits that over wine made of kernels, which is usually sold on the corners of streets, the right benediction may be said. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "There is R. Jehudah, and there is R. Hisda, each of them with his opinion; I would like to know how is yours, master?" And he answered, "I am aware of the following Boraitha: 'If one examine a barrel of wine for the purpose of separating heave-offering from it, for all others, and he did so for a month or two, and thereafter it was found that the wine turned into vinegar, three days is considered certain, and further on doubtful.' How is this to be understood? Said R. Johanan thus: The first three days from the examination it is to be considered certainly wine, and thereafter it is to be considered doubtful. Why so? Because usually wine becomes sour from the top, and when he tasted it, it was not sour, and if you say it had become sour immediately after he tasted it, the smell only was vinegar-like, but the taste still of wine (as the sages had a tradition that less than three days from the beginning it becomes not vinegar) and such is considered wine. R. Jehoshua b. Levi, however, said that all he separated in the last three days is certainly vinegar, but previous to that it is doubtful. Why so? Because usually wine begins to turn sour from the bottom, and maybe when he tasted it it was sour already, of which he was not aware; and even should I admit that wine begins to turn sour from the top, my decision is still correct as it may be that it began to turn sour immediately after being tasted, and I hold that if it smells of vinegar, though the taste is still of wine, it must be considered vinegar" (hence according to R. Jehoshua b. Levi the wine which is sold in stores is not considered wine at all, and according to R. Johanan it is considered wine).

The sages of the South taught in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Levi thus: The first three days it should be considered as wine, the last three days as vinegar, and in the days between as doubtful. But does this statement not contradict itself? The first three days it certainly is wine, hence if the smell is of vinegar and the taste of wine, it is considered wine; and thereafter they said, the last three days it is certainly vinegar, from which it is to be inferred that if the smell is of vinegar and the taste of wine, it is considered vinegar. The case was that it was found wholly strong vinegar, and it is stated above that it takes no less than three days after it turns sour to become wholly vinegar; hence it is to be supposed that in the last three days it was already vinegar. However, according to which of these two was the conclusion of R. Joseph? In this, also, R. Mari and R. Z'bid differ, one saying that his conclusion was in accordance with R. Johanan, and the other saying it was in accordance with R. Jehoshua b. Levi.

It was taught: If one sells a barrel of wine and it turns sour, according to Rabh the first three days it is considered tinder the control of the seller, and thereafter "it is considered under the control of the buyer." Samuel, however, maintains that the seller is not responsible even when it was still in his barrel, as this is to be considered the fate of the buyer.
R. Joseph acted in accordance with Rabh concerning beer of dates, and according to Samuel with wine, the Halakha, according to Samuel, however, prevails in every respect. 1 MISHNA III.: If one sells wine and it turns sour, the seller is not responsible; if, however, it was known that the nature of his wine was to turn sour (and the buyer was not aware of it), the sale is void. If he said, "I sell you wine, prepared with spices, in good order," the wine must remain in good order until the feast of Pentecost. (Afterward it may become spoiled by heat.) If the seller sold the buyer old wine, it must be from last year; and if he said "very old," it must be aged not less than three years.
GEMARA: Said R. Jose b. Hanina: All this is said of the case wherein it was delivered to the buyer in his own jugs; but if it was placed in the jugs of the seller, the buyer might say: "Here are your jugs and your wine." Why then may not the seller claim: You ought not to keep it so long? It means that while selling, the seller told the buyer "for keeping." But what compels R. Jose to such a difficult interpretation, in which the jugs were the buyer's, and the seller says "for keeping"? Why is it not simply said that the jugs were the seller's and he said nothing? Said Rabha: It is because the further statement of the Mishna, "that if it was known that the nature of the seller's wine was to turn sour the sale is void" was a difficulty to him. Why, then, let the seller claim he ought not to keep it so long? We must then say, that the Mishna treats of the case wherein the seller told the buyer "for keeping" (he therefore interpreted the whole Mishna, that such was the stipulation), and infer from this that so it is. He, however, differs with R. Hyya b. Joseph, who said that the fate of one causes the spoiling of his wine; as it is written [Habakkuk, ii. 5]: "And even the wine of a proud man rebels."

Said R. Mari: If one is proud, he is not tolerated even by his family, as the above verse reads "the proud man whose house will not stand," which is to say that he is not tolerated by his household. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: A commoner who disguises himself in the garment of a scholar, cannot enter into the habitation of the Holy One, blessed be He; and this is deduced from an analogy of expression, Nvie, which is to be found in Ex. xv. 13. The Hebrew expression in the above cited verse is also Y'nvie (literally, "dwelling," "inhabit").

Rabha said: "If one sells a barrel of wine to a storekeeper (with the stipulation that he shall sell it at retail and then pay the owner), and a half or a third of the wine turns sour, the law is that the seller must accept the return of his wine; and this is said only in case the faucet was not changed by the storekeeper, but if it was changed and placed near to yeast, there is no responsibility, and there is also no responsibility if the storekeeper kept the wine over the market day." He said again: "If one has accepted wine for half interest, with the intention of taking it to the suburb of Dwulchpht (where usually wine is dear), and by the time it reached there the price was lowered, the law is that the owner has to accept the return of the wine." The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it when the same was vinegar? Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi:
When we were at R. Kahana's he said to us, the same is the case with vinegar, as he agrees with R. Jose b. Hanina's statement above. "Old wine," etc. A Boraitha in addition to our Mishna states that if it was said, "very old wine, it must keep its good quality until the feast of tabernacle in the third year."

MISHNA IV.: If one sells to one a place for the purpose of building a wedding-house for his son or a widow-house for his daughter, and the same is the case if a contractor undertakes to build such for him, the size must be not less than four ells in length by six in breadth; such is the decree of R. Aqiba. R. Ishmael, however, maintains that this is the size of a stable. If one wishes to build a stable for cattle, he builds it four by six. The smallest house is no less than six by eight, a large one eight by ten, and a triclinum (restaurant) ten by ten, and the height must be a half of its length and of its width. An example of this, said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, was the building of the Temple.
GEMARA: Why does the Mishna state "a wedding-house for his son and a widow-house for his daughter"? Let it state a wedding or a widow house for his son or daughter. The Mishna incidentally teaches us that it is not a good custom for a son-in-law to dwell with his father-in-law, as it is written in the book of Ben Sira: "I have weighed everything on the scale and did not find a thing to be lighter than bran; however, a groom who resides in the house of his father-in-law is lighter than bran, and still lighter than he is an invited guest who brings with him an uninvited companion, and still lighter is the one who answers before he has heard thoroughly the question, as it is written [Prov. xviii. 13]: 'When one returneth an answer before he understandeth (the question), it is a folly unto him and a shame.'" "If one wishes to build a stable," etc. Who said this? According to some, R. Aqiba himself, and he said so; and although this is the size of a stable for cattle, it nevertheless happens that human beings live in such a building (and as the seller or the contractor did not stipulate the size, the minimum may be taken). Others say R. Ishmael taught this saying: That if one wishes to build a stable, it is the size of four by six. "Triclinum," etc. There is a Boraitha: For a quantir, twelve ells square is needed. What does it mean? A fore yard? "An example of this," etc. Who taught this? Some say R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and it should read thus. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: All must be judged according to the building of the Temple, and some say that the first Tana taught an example of it (and he was about to finish his statement with "the building of the Temple," but R. Simeon b. Gamaliel interrupted him saying:) Do you want to compare all common buildings with the building of the Temple; do all people build such buildings?

We have learned in a Boraitha: Anonymous teachers say the height must be not less than the length of the crossbeams of the ceiling. But why not say, simply, the height must be as the width? If you wish, it may be said that usually a house is wider at the top than at the bottom; and if you wish, it may be said that, because the ends of the beams are placed in the enclosures of the wall, they are longer than the width of the house.

MISHNA V.: If one possesses a well, situated on the other side of his neighbor's house (by inheritance, or even bought from him with a path), so that when water is needed he must pass through the house, he may enter and leave at the time people usually enter and leave. However, he is not allowed to take his cattle to the well, but he has to take water for them outside of the house and water them. The owner of the well, as well as the owner of the house, has a right to put a lock on it.

GEMARA: A lock on what? Said R. Johanan: Both locks may be put on the well. It is right that the owner of the well should put a lock on his well, so that no one can use the water; but for what purpose should the owner of the house put a lock on it? Said R. Elazar: Lest his neighbor, while passing his house to the well in his absence, should remain alone with his wife.
MISHNA VI.: If one has a garden inside of his neighbor's garden, he may enter and leave only when people are wont to do so. He must not take buyers with him to his garden, and be also has no right to pass through his neighbor's garden for the purpose of entering another field conjoining this one, when he has no business in his own garden; and only the owner of the outside garden has a right to sow the path. If, however, a path was designated to him by court, on the side, with the consent of both parties, then he may enter and leave whenever he pleases and may also take with him buyers; however, the right to pass through to another field is not given, and neither of them has the right to sow the path.

GEMARA: R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: If one says, "I sell you a place of one ell for digging a well to water your dry land," it must contain the width of two ells, and he also has to add him two ells from his field to the edges of the well, on which to erect walls to prevent the overflow of the water; and if he said, "I sell you an ell for making a sewer," it must be one ell wide and one-half ell to each edge. But who has a right to sow the edges (while the walls were not as yet trade)? R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The owner of the field; and R. Nharnan in the name of Samuel said: The owner of the field may plant trees there, but not sow it, as by sowing he harms the water.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said again: If the walls of a channel fall, the owner of it may repair it from the material of the field upon which the walls were placed; as certainly they fall on the same field where they were placed (but the material was scattered by the wind all over the field). R. Papa, however, opposed, saying that the owner of the field may claim that the water of "your well has underwashed the material and caused it to fall"; therefore he gave another reason, that such a stipulation must have been in existence when he hired that place, for otherwise he would not have wasted his money.

MISHNA VII.: If there was a public thoroughfare through one's field and he took it for himself and designated another one at the side of his field, what he has given is considered the public's, and to that which he took for himself he does not acquire title. If one sells a path in his field for a private thoroughfare it must be four ells, for the public it must be no less than sixteen. A way for the government has no limit. The way for carrying a corpse to the grave has also no limit; however, the space where the people stand for condoling was determined by the judges of Ziboras of a space where four kabhs may be sown.

GEMARA: Why should he not acquire title to that thoroughfare he took for himself, when he designated another one for the public; let him take a stick with which to drive off intruders, or do you want to infer from this that one cannot take. the law in his own hands, even when he suffered damage? Said R. Zebid in the name of Rabha: It is to be feared that if this would be allowed, one would give to the public a crooked way; but R. Mesharshia in the name of Rabha said that our Mishna treats of a case wherein the owner of the field has designated such. R. Ashi, however, maintains that a way which is placed; at one side is considered crooked, because it is near to one who resides near to this side, while it is far to him who resides on the other side, (and therefore he does not acquire title) to that which he took.

But let him say to the public, "take your way and return mine" (and the Mishna states what he has given is lost). It is in accordance with R. Eliezer of the following Boraitha: "R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Eliezer, if the public has chosen a way for itself, what was done remains." But may the public be robbers, according to R. Eliezer? Said R. Gid'l in the name of Rabh: He speaks in case the public has lost a way in this field (i.e., some time ago there was a thoroughfare which afterwards was lost). If so, why then said Rabba b. R. Huna in the name of Rabh that the Halakha does not prevail with R. Eliezer? The one who has taught this statement was not aware of the other statement (i.e., R. Gid'l does not approve the statement of Rabba b. R. Huna in the name of Rabh).

But according to Rabba b. R. Huna, what is the reason of our Mishna's statement, that of R. Jehuda, who said above (p. 145) that a path of which the public took charge must not be spoiled? By which act did the public acquire title to the thoroughfare, according to R. Eliezer? By passing, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one passed (in an ownerless field) on its length and breadth he acquired title to the place he has passed, so is the decree of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, maintain that passing has no effect at all, and title is not acquired unless he makes a hazakah.

Said R. Elazar: The reason of R. Eliezer is the following verse [Genesis, xiii. 17]: "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for unto thee I will give it." The sages say this cannot be taken for a support, however, as Abraham was beloved by Heaven, and it was said to him for the purpose of making easier for his children the subjection of the land. Said R. Jose b. Hanina: The sages admit to R. Eliezer in case of a footpath between vineyards, because it was made for passing, title is also given by passing. When such a case came before R. Itz'hak b. Ami he decided that the plaintiff should get a footpath upon which he should be able to carry a bundle of branches on his shoulders, which in turning here and there should not touch the walls.

But this is said in a case wherein the places for the walls are not yet designated; but if they were, the space should be given him, so as to put one foot after the other. "For a private," etc. There is a Boraitha: Anonymous teachers say: "As much as an ass with its load could pass." The judges of the exile said: Two cubits and a half. And R. Huna said: The Halakha prevails with them. But did not R. Huna say elsewhere that the Halakha prevails with the anonymous teachers? The limit of both is "equal." "A public thoroughfare is sixteen ells." The rabbis taught: A private way is four ells, a way from one city to the other is eight ells, a public way is sixteen ells, and the way to the cities of refuge (Num. xxxv. ii) thirty-two. [Said R. Huna: Whence is this deduced?

From the Scripture (Deut. xix. 3): "The way to them." It should be "a way," and the word "the" makes it double.] The way of the government has no limit, as the king has the right to erect partitions, houses, and no one has a right to prevent him, and the way for burying a corpse has no limit, because of the honor of the dead. 1 MISHNA VIII.: If one sells a place for digging a grave, or an undertaker makes a grave for one, the inside of the cave must be four by six, and opening into it eight niches for coffins, three on each side and two at the top and bottom. The length of the niches is four ells, the height seven spans, and the width six. R. Simeon, however, said: The inside of the cave must be six by eight, the niches must be thirteen, four on each side, three on the upper side, and one on the right side of the door and one on the left.

He also makes a fore yard at the mouth of the cave six ells square, as much as the coffin with its carrier needs. He also has to open to this fore yard two, caves from two sides. R. Simeon, however, said four to all its four sides. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that all must be done according to the rock (i.e., if the earth is soft more niches could be made, but if rocky the number must be limited accordingly).

GEMARA: The two niches which R. Simeon requires, one on the right side of the door, etc., how shall he dig them? If their length should be dug from the wall of the cave under the fore yard, then they will be trodden down; furthermore, there is a Mishna to the effect that one who stands in the yard of a grave is clean, but if the niches should be dug under the yard the one who stands above would not be clean. Said R. Jose b. R. Hanina: He made the niches like an upright bolt; i.e., placed the bodies in an upright position. But did not R. Johanan say that asses are buried in like manner? According to him, the niches should be made in the corners. But then each of them would come in contact with the other. Said R. Ashi: If he makes those in the corners deeper (according to R. Simeon, who said that four niches must be on each side), if they were all equally dug they would come in contact. It must be said that he digs some of them deeper, and the same may be said here. 1 R. Huna b. R. Jehoshuah, however, maintains that he makes the niches crooked. (Says the Gemara:) This statement does not hold, as according to it he would have to make eight inches in the space of eleven and one-fifth ells, which is impossible. 2

Footnotes

217:1 The translation of "hazakah" is chiefly "occupancy"; however, this term is applicable to everything which is the habit of persons, animals, etc.
223:1 The text treats concerning the benedictions on wine, beer, etc., for which the proper place is the Tract Benediction, and to which it will be transferred 229:1 The continuation of the text about graves and condolence, etc., we have translated to Tract Great Mourning, page 60.

230:1 The text is so complicated here that the commentators have to make many illustrations, and after all the matter is hardly understood. However, according to our method we could not omit this, as it is essential from the historical point of view to know how these graves are made. We have done our best to make it intelligible.

230:2 In the text are also mathematical calculations by the rule that one ell square contains one ell and two-fifths when crooked, which is not exactly correct. We have already mentioned this in a foot-note in Erubin, and therefore we have omitted the whole discussion here.

CHAPTER VII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING ROCKS AND PITS IN GROUND SOLD; THE QUANTITIES OF GREATER OR LESS MEASURE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT VOID A SALE OF FIELDS, VILLAGES, ETC . MISHNA I.: If one says: "I sell you earth the size where one kur can be sown, and there were crevices ten spans deep, or rocks ten spans high," they are not measured, but if less than that size they are measured. If, however, he said to him, "about the size of a kur," and there were crevices or rocks even more than the size of ten spans, they are measured.

GEMARA: Said R. Itz'hak: The statement of the Mishna about rocks and crevices which are measured when they are less than ten spans holds good only when all of them together do not measure four kabhs, but not if they do. Said R. Uqba b. Hama: Even then they are measured only when they are scattered within five kabhs space (but in less they are not measured); and R. Hyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan says that five kabhs do not suffice, and they are measured only when they are scattered within the greater part of the field, which is at least sixteen kabhs, as a kur is thirty kabhs; and R. Hyya b. Abba himself questioned: How is the law according (to R. Johanan's theory) if the greater part of the rocks in question were scattered within the smaller part of the field, and the smaller part of them within the larger part of the field (and if altogether they measured four kabhs)? These questions are not decided. 1 There is a Boraitha: "If there were a single rock (but it bears a separate name; e.g., 'the west rock') even if of less than ten spans, it is not measured; and also if the rock were placed near to the boundary, whatever size it may be it is not measured." 1 MISHNA II.: "I sell you earth of the size wherein a kur can be sown, measured with a line." If there were a trifle less, he may deduct; if a trifle more, the buyer has to return it. If, however, the seller says "about this size, a little more or less," even if there were less than a quarter of a kabh on each saah, the sale is valid; but if it were more than that size, an account must be taken. In case the buyer has to make return, it shall be in money; however, if he wishes to return him land, he may do so. And why was it said that the buyer should return the seller money? To favor the seller, so that if there were a trifle more the buyer should not have the right to return him this trifle, which the seller could not use; but if there were a kabh and a half more than the prescribed size, it means in the case of nine kabhs of land in a field and a half kabh in a garden, and according to R. Aqiba even a quarter of a kabh, then the buyer may return the land, and not only the land which is in excess of the prescribed size, but even that of this prescribed size itself is to be returned with the other.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: If the seller said "the size of a kur," without any addition, how is the law? Come and hear. If the seller says, "I sell you an estate the size of a kur," or "about the size of a kur, a little less or more, I sell you," and thereafter it were found a quarter of a kabh less or more to a saah, the sale is valid. Hence we see that even if be does not add to the words "the size of a kur," it is the same as if he would say "about." Nay, the Boraitha is to be explained thus: The last part of the Boraitha explains the first part. If one says, "I sell you of the size of a kur," "about" is to be understood in case he should add a trifle less or more. R. Ashi objected: If this were so, why the repetition "I sell you, I sell you"? Therefore the Boraitha is to be explained as above, that the size of a kur means "about," and so it is.

"It shall be in money." We see from this that the advantage of the seller and not the buyer is taken into consideration; but valid? If, however, the estate is larger, the court compels both the seller to sell and the buyer to buy; hence we see that the advantage of both is taken into consideration? (I.e., that even have we not learned in the following Boraitha: If there were less or more than seven kabhs and a half on a kur, the sale is if the seller insists that the excess should be returned to him, he is not to be listened to if it is an advantage for the buyer to have it.) The Boraitha treats that at the time it was found over the prescribed size, the estate was lower in price and the seller willing to sell.

Therefore we say to the buyer, "You may reckon it at the existing price," and the same is said to the seller, "If you do not wish the estate to be returned to you, you must accept the existing price." But have we not learned in another Boraitha that if the buyer compensates the seller, he must reckon at the previous rate? That Boraitha speaks that when the reverse was the case, the price was low at the time of the sale and became higher after it was known that there was an excess over the prescribed size. "It means in the case of nine kabhs," etc. Said R. Huna: This applies even in a valley which is of more than ten kurs. R. Na'hman, however, says seven and a half to each kur; but if there were a kabh and a half more (which counts nine kabhs) even to one kur, all must be returned, even if to the other kurs the addition were not over the prescribed size.

Rabha objected R. Na'hman from our Mishna, which states that if he left nine kabhs in a field, etc. Does not the Mishna mean at least two kurs as the size of the usual field? Nay, it means one kur. Farther on, in a garden, a half of a kabh is given as the minimum of excess. Does it not mean at least two saahs, as usually a garden is called of that size? Nay, it means one saah, and according to R. Aqiba one quarter. Does it not mean, if the garden was a saah? Nay, it means if it was half a saah. R. Ashi questioned: If one sold a field, and afterwards, but before the money was paid, it became a garden, and there were found more than a quarter to a saah, but it should not reach the size of nine kabhs or vice versa, how should the prescribed size be reckoned—as that of a field or that of a garden? This question remains undecided.

There is a Boraitha: "If the estate over the prescribed size sold was conjoined with the other estate of the seller, even if that were but a trifle, the buyer has to return the seller the estate." R. Ashi questioned: How is the law if there were a well between this estate sold and the other estate of the seller, a channel, a public thoroughfare, or a row of trees, should these constitute lines of demarcation or not? This question remains undecided. "And not only the land which is in excess," etc. How is this to be understood? Taught Rabhin b. R. Na'hman: Not only that which was over the prescribed size the buyer returns the seller, but all the quarters to each kur, although the rest be not over the prescribed size, he must return.

MISHNA III.: "I sell you the estate with a measurement, a trifle more or less." The last words, "more or less," nullify those preceding them. "I sell you a trifle more or less to be measured with a line." The last words here nullify the preceding ones (and the seller must give the purchaser a just measurement; so that if the land were in excess, the excess must be returned, and if less the seller must supply the deficiency), such is the decree of ben Nanas.

GEMARA: Said R. Abba b. Mamal in the name of Rabh: "The colleagues of ben Nanas differ with him." What came he to teach us? Have we not learned in the Middle Gate, p. 269, Mishna 8, that it happened in Ciphorius that one rented a bath-house for twelve golden dinars a year? The payment was to be one dinar monthly; and thereafter the year was made intercalary. When the case came before R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Jose they decided that the payment for the intercalated time should be made at the same rate as for the ordinary time. If from that Mishna one says that the last words, "one dinar monthly," are to be interpreted as a retraction of the first words, "twelve a year," the last words, "a dinar monthly," may also be interpreted as explaining the former, "twelve a year" (over which the sages differed with ben Nanas); however, here, in that the last words cannot be interpreted as an explanation, but as a retraction of the former, the sages agree with him. He comes to teach us that they differ also in this case. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: This which is taught in our Mishna is in the words of ben Nanas, but the sages say that the shorter expression must always have the greater weight (i.e., "with a measurement" is shorter than "a trifle less or more"), no matter whether the shorter phrase were said before or after the longer one. Says the Gemara: Shall we assume that with the expression "this" Samuel meant to say that he himself does not agree with him? Do not both Rabh and Samuel say (p. 188) that if one said "a kur for thirty selas," he may retract even at the last saah; and if he added each saah for one sela, to all which was measured title is acquired, which corresponds with the decision of ben Nanas? Therefore we must say that he meant to say "this," and I agree therewith. But is that so? Did not Samuel say (Middle Gate, p. 270): "The decision was so made . . ." but if they had appeared in the beginning, would it be entirely the owner's; and if in the end, the renter's? (This, at all events, cannot correspond with ben Nanas' decision.) Therefore it must be said again that by the word "this" he means that "I do not agree," and the reason of his decision in the case of each saah for selah is because that which was measured is considered already in his hands, and the same is the case with the rent for the intercalary month; if at the end of the month, it belongs to the renter, because it is already in his hand. R. Huna said: It was said in the college of Rabh: If one said: "I sell this to you for an istra a hundred moahs, he must give him a hundred moahs; but if he says a hundred moahs an istra he has to give him an istra although it is less in value than a hundred moahs."

What came he to teach us—that the last expression must be considered? Has not Rabh said this already concerning the case of the cited Mishna (page 270): "If I were there, I should give it to the owner of the house" (and that is because the last words were "a dinar monthly")? Lest one should say that in one case the last words ("hundred moahs," or vice versa) are to be considered as an explanation to the first words, he comes to teach us that it is not so.

MISHNA IV.: If one says, "I sell you this estate, the size of a kur, with its marks and boundaries;" and afterwards it were found that the size is less than stipulated—if it were less than a sixth of the whole size, the sale is valid; but if there were a sixth wanting, the buyer may deduct from the payment.
GEMARA: It was taught: R. Huna and R. Jehudah differ in the explanation of our Mishna. According to the former the Mishna means that an exact sixth should be considered as less than a sixth, and the Mishna is to be explained thus: "With less than a sixth wanting, a sixth inclusive, the sale is valid." If, however, more than a sixth is wanting, it may be deducted. According to R. Jehudah the Mishna means that an exact sixth is to be considered as more, and it is to be explained thus: "With less than a sixth wanting the sale is valid; a sixth, however, or more wanting is to be deducted."
An objection was raised from the following Tosephtha: "With its marks and boundaries, and there was a sixth less or a sixth more, it parallels a case wherein the court appraises an estate, and the sale is valid." Now we know that in a case wherein the court appraises, if there were an error as to an exact sixth, it is considered as if it were more, and the appraisement is void; hence this contradicts R. Huna? R. Huna may say that there is no contradiction, as the Tosephtha ends with the words "the sale is valid," and if this paralleled the case wherein the court appraises, how could it be valid in case there were more than a sixth? Does not the law provide that in the case of an error of the court in more than a sixth, the appraisemerit is void? It must be said then that it is parallel in one respect but not in the other; and it is to be explained thus: It parallels the case wherein the court appraises with an error of less than a sixth (which does not affect the appraisement), but it does not parallel the case in which the error of the court is of a sixth or more and affects the appraisement, which differs from our case, as the purchaser has only to deduct the money value of the deficiency, while the sale is still valid. 1 R. Papa bought an estate from some one who told him that it measured the size of twenty saahs. After it was measured it was found that there were only fifteen; and the case came before Abayi, who decided that the sale was valid, because the seller had used the qualifying words "as you see its marks and boundaries." But have we not learned that if there were more than a sixth lacking its value is to be deducted, and here there is a fourth part? In the first case the condition is not known to the buyer before the sale; but in the latter case, as the condition was known to R. Papa and he saw it at the time he bought, it must be supposed that he had considered and accepted it. Rejoined R. Papa: But did he not tell me that it measured twenty? He probably meant to say that "these fifteen are better than twenty elsewhere."

There is a Boraitha: R. Jose said: "Some brothers divided their inheritance by lot, and when to each of them his lot fell, all of them acquired title to their shares." Why so? Said R. Elazar: At the time the land of Israel was allotted to the tribes. But was there not also the Urim v'tumim, as it is said farther on that the high priest Elazar had on the Urim v'tumim, and then the lots were cast? Said R. Ashi: By their arrangement prior to allotment (whereby the estate was divided into shares of equal value) they had prepared themselves that each should acquire title to the share which the lot should cast for him, and therefore no other ceremony was necessary.

It was taught: To two brothers who had divided their inheritance between them came a third brother (of whose existence they were not previously aware). Their division is null and void according to Rabh. Samuel, however, maintains that each of the two must relinquish a third of his inheritance to the third brother (e.g., they inherited six fields, and each of them must give one of these to the newcomer, so that the three brothers may have two fields apiece). Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: According to Rabh, who says that the division is null and void, it must be said he holds that since all of them did not share in the first division, the inheritance must be redivided. Would the same be the case with three partners, two of whom have divided (in the presence of three persons who are considered a Beth Din) in the absence of the third one, and there is a decision (Middle Gate, p. 74) that such holds good? The cases are dissimilar. In the latter case the partners divided the property into three shares, and as it was done in the presence of a Beth Din the division holds good; but in the former case the two brothers had divided the inheritance into two parts only, as they were unaware of the third brother's existence.
Said R. Papa to Abayi: According to Samuel's decision that the first division is valid, it must be said he holds that such an act, done in accordance with the law, must not be abrogated, although thereafter it appears that the brothers took more than belonged to them; but did not both Rabh and Samuel say: If one says, "I sell you a kur for thirty selas," the seller may retract even at the last saah (above, p. 235)? (We see then that even when done in accordance with the law an act may still be abrogated.) There is, however, here a difference. The rabbis enacted that law to please both the seller and the buyer. (I.e., in case the price should become lower, before the buyer has received the property, it is to his advantage to retract; and in case the price becomes higher, the advantage is for the seller. Hence this law is beneficial to both.)

It was taught: If brothers divided their inheritance and a creditor of their father came and took away the share of one of them, according to Rabh the former division is null and void. Samuel, however, said that such was this brother's lot, and it did not concern the other. R. Assi, however, maintains, not as Rabh, that the division is void, and they must divide the remainder, and not as Samuel, that it does not at all concern the other one; but that the second brother must surrender one quarter of his estate and a quarter of the money he has inherited. Rabh holds that the heirs, even after their division, are still to be considered heirs (hence if one of them has lost the property through his father's debt, he is still an heir to the remainder), while Samuel holds that at the time they divide they are considered buyers (each of them buying his share of his brother) without any security; and consequently each has no further concern after the division. R. Assi was doubtful whether they are to be considered heirs of buyers; therefore the half which ought to be taken from the one who did not suffer loss is considered doubtful money, and there is a rule that doubtful money is to be divided. Said R. Papa: The Halakha concerning the two cases, that of the third brother as well as that wherein the share of one was taken away by their father's creditor, prevails in accordance with Samuel, who says the division holds good, and it is for them to divide from their shares in payment of the debt. Amimar, however, said: The Halakha prevails in accordance with Rabh, who said that the division is void and the property must be redivided, and so the Halakha prevails.

The rabbis taught: If there are three who have qualified as a Beth Din to appraise the estate of one deceased, for the support of his widow and daughters, and if one says that in his opinion the estate is worth twenty-five selas (a moanah of 100 zuz), and the two others say two hundred or vice versa, the opinion of the individual is of no effect; but if one appraises the estate at one hundred zuz, which are twenty-five selas, the second for twenty, and the third for thirty, the value is fixed at one hundred zuz. R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok, however, says that it should be taken for ninety zuz, and anonymous teachers say that a third of the difference between the second and third valuations must be added to the second, which will give 93 1/3, zuz. The reason of him who says the estate is worth one hundred zuz is that the opinion of the arbitrator is to be taken into consideration, and the reason for R. Eliezer's opinion that the estate is worth ninety zuz is that he who appraised it at eighty underestimated by ten zuz, while he who appraised it at 100 overestimated by ten zuz, and as there is a majority who appraised it at not more than 100 zuz, the third, who appraised it at twenty zuz over a moah, is not to be taken into consideration at all. Why not say that the one who said 100 zuz has underestimated by ten and he who says thirty has overestimated by ten, and the estate should therefore be valued at 100? Because the majority declare it not worth more than 100 zuz, or one moah. The anonymous teachers maintain that the estate is worth 93 1/3 zuz, because the one who estimated its value at twenty selas (eighty zuz) underestimated by 13 1/3, and the one who said 100 zuz overestimated by 13 1/3, although he had intended to say 103 1/3 zuz, but thought he would not like to make his difference too large. And why not say that the one who said thirty selas (120 zuz) has overestimated by thirteen, and the estimate should be fixed at 113 zuz? The opinion of the majority that the estate is not worth over a moah is to be taken into consideration. Said R. Huna: The Halakha prevails with the anonymous teachers. Said R. Ashi: The reason of the anonymous teachers is not acceptable; should we decide according to them? There is a Boraitha that the judges of the exile are in accordance with the anonymous teachers, and R. Huna said again that so the Halakha prevails, but R. Ashi objected again for the same reason stated above.

MISHNA V.: If one says "I sell you the half of the field" (the half of the value is meant), the better one against the inferior is to he appraised, and the seller has a right to give the buyer the latter. The same is the case when he said "I sell you the southern half of this field," and the buyer takes the half determined on by the seller. The seller, however, has to give space for a partition, and for a large and a small ditch. What is the breadth of a large ditch? Six spans. And of a small one? Three.

GEMARA: Said R. Hyya b. R. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: The buyer has to take the inferior. And he (when he heard this statement from R. Johanan) said to him: Does not the Mishna say "the better one against the inferior is to be appraised"? And should not this be explained to mean that each of them should take half of both good and inferior? And he answered: It seems to me that you have eaten too many dates in Babylon (so that you have no time to descend into the depths of the Mishna). Does not the Mishna contain the same expression, in the latter part, 1 concerning the sale of the south side of his field? And why the repetition? It should read "he should take a half at the south side," and we would understand it to mean half of the size. We must then say that it is repeated to teach that also in that case the half of the value is meant, as the same was in the first part. "The partition," etc. There is a Boraitha: "The large ditch must be outside and the small one inside of the field, but both beyond the partition, so that beasts may not jump over the partition in the field." Why then the small ditch? Does not the large one suffice for this purpose? Because it is six spans wide, the beasts could enter in it and jump over. But does not the small ditch suffice? Because it is small, the beasts could stand on the edge of it and jump over. And how much shall the space be between the large and the small ditch? One span.

Footnotes

231:1 In the text are some other questions: If the rocks were placed round, or square, etc.; and these need many illustrations, and all remain at last undecided. As they are of no importance, we have omitted them.

232:1 The text contains questions of no importance—e.g., if the rocks were placed round, crooked, etc.—which remain undecided. We have therefore omitted the whole discussion.

236:1 We are compelled to explain this in accordance with R. Gershom, as Rashbam's explanation is still more complicated.

240:1 The Mishna repeats the same language concerning the southern part which we, according to the sense, have translated "the same is the case."

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING BEQUESTS TO AND INHERITANCE BY NEAR AND DISTANT RELATIVES, MALE AND FEMALE SLAVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, FIRST-BORN AND HUSBANDS. ONE MAY OR MAY NOT WISH TO BEQUEATH HIS ESTATE TO STRANGERS WHEN HE HAS CHILDREN. WHICH WILLS MUST BE CONSIDERED AND WHICH WILLS MUST NOT. THE DIVIDING OF AN INHERITANCE BETWEEN GROWN-UP AND MINOR CHILDREN, MALE AND FEMALE . MISHNA I.: (Concerning inheritance, there is a difference between relatives.) There are those that bequeath at their death, and also inherit at the death of their relatives. There are those who inherit but do not bequeath, and also those who neither bequeath nor inherit. The father, his children, and also the brothers of the father may both bequeath and inherit to and from each other. The son from his mother, and the husband from his wife, and also the children of sisters inherit, but the former do not bequeath to the latter. The woman to her children, her husband, and her brothers bequeaths, but does not inherit from them. The brothers of the mother, however, neither bequeath to nor inherit from her.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna mention the father his sons first? It does so, first, because the reverse order would imply a curse, and usually the beginning must not be with a curse (for when the son dies before his father it is certainly a curse), and, secondly, the Scripture [Numbers, xxvii. 8] reads, "If a man die and have no son," etc.; hence the death of the father is mentioned first. The Tana of the Mishna does thus because the law that a father shall inherit from his son is not written in the Scripture but is deduced (as will be explained farther on) and he desires to mention it first. Whence do they deduce it?

From the following Boraitha: "(It is written) 'his kinsman means the father, from which it is deduced that if one dies and leaves brothers and a father, the father is the heir and not the brothers'; but lest one say that the father of the deceased is preferred to his son, it is written 'that is next to him,' which means, whoever is nearest, and the son to his father is considered nearer than a father to his son. And what is the reason that you exclude the brother and include the son? Because the Scripture has substituted the son for the father in the case of a man servant [Ex. xxi. 9] and also in that concerning the possession of a field [Levit. xxv. 13], of which it is said elsewhere that only when the son has redeemed the field sanctified by his father, it may be returned in the jubilee year, but not if the father's brother or any other relative has done so.

But why not say that the brother shall have the preference, as he inherits from his brother in case the latter dies childless [Deut. xxv. 5]? This cannot hold good, as the brother thus inherits only if there is no son; but if there is a son the brother does not inherit." Is it only for this reason, and if it were otherwise would the brother be the heir? May the son be substituted for his father in the two cases above stated, and the brother in the one case only? Nay, the same reason is given in the case of the above-mentioned possession of a field, wherein the son is preferred to the brother, also because the brother inherits only when there is no son. But why not say a kinsman means the father, from which we infer that he is preferred to his daughter?

Lest one say that he is preferred to his son also, therefore it is written, "who is next to him," and a son is nearer to his father than the father to his son. As said above, this could be opposed thus: Let us see! If one dies and leaves a daughter, it is the same concerning Yeboom as if lie should leave a son. Hence we see that a son and daughter are here equal before the law, and the same equality would obtain concerning inheritance. But why not infer from this that the father has the preference over his brother? And lest one say that he should have the preference over the brothers of the deceased also, it is written "the next," and brothers are considered nearer than the father to his son. It is not necessary that the fathers brother be considered as excluded in the Scripture, as that would be contrary to common sense. What is the basis for the inheritance of the uncle of the deceased from his nephew, if not that his brother is the father of the deceased; and when the father is still alive, why should the brother be the heir?

But let us see. The passage in the Scripture does not correspond with all that is taught above [Num. xxvii. 8], "If a man die and have no son, then shall ye cause the inheritance to pass unto his daughter, and if he have no daughter . . . unto his brothers . . . and if no brothers, unto his father's brothers, and if . . . no brothers, . . . to the kinsman." (Hence when the kinsman is mentioned at the end, how can you say that it means the father, who is the first in case the deceased left no son?) The passages are not written in order, as the kinsman, meaning the father, should be mentioned first, but the Scripture relies upon the words "who is next to him," and it is for the court to decide who is nearest to him. The following Tana, however, deduces it from the same passage in another manner, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Ishmael said: "It is written, 'If a man die and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass,' etc. Infer from this that you transfer the inheritance from the father only when the deceased left a daughter, but not when he left brothers." But why not say that the daughter transfers the inheritance from his brothers but not from his father? Because if it were so, the passage would read "and ye shall give the inheritance," and not "ye shall cause to pass," which means that if there is a daughter, her father may pass the inheritance to her, even when his own father is still alive. Now, what does kinsman mean in the opinion of R. Ishmael, who has deduced this from the words "ye shall cause to pass"? That which the following Boraitha states: "His kinsman means his wife. Deduce from this that the husband inherits from his wife." But to him who infers this from the word kinsman, what do the words "ye shall cause to pass" mean? That which we have learned in the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: In all the passages it is written "shall ye give," and only concerning the daughter "ye shall pass," to show that there is no one who shall pass an inheritance to another tribe except a daughter; so if she marries one of another tribe, her son or her husband may inherit from her.

But, after all, where is it you are assured that kinsman means the father? In Levit. xix. 12, "Thy father's kinswoman." Then why not say it means the mother, as the next verse reads "thy mother's kinswoman"? Said Rabha: It is written [xxvi. 11] "next to him of this family," and the family is named only from the father's side as [ibid., 2] "after their families, by the descent from their fathers." But is not the name of the mother's side also employed? Is it not written [Judges, xvii. 7], "And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah of the family of Judah, but he was a Levite, and sojourned there"? Now does not this passage contradict itself? It is written "of the family of Judah," from which it is to be inferred that they came from the tribe of Judah, and then it says he is a Levite, which means that he was of the tribe of Levi. We must conclude that his father was from Levi and his mother from Judah, and nevertheless this is called a family name. Said Rabha b. R. Hanan: The verse reads "and he is Levi," which does not mean that he was a Levite, but that his name was Levi. If so, how is to be understood (ibid., 17), "I have obtained a Levite for a priest"? There it is also written Levi, and means a man by the name of Levi. But how can you say that his name was Levi? Was not his name Jonathan, as it is written (ibid., xviii. 30), "And Jonathan the son of Gershom . . . were priests," etc.? And he answered: Even according to your theory, was he then the son of Menashe? He was the son of Moses, as it is written [I Chron. xxiii. 15]: "The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer." It is written Menashe, because he acted like Menashe, who was an idolator; and therefore the phrase "of Judah" is employed because Menashe came from Judah. R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai said: From this is to be inferred that we confer a corrupt name on a corrupt man. R. Jose b. Hanina, however, said that this may be inferred from the following [I Kings, i. 6]: "And his mother had after Abshalom." But was not Adoniyah the son of Chaggith, and Abshalom the son of Maacha? We must say that. because he acted like Abshalom, who also rebelled against the kingdom, the verse conjoined him with Abshalom.

R. Elazar said: We see that when Moses married the daughter of Jethro, Jonathan was the outcome, and when Aaron married the daughter of Aminadab the outcome was Pinchos.
But was not Pinchos also a descendant of Jethro, as it is written [Ex. vi. 251, "Elazar took of the daughters of Putiel for wife and she bore unto him Phinchas," and it is said elsewhere that Jethro and Putiel are identical? Nay, this Putiel is Joseph, as it is also said elsewhere that Joseph and Putiel are identical. 1 But is it not said elsewhere that the tribes chided Phinchas, saying: "See the descendant of Puti, whose grandfather had fattened calves for idols; shall he dare to kill a prince of the tribe of Israel?" Both names are applicable; for if his mother's father was a descendant of Joseph, his mother's mother was a descendant of Jethro or vice versa, and the word Putiel instead of Puti may mean both.

Rabha said: If one is about to marry, it is advisable for him to investigate the character of the bride's brothers; as it is written (ibid., 23), the "sister of Nachshon." To what purpose is it written the "sister of Nachshon"? Is it not evident that she was the sister of Aminadab? Hence this is an intimation to one about to marry to investigate the brothers of his prospective bride. There is also a Boraitha to the effect that the majority of children resemble the brothers of their mother. It is written [Judges, xviii. 3], "Who brought thee hither?" (halom) which means "Are you not a descendant of Moses?" of whom it is written [Ex. iii. 5] "hither" (halom), and "thou shalt be a priest to the idol"? And he answered: "I have a tradition from the house of my grandfather that it is better for one to hire himself to Abhada Zarah (idolatry) than to rely upon people that shall support him." [(Says the Gemara:) He has misunderstood it. Abhada Zarah means "idolatry." Literally, however, it is "a strange service" and it is as Rabh said to Kahana: (If you are in need), fleece a carcass in the middle of the market and do not say you are a great man, and it is not fit for you.]

David saw that he was fond of money and appointed him treasurer for the government, as it is written [I Chron. xxvi. 24], "Shebuël the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, superintendent of the treasuries." Was then his name Shebuël? Was it not Jonathan? Said R. Johanan: Shebuël is composed of two words, Shebu, which means "repented," and El means "God"; and "Shebuël" means that he repented to God with all his heart. "His children . . . inherit." Whence is this deduced? It is written [Numbers, xxvii. 8], "If a man die, and have no son," etc. We see the case is one wherein he has no son, but if he has one, that one has the preference. Said R. Papa to Abayi: But perhaps it means that if there is a son only, he shall inherit, and if there is a daughter only, she shall inherit; but if there were a son and a daughter neither of them should inherit. Said he: Who then shall inherit—the mayor of the city? I mean to say that neither of them shall inherit all, but each take an equal share. Said Abayi to him: Was it then necessary for,, the Scripture to state that if there were only one son he may inherit all the estates of his father? Answered he (R. Papa): I mean to say that the verse perhaps came to teach that a daughter may also be an inheritor. And he (Abayi) answered: This is already written [ibid., xxxvi. 8], "And every daughter that inheriteth," etc. R. A'ha b. Jacob said: This is to be deduced from the following [ibid., xxvii. 4], "Why should the name of our father be done away from the midst of his family because he hath no son?" But if he should have a son, the son would have the preference; but perhaps this was only the saying of the daughters of Zelophchod (i.e., they thought that such was the law, as it was customary at that time). But after the Torah was given the law was changed, that a son and daughter should inherit together; therefore Abayi's explanation is better.

Rabhina said: This is to be deduced from the words "next to him," and a son is nearer than a daughter; and why? As it is said above, he may be substituted for his father in the cases concerning a maid-servant and a field, etc. But could then a daughter be substituted for her father in the case of a maid-servant? Hence the best interpretation is Abayi's; and' if you wish, it may be deduced from Levit. xxv. 46, "For your sons after you," etc., which means to your sons 1 and not to your daughters. But according to this the verse [Deut. xi. 21], "The days of your children," which is also written with "Bniechein," should also be explained the sons and not the daughters? With a blessing it is different. "The brothers of the father." Whence is this deduced? Said Rabba: By analogy of expression "brothers" here [Numbers, xxvii. 9] and in Genesis, xlii. 32.

"We are twelve brothers, the sons of our father"; as there they were brothers of the father, so are they here also on the father's side. But was it not said above that from the father's side the family is named, but not from the mother's? (See above, p. 244.) Yea, this is deduced from verse 11, as above, and Rabba's statement was taught concerning Yeboom (the marriage of a brother to the widow of his childless brother). "The son from his mother." Whence is this all deduced? From that which the rabbis taught. It is written [Num. xxxvi. 8], "Any daughter who inherits the estate of the tribes." 1 How can a daughter inherit from two tribes? It must be concluded that her father was from one tribe and her mother from another, and both died leaving estates, and she has inherited both. This is concerning a daughter, but whence have we knowledge concerning a son?

From the a fortiori argument that as a daughter who has no share in the inheritance of her father when there is a son is nevertheless an heir to the estate of her mother, a son who inherits from his father so much the more inherits from his mother. And from this it is to be deduced that, as there the son has the preference over the daughter as an heir of the father, so is it also with the inheritance from the mother. Both R. Jose b. Jehudah and R. Elazar b. Jose, however, say in the name of Zecharia the son of the butcher that a son and a daughter are equally heirs of their mother. Why so?

Because there is a rule: It is sufficient that the result derived from the inference be equivalent to the law from which it is drawn (and as the law that a son may inherit from his mother is drawn a fortiori from the case of the daughter, it is sufficient to say that he inherits also, but not that he shall have the preference). But does the first Tana ignore the theory of "it is sufficient"? Is this not biblical, as we have learned (First Gate, p. 51, in the beginning of the Gemara)? In all other cases he uses the theory; here, however, it is different, because of the reading "from the tribes." We see then that the tribe of the mother is equal to the tribe of the father, and as concerning the father's the son has the preference, so also is it concerning the mother's.

Nithai was about to act in accordance with Zecharia, and Samuel said to him: Ignore Zecharia, as the Halakha does not prevail with him. R. Tabla had acted in accordance with R. Zecharia, and R. Na'hman asked him What he had done. And the answer was that he had done so because R. Hinna b. Shlamiah said in the name of Rabh that the Halakha prevails with R. Zecharia the son of the butcher, and R. Na'hman told him, "Go and retract from your statement, and undo what you have done, and if you will not listen, I will put out R. Hinna from your ears" (I will place you under the ban). R. Huna b. Hyya was also about to act in accordance with R. Zecharia, and R. Na'hman said, "What are you doing?" And he answered: "I do so because R. Huna said in the name of Rabh that the Halakha prevails with R. Zecharia. Said R. Na'hman: "I will send immediately a message to R. Huna asking him if he said so." And Huna b. Hyya became ashamed. Said R. Na'hman to him: "If R. Huna were dead, you would rebel against me and act accordingly." But in accordance with whose was R. Na'hman's opinion? With both Rabh's and Samuel's decision that the Halakha does not prevail with R. Zecharia.

R. Janai leaned upon the shoulders of R. Simlai his servant, when he walked on the street, and it happened that R. Jehudah the second was coming in an opposite direction, and R. Simlai said to him: "The man who is coming in an opposite direction is a respectable one, and he is also nicely dressed." When they came together, R. Janai fumbled about R. Jehudah's dress 1 and said: "Is this what you call nicely dressed? It seems to me like a sack." Jehudah the second questioned him: "Whence 1 is it deduced that a son has the preference over a daughter in the estate of their mother?" And he answered: "Because it is written 'tribes,' and the verse compares the tribe of the mother with the tribe of the father.

As in the former case the son has the preference, so is it in the latter." Said Jehudah: "If so, why not say that as in the father's case the first-born takes a double share, so should it be in the mother's?" Said R. Janai to his servant: "Take me away from him, this man does not want to learn." And what was the reason? Said Abayi: It is written [Deut. xxi. 17], "of all that is found in his possession," not in her possession. But why not say that this is so when a single man has married a widow who has children from the first husband, but if a single man has married a virgin, the first-born shall take a double share? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: The same verse cited reads, "for he is the beginning of his strength," his but not her.

Is this verse not necessary to include a first-born who came after a miscarriage, that he is entitled to a double share, although he is not considered as such to be redeemed? Because it should be read, "he is the first of strength," and from the addition his both inferences are drawn. But still it may be said in case a widower married a virgin, but if a bachelor married a virgin then the first-born is entitled to a double share also from his mother. Therefore said Rabha: The verse ends "to him belongeth the right of first birth"; which means to him a male, but not to a female. "And the husband from his wife." Whence is this deduced? From that which the rabbis taught. It is written [Numbers, xxvii.], "his kinsman," and his wife is meant.

Infer from this that the husband inherits from his wife; but lest one say that she inherits from him also, it is written [ibid.] "and he shall inherit from her." "Outhoh" means he inherits from her, but not she from him. But the verses are not written in that order, you say? Said Abayi: Read thus: "Then shall ye give his inheritance to his next kinsman and he shall inherit from her." Said Rabha to him: It seems to me that you have a keen knife to cut the verses. Therefore, said he, the verse means he shall give the inheritance from his kinsman to him; as he holds that the sages have a right to subtract, to add, and to interpret. (I.e., it is written nachlossou, literally "his inheritance," with a Vav at the end; lishourou, literally "to his kinsman," with a Lahmed at the beginning. Subtract the Lahmed from lishourou and the Vav from nachlossou.

Put these two letters together and they will read lou, literally "to him," and then the verse will read thus: "Ye shall give the inheritance of his kinsman to him.) The following Tana, however, infers this from the same verse in another way, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written, "And he shall inherit from her." Infer from this that the husband inherits from his wife. So said R. Aqiba. R. Ishmael, however, said: It is not necessary to cut the verses (he does not hold the theory of subtracting, adding, etc.), as there are other verses [ibid., xxxvi. 8], "every daughter that inheriteth," which refers to the transferring of an estate from one tribe to another through the husband, who is of one tribe and has married a woman of another tribe.

It is written [ibid. 7], "And the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not pass from tribe to tribe," and it is also written next, "and no inheritance shall pass from one tribe to another," and then it is written [Joshua, xxiv. 33], "And Elazar the son of Aaron died and they buried him in the hill of Pinchas his son." Where then had Pinchas a hill which Elazar did not possess? We must then conclude that Pinchas married a woman who owned a hill, she died and he inherited it. And it is also written [I Chronicles, ii. 22], "And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilad." And wherefrom did Jair obtain that which his father, Segub, did not possess, if not by inheritance from his wife. But to what purpose did R. Ishmael cite all the above verses?

Lest one might say that the first cited verse does not speak of transferring an estate through the husband, but through her son, and the husband does not inherit. Therefore is the other verse cited, "And the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not pass," etc. But lest one say that this verse is written to make the one who transgresses answerable under a positive and a negative commandment, but still through the son and not the husband, therefore is the third verse cited. But lest one say that this verse is also written for the purpose of making the transgressor answerable under two negative and one positive commandments, therefore is the fourth verse cited; and lest one say that Elazar's wife owned a hill and Pinchas inherited it from her, therefore is the fifth verse cited. And lest one say that the same was the case with Segub and Jair, then why two verses which contain the same case?

Said R. Papa to Abayi: But what does this support? It may be said that the husband does not inherit, and all the above cited verses state that it was through the son, and did both Jair and Pinchas buy the estate in question? And Abayi answered: You cannot say that Pinchas bought the estate, as if this had been so the property would have been returned to the seller in the jubilee year, and then the upright Elazar would have been buried in ground not his own. But perhaps the hill in question was transferred to Pinchas from estates set apart for the priests [Numb. xviii. 14]. Said Abayi to him: If we were to agree with your theory, the estate would be still transferred from one tribe to another. Is it not explained above that verse 8 refers to a woman who has inherited from both father and mother, who were of two different tribes? Why, then, if she should marry one belonging to the tribe of her father, would the estate of her mother be transferred to another tribe? And R. Papa said: This is no objection, as the case may be different, and perhaps the estate of her mother was already transferred. Rejoined Abayi: Such a supposition cannot be taken into consideration; as one would not say that because a part had already been transferred, the other part should now be transferred. Furthermore, the transfer was according to the law, as when a woman has married one of another tribe, her brother being still alive, she then possessed no heritage, but received it after she was already married. Afterward her daughter, who has inherited her mother's estate, if she should marry even one belonging to her father's tribe, her son would inherit from her the estate which had belonged to another tribe.

Said R. Jiiman to R. Ashi: Even in accordance with Abayi, who holds that the husband does inherit, it is correct. If the verse is to be explained that the daughter has already inherited from her mother, who was of another tribe, the Scripture commands that she shall marry one of another tribe, to the end that the estate of one tribe shall not be transferred to another one, no matter whether through son or husband; but if the estate of her mother was not as yet transferred, why should she marry one of her father's tribe? The estate of her mother, which belongs to her, if her husband inherits from her, would be transferred to him; hence the estate of one tribe would be transferred to another. The answer was that she might marry a man whose father was of the tribe of her father, and his mother of the tribe of her mother, and in such a case the estate of her father remains within the tribe of her father, and the estate of her mother remains also with the man whose mother is of the same tribe. But if so, should not the verse read "to one who is of the family of her father's and mother's tribe"? If the verse should so read, one might say that even if her husband's father were of her mother's tribe, and his mother was of her father's tribe, this would not be in accordance with the law, as the estate of her father would be transferred to her husband, who is of another tribe. There is a Boraitha that through the son the estate is transferred, namely: "The seventh verse reads 'the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not pass,' etc., which refers to the son. But perhaps it refers to the husband? This could not be, as verse 9 reads 'as no inheritance shall pass from one tribe to another,' which refers to the husband; hence verse 7 refers to the son." There is another Boraitha: "Verse 9 refers to the husband, but perhaps it refers to the son? This cannot be, as verse 7 has already referred to the son." We see, then, that both Boraithas hold that verse 9 refers to the husband. Where is this taken from? Simon in the name of Rabba b. R. Shila said: From the expression "ish" in verse 8, which means husband. But is not the same expression in verses 7 and 9? Said R. N'ahman b. Itz'hak: From the expression "Idbako" (adhere). But also this expression is in 7 and 9? Therefore said Rabha: From the end of verse 9, which reads "the tribes of Israel shall adhere"; and R. Ashi maintains, from the expression "from one tribe to another tribe," a son cannot be called of another tribe.

R. Abuhu in the name of R. Johanan, who spoke in the name of R. Janai, who heard it from Rabbi, quoting R. Joshua b. Kar'ha, said: Whence is it deduced that the husband does not inherit the estate to which his wife during her life is only heir apparent (e.g., his wife is an only daughter and she dies before her father, leaving a child, and thereafter her father dies, and her child but not her husband inherits)? From [I Chronicles, ii. 22]: "Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities." Whence did Jair obtain these, which his father did not possess. Infer from this that Segub, had married a wife who had twenty-three cities, and she died while her nearest heirs yet lived. Thereafter her nearest heirs also died, and Jair, her son, not Segub, her husband, was her heir.

And the same is the case with Elazar, who married a woman who possessed a hill, and she died while her nearest heirs were still alive, and thereafter the nearest heirs also died and Pinchas inherits from her. How are we assured that Elazar's wife brought him the hill; perhaps Pinchas' wife possessed it? By the words "his son," in Joshua, xxiv. 33 (which are superfluous, as every one knows that Pinchas was his son), meaning his son who was the proper heir." "And also the children of sisters." There is a Boraitha, "Sons but not daughters of sisters." How is this to be understood? Said R. Shesheth: It means that if there were sons and daughters, the sons would have the preference. As R. Samuel 1).

R. Itz'hak taught in the presence of R. Huna: It is written [Numb. xxvii. 11] "and he shall inherit it," which means that the second inheritance shall be equal to the first; as in the first the son has the preference, so it shall be with the second. Rabba b. Hanina taught in the presence of R. Na'hman: It is written [Deut. xxi. 16], "Then shall it be (in the day 1) when he divideth an inheritance," which means in the daytime he may divide an inheritance but not in the night-time. Said Abayi to him: "Do you mean to say that only from him who dies in the daytime his children may inherit, but otherwise they cannot?

Perhaps you mean to say that judges must not discuss a case of a will, at night, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Numb. xxvii. 11] "a statute of justice," which means that the whole section which treats of inheritance is a statute of justice (which must be discussed in the daytime only and by no less than three judges). It is as R. Jehudah said elsewhere: If three persons visited a sick man and he made verbally his last will before them, they might, if they wished, write it down, and, further, they might execute it. If, however, there were only two, they might write down his will (as witnesses), but could not execute it.

And to this R Hisda added that so it is as to the daytime only, but if it were at night, even if there are three, they may write down the will, but not execute it; because they are considered witnesses only, and a witness cannot qualify as an executor. And Rabba answered him: Yea, this is what I meant to say.

It is taught: In the case of a gift with the ceremony of a sudarium by any person, whether healthy or sick, what time may be given him to. retract? Rabba said: As long as they are sitting at that place where the ceremony was performed And R. Joseph said: As long as they are discussing this matter Said R. Joseph also: It seems to me that I am right in my decision, as R. Jehudah said that three who are visiting a sick person may, if they like, write down his will and execute it; now, if you say he may retract as long as they are sitting there, though they do not discuss the matter, how can they execute the will but in the doubt that while they are doing so he may retract? Said R. Ashi: I have maintained before R. Kahana, even in accordance with R. Joseph's theory, that it is to be feared that even while they are discussing this matter he will retract; how then can they execute the will?

Say, then, that they have ceased to discuss this matter and are discussing another one. The same can be said here, that they arose after hearing his will, and again took their seats. The Halakha, however, prevails in accordance with R. Joseph concerning the field mentioned above (p. 38), concerning this case, and concerning the case of "a half" (when the sick man says, "I bequeath my estate to you and your son," upon which, according to R. Joseph, the estate may be divided equally), which matter will be explained in Chapter IX. "The woman to her children." To what purpose is this repeated? Does not the first part read "the son from his mother," etc.? It comes to teach us that the case of "the woman to her children" is equivalent to that of the woman to her husband.

As the husband does not inherit in the place of his wife that which she would have inherited had she lived (as illustrated in the case of the woman who predeceases her father), so also the son inherits his mother's share, but his brothers (of the one father) do not inherit from him if he dies. 1 R. Johanan in the name of R. Jehudah b. R. Simeon said: Biblically a father inherits from his son, and a mother also inherits from her son, as it is written "tribes," from which is deduced the tribe of the mother as well as the tribe of the father; as concerning the tribe of the father, the father inherits from his son, the same is the case with the mother. R. Johanan, however, opposed R. Jehudah, from our Mishna, which states that a woman to her son, her husband, and the brothers of the mother may bequeath but not inherit.

R. Jehudah answered: I am not aware who taught our Mishna; but let him say that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Zechariah, who does not care to explain the word "tribes" as a comparison. Our Mishna cannot be explained in accordance with R. Zechariah, as it states "and the children of sisters," and a Boraitha adds that the sons but not the daughters are meant, which was explained by R. Shesheth as meaning that the sons have the preference, and according to R. Zechariah, sons and daughters are equal heirs of their mother. But how is to be explained the teaching of the Tana of our Mishna? If he holds that the word "tribes" is to be taken as a comparison of one tribe to another, why should not a woman inherit from her son; and if he does not, whence does he derive his theory that a son has the preference in the estate of his mother? The comparison holds good, but this case is different; because it is written "every daughter that inheriteth," which means she may inherit but does not bequeath.

MISHNA II.: The order of inheritance is thus: If a man dies, leaving no son, the inheritance shall pass to his daughter (reads the passage), by which we see that the son has preference before the daughter, and the same is the case with all the descendants of the son, who also have preference before the daughter. The daughter has preference over the brothers of her father, and the same is the case with her descendants. The brothers of the deceased have preference over the father's brothers, and the same is the case with their descendants. This is the rule: After every one who has the preference concerning an inheritance, his descendants have, in order, a like preference. The father has the preference before all his descendants.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written "a son from which we know the son himself only, but whence do we deduce the son's son or his daughter, or even the grandson of his daughter? It is written ien lou; and we read the word ien as if it were written ayin, which means investigate, for perhaps his son left a son or a daughter, etc. It is also written "a daughter," by which we know indeed the daughter, but whence do we deduce her daughter, son, and daughter of her son? It is written ien, "ayin," as said above. And the same is the case with investigation in the opposite direction (i.e., perhaps the father's father is yet alive), so that an investigation concerning inheritance may stretch back to Reuben, the son of Jacob. Why only back to Reuben, and not as far as Jacob?

Said Abayi: We have a tradition that the whole tribe cannot be extinguished. 1 R. Huna in the name of Rabh said: If one decides that a daughter shall inherit, when there is a daughter of a son, even if he were a prince in Israel, he must not be listened to, as so acts the Sadducean, which we have learned in the following Boraitha: On the 24th day of the month Tebheth we returned to our old law, namely: the Sadducean used to say that a daughter should inherit an equal share with the daughter of the son, and Rabban Johanan b. Zakai said to them: "Ye fools, wherefrom have ye taken this?" And none was there to answer him, except an old man who talked (childishly) against him thus: Is this not an a fortiori conclusion? The daughter of his son who comes upon the strength of her deceased father, the son of the bequeather inherits.

So much the more the daughter who comes upon the strength of the bequeather himself should take a share in the inheritance. R. Johanan then read before him [Gen. xxxvi. 20], "These are the sons of Seir the Chorite, who inhabited the land, Lotan and Shobal and Zibon and Anah," and there is also written [ibid. 24]. "And these are the children of Zibon, both Ajah and Anah." How is it to be understood? Infer from this that Zibon had lain with his sister Ajah, and she bore Anah. [But perhaps there were two Anahs?] Said Rabba: I shall say a thing which would be fit for King Sabur to say [Samuel is meant, although, according to others, R. Papa said so when he meant Rabba]. It is written in the same verse cited "that Anah," which means one that is the same as the Anah of verse 20. Said the Sadducean to R. Johanan: Rabbi, with such an explanation do you think to override me?

R. Johanan answered: And why not? Should not our Torah with its regulations ignore your gossip? Your a fortiori conclusion could be easily overthrown by the following theory: How can you compare one's daughter to the daughter of his son, when the latter has a right of inheritance even when the brothers of her father are still alive, while the former has no such right (for a daughter does not inherit when she has brothers)? And with this he conquered the Sadducean, and this day was established for a festival.

It is written [Judges, xxi. 17]: "And they said their inheritance must be secured for Benjamin, that not a tribe may be blotted out from Israel." Said R. Itz'hak of the school of R. Ami: Infer from this that at that time a stipulation was made that as long as the tribe of Benjamin should continue, the daughter of a son should not inherit her share with existing brothers, in order that, through her marriage to a man of an other tribe, she might not divert the estate from the tribe of her father. R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai said: He who leaves no son to succeed him is unloved of heaven, as it is written [Psalms, lv. 20]: "Those who leave 1 no changes fear no God." R. Johanan and R. Joshuah b. Levi ,differ. According to one a son is meant, and according to the other a disciple.

From the fact that R. Joshuah b. Levi did not go to a funeral unless the deceased was childless, because it is written [Jeremiah, xxii. 10], "Weep sorely for him that goeth away," which R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh interpreted as meaning "he who passeth away without a son," it must be concluded that R. Joshuah b. Levi was the one who said "a disciple." R. Pinchas b. Hama lectured: It is written [I Kings, xi. 21]: "And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his father and that Joab the captain of the army was dead." Why concerning David is it written "slept," and concerning Joab "dead"? Because David left a son, and Joab did not. But is it not written [Ezra, viii. 9]: "From the children of Joab, Obhadia b. Jechiel"? Therefore, as "slept" is the word employed for David, we must conclude that he left a son like himself, which was not the case with Joab.

Wherefore in his case the term "dead" is used. And he also said: Poverty in the house of one is harder than fifty plagues, as it is written [Job, xix. 21]: "Spare me, spare me, O ye my friends! for the hand of God hath touched me." And he was answered [ibid. xxxvi. 21]: "Thou hast chosen this instead of poverty." 2 The same said again: If one has a sick person in his house, he shall go to a wise man and request him to pray for the sick one, as it is writ ten [ Prov. xvi. 14]: "The fury of a king is like the messengers (of death; but a wise man will appease it." "This is the rule." Rami b. Hama questioned: If the deceased left a grandfather and a brother, as did Abraham and Jacob to the estate of Esau, who had the preference? Said Rabha: Come and hear the decision of our Mishna, which states that the father has the preference before all his descendants.

Rami, however, maintains that the father has the preference over his descendants, but not over the descendants of his son. (Says the Gemara:) It seems that Rami is right. As the Mishna states, this is the rule: He who has preference concerning inheritance, his descendants have the same. Now, if when Esau died Isaac and Abraham were both alive, Isaac would have had the preference to the estate; the same would have been the case if Isaac had been dead. Then Jacob would have had the preference over Abraham, because he was a descendant of Isaac. Infer from this that so it is.

MISHNA III.: The daughters of Z'lophchod have inherited three shares from the inheritance of their father, his share as one of the ascendants from Egypt, his share in the division of Chipher his father (who was also among the ascendants from Egypt), and because he was a first-born he inherited a double share.

GEMARA: Our Mishna is in accordance with him who said that the land was divided among the ascendants from Egypt, and not to their children (i.e., the person who entered the land of Israel, if he was among the ascendants of Egypt, took his share, and divided it among his children; and if an ascendant had died and his children entered the land, the share of their deceased father was given to them and they divided it among themselves), as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Iashiah said: The land was divided to the ascendants of Egypt, as it is written [Numb. xxvi. 55], "According to the names of the tribes of their fathers." But how does this correspond with [ibid. 53], "unto these shall the land be divided," which means to those who entered the land? Those are meant who are of sufficient age (twenty years), excluding the minors. R. Jonathan, however, said that to those who entered the land it was apportioned, not to their fathers, as it is written in the verse just cited. But how would this correspond with verse 55? This inheritance is different from all other inheritances, as in all others the living inherit from the dead, and here the dead inherit from the living, and to illustrate this, said Rabbi, I shall give you a parable. It is similar to the case of two priests in one city, one of whom has one son, while the other has two; and when they go to the barn to take the Taruma, he who has only one son takes one share (e.g., a saah), and he who has two takes two shares, and they turn them over to their fathers, who divide the shares equally among themselves, according to the number of souls. Such, also, was the apportionment of the land of Israel. Each received land according to the number of his souls, and after that they divided it among themselves according to the number of the heads of the family who were of the ascendants from Egypt; hence the dead ascendants inherit from the living. R. Simeon b. Elazar, however, said that the land was apportioned to both, in the manner stated in both of the above-cited verses. How so? He who was of the ascendants from Egypt took his share among them, and he who was of those who entered the land of Israel took his share among them, and he who was of both the ascendants and the entering took his shares with both of them. The shares of the spies Joshuah and Caleb took and divided equally. Those who murmured and the congregation of Kora'h had no share in the land at all, and their children took their shares, as the direct heirs of their grandfathers on both the paternal and maternal sides. But whence do you know that in Num. xxvi. the ascendants from Egypt are meant? Perhaps it means the tribes themselves who entered the land? It is written [Ex. vi. 8]: "I will give it you for an heritage." Inheritance implies from parents to children, and this was said to the ascendants from Egypt.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: It is understood by him who says. that the land was divided among the ascendants from Egypt [Num. xxvi. 54], "To the large tribe shalt thou give the more inheritance, and to the small shalt thou give the less inheritance," etc.; but to him who says "to those who entered the land," what does this verse mean? This objection remains.
R. Papa said again to the same: To him who said that the land was divided to the ascendants it is to be understood why the daughters of Z'lophchod sued for their father's share; but according to him who says "to those who entered the land," for what did they sue? There was no share for them, as Z'lophchod was dead and he had no share. They sued that the share of their deceased father might be given to their grandfather Chipher, and that they might take their shares in succession. (He said again:) It is comprehended by him who says "the ascendants," etc., why the children of Joseph cried [Joshua, xvii. 14], "Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion of inheritance?" But to him who says "to those who entered," why did they cry—each of them took his share? They cried concerning the minor children, which were numerous. Said Abayi: From all this is to be inferred that all who entered the land of Israel had a share; and if not, they protested. And lest one say that he whose protest had effect is written, and he whose protest had no effect is not written, then the protest of the children of Joseph was of no effect and nevertheless written down. This is beside the purpose of the verse, which is aimed to convey good advice to mankind; in effect, that one shall take care not to be afflicted by a covetous eye. And this is what Joshuah said to the children of Joseph [ibid. 15], "If thou art a numerous people, then get thee up to the wood country," which means, "Go and hide thyself in the forest, that no covetous eye may afflict thee"; and they answered: We are the descendants of Joseph, whom a covetous eye cannot afflict. As it is written, etc. [see Middle Gate, p. 213].

The text says that the shares of the spies Joshua and Caleb inherited. Whence is this deduced? Said Ula: It is written [Numbers, xiv. 38]: "But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb . . . remained alive." What is meant by "remained alive"? Shall we assume it is meant literally? To this there is another verse [ibid. xxvi. 65], "save Caleb and Joshua." We must then conclude that the first-cited verse means that they lived with their shares. Farther on they murmured, and the congregation of Kora'h had no share? But did not a Boraitha state that the shares of the spies, the murmurers, and the congregation of Kora'h, Joshua and Caleb inherited? This presents no difficulty. The Tana of our Boraitha compares the murmuring to the spies, while the other master does not, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [ibid. xxvii. 3], "Our father died in the wilderness." Z'lophchod is meant. "But he was not of the company" means "the spies"; "of those who gathered themselves" means "the murmurers in the company of Kora'h," literally. Hence one compares the murmurers to the spies, and one does not.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: And to him who does not so compare them, did then Joshua and Caleb inherit almost the whole land of Israel (as the murmuring ones were very numerous)? And he answered: He means to say the murmurers who were among the company of Kora'h. 1 "As a first-born he inherited a double share." But why? At the time when Z'lophchod died the land was not as yet prepared for apportionment (as it was still in the possession of the nations), and it is said above that a first-born does not inherit a double share in that which is not yet in existence. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Mishna was meant to say "in their personal property."

Rabba opposes R. Jehudah's statement that the daughters of Z'lophchod, took four shares, as it is written [Joshua, xvii. 5], "Ten portions of Menasseh." Therefore said Rabba: The land of Israel was considered prepared for division, since the Lord himself promised to give it as an inheritance to Israel. An objection was raised from the following: R. Hidqua said: "I had a colleague, Simeon the Shqmuni, who was one of the disciples of R. Aqiba. He used to say thus: Moses our master was aware that the daughters of Z'lophchod were heiresses; but he did not know whether they were entitled to the share of the first-born, and the passage about the inheritance would be written through Moses, even if the case of the daughters of Z'lophchod had not happened, but they were favored by heaven that this passage should be written through them. The same was the case with the wood-gatherer. Moses our master was aware that for the crime he committed there is a capital punishment, but he did not know by which of them he should be executed; and the passage would have been written through Moses, even if the case of the wood-gatherer had not happened. But as he was guilty, it was written through him; and this is what is meant by the reward of virtue, while the chastisement for sin is dealt out through a sinner. (See Sabbath, 1st ed., p. 55.) Now, if it be borne in mind that the land of Israel was prepared for division, why was Moses doubtful? He was doubtful in the following: It is written [Ex. vi. 8] "And I will give it you for an heritage." Does this mean "an heritage from the parents"? Hence a first-born has to take a double share; or does it mean, "I give it to you—you shall bequeath it to your children" (as the decree was, that the persons ascending from Egypt were to die in the desert), and the decision was both that the land was a heritage from the parents and yet not for themselves, but to bequeath to their children? And this is what is written [ibid. xv. 17]: "Bring them, and plant them." It was not said "us," and this was a prophecy, wherein they themselves did not know they were prophesying.

It is written [Num. xxviii. 2]: "And they stood before Moses and before Elazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation." Is it possible that when Moses did not answer them they were going to complain before the princes? Therefore this verse must be reversed. So said R. Jashia. Abba Hanan in the name of R. Elazar said: All of them were in the college when they came to make their complaint. And the point of their differing is: Whether in presence of the master the disciple must be honored or not. According to one, he may; and therefore he maintains that before they came before Moses they asked the princes, and he who said that this verse must be reversed, maintains that all were of the opinion that in presence of the master the disciple must not be honored with any question. There is a Boraitha that the Halakha prevails that he may be honored. But another Boraitha states: He may not. And it presents no difficulty. In case the master himself honors the disciple, it may be done; and in case he does not, it may not.

There is a Boraitha that the daughters of Z'lophchod were wise, understood lecturing, and were also upright. They were wise, as their protest was to the point. As R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak said: At the time when Moses our master was sitting and lecturing about the law of Yeboom [Deut. xxv. 57], "If brothers dwell together," they said to him: If we are considered as a son, then let us inherit; and if we are not considered at all, then let our uncle marry our mother. And therefore [Num. xxvii. 5]: "And Moses brought the cause before the Lord." They understood lecturing, as they said: If he should have a son, we would not say a word. But there is a Boraitha that they said: If there should be a daughter. How is this to be understood? Said R. Jeremiah: Ignore the Boraitha. Abayi, however, said: "It is not necessary to ignore it. As they said: If there should be a daughter from a son, we would not say a word. They were upright, in that they each only married him who was respectable and fit for them. R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Even the youngest of them was not less than forty years of age when she married. Is that so? Did not R. Hisda say: If a woman marries at less than twenty years of age she bears children until sixty. After twenty she bears until forty; but when she marries after forty, she does not then bear children? Because they were upright, a miracle happened to them, as to Jochebed, the mother of Moses. As it is written [Ex. ii. 1]: "And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took a daughter of Levi." Is it possible that a woman of one hundred and thirty years of age should be named daughter? As R. Hama b. Hanina said: This meant Jochebed, whose mother was pregnant while on the road to Egypt, and she was born before the walls (when they arrived in Egypt). As it is written [Num. xxvi. 59]: "Jochebed the daughter of Levi, whom (her mother) bore to, Levi in Egypt." And why is she named daughter? Said R. Jehudah b. Zebidah: Infer from this that signs of youth returned to her. The wrinkles disappeared, the complexion became improved, and her beauty returned to her. But why is it written "he took"? It ought to read, "he remarried." Said R. Jehudah b. Zebidah: Learn from this that he did with her as if he were marrying for the first time: he placed her under a canopy. Aaron and Miriam sang before her and the angels said: "The mother of the children shall rejoice."

Farther on the Scripture mentions the daughters of Z'lophchod according to their age, and here according to their wisdom. 1 And this is a support to R. Ami, who said: In the college the most scholarly has preference to age; at a banquet, however, age is considered. Said R. Ashi: Even in college, only he who excels in wisdom; and also concerning a banquet, only he who is of advanced age is considered (but if one has little wisdom and little more age than the others it does not matter).

In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: All the daughters of Z'lophchod were equal in wisdom (and that they are mentioned in the Scripture differently means nothing).
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: It was permitted to them to marry any one of any tribe, as it is written [Num. xxxvi. 6]: "To those who are pleasing in their eyes may they become wives." But what is to be said of that which is written farther on: "Only to the family of their tribe," etc. This is to be considered as a good advice—that they should marry respectable men only who were fit for them, and not as a positive commandment.

Rabba objected: It is written [Lev. xxii. 3]: "Say unto them . . . in your generations." (How is this to be understood?) Say unto them, who were at the mountain of Sinai; and to "your generations" means that the same law shall apply to "all their generations." But why should it be mentioned, "the parents and their children"? Because there were some commandments for the parents only, and some applying to children only. And what are the commandments to parents only? The law [Num. xxxvi. 8]: "And every daughter that inheriteth any possession," etc. And what are the commandments to the children? Many, as e.g., heave-offering, tithe, and all others imposed upon the land of Israel.

We see, then, that the cited verse 8 prohibited marriage to other tribes at that time only? Rabba himself answered his objection: The daughters of Z'lophchod were not included in the commandments to the parents.

The master says: "The commandments belong to the fathers, but not to the sons. But whence is this deduced? From [ibid., verse 6]: 'This is the thing,' which means, 'This thing shall be customary only in their generation.' So said Rabha." Said Rabha the minor (Zuti) to R. Ashi: According to this, should Lev. xvii. 3, in which the same expression is used, also be "for their generation" only? And he answered: There it is different, as verse 7 reads plainly: "A statute forever shall this be unto them throughout their generations."

There is a Mishna in Tract Taanith, p. 80: "Never were any more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ahb and the Day of Atonement," etc. Why is the 15th of Ahb a festival? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In their days the tribes were allowed to intermarry.

(Here is repeated from Taanith, pp. 91, 92, q. V.)

The rabbis-taught: There were seven men who encompassed the whole world since its creation until now: namely, Mesushelach has seen Adam the first, Shem has seen Mesushelach, Jacob has seen Shem, Amram has seen Jacob, Achiah the Shiloni has seen Amram; Elijah the prophet has seen Achiah, and the latter (Elijah) is still alive. But how can you say Achiah had seen Amram? Is it not written [Num. xxvi. 65]: "There was not left of them one man save Caleb and Joshua"? Said R. Hamnuna: The tribe of Levi was excluded from the decree that all should die in the desert. As it is written [ibid., xiv. 29]: "In this wilderness shall your carcasses fall, and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number from twenty years," etc., excluding the tribe of Levi, of which the number was from thirty years. But did not the same happen to other tribes?

Is there not a Boraitha that Jair and Machir, the sons of Manasseh were born in the time of Jacob, and did not die until after the entering into the land of Israel? Said R. A'hab. Jacob: In that decree, they who were less than twenty, and more than sixty years old, were not included. 1 The schoolmen propounded a question: How was the land of Israel divided? Was it divided into twelve parts for twelve tribes (and for each tribe as a whole), or was it divided severally? Come and hear! [Num. xxvi. 56]: "According as they are, many or few" (hence it was divided among the tribes and not severally).

And there is also a Boraitha: "In the future the, land of Israel will be divided among thirteen tribes," while in the past it was divided only among twelve; and it was also divided by money (the explanation will be given farther on); and it was also divided only "by lot" and by the Urim v'tumim, as it is written [ibid., 56]: "by the decision of the lot." How so? Elazar was attired in the Urim v'tumim. Joshua and all Israel were standing by, and an urn containing the names of the tribes, and another, and the names of the boundaries of the land, were placed there; and Elazar, influenced by the Divine Spirit, would say thus: "Zebulon will now come out from the urn, and with him, the boundary of Akhu." And then one of the tribe of Zebulon would put his hand into the urn and draw the name of his tribe, and then put his hand into another urn and draw Akhu.

And then again Elazar, influenced by the Divine Spirit, would say: Now Naphtali will come, and with him the boundary Ginousar. And so it was with each tribe. However, the division in the world to come will not be equal to the division of land in this world, as in this world, usually, the lot of one is a field of grain, and of another, one of fruits; but in the world to come, every one will have a share in the mountains, valleys, and plains. As it is written [Ezek. xlviii. 31]: "The gates of Reuben, one," etc., which means that every one will have equal land and shares, and the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself will assign the shares. As it is written [ibid., 29]: "And these are their allotted division, said the Lord Eternal." We see, then, that the Boraitha states that in the past the division was twelve parts to the twelve tribes.

Hence it was divided among the tribes and not severally. Infer from this that so it is.

The master said: The land of Israel will be divided among thirteen tribes. Who will be the thirteenth? Said R. Hisda "The prince of Israel will be the thirteenth. As it is written [ibid., 19]: "And the laborer of the city (i.e., the prince who bears the yoke of the whole city), whom men of all the tribes will serve." 1 Said R. Papa to Abayi: But why not say that to the prince would be given a city or the like, but not a thirteenth share of all the land? 2 And he answered: This could not be borne in mind. As it is written [ibid., 21]: "And the residue shall belong to the prince, on the one side and on the other of the holy oblation, and of the possession of the city," etc. (Hence we see that a share was given to him by all tribes.)

The text says farther on: "It was divided by money." What does it mean? Shall we assume that he who had good land would pay to him who had inferior? Does the Boraitha treat of fools, who take money instead of good land? Therefore it must be said that money was paid by those who had shares near to Jerusalem to those who took their shares far from Jerusalem (nearness to Jerusalem being preferable, as it was nearer to the Temple and farther from the land of the natives, therefore in less danger than if near to them). And on this point the following Tanaim differ. R. Eliezer said that they were rewarded with money, and R. Joshua maintains that this reward was in land, as, e.g., compared with where a saah can be sown nearer to Jerusalem they took five saahs.

It says farther on: "It was divided only by lots." There is a Boraitha, "except Joshua and Caleb." What does it mean? That they did not take any land at all? Is it possible? It is said above that they took the shares of the spies, etc. Hence they took what did not belong to them. So much the more what did belong to them. It means they did not take by lots, but by the decree of heaven. As it is written [Joshua, xix. 50): "By the order of the Lord did they give him the city which he had asked—Timnath Serah on the mountain of Ephraim." And Caleb—as it is written [Judges, i. 20]: "And they gave Hebron unto Caleb as Moses had spoken." But was not Hebron one of the cities of refuge? It means the suburbs and villages around the city.

MISHNA IV.: A son and daughter are equal concerning inheritance. However, a son takes two shares of the estate of his father, but not of the estate of his mother; and the daughters are fed from the estate of their father, but not from that of their mother.
GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by its statement that they are equal concerning inheritance? Shall we say that they inherit together? Is it not said above that the son and all his descendants have preference over the daughter? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It means to say that they are equal concerning an estate which is not yet fit for division. But have we not learned also this: That the daughters of Z'lophchod took three shares from the estate of their father, and when Z'lophchod died the land was not yet fit for division? And, secondly, what does the expression "however" mean? Said R. Papa: It means to say that they are equal in taking the share of a firstborn. It means that when a first-born died childless they took his share. But this also was already stated concerning Z'lophchod; because he was a first-born, a double share belonged to him, which his daughters inherited, and in reference to him also we do not know what the expression "however" means. Therefore said R. Ashi: It means to say that the son and daughter are equal; in case one has bequeathed to him or to her all his estate, his will must be executed. Is this in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka? This is said farther on by him: If one has bequeathed to them who are legal heirs, his words must be listened to? And even if one should say that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Johanan, and the succeeding Mishna is in accordance with them who differ with R. Johanan, is it not a rule that in such a case the Halakha does not prevail with the anonymous Mishna? And still, what means the word "however"? Therefore said Mar b. R. Ashi: It means that the son and daughter are equal in all cases concerning inheritance, be it the estate of father or mother. However, there is a difference between them, that the son takes two shares from the estate of the father, but does not from the estate of his mother."

The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xxi. 17]: "To give him a double portion," which means a double portion as against one brother., But perhaps it means a double portion from all the estate, and should be discussed thus: His share, when he has five brothers, should be equal to that when he has only one. As in the latter case he takes two shares from the whole estate, so it should be with the former. On the other hand, it can be discussed thus: His portion, when he has five brothers, should be equal to that when he has only one brother, in this respect, that as in the latter case he takes twice as much as his brother, so it should be in the former case, that he takes twice as much as all of them. Therefore it is written [ibid., 16] "Among his sons, what he hath." We see, then, that the Torah treats of the inheritance as among all one's sons; hence we have to take the second supposition, and not the first. It is also written [I Chron. v. 1]: "And the sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel, for he was the first-born; but when he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the son of Joseph the son of Israel, so that the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the first birth." And it is also written [ibid., 11]: "For Judah became the mightiest of his brothers, and the prince descended from him; while the first birthright belonged to Joseph."
Now the case of the first-born is mentioned concerning Joseph, and also concerning generations; as in the case of Joseph, it was only twice as much as each of the brothers. As it is written [Gen. xlviii. 22]: "Moreover, I have given unto thee one portion above thy brothers." So also is it with the case mentioned as to generations, that the first-born should have only one portion more than his brothers. It is written farther on: "Which I took out of the hand of the Emorite with my sword and with my bow." Did he indeed take it with sword and bow? Is it not written [Ps. xliv. 7]: "For not in my bow will I trust, and my sword shall not help me."? Therefore we must explain that "with his sword" he means prayer, and "with my bow" supplication.

To what purpose was it necessary to cite all the verses? Lest one say that the cited verse in the above Boraitha is needed for R. Johanan's above theory; therefore the other cited verse, etc.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: How is it inferred from the last cited verse that Jacob gave Joseph twice as much as to all his brothers? Perhaps he presented to him only a like estate? And he answered: To thy question. the Scripture says [Gen. xlviii. 5]: "Ephraim and Manasseh shall be unto me as Reuben and Simeon." (Hence we see that he had twice as much as his brothers, who each were counted as one tribe, and he for two.)
R. Helbo questioned R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni: What is the reason that Jacob took away the privilege of the first-born from Reuben and gave it to Joseph? You ask for the reason. Does not the Scripture state the reason: "When he defiled his father's bed"? I mean to say: Why did he give it to Joseph? And he rejoined: I will tell you a parable to which this case is similar: There was one who had raised an orphan in his house. At a later period the orphan became rich, and thought, I will recompense my benefactor (because Joseph supported his father in the years of famine, therefore he recompensed him). Said R. Helbo to him: And how would, it be if Reuben had not sinned: then Jacob would have given nothing to Joseph? Thereto I shall tell you what R. Jonathan your master said concerning this: The first-born had to come from Rachel. As it is written [ibid., 37]: "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph." But Leah was preferred by virtue of her prayers. Because of the very chastity of Rachel, the Holy One, blessed be He, returned it to her. And what were Rachel's virtues? As it is written [ibid., 12]: "And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." The brother of her father? Was he not the son of her father's sister? It was thus: He asked her whether she would marry him, and she said, Yea, but my father is very shrewd, and you cannot persuade him. And to the question: What does it mean? she answered: I have a sister who is older than myself, and my father will not give me to you while she is not married. Then he said: I am his brother in shrewdness. She then asked him: Is it, then, allowed to the upright to be shrewd? And he answered: Yea; as it is written [II Sam. xxii. 27]: "With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure, and with the perverse thou wilt wage a contest." And then he furnished her with some signs, that when she should be brought to him he would ask her for these signs, that he might be sure that she was not exchanged for Leah. Thereafter, when Leah was brought to him instead of Rachel, the latter thought, Now Leah will be ashamed, and confided to her the signs. And this is what is written [Gen. xxix. 25]: "And it came to pass that in the morning, behold, it was Leah," from which it is to be inferred that until the morning he did not know that she was Leah, because of the signs which Leah received from Rachel.

Abba Halipha Qruyah questioned R. Hyya b. Abba: Of Jacob's children who came to Egypt in sum you find seventy; however, if you will number them in detail, you will find only sixty-nine. And he answered: There was a twin with Dinah. As it is written [ibid., xlvi. 15]: "With Dinah his daughter." According to your theory there was a twin with Benjamin also, as the same expression was used? He said then: A valuable pearl was in my hand, and you were about to abstract it. So said R. Hama b. Haninah: This was Jochebed, whose mother was pregnant, and bore her before the walls (above, p. 263).
R. Helbo questioned again R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni: It is written [Gen. xxx. 25]: "And it came to pass, when Rachel had borne Joseph," etc. Why when Joseph was born? And he answered: Because Jacob our father saw that the descendants of Esau would become submissive to the descendants of Joseph only. As it is written [Obadiah, i. 18]: "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau a stubble." Helbo objected to him from [I Sam. xxx. 17]: "And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of next day," etc. Hence we see that they were submissive also to David, who was a descendant of Judah, and not of Joseph. Answered Samuel: The one who made you read the prophets did not do so with the Hagiographa, in which it is written [I Chron. xii. 21] 1 "And as he was going over to Ziklag . . . captains of the thousands that belonged to Manasseh." Hence they were submissive to the descendants of Joseph. R. Joseph objected from [ibid., iv. 42 and 43]: "And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir, having at their head Pelatyah and Nearyah and Rephayah, and Uzziel, the sons of Yishi. And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day." Said Rabba b. Shila: Yishi was a descendant of Manasseh. As it is written [ibid., v. 24]: And these were the heads of their family divisions: namely, Epher and Yishi."

The rabbis taught: "The first-born takes a double share in the shoulders, in two cheeks and the maw, in the consecrated things, and also in the improvement of the estate which was improved after the father's death. How so? If the father left them a cow which was hired to others, or she was pasturing on the meadow and she brought forth offspring, the first-born takes a double share. If, however, the heirs build houses or plant orchards, the first-born does not take a double share."
Let us see how was the case with the shoulders, etc. If already in the father's hand, it is self-evident; and if not when still alive, then it was not yet in existence; and there is a rule that a first-born does not take a double share in that which is fit, but not yet in existence? The Boraitha treats of a case where the priest has acquaintance among people who usually give such a gift to him only, and the cattle were slaughtered while the father was still alive. And the Tana of the Boraitha holds that the above gifts are considered separated immediately after slaughtering, although they were not as yet taken off. It states farther on: If the father left them a cow, etc. Let us see: It teaches that the first-born takes a double share, even when it was under the control of others. Is it not self-evident that so much the more does the rule apply when it was pasturing on the meadow under proper control? It comes to teach us that the case "hired out to others" should be equal to pasturing in the meadow in this respect, that the heirs not needing to feed it, the improvement came of itself; but not when the heirs fed it, as then the improvement would be considered as made by the heirs, of which no double share is given. And this Boraitha is in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: A first-born does not take a double share in the improvement of an estate which was improved after the father's death. Rabbi, however, said: I say that he takes, provided the improvements came by themselves, but not if improved by the heirs.

When they inherited a promissory note, the first-born took a double share; and if there was left a promissory note from the father, the first-born had to pay a double share. If, however, he says, "I will not pay double and also not take a double share," he may do so. What is the reason of the rabbis? It is written [Deut. xxi. 17]: "To give him a double portion." We see that the Scripture considers this a gift; and a gift is not considered unless it comes to one's hand. The reason of Rabbi is, because it is written "a double portion." We see, then, that the Scripture equals this to an ordinary share; and as concerning an ordinary share it is considered belonging to the heir even before it reaches his hand, the same is the case with the double share.

Said R. Papa: In case the father left a small tree, and pending the time of inheritance it became large; or unmanured earth, which has improved by itself, all agree that a double share is given. In what they differ is, in a case where the father dies when the seeds are as yet growing, and at the time of dividing the inheritance had been made into sheaves; or date-trees were as yet blooming, and at the time, of dividing bore dates. According to one, it is to be considered an improvement by itself; and according to the other, it is considered changed to another article, of which a double share is not to be given.
Rabba b. Hana in the name of R. Hyya said: If one has acted in accordance with the decision of Rabbi, the act is valid; and the same is when he has acted in accordance with the decision of the sages. And the reason is because R. Hyya was doubtful whether the Halakha prevails with Rabbi when he differs with an individual, or it is so even when he differs with a majority (as in this case a majority differs with him). Hence it cannot be considered a wrong act if one has acted according to one of the decisions. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabh: It is prohibited to act in accordance with Rabbi [as he holds that the Halakha prevails with Rabbi against an individual only]. R. Na'hman, however, himself maintains that it is permitted to act in accordance with Rabbi [as he holds that the Halakha prevails with Rabbi even against a majority]. Said Rabba: It is prohibited to act in accordance with Rabbi to start with; however, if one did so, his act is valid [and his reason is, that in such a case where Rabbi differs with the majority, the college has to teach in accordance with the majority to start with, but it cannot compel the one who acted in accordance with Rabbi to ignore his act].

It was taught: R. Na'hman taught in the Mechilta and Siphre, it is written [Deut. xxi. 17]: "Of all that is found in his possession," means to exclude the improvement which was made by the heirs after the father's death, but not that which improved by itself. And this is in accordance with Rabbi. Rami b. Hama, however, taught in the above-mentioned books that it excludes that which improved by itself, and so much the more that which was improved by the heirs. And this is in accordance with the sages.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: A first-born does not take a double share in a loan. According to whom is it? It cannot be in accordance with the rabbis, as they exclude him even from an improvement which is under the heirs' control; so much less of a thing which is not under their control. It must then be said that this is in accordance with Rabbi. But then the Boraitha which states. "If they inherit a promissory note, the first-born takes a double share in the loan, as well as in the interest," will not be in accordance with both the rabbis and Rabbi. It may be that Samuel's statement is in accordance with the sages; and nevertheless he has to teach this, lest one say, because he holds the promissory note in his hand, it is to be considered as already collected, he comes to teach us that it is not so. "A message was sent from Palestine, that he takes a double share in the loan, but not in the interest." According to whom is this? It cannot be in accordance with the rabbis, for the reason stated above; and also not. in accordance with Rabbi, who states in a Boraitha that he takes a double share in the loan, as well as in the interest? It is in accordance with the sages; but the Palestinians hold that a note is considered as already collected.

Said R. A'ha b. Rabh to Rabhina: Amimar happened to be in our city, and lectured: "A first-born takes a double share in a loan, but not in the interest thereof. And Rabhina answered: The Nahardeans are in accordance with their theory elsewhere (both Amimar and R. Na'hman were from Nahardea), as in such a case Rabba said that if the heirs recovered real estate on a loan of their father a double share is given, but not if they collected money. R. Na'hman, however, holds the reverse: A double share is given if money is collected, but not on real estate. Said Abayi to Rabba: There is a difficulty concerning your decision, and also concerning the decision of R. Na'hman. Concerning your decision, the reason of which is to be supposed that their father left to them not this money now collected, as he left a promissory note only; but why should it not be the same with the estate? Did, then, their father leave real estate to them? Moreover, you, master, said that the reason given by the Palestinians concerning the case of a certain old woman (stated farther on) seems to you a right one, and this certainly contradicts your present decision. And concerning R. Na'hman's there is also the same difficulty, as his reason must be that there is no double share from the collected estate, because they did not inherit it from their father. Why should it not be the same with money, as the collected money was not of the inheritance of their father. Moreover, did not R. Na'hman say in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, that if orphans have recovered real estate for a debt to their father, and there was a creditor to whom their father was indebted, the creditor might take away the estate which they recovered? (Hence he (R. Na'hman) considers the recovered estate as if left by the deceased—why, then, should there not be given a double share?) Answered Rabba: There is no difficulty concerning my statement, nor concerning R. Na'hman's, as we both have pointed out only the reason of the Palestinians by which, according to my theory, a double share is given from real estate, but not for money; and to R. Na'hman's it is the reverse. But our own opinion is, that neither from real estate nor from money is a double share given.

What was the case of the old woman, mentioned above? There was one who wrote in his will: "My estate shall be given to my old grandmother, but after her death it shall belong to my heirs." The deceased had a married daughter, who died while her husband and the deceased grandmother were still alive; and her husband, after the death of the old woman, demanded the estate of his father-in-law, which was in the hand of his grandmother. And R. Huna's decision was: His claim is right, as the will states, "After her, my heirs shall inherit it," which is to be explained, "My heirs, and the heirs of my heirs." R. Anan's decision, however, was: His claim is not to be considered, as the will states, "to my heirs," and he was not his heir, but the heir of his daughter. And the Palestinians sent a message: The Halakha prevails with R. Anan, but not for his reason, as, according to his reason, even should his daughter leave a son, he would also not inherit; and this is not so, as the reason why the husband could not inherit is, that the law that the husband inherits from his wife holds good only when she left real estate, but not such an estate as was not as yet in her hands, but to come, which is not the case with a son, who inherits this also.

But shall we assume that R. Huna holds that one may inherit even an estate which was not as yet in the hands of his wife? Said R. Elazar: This case was discussed by great men, and the final decision, with its reason, will be rendered by a small man like my humble self. Every one who says "after thee" is to be considered as if he were to say "from to-day" (i.e., the above will states "after her," which means the estate shall belong to "my heirs from to-day, but they are not to use the products so long as the old woman is alive"). Rabba, however, said: It seems to me that the reason given by the Palestinians is good as, according to that will, if the old woman should sell the estate, the sale would be valid.
R. Papa said: The Halakha prevails that a husband does not inherit a property which was to come in the future to his wife, and the same is the case with a first-born. He—the first-born—also does not take a double share in a recovered loan, in real estate or money; and, furthermore, if the first-born owes money to his father, the share which belongs to a first-born is to be divided, half to himself and the other half to his brothers. (The reason is, according to Rashbam, because this share is considered doubtful money, as it is not certain that the first-born is to be considered an occupant with respect to it, the supposition being that he has mortgaged all his estate for this debt to his father for the purpose that, in case of his father's death, he should take a double share. And there is a rule that doubtful money is to be divided. And according to Gershom, the reason is because this loan is not to be compared with the loan of a stranger, as he who is an heir is also an occupant with respect to this debt, and this gives him title to a half of the share in question.)

Said R. Huna in the name of R. Assi: If the first-born protests when his brothers come to improve the estate left by their father, saying: "They shall delay improvement until after division," this protest must be considered in case they have not listened to him, and he takes a double share in the improvement also. Said Rabba: The decision given by R. Assi seems to me right in case, e.g., they inherited vines, and the improvement was by gathering the grapes from the vines; or they inherited olives, and took them off from the trees: but if they made wine or oil thereof, the protest is not to be considered. R. Joseph, however, maintains: Also in the latter case, it is to be considered. Why? They inherited grapes, and now it is wine! As R. Uqba b. Hama said elsewhere: It means he shall receive a double share of the value of the grapes. The same is the case here. I.e., if it happened that the vine was of less value than the grapes, he might claim his double share in the grapes, as he has protested that wine be not made of them. And where did Uqba say this? In reference to the statement of R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, that if a first-born and his brother have inherited vines or olives, and gathered them, the first-born takes a double share of them, even when they were pressed. Pressed! Were they not first grapes, and now wine? Mar Uqba b. Hama explained that it means that the first-born receives his full double share of the value of the grapes, as explained above.

R. Assi said: If, at the dividing, the first-born took an equal share with his other brother, it is to be considered that he has relinquished his right. R. Papa in the name of Rabha said: He has relinquished his right in the divided estate only. R. Papi in the name of Rabha, however, said: It is to be considered that he has relinquished his right on all the estates. The reason of the former is because he holds that the first-born has nothing until the estate is divided. Therefore he can relinquish his right only in the divided ones. And the latter holds that as soon as the father dies the double share belongs to the first-born, even before division. And therefore, as he has relinquished his right in the divided estate, so has he done with all others. Both statements, however, were not said by Rabha plainly, but were inferred from the following act: There was a first-born who sold all the estate belonging to him and his brother. The orphans of his brother were going to eat dates of the estate belonging to their father, which was in the possession of the buyers, who struck them. Their relatives said to the buyers: It is not enough for you that you have bought their estate without the consent of the father and the orphans, you dare to strike them. And the case came before Rabha, who decided that the act of the first-born was null and void. R. Papi explained that it means he did nothing with the share belonging to the ordinary brother, but concerning his own share, the sale was valid; and R. Papa explained the decision of Rabha, that the whole sale was null and void, because the first-born had nothing in the estate before it was divided.

A message was sent from Palestine: If a first-born sold out before division, he did nothing. Hence they hold that the firstborn had nothing before the division. The Halakha, however, prevails that he has. Mar Zutra of Drishba had divided a basket of pepper with his brothers, and took an equal share, though he was a first-born; and when the case came before R. Ashi, he decided that as he relinquished his right concerning the pepper, it was also relinquished on all other property.

MISHNA V.: If one said in his will, "My son so and so, who is a first-born, shall not take a double share," or, "My son so and so shall not inherit at all with his brothers," he said nothing, as this provision is against the law in the Scripture. If, however, he has divided all his goods in his verbal will, and to some of his heirs he has bequeathed more and to some less, also equalizing the first-born, his will is valid, provided he has not mentioned in his will the word "inheritance." But if he said "because of inheritance," it is not to be considered. If there was a written will in which, in the beginning, middle, or end, was mentioned "a gift," all that it contains is to be listened to.
GEMARA: Shall we assume that our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jehudah, who said in Tract Kedushin that a condition against the law in the Scripture, if in money matters, may be listened to? This Mishna can be even in accordance with him, as in that case the woman was aware of the law, but relinquished her right. In our case, however, no one has relinquished.

R. Joseph said: "If one said in his will, 'My son so and so is my first-born,' he takes a double share. If, however, he said, 'My son so and so is a first-born,' he does not, as perhaps it was meant he was a first-born to his mother." There was one who came before Rabba b. b. Hana as a witness that he was certain so and so was a first-born. And to the question: Whence do you know it? he answered: Because his father called him "the first-born fool." And he said: This is no evidence, as people used to name a first-born to his mother first-born fool (i.e., a first-born without right).

It happened that another came before R. Hanina as a witness for a first-born, and to the question: Whence do you know it? he answered: His father used to say, "Go to Sh'kh'at my son, who is a first-born, whose spittle cures eyes." But perhaps he meant a first-born to his mother? There is a tradition that a first-born of the father cures, and a first-born to his mother does not.
R. Ami said: If born ατμητος, and after perforation found to be a male, he does not take a double share, as it is written [Deut. xxi. 15], "first-born son," which means a son when born. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said that also the law of ibid., ibid. 18 does not apply to him. Amimar said: Such is not considered an heir at all, so that his share is not to be reckoned, and does not diminish the double share for the first-born. R. Shezby said: He must also not be circumcised on the eighth day. And R. Shrabyah said: The law [Lev. xii. 2] does also not apply to such (as in all the cited verses it reads a son or a male child). Said Rabha: There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ami: It is written a son, but not ατμητος a first-born, but not a doubtful one. What does the latter part mean to exclude? That which Rabha lectured: If two wives of one have born two sons in a secret place which was dark, and it is not known who was born first, they may write a power of attorney each to the other (i.e., if I am the first-born, I authorize you to take the double share for me; and if you are, then take it for yourself. And then one of them collects the double share and divides it with the other. Said R. Papa to Rabha: But did not Rabbin send a message: I have questioned all my masters about the law in this case, and could get no answer from any of them; but it was said in the name of R. Janai that if they were recognized, and afterward they were mixed up again, then the stated power of attorney is to be written, but not otherwise. Then Rabha took an interpreter and announced in college: That which I said in my first lecture was an error, as in the name of R. Janai was said thus: That if they were already recognized and afterward mixed, then the above-mentioned power of attorney should be given to each by the other, etc.

The inhabitants of a village situated in a meadow sent the following question to Samuel: Master, teach us where it was certain to the people that so and so, from the children of so and so, was a first-born. Their father, however, said that another was the first-born. How is the law? And his answer was: They should write the above-mentioned power, one to the other.
According to whom was Samuel's decision? If he holds in accordance with R. Jehudah, let him say so; and if in accordance with the rabbis, let him say so? He was in doubt according to whom the Halakha prevails. And wherein is their differing? The following Boraitha: It is written [ibid., ibid. 17]: "Shall he acknowledge," which means, he shall introduce him to others (which is superfluous, this being already written in the previous verse). From this said R. Jehudah: One is to be trusted if he testifies, "This is my first-born son." And as he is trusted concerning a first-born, so is he also to be trusted to testify, "This is a son of a divorced woman," and of lost priesthood. The sages, however, say that he is not trusted. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak to Rabha: According to R. Jehudah's theory, the above-cited verse is right; but according to the rabbis, to what purpose is it written? That in case of a doubt the father's acknowledgment is needed (but in a case of certainty to the people that one was a first-born, the father is not trusted in denying it). But to what does such a law apply? If concerning a double share, even if he was not a first-born, has the father not a right to bequeath him a double share in the manner of a gift? It means, in case the father acquired estates after acknowledgment (i.e., if he is to be trusted, the acknowledged first-born takes a double share; and if not, he does not). But according to R. Meier, who said that one may grant a thing not yet in existence, to what purpose is the above verse written? If property came to him while he was struggling with death.

The rabbis taught: If one was known to the people as a firstborn, and his father said of another, that he was the first-born, he is to be trusted; and if one was known to the people as not a first-born, his father, however, testifying that he is, he is not to be trusted. The first part is in accordance with R. Jehudah, and the latter with the rabbis. R. Johanan said: If he has testified, "He is my son," and thereafter said, "He is my bondsman," he is not to be trusted. If, however, he testified, "He is my bondsman," and thereafter, "He is my son," he is to be trusted; as the first testimony is to be considered as if he should say, "He serves me like a bondsman." The reverse is the case when at the house of taxes. If he said before the officers, "He is my son," and afterwards, "my bondsman," he is to be trusted, as the first statement was to avoid the payment of taxes for his slave; but if he said before the officers, "He is my bondsman," and thereafter, "my son," he is not to be trusted. An objection was raised from the following: If he has served him like a son, and he acknowledged him as such, and thereafter he said, "he is my bondsman," he is not to be trusted; and the same is the case if he has served him like a bondsman, and was acknowledged by him as such, and thereafter he said, "He is my son": he is not to be trusted. (Hence this contradicts R. Johanan.) Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: The Boraitha treats of when he was called "the slave who costs me a hundred zuz," and such a thing a father would not say of his son.

R. Abba sent a message to R. Joseph b. Hama: If one says, "You have stolen my slave," and the defendant says, "I have not," and to the question, "What, then, is he doing with you?" the defendant answers, "They sold him to me," or "gave him to me as a present; and if you wish, take an oath that it was not so, and then you can take him." And if the plaintiff did so,(although, according to the law, the plaintiff had no right to take him with an oath, and for the defendant no other evidence or oath is necessary, if he would not say so), the defendant has no right to retract from his previous words.
What news came he to teach us? This we have already learned in a Mishna (Sanh. III., 2)? He comes to teach that the differing of R. Meier and the sages is in a case equal to our case, and the Halakha prevails in accordance with the sages.

The same R. Abba sent a message to the same R. Joseph: The Halakha prevails that a creditor may collect from bondsmen belonging to orphans for their father's debt. R. Na'hman, however, said: He must not.

The former sent another message to the same: The Halakha prevails that to a second-cousin a third-cousin may be a witness (according to the law, relatives must not be witnesses, and Abba comes to teach that a third to a second-cousin, which means a great-grandson to a grandson, is not considered a relative in this respect). Rabha, however, said: The third-cousin is competent as a witness even to the first-cousin. Mar. b. R. Ashi had accepted a grandfather as a witness: the Halakha, however, does not prevail with him. The same sent another message to the same: If one can witness about an estate, and he became blind, he is no longer competent as a witness in the case. Samuel, however, maintains that he is, as it is still possible for him to mark the boundaries; but concerning a garment, he is not. R. Shesheth, however, maintains that even in case of a garment he is still competent, as he may mark the width and the length of the garment; but not in a piece of metal. R. Papa, however, maintains that even in such a case he is still competent, as he may be aware of the weight.

An objection was raised: If one were cognizant of a case before he became a son-in-law to one of the parties, and the case came before the court after he became a son-in-law; or he was cognizant of the case when he was still in good health, and afterward became dumb, blind, or insane, he is not competent as a witness. But if he was cognizant of the case before becoming a son-in-law, and thereafter married a daughter, but she died before the case came before the court; or he was in good health when he became cognizant of the case, and also when it came before the court, but in the time between he became dumb, blind, etc., and cured, he is fit to be a witness. This is the rule: If in the beginning or the end of the case he was not competent, his testimony is not to be considered; but if he was competent both at the beginning and the end, but not in the time between, his testimony holds good. This opposes the statements of all the Amoraim as above, and the objection remains.

R. Abba sent another message to R. Joseph b. Hama: If one say, "Of one child among the others," he is to be trusted. R. Johanan, however, says: He is not. What does this mean? Said Abayi: If one says, "This child shall inherit all my estates," he is to be listened to in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka. R. Johanan, however, says: He is not to be listened to, in accordance with the rabbis. Rabha, however, opposed: Does the message say he shall or shall not "inherit"? It says "trusted." Therefore he explained it thus: "If one testifies to one child among his children that he is the first-born, he is to be trusted, in accordance with R. Jehudah. R. Johanan, however, says: He is not to be trusted, in accordance with the rabbis. The same sent another message to the same.

If one said in his will, "My wife shall take an equal share in my estates with one of my sons," he is to be listened to. Said Rabha: It holds good only concerning the estate in possession when the will was made, but not concerning the estate bought thereafter, and also that she takes an equal share with one of his children at the time of dividing (i.e., if his children increased in number after the will was made, she takes her share accordingly, but not according to the number of children at the time the will was made).

The same sent another message to the same: If one holds in his hands a promissory note, saying, "Nothing was paid," but the borrower say, "The half is paid," and witnesses testify that the whole amount is paid, the borrower has to take an oath that he paid the half, and then the lender may collect the other half from unencumbered, but not from encumbered estate, as the people by whom the estate is encumbered may claim, "We rely upon the witnesses that the whole amount is paid." And even according to R. Aqiba (Middle Gate, p. 5), the borrower may be considered as one who returns a lost thing-that is, if there are no witnesses; but if there are, R. Aqiba also admits that a half must be paid, as it is to be supposed that the borrower has admitted the half when he has seen that there are witnesses, and he did not know whether they were for or against him, and therefore lie admitted a half.

Mar. b. R. Ashi opposed: Even in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar, who said that the admission is to be considered, as an admission in part, to which an oath is given biblically, it is only when there are no witnesses who support him; but not in this case, where witnesses support him: he is certainly considered as if he returned a lost thing. Mar Zutra in the name of R. Simeon b. Ashi lectured: The Halakha prevails in accordance with all messages that were sent by R. Abba to R. Joseph b. Hama. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: But does not R. Na'hman oppose one of the above messages (and there is a rule that the Halakha prevails with R. Na'hman concerning money matters)? And he answered: We read the above message: It must not be collected; and so also said R. Na'hman. If so, what does Mar Zutra mean to exclude by his statement that the Halakha prevails with all the messages?

It cannot mean Rabha's above statement, as he does not oppose, but explain; and also not Mar b. R. Ashi's, who said that a grandfather is competent as a witness. It is already said there that the Halakha does not prevail with him. And should we say that it means to exclude Samuel's, R. Shesheth's, and R. Papa's concerning witnesses who were not competent at the time the cases came before the court, they also were already objected? Therefore, we must say he came to exclude R. Johanan's statement, and the opposition of Mar b. R. Ashi as above. "If it was mentioned in. the beginning," etc. How is this to be illustrated? When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: "There shall be given such and such a field to so and so, who shall inherit it"—this is considered as if "gift" were written in the beginning.

"So and so shall inherit such and such a field, and it shall be given to him"—this is a gift in the end. "He shall inherit, and it shall be given to him to inherit"—this is considered "gift" in the middle. This, however, is if there were one man and one field—i.e., "Such and such a field shall be given to A, and he shall inherit"; but if it was written, "The field on the east side shall be given to A, and he shall also inherit such on the west side," that concerning which inheritance is mentioned is not to be considered, as it is against the biblical law. The same is the case where there was one field and two persons, as, e.g., "A shall inherit a half of such and such, and the other half be given to B." R. Elazar, however, maintains: The law holds good even in the latter cases, but not when there are two fields and two persons.

When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said: "If one wrote, "The field on the east side shall be given to A, and B shall inherit that on the west side"—according to R. Johanan, title is acquired, and according to R. Elazar it is not. Said Abayi to him: Your saying is right concerning R. Elazar, as he said above that when there are two fields and two persons the will is not to be considered; but it contradicts R. Johanan's above statement. And he answered: R. Dimi and I differ in the statement which was made in the name of R. Johanan. Resh Lakish, however, maintains that title is not acquired unless it is stated plainly, "A and B shall inherit such and such fields which I have presented to them as a gift." Then they should inherit (i.e., as this will speaks about two persons, "gift" must be mentioned twice, so that it should constitute a gift for each of them).

However, in this case the Amoraim still differ. R. Hamnuna maintains that the will in question holds good only as to one person and one field, but not as to one person and two fields, or vice versa. R. Na'hman, however, said that it holds good even as to one person and two fields, or vice versa; but not as to two persons and two fields; and R. Shesheth maintains that it holds good even in the latter case.

Come and hear an objection from the following: "My estates shall belong to you, and after you so and so shall inherit, and after him so and so shall inherit. If the first heir dies, title is given to the second; if the second dies, title is given to the third; but if the second dies while the first is still alive, the estate must be turned over to the heirs of the first one." Now, is not the case in that Boraitha equal to two fields and two men, and nevertheless it states that title is given? And lest one say that the Boraitha also treats of a case in which the persons mentioned are all direct heirs of the testator, and it is in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka's statement said above, then how is to be understood the latter part: "If the second dies, title is given to the third"? Did not R. A'ha b. R. Ivia send a message that in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka, if one says, "My estates shall belong to you, and after you to so and so," if the first was a direct heir, the second has nothing in the estate, as the expression is not to be considered as a "gift," but as an "inheritance"? And there is no interruption concerning an inheritance (i.e., an inheritance cannot be halved so that a half of the inheritance shall belong to the direct heir and the other half to the second, and also cannot be interrupted by the death of the regular heir, but is to be inherited by his heirs). Hence, the Boraitha is an objection to the statements of all the Amoraim mentioned above, and so it remains.

Shall we then assume that it also objects to Resh Lakish's statement (i.e., that the Halakha does not prevail with him)? How can this be imagined? Did not Rabha say that the Halakha prevails with Resh Lakish in certain three things, one of which being his statement made above? This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha cited speaks of when it was said in one speech (i.e., there was no interruption between the words, "My estate shall belong to you, and after you," etc. It is therefore to be supposed that at the time he gave title to the first he also gave it to the second; and therefore all of them acquire title). But Resh Lakish treats of when it was said with interruption (i.e., the statement of Resh Lakish that if there were two men and two fields title is not given, means that he said first, "This field shall be given to them," and after deliberating he said again, "shall inherit such a field," etc. Then the word "given" cannot be considered, in case of this other, and therefor title is not given). The Halakha prevails that all that is said in one speech is valid, except as to idolatry (i.e., if one said this shall be for the idol, and without any interruption he said for something else, the thing in question is prohibited: because of the rigor as to idolatry, the first word which was spoken is considered). And the same is the case concerning betrothing—the first word is considered and the following is not, although it was in one speech.

MISHNA VI.: If one says: "A (who is a stranger to him) shall inherit my estate," and he has a daughter, or, "my daughter shall inherit," though he has a son, he said nothing, as the provision is against the biblical law. R. Johanan b. Beroka, however, maintains that if he has bequeathed to such persons as are fit to be his heirs, his will must be listened to; but if the persons are not fit to be his heirs, it is not to be considered.

GEMARA: From the expression of the Mishna, to a stranger instead of his daughter, or to the daughter instead of a son, it is understood if it was one daughter among others, or one son among others, he may be listened to. How, then, as to the latter part? R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If the persons were fit to be his heirs, etc. Is this not the same as what the first Tana said? And lest one say that R. Johanan holds that even in the former case his will is valid, this cannot be, as the following Boraitha states: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan said: My father and the sages do not differ as to when one has bequeathed to a stranger instead of his daughter, or to his daughter instead of his son—he is not to be listened to; and wherein they do differ is, if he had bequeathed to one son or to one daughter among others, where according to my father his will is valid, and according to the sages it is not. (Hence there is a difficulty in understanding the expression of the Mishna?) If you wish, it may be said that because R. Ishmael found it necessary to say that they do not differ, there must be one who said that they do; and this was the first Tana. And if you wish, it may be said that the whole Mishna is in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka. But it is not complete, and should read thus: If one said: "A shall inherit my estate instead of my daughter," or "My daughter instead of my son," he said nothing. If, however, "My daughter so and so shall inherit my estate instead of my other daughters," or "my son instead of my other sons," he may be listened to; as R. Johanan b. Beroka declares that if he has bequeathed all his estate to him who is one of his direct heirs, his will is valid.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails with R. Johanan. And so also said Rabha. And he added: What is the reason of R. Johanan b. Beroka? [Deut. xxi. 16]: "Then shall it be, when he divideth as inheritance among his sons what he hath," means that the Torah gave permission to the father to bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he pleased. Said Abayi to him: This may be inferred from "that he shall not institute the son of the beloved as the firstborn before," etc. We see that this is said only about the firstborn, but not about the other sons. Nay, the latter is needed in addition to what we have learned in the following Boraitha: Aba Hanan in the name of R. Eliezer said: To what purpose is it written, "that he shall not institute," etc.? Because from the beginning of the verse it is deduced that permission is given to a father to bequeath his estate to whom he pleases. And one may discuss thus: An ordinary son has the privilege to take his share in the estate which is not yet fit for division as if it were already fit, and nevertheless his father has the permission to ignore him; a first-born, who has no such privilege, so much the more he could be ignored. Therefore it is written, "He shall not institute," etc. But let the Scripture read, "he shall not institute," only. Why the first half of the verse? Because one may discuss thus: a first-born, who has not the privilege to take his double share from that which is not yet fit, has nevertheless the privilege that he cannot be ignored by his father. An ordinary son, who has the privilege, so much the more he should not be ignored. Therefore the beginning of the verse, from which we infer that the father is permitted to bequeath his estates to whom he pleases, was necessary.

Said R. Zrika in the name of R. Ami, quoting R. Hanina, who said so in the name of Rabbi: The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka: Said R. Abba to him: He did not say so, but he decided so in a case (which came before him.) And what is the difference? One holds preference is to be given to a statement (i.e., if he states that so the Halakha prevails, it is a teaching forever; but if he was only acting so, it may be said that it was only according to the circumstances and we cannot take it for a rule forever). And the other holds that the preference may be given to an act.
The rabbis taught: A Halakha must not be taken for granted from a discussion or from an act, as one has no right to act unless he is told to do so. If he questioned his master and he told him such and such a Halakha is to be practised, then he may go and act so, provided he does not compare one case to another. But do we not compare one thing to the other in the laws of the Torah? Said R. Ashi: It means to say that he must not compare one thing to the other in the law of dietary (i.e., an animal which is fit for eating biblically, if it has such a sickness that it cannot live twelve months, it must not be used). In Tract Chulin the diseases are enumerated, but such diseases as are not enumerated there are discussed whether in connection with lawful use or otherwise. And it is said that in such cases no comparison is to be taken in consideration unless known by tradition. As we have learned in a Boraitha, one must not say, concerning Trepheth (sickness which makes the animal illegal): This is similar to this. And one should not be surprised, as, if one cuts a piece of the animal from one side, it may remain alive; and from another side, and it dies immediately.

R. Assi questioned R. Johanan: "If you, master, declare a Halakha to us, saying that such is the law, may we practise accordingly? And he answered: You shall not practise unless I tell You that such is for practice. Said Rabha to R. Papa and to R. Huna b. R. Joshua: If it should happen that my written resolution in a judgment should come to your hands, and you should see some objection concerning it, you shall not tear it before seeing me; for if I should have some reason to approve it I will tell you, and if not I will retract from it. But if the same should happen after my death, you shall not tear it, and at the same time you shall not take it for an example for other cases. You shall not tear it, because, if I were alive, probably I would approve it by a good reason; and shall not take it for an example, as a judge has to act only according to his conviction and to that which he sees with his own eyes.

Rabha questioned: How is it when one bequeaths his estates to one son among others, while he is still in good health? Shall we assume that R. Johanan b. Beroka's statement is concerning a sick person only, to whom the above-cited passage may apply, but not concerning one who is in good health (when it is not usual for one to divide his estate), or it does not matter, and one may bequeath his estate when he pleases? Said R. Mesharshia to him: Come and hear the following: R. Nathan said to Rabbi: You have taught the following Mishna: If one has not written in the marriage contract, "Male children borne of you by me shall inherit the amount mentioned in your marriage contract in addition to their share among their other brothers," he is nevertheless responsible in this respect, as this stipulation is made by the Beth Din (court). And Rabbi answered him: It is to be read in that Mishna, instead of "inherits," they shall "take" (which means a gift, and to this all agree that the father has a right). Thereafter, however, Rabbi said: My youth made me presume to contradict Nathan the Babylonian, as I see now—from the law that male children cannot collect their mother's marriage contract from encumbered estate—that Nathan, who declared the expression of the Mishna to be "inherited" was right, as if the expression were as I declared, why, then, should they not collect from encumbered estates also?

(Hence we see that one even in good health has the right to bequeath, etc., as the Mishna treats of one entering into marriage.) And who is the one who holds that one may give the preference to one of his sons among others, if not R. Johanan b. Beroka? Hence there is no difference if he does it while sick or in good health. Infer from this that so it is.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: Let us see. According to both, no matter if the expression in the Mishna is "inherit" or "take," why should this hold good? Is there not a rule that one cannot grant to some one a thing which is not as yet in his hands? And even according to R. Meir, maintains that one may do so, it is when the thing is in existence, but not as yet in his hands. Here, however, concerning the marriage contract the male children are not at all in existence, and in such a case even R. Meir admits that one cannot. And if the answer to this question should be: When the court made a stipulation, it is different. Say then that only in a case where the stipulation of Beth Din holds, one can write so, even when he is in good health, but not otherwise? And Abayi answered: After all, it may be inferred that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka, from the expression "inherit," as it could state "take" to which there is no opposition; and the choosing of the expression "inherit" shows that it agrees with R. Johanan. Thereafter, however, said Abayi: "What I said above is incorrect, as there is another Mishna: If one has not written in the marriage contract, 'The female children whom you will bear by me shall remain in my house after my death, and shall be fed from my estates until they shall marry,' he is nevertheless responsible, as this is a stipulation of the Beth Din." Now we see that the two statements which ought to be written in the marriage contract are in one case because of inheritance and in the other because of a gift; and in such a case even the opponents of R. Johanan admit that it is lawful. Said R. Nihumi, according to others R. Hananiah b. Minumi, to Abayi: But how do you know that one Beth Din has enacted both the stipulations mentioned above? Perhaps they were enacted by two different Beth Dins?
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: If one bequeath all his estates to his wife, it is to be considered that he makes her a guardian only. It is also certain that if he did so to his elder son, he is considered a guardian only. But how is it if he has bequeathed all his estates to his younger son? It was taught: R. H'nilai b. Aidi in the name of Samuel said that the same is the case even when his younger son was in his cradle.

It is certain that if one allot in his will an estate to a son and a stranger, the son is considered a guardian and the stranger acquires title to that which is bequeathed to him as a gift. The same is the case if to his wife and a stranger. It is also certain that when he had bequeathed his estates to his bride who was betrothed (and yet not married), or to his divorced wife, that it is a gift and they acquire title. The schoolmen, however, were doubtful when he did so to his daughter if there were sons, or to his wife if he left brothers; and also to his wife, Who had no children, but stepsons. Shall we assume that he appointed any one of them as guardian only, for the purpose that she should be respected by the heirs as long as she lived, or he made them a gift and they acquire title to the estate. Said Rabhina in the name of Rabha: The women mentioned above do not acquire title, as they are considered guardians; except the bride and also his childless wife if she is together with her stepsons. and therefore acquire title). R. Avira, however, said in the name of the same authority that all the above-mentioned women acquire title except his childless wife, if he left brothers; and also his childless wife if she is together with her stepsons.

(All that is said above treats of a will by a sick man?) Rabha questioned: How is it if this was done by one while in good health? Shall we assume that the above verse applies only to a sick man, whose last will must be respected, or the same is the case with one in good health, as for this purpose he so acted that his words should be respected from that day? Come and hear: If one writes the products of his estates to his wife, and thereafter he dies, she may collect her marriage contract from the estate itself. If he writes her a part of the estate—a half, a third, or a quarter—she may collect her marriage contract from the remainder. If, however, he had presented to her all his estates, and thereafter a creditor came holding a promissory note from the deceased, according to R. Eliezer the deed of gift shall be annulled and she shall remain by her marriage contract.

The sages, however, maintain, on the contrary: The marriage contract shall be annulled and she shall remain by the deed of gift (as it may be supposed that she has relinquished her right in the marriage contract because of the gift she has received). Should, however, evidence be brought that the gift was not lawful, she remains shorn on both sides of the head. R. Jehudah the baker told that such a case happened with his sister's daughter, who was a bride; and the case came before the sages, and they decided that her marriage contract should he annulled and she should remain by her deed of gift. And thereafter the latter, for some reason, was also annulled, and she remained shorn on both sides of the head. We see, then, that if it were not for the creditor with his note, title would be given to her. Now, how was the case? Shall we assume that it was by a will from a sick man?

Is it not said above that she is considered a guardian only? We must then say that it was by one in good health. Hence Rabha's question can be decided affirmatively. Nay, it may treat of a will by a sick man; and, according to R. Avira, it can apply to all the women mentioned above, and according to Rabhina's explanation it may apply to a bride and a divorced wife. Said R. Joseph b. Minumi in the name of R. Na'hman: The Halakha prevails that the marriage contract shall be annulled as the sages declare. Shall we assume that R. Na'hman does not hold the theory of supposition? Have we not learned in the following: If one's son went to the sea countries, and was thereafter reported dead, and he in consequence bequeathed all his estates to some one else, the gift is valid, even if his son were alive and returned.

R. Simeon b. Menasia, however, maintains that the gift is null and void, as if he were aware that his son was still alive he would not do so; and R. Na'hman said that the Halakha prevails with the latter. (Hence we see that R. Na'hman holds the theory of supposition.) Yea, his decision that the marriage contract should be annulled is also because of a supposition—that for the pleasure she has in announcing that her husband presented to her all his estates she has relinquished the right to her marriage contract.

There is a Mishna (Peah, III., 10): "If one has bequeathed all his estates to his sons, but has left to his wife a small portion of ground, she loses her marriage contract." How is this to be understood—because he gave her a parcel of ground, she lost her marriage contract? Said Rabh: It means when he made the ceremony of a sudarium, to give title to his sons with her garment (i.e., as she has given her garment for the purpose of dividing all his estate among his sons, it is to be supposed that she agreed to this act without any objection concerning her marriage contract). Samuel, however, maintains that it is sufficient if he did so in her presence and she kept silent (as if this were against her will she would protest). R. Jose b. Hanina, however, maintains: It speaks of when he said to her, "Take this ground instead of your marriage contract." And the Boraitha teaches that concerning a marriage contract it is more loosely constructed than for other creditors, as the latter do not lose their right unless they say plainly, "We relinquish our right," while concerning a marriage contract it is sufficient that she does not protest. There is an objection from a Mishna in Khethuboth: R. Jose said: "If she has accepted, although he wrote nothing, she has lost the right of her marriage contract." From which it is to be inferred that according to the first Tana the accepting is not sufficient unless he writes. Hence he requires both writing and accepting. And lest one say that all of the Mishna in question is in accordance with R. Jose (i.e., if he wrote her a small parcel of ground, she loses her right). And R. Jose adds that the same is the case if she accepted, although it was not written. This cannot hold good, as there is a Boraitha in addition to that Mishna: Said R. Jehudah: All this holds good when she was present and had accepted; but if she accepted and was not present, she lost nothing of her right in the marriage contract. Hence this Mishna is an objection to all the Amoraim mentioned above, and the objection remains.

Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: In the case in question we have heard the opinions of Rabh, Samuel, and R. Jose. Now I would like to know what is the opinion of you, master. And he answered: I am of the opinion that as soon as he made his wife a sharer with his sons (i.e., at the time when he bequeathed his estates to his sons and set aside a piece of ground for her), she lost her marriage contract. (Provided she had not protested, as R. Na'hman holds with Samuel that if she kept silent it was sufficient.—Rashbam.) And so also it was taught by R. Joseph b. Minumi, in the name of R. Na'hman. Rabha questioned: How is it in a similar case when one is in good health? Shall we say only when he was sick, and she was aware that he had no other estates, therefore she relinquished? But when he was still in good health she might think, "Why should I relinquish my right—he may in the future buy some other estates?" Or, on the other hand, having seen that he divided all his estates, she renounced her hope and relinquished? This question remains undecided.

There was one who wrote in his will, a half of my estate to one daughter, and the other half to another, and a third of the products to my wife. At that time R. Na'hman happened to be in Sura (where this will was made), and R. Hisda questioned him: How should such a case be decided? And he answered: Thus said Samuel: Even if he left to her the products of one tree only, she lost her right in the marriage contract. Said R. Hisda to him: Samuel's decision was when he gave her title to that which is attached to the ground; but in our case he left for her only fruit which was already gathered. And he rejoined: Then you speak of movable property. In such a case she certainly lost nothing. There was another man who said in his will: A third to one daughter, a third to another, and a third to my wife. It happened that one of the daughters died while her father was still alive (i.e., as a father inherits from his daughter the deceased's share reverted to him, and this is similar, as he might buy some other estate after the division of his previous one), and R. Papa was about to decide that his wife had only the third bequeathed to her, but nothing in the third left from her daughter, for the reason that as soon as he has made her a sharer with his daughters the marriage contract was considered null. Said R. Kahana to him: Why should this case be different from the case that after making his will he bought other estate? Would she not have a right to it because of her marriage contract, as she has relinquished her right only for the sake of her daughters, when there was no other estate, but not in the estate he bought afterwards? The same is the case here: the inheritance of his daughter is to be considered as other estate bought.
There was another who divided all his estate but one tree among his wife and children, and Rabhina was about to say that the widow had a right to this tree only, if the amount of her marriage contract exceeded the value of the estate she received. Said R. Yimar to him: If she relinquished her right at the time the division took place, then she has no right even to this tree; and, on the other hand, if she has a right to this tree, which means that she did not relinquish her right, then, by the same right by which she collects the excess from this tree, she may do so from the others which are in possession of the heirs.

R. Huna said: From all said above, it is to be inferred that in the case of a sick person who has bequeathed all his estate to a stranger, it is to be investigated if the latter is in some way fit to be called a direct heir. Then he takes it as an inheritance; and if not, he takes it as a gift. Said R. Na'hman to him: Why quibble? Say plainly the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Johanan b. Beroka, as your decision is in accordance with him. However, perhaps you refer to a case which happened while one was dying and was questioned: To whom do you bequeath your estate—probably to so and so? and he answered: To whom else? And hence your statement that if the legatee is in some way fit to be an heir he takes it as an inheritance; and if not, he takes it as a gift? And he (Huna) answered: Yea, that is what I meant. But what is the difference whether he takes it as an inheritance or a gift? R. Ada b. Ahbha in the presence of Rabha said: If because of inheritance, then the widow of the deceased must be fed from the estate until she gets the amount belonging to her according to her marriage contract, which is not the case when he takes it as a gift. Said Rabha to him: Shall such a case make the position of the widow worse? In the case of an inheritance biblically, it is said that the widow must be fed from the estate; in the case of a gift, which is only a rabbinical enactment (as in reality one cannot present anything after death, but the sages enacted that the will of a sick person shall be considered as written and presented), shall she not have her right of support? Therefore Rabha explained: R. Huna's above statement agrees with the message which was sent by R. Aha b. Ivia: In accordance with the decision of R. Johanan b. Beroka (above, p. 285), an inheritance has no interruption, and goes direct to the heirs of the inheritor. Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: But the testator himself has controverted this with his saying, "after you, so and so shall inherit." He said so because he meant that he might do so. But the law dictates that there shall be no interruption; hence this stipulation is against the biblical law, and must therefore not be considered.

There was a man who said in his will: My estates shall belong to A and after A to B. A, however, was a legitimate heir, and when he died, B came and demanded the estate. And R. Elish in the presence of Rabha was about to decide that B's claim was a right one. Said Rabha to him: judges who are arbitrators (i.e., who do not decide according to the strict law, but mediate between the parties) judge so. This case, however, was the same as that concerning which R. Aha b. Ivia sent his message (that inheritance has no interruption), and he became ashamed. Rabha then applied to him [Is. lx. 22]: "I the Lord will hasten it in its time" (i.e., Elish was ashamed that were it not for Rabha he would have acted against the law). And Rabha comforted him, in that Providence would not leave such an upright man to act wrongly, and therefore it so happened that he (Rabha) was present. Hence he had no need to fear the justice of his decisions in other cases.

MISHNA VII.: If one bequeathed his estates to strangers, leaving his children without anything, his act is valid; but he is condemned in the eyes of the sages. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that if his children were not going in the right way he might be mentioned among the good men.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: Do the rabbis differ with R. Simeon or not? Come and hear: Joseph b. Joezer had a son with bad habits; and he had also a measure of dinars. And because of his son, he consecrated the dinars to the Temple. The son went and married the daughter of Gadil, the master of the crowns for King Janai; and when his wife had borne a child, he bought a fish for her, and found in it a pearl. Said his wife to him: Do not carry it to the court of the king, as they will appraise it cheaply and will take it from you. Take it, rather, to the treasurer of the sanctuary; but do not mention any price for it, as if you should do so, you will have no right to change it thereafter, as there is a rule that concerning a sanctuary the upset price is considered final, and one has no longer right to retract, as after delivery to a commoner. He did so, and it was appraised by the treasurer at thirteen measures of dinars. The treasurer then said to him: We have now in the treasury only seven measures of dinars, as the taxes are not yet collected. And he answered: Let the remaining six measures be consecrated to heaven. And the treasurer recorded in his book: Joseph b. Ioezer brought to the sanctuary one measure, while his son has brought six. According to others, they wrote: Joseph brought to the sanctuary one measure, and his son took from it six measures. Now, as they wrote Joseph brought in, it is to be inferred that he acted rightly. But perhaps, on the contrary, as according to others they recorded "his son took out seven," it may be said that they considered the act of the father unlawful. Therefore from this Boraitha nothing is to be inferred. However, how should this question be decided? Come and hear: Samuel said to R. Jehudah: Do not transfer an inheritance from any one, even from a bad son to a good one; further, nor from a son to a daughter.

The rabbis taught: It happened in the case of one whose children had evil habits, that he bequeathed all his estates to Jonathan b. Uziel; and the latter sold a third of them, consecrated a third, and the remaining third he returned to the deceased's sons. And Shamai the Elder came to rebuke him for having so done with estates bequeathed to him, contrary to the will. And he answered him: Shamai, if you have the right to make null that which I have sold and that which I have consecrated, then you have also a right to take away the property which I have returned to the children. But as you have no right to do the former, you have no right to exclaim against my latter act (i.e., if you consider me the owner of the estates bequeathed to me, then I may do with them what I please; and if I am not the owner, then also what I have consecrated should be annulled; and as you cannot annul the consecration, because the estate was bequeathed to me without any condition, consequently the estates are mine, and you cannot take away the property from the children.) And Shamai exclaimed: The son of Uziel has vanquished me! the son of Uziel has vanquished me! But what was his opinion before he came to rebuke him? He did so because of what happened in the city of Beth Horon. There was one of whom his father vowed that he should not derive any benefit from him; and when he made a banquet for the marriage festival of his son, he said to his neighbor: I make you a present of this courtyard and all that is prepared for the banquet, but only to the end that my father should be able to come and eat with us at that banquet. And his neighbor answered: If all this is mine, I consecrate it to heaven. And the donor rejoined: I have not given you my property to be consecrated to heaven. Rejoined the neighbor: Then you have given all this to the end that your father and you shall eat and drink and be reconciled, and the sin shall rest on my head. And the sages decided that a gift which cannot be consecrated by the benefactor is not to be considered a gift at all. 1 MISHNA VIII.: If one says: "This is my son," he is to be trusted; but, "my brother," he is not to be trusted. He may, nevertheless, share with him the inheritance of his father (when there are only two; but if there are three, the third, who does not recognize him as his brother, is not bound to share with him, and so he receives a half of the share of the brother who does recognize him). If the doubtful man dies, the estate must be turned over to him from whom it was taken. If, however, the deceased left other estates besides those he inherited with his brother, all the brothers share equally (because in the case of that one who testified that he is a brother to all, he has no right to the inheritance without the other brother).

GEMARA: The Mishna states: "'This is my son,' he is to be trusted." To what purpose is it stated? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For the purpose that he may inherit from him, and to acquit his wife of Yeboom. But was it necessary for the Mishna to state that he might inherit from him? Is it not self-evident (i.e., if its testimony was because of inheritance only, he could give it as a present)? It was necessary to state that he is to be trusted to acquit his wife of Yeboom. But this also we have learned elsewhere: If one says while dying: "I have children," he is to be trusted (and his wife is acquitted of Yeboom). If, however, he says: "I have brothers somewhere," and he was childless, he is not to be trusted (the intent being that his wife should be prohibited from remarrying). That Boraitha speaks of when the people were not aware of any brothers, and our Mishna came to teach that even when people were aware that one had brothers he is to be trusted if be testifies that such a person was his son.

R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: Why was it said: One is trusted in testifying that he has a son; because if one testify that be has divorced his wife, he is to be trusted? And Joseph himself exclaimed: Lord of Abraham!

He sustains a thing which we have learned in a Mishna by a thing which was not teamed at all. Therefore, if this was taught, it must be thus: R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: Why is one trusted to testify, "This is my son" (and with this to acquit his wife of Yeboom)? because, if he likes, he can divorce her. Said R. Joseph again: Now, when we come to the conclusion that the theory of "because" may be used, we may infer that if one testify he has divorced his wife, he is to be trusted; because, if he wishes to make her free, he may give her a divorce then. When R. Itz'hak b. Joseph came from Palestine, he said in the name of Johanan: A husband is not trusted to testify that he has divorced his wife. R. Shesheth, when he heard this, made a gesture implying: Now the "because" of R. Joseph is gone. Is that so? Did not Hyya b. Abin say in the name of R. Johanan: The husband is trusted? This presents no difficulty. If his testimony is of a time long past, he is not to be trusted; and if of a short period of time (e.g., a day or two before, so that this testimony should be used for the future), he is to be trusted. The difference is in case she was suspected of adultery a month before his testimony: If he is trusted, then she committed no adultery; and if not, the suspicion must be investigated. 1 The schoolmen propounded a question: Should one's testimony for the time past, in which he is not to be trusted, be considered for the future (e.g., if he testified in January that he had divorced in December, which does not hold good in case of the suspicion stated above, does it hold good for the time after the testimony took place? And the question is: Can one's testimony be divided—that for the past he should not be trusted, and for the future he should)? R. Mary and R. Zebid: According to one we may divide, and according to the other we may not. But why should this case be different from the following case stated by Rabha: If one testifies that his wife has committed adultery with so and so, if he has another witness, the man can be put to death in accordance with the law that two witnesses have to testify to a crime-we conjoin his testimony to the stranger's and they are considered two witnesses; but his wife cannot be executed, as it is unlawful that a husband should be a witness against his wife (hence we see that the testimony is divided: for one it is considered, and for the other it is not)? It may be said: Concerning two we do divide, but not concerning one person.

There was one who, while dying, was questioned concerning his wife (i.e., he was childless, and they questioned him if his wife was divorced from him, so that she might remarry after his death or she remained liable to Yeboom)? And he answered: She is fit to marry even the high priest 1 (i.e., I have divorced her). Said Rabha: We may trust him, as it is said above by Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan: A husband is to be trusted in testifying that he has divorced his wife. Said Abayi to him: But did not R. Itz'hak b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan say: He is not to be trusted? And Rabha rejoined: But have we not explained above, that one speaks of the past, and the other of the future? Rejoined Abayi: Shall we rely upon an explanation in such a rigorous law as marriage is? Then said Rabha to R. Nathan b. Ami (before whom the case came: Investigate this matter (as probably Abayi is right). There was another, of whom it was known to the people that he had no brothers, and so, also, he testified while dying. However, it was murmured by some that he had brothers in some other country. And R. Joseph decided: There is no risk in allowing his widow to remarry, as he not only said so while dying, but it was known to the majority. Said Abayi to him: But is it not murmured that there are witnesses in the sea-country that he has brothers? (Answered R. Joseph:) But at present there are no witnesses, and in a similar case, R. Hanina said elsewhere: Should we prohibit a woman from marrying because some say that there are witnesses in the north? Rejoined Abayi: If Hanina had decided leniently concerning a woman in captivity, whose prohibition to marry a priest is rabbinical only, should we compare our case, which is biblical, if the childless deceased left brothers? And Rabha said to Nathan b. Ami, who had charge of this case: Investigate this matter. "'This is my brother,' he is not." But let us see what the other brothers say. If they admit that the one in question is their brother, why should he share with one only? We must then say that they deny it. Then how is the latter part, "If he had estates from other sources, the brothers have to share," to be understood? They do not deny that he was their brother. It means When the others say, "We do not know whether he is a brother or not." "It must be turned over to him," etc. Rabha questioned: How is it if the same estate were improved of itself—e.g., if it were a young tree, and it grows up, etc., there is no question of the improvement being through the labor of the deceased, as this is similar to the case in which one got estates from other sources; but the question is: If the improvement was of itself? This question remains undecided.

MISHNA IX.: If one dies, and a δαιθηχη was tied to his body, it is not to be considered at all. If, however, while sick he had submitted it to some one, be he his direct heir or not, it must be listened to.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: What is to be considered a δαιθηχη? (Repeated here from Middle Gate, p. 40, from the quotation "Wills" to the end of the paragraph. See there.)
Rabba b. R. Huna was sitting in the balcony of Rabh, and declared the following in the name of Johanan: If a sick person said to witnesses: "Write, and give a mana to so and so," and before they did so he dies, it must not be listened to, for the reason that probably the deceased had in mind to give title in the case by a deed only; and as such a deed cannot be written after death, nothing can be done. Said R. Elazar to the disciples who were also sitting there: Bear in mind this Halakha, as it is for practice. R. Shezbi, however, said: The reverse was the case: R. Elazar declared the Halakha, and R. Johanan told them to bear it in mind, etc. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It seems to me that R. Shezbi is right, as, if R. Elazar declared the Halakha, it was necessary for R. Johanan to approve it; but if Johanan declared it, was it then necessary for Elazar to give 'his approval to what his master said? And secondly, from the following, it is to be inferred that Elazar had declared the above, namely: Rabin sent a message in the name of R. Abuhu: It shall be known to you that R. Elazar sent a message to the sages in exile, in the name of our master (Rabh): If a sick person said, Write, giving a mana to so and so, and it was not done until he had died, nothing is to be done (for the reason said above). (R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, however, said: They may write and give. 1) But R. Johanan said (though the Halakha so prevails): It must, nevertheless, be investigated. What shall be investigated? When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said the following two things: (a) A will which is written at a later period abolishes a will written previously (if title was not given by a ceremony of a sudarium). (b) If a sick person said, "Write, giving a mana to so and so," and died, it must be investigated, whether with the expression "write" the testator meant to strengthen the act. In that case it may be done; and if not, it must not. R. Aba b. Mamel opposed from the following: If one in good health said to witnesses, "Write, giving a mana to so and so," and suddenly died, nothing is to be done. From which it is to be inferred that if this were said by a sick person it would be listened to? He himself answered thereafter: If the expression "write" was only to confirm the act, then it may be listened to. But how can we know what he meant? As R. Hisda said elsewhere: If written, and confirmed by the ceremony of a sudarium, no retraction can take place. So also in our case. If it was said by the sick person, "Give to him, and also write," then the last expression may be considered as a confirmation of this act; and it may be so done.

It was taught: R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The Halakha prevails, they may write and give; and so also said Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman.

MISHNA X.: If one wishes to bequeath his estate to his children (i.e., it speaks of one who remarries and does not wish that the children by his first wife should lose their share in his estate after his death), he must write: I bequeath my estate to them from to-day and after my death (i.e., the estate belongs to them thenceforward, but not the products until after his death). So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, maintains: It is not necessary to write "from to-day."

If one wrote: "I bequeath my estate to my son from today, and after my death," he has no longer any right to sell his estate, because it is bequeathed to his son; and his son, also, has no right to sell it because it is still under the control of his father. If, notwithstanding this, the father has sold, the products thereof are sold until he dies. If the son, however, sold, the buyer has nothing therein until the father dies.

GEMARA: But how if he has written "from to-day and after my death"? Have we not learned in a Mishna: If one wrote in a divorce, "from to-day and after my death," it is considered a doubtful divorce, so that after his death his widow cannot marry his brother, but must perform the obligation of Halitzah. (This is no objection) as there we are doubtful as to the explanation of his words. Does he mean by the words, "after my death," to be a condition (i.e., if I die she shall be divorced from to-day), or as a retraction (i.e., the last words retract the former), and therefore she cannot marry. Perhaps the divorce was valid, and it is prohibited to her to marry a brother-in-law. But she is under the obligation of Halitzah. Perhaps the divorce was invalid. In our case, however, it is to be explained, the body of the estate is bequeathed "from today," but the products, "after my death." "R. Jose . . . It is not necessary," etc. Rabba b. Abuhu became sick. R. Huna and R. Na'hman came to make him a sick call. Said R. Huna to R. Na'hman: Question him whether the Halakha prevails with R. Jose. And he answered: I am not aware of the reason of his statement. To what purpose, then, should I ask if the Halakha so prevails? Rejoined R. Huna: I will tell you the reason later, and meanwhile you may question him with whom the Halakha prevails. And he did so. And Rabba answered: So said Rabh: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose. When they went out from him, said R. Huna: The reason of R. Jose's statement is because the date of the deed testifies to whom from that day the estate belongs. And so also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha.

Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: According to R. Jehudah, who requires that there shall be written "from to-day," etc., how is it, if this was made with the ceremony of a sudarium? (Shall we assume that as the above ceremony was already performed title is acquired, and nothing further is to be added; or, even then, it must be written in the deed "from to-day," etc.?) And he answered: In such a case it is not necessary. R. Papa, however, maintains that there is a difference in the tenor of the deed. If it was written: We have secured the ceremony of a sudarium, which he agreed to and made, then nothing is needed to be added. If, however, it was written: He agreed, and we performed the ceremony, then it is necessary to write, "from to-day," etc. (and the reason is, that the latter expression may be explained as intimating that he agreed that possession should come after death, and thereto we have joined the ceremony of a sudarium). R. Hanina of Sura opposed: Are there such things as we do not know, and we must rely upon the scribes? The scribes of Rabha and of Abayi were questioned, and it was found that they were aware of the difference mentioned above. R. Huna b. R. Joshua, however, said: There is no difference between the two versions mentioned above; as to either of them, nothing is to be added. But if "sudarium" was not mentioned in the deed at all, and there was a memorandum: e.g., "The undersigned testify that a memorandum was made by so and so," etc., then, according to R. Jehudah, "from to-day," etc., is needed. Said R. Kahana: I repeated this discussion before R. Zebid of Nahardea, and he told me: You have learned this so. We, however, have learned it as follows: Said Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman: If a sudarium is mentioned, no matter what version was used, nothing is needed to be added; but in respect to a memorandum (illustrated above) R. Jehudah and R. Jose differ. "I bequeath my estates to my son," etc. It was taught: If the son sold out and then died while the father was still alive, according to R. Johanan the buyer has nothing in it; and according to Resh Lakish, title is given to the buyer after the father's death. The reason of their difference is, because the former holds that the sale of the products ought to be held similar to the sale of the body; and as the products could not be sold by the son, as he had nothing in them so long as the father was alive, so he could not sell the body. And the latter holds that the body is not subordinate to the products; as the body belonged to the son, the sale is valid.

R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish from the Boraitha stated above, p. 289, which says: The estate must be turned over to the heirs of the first; and according to you, it ought to be to the heirs of the testator. And he answered: It was already explained by R. Hoshua in Babylon that there was a difference when the testator said plainly "and after you." And so also it was answered by Rabh, to a contradiction made before him by Rabha b. R. Huna. But have we not learned in a Boraitha that the estate must be turned over to the heirs of the testator? In the resolution of this case, Tanaim differ: "My estates are bequeathed to you, and after you to B; A sells out, and consumes the amount. B has a right to recover it from the buyers after the death of A. So is the decree of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains B has a right only to what remained from A." A contradiction was made from the following: My estate is bequeathed to you, and after you to B; A may sell and consume it. So is the decree of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that A has a right to the products only. Hence Rabbi and R. Simeon contradict themselves in the two Boraithas. This presents no difficulty. The statement of Rabbi in the later Boraitha is concerning the products only; and the statement in the first Boraitha is concerning the body. There is also no contradiction in R. Simeon's statements, as his statement in the last Boraitha means that so is the law to start with; and his statement in the former means, if it were already done.

Said Abayi: Who is called a crafty villain? He who advises A to sell the estate (bequeathed to him for his life only), relying upon R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's decision. Said R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. He, however, admits that if A gives the same as a present to C, when he is dying, he has done nothing. And what is the reason? Said Abayi: Because C ought to acquire title to it only after the death of A. But at that time B had already acquired title, as it was bequeathed to him after A's death. But did Abayi say so? Was it not taught: To a gift presented by one who is dying, at what time is title given? According to Abayi, with the death: and according to Rabha, after death. Hence C ought to have the preference, according to Abayi's last statement, as to B it is bequeathed after death? Abayi has retracted from his last statement. But do you know where he has retracted from the last statement? Perhaps he has retracted from the first. Yet it cannot be borne in mind that there is a Mishna which states as follows: If one should say: "This shall be your divorce if I should die"; or, "It shall be yours if I should not recover from this sickness"; or, "After my death," he said nothing. (Hence this Mishna is a direct contradiction to Abayi's statement that title is given with the death. If it were so, the divorce would be valid when he said: This shall be your divorce when I die. And therefore it must be supposed that he retracted from the later statement.)

Said R. Zera in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails with R. Simeon, even in case in the estate in question there were included bondsmen, and they were freed. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that the testator may claim: "I did not bequeath to you my estate, you shall transgress 1 with them," it came to teach us that it does not matter. And R. Joseph said in the name of the same authority: Even if he had made of them shrouds for a corpse. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that the testator may claim: "I did not give it to you for the purpose that you should make from it things from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit," he came to say it does not matter.

R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda lectured: If one said: "This citron is given to you as a gift, and after you to B," and A became seized of it, and performed his duty as owner on the first day of Tabernacles, it depends upon the difference between R. Simeon and Rabbi whether it was done lawfully. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak opposed: The above Tanaim differ in the case whether the sale of the products be considered the same as the sale of the body (explained above), or not? But in our case, if it was not presented to him to the end that as owner he should perform the duty of that day, for what, then, was it given to him? Therefore it must be said that all agree that A, who did as owner his duty of that day, acted lawfully. But if he has consumed or sold it, it depends upon the difference between the Tanaim mentioned above whether the sale is valid, or A has to pay for it.
There was a woman who had a tree on the estate of R. Bibbi b. Abayi; and each time she went to gather the products of the tree, it made him angry. She then sold it to R. Bibbi for his life, with the condition that after his death it should be turned over to her or her heirs. He, however, transferred it to his minor son (to the end that the tree should remain his for a long time, as according to the law a minor acquires but cannot give title, and this act was according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel). Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: Because you are weak you speak weak words. 1 Even Simeon b. Gamaliel admits that his statement holds good only when he transferred it to some one else; but not if to himself.

Rabha said in the name of R. Na'hman: If A said to B, "I give you this ox as a present, with the stipulation that you shall return it to me," and B consecrated it and afterward returned it, the ox is consecrated, and B has fulfilled his duty. Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: But, after all, what has he returned to him? The ox being consecrated, he cannot derive any benefit from it. Rejoined R. Na'hman: But did B depreciate the value, of the ox? Has he not returned it as he got it? R. Ashi, however, said: It must be investigated how the stipulation reads. If "You shall return it," then he acted correctly, as he did return it. But if "You shall return it to me," which means it shall be fit for me, but if he has consecrated it, it is no more fit for him. Consequently it cannot be considered returned.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: If A has bequeathed his estate to B, and B says "I do not want it," he nevertheless acquires title, even if he still protests he does not want it. R. Johanan, however, says: He does not. Said R. Abba b. Mamel: And they do not differ. If B protests at the very time the deed of gift was given to him, he does not acquire title; but if he first kept silent, and afterward protested, title is acquired.
The rabbis taught: If a sick person said, "Give two hundred zuz to A, three hundred to B, and four hundred to Q" it must not be understood that he who is mentioned first in this deed acquires title to that amount; and, therefore, if a creditor comes with a promissory note of the deceased, it may be collected from all of them. If, however, it reads, "Two hundred zuz to A, and after him three hundred to B, and after him four hundred to C," then the one who is mentioned first in the document acquires title to that amount; and the promissory note must be collected from the last. And if the money he receives does not suffice, it must be collected from the one mentioned before him; and if his does not suffice, it must be collected from the first.

The rabbis taught: If a sick person said, "Give two hundred zuz to my first-born son so and so, who is worthy to have them," he may take them, and also the double share belonging to a first-born. If, however, the sick person said, "Give him such an amount for his first-born privilege, the son has the preference to choose which is better for him—the amount bequeathed or the double share prescribed for him. The same is the case if the sick person said, "Give two hundred zuz to my wife, who is worthy of them." She takes them and also what belongs to her according to her marriage contract. If, however, he said, "Give them to her for her marriage contract," she has the choice of taking them or that which belonged to her according to her marriage contract. If a sick person said, "Give two hundred zuz to my creditor B, who is worthy of them," he may take them, and also collect what the deceased owes him. But if he said, "Give them to him for my debt," then he takes it for the debt.

How is the last sentence to be understood—because he said he is worthy of them, he shall take both the two hundred zuz and his debt? Why not explain, as he had a right to them because of my debt? Said R. Na'hman: Huna told me that this Boraitha is in accordance with R. Aqiba, who is particular concerning the version as it is said (Chap. IV., Mishna 2): R. Aqiba admits, etc. From which we see that he gives his attention to a superfluous word. The same is it with the case in our Boraitha-that the words, "as he is worthy of them," are superfluous; and according to R. Aqiba they are said because he wants to add them to his debt.
The rabbis taught: If a sick man said, "I have a mana with so and so," the witnesses may write this, although they are not aware that such is the case. And therefore, when his heirs come to collect from the debtor, it is for them to bring evidence. So is the decree of R. Meir. The sages, however, maintain that the witnesses must not write unless they are aware that so it is. And therefore, the heirs may collect this debt without any other evidence. Said R. Na'hman: Huna told me: The Boraitha must be so understood. R. Meir said: They must not write; and the sages: They may. And even R. Meir said so because he feared that the court, before which the case of "collection" should come, would err, and approve the deed without any investigation, if the witnesses who signed the deed testified only to what the deceased said, or they were aware that the contents were true. And the sages maintain: Usually a court does not err, and can be relied upon to give proper attention to this matter. Said R. Dimi of Nahardea: The Halakha prevails that it must not be feared the court will err. But why should this differ from the following case stated by Rabha: The ceremony of Halitza must not be made by the court, unless they know the persons? And the same is the case with a denial (of a woman, betrothed in childhood, who on arriving at majority denies the marriage before the court; and according to the law she may remarry without any other act). And therefore the witnesses who were present may write a testimony of this act, although they themselves did not know the persons. And the reason why the court must not perform the ceremony of Halitza, unless they know the persons, is because it is to be feared that the court before which she may come to remarry will not investigate whether she is the same person who had to take Halitza. (Hence we see that error by the court is to be feared?) This is no objection. A court usually does not investigate the act of a former court; but the acts of witnesses, it does.

MISHNA XI.: The father has a right to pluck the products of trees which are found on the estate bequeathed to his son, after his own death, and may present them to whom be pleases. If, however, the plucked fruit remains after his death, they belong to his heirs.

GEMARA: The plucked fruit only, but not that which is attached to the trees, although ready to be plucked (i.e., such belongs to the son, to whom the estate is bequeathed after his father's death)? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that in case the fruit was ripe, under the control of the bequeather, it belongs to the buyer if he sold it before his death? Said Ula: This presents no difficulty. Our Mishna treats of when he bequeathed to his son, and it may be supposed that his last will was that from that remaining on the tree his son should derive benefit; and the Boraitha speaks of when he has bequeathed his estate to a stranger.

MISHNA XII.: If he left grown-up and minor sons, the grown ones have no right to derive any benefit on account of the minors, nor have the minors a right to same on account of the older brothers (e.g., the older ones have no right to dress themselves at the expense of the inheritance before the division, nor should the minors be supported from the inheritance); but they must divide the inheritance equally. If the older ones have married at the expense of the inheritance, the same amount must be added to the shares of the minors. However, the latter have no right to claim for any addition if their older brothers have married while their father was still alive, as the amount expended for their marriages is considered a gift from their father. 1 The very same is the case with grown-up and minor daughters. All of them must receive an equal share. However, in one respect preference is given to daughters who were left together with grown-up sons. The daughters must be fed from the inheritance at the charge of the sons, which is not the case with minor daughters who were left together with grown-up ones.

GEMARA: Rabha said: In the case of the oldest brother who has dressed himself at the expense of the house before division, his act is lawful (and nothing is to be deducted from his share). But does not our Mishna state: "Grown-up ones have no right to derive any benefit," etc. Our Mishna speaks of when they are idle, and do nothing for the benefit of the house. If idlers! Is it not self-evident? Lest one say that, nevertheless, they would be pleased that their brother should be nicely dressed, it comes to teach that it is not so. "Grown-up and minor daughters," etc. R. Abuhu b. Genibh sent a message to Rabha: Let the master teach us:. How is it if a woman has borrowed money, consumed it, and thereafter she married without paving her debt, and brought estates with her at marriage? Must her husband pay her debt, or not?

Shall we assume that the husband is considered a buyer of the estates brought, consequently he has not to pay, as the law dictates that a loan made without a deed cannot he collected from a buyer; or is he considered an heir, and must pay his wife's debts, even when contracted without any deed? And Rabha answered: This we have learned in our Mishna: If the grown-up daughters have married, the minors may do the same. Is this not to be interpreted that if the grown-up daughters have borrowed money from the estate also belonging to the minors, the minors shall do the same by collecting the debts from their sisters' husbands? Nay! The Mishna means to say that they take the same amount from the inheritance as their sisters did. But this is not so. As R. Hyya taught plainly: If the older ones have married at the charge of the inheritance, the minors may collect the amount from their husbands? (Hence we see that the husband is considered an heir, and must pay?) This cannot be taken for support, as a law made in connection with an inheritance for the purpose of marriage is considered as public and known to the people, and also in the light of a deed which is to be collected from encumbered estates.

Said R. Papa to Rabha: Why did you try to decide the question from R. Hyya's Boraitha? Was the same not decided by Rabbin's letter: If one dies leaving a widow and a daughter, the widow must be supported from the deceased's estate. If the daughter has married or dies, the widow is still to be supported from the estate. Said R. Jehudah the son of R. Jose's sister: Such a case came before me, and it was decided that a widow must still be supported from the estate. Now, if the husband is considered an heir, it is correct that his widow should be supported from his estate; but if he is considered a buyer, why should she be supported from his estate? Does not a Mishna state that for the support of a widow and daughters, encumbered estate must not be taken away? Said Abayi: What news has Rabbin sent in his message? Have we not learned this in a Mishna: "The following is not to be returned in the jubilee year: The double share taken by a first-born and the inheritance of a woman taken by her husband"? Hence we see that the husband is considered an heir? Said Rabha to him: And even after he has sent the message. do we then know that it is in accordance with the law? Did not R. Jose b. Hanina say (Middle Gate, p. 255) that the husband takes away from the buyer? Therefore said R. Ashi: The rabbis have enacted that in some respects the husband should be considered as an heir, and in some respects as a buyer; and have so done on his account. Concerning the jubilee year, it is better for him that he should be considered an heir, for the purpose that he should not be compelled to return the inheritance of his wife, and concerning the case of R. Jose b. Hanina (stated above) he is to be considered as a buyer, that he should not suffer any, damage; and in the case of Rabbin they have considered him as an heir, to the end that the widow should not suffer any damage. But why did the sages consider him as a buyer in the case of R. Jose b. Hanina? Do not the buyers (from whom he takes away the property) suffer? Therein they themselves cause that they should suffer, as they ought not to have bought goods from a married woman, who lives with her husband, without his consent.

Footnotes

245:1 The Gemara infers it from terms in Hebrew or Chaldaic which it is impossible to translate into English; namely, Putiel, which is a name, Pitem meaning in Aramaic "fat," and Pitpet, which means in Aramaic "subduing." Hence by Putiel can be meant Jethro, who fattened calves for idols, and also Joseph, who subdued the evil spirits.

246:1 It is written bniechein; literally, "sons." Leeser translates "children," according to the sense.

247:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

248:1 R. Janai was very infirm and could not see well.

253:1 The Scripture reads byoum, "at the day," which Leeser has not translated.

254:1 This is the explanation of Gershom. Rashbam, however, interprets it to mean that if the son dies while his mother is still alive, the legal heirs are not his brothers, but the relations of her father.

256:1 I.e., it cannot happen that all the descendants of one of the twelve tribes of the sons of Jacob should die. The basis of this is Malachi, iii. 6.

257:1 Leeser translates "dread," which does not correspond.

257:2 Leeser does not correspond at all.

261:1 The text continues a discussion about the same matter, explaining the supposed contradiction of the passages, which is of no importance, and is therefore omitted.

163:1 [Num. xxvii. I:] Mahlah, Noah, Chaglah, Milcah, and Thirsah, white on the occasion of their marriage, Mahlah, Thirsah, Chaglah, Milcah, and Noah are written.

265:1 In the text it is deduced by analogies of expression, and omitted as of no importance.

266:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

266:2 The text has "Rungur." The Aruch explains this as two words of the Persian language: "Run" means "day," and "gur" means "hirer"; and accordingly Rashbam construes "day-hirer," which does not fit very well. We have therefore translated in accordance with R. Gershom.

270:1 In the Hebrew Bible it is verse 21; in Leeser's, Verse 20, because he put together verses 5 and 6.

297:1 In the text is repeated here from Tract Sukka, p. 36, which see.

298:1 The commentators try to explain at length with illustrations, which we omit as of no importance.

299:1 The commentators find difficulty in explaining the meaning of this expression. It seems to us, however, very simple. He meant: I divorced her before having intercourse with her, and she is still a virgin, whom a high priest may marry.

301:1 Transferred from 152a.

305:1 The ancient Hebrew as well as the Roman law prohibits the freeing of a slave without good reason; and also the deriving of benefit from shrouds, or anything else belonging to a corpse.

306:1 The commentators' explanation of this is that Abayi was of the family of Eli, who according to tradition were short-lived. Therefore the word "weak."

309:1 So is it explained in the Gemara by R. Jehudah.

CHAPTER IX.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SUPPORT OF UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, IF AMONG THE CHILDREN WERE AN HERMAPHRODITE OR AN ANDROGYN. MAY OR MAY NOT ONE BEQUEATH HIS ESTATE TO STRANGERS IF HE HAS CHILDREN? DOES THE SECOND WILL ABOLISH THE FIRST? IF A SICK PERSON RECOVERS AFTER MAKING A GIFT WHILE SICK, MAY HE RETRACT OR NOT? IF SUDDEN DEATH OCCUR TO MANY PERSONS, AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO DIED FIRST, AND EACH OF THE HEIRS CLAIMS FOR HIS BENEFIT . MISHNA I.: If one dies, and leave sons and daughters, if the inheritance is of great worth, then the sons inherit, and the daughters must be supported from it; and if a moderate one, the daughters must be supported, and the sons may go a-begging. Admon, however, said: Because I am a male shall I suffer? Said Rabban Gamaliel: It seems to me that Admon is right.

GEMARA: What is to be considered great worth? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It shall be sufficient for all of them to be supported for twelve months. And he (Jehudah) added: When I told the Halakha before Samuel, he said: Such is the decree of R. Gamaliel b. Rabbi. The sages, however, maintain: It shall suffice to support all of them until the daughters become of age. So also it was taught by Rabbin, according to others by Rabba b. b. Hana, when he came from Palestine, in the name of R. Johanan: If the inheritance suffices to support all of them until the daughters become of age, it is considered of great worth; and if less, it is considered moderate. How is this to be understood? If it does not suffice to support all of them, shall the daughters take the entire inheritance, leaving nothing for the sons? Therefore said Rabha: There must be deducted from the inheritance the amount which will suffice for the daughters until they become of age; and the remainder shall be given to the sons.

It is certain that if for some reason the estates become less in value after the father's death, and do not suffice for the support of the daughters until they become of age, and also for the sons' support, both have already acquired title, and must be satisfied with that which falls to their lot (i.e., the daughters have no right to claim that they shall be supported until of age from the share of their brothers). But how is it if the estate increased in value after death? Shall we assume that the increase belongs to the heirs, and therefore the sons may have the benefit of it? Or, as they had nothing in it when their father died, they are considered entirely cut off from this inheritance, and have nothing to do with the increase? Come and hear what R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If orphans hastened and sold out from this inheritance before the daughters summoned them, the sale is valid, and the daughters have no right to take it away from the buyers, according to the rule that it cannot be collected from encumbered estate for the support of the daughters. (Hence we see the sons are considered heirs, notwithstanding that the estate was not of great worth.) Consequently they have a share in the increase.

R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Abuhu, and questioned him as follows: If the estates were of great worth, but there was a promissory note in the hands of a creditor, which ought to be collected from the estates, should the estates, because of the note, be considered moderate, so that the support should be for the daughters and the sons should go a-begging? Or, until collected, should all of them be supported, without taking into consideration that after collecting nothing might remain for the support of the daughters? And should you decide that the promissory note, although not yet collected, diminishes the value of the estates, for the reason that the amount due will be collected in any event, even should the creditor die, how is it if the deceased left a step-daughter whom he has to support, according to the marriage contract of his wife, until she shall become of age, and the amount of her support diminishes the estate from being of great worth, and stamps it moderate? How, then, should the inheritance be considered, should the step-daughter die, and then, the obligation being gone, the estates remain of great worth. There is still another question. If the deceased left a widow and a daughter, and the estates left could support only one of them, who has the preference? And R. Abuhu answered: Go to-day, and come to-morrow. And when he came he said to him: Of all the questions, I can decide the last one. As R. Aba said in the name of R. Assi: The sages have enacted that when there is a widow with a daughter she shall have similar treatment to that of a sister who remains with her brother. As in the latter case, if the estate is moderate she must be supported, although her brothers remain beggars, so also the widow as against a -daughter-the widow must be supported and the daughter may go a-begging. "Admon, however, said: Because I am a male," etc. How is this to be understood? Said Rabha: He means to say: Because I am a male, and ought to inherit all the estates where the inheritance is of great worth, leaving for my sister only the support for her livelihood until of age, shall I remain a beggar when there is a moderate estate?

MISHNA II.: If one leave sons, daughters, and an hermaphrodite (if it is doubtful whether male or female), and the inheritance is of great worth, the males may count same among the females; but when the inheritance is moderate, the females may count same among the males.

If one say: "If my pregnant wife should bear a male, he shall take a mana," and she bears a male, the mana is to be given to him; "If a female, she shall take two hundred zuz," she takes two hundred. If a male a mana, and a female two hundred zuz, and she had born a male and a female? The male takes one hundred and the female two hundred zuz. But if she bears an hermaphrodite, he takes nothing. If, however, he said: "What she shall bear shall take," then he takes accordingly. And the same is the case if there were no heirs but he—he inherits all.

GEMARA: The Mishna states: They count same among the daughters, which means he shall be treated like them. But does not the later part state: If she bears an hermaphrodite, he takes nothing? Said Abayi: It means that the males counted him among the females; but the latter have the right not to accept him, and he remains without any support. Rabha, however, maintains: They pass him and he must be similarly supported. And the latter part of our Mishna is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel of the following Mishna: If she bears an hermaphrodite or an androgyn, which is at times a male and at times a female, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: No sanctity rests upon them. (The cited Mishna treats: If one made a vow for the offspring of a gravid cow—if a male, it shall be a burnt-offering; and if a female, a peace-offering.)

An objection was raised from the following: "An hermaphrodite inherits like a son, and is supported like a daughter." And this can be correct only according to Rabha: That he is considered an heir, like a son, in a moderate inheritance; and is supported, like a daughter, in one of great worth. But according to Abayi, who said above that he takes nothing, how do you find that he shall be supported like a daughter? Even according to your theory, how do you explain Rabha's statement, that as an heir, like a son, he takes something of a moderate inheritance? In such a case the sons take nothing; hence he means to say that he is considered an heir like a son—to be a beggar. So also you can explain the Mishna: He is in condition to have support like a daughter, but, nevertheless. he does not get any. "If one says: If my pregnant wife shall bear a male," etc. Shall we assume that a daughter is better to him than a soil (as the Mishna says, "If a male one hundred, and a daughter two hundred")? Concerning inheritance, a male is better to him, as he bears his name; and concerning a gift, a daughter is better to him, as it is more difficult for her to make a living than for a male. Samuel, however, maintains that the Mishna treats of when his wife was pregnant with her first child; and it is in accordance with R. Hisda, who said elsewhere: If the first child is a female, it is a good sign for future sons, according to some because she will educate the sons; and according to some, that she should not be afflicted by a covetous eye. Said R. Hisda: As for me, I always give preference to females over males. And if you wish, it may be said that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah in the following Boraitha: It is a meritorious act for one to support his daughters, and so much the more his sons who occupy themselves with the Torah. So is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, said: It is a meritorious act to support the sons, and so much the more to support the daughters, because of their humiliation (if they should have to beg).

There was one who said to his wife: I bequeath my estate to the child with which you are pregnant. Said R. Huna: This means that he designed to give title to an embryo, and an embryo cannot acquire title. R. Na'hman objected to R. Huna from our Mishna, which states: If my wife shall bear a male, he shall take a mana, etc. And he answered him: I do not know who has taught our Mishna (i.e., I do not find our Mishna to be in accordance with the majority, nor a single one of the sages). But let R. Na'hman say that the Mishna treats of when the bequeather said: I bequeath the estate to the child after my wife has borne it? R. Huna is in accordance with his principle that the child does not acquire title even after birth. (As it was taught:) R. Na'hman said: If one bequeaths to an embryo, title is not given; but if he said, "after he is born," title is given. R. Huna, however, maintains that even then title is not given. But R. Shesheth is of the opinion that in either case title is given. And he added: I deduce my statement from the following Boraitha: "If a proselyte supposed to be childless dies, and Israelites have robbed his estate, and thereafter they hear that he has a son, or that his wife is pregnant, they are obliged to return it. If, however, they have returned it, and thereafter they hear that the son is dead, or that his wife has had a miscarriage, and they again take the estate, he who made a hazakah in the second instance has acquired title, but he who made the same in the first instance has not." Now, if it be remembered that an embryo does not acquire title, why should title not be given to them who made a hazakah in the first instance? Said Abayi: There is a difference with an inheritance which came of itself: In such a case the embryo acquires title. Rabha, however, said: Even in case an inheritance came by itself, the embryo does not acquire title; and the reason why title is not given to them who made a hazakah in the first instance is because they were still uncertain whether the property taken would remain with them, as there was still a doubt whether children were left. But in the second instance they were sure of their ground.
Come and hear another objection: "A child of one day inherits and bequeaths (e.g., if his father dies when he was even one day old, he inherits from his father; and if at birth the estate of his deceased father came to him, and he dies when he was one day old, his relatives inherit from him). We see, then—only when he was one day old, but not when in embryo. This was explained by Rabh Shesheth: He inherits the estate of his mother, to bequeath to his brothers on his father's side. And this can be only when he was alive one day after his mother; but not when he was in embryo, as he died before his mother. And a son does not inherit from his mother, when once in his grave, so that his brothers on his father's side could inherit from him.

Shall we assume that in case the mother dies while pregnant the embryo dies first? Perhaps she dies first? There happened such a case, and the embryo moved convulsively thrice. Said Mar b. R. Ashi: Such a movement was without any life, such as the movement of the tail of a lizard. Mar b. R. Joseph in the name of Rabha said: The cited Boraitha means to say that a child of one day diminishes the share of a first-born . E.g., a first-born takes a double share—i.e., twice as much as each of his other brothers. But if there were added a male child of one day, the estate must be divided into five parts, if there are four brothers, of which the first-born takes a double share. And if this child dies afterwards, his share is to be divided equally among the four brothers. This is only when he was old one day, but not when an embryo; because [it is written, Deut. xxi. 15], "and they bear him children." As the same said also on the same authority: A son who was born after the death of his father does not diminish the share of the first-born, as it reads in the verse just cited "bear him"; but when born after his death, it was not born to him.

All that was said here was taught in the city of Sura. In Pumbeditha, however, it was taught as follows: Mar b. R. Joseph said in the name of Rabha: A first-born who was born after the death of his father does not take a double share. As it is written [ibid., 17]: "Shall he acknowledge," and when he is dead he cannot acknowledge. The Halakha prevails in accordance with all the versions said by Mar b. R. Joseph in the name of Rabha.

R. Itz'hak in the name of R. Johanan said: He who bequeaths to an embryo, title is not acquired. And should you object to this statement from our Mishna, which states: "If one bequeaths a mana to the embryo, he takes it after he is born,"

I may tell you that this is said only of a father, whose mind is near to his son; but it cannot be done by a stranger. Said Samuel to R. Hana of Bagdad: You may bring to me ten persons, and I will teach in their presence that title is given if one bequeaths to an embryo. The Halakha, however, prevails that title is not given.

There was one who said to his wife: I bequeath my estate to the children who shall be born of you by me. And his elder son came and said: What becomes of me? And the father answered: You will take a share as one of the brothers. Now, the children which are to be born can certainly not acquire any title; but the question is, does the elder son, when he came to share with his brothers born thereafter, take a double share, as his father bequeathed to him a part of his estate when his brothers were not yet in existence? Or does he share with them equally? According to R. Abbin, R. Miicha, and R. Jeremiah, he is entitled to a double share; and according to R. Abuhu, Hanina b. Papi, and R. Itz'hak of Naf'ha, he is not. Said R. Abuhu to R. Jeremiah: With whom should the Halakha prevail—with us or with you? And he answered: Certainly with us, as we are older than you; and not with you, who are still young scholars. And R. Abuhu rejoined: Does this depend upon age? It depends upon reason, and our reason is better than yours. And what is it? questioned R. Jeremiah again. And he answered: Go to R. Abbin, and ask him, as I have already explained to him the reason at the college; and he shook his head in sign of assent. He went to him, and he told him: Because this case is similar to that of one who says: "You and this ass shall acquire title to this article," would title be given to him? Is this not to explain: You shall acquire title as the ass? The same is the case if one says: You shall share with the children, which are not yet in existence even in pregnancy. Hence title is not acquired in either case. It was taught: If one says: "Acquire title to this as the ass," certainly title is not given; but if he says: "Acquire title, you and the ass," according to R. Na'hman title is given to a half. And R. Huna said: This man said nothing. R. Shesheth, however, said: He has acquired title to the whole of it. Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: R. Ivia raised an objection from a Mishna in Tract Kiduchin: It happened with five women, among them two sisters, that one presented to them a basket with dry figs, saying: You are all betrothed to me with this basket. And one of the women accepted the basket for them all. And when the case came before the sages, they said: The sisters are not betrothed. Hence—only the sisters? But the strangers were. Why? Is this not similar to the case: You and the ass shall acquire (i.e., as the sisters could not under any circumstances be betrothed to one person, the other women must also be treated similarly)? And he answered: That is what R. Huna dreamt—that R. Ivia was going to raise a question (and now I see that R. Huna's dream was true). However, the objection does not hold good, as that Boraitha was explained: In case the man has added: All of you who are fit to be my wives.

There was one who said to his wife: My estate shall be for you and your children. And R. Joseph decided: One half of the estate belongs to her, and the other half to her children. And he added: I deduce my decision from the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: It is written [Lev. xxiv. 9]: "And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons," meaning a half shall be for Aaron and a half for his sons. Said Abayi to him: What comparison is this? Aaron was fit to receive a share; and therefore the Merciful One mentioned him, that he should take a half. But in this case a woman is not fit to be an heir at all, when there are male children. Would it not be sufficient that she should take an equal share with her children? Is that so? Did not such a case happen in Nahardea, and Samuel collected for the woman a half; and also in Tiberias, and Johanan collected for her a half? Furthermore, when R. Itz'hak b. Joseph came from Palestine, he told: It happened that the government had taxed the citizens of the city and those who had real estate for the manufacture of a crown for the ruler, and Rabbi decided a half should be collected from the citizens, and the other from the owners of real estate. But what comparison is that with what was told by R. Itz'hak? As to that one, it is known that in previous orders from the government they applied only to the rich citizens, and those who possessed real estate only assisted them, with the consent of the government. But the order in question was written: Both the rich, and real-estate owners are taxed. Therefore Rabbi's decision.

R. Zera objected from the following: If one said: I intend to bring a meal-offering, of one hundred tenths of an ephah—to bring it in two vessels—he may bring sixty in one vessel and forty in the other. However, if he brought fifty and fifty, in two vessels, he has fulfilled his duty. We see, then, that only when he does so it is valid; but the law prescribes that he must bring sixty in one and forty in the other. Hence we see that equal halves is not to be understood when he says in two parts? Nay, this cannot be compared. We are witnesses that he intended to bring a great offering; and the expression "in two vessels" was because he was aware that it could not be put into one. Therefore there must be put in one vessel as much as it can contain, and the remainder in the other one.

(Says the Gemara:) The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Joseph in the three cases: the case of a field, mentioned in the eighth chapter (p. 254), in the case of a sudarium mentioned in the preceding chapter (p. 253), and in this case of the half. There was one who had sent home pieces of silk, without any order to which member of his household they belonged, and R. Ami decided: Those which are fit for the sons, they shall use; and those which are fit for the daughters, shall be used by them. This law, however, holds good only in case he had no daughters-in-law; but if such a case should happen when there are daughters-in-law, and his own daughters are married, it is to be supposed that he sent them to the daughters-in-law. If, however, his own daughters were unmarried, he would not neglect his daughters, and it is to be supposed that he sent them for them.

There was one who said in his will: My sons shall inherit my estate. However, he had only one son, and some daughters. And the question arose: By the expression "sons" in the plural, does he mean the one son only, excluding the daughters, or does he mean to include them? Said Rabha: There is a verse in Num. xxvi. 8, "And the sons of Pallu: Eliab." And R. Joseph said: There is another verse in I Chron. ii. 8, "And the sons of Ethan: Azaryah." There was another, who said: "My estate shall belong to my sons," and he had only one son and a grandson. And the question arose: Whether people are used to call grandsons also sons? R. Hbiba said:

They are. And Mar b. Ashi maintains: They are not. And there is a Boraitha in accordance with the latter, namely: If one vowed not to derive any benefit from his sons, he may derive it from the grandsons.

MISHNA III.: If one left grown-up and minor sons, and the former improved the estate, the improvement shall be divided equally. If, however, they said: "Observe in what condition the estate was left by our father, and it shall be known that we are going to improve it for our own sake," they have a right to take the benefit for themselves. The same is the case with a widow. If she had improved it without any remark, the improvement belongs to all the heirs. But if she remarked, "Seeing in what condition my husband left," etc., the benefit belongs to her.

GEMARA: Said R. Hbiba, son of R. Joseph b. Rabha in the name of his grandfather: The Mishna means to say that they have improved the estate, not at their own expense, but .at that of the estate (i.e., they went only to the trouble of hiring laborers for improving, but at the expense of the estate). But if they had expended from their own, then the benefit belongs to them without any remarks. Is that so? Did not R. Hanina say: If their father left them only covered wells (which are usually higher for watering fields), the improvement is for all? We see, then, that although the wells required much trouble to preserve them from pollution, and they should be always covered, the improvement is nevertheless for all? This case is different. It requires only that they shall be watched; and this can be done by minors also. "Observe in what condition," etc. R. Saphra's father left money, and R. Saphra took it for business purposes. His brothers summoned him before Rabha (demanding a share from the profits). Said Rabha to them: R. Saphra is a great man, and would not leave his study to trouble himself for the sake of others. "If she had improved it," etc. But what has a woman to do with the estate of orphans? (The law dictates as to whether she shall take what belongs to her according to her marriage contract, and depart; or shall take upon herself the trouble of the orphans, and be supported from the estate. But she .has no right to any profit.) Said R. Jeremiah: It treats in case the woman were an heir (i.e., if the will reads: She shall share equally with the orphans). 1 But if so, it is self-evident. Lest one say: As it is not usual for a woman to occupy herself with business, therefore it should be considered as she remarked—she is doing it for herself, it comes to teach us that it is not so. "In what condition my husband left it," etc. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say: Because of the pleasure she takes in thinking that people praise her for troubling herself for the orphans' sake, she relinquishes the benefit in spite of her previous remark, it comes to teach us that it is not so.

R. Hanina said: If one has made the wedding of his son in one of his houses, the son acquires title to the house: provided the son was of age, married a virgin, and she was his first wife, and this wedding was the first of his house. It is certain that when the father has separated for this wedding a house with an attic, the son acquires title to the house, but not to the attic. But how is it if on the house was a balcony? or there were two houses, one inside of the other? Is title given to both, or only to that in which the wedding took place? These questions remain undecided. An objection was raised: If the father had separated for his son a house and furniture, the son acquires title to the furniture, but not to the house? This Boraitha treats of when the treasurer of his father was still in the house. So said R. Jeremiah. And the Nahardean said: Even when there was left his pigeon-coop. And both R. Jehudah and R. Papi said: It suffices if his father left there a vessel with roasted fish (i.e., this shows that he has not relinquished his right to the house). Mar Zutra left his sandals in the wedding house which he separated for his son, and R. Ashi a bottle of oil (for the purpose said above). Said Mar Zutra: The following three things the rabbis enacted as laws, 2 without giving any reason: The case just mentioned; and that which was said above in the name of Samuel: If one has bequeathed all his estates to his wife, she is considered a guardian only; and also that which was said by Rabh. If A said to B: You owe me a mana, give it to C, and all the three were present, title is given to C.

MISHNA IV.: Brothers partners in business. If one of them was taken by the government to work for it, the damage caused by his absence, and also the profit for the business during that time, must be counted to the partnership. If, however, he becomes sick, and has to be cured, it is at his own expense.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If the government had appointed one of the brothers as a collector, or a military purveyor, if this was because of the duty of the house, it must be counted for all of them, but if it was because of his personal fitness, then it is for himself. Is this not self-evident, because the duty of the house must be counted for all? It treats of when he was a genius. Lest one say: In such a case it must rot be counted for the house, because he was taken on account of his genius, it comes to teach us that it is not so.
The rabbis taught: If one of the brothers took two hundred zuz, to begin the study of the Torah, or to learn a trade, they may say to him: If you are with us, you have to be supported; but not otherwise. But why not support him, by deducting what his labor was worth to the house? This may be a support to R. Huna's statement, who said elsewhere: The blessing of the house increases when there are more people (i.e., because the expenses of the house do not decrease when there is one person less). But, after all, let them support him even in his absence for the profits, owing to his share after deducting his labor and the expenses. Yea, this in reality they have to do. "If, however, he becomes sick," etc. Rabbin sent a message in the name of R. Ilah: The Mishna means to say: In case he himself causes his sickness; but if he was occasionally sick, the cure must be at the expense of the house. What does it mean: "Caused by himself"? As R. Hanina says: All sickness comes from Providence, except cold. As it is written [Prov. xxii. 5]: "Thorns 1 and snares are in the way of the perverse man; he that doth guard his soul will keep far from them."

MISHNA V.: If, while the father of the house was still alive, he sent through some of the brothers presents to weddings of his friends, and after his death some of the brothers married and the presents were returned to them by the same friends, it is to be counted to the income of the house; as the wedding presents may be replevined by the court. If, however, one presents to his friends pitchers of wine or oil, it is not to be replevined by the court, as this is reckoned a bestowing of favors only.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction from the following: "If the father sent, through one of his sons, a present to the wedding of his friend, and told him to remain there during the wedding, then, when this present returns to the son's wedding, it belongs to him only. If, however, a wedding present was sent to the father, the returning must be at the expense of the house." Hence we see that the son may preserve the returning present for himself; and this contradicts our Mishna. Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishna also treats: When the wedding present was first sent to the father. But does not the Mishna state: Through some of the brothers? Read to some of the brothers. But the Mishna states farther on: If it was returned? It means: If this came to be returned by the brothers, it must be returned at the expense of the house.

R. Assi himself, however, said: It presents no difficulty (there is no necessity for such a complicated explanation of the Mishna, as it can be explained thus). Our Mishna treats: When the father sent the present through one of his sons, without designating that the returns should belong to him, then the returns belong to the house. And the Boraitha treats: When the father has nominated one of his sons to deliver the present, so that the returning should belong to him. Samuel, however, said: The law is to be practised in accordance with the Boraitha. And our Mishna treats: In case the son through whom the present was sent dies childless, and his brother came to marry his wife, who according to the law is also his heir.

However, this present he does not inherit from him; because there is a rule that this brother does not inherit property which was not yet in the deceased's possession, but has to come to him in the future. (Says the Gemara:) From Samuel's statement is to be inferred that the one who has received the present is obliged to return, even if the donator were dead. Why, then, let him say: Give me my friend who presented it to me, and I shall enjoy myself and give him a present, as he did to me. But as this cannot be, I am not obliged to anything. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: At those places where it is customary to return the presents which the bride has given to her groom at the time of betrothal, and she dies before marriage) they must be returned. At the place where it is not customary, they must not.

And R. Joseph b. Abba in the name of Mar Uqba, quoting Samuel, said: Even at those places where it is customary to return, it is only in case the bride dies; but when the groom, it must not be returned, for the reason that she may say: Give me my husband, and I will enjoy myself with him, as for that purpose he gave them to me. Hence he may say also: Give me my friend, and I will enjoy with him. Said R. Joseph: It speaks of when his friend was at the wedding and had enjoyed himself with him all the seven days of the wedding, and the groom suddenly dies before the present was returned to him.

Shall we assume that in the above-mentioned claim of the bride, "Give me my husband," etc., the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: If one has betrothed a woman, and dies before marriage (and the marriage contract was already written), a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one hundred zuz. Concerning the presents given at the betrothal, however, it is to be practised as is customary at that place. So is the decree of R. Nathan. R. Jehudah the Prince, however, said: In reality, it was decided that in the place where it is customary to return, it must be returned; and where it is not customary it must not. Now does not R. Jehudah repeat what was said by the first Tana? It must then be assumed that the point of the difference is: If the bride may claim: "Give me my husband," etc., and the Boraitha is not complete and should read thus: If one betroths a woman, a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one hundred zuz, provided he has withdrawn from the contract. But if she dies, if it was in a place where it was. customary to return, it must be done so; and if where it was not, it must not. But all this is in case she dies. But if he dies, there is to be no return, as she may claim: Give me my husband, etc. And to this R. Jehudah the Prince came to say:

Even in the latter case it must be done according to the custom of that place, as such a claim is not to be considered? Nay! All agree that the claim in question is to be considered; and there is no difference between them in case he dies. But in case she dies, they differ. And the point of their difference is: Whether the presents with which she was betrothed should be considered lost forever. According to R. Nathan, they are not so considered; and according to R. Jehudah, they are. But does not the Boraitha state that where it is customary to return, it must be so done? This means presents which were given by him aside from the betrothal.

And the Tanaim of this Boraitha are in accordance with the Tanaim of the following: If one has betrothed his bride with a talent (a coin—according to some one hundred and twenty manas, and to others sixty, and according to Rashbam twenty-five), a virgin collects two hundred zuz besides the talent, and a widow one hundred. So is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: A virgin two hundred, and a widow one hundred of the talent; and the remainder must be returned. But R. Jose said: If he has betrothed her with twenty, he may give her thirty halves; and if with thirty, he may give her twenty halves. Let us see of what kind of case this Boraitha speaks. In case she dies, there is no longer any marriage contract; and if he dies, why should she return the remainder?

Is it not said above that all agree that the betrothal money must not be returned, as the claim: "Give me my husband," etc., is to be considered? And if you should say: It speaks in case she had sinned; then if intentionally, has she still a right to her marriage contract? And if unintentionally, he may marry her if he be a commoner. It must be then said that it speaks of when the groom was a priest, and she was forced to sin (and in such a case a commoner may, and a priest may not marry her). And the point of their difference is, that R. Meir holds the money of betrothal to be lost forever, and R. Jehudah holds that it is not; and to R. Jose it was doubtful whether yes or no. And therefore he maintains that, according to the rule, doubtful money is to be divided. If he has betrothed her with twenty selas (eighty zuz), she has to return to him forty zuz.

However, he has to complete the amount belonging to a widow as a marriage contract, which is one hundred zuz; therefore he gives her thirty half-selas, which are sixty zuz, and this completes the mana to which she is entitled. And if he betrothed her with thirty selas, she has to return to him fifteen, and he must give her twenty half-selas more. Said R. Joseph b. Minumi in the name of R. Na'hman: Babylon is the place where it is customary to return. And by Babylon he meant the city of Nahardea. But how is it with the other cities in Babylon? Both Rabba and R. Joseph say: The betrothal money is not to be returned; but the presents are. Said R. Papa: The Halakha prevails, whether he or she dies, or he has retracted, the presents only are to be returned, but not the betrothal money. And in case she has retracted, the betrothal money also.

Amimar, however, maintains that even in the latter case the money must not be returned, for the reason that one may say that he is then allowed to be betrothed to her sister (i.e., if one should see the betrothal money returned, he might think the betrothal cancelled, and he might marry her sister, which is biblically prohibited so long as she is alive). But according to R. Ashi: This is not to be feared, as the divorce in her hands testifies that the betrothal was not cancelled. (Said the Gemara:) R. Ashi's statement is not to be taken into consideration at all; as one may be aware that she has returned the betrothal money, and not be aware that she took a divorce.

"May be replevined," etc. The rabbis taught: The following five things were said about wedding presents: (a) They may be collected by the court; (b) they are returned at the time when the donator marries; (c) they are not considered usurious (i.e., if the return was of a greater value than presented); (d) the Sabbatic year does not release them; (e) a firstborn has no double share in them. They are collected by the court, because they are considered a loan. They are not usurious, because they were not presented with this intention. The Sabbatic year does not release them, because the verse Deut. xv. 2 does not apply to them. And the first-born does not take a double share in them, because they are not as yet in existence, and he is not entitled to that which will be an inheritance in the future.

R. Kahana said: The following is the rule: If one came into the city, and heard that his comrade, who was at his wedding, marries, he must come and make a present. The same is the case if he heard the voice of the drum which announced the marriage of his comrade; but if it was not drummed, the groom ought to let him know. However, if he failed to do so, although he may be away, he nevertheless must pay. In such a case, however, he may deduct for the meal of which he has not partaken. And how much may he deduct? Said Abayi: The inhabitants of the city of Ganna used to deduct one zuz. However, this depends upon the value at which one would appraise the respect and honor of attendance at the wedding banquet. The rabbis taught: If one has married publicly, and thereafter, by returning the presents, he wishes to be married privately, he has a right to say: As you did with me publicly, I will do with you; but not when privately. The same is the case if one has married a virgin, and the other marries a widow; or, if one has married a second wife, and his comrade marries his first wife, the former may say: As you have done with me, I will do with you. The same is the case if to him it was done once, and his comrade demands from him he shall do twice.

The rabbis taught: Who is like unto a wealthy man who is known to be rich by his many cattle and estates? The one who is a master in Haggadah (as he lectures everywhere, and becomes known to all). Who is like unto a broker who does business at his home only and is not well known to the community? The one who occupies himself with pilpulistic (dialectology, one who is a master in dialectics). Who is like unto one who makes his living by selling things which are to be measured—who gathers his money little by little, which finally becomes a considerable amount? The one who gathers the decisions of the rabbis, little by little, and finally possesses a great deal of wisdom. However, all are dependent to the owner of wheat, which is the Gemara, as only by the studying of it are we able to understand the Mishnayoth and the Boraithas.

R. Zera in the name of Rabh said: It is written [Prov. xv. 15]: "All the days of the afflicted are evil." It means: The masters of Gemara (because they must find out how to decide the laws from the Mishnayoth, which always need an explanation). "But he that is of a cheerful heart," etc., means: the one who is a master in Mishnayoth. Rabba, however, maintains the reverse. He who is a master in Mishnayoth cannot come to any conclusion about Halakha; but he who is a master in Gemara knows how to decide Halakhas. And this is what R. Mesharshia said in his name: It is written [Eccl. x. 9]: "He that moves stones will be hurt through them," meaning the masters of the Mishna. "He that cleaveth wood will be endangered thereby," means the masters of Gemara (because they do not always succeed in finding out the correct decisions). R. Hanina said: "All the days of the afflicted," etc., means him who has a bad wife. "But he who is of a cheerful heart," etc., means him who has a good wife. R. Janai said: "All the days of the afflicted," etc., means one who is effeminate. "And he that is of a cheerful heart," etc., means him who is hardened to the ways of the world. R. Johanan said: By the first is meant him whose nature is merciful, and who takes to heart everything which happens to his fellow-men; and by the second is meant him who is callous. R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: The first means him who is a pedant; and the second, him whose mind is worldly. 1 MISHNA VI.: If one sends presents to the house of his betrothed's father, to the value of one hundred manas, and has partaken of the betrothal meal, even for one dinar, they are not to be returned. If, however, he did not partake, they may be returned in case of retraction. If the presents were given for the purpose that the bride should bring them, after her marriage, to her husband's house, they are to be returned. But if such is to be used while she is yet in her father's house, they are not.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: It means if he has partaken of no less than the value of a dinar; but if less, he has a right to demand a return. Is this not self-evident? The Mishna states a dinar? Lest one say this statement is only general, but not particular, he came to say that this is to be taken literally. Here in the Mishna it is eating. But how is it if he drank, or his substitute had partaken? Also, how is it if they had sent to him? Come and hear. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: It happened with one who had sent to his betrothed's father one hundred carrums containing pitchers of wine and oil, and vessels of silver and gold, and silk garments; and while he was joyful over the act, he rode on his horse to the gate of his betrothed's father, where they gave him a goblet of a warm beverage which he drank while sitting on the horse. Thereafter he died before marriage. And R. Aha, the mayor of that city, brought this case up before the sages in the college of Usha, and they decided: Such presents as may become spoiled before marriage are not to be returned, but such as are in good condition may. Hence we see even if one has not eaten, but drunk, it is the same. Infer from this also that the value of what he had drunk was less than a dinar (as a goblet of warm beverage cannot amount to a dinar). Said R. Ashi: Who can assure us that the goblet to which they treated him was not worth a thousand zuz, as perhaps they had ground a pearl 1 of that value in the goblet? But infer from this that if they had sent to his house, it is the same as if he had partaken of it at the house of his betrothed's father? Nay! Perhaps at the gate of his betrothed's father is the same as if he had partaken of it inside the house. The schoolmen questioned: How is it when the presents have improved—e.g., if he had made presents in cattle and they brought offspring? Shall we say, because they have to be returned to him, they are to be considered under his control, and belong to him; or, because if they should be lost, payment for them would be demanded, they are considered under the control of his betrothed's father? This question remains undecided.

Rabha questioned: The presents which are usually spoiled during the time from the betrothal to marriage—how is it if they were in good condition; must they be returned, or not? Come and hear the Boraitha cited above: "R. Aha, the mayor of that city, brought the matter up before the sages of Usha, who decided: If they are liable to be spoiled, they are not to be returned." Does it not mean although they are in good condition? Nay, it may mean if they were spoiled. Come, then, and hear the last part of our Mishna: "But if they be used while she is yet in her father's house they are not? "This was explained by Rabha to be nets and veils. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: It happened with one who sent to the house of his betrothed's father, wine, oil, and garments of flax; all of them new of that year at the time of Pentecost.
But what news came he to tell us? If you wish, he tells us the great value of the land of Israel; and if you wish, it may be said that he came to teach us: If one claims that he had done so at such a time, his claim is to be considered. The same said again in the name of the same authority: It happened with one, that he was told that his betrothed wife could not smell. He went after her into a ruined building to test her, and said: I perceive a smell of radishes (i.e., he kept in his pockets some for the purpose of testing her, whether she would smell them), and she answered him sarcastically: If one should furnish me with the dates of Jericho, I would eat them with the radishes I smell. Thereupon the ruined building fell and she died. And the sages decided: Because her husband entered the ruin only for the purpose of testing, he has no right to inherit from her. "But if they be used while in her father's house," etc. Rabbin the elder was sitting before R. Papa and said: This is only in case death occurred to one of them; but if he had retracted, the presents are to be returned, but not what he had expended for the banquets. If, however, she had retracted, even the value of a bundle of herbs is to be returned. Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: The value of the meat used at the banquets must be appraised at the cheapest price. How cheap should it be? A third of the existing price.

MISHNA VII.: If a sick person had bequeathed all his estates to strangers, leaving some ground for himself, his gift is considered valid. If, however, he left nothing, it is invalid.

GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds that we may act in accordance with the supposed intention of the bequeather (as the Mishna states, "If he left nothing for himself it is invalid," which means, if the sick person becomes cured, he may retract: because if he could know that he would remain alive, he would not do so)? Said R. Na'hman: It is according to Simeon b. Menasia of the previous chapter (p. 291). R. Shesheth, however, maintains: This is in accordance with R. Simeon of Shizuri of Tract Gittin (Chapter VI., Mishna 6), who said: Also who is dangerously sick. Who is the Tana of what the rabbis taught in the following Tosephtha: If one was sick in bed, and he was questioned to whom he bequeathed his estates, and he said: "I thought that I had a son, but now that I am convinced I have not, I bequeath my estates to so and so"; or, "I thought that my wife was pregnant, but now that I know she is not, I bequeath them to so and so"; and thereafter it became known that he left a son, or that his wife was pregnant, this bequeathing counts nothing—shall we assume that it is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Menasia and not with the rabbis? Nay! It may be even in accordance with the rabbis, as when he said: "I thought," etc., it is different. Why was it supposed previously that this should not be in accordance with the rabbis? Lest one say that the sick person said it only to mention his sorrow, but he did not think that it should not be bequeathed if he did have a son, it comes to teach us that it is not so. R. Zera in the name of Rabh said: Whence do we deduce that a gift of a sick person must be biblically considered? Because it is written [Num. xxvii. 8]: "Then shall he cause to pass unto his daughter" (i.e., it should be written as elsewhere: You shall give the estates), it comes to teach that there is another case which we have to pass, and this is the gift of a sick person. R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, however, maintains from [ibid., verse 9]: "Shall ye give his inheritance unto his brothers" (which is also superfluous, as it should read: If no daughter, then to the brothers), which teaches that there is another gift which is to be considered valid, and that is, of a sick person. R. Menasia b. Jeremiah said: It is deduced from [II Kings, xx. 1]: "Give thy charge to thy house," etc., from which we see that concerning a sick person it is sufficient when he charges without any writing. And Rami b. Ezekiel said: From the following [II Samuel, xvii. 23]: "And Achithophel . . . and gave his charge to his household," etc., we see that charging is sufficient without any writing.

The rabbis taught: The following three things has Achithophel charged his sons: You shall not quarrel with each other; you shall not rebel against the kingdom of David; and if the Day of Pentecost be a clear one, you may begin to sow wheat. Mar Zutra, however, said: It was taught that he said: If it should be cloudy. Nahardeans said in the name of R. Jacob: Not exactly clear, and not exactly cloudy; as, if it should be a little cloudy, with a north. wind blowing, it is also considered clear. Said R. Abba to R. Ashi: We, however, do not rely upon the cited Boraitha, but on what is said by R. Itz'hak b. Abdimi in Tract Yoma (p. 29, lines 14, 15, etc.).

[There is a Boraitha by Abba Shaul: If the Day of Pentecost be clear, it is a good sign for the whole year. R. Zebid said: If the first day of the new year is a warm one, the whole year will be warm; and if cold, the whole year will be so. And to what purpose was it said? Concerning the prayer of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (that he should pray accordingly).] Rabha, however, in the name of R. Na'hman said: The gift of a sick person is rabbinical. And it was so enacted that a sick person should not become exhausted, being aware that, because he is sick and cannot write down or sign his will, he can do nothing with his property. But did, indeed, R. Na'hman say so? Did he not say: Although Samuel decided: If one sold a promissory note to his neighbor, and thereafter relinquished his right in it, his act is valid; and even his heir may do so? He (Samuel) nevertheless admits that if he gave this note to some one as a gift, he has no longer right to relinquish his debt, even if he becomes cured. Now, this would be correct if the gift of a sick person were biblical; but if it is rabbinical, why should he not be able to relinquish it when cured? It is true it is not biblical, but the rabbis have enacted that this law should be equal to a biblical one.
Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: If a sick person said: "A shall reside in such a house," or, "B shall consume the products of such and such a tree," he said nothing, unless he said: "Give such and such a house to A, that he may reside there"; "Give such and such a tree to B, and he shall consume its products." Is it meant to say that R. Na'hman holds that a sick person who verbally wills has no more right than one who is in good health—i.e., if one who is in good health should say: "He shall reside there," it would not be considered a gift even if it were done with the ceremony of a sudarium; then it would contradict another saying of Rabha's in the name of R. Na'hman: If a sick person said: "The loan made by me to A shall be given to B," he is to be listened to, which is not the case with one in good health, as title cannot be given to a loan which is made with the intention that the borrower shall expend it. (Hence we see that a sick person has more right than one in good health.) Said R. Papa: The reason of this law is, because an heir inherits it, it is considered as if it were under the control of the borrower. And farther on it is said that the gift of a sick person is considered as an inheritance. R. Aha b. R. Aiqua, however, said: To transfer a loan is lawful, even for him who is in good health in case it were made in the presence of all three, as is said above by R. Huna.

The schoolmen propounded a question: If the sick person bequeaths a tree to A and the products of it to B, should it be considered as if he reserved it for himself, in such a case it being said above that he cannot retract when cured, or is it not so considered? And should you decide that it is not so considered when he bequeaths the products to another, how is it if he said: I bequeath the tree to A, except the products. Is this considered as if he reserved some of the ground for himself, or not? Said Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman: Even if it should be decided, the products to another, it cannot be counted that he reserved some of the ground for himself, it is to be counted as if he left the products to himself, for the reason that if one left to himself, he does it with a good eye. Said R. Abba to R. Ashi: We taught R. Na'hman's statement as to what was said above (p. 153) by Resh Lakish concerning a house and an attic; and in accordance with R. Zebid's explanation there.

R. Joseph b. Minumi in the name of R. Na'hman said: A sick person who has bequeathed all of his estates to strangers, it must be investigated how was the case (i.e., if he had divided them at one time). E.g., of my property such and such shall belong to A, and such and such to B, etc.—as he could not do otherwise if he had made up his mind to divide his estates in such a manner as if 'he were to die of his sickness, so the last ones are not considered as if he would reserve some of his estates for himself—all of them acquire title after his death. But in case of cure he may retract from all of them, even from the first, but if he so does after deliberating (i.e., "Such and such shall be to A," then stops, and some time thereafter adds: "Such and such to B," etc.), in case he was cured of this sickness he may retract only from the last one, as he left nothing for himself—for it is to be supposed that if he knew he would be cured he would not give away the last of his estate so that he should remain a beggar—but not from the previous one.

But why should not we suppose, even in the latter case, that his intention was concerning all of them, in case he should die, and the deliberation was as to who was more worthy to be his inheritor? Usually a sick person who expects to die makes up his mind for all his estates before he mentions any name.

R. Aha b. Minumi in the name of R. Na'hman said: If a sick person has bequeathed all his estates to strangers, and thereafter is cured, he cannot retract, as it may be feared, perhaps, he has estates in another country. But does not our Mishna state: In case he left nothing for himself, he may? And according to this theory, how can such a case occur? Said R. Hama: It may occur, if he said: All my estates, wherever they may be found. Mar b. R. Ashi said: Our Mishna means to say: In case it was clear to the people that he had no estates elsewhere.

The schoolmen propounded a question: Should a retraction in part be considered a retraction of all, or not (e.g., if he first bequeaths all his estates to A, and thereafter he bequeaths a part of same to B, which, according to the law, he may do, the question arises whether A has still the right to what was bequeathed to him at first, or the retraction of a part annuls the first entirely)? Come and hear: "If one bequeaths all his estates to A, and thereafter a part of them to B, B acquires title, but A does not." Is it not to be assumed that it means in case he dies? Nay! It means in case he was cured. And so it seems to be from the latter part stated in the same Boraitha: "If he wrote, 'A part of my estate shall belong to A and all the remainder to B,' the latter acquires title, but not the first." And this statement is correct in case he was cured; as then, bequeathing all the remainder to B, he reserved nothing for himself; but if it speaks in case he dies, why should both of them not acquire title? Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: The same might be said even when he was cured. If you decide that a retraction in part is considered a retraction to all, it is correct that title is given to B, as the first bequeathing to A is entirely annulled with that which he has separated from it to B. But if you should decide that a retraction in part does not annul the first, let this case be considered as the case of "dividing" mentioned above, and title should not be given to any of them.
The Halakha, however, prevails: "That a retraction in part is considered entirely." And the first case mentioned in the just cited Boraitha holds good for both, whether he dies or is cured; and the latter case holds good only when he was cured.

R. Shesheth said: The expressions, "He shall take," "shall be rewarded," "shall make a hazakah," and "shall acquire title" are to be considered a gift, from which he has no right to retract. A Boraitha adds: "Also the expression 'shall inherit,' to him who is fit to be his direct heir." And it is in accordance with Johanan b. Beroka.

The schoolmen questioned: How shall it be done, if he expresses himself: A is the one who shall derive benefit from my estates? Does he mean all of them shall belong to him, or that he shall derive some benefit from them, but not all? This remains undecided. The same propounded another question: How is it if he had sold all his estates while he was sick—may he retract when cured, or not? And in answering this question, at one time it was said by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: He may retract; and at another time it was said by the same in the name of the same authority: He may not. However, they do not contradict each other, as the first decision holds good in case the money obtained was still in his hands, and the second applies in case the seller had expended it by paying his debts.

The schoolmen propounded another question: If a sick person has confessed, "I owe so much to so and so," shall it be taken for granted, and his creditors acquire title to the cash or estates left; or, probably, that he said this for the purpose that, should he be cured, his children should not think that he was rich, and therefore the man whom he mentioned in his confession takes nothing? Come and hear: Aisur, the proselyte, had thirteen thousand zuz with Rabha. R. Mari was his son (whose mother Rachel, daughter of Samuel, who was in captivity, was pregnant with him from the same Aisur when he was still a heathen before marriage, and although he was born after the father had embraced Judaism, according to the law he was not considered his son concerning inheritance, and also must not be named after him, therefore Mari was named Mari b. Rachel, after his mother).

Said Rabha: I do not see any lawful case which could make R. Mari inherit the money deposited with me. By inheritance he cannot, as, according to the law, he is not considered an heir. Should his father while sick make it a gift to him, there is a rule that he who can be an heir is fit to receive the gift, but not he who is not fit to be an heir. There is also a rule that to coins title cannot be given by exchange; and if his father would present him with real estate, which is lawful, his father does not possess it; and if by transferring them from me to him in the presence of all three of us, then certainly, if he would send after me, I would not listen. Which R. Aiqua b. R. Ami opposed, saying: Why, then, let Aisur confess that the money in question belongs to Mari, and with his confession title would be given to him. While so discussing, Aisur got wind of it, and confessed.

Rabha became angry, saying: They are instructing people how to make their claims good and do harm to me. "Reserving some ground for himself," etc. But what is meant by this? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It means real estate, or ground by which his livelihood is assured. And R. Jeremiah b. Abba maintains: The same is the case when he left movable property. Said R. Zera: See how the decisions of our elders correspond. Why is it said real estate? Because it is supposed that a sick person would think, "If I should be cured, I shall get my livelihood from this estate." The same is the case if he left movable property; he relies upon it. R. Joseph, however, opposed: I do not see such a correspondence at all.

He who says "movable property" does not correspond with our Mishna, which states plainly, "ground" (real estate); and he who said "to be sufficient for his livelihood" also does not correspond with it, which states "some real estate," which cannot be explained that it should suffice for a livelihood. Said Abayi to him: Does the Mishna mean in each case when it mentions ground, that it is not changeable for movable property? Did not R. Dimi b. Joseph say in the name of R. Elazar, referring to a Mishna in Tract Gittin, in which also some ground is mentioned: Movable property is also considered a remainder in that case? There it is different. It should not state "ground" at all; but because it begins with the law of Peah, which applies to ground no matter how small it is, etc., it uses the same expression at the end.

But in reality there is a difference between real estate and movable property. It was also questioned: Is this a rule—that wherever the expression, a trifle, is mentioned in the Mishna, it does not mean a certain quantity? Is there not a Mishna in Chulin: "If five sheep give some wool, the law of the first shearing applies to it"? and to the question: What does "some wool" mean? said Rabha: No less than a litra and a half, etc. Hence we see the expression "some" means a certain quantity? There also it should not state "some wool"; but because in the beginning it states: If each sheep gives a litra and a half, it expresses in the latter case "some wool," as the quantity from every five sheep is only one litra and a half.

It is certain that if one says, "I bequeath my movable property to so and so," he acquires title to all vessels or garments which are useful, except wheat and barley. And if he says, "All my movable property," wheat and barley are also included; and even the grinder of a handmill, but not the grindstone. And if he say, "All that is movable," even the latter is included. But the question arises: If among his properties were also bondsmen, is title given to them also, as they are also considered movable property; or are slaves under the category of real estate and title is not given?

Said R. Aha b. R. Ashi to R. Ivia: Come and hear Mishna 7 in Chapter IV. of this tract, which states: If he said, "I sell the town, with all its contents," slaves are included. From which it is to be inferred that slaves are considered movable property; as if they were considered real estate they ought to be included, even if he did not mention "with all its contents." But can you infer from it that they are considered movable property? Does not the Mishna express itself "even bondsmen"; and if they should be considered movable property, why "even"? We must then say that there is a difference between movable property which must be carried and that which is self-moving. The same answer can also apply to the theory that slaves are considered real estate. (See previous vol., p. 59.)

Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: In five cases the act of a gift is not considered unless the bequeather writes "all my estates," and they are: A sick person, his bondsmen, his wife, his children, and the estates of a woman who has bequeathed them to some one for the purpose that her future husband should not demand them at the marriage. "A sick person"—as our Mishna states: If he reserved nothing for himself, the bequeathing is not considered. "A slave"—as there is a Mishna which states: If one has bequeathed all of his estates to a slave, the latter becomes free. If, however, he reserved some for himself, he does not. "His wife"—as is said above: If one bequeaths all his estate to his wife, it is considered that he has appointed her as a guardian only. "To his children"—as stated above: If one bequeaths all his estate to his children, but reserves for his wife some ground, she loses the right of her marriage contract. "And the estate of a woman who desires to hide it from her future husband"—as the Master said elsewhere: In such a case she must write all her estates, as only then she may retract after her marriage. But if she reserved something for herself, she loses the right. And in all those cases where they reserved for themselves movable property, their acts were invalid, except in the case of a marriage contract, to which the enactment of the rabbis was made for real estate only. Amimar, however, maintains: If the movable property in question was mentioned in the marriage contract, and while bequeathing all his estate to his children he reserved it for himself, it is considered, and his wife does not lose her right in the marriage contract.

If A bequeaths his estates to B, and among them were slaves, they are included, as they are also called estate, as said above. Earth is considered estate, as there is a Mishna: Estates which one can rely upon can be acquired with money, with a bill of sale, and with hazakah. Garments are also considered estate, as the same Mishna adds: And to that which cannot be relied upon, title is given only by drawing. Coins are also considered estate, from the same Mishna, which adds: Such estates which cannot be relied upon may be obtained with that which may be relied upon. 1 [Here is repeated from Baba Kama (p. 236) what happened to R. Papa when he had to collect twelve thousand zuz, as evidence that coins are considered estate.] Deeds are also considered estate. As Rabba b. Itz'hak said: There are two kinds of deeds. If one said to witnesses: "Give title of this field to so and so by a ceremony of a sudarium, and write him a deed, he may retract as to the deed," but he cannot retract as to the field itself, as title was already given. But if he said: "Give title," etc., with the stipulation, "You shall write him a deed also," he may retract from both. And R. Hyya b. Abbin in the name of R. Huna said: There are three, kinds of deeds: the two just mentioned; and the third, if the seller hastened and wrote the deed. As is said above: If the. seller desire to write a bill of sale, he may do so even in the absence of the buyer; as after the buyer makes a hazakah on the estate, title is given to the deed wherever it may be found. As we have learned: Estates which cannot be relied upon are obtained with that which is to be relied upon, etc. (We see, then, that deeds are considered estate.) Cattle are also so considered, as we have learned (Tract Shekalim, Chapter IV., Mishna g): "If one devote his possessions, and there are among them cattle. fit for the altar, male or female," etc. Fowl are also so considered, as we have learned [ibid., h]: "If one devote his possessions, and among them . . . oils and birds," etc. Tephilin are also so considered, as we have learned: "If one devote his estates, among which tephilin were found, they must be left for him."

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is the case with the Holy Scrolls—as they must not be sold, are they considered estate or not? This remains undecided. The mother of R. Zutra b. Tubhia had transferred to Zutra her estates because she was about to marry R. Zebid. However, after marriage, Zebid divorced her. Then she came before R. Bibi b. Abayi, claiming that she retracted from her transfer, as she told R. Zutra plainly that only for the purpose of marriage had she transferred her estates to him. But he said: You transferred them on account of marriage, and you did marry. Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: Because you are weak you speak weak words (see above, p. 306). Even according to him who said: "If she wishes to hide her estates from her future husband, title is given," it is only in case she does it without any remark; but in this case she said plainly to her son that she did it because of marriage. But now she is divorced.
The mother of Rami b. Hama bequeathed to him her estates on one evening, and in the morning she bequeathed them to her son R. Uqba. Rami then went to R. Shesheth, who turned over the estates to him. And R. Uqba went to R. Na'hman's court, and he decided that the estates belonged to him (Uqba). R. Shesheth then went to R. Na'hman and questioned him: Why such a decision? If it is because she retracted from the first, this would hold good only should she be cured; but she was dead from this sickness, and her first will ought to be listened to? And he answered: So said Samuel: In such a case where a retraction holds good in case of a cure, it is the same if the retraction was made while still sick. Rejoined R. Shesheth: Samuel said so in case he has retracted and reserved the estates for himself? But did he say also that he might bequeath to another? And R. Na'hman answered. Yea! Samuel said plainly: One may do so, whether for himself or for another.

The mother of R. Amram the Pious possessed a bundle of deeds, and while dying she said: They shall be given to my son Amram. His brothers, however, came to complain before R. Na'hman, claiming that Amram had not made any drawing on the deeds; consequently he had not yet acquired title to them. To which R. Na'hman answered: The words of a dying person are considered as if written and delivered.

The sister of R. Tubi b. Matna bequeathed her estates to him on one morning, and in the evening came R. Ahadbui, who cried before her, claiming that people would say: The one brother is a scholar and the other not, and she has bequeathed to him. When the case came before R. Na'hman, he decided as he said above in Samuel's name, that the retraction held good. The sister of R. Dimi b. Joseph owned a part of a vineyard; and every time she became sick, she used to present it to him, and when cured to retract. At one time she became sick and sent to him: Come and acquire title to my estates.

And he answered: I do not want them. She, however, sent again to him: Come and acquire title to them, so that, according to the law, I shall not be able to retract. He then went, reserved a part thereof for her, and then the ceremony of a sudarium was made. She again became cured, and again retracted, and came to R. Na'hman requesting that he should return to her her estates. And R. Na'hman summoned R. Dimi before the court. But he was not willing to listen, saying: To what purpose shall I go? All that was done was in accordance with the law. She reserved of the estates for herself in case she should be cured, etc. He then sent to him: If you will not appear before the court, I shall prick you so that blood will not run (i.e., put him under the ban). Then R. Na'hman examined the witnesses how was the case. And they said: The woman said thus: "Woe is me! I am dying," and then she said her will. To which R. Na'hman gave his decision: In such a case it is considered that she made the will because she was afraid she would die; and a will made in the fear of death may be retracted.

It was taught: Concerning a gift in part of a sick person, it was said before Rabha, in the name of Mar Zutra the son of R. Na'hman, who said in the name of his father: In one respect it is equal to a gift by one in good health; it means he cannot retract if cured; and in the other to a will of a sick person, as it needs not the ceremony of a sudarium. Said Rabha to them: I told you several times, "Do not put a clay-pot (see Chapter I., p. 14) on the neck of R. Na'hman." R. Na'hman said thus: It is considered a gift of one in good health and must be done with the ceremony of a sudarium. Rabha, however, objected to R. Na'hman from our Mishna, which states: If he reserved some ground for himself the gift is valid. Is it not to be assumed that no sudarium is needed? And he answered: Nay! It must be done with the ceremony of a sudarium. But does not the latter part state: If he reserved nothing, title is not given? And if it is as you say, why should it not be the same when made by a sudarium? And he answered: So said Samuel: If a sick person has bequeathed all his estates to strangers, although made with a sudarium, he may retract, because it is certain he made it in the fear of death. R. Mesharshia objected to Rabha from the following: It happened with the mother of Rukhl's sons that while sick she said: My jewelry shall be given to my daughter, and is worth twelve manas. And she died; and the sages listened to her will. (Hence we see that, although it was a part of her estate, and it was not made with the ceremony of a sudarium, it was nevertheless considered.) The case was, because she had mentioned: I am certain I shall die, therefore I bequeath this to my daughter. R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua, however, said: If the sick person has commanded while dying, a sudarium is needed; and all Boraithas cited treat when the sick person has divided all his estates among different persons. And in such a case it is said above that the rabbis consider them as a gift of a sick person. The Halakha, however, prevails that for a gift of a sick person in part a sudarium is needed, even when he dies of that sickness; but if he commanded while dying, no sudarium is needed in case he dies. But if he was cured he may retract, even if it was done with a sudarium.

It was taught: A gift of a sick person, in which it was written that it was made with a sudarium—it is considered based upon two sources, and must be listened to. So declared the school of Rabh in the name of their master. Samuel, however, said: I do not know what should be done in such a case. The reason of the school of Rabh is: Because the will was made on two bases, it is equal to both—a gift of one in good health, from which he cannot retract, and to a gift of a sick person who said, "The loan I have with A, shall be given to B." And the reason of Samuel, who was doubtful in such a case, is: Perhaps the sick person made up his mind not to give title without a deed, and such cannot be written after death.

However, there is a contradiction from the following statement of Rabh's, to his one decision just mentioned, and the same is it with Samuel—namely: The message which Rabbin sent in the name of R. Abuhu (above, pp. 300-1), in which both Rabh and Samuel contradict themselves? Nay! There is no contradiction at all. Rabh it does not contradict, because in one case he speaks where it was made with a ceremony of a sudarium, and in the other where it was not. And to Samuel also there is no contradiction, as his decision in the case cited speaks when the sudarium was made to strengthen the act. (This will be explained farther on.)

R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak was sitting behind Rabha, and Rabha before R. Na'hman, who questioned him: Did Samuel indeed say that it is to be feared the sick person had perhaps made up his mind to give title by a deed only? Did not R. Jehudah say in his name: A sick person who has bequeathed all his estates to strangers, although made with a sudarium, if he was cured he may retract. Because it is known that this bequest was only because he thought he would die. R. Na'hman gestured, and Rabha remained silent. After R. Na'hman went out, questioned R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: Rabha, what does R. Na'hman mean by his gesture? And he answered: He means that title is given when the act was strengthened. And to the question: How is it known that the act was strengthened? Said R. Hisda: If it was written: "In addition to his gift the ceremony of a sudarium was made."

It is certain that if one bequeathed first to one, and thereafter to another, it is as R. Dimi said above: The later will abolishes the first. But how is it if he wrote and gave title with a sudarium to one, and thereafter he did the same to another? According to Rabh: Title is given to the first, as in his opinion it is similar to a gift by one who is in good health. But according to Samuel title is given to the second, as in his opinion it is similar to a gift of a sick person, and it is to be feared that he had perhaps made up his mind to give title only by a deed. So it was taught in the city of Sura. In Pumbeditha, however, it was taught as follows: R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: A message was sent from the college to Samuel: Let the master teach us—how is the law if one has bequeathed his estate to strangers with a sudarium? And his answer was: After a sudarium, nothing can be done.

The schoolmen, however, understood that Samuel's decision was only if it was bequeathed to another; but if he became cured and wished to retract for the sake of himself, he might do so. Said R. Hisda to them: When R. Huna came from Khuphry, he explained that Samuel meant to say it holds good in any event (i.e., he cannot retract even for himself). There was one who bequeathed his estates with a sudarium while he was sick, and thereafter became cured and wanted to retract, and brought up his case in the court of R. Huna. And R. Huna said to him: "I can do nothing for you, as you acted not in accordance with those who wish to retract after cure. They usually give title with one of the two—a document or a sudarium. You, however, have done both; and such an act can by no means be abolished." There was a deed of gift in which it was written: While I live and after my death.

Rabh considered this as a will upon death, because death was mentioned. And Samuel considered it as a gift by one in good health, because while "I live" was mentioned—explaining that the word death is to be interpreted from time everlasting. Said Uhla: The sages of Nahardea decided: The Halakha prevails with Rabh. Said Rabha: If, however, it was written: "While I still live," title is given. And Amimar said: The Halakha does not prevail with Rabha. Said R. Ashi to him: Is this not self-evident? Have not the Nahardeans decided: The Halakha prevails with Rabh? (And he rejoined:) One might say: When "still alive." Rabh also admits: I came to say that it is not so.

There was such a case, which came before R. Na'hman in the city of Nahardea, and he sent the plaintiff to R. Jeremiah b. Abba in the city of Shum-Tamia, saying: Nahardea is the city of Samuel, and we cannot act against him, though the Halakha prevails with Rabh. There was also such a case which came before Rabha, and he decided in accordance with his own theory. And the plaintiff was a woman, who troubled him very much, saying: His decision was not in accordance with the law. He said then to R. Papa b. R. Hanon, who was his scribe: Write her a document that she won the case; but at the bottom write a few words from a Mishna in Middle Gate: "He may hire other laborers or deceive them" (that the court to which she shall bring my judgment will understand that I do not agree with it). And she exclaimed: I see you desire to fool me—may your ship sink!

Rabha's followers dipped his clothes in water, to overcome the curse of the woman. However, they did not succeed, as Rabha was punished for this.

MISHNA VIII.: If in the deed it was not mentioned that he was sick, and he claims that he was sick at the time of writing and had a right to retract, while the plaintiff claims that he was in good health, it is for him to bring evidence that be was sick. So is the decree of R. Meir. The sages, however, say: There is a rule that it is always for the plaintiff to bring evidence.

GEMARA: There was a deed of gift in which it was written that it was done while he was sick in bed; but it was not mentioned that he died from that sickness. And Rabha said: It does not matter, as in reality he did die, and his grave is evidence. Said Abayi to him: But what evidence is this that he died from that sickness? Perhaps he was then cured, retracted, and thereafter died of another sickness? And that this is to be feared we may infer from a ship which sinks, when it is seldom that the men on board are saved. And, nevertheless, we apply to such a case both the rigorous law concerning life and the rigorous law concerning death (i.e., the wives of those who were on board are not allowed to marry, as perhaps their husbands are not dead, but have drifted to the shore at another place and remain alive, and also must not partake of Terumah in case their husbands were priests, as perhaps they are dead). So much the more in our case, in which the majority of sick persons become cured. Should we not fear that, because it was not mentioned in the deed that he died from that sickness, he was cured?

Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: The decision of Rabha in this case is in accordance with R. Nathan of the following Boraitha (in such a case as stated in our Mishna, it depends on circumstances): Who has to collect from whom? If he, the bequeather, has to take out of their hands, he can do so without any evidence; but if they have to collect from him, evidence must be brought. So is the decree of R. Jacob. R. Nathan, however, maintains: If the case comes on while he is in good health, it is for him to bring evidence that he was sick when the deed was written. On the other hand, they have to bring evidence that he was in good health, if the case comes on while he is sick. (Hence we see that R. Nathan's decision is according to the circumstances at the time the case is before the court; and the same is Rabha's theory.) "The sages, however, say," etc. What kind of evidence is required? According to R. Huna: Witnesses shall testify that he was in good health when the deed was written. And according to R. Hisda and Rabba b. R. Huna: The evidence should be by approval of this deed (i.e., the defendant claims that he was then sick, and consequently the deed is valueless; but if they bring evidence from the court that it was approved by it, he must not be trusted, as it is to be supposed that the court would not approve it if it was not aware that he was in good health). R. Huna, who required witnesses, maintains: R. Meir and the sages differ as R. Jacob and R. Nathan do. And R. Hisda and Rabba b. R. Huna maintain: They (Meir and the rabbis) differ as to whether a deed which is admitted by the signer must be approved by the court or not. According to R. Meir, it is not necessary; and according to the rabbis, it is.

Rab ha is also of the opinion that the evidence in question must be witnesses. Said Abayi to him: What is your reason? Shall we assume that because all other documents state it was done when he was on his feet and in good health, and here it is not so mentioned, it is to be assumed that he was then sick? Why not say to the contrary, as in all documents of a sick person it is written: "It was done while he was sick in bed," and here it is not mentioned, it is to be assumed that he was then in good health? (And he answered:) Since it can be so said, and also the contrary, therefore we leave the money or the article in the hands of its possessor; and it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence.

The decision of this question is still in discussion, as R. Johanan and Resh Lakish also differ. According to the former, witnesses are required; and according to the latter, the approval of the deed.

R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish from the following: It happened in the city of Bene Brack that one sold the estate of his father, and died; and his relatives complained that he was not of age when he died. And they came and questioned R. Aqiba whether they had a right to examine the corpse. And his answer was: First, you are not allowed to disgrace the dead; and secondly, the signs of maturity are subject to change after death. Now, according to my theory that witnesses are required, it is correct: as the buyers required evidence from the relatives, which they could not give, they asked for permission to examine the corpse. But according to your theory that the evidence should be by approval of the deed, let them, then, approve the documents, and hold the goods without any, examination? And Resh Lakish answered: Do you think that his estates were still in the possession of his relatives, and the buyers were the plaintiffs? On the contrary, the estates were in the hands of the buyers; and the relatives were the plaintiffs. (Says the Gemara:) It seems to be so, as his relatives kept silence when Aqiba told them they were not allowed to examine; and if the buyers were the plaintiffs, they would certainly claim: We gave him money—let him be disgraced and disgraced. However, this cannot be taken as a support, as it can be said that therefore R. Aqiba said to them: "And secondly, signs of maturity are subject to change," because of their claim: Let him be disgraced.

(It was taught) Resh Lakish questioned R. Johanan: There is a Mishna among the Mishnayoth of Bar Kapara: If one worked up a field and consumed the products as if he were the owner of it, and then one came and claimed, "It is mine," but the occupant showed him a document, whether bill of sale or deed of gift, and the plaintiff said, "I do not recognize such a document at all," the signatures which are on the document must be approved by the court (i.e., it is sufficient that the witnesses should testify before the court that they recognize their signatures, but it is not necessary that they should testify that the sale or gift was made in their presence).

If, however, the plaintiff claims: "I recognize this deed, but it was written only upon your request for a special purpose; but I never sold"; or, "I sold to you and never took any money," if the plaintiff brings evidence, then it must be done accordingly; but if there is no evidence, the deed is in force. Shall we assume that it is according to R. Meir, who said: "If one recognizes his document, the approval of it is not necessary," and not in accordance with the rabbis? And R. Johanan answered: Nay! I say that all agree such a document does not need any approval. Said Resh Lakish again: But there is a Mishna that they do differ. And he answered: That Mishna treats that the witnesses themselves impair the deed (i.e., they testified that they signed it illegally). But can he, the giver of the document, be supposed to impair it?

Rejoined Resh Lakish: But in your name it was said that you would approve the claim of the relatives who asked permission for the examination (cited above), as it seemed to you they were right. To which R. Johanan rejoined: This was said by Elazar, but I never said such a thing. Said R. Zera: If R. Johanan denies what was said by Elazar his disciple, will he also deny what was said by R. Janai his master? The same said in the name of Rabbi: If one admits that he wrote this document, it must nevertheless be approved. To which R. Johanan said, answering him: Rabbi, is this not the same as our Mishna states? The sages, however, say: It is for the plaintiff to bring evidence. And there is no other evidence but the approval of the document.

And therefore (adds R. Zera), it seems that our master Joseph Js right when he states in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, that the rabbis said approval is not needed to a document which is admitted by the signer. And he who holds that he still needs an approval is R. Meir. Also, by the expression of R. Johanan, "All agree," is meant the rabbis, as R. Meir was only a single individual who so holds. But does not the Mishna state the reverse? And also the Boraitha, does it not state in the name of the sages that it must be approved? Reverse the names in the Mishna, as well as in the Boraitha. But was it not stated above that R. Johanan is the one who requires that the evidence mentioned in the Mishna should be witnesses? This statement is also to be reversed (i.e., R. Johanan said: The evidence should be with the approval of the deed).

Then the objection must be reversed also—not that R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish, but the reverse? Nay! So said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: According to my theory that I require the evidence should be by the approval of the deed, it is correct that the buyers took possession of the estate which was sold to them by the alleged minor. But according to your theory, how can there be such a case—that the buyers should possess the estate? Where could they find witnesses who should testify that he was of age? And Resh Lakish answered him: I admit to you that the claim of the relatives ought not to be taken into consideration; for what was their claim as against the deed in which witnesses signed that "he was of age"? And there is a rule that witnesses have the preference; as it is assumed that witnesses would not testify unless they were aware of the case. Hence concerning this deed they would not sign it if they were not aware that he was of age.

It was taught: What must be the age of one who has the right to sell the estates left him by his father? Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: Eighteen. And R. Huna b. Hinna in the name of the same authority said: Twenty. R. Zera objected from the above case which happened in the city of Bene Brack, to whom R. Aqiba said: The signs of maturity are subject to change after death. And this can be correct in him who said eighteen, as then his relatives questioned the law if the corpse might be examined. But according to him who said twenty, of what use could the examination be? At that time the signs of maturity are already unrecognizable, as we have learned in a Mishna: If one gets to the age of twenty, and the signs of maturity are not visible, they have to bring evidence that he has reached the age of twenty; and he, the castrate, is a legal "saris," who does not perform the ceremony of Halitzah and also cannot marry his brother's wife. Hence we see that after twenty the symptoms of maturity are already unrecognizable. The answer was: Was it not taught in addition to the Mishna by R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak in the name of Rabh: Provided the symptoms of a "saris" were visible. Said Rabha: It seems that this explanation is right, as the Mishna states: "He, the castrate, . . . 'saris,'" from which it is to be understood that such signs were visible on the body; as if not, why should he be named "castrate"? But how is it if neither the signs of maturity nor of a "saris" were visible? How many years are needed, that he should be considered of age? Taught R. Hyya: After he reaches the majority of life (i.e., thirty-six years, as life is considered seventy). It happened that such cases were brought before R. Hyya by the mothers, questioning him: What must be done, that the signs of age should appear? And he used to answer: If the lad was thin, see he should become fat; and if he was fat, he would advise that they should make him thin, as sometimes the signs came earlier because of thinness, and sometimes because of fatness.

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is he to be considered during the nineteenth year—nineteen, which is still not of age, or twenty? Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman said: The whole twentieth year, is he considered nineteen? And Rabba b. R. Shila in the name of the same authority said: As twenty. The statement of Rabha, however, was not heard from him plainly; but it was so judged from the following act: There was a lad who was between nineteen and twenty, who used to sell his father's estate, and Rabha had annulled all his acts. People who saw this thought that it was because he considered him not of age. In reality, however, Rabha did so because signs of foolishness were seen in him, as he used to free all his slaves. 1 Giddle b. Menarshia sent a message to Rabha: Let the master teach us! How should a girl of fourteen years and one day who has a knowledge of business be considered? And he answered: If she has a knowledge of business, then her sale is valid, but not otherwise. Why was the question for a female and not for a male child? Because so was the case.

There was one lad, less than twenty, who had sold the estate of his father, and his relatives instructed him that when he should be at the court of Rabha he should eat dates and throw the pits at Rabha's person (for the purpose that Rabha should see he was a fool, and so annul his sales). He did so, and Rabha did indeed annul the sales. When the judgment was written, the buyers instructed him to go into court and say: The Book of Esther can be bought for one zuz, and the same is the price for Rabha's judgment. And he did so. Rabha then decided: His sales are valid. And when his relatives told him he was so instructed by the buyers, Rabha answered: He understands business if it is explained to him, and in such a case his acts are valid; and his previous act, that he threw the pits at me, was because he is too much of a scamp.

Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: Concerning witnesses—his testimony may be considered at such an age (between nineteen and twenty). Said Mar Zutra: But only concerning movable property, and not real estate. Said R. Ashi to him: What is the reason that he is fit to be a witness for movable property—because his sales are valid? If so, let children of six and seven years be fit for this, as there is a Mishna: The purchase or sale of movable property by minors is valid. And he answered: Witnesses must be men, as it is written [Deut. xix. 17]: "Then shall both the men who have the controversy stand before the Lord," etc., which cannot be applied to children.
Said Amimar: If a lad of thirteen years and one day presented a gift to some one, his act is valid. Said R. Ashi to him: Why? Even concerning a sale where he should receive money, the rabbis enacted that it should be annulled, because he might sell too low. Shall we say, if he presents a thing without any money his act is valid? (Said Amimar to him:) And according to your theory, if such a lad bought a thing which is worth six zuz for five, should this be considered? This is certainly not so, because there is no difference whether it was worth more or less, as the rabbis annulled all sales made by such a lad who does not understand business. And the reason is that the rabbis were aware that lads at such an age have an inclination for money; and if you should allow one to sell, he would sell all the estates of his father for a small amount. But concerning a gift it is different, as if he would not have any benefit from it, he would not do so; and therefore the rabbis enacted that his gift should be considered, so that others should also please him. R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel said: A young man before twenty may be examined for the signs of maturity concerning betrothals, divorces, the ceremony of Halitzah, and protesting against marriage, and as to selling the estates left him by his father. The Halakha, however, prevails, that between nineteen and twenty he is considered as before nineteen; and it prevails also in accordance with Giddle b. Menarshia, with Mar Zutra, and also with Amimar, and with all the laws which are stated by R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel.

MISHNA IX.: If one divides his estates verbally, no matter if he was in good health or dangerously sick, according to R. Elazar to real estate title is given by money, by a deed, and by a hazakah; and to movable property, title is given by drawing only. He was then told that it happened with the mother of the sons of Rukhl, who was sick and said: Give my jewelry, which is worth twelve manas, to my daughter, that the sages had listened thereto. And he answered: The sons of Rukhl ought to have been buried by their mother while they were still young (i.e., they had bad habits, and therefore the sages fined them, that they should not inherit from their mother).

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said to the sages: It happened with an inhabitant of the city of Mruni, who was in Jerusalem, that he possessed much movable property which he desired to present to different persons; and he was told that he could not give them title, unless he did so together with some real estate. He went then and bought a rock near Jerusalem, and said: The north side of the rock shall belong to A, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels; and the south to B, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And when he was dead, the sages approved his will. Hence we see that, though the rock could not be considered real estate, as it could not be used for anything, nevertheless title was given. And he was answered:

This is no support, as the Mrunian was in good health when he did so; but this cannot be done by a sick person.

R. Levi said: It is allowed to make the ceremony of a sudarium with a sick person even on Sabbath, lest he become exhausted; but not because the Halakha is in accordance with R. Eliezer of the following Mishna.

MISHNA X.: R. Eliezer said: If it happens that a sick person divides his estates verbally on Sabbath, it may be listened to, because it is prohibited to write; but not on week days. R. Jehoshua, however, maintains: It was said on Sabbath, a fortiori when it happened on week days. Similar to this is: One may acquire title for a minor, but not for adults. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. R. Jehoshua said: For a minor, and a fortiori for an adult.

GEMARA: Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Meir said: The reverse is the case. If this happened on week days, his words must be listened to, because he is allowed to write; but not on Sabbath, because he is not allowed to write. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. R. Jehoshua said, on the contrary: It was said on week days, and so much the more on Sabbath. R. Jehudah, however, said: R. Eliezer's decree was, if on Sabbath, his words must be listened to, because he is not allowed to write; but not on week days, when he is allowed to write. And R. Jehoshua's decree was to the contrary. And the same is the case as to the latter part of the Mishna.
MISHNA XI.: Suppose a house falls upon A and his father, or on any persons, that one of them has to be bequeather and the other inheritor, and it is not known who dies first, and to the estate there is a claim from the widow for her marriage contract, and from other creditors. The heirs of the father say that the son died first; and the creditors say that the father died first, and the son afterward. (I.e., the creditors of the son who had a right to the estate only if he died after his father, so that with the death of his father the inheritance came to him. But if he was dead before his father, he has nothing in the estate. And this is what his brothers claim, that the creditors have no right in the estate left by their father. Concerning a marriage contract, that will be explained in the Gemara.) According to the school of Shamai, they have to divide; and according to the school of Hillel, the estate must be left in the hands of the present occupants. 1 If it happened that the house fell on him and his wife, the heirs of the husband claim that the woman dies first, consequently her husband has inherited from her; and the heirs of his wife claim that he died first, consequently they have a right to her marriage contract and also to her own estate. They have to divide, according to the school of Shamai. But the school of Hillel say: They must leave the estate in the hands of its present occupant. And the occupants are to be considered as follows: The estates belonging to the marriage contract are to be considered as in the hands of the husband's heirs. But her own estates, which she brought with her to her husband, and which ought to go out with her by death or divorce, are to be considered in the hands of the heirs of her father.

If, however, the house falls on one and his mother, both schools agree that it must be divided. R. Aqiba, however, said: I hold that they (the schools) differ in the latter case also; and the school of Hillel are still of the opinion that estates must be left in the hands of the occupants. Said Ben Azai to him: We deplore that the schools differ in the former cases, and you come to add the third one, in which the rabbis testify that they have agreed.

GEMARA: The estates which were brought by the deceased woman, mentioned in the Mishna—to her husband for usage of fruit only, according to the school of Beth Hillel. Who is to be considered the occupant? According to R. Johanan: The heirs of the husband. According to R. Elazar: The heirs of the woman. R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, said in the name of Bar Kapara: Such must be divided. And the reason of this statement was taught by Bar Kapara himself, that as the claims of both parties are equal (i.e., the heirs of the husband claim that all the products of this estate belonged to the deceased, as he had a right to sell them, and therefore they belong to his heirs; and the opponents claim that they were only to be used while he was alive, and therefore what was not consumed by him, if his wife were alive she would certainly take with her estate; hence it belonged to her, and after her death to us), it is to be considered doubtful money, the law of which is division. "R. Aqiba said . . . in the hands of the occupants." But who are considered their occupants? R. Aila said: The heirs of the mother; and R. Zera: The heirs of the son. When R. Zera ascended to Palestine, he retracted from his statement in Babylon and accepted the system of R. Aila. Rabba, however, retained the system of R. Zera as a Halakha. Said R. Zera: From my retraction, I see that the air of the land of Israel makes one wise; as after I came here I saw that my statement while I was still in Babylon was erroneous. 1 "Said Ben Azai to him," etc. Said R. Simlai: Infer from this that Ben Azai was an associate disciple of R. Aqiba; as if he were a disciple only, he would have said to him, "The master said," and not, "And you (thou)."

A message was sent from Palestine as follows: If a son has sold his share of the inheritance of his father to some one, and dies while the father was still alive, and thereafter his father died, the son of the seller has a right to take away the goods from the buyer. (Because, at the time sold, the seller has nothing as yet in his hands, and the sale was for that which would be his in the future; and as the son died before his father the goods were never his, and his son is now the heir of his grandfather, to whom the goods in question belong; hence he has a right to take them away.) And this is a complicated case in the law of money matters. But let the buyers say: Your father has sold, and you are taking away? What a claim is this!

Cannot the plaintiff say: My basis is my grandfather, from whom I inherit (and my father had not any right to sell this—as explained above); and that such a claim is to be considered may be supported by [Ps. xlv. 17]: "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children: thou shalt appoint them as princes in all the land." Hence it is not at all a complicated case in money matters. And if such there be, it would be the following: A first-born who sold the share prescribed to him while his father was still alive, and died before his father, the first-born's son has a right to take away from the buyers after the death of his grandfather. Hence his father sold that to which he was entitled; and his son, whose basis is his deceased father, takes the goods away.

And this is complicated, as he cannot say, "My basis is my grandfather," for the grandfather had nothing to do with the double share of the first-born son. But even this cannot be called a complicated case, as he may claim, "My basis is my grandfather, and not my father, who has never possessed the goods he sold; for now only do I take the place of my father, who was a first-born, and take his share." Hence it is in accordance with the usual law. Therefore, if in the message of Palestine was said "a complicated case," it might be the following: If one sign a document before he robbed some one, and thereafter he became a robber, who is no longer competent to be a witness, he has no right to testify to his handwriting; but others, who know his handwriting, may. Hence he is not trusted, and the others who came upon his basis are trusted. Is this not complicated?

But perhaps it treats of when his handwriting was already approved by the court, while he was still righteous? Therefore it is to be assumed that they meant the following case: If one signed a document as a witness to a stranger, and thereafter he became his son-in-law, he has no right to testify to his signature; but others may testify that they recognize the writing of the son-in-law, and then it may be relied upon. Hence he is not trusted, and others are. And you cannot say that it means only when his handwriting was already approved by the court at that time, as R. Joseph b. Minumi in the name of R. Na'hman said plainly: Even in case it was not. However, even this cannot be called complicated, as it may be said that it is thus decreed by the law.

A son-in-law must not witness in a case of his father-in-law, not because it is feared he may lie, but because it is prohibited, even if the son-in-law were Moses our master. Therefore we must come to the conclusion that the complication lies in the first case mentioned in the message, and the objection based on the cited verse is not to be taken into consideration, as the verse speaks of a "blessing." But bow can you say that it speaks of a blessing, and nothing is to be inferred from it? Does not our Mishna state: "If the house falls upon him and his son, or any persons," etc.? Does it not mean, by the "heirs of the father," grandsons, and "any persons," brothers of the deceased? Now, if you bear in mind that one cannot say, "I come on the basis of my grandfather," as the cited verse cannot serve as a support, then, even when the son dies first, how is it?

Let the creditors say: We claim the inheritance of the father? Nay! By "the heirs of the father" is meant the deceased's brothers; and by "any persons," his uncles, brothers of his father. "One and his mother," etc. R. Shesheth was questioned: Nay! A son inherits from his mother when he is already in the grave, so that his brothers from his father's side should inherit from him? (The illustration may be found above, p. 317.) Answered R. Shesheth: This we have learned in the following Boraitha: If the father was taken into captivity and died there, and at the same time his son dies in his country, or vice versa, and it was not known who died first, the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son (on his mother's side) may divide among themselves the inheritance.

Now, if the son while in the grave could inherit from his mother, even if he dies first, let him inherit from his grandfather on his mother's side, and then his brothers on the father's side would inherit from him. Infer from this that while in the grave nothing is to be inherited. Said R. Aha b. Minumi to Abayi: This may be inferred also from our Mishna, which states that concerning one and his mother all agree that they must divide. And if the law of inheriting in the grave were in force, let him inherit from his mother while in the grave, the same to revert to his brothers on the father's side. Hence such a law does not hold good. And why not? Said Abayi: There is the same expression in the Scripture concerning the inheritance of a husband from his wife, and a son from his mother. As the first does not inherit while in the grave, so it is with the second, etc. (This has already been explained in Chapter VIII., p. 254) (Here is repeated the whole story of Bar Sisin's estate, preceding volume, pp. 86-87.)

Footnotes

322:1 The commentators Rashbam, Tosphath, and Bach discuss at length how the widow is an heir also, illustrating, e.g., if one has married the daughter of his brother, who has no other children besides her, and the brother has inherited the estate of their father, and thereafter both brothers die, then the widow of the one brother is also an heir to the estate of her grandfather, which belonged to her father, who had no heirs except her. There are also some other illustrations, but all are complicated. We give the last, which is simple.

322:2 Gershom explains Sinaic laws, with which Rashbam does not agree.

323:1 The term in Hebrew is "zinim," and "zinha" means cold; and so it is taken by the Talmud. The basis of Leeser's translation is unknown.

329:1 The second explanation to this verse by the same authority will be in Chapter XI. of Tract Sanhedrin as the proper place.

330:1 In ancient times they used to grind pearls and diamonds in medicine.

339:1 In the Talmud, wherever it means real estate, the expression is estates which one can rely upon—which means that if they are mortgaged for a loan the lender may rely upon them, as they cannot be lost by fire, etc.

350:1 At that time it was prohibited to free a bondsman without a good reason, according to Roman and Persian, as well as to Jewish laws.

354:1 The Gemara to this Mishna we transfer to Mishna 8 of the succeeding chapter, as the proper place. We also deemed it necessary to put all three Mishnas which treat of falling houses together, though in the original text they are in three separate places.

355:1 The commentators differ concerning the explanation of this, as well as concerning the completion of the text. Rashbam affirms that Rabba was not in the text at all. Gershom changes the question concerning the cases in the Mishna and explains them differently. We have done what we could to make the passage intelligible to the reader.

CHAPTER X.

HOW DEEDS SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND WHERE THE WITNESSES SHOULD SIGN. CONCERNING ERASURES OF SOME WORDS IN DEEDS. IN WHICH CASES BOTH PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT AT THE WRITING OF THE DEEDS, AND IN WHICH ONE OF THEM SUFFICES. CONCERNING A DEPOSITED DEED WHICH WAS PAID IN PART. HOW SHALL THE COURT APPROVE AN ERASED DOCUMENT? PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE USE WHICH WAS LEFT TO POOR AND RICH BROTHERS . MISHNA I.: A simple "get" 1 (document) the witnesses must sign at the end of the contents. A folded one, however, the witnesses must sign outside. 2 But if the witnesses signed their names outside in a simple one, or inside in a folded one, both are invalid. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, however, said: If in a folded one the signatures of the witnesses were inside, it is valid, as it can be taken apart and will constitute a simple one. Rabbon Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains: All must be done as is the custom of the country. A simple document must be signed by two, and a folding one by three witnesses. If there was only one witness to a simple and two to a folding, both are invalid.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Hanina: From [Jer. xxxii. 44] "Men shall buy fields for money, and write it in deeds, and seal them, and certify it by witnesses," etc. "Write it in deeds" means a simple document; "seal" means a folding one; "certify" means by two witnesses; "by witnesses" means three. How so? We must say, then, two witnesses for a simple, and three for a folding one. But perhaps the reverse? Common sense dictates that a folding one, which is added to in folding, should be added to also in witnesses. (The discussion proceeds to deduce this from the Scriptures, which were objected to as usual, and the Gemara came to the following conclusion): The folding one is only an enactment by the rabbis; and the verse above cited was only a light support. And why this enactment? Because of the many priests who used to live in their city. (The law prescribes that a priest, having divorced his wife, it is prohibited to him to remarry her; which is not the case with a commoner.) And as the priests are usually ill-tempered, they used to divorce their wives as soon as they became angry. Therefore the rabbis enacted that the "get" should be folded and sewn several times, that it might prolong the time, in order that they should become quiet, and recede from their previous intention. This is correct concerning divorces. But why for other documents? Because all kinds of documents were then called "gets," they enacted that all should be done in one manner.

In what place should the witnesses sign a folding document? According to R. Huna: Between one folding and another (i.e., in the folding space above the lines, and thereafter it was folded and sewn so that the signatures were inside). According to R. Jeremiah b. Abba: On the reverse side, and exactly opposite the writing. Said Rami b. Hama to R. Hisda: According to R. Huna, who maintains in the folding space above the lines which is thereafter also folded, it is to be assumed that it remains inside; but this is not so, as it happened that a folding document was brought before Rabbi, and he exclaimed: There is no date to it. To which R. Simeon his son answered: Perhaps the date is inserted, etc. (post, p. 363), Now, if it were as R. Huna said, Rabbi ought to say: There is neither date nor witnesses (as the witnesses signed inside, one could not sew it when it was folded).

And R. Hisda answered: Do you think that R. Huna means between the folding inside? He meant outside. But if so, why should not forgery be feared, as one can write inside what he likes, while the witnesses have already signed outside? In the document must be written at the end, "All its contents are true," and they remain forever. Hence to that which is written thereafter no attention is given. But it is still to be feared that after it is written he can forge what he pleases, and then write again, "All this is true," and have it signed by other witnesses? A document must contain only one approval that "all is true," but not more.

But still it is to be feared that he can erase the approval, adding what he pleases, and then write, "All is true," etc. To this it was said by R. Johanan: If there was inserted a word between the lines, and thereafter the witnesses testify it was inserted at their instance and they approve it, the document is valid; but if some words were erased, then, although approved at the end, the document is nevertheless invalid. And this was said concerning an erasure in the place of the words "all that is written is true," and the size of these words.

But even according to R. Jeremiah b. Abba, who said: On the reverse, and opposite the writing (i.e., where the writing finishes inside, he shall begin opposite to write his name; so that if there should be some lines more over the signature of the witness it would be considered forgery), it is also to be feared that one might forge some lines, and add one more witness, opposite the forgery, and might say: My intention was to add one witness more? And the answer was: Do you think that the witnesses have signed lengthwise, in order?

No! They signed one under the other, so that no more lines after the witnesses' signatures could be added. 1 R. Itz'hak b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan said: To all the erasures which are in the document must be written at the end, "With this signature we approve them," etc.; and in the mean time they must mention the abstract of the contents in the last line. And why so? Said R. Amram: Because the last line is not taken into consideration, as it can easily be forged; as usually the witnesses do not sign so near to the writing that one line could not be inserted, and therefore if the abstract of its contents is written attention is given, but not to something new.

And to the question of R. Na'hman: What is the basis of your statement? he answered: The following Boraitha: If the signatures of the witnesses were separated by a space of two lines from the writing, the document is invalid; but if by one line, it is valid. Let us, then, see what is the reason that two lines' space make the document invalid. Is it not because one can forge the two lines? But the same can be done with one line also? We must then say that if a new sentence is written on the last line it is not taken into consideration. And so it is.

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if there is space for one line and a half? Come and hear the following: If there is space for two lines, it is invalid; for less than two, it is valid. If there were four or five witnesses to a document and one of them was found to be a relative, or incompetent for sonic other reason to be a witness, the document may remain in force by the remaining witnesses. And this is a support to Hezkiyah, who said: If there was a space left, and this was filled up with the signatures of relatives as witnesses, the document is valid. And do not be surprised at such a law (why should not the signatures of the relatives who are not competent to witness in that case harm this document?), as such a law is to be found concerning a Sukka: If on the roof of the Sukka was space to the size of three spans uncovered, it makes the Sukka invalid; but if it was covered with illegal things, the size of four is needed to make it invalid.

The schoolmen questioned: In the two lines in question, is it meant with their usual space or without? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: Common sense dictates that their space is included; as if it were supposed that it meant without, of what use could be the size of one line without any space to it? (If one should come to forget this line, he would then be compelled to write it in such characters that it would be entirely different from the original and immediately recognized. Infer from this, therefore, that "with their space" is meant.)

R. Sabbathi said in the name of Hezkiyah: The space of the two lines in question means of the handwriting of the witnesses, not of the scribes; as if one wants to forge, he does not go to the scribes (and usually the handwriting of a commoner is larger than that of a scribe). And what size is meant?
Said R. Itz'hak b. Elazar: As in writing, e.g., k z l g , which makes two lines in four spaces. According to R. Hyya b. R.
Ami in the name of Ula: Two lines and three spaces. According to R. Abuhu: One line and two spaces. 1 Said Rabh: This was all said about the space between the contents of the document and the signature of the witness. But from the signature of the witness to the approval of the court, it does not matter how much space is left. R. Johanan, however, said: All this was said concerning the space from the contents to the signatures of the witnesses; but concerning the space from the signatures of the witnesses to the approval of the court, even if there was one line, it is invalid. 2 "R. Hanina b. Gamaliel," etc. Rabbi objected to the statement of R. Hanina, thus: How could one make from a folding one a simple, if their dates were entirely different? As in a simple document which is dated according to the years of the king, if the king was in his first year, it is written: On fourth day of such and such a month, in the first year of king so and so; and in a folding one they used to add one year to the kingship of the ruler (e.g., when it was in the first year, they used to write in the second; and if in the second, they used to write in the third). (Rashbam says: It was the custom of the nations to add one year to the kingship of the ruler in their documents. And the rabbis enacted: In a folding one it shall be dated according to the custom of the land, for the above-mentioned reason; but not in simple documents.) Now, if you say that it can be taken apart and made a simple one, it may happen that one can borrow money with a folding one, and during this time may come into some money and pay his debt before due; and to the request for a return of the document, one may say that he lost it, and give a receipt. Then, when the document falls due, he can make it into a simple, and require his money again (as in the folding one there was added one year, hence the time due in a simple comes one year later, and he can claim that he borrowed money again for the current year)? Rabbi holds: Concerning a folding one, no payment is made upon a receipt unless the document is returned or destroyed.

But was, then, Rabbi acquainted with a folding document? Did not one come before Rabbi, who was about to annul it because it bore a later date? And Zunin said to Rabbi: So is the custom of this nation, that if the king has ruled one year they count him two; and if two, three. After he had heard it from Zunin, he enacted the law that no money should be paid upon a receipt. There was a document in which was written: In such a date of the year of Orkhon, A had borrowed money from B (but the number of the year was not written), and R. Hanina, before whom the case came, said: It must be examined when this Orkhon ascended the throne; and perhaps it was several years after, as the meaning of Orkhon is "lengthy," and he was named Orkhon because he was a good many years on the throne. Said R. Hoshea to him: So is the custom of this nation: the first year they named him Orkhon, and the second year Digon. Hence this document must be counted from the first year of the present ruler. But perhaps it was when he ascended the throne the second time, as once he abdicated and then ascended again? Said R. Jeremiah: At the second time he was named Orkhon-Digon, and not Orkhon only.

There was a folding document which came before Rabbi, and he said: There is no date to it. R. Simeon his son then said to him: Perhaps it is inserted between its folds! He took it apart, and found the date. Thereupon Rabbi scrutinized him, To which Simeon said: Not I was the writer of it, but Jehudah the Tailor. And Rabbi answered: Leave out slander. It happened at another time that R. Simeon was sitting before Rabbi, and reading for him a chapter of Psalms, and Rabbi said: How correctly and nicely it is written. To which Simeon answered: Not I, but Jehudah the Tailor, wrote it. And also to this Rabbi remarked: Leave out slander. (Questioned the Gemara:) It is correct that the first time he told him he should leave out slander, as Rabbi disliked folding documents, and was angry with the writer of it. But what slander was it if he said that the correct and nice writing was by Jehudah? This is in accordance with R. Dimi the brother of Safras, who taught: One must be careful in praising his neighbor, as very often blaming comes from praising.

R. Amram in the name of Rabh said: From the following three transgressions one is not saved day by day, namely: (a)

Thought about sin (e.g., if he sees a handsome woman); (b) calculation of the effects of prayer—expectation of the granting of one's prayer as a due claim; (c) and slander. Slander! Do you mean that people slander one another every day? It means indirect slander (e.g., while praising or talking of one, one indirectly comes to blame). R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The majority of men are suspected of robbing (i.e., in business every one looks out for himself, without taking care lest he do wrong to him who deals with him), the minority are suspected of adultery, and all of them of indirect slander. "All must be done as is customary in the country." But does not the first Tana also hold that the customs of the country are to be observed?

Said R. Ashi: At those places where a simple is customary, and one told the scribe to make it, and he made him a folding one, it is certainly invalid; and vice versa. The point of this difference, however, is the places where both are customary, and he ordered the scribe to make for him a simple, but he prepared a folding one. According to the first Tana: It is invalid. According to R. Simeon: It is valid, as it may be supposed that he ordered him to make for him a simple only for the scribe's sake, that he should have less trouble; but if he did not heed, and made a folding one, it must not be ignored. Said Abayi: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Simeon, and R. Elazar all are of the opinion that in such a case it must be supposed that the giver of the order did so only to show him what was better for him; but he did not intend to be particular.

B. Gamaliel as just mentioned; R. Simeon with his statement that if one has deceived a woman, not to her evil, but to her good (e.g., if he said to her: You are betrothed to me with this silver dinar, and it was a golden one), his act is valid; and R. Elazar of the following Mishna: If a woman said: Go and receive my divorce at such and such a place, and he received it at another place, it is invalid. But according to R. Elazar it is valid, as it is to be supposed that she only showed him the place where she supposed it was better for him to go, but was not particular in her words. "If there was only one witness to a simple," etc. It is correct what the Mishna teaches us: A folding document which was signed by two witnesses only is invalid, as in all other cases two witnesses suffice. But to what purpose does it state that one witness to a simple is invalid?

Is this not self-evident, as there is no case in which one witness should be sufficient? Said Abayi: It teaches: Even if, in addition to that witness who has signed, there were another who testified the same verbally, it is nevertheless invalid. Amimar, however, had in a similar case which came before him decided that the document is in force. And to R. Ashi's objection that Abayi holds it invalid, he answered: I do not hold with him. But how would Amimar explain the above question—to what purpose is it stated in the Mishna? He would answer thus: It came to teach that as a simple document with one witness is invalid biblically, so it is with two witnesses to a folding.

And as a support to Amimar there may be taken the following: The colleagues of R. Jeremiah in Palestine sent a message to him: How is it if there is one witness in writing and the other verbally—should they be conjoined for decision upon their testimony, or not? We do not question, how is it according to the first Tana, the opponent of R. Jehoshua, b. Kar'ha, who maintains, in Tract Sanhedrin: Even two with two must not be conjoined under certain circumstances, and so much the less one with one. But our question is, how is it according to R. Jehoshua, who decided: If there were two witnesses in writing and two verbally, they are to be conjoined? Does he hold the same when there was one and one, or not? And R. Jeremiah answered: I am not worthy that you should send to me such a message.

But as you have already done so, I may say that the opinion of your disciple is that they may be conjoined. (Said R. Ashi:) We have heard that the message was thus, The colleagues sent to R. Jeremiah: How is the law if, of two witnesses, one of them has testified before one court and the other before another—may both courts be conjoined to decide upon their testimony? We are aware that according to the first Tana, the opponent of R. Nathan: Even if they had testified at different times before one court, their testimony is not to be taken into consideration, two courts are out of the question. But according to R. Nathan, who says: "In one court their testimony may be conjoined," does he hold the same with two courts, or not? And R. Jeremiah answered them as said above.

Rabhina, however, said: The message was thus: If three were sitting as a Beth Din to approve a document, and thereafter one of them died, must they write in their approval, "We were sitting three, but one is gone"; or is it not necessary? And he answered them: I am not worthy that you should send questions to me, but as you have done so, I may say that the opinion of your disciple is that it is necessary they should write, "We all three were sitting as a Beth Din, according to the law, to approve this document, but one of us is gone, and therefore only we two sign." And for this answer R. Jeremiah was returned to the college (above, p. 71, it was written that he was driven from the college).

MISHNA II.: If in the document was written, "hundred zuz which make twenty selas," he collects only twenty selas. If, however, it was written, "hundred zuz which make thirty selas," he collects only one mana (which only makes twenty-five selas). If there was written, "silver zuz which are," and the preceding words were erased, then the document is good for no less than two; "silver selas which are," and the preceding was erased, no less than two selas; "dracontiums which are," it means also no less than two.

If on the top of the document was written "a mana" and on the bottom "two hundred zuz," or vice versa, the last one must always be taken into consideration. But if so, why is it at all necessary that the amount should be written at the top? To the end that should it happen that in the words of the bottom one letter should be erased, then we may learn it from the top one.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If it was written "silver," without mentioning any particular coin, the document is good for no less than one silver dinar; and if "silver dinars," or "dinars of silver," then it is no less than two silver dinars. If, however, "silver to be paid with dinars," then it is no less than two golden dinars (it being understood that he borrowed from him silver to be paid with gold dinars, and as there is a plural it is no less than two).

The master said: "Silver no less than a dinar." But perhaps it means a piece of metal? Said R. Elazar: It means it was written a silver coin, but it was not mentioned which. But if so, why should it not mean perutas? Said R. Papa: It treats of those places where the perutas were not made of silver.

The rabbis taught: If the documents read "gold," it is not less than a golden dinar; "golden dinars," or "dinars of gold," it is not less than two golden ones. If, however, it was written, "gold to be paid with dinars," he must pay in gold the value of two silver dinars. But why should this not be explained: He shall pay him in good gold to the value of two golden dinars? Said Abayi: The defendant has always the preference (i.e., by the general name dinar is meant a silver one; of a golden dinar it must be said plainly golden, and as here it is mentioned to be paid with dinars, and the word gold is omitted, the holder of the document has to suffer). But why in the first case, where it reads "silver to be paid with dinars," you say he shall pay two golden dinars P Said R. Ashi: That Boraitha treats of when the document reads "denri," and the latter Boraitha when it was written "denrin"; and "denri" means gold, and "denrin" silver. And my support is from a Mishna in Tract Kinin: " . . . It happened that the price of kinin in Jerusalem increased to the extent of denri in gold. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: I swear by the Temple that I go, not to bed this night before their price shall decrease to denrin." Hence denrin means silver, and denri gold. "On the top of the document," etc. The rabbis taught: The bottom may be learned from the top when there is only one letter erased; but not when two (e.g., if it was written, "Hanan of Hanani," or "Anan of Anani"—i.e., the i was erased). Let us see! Why not two letters? Because if there were a name of four letters, two would constitute one half of a name. The same can be said with one of two letters, as there are names which consist of two letters only; 1 then the one would be one half of a name. Therefore we must say that the exception of two letters is because it might happen in a name of three letters, and when two are erased the greater part of the name is missing.

There was a document in which was written "six hundred and a zuz," and R. Chrabia sent it to Abayi, questioning him: Does it mean six hundred staters and one zuz, or six hundred perutas and a zuz. And he answered: Eliminate perutas, which it is not usual to write in a document, as generally they are counted together to make from them dinars or zuz. This must therefore mean six hundred staters. But as there are staters of two zuz, and also others of the same name of half a zuz, and it was said above that the defendant has the preference, the holder of the document must suffer, and he takes only six hundred half-zuz and a zuz. Abayi said: If one desires that his signature shall be known in the court, he shall not write it at the bottom of a paper, as one can find it, but write at the top that he owes him money. And there is a Mishna: If one shows a document with his handwriting that he owes him money, he may collect from unencumbered estates.

There was a toll-master of a bridge who was a Jew, who said to Abayi: Let the master show me his signature, as it is my custom to allow the rabbis to pass without pay (I would leave it with my assistants so that if it should happen you would like to pass, they will not demand payment). Abayi showed him on the top of a piece of paper. He, however, tried to draw the paper so that the signature should come a little lower, and Abayi said to him: Do not try, as the rabbis have preceded you with their advice to sew a signature at the very top of the paper. Abayi said again: From the word "thlath," which means three, to the word "eser," which means ten, one shall not write in a promissory note at the end of the line, to prevent forgery. 1 But if it happened that he did so, he should repeat the word two or three times, so that one of them should occur in the middle of the line.

There was one document in which was written: "A third of a vineyard"—in Aramaic "Thiltha Beperidisa"—and the owner of this document erased the top and the bottom of the first letter of the second Hebrew word, so that from the Beth he made a Vav, which means "and," so that the document, as brought before Abayi, read: "A third and the vineyard," and claimed a third of the seller's garden and the whole vineyard. When Abayi examined the document, he asked him: Why does the Vav stand so extended in the world? He then urged him to confess, which he did.
There was another document, in which was written: The shares of Reuben and Simeon my brothers ("Achai" in Hebrew) were sold to me. The buyer, however, added a Vav for the word Achai, and as the brothers had another brother by the name of Achai, he claimed that he bought the shares of all three brothers—Reuben, Simeon, and Achai. With this document he came to the court of Abayi. And there also Abayi asked him: Why is the world so narrow to the Vav? And also he was urged to confess, which he did. There was another document, which was signed by Rabha and R. Aha b. Ada. When it was brought before Rabha, he said: I recognize my handwriting, but I never signed my name in the presence of R. Aha b. Ada. He urged the holder of the document to confess, which he did. Then said Rabha to him: I understand how you might easily forge my name; but how could you do so with R. Aha's, whose hands are trembling? And he answered: I would put my hand on the rope-bridge, to imitate, trembling writing.

MISHNA III.: A divorce may be written by the court for a husband in the absence of his wife (because, according to the ancient law, the consent of the woman was not necessary); and an approved receipt for a marriage contract to be handed to the woman in the absence of her husband, provided the court knows them—the husband must pay the fees. A promissory note may be written for the borrower in the absence of the lender, but not for the tender unless the borrower is present; and the fee is to be paid by the borrower. A bill of sale may be written for the seller in the absence of the buyer, but not for the buyer unless the seller is present; the buyer pays the fees. Documents of betrothal and marriage must not be written unless both are present—at the expense of the groom. The same is the case with documents for hiring, and contracting fields and gardens; and the expenses are to the contractors. Documents of arbitrating, and all other acts of mediating by the court, must not be written unless both parties are present—at the expense of both.

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains: The latter documents must be written in two copies, one for each party.

GEMARA: What does it mean—provided the court knows them? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: They shall know exactly the name of the husband concerning a divorce, and the exact name of the woman concerning a receipt.

R. Safra, R. Aba b. Huna, and R. Huna b. Hinna were sitting together in the presence of Abayi and were deliberating over the statement of Rabh just mentioned—concerning a divorce, the name of the husband, but not the name of his wife? and concerning a receipt, the name of the woman, though they do not know the name of the husband? Why should it not be feared that this man would furnish the divorce to another woman, whose husband bore the same name as himself? And the same is the case with the woman: she may furnish her receipt to a man whose wife bears the same name. Said Abayi to them: So said Rabh: The name of the husband and of his wife, concerning a divorce; and the same is the case with a receipt—the name of the woman and her husband. But why should it be prepared and given to the husband? Is it not to be feared that two men who bear one and the same name should reside in the same city (e.g., Joseph b. Simeon), whose wives also bear the name of Rachel, and one can take a divorce and give it to the wife of the other? Said R. A'ha b. Hinna to them: So said Rabh: If two men of the same name reside in one city, they cannot divorce their wives unless both the men named and their wives are present. Still, it is to be feared that one may go to another city, name himself according to one of the inhabitants of his city, and take a divorce, and thereafter return to his city and furnish the divorce to the wife in whose husband's name the divorce was made out. Said R. Huna b. Hinna: So said Rabh: If one was known under one name thirty days in succession, there is no fear that he bears a false name, as he would be afraid to bear it for such a long time. But how is it if one requires a divorce should be prepared for him before he was known thirty days—shall he not be listened to? Said Abayi: This can be proved by somebody calling him suddenly by this name, and he answered. R. Zebid, however, maintains: A swindler knows what he is about, and is careful. And therefore it is no evidence if he answers to a sudden call.
There was a receipt approved by Jeremiah b. Abba. However, the same woman came into his court to claim her marriage contract several years later; and when her receipt was shown to her, she claimed to be not the same woman (i.e., it was another woman who bore my name and signed the receipt). Said R. Jeremiah: I also was of that opinion, and I said so to the witnesses who signed this document; but they told me you are the same but older, and therefore your voice has changed. And the case came before Abayi, who said: Although it was decided by the rabbis: If one said something in behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant, he has no right to retract from the first statement, and decide otherwise; however, with a scholar, who is not used to look in the face of a woman and to be particular as to her voice, it is different, as it must be supposed that after he was told she was the same, he himself had recognized her.

There was another similar case before the same R. Jeremiah, who said to that woman: I am sure you are the same. And also here Abayi decided: Although a rabbi is not used to look in the face of a woman, etc.; but when he says he did so, and is sure, he may be trusted.
Abayi said: It is advisable for a young scholar, who goes to betroth a woman, that he shall take with him a commoner; as otherwise they may substitute another woman, and he will not notice it. "The husband must pay the fees," etc. Why so? Because it is written [ Deut. xxiv. 1]: " . . . he may write and give," which means at his expense. In our time, however, it is not so customary, because the rabbis put the expenses to the account of the woman, in case the husband should decline to bear the expenses and postpone the divorce in a case where the woman is compelled to demand it. "Paid by the borrower," etc. Is this not self-evident? It treats even where he takes money for business at a half profit. "The buyer pays the fees," etc. Is this not self-evident? It treats even in case the seller sold his field because of its infertility. "The expense of the groom," etc. Is this not self-evident? It means even if he were a scholar and the court were certain that they would be pleased to have him as a son-in-law even at their expense. "The expenses are to the contractors," etc. Is this not self-evident? It speaks even in case it must remain for a year or two unfertilized for the sake of the estate. "Arbitrating," etc. What kind of documents is meant? In this college it was explained: The documents of the claims which the scribes of the court have to copy so that the parties should not change afterwards. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: It means, in case each one chooses his arbitrator. "One for each party," etc. Shall we assume that the point of their difference is, if one may be compelled not to act like a Sodomite? According to the first Tana: If one declines to pay the half of the expenses, it is an act of a Sodomite, and he must be compelled to do so. And according to R. Simeon: It is not, and he must not be compelled? Nay! All agree that such cases are to be compelled. Here, however, it is different, as the reason of R. Simeon's decision is: One may say, I would not like that my claim and my decided right should always be before your eyes, while I do not possess them; and this would be a burden to me, as if a lion would lie at my house, fearing every time that you might come to quarrel with me.

MISHNA IV.: If one has paid a part of his debt and deposited his document with some one, with the stipulation: If I should not pay you from date until a certain day, you may return this document to the lender, and finally he failed to pay; according to R. Jose: The depositary may return, and according to R. Jehudah: He must not.

GEMARA: What is the point of their difference? R. Jose holds: An asmachtha 1 gives title. And R. Jehudah maintains: It does not. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, quoting Rabh: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose. When they came to say the same before R. Ami, he said to them: After such an authority as Johanan teaches us, once and twice, that the Halakha prevails with R. Jose, what can I do? However, the Halakha does not prevail with R. Jose (remarks the Gemara).

MISHNA V.: If it happened to one that a promissory note became erased, he must find witnesses who are aware of the date when it was written, and bring them before the court, and they have to make the following approval: A, the son of B, came here with his note, which was erased on such and such a day, and C and D were his witnesses.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The approval must be written as follows: "We three, E, F, G, the undersigned, were sitting together, and before us was brought by A, the son of B, an erased note, which was signed on such and such a day, and C and D are his witnesses." And then if there be added: "We have examined the testimony of the witnesses, and have found it correct," the holder of the document may collect with it, without further evidence. If, however, this were not remarked, he must bring evidence.

If a document was torn, it is invalid; but if it was torn of itself, it is valid. If it was erased or faint, if still recognizable it is valid.

What does it mean—"was torn," and "was torn of itself"? Said R. Jehudah: If it was torn by the court; and of itself means not by the court. How is it to be known that it was torn by the court? Said R. Jehudah: If the places where the signatures of the witnesses, the date, and the amount were written are torn. Abayi, however, said: The court used to tear it in its length and width.

There were Arabs who came to Pumbeditha, who used to compel the inhabitants to submit to them the deeds of their estates. The inhabitants of the city came to Abayi with their deeds, requesting him to take a copy of them, so that, in case they should be compelled to deliver to the Arabs the originals, the copies should remain, so that in the future they could be sued. Said he: What can I do for you, since R. Safra long ago decided that two deeds must not be written for one field, because it might happen that one would seize it once, and again thereafter. They, however, troubled him, and he said to his scribe: Write for them on an erased paper, and the witnesses shall sign on the paper which is not erased, as such a deed is invalid. Said R. Aha b. Minumi to him: But perhaps the writing will be recognizable, and then it will be valid, as stated in the Boraitha above? And he answered: I did not say he should write a correct deed: I meant he should write some letters of the alphabet.

The rabbis taught: If one comes before the court claiming that he has lost a promissory note from so and so, although he brought with him witnesses who testify, "We wrote and signed the note in question for the borrower, and in our presence he gave it to him," the court must not write another one. However, this is said only concerning promissory notes. But concerning deeds, if such a case happened, they may write him another one, without mentioning that the seller is responsible in case it should be taken away by creditors. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains: This must not be done even concerning deeds. And he used to say also: If one has presented a gift to his neighbor by a deed, if the deed was returned by the beneficiary, the gift is considered returned. The sages, however, say: Nevertheless, the gift remains for the beneficiary. The master said: Without mentioning the responsibility of the seller. Why so? Said R. Safra: Because two deeds must not be written for one and the same field, for the reason it may happen that a creditor of the previous owner will take it away. Then, the buyer who has two deeds may use both deeds to take away the estates which were sold by A to D and E. (I.e., A had sold a field to B, which was encumbered to C, the creditor of A; and C proclaimed his right to it. Then B proclaimed his right, based upon the deed, to the estate encumbered to C, and took away the estate from D, who bought it from A at a later date. After he did so, and the deed was torn by the court, he (B) would make a bargain with C that for a certain amount he should not hasten to take possession of the field to which he was entitled, but should wait a few years and then do it; for the purpose that C's first claim should be forgotten, and later on, when C should take possession of the field which was until now in the hands of B, it should seem to be as a new claim; and then, on the basis of the second deed retained by him (B), he should also take away from E the estates bought by him from A at a later date.

(Says the Gemara:) But as the promissory note of the creditor was torn by the court when he took away from him the first time, how came he to proclaim his right again? And should one say, in case it was not torn? Did not R. Na'hman say: The following is the order of claims before the court? The lender comes to the court to complain that the borrower does not pay his debt; then the court summons him, and if he does not appear it puts him under the ban, and a replevin is given to the lender, that he may levy on the estates of the borrower or of those who bought same from him at a later date than that of the promissory note. And when the creditor finds such estates in some other city, the court of that city tears the replevin and substitutes a document that he may collect such and such an amount from such and such estate, after the appraisement shall be made for the court. And after this is done, the court furnishes him with a memorandum of the appraisement and tears the previous document. Hence a replevin in which it is not mentioned that the promissory note of the borrower was "torn by us" must not be taken into consideration by any court; and a document which was given for appraisement in which it is not mentioned that the replevin of such and such a court was "torn by us" is also not to be taken into consideration. The same is the case with the memorandum of appraisement with which the court furnishes him, if it is not mentioned that the document giving the right to make an appraisement of the estate for the debt of so and so was "torn by us." Hence the alleged bargain between B and C could not occur? The statement of R. Safras that two deeds must not be written is because it might happen that one should claim the field not for debt, but because he inherited it from his parents, and it was stolen by the possessors of it. In such a case the above-mentioned bargain may be made. 1 Said R. Aha of Diphthi to Rabhina: According to the supposed bargain mentioned above, that B asked C that he should not hasten to take possession, to what purpose such a bargain? If he possesses two deeds, he may take away from D and E at one time? And he answered: By such an act he would invite investigation by his opponents, and they would find out the bargain.

One Mishna states: Concerning deeds, they may write another one, without mentioning the responsibility of the seller for the estate, in case it should be taken away. Why? Let the court write a correct deed and deliver it to the buyer, at the same time furnishing the seller with a document that the first deed was lost, and if such should be found, that it was of no value, as another deed was supplied to the buyer. The rabbis said before R. Papa, according to others before R. Ashi: Because this is not stated, we may infer that the court must not furnish the seller with such a receipt. And he answered: In other cases, receipts may be written. In this case, however, it is not because of the bargain mentioned above, but as the receipt which makes the first deed valueless is in the possession of A, and not in the hands of the buyers; and it might be that D and E, who had bought from A, would not be aware of such a document, and would not be in a position to protest against the estates being taken away from them by the creditors of A. But, finally, D and E would transfer their claims to A; and then he would show them the document, and the estates would certainly be returned to them? Yea! But meanwhile the creditors would consume the products, and it would be a difficulty for D or E to collect the value from them, as there is a rule: On consumed stolen property it is very bard to collect. It may also happen that D and E bought their estate without any responsibility on A's part; hence one may take it away without any claim from these parties. But if such a case is to be feared, why should they furnish such receipts in cases of loans, as the same may happen with promissory notes—that the goods should be taken away while the receipt is in the hand of the borrower? There it is different. If the claim comes with a promissory note which had nothing to do with this estate, the possessors of the estate would investigate the matter, whether the borrower had paid him the money due, and would not return the estate without consulting the seller, who is the debtor on that promissory note: which is not the case if the document was for real estate, as in such cases usually estates are claimed, and not money.

The master said: "It may be written without mentioning the responsibility," etc. How, then, should it be written? Thus said R. Na'hman: This deed is not for collection, neither from encumbered nor from unencumbered estates, but only to testify that the estate belongs to so and so, who is the buyer of it. Said Raphram: From this, where it must be written that such a document is not in force for collection, it may be inferred that in such a one where nothing is written there is authority to collect with it even from encumbered estates; as it is to be supposed that it is an error of the scribe, who had forgotten to insert the responsibility of the seller. R. Ashi, however, maintains: A document in which nothing is mentioned does not collect from encumbered estates. And the above Boraitha, which states, "not to mention the responsibility," etc., is not as R. Na'hman explained it, but is to be taken literally—that nothing is to be mentioned—and then he is not responsible.

There was a woman who gave money to one that he might buy estates for her. He bought them for her, without responsibility in case there should be claims. And she came to complain before R. Na'hman, who said: The woman is right, as she sent to you to the end that she should have benefit, but not that she should suffer damage. You, therefore, have to buy from the woman without responsibility, and thereafter to sell to her with your responsibility.

It is said above by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: If one has presented a gift . . . the gift is considered returned. What is his reason? Said R. Assi: Because it is to be considered as if one were to say: I give you this for a present so long as you keep this document. Rabba opposed: If so, how is it if this document was torn or lost—must one also return the gift? Therefore, said he, the point of the difference between R. Simeon and the rabbis is thus: According to R. Simeon, title is given to documents and to all their contents by transferring; and therefore when the donee returned it to the donor, the latter acquired title to it and to its contents. But according to the rabbis, title is not given by transferring; hence when the donee takes possession of the gift, the returning of the document counts nothing.

The rabbis taught: If one came to claim a field, saying that he possesses a deed, and also that it was in his possession the years of hazakah—according to Rabbi, the main evidence should be the deed (if he cannot show it, his second claim of hazakah must not be considered); and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains: The main evidence is the hazakah. What is the point of their difference? When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said: They differ whether title is given to documents. by transferring. According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, the transferring does not give title; and according to Rabbi, it does. Said Abayi to him: If so, you differ with my master, Rabba, who said above: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds: That transferring does give title. And he answered: And what if I do differ? Why not? Rejoined Abayi: I mean to say that the above Boraitha could be explained only as done by my master, but not otherwise. And then, if it is as you say, R. Simeon contradicts himself. Therefore, said Abayi, the point of the difference between Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the Boraitha just cited is: In case it happened that one witness who signed the deed was found to be a relative, or for some other reason incompetent to be a witness. And it is the same point in which R. Meir and R. Elazar differ. Rabbi holds with R. Elazar, who says that the final act of a divorce, or anything else, is to be considered done by the witnesses who are present at the transfer, and not by the witnesses who sign the document. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds with R. Meir, who said: The final act is considered done by the witnesses who sign the document.

But did not R. Abba say: Even R. Elazar admitted that if there was any forgery in the document, or there were incompetent witnesses, the transferring is not considered, even when it was done by lawful witnesses? Therefore said Rabhina: All agree that if the court said, "We have investigated the testimony of the witnesses, and found it false," or that one of them was incompetent, the document is invalid, as R. Abba declared. And the above Tanaim differ concerning a document without witnesses at all. According to Rabbi, who holds with R. Elazar, if it was transferred in the presence of witnesses, the act is considered final; and according to R. Simeon, who holds with R. Meir, it is not. And if you wish, it may be said that the point of their difference is: Whether a document which the signer admits must or must not be approved by the court. According to Rabbi, it must not; and according to R. Simeon, it must. But have we not heard just the reverse in Middle Gate, p. 11? (The rabbis taught:) Therefore we must say that the point of their difference is: If one is obliged to convince the court of all the evidence one mentioned at the beginning of the trial, or it is sufficient if he convinces it of one part of it (i.e., if he said, first, "My evidence is a deed, and also hazakah," and thereafter he was able to convince the court of the hazakah only). According to Rabbi: It is not sufficient unless he should show the deed. And according to R. Simeon: The latter evidence suffices. But if he should be able to show the deed, then all agree that the evidence of the hazakah would not be necessary at all. And this is similar to the following case: R. Itz'hak b. Joseph claimed to have money with R. Abba, and came to complain before R. Itz'hak of Naf'ha. And R. Abba claimed: I paid you in the presence of A and B. Said R. Itz'hak (of Naf'ha) to him: Bring, then, A and B—they shall testify. Said he to him: Am I not to be trusted, even if they do not appear? Is it not a Halakha: If one borrowed money in the presence of witnesses, it is not necessary for the borrower that he shall pay him in the presence of witnesses? Rejoined the former: I hold with the Halakha which was said by you, master, in the name of R. Ada b. Ahaba, quoting Rabh: If one says, "I paid you in the presence of A and B," it is necessary for him that A and B shall come and testify. Said R. Abba again: But did not R. Giddle say in the name of Rabh: The Halakha prevails with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? And even Rabh, his opponent, meant with his statement only to make his evidence clear before the court (but not because the law dictates so)? And R. Itz'hak answered: I also mean you shall make your evidence clear before the court, as I hold with Rabha; and if you are not able to do so, you must pay.

MISHNA VI.: If one has paid a part of his debt, according to R. Jehudah, the promissory note must be changed (i.e., the old note must be torn, and a new one made for the balance). According to R. Jose: The lender has to give a receipt for the amount paid. Said R. Jehudah: Then, according to you, the borrower must watch his receipt so that it shall not be consumed by mice. Answered R. Jose: Yea! This is better for the lender, as if it should be a difficulty for the borrower to watch the receipt he will pay the whole debt sooner; and we must not impair the right of the lender.
GEMARA: Said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: The Halakha prevails neither with R. Jehudah nor with R. Jose, but the court must tear the first note and write him another one with the same date as the first. Said R. Na'hman, according to others R. Jeremiah b. Abba, to R. Huna: If Rabh were aware of the following Boraitha: "The witnesses tear the note, and write for him another one with the same date as the first," he would retract from his statement that this must be done by the court. And he answered: He was aware of this Boraitha, and nevertheless he did not retract, for the reason that only the court has the power to collect money, which therefore may tear and write another one with the former date, but not witnesses who have done the message they were ordered to, as they have no right to do the same again without a new order. Is that so? Did not R. Jehudah say in the name of Rabh: If a deed was lost, witnesses may write another one, even if this occurred ten times, to one field. Said R. Joseph: Rabh meant a deed of gift. And Rabha said: Rabh meant a document without any, responsibility of the estate for other claims.

Where is to be found the Boraitha cited above, of which Rabh was aware? It is thus: If one's debt was a thousand zuz on a document, and he paid five hundred, the witnesses may tear the document and write another one for five hundred, of the date of the old one. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, says: The document of the thousand remains, and a receipt for five hundred must he given to the borrower. And for two reasons it was said that a receipt should be written and handed to the borrower: first, because he should be compelled to pay as soon as possible; and, secondly, the debt should be counted from the first date. But does not R. Jehudah also say that a new document should be written with the same date as that which was torn? So said R. Jose to R. Jehudah: If you say that the document should be written from the first date, then I differ with you only in one thing—concerning the receipt; and if you think that the document should be written from the date on which a part was paid, then I differ with you in both.

The rabbis taught: If the document was written at the date used by the government, and such a date fell on a Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, on which it is prohibited for an Israelite to write, this note is to be considered written with a later date, which is valid. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. But according to R. Jose, it is invalid. Said R. Jehudah to him: Did not such a case come before you in Cepphoris, and you made it valid? And he answered: I did so only with a case similar to that about which we are discussing, because, as the date fell on a Sabbath, it is highly probable that the document was of a later date; but in other cases, where such a supposition has no basis, I do not agree with you. But what answer is this? R. Jehudah also claimed that the case happened to be before R. Jose in Cepphoris. Said R. Pdath: All agree that if the date of the document was examined and found to fall on a Sabbath, or on the Day of Atonement, it must be considered as with a later date, and it is valid. In what they do differ is: A document which is doubtful, if written with an earlier or a later date. According to R. Jehudah, who holds that in case of payment no receipt is given, but the document itself must be returned, it is valid, because it cannot do any harm to any one by being collectible twice. And according to R. Jose, who holds that for a payment in part the document must not be returned, and only a receipt is furnished, it is invalid, because he can collect with it the whole amount, as the receipt is in the hands of the borrower. Said R. Huna b. Jehoshua: Even according to them who say that a receipt may be written, it is only if a part or a half was paid; but for the whole amount no receipt is written, but he must return him the note; and if lost, he loses his money.

(Says the Gemara:) In reality it is not so, as a receipt may be written even on the whole amount; as it happened with R. Itz'hak b. Joseph, who had money with R. Abba, and when he demanded his money, R. Abba demanded his promissory note. And R. Itz'hak answered: The note is lost, and I will give you a receipt. And he answered: There are both Rabh and Samuel who taught that we do not write a receipt. And when this case came before R. Hanina b. Papi, he said: Rabh and Samuel were so beloved by us that if some would bring the earth of their graves we would keep it always before our eyes; but notwithstanding this, there are both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish who decided that a receipt should be given; and the same was said by Rabbin when he came from Palestine in the name of R. Ilah.

Common sense also dictates so; as how can it be supposed that if the creditor lost the promissory note the debtor may consume the whole amount and enjoy himself? Abayi opposed: But after your theory that a receipt is to be written, how is it if the receipt is lost—should the lender collect the money again and enjoy himself? Said Rabha to him: Yea! So is the law, as we read in the Scriptures: "The borrower is a servant to the lender" [Prov. xxii. 7]. Said R. Yema, according to others R. Jeremiah of Diphthi, to R. Kahna: What is the basis of our custom that we write documents with later dates, and we also write receipts?

And he answered: That which R. Abba said to his scribe: When it shall happen that you have to write a document with a later date, you must write as follows: This document was postdated by us for a certain reason, and is dated not with the date it was ordered, but of to-day. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahna: However, in our day and in our country we do not act likewise. It is since R. Safras said to his scribe: Should you have to write a receipt for a lost promissory note, then, if you are aware of the date the promissory note was given, you must write: "The money which was due according to the note written on such and such a date was returned to the lender." And if you do not know the exact date, you must write: "The money due on a note of so and so, to so and so, was paid," not mentioning the date at all; and then, if the note should appear again, it will be of no value.

Said Rabhina to R. Ashi, and according to others R. Ashi to R. Kahna: But why is it not customary in our time to do so, as we write documents with later dates without mentioning that they are postdated, and receipts with the date of payment, and we do mention the date of the document? And he answered: The rabbis enacted: One shall do so for his own sake; but if one does not care to do so, it will be his own fault if he should suffer damage. Said Rabba b. Ashila to the scribes: If you should have to write a deed of gift, or deeds in which the seller does not take the responsibility of the estate for the future, you shall do as follows: If you remember the date when the donor or the seller told you in the presence of witnesses to do so, you shall write that date; and if you do not recollect the exact date, you may write the current date, and it will not be considered false. Rabh told his scribes, and the same did R. Huna: When you are writing a document in the city of Shili, although you were ordered to do so in the city of Hini, you must write in the document the city in which you are doing it, and not the city where you were ordered.

Rabha said: If one holds a promissory note for a hundred zuz, and requests that it shall be rewritten in two notes, each of fifty zuz, his request is to be refused—for the sake of both the lender and the borrower: for the lender it is better to have one document, as, should it happen that he pay the half, he will give him a receipt, which the borrower will have to watch, and therefore he will hasten to pay his debt; and for the borrower it is also better, as the law of a document paid in part is, that the lender must take an oath (and in case he is lacking cash the lender will give him time rather than take an oath). And he said again: If one has two notes of fifty each, and he requests that one of a hundred should be made instead of the two, also to this request no attention should be paid—and also for the sake of both. For the lender it is better, if fifty is paid, that the other document should remain in force, so that he will not be obliged to take an oath; and also for the borrower it is better, having paid one note, that he shall not be bound to watch the receipt for the other half. R. Ashi said: If the lender holds a promissory note for a hundred zuz, and orders the scribe to write for him another note for fifty zuz, claiming that the half was paid by the borrower, he must not be listened to; nor if he asks that the note should be written from that date, or from the current date. Why so? It is to be feared that the borrower has paid the whole amount, and to the demand that his note should be returned, he was answered, "It was lost," and furnished him with a receipt instead; and this note for fifty zuz be will collect from him, claiming that this note has nothing to do with the former one.

MISHNA VII.: If there were two brothers, one rich and one poor, and they inherited from their father a bath-house or an olive-press house, if for business, they must share equally; but if for private use, the rich one may say to the poor, "You may hire slaves, that they shall heat the bath for your use"; or, "You may buy olives and press them for your private use, but I shall not allow you to do this for a stranger, and you take the benefit." If it happen that in one city two persons bear one and the same name, they cannot give promissory notes to each other nor can any of the inhabitants collect on a promissory note of one of them. If there were found a promissory note of one of the two persons by some one which is marked "paid," the other may also claim: My note is paid. How, then, shall they do, if they wish that their documents shall be of value? Write their names threefold—e.g., Joseph b. Simeon b. Jacob; and if they are alike in this also, they must make a sign to their names (e.g., if one is shorter than the other, he must say, "the Little"; and if they are both of equal size, if one is a priest, he shall write "Cohen").

GEMARA: There was a promissory note which came to the court of R. Huna, in which was written: "I, A, the son of B, have borrowed from you a mana." Said R. Huna: "From you" can be any one—even the Exilarch, or even King Sabur. Hence it may be that some one lost it, and you found it. Said R. Hisda to Rabba: You must study the case, as in the evening R. Huna will ask you how to decide it. He had deliberated, and found the following Boraitha: A divorce which was signed by witnesses, but there was no date. Said Aba Saul: Ii the divorce reads: "I divorced her this day," it is valid. Hence we see that "this day" means that on which it was given out. The same is the case with this document; "from you" means from this man who holds it. Said Abayi to him: But perhaps Aba Saul holds with R. Elazar, who holds that the final act of the witnesses of transfer is considered (therefore he makes valid such a divorce as must be delivered in the presence of lawful witnesses). But in our case, why should it not be feared that the plaintiff found a lost note? And he answered: That such a supposition is not to be taken into consideration may be inferred from our Mishna, which states: If there are two persons who bear one and the same name, they cannot give promissory notes to each other, nor to any of the inhabitants, etc. But if one of them has a promissory note from one of the inhabitants, it is valid, and he may collect. Now, why is it not to be feared that it was lost by the other person who bears the same name, and this plaintiff found it? Hence we see that this is not taken into consideration. Abayi, however, may say that this is not taken into consideration because there is only one person who could lose it, and if so, he would certainly announce his loss; but in other cases, where it might be lost by any one, it should be feared. But is there not a Boraitha which states: As the two persons who bear the same name cannot collect promissory notes from each other, so also cannot one of them collect from any other one? Hence this Boraitha differs with our Mishna. And what is the point of their difference? Whether in such a case the plaintiff has to bring evidence. The Tana of the Mishna holds that he has not; and the Tana of the Boraitha maintains that he has. As it was taught: To promissory notes title is given by transferring. However, according to Abayi the holder of them must bring evidence that they were transferred to him. And Rabha said: He must not.

Said Rabha: I infer my statement from the following Boraitha: If one of the brothers holds a promissory note from some one, claiming that his father or his brother had transferred it to him, it is for him to bring evidence. Hence we see that this law holds good only concerning brothers, who usually hinder one another, and claim that their brother took it without their or their father's consent; but in all other cases no evidence is needed. Abayi, however, maintains: On the contrary, this Boraitha comes to teach: Lest one say that concerning brothers, who hinder one another and are very careful with the inheritance, no evidence is needed for the one who holds the document, although in all other cases it is, the Boraitha came to state that it is not so. But there is another Boraitha: As the persons who bear the same name are allowed to take promissory notes from others, so they may take from each other. And what is the point of their difference? Whether a promissory note may be written for the borrower in the absence of the lender. The Tana of our Mishna holds that this may be done. Hence one of the two persons may go to the scribe, telling him that he wants to borrow from his fellow-citizen, who bears the same name, some money. And after he receives such a promissory note, he may claim that this was given by the other to him; therefore our Mishna says that they cannot collect from each other. And the Tana of the Boraitha holds: The promissory note must not be furnished to the borrower in the absence of the lender. Hence there is no fear. "If a promissory note was paid," etc. We see, because a receipt was found. But how would it be if not? The promissory note would hold good. But our Mishna states: Nor can any of the inhabitants collect. Said R. Jeremiah: It speaks of when in the note his name was written threefold; but if so, let them see the receipt, to whom it was made out. Said R. Hoseah: It speaks of when it was written threefold in the note, but not in the receipt. Abayi, however, said: The Mishna is to be explained thus: If there was found among the borrower's documents a writing, "The promissory note which I gave to Joseph b. Simeon is paid," if he possess such from the other, both are considered paid. "To write their names threefold," etc. There is a Boraitha: If both were priests, they must write their names four fold—e.g., Joseph b. Jacob b. Itz'hak b. Abraham; and that all the four names should be alike is very rare.

MISHNA VIII.: If one (while struggling with death) says to his son: "A promissory note among the notes I possess is paid, but I do not remember which," all of them are to be considered paid. If, however, one person has given two promissory notes, the larger amount is considered paid, and the smaller amount not.

GEMARA: Rabha said: If one says: "A promissory note from you, which I possess, is paid," and there were two from him, the larger amount is considered paid, and the smaller amount not; if, however, "The debt you owe me is paid," all the promissory notes from him which are in his hands are considered paid. Said Rabhina to him: According to your theory, if one says: "My field is sold to you," does it mean that the largest he has is sold? And if he said, "The field I possess is sold to you," does it mean all the fields? There it is different, as it is for the plaintiff to bring evidence; and if the buyer so claims, he has to bring evidence to what he claims. But here the creditor is the plaintiff; and if he says, "Your debt is paid," it is the best evidence that all the notes are paid.

MISHNA IX.: If one made a loan to his neighbor through a surety, he must not collect first from the surety, unless the borrower does not possess any estate; however, if the stipulation was made that he may collect from whom he pleases, then he may start with the surety.

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (however) is of the opinion that even in such a case the lender may not start with the surety, unless the borrower does not possess anything. And he used to say thus: If one made himself a surety to a woman for her marriage contract, and thereafter the husband was about to divorce her, the court should compel him to vow that from the time divorced he should not derive any benefit from his former wife, which means not to remarry her, for fear that the husband and his wife may have made a bargain to collect the money for the marriage contract from the surety, and thereafter he will remarry her.

GEMARA: And why should not the creditor collect from the surety? Both Rabba and R. Joseph said: The surety may claim: I have given bail for the money in case the borrower should die or run away, but not if I deliver him to you. R. Na'hman opposed, saying: Such is the Persian law. But this is not so, as the Persians collect from the surety only, even when the borrower possesses estates? R. Na'hman meant to say: Such a law is similar to a Persian law, for which they give no reason, and therefore he says the Mishna meant: He shall not summon the surety unless he has already summoned the borrower. So also we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one made a loan to his neighbor through a surety, he must not summon the surety first, unless the stipulation was that he might collect from whom he pleased. R. Huna said: Whence do we deduce that a surety is obliged to pay? From [Gen. xliii. 9]: "I will be a surety for him." R. Hisda opposed, saying: He was not a surety only, but also a receiver, as it reads farther on, "from my hand shalt thou require him," and also [ibid. xlii. 37], "deliver him into my hand," etc. Therefore said R. Itz'hak: From [Prov. xx. 16]: "Take away his garment, because he hath become surety for a stranger." (Here is repeated from Middle Gate, p. 305. See there.)

Amimar said: Whether a surety has to pay or not, R. Jehudah and R. Jose differ. According to the latter, who holds that an asmachtha gives title, he is responsible; and according to the former, who holds that an asmachtha, does not give title, the surety is not obliged to pay. Said R. Ashi to him: But is it not a fact that a surety is responsible, although it is now taken as a rule that an asmachtha. does not give title? Therefore said R. Ashi: Because of the pleasure that the lender trusted him on his word, the surety made up his mind that the lender should be paid under all circumstances; and such a case it is not considered as an asmachtha, but as a debt which ties upon himself. "That he may collect from whom he pleases," etc. Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: Even then, if the borrower possess estates, he must not collect from the surety. But does not the latter part of the Mishna state that Simeon b. Gamaliel said so; from which it is to be inferred that the first Tana holds that he may collect from the surety in any event? The Mishna is not complete, and should read thus: If one made a loan to his neighbor through a surety, he must not collect through the surety unless he had made the stipulation that he might collect from whom he pleased. But even then he collects from the surety in case the borrower does not possess any estate; but if he does, he must collect from the borrower first, and if it should not be sufficient, then from the surety. If, however, the surety was also the receiver of the loan for the borrower, then he may collect from the surety, although the borrower possesses estate. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, maintains that even then he collects from the borrower if he possesses any estate. (In the name of R. Johanan was said (First Gate, p. 156): In that case the Halakha does not prevail with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.)

R. Huna said: If the surety said: "Lend to this man, and I am the surety"; or, "I will pay"; or, "Count the debt to me"; or, "Lend him, and I will give to you"—all these versions are considered surety. If, however, he said to him: "Give to him, and consider me as receiving the money"; or, "Give to him, and I will pay"; or, "Count the debt to me"; or, "Give to him, and I will return to you"—all these versions are considered receipt. (I.e., if he said: "Borrow from him," it means that he should be the debtor: "In case he shall not pay, I will." But if he says, "Give to him," then the borrower is not considered here at all, as the lender gave by his order.)

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if he said, "Lend him, and count me as the receiver"; or, "Give to him, and I will be surety"? According to R. Itz'hak: In the first case, in which he remarked, "I will be the receiver," he must be so considered, although he said, "Lend him"; and in the second case, in which he said, "I will be surety," he is to be so considered, although he said, "Give to him." R. Hisda, however, maintains: In either case he is considered a receiver, unless he said, "Lend him, and I will be the surety." And according to Rabha: All the versions mentioned above are considered surety, unless he said, "Give to him, and I will return to you."
Said Mar b. Amimar to R. Ashi: So said my father: If the expression was, "give to him, and I will return you," then has the lender nothing to do with the borrower. (Says the Gemara:) In reality it is not so. The lender may collect the money from the borrower, unless the surety took the money from the hand of the lender and delivered it to the borrower.

There was a judge who transferred the estate of the borrower to the lender, before the lender had demanded his money from the borrower, and R. Hanin b. R. Yeba removed the judge. Said Rabha: Who so wise to do such a thing, if not R. Hanin b. R. Yeba, as he holds that the estates of the debtor are his surety; and our Mishna states: He must not collect from the surety, nor must he demand his debt first from the surety?

There was a surety for orphans who had paid the lender before he notified the orphans (i.e., he was surety for the father of the orphans, who borrowed some money, and after his death he paid the lender from his own pocket, and then summoned the orphans to pay him from their estates). And R. Papa decided: To pay a debt for which there is no document is a meritorious act, to which orphans who are not of age cannot be compelled; and therefore the surety must wait with his claim until they shall become of age. R. Huna b. Jehoshua, however, maintains: The reason why the orphans have not to pay until they shall become of age is, because they are not aware that the deceased had not paid such a debt. And the difference of the two statements is, in case the deceased had confessed before his death that he had not yet repaid the debt. Then, according to R. Huna, the orphans may be compelled to pay; but not, according to R. Papa.

A message was sent from Palestine: If one was put under the ban because he declined to pay his debt, and he died while still under the ban, he is to be considered as if he had confessed before his death that he had not yet paid, and the orphans have to pay, as the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Huna b. Jehoshua.

An objection was raised from the following: If the promissory note of the deceased was in the hands of the surety, who claims to have paid the lender, and he demands the debt from the orphans' estates, he cannot collect (for perhaps the lender lost it, and he found it). If, however, there was marked in the note by the lender that he has received the debt from the surety, he may. Hence this is correct only with R. Huna's statement; but it contradicts R. Papa, who said: The orphans must not be compelled to pay in such a case. R. Papa may say: When, the lender wrote that he received the money from the surety and transferred the promissory note to him, it is no longer considered a debt without a document, the payment of which is only a meritorious act, to which the orphans cannot be compelled; as for that purpose the tender marked, "I have received from you that from this date the promissory note should be considered as if given by the deceased to the surety."

There was a surety for a deceased debtor to a heathen, who paid the heathen before he had demanded his debt from the orphans. Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: So said Abimi of Hagrunia in the name of Rabha: Even according to him who holds that it may be doubted whether the deceased had paid his debt before dying, it is only when the creditor was a Jew, but not when he was a heathen, who usually demands the debt from the surety and not from the debtor. Answered R. Ashi: "It is just the contrary.

Even according to him who said that it must not be doubted whether the debt was paid, it is only concerning a Jew; but concerning a heathen, whose law dictates that they have to collect the debt from the surety, it is to be feared that if the surety should not have in his hand an amount which would cover the debt in case it should not be paid, he would not consent to be a surety; and therefore he cannot collect from the orphans except by suing them when they shall be of age. "If one made himself surety to a woman for a marriage contract," etc. Moses b. Azoi was a surety for the marriage contract of his daughter-in-law, whose husband was R. Huna, who was a scholar, and became thereafter very poor and was unable to support his family.

Said Abayi: Is there not one who shall advise R. Huna to divorce his wife, and she shall go to his father, who is rich, and collect the marriage contract, and thereafter R. Huna shall remarry her? Said Rabha to him: But does not out Mishna state: "He shall vow not to derive any benefit," etc.? Rejoined Abayi: Must, then, every one who wishes to divorce his wife go to the court? Finally it was developed that R. Huna was a priest, who could not remarry his wife in case of being divorced. Said Abayi: This is what people say: Poverty follows in the path of the poor. But did he not say above (p. 304), that he who gives such advice is called a shrewd knave? In this case, where the surety was his father and the son was a scholar, it is different. But was not the father a surety only, who has not to pay (as will be explained farther on)? He was also a receiver.

But even then, it is correct according to him who holds that a receiver must pay, even in case the groom possessed nothing at the time of marriage. But what can be said to him who said that in such a case even a receiver is not to be compelled to pay? It may be said that when his father became surety the son was still in the possession of some estates; and if you wish, it may be said that with a father it is different. As it was taught: A surety in a marriage contract, all agree that he has not to pay. A receiver from a creditor, all agree he must pay; but concerning a receiver in a marriage contract and a surety from a creditor the rabbis differ.

According to one: If the borrower possessed estates at the time the loan was made, the receiver must pay, as it may be supposed that he obliged himself with all his mind, as he had nothing to fear; and the other holds: He must pay in any event. The Halakha, however, prevails: A surety must pay in any event, unless he was a surety to a marriage contract, even in case the husband was in possession of estates at the time he became surety. And the reason is, because it may be supposed that he did so as a meritorious act, in order that the couple should not be parted; and he did no harm to the bride, as, if the husband had money, he would pay.

R. Huna said: A sick person who has consecrated all his estates, and at the same time said, "So and so has a mana with me," he may be trusted, as it is to be assumed that one would not use deceit against the sanctuary. R. Na'hman opposed: Is it, then, usual that one should use deceit against his children? And, nevertheless, both Rabh and Samuel say: If a sick person said, "So and so has a mana with me," if he added, "Give to him," he is to be listened to; but if he did not, he is not to be listened to. Hence we see that, if he did not say "Give," his statement that so and so has a mana with him is considered as if he did so for the purpose that, should he be cured, his children should not think him very rich. Why should not the same be applied in the case of the sanctuary. R. Huna speaks in case there was a promissory note, and only the sick person admitted that the note was a right one. if so, then we must say that the statements of Rabh and Samuel applied even when there was no promissory note. But if so, it was a loan without a document, and both Rabh and Samuel said: On such a loan one cannot collect, neither from the heirs nor from the buyers? Therefore said R. Na'hman: In both cases it speaks of when there was a document: one case treats of when the note was approved, and the other when it was not. And then if he said "Give," he approves the note, and is to be listened to; and if he does not say "Give," the note remains unapproved.

Rabba said: A sick person who said, "A has a mana with me," and thereafter the orphans claimed that they have paid, they are to be trusted. If, however, he said, "Give a mana to A," and the orphans say they have paid, they are not to be trusted. But is not common sense against such a theory? It seems just the contrary. If the father said, "Give," and the orphans said "We did so," they may be trusted; but if the father said, "A had a mana with me," it may be supposed they did not hasten to pay him, and why should they be trusted? Therefore if such a statement was made by Rabba, it must be thus: If a sick person said, "A has a mana with me," and the orphans thereafter said that after deliberating the deceased said, "I have paid it already," they may be trusted, as it is probable the deceased remembered that he had returned it. But if the sick person says, "Give a mana," and thereafter the orphans claim the same as is said above, they are not to be trusted; as if it were for deliberation, he would not say it give."

Rabha questioned: If a sick person had confessed (i.e., his creditor came to him, saying, "You owe me a mana," and he said, "yea"), must the sick person also add "yea," that those who are present shall be witnesses, as is required in such a case of one in good health, or not? And it is also a question whether he must say to the witnesses: "Mark this in writing "; and also whether a sick person has the right to say, "It was only a joke," or, "This is out of the question." Concerning one who is dying, after deliberating, he came to the conclusion that all these are not necessary, as there is a rule: The words of a dying person are to be considered as written and delivered to whom it concerns.
MISHNA X.: If one borrows money on a promissory note, the lender has a right to collect from encumbered estates; and if without a note, but in presence of witnesses, the lender may collect from unencumbered only. If A holds a writing that B owes him money (not a promissory note, which usually must be drawn by witnesses), he collects from unencumbered estates only. A surety who has signed his name after the signatures of the document ("I, so and so, am a surety"), the lender may collect from the surety from unencumbered estates only (as it is considered a verbal surety, as there were no witnesses who testified to this).

Such a case happened to come before R. Ishmael, and he decided that he should collect from free estate. Ben Nanas, however, maintains: He must not collect from any estate. And to the question of R. Ishmael: Why so? he answered: If it happen that a creditor sees his debtor in the market, grapples him by the throat, and one passes by and says, "Leave him alone, I will pay," he is nevertheless free, because the loan was made not upon his surety. The same is the case here. If, after the document was made and the witnesses signed it, he adds, "I am a surety," he is not considered such, as he was a surety when the loan was already made. Said R. Ishmael: If one wishes to become wise, he shall occupy himself with the civil law; for there is no store (of wisdom) in the entire Law richer than it (the civil law). And those who wish to study civil law may take lessons of Ben Nanas.

GEMARA: Ula said: Biblically there is no difference between a loan on a document and by word of mouth; and it should be collected from encumbered estates. Why is it said that on a verbal one, one collects from free estate only? Because the buyers of the borrower should not suffer damage (i.e., as they could not be aware of a thing done verbally). But when there is a document, it is their own fault if they do not investigate before they buy. Rabba, however, maintains the contrary: Both loans ought to be collected from free estates only; as, according to the biblical law, the estates are not mortgaged even if there is a document (unless it is so written). But why did the rabbis enact that a document collects from encumbered estate? In order not to close the door for borrowers. For a verbal loan, however, they did not enact, as it is not known to the people; and the buyers from the borrower could not know there was a loan.

Did, indeed, Rabba say so? Was not his decision [in Chapter VIII., p. 274] "that a first-born takes a double share in the estate collected after the death of the father"? Now if not mortgaged biblically, in a document why should he take a double share—to which he is not entitled in movable property or money collected after death? And lest one say that the names of Ula and Rabba should be reversed in the above statements, this would not hold good, as we have heard Ula saying elsewhere that a creditor collects biblically from the worse estate of the debtor. Hence we see that Ula holds that estates are mortgaged biblically. (This presents no difficulty, as the cited statement of Rabba [in Chapter VIII.] was only to give the reason of the Palestinians; but he himself does not hold with them.)
Both Rabh and Samuel hold: A verbal loan is not collectible—neither from heirs nor from buyers; as, biblically, estates are not mortgaged on any loan. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both hold: They are mortgaged, and therefore a loan is collectible—whether from heirs or from buyers. Said R. Papa: The Halakha prevails that a verbal loan is collectible from heirs, for the purpose of not closing the door to borrowers; but is not collectible from buyers, who could not know of the existence of such a debt. "If A holds a writing from unencumbered estates," etc. Rabba b. Nathan questioned R. Johanan: How is it if this writing was approved by the court? And he answered: Even then, the same is the case. Rami b. Hama objected from a Mishna in Tract Gittin, in which it is stated that, according to R. Elazar, if such a document, without witnesses, was given to the lender in the presence of witnesses, he may collect from encumbered estates? The case is different, as the writing was with the intention of transferring it in the presence of witnesses; it is the same as if the witnesses had signed the document. "A surety . . . after the signatures," etc. Said Rabh: If the surety signed before the signatures, it may be collected from encumbered estates; and if after, from unencumbered estates only. But at some other time the same Rabh said: Even if he had signed his name before the signatures, it is to be collected from free estates only. Hence Rabh contradicts himself.
This presents no difficulty, as his statement, from free estates only, speaks of when the surety wrote, e.g., "B is a surety," which does not make it clear for whom he is a surety; and the witnesses who signed their names after him, perhaps they have nothing to do with the surety. And his statement that it is collectible from encumbered estates speaks of when there was written after the text, explaining the loan, "And so and so is the surety," to which the approval was by the witnesses signed after him. And the same was said by R. Johanan. "Such a case came before R. Ishmael," etc. Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: Although R. Ishmael praised Ben Nanas, the Halakha prevails with R. Ishmael.

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if such a case as illustrated by Ben Nanas occurs? Come and hear what R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: Even then, R. Ishmael differs with him. But with whom, then, does the Halakha prevail? Come and hear what Rabbin, when he came from Palestine, said in the name of Johanan: R. Ishmael differs with Ben Nanas even in the case illustrated by him, and the Halakha prevails also in this case with R. Ishmael. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: However, if the man who said, "Leave him alone, I will pay," fulfils his promise with the ceremony of a sudarium, he is mortgaged. Infer from this that in case of all other sureties no sudarium is necessary; and this differs with R. Na'hman, who said: Only a surety, in the presence of the court, is free from a sudarium; but all others are not. The Halakha, however, prevails that with a surety who was present when the money was delivered, a sudarium is not needed, but after the delivery it is needed. With a surety appointed by the court it is not needed, as, because of his pleasure at the court choosing him to be the surety, he makes up his mind to pay, and is mortgaged.

END OF TRACT BABA BATHRA AND OF VOL. VI. (XIV.)

Footnotes

358:1 All documents were called by the Mishna "get." This term was afterwards applied to a bill of divorce. The Gemara, however, uses the term "shtar" for documents.

358:2 In ancient times they used to write documents as follows: The scribe wrote one line, then left a blank the size of the line written, and folded it over and sewed it; then he wrote on top of the folding, and again left a blank of the same size, and folded it over the writing and sewed again, and so on; so that after the document was complete the signatures of the witnesses remained on the outside.

360:1 The text continues to discuss the different kinds of forgery possible, and gives illustrations so complicated that it would be difficult for the reader to get any idea of them. They are unimportant, and therefore omitted.

362:1 Here also are illustrations of Hebrew words, which it would be difficult for the English reader to understand, and are therefore omitted.

362:2 We have omitted the discussion in the Gemara as to the reasons of Rabh and Johanan about the risk of forgery, with many illustrations of great complication, which would hardly be understood if translated, and are also of no importance.

367:1 In the Bible there are many examples of names which consist of only two letters.

368:1 "Thlath" means three, "thlathin" thirty; and so also is it with all the words from three to ten: "arba" means four, and with the suffix "in" it means forty; "eser" means ten, "eserin" means twenty.

372:1 This term is explained in previous volumes in several places.

375:1 The commentators give illustrations of how such a bargain might be made, so involved and far-fetched that we spare the reader their infliction.

Book 8: Tract Sanhedrin (Vols. XV and XVI)

A WORD TO THE READER.

MANY books have been written by the scientists of the last century, and many lengthy articles have appeared in the various periodicals, concerning the Jewish high court, and this tract, which, if extracts were given, would make an entire bulky volume in itself. However, we deem it best to give the reader the information where these are to be found. The time during which the Sanhedrin were established is the main topic of their discussions. Zunz, for instance, gives the time from King Simeon of the Maccabees. Jost states that it was from the period of Hyrcan. And an anonymous writer in "Israelitische Annalen," Vol. I., pp. 108-134, maintains that they were established at an exceedingly earlier date, and that the Greek name "Sanhedrin" was changed during the time of the second Temple. At all events, Schürer, in his "Jüdische Geschichte," wrote a lengthy article on this subject, in Vol II., from p. 188 to 240 (where there is to be found a bibliography of the subject), concluding with his opinion that the high court began at an earlier time. Z. Frankel, too, in his article, "Der gerichtliche Beweis," Berlin, 1848, claims that the establishment of the jury in the entire civilized world was taken from the Sanhedrin. All this was written in Germany. An English book by Rabbi Mendelsohn also treats upon this topic. We, too, will have something to say concerning this in our forthcoming "History of the Talmud." We are inclined, in many respects, however, to accept the opinion of Reifmann, given in his Hebrew book, "Sanhedrin," Warsaw, 1888. He says that courts were even established in the days of Noah, the judges of which were Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Amram, continuing until Moses. He, in turn, established a court of seventy judges, and from that time the Supreme High Court was of that number (seventy-one, including Moses), and thereafter supreme courts of twenty-three, and courts of three, were established at all times, and wherever the Jews resided; the sages of the second Temple naming these courts "great" and "small" Sanhedrin. Reifmann's reasons are gathered from the post-biblical literature, and are based upon the Bible. According to him, the three judges had to decide civil cases only, the twenty-three, criminals and capital punishments, and the seventy-one were a political body, who were to decide also the great events; as, for instance, an entire tribe, or the princes and heads of tribes. We, however, would say that the court of three had also to decide criminal cases to which capital punishment did not apply. So it seems to us, from this tract, p. 212 of the Talmud, that a stubborn and rebellious son was punished with stripes by a court of three, before being finally sentenced to death by the court of twenty-three.

Reifmann also quotes from "Midrash Aggada," that before prophesying a prophet was obliged to get permission from the Sanhedrin, who previously tried him whether he was a true prophet or not We may here add that this contradicts the Talmud, for it says that to recognize a true prophet was by demanding a sign, p. 260, and if the prophet would have been obliged to get the permission of the Sanhedrin, this would certainly be mentioned in the Talmud instead.

This is as much as we have to say in regard to the time and name, and that the Sanhedrin ceased about forty years previous to the destruction of the Temple. At the same time we would call the attention of the readers to the fact that this tract distinguishes itself from all others in Halakha as well as in Haggada. Aside from the many strange explanations of the verses of Scripture, which are not used in other extracts, it says plainly that there are numerous laws written in the Pentateuch which have never occurred, and never will occur, but that they were written merely for study. The Haggada also distinguishes in taking the power to judge upon the Bible personages if they are to have a share in the world to come, and also in criticism of their acts, even of the most holy of them. This is self-evident that the later commentaries, and especially the cabbalists, interpreted the Haggada after their ways. We, however, have translated it almost literally, with an effort to make it in some respects intelligible to the general reader, and have also added footnotes, where we deemed it necessary. And we may say that the real student will find much pleasure if he will devote his special attention to this tract.

For this purpose we have made from this celebrated tract a double volume, as we deem it will please the readers and the students, and will also equalize the size of the volumes.

M. L. R.
September 16, 1902.

CONTENTS.

A WORD TO THE READER p. v

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS p. xi

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. WHICH ARE CONSIDERED CIVIL AND WHICH CRIMINAL. HOW MANY ARE NEEDED TO THE INTERCALATION OF A YEAR AND OF MONTHS; TO APPRAISE CONSECRATED REAL ESTATE AS WELL AS MOVABLE PROPERTIES; AND IF AMONG THE APPRAISERS MUST BE PRIESTS, AND IF SO HOW MANY. THE NUMBER OF PERSONS NEEDED TO ADD TO THE CITY FROM THE SUBURBS OF JERUSALEM. WHAT MAJORITY IS NEEDED TO ACCUSE AND WHAT TO ACQUIT. HOW MANY PEOPLE MUST BE IN A CITY THAT A COURT OF TWENTY-THREE JUDGES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED 1

CHAPTER II.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE HIGH-PRIEST: IF HE MAY JUDGE AND BE JUDGED, BE A WITNESS AND BE WITNESSED AGAINST; THE LAWS REGARDING A DEATH OCCURRING IN HIS FAMILY AND THE CUSTOM OF THE CONDOLENCE. THE SAME RULES CONCERNING A KING. REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT A KING MAY AND MAY NOT ALLOW HIMSELF: HOW MANY WIVES AND HOW MANY STABLES FOR HORSES HE MAY HAVE; HOW HE MUST BE RESPECTED AND FEARED BY HIS PEOPLE, ETC. 43

CHAPTER III.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES AND WITNESSES WHO MAY DECIDE UPON STRICT LAW AND WHO IN ARBITRATION. WHEN A REJECTION AGAINST JUDGES AND WITNESSES MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE PLACE. OF RELATIVES THAT ARE DISQUALIFIED AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT. HOW THE WITNESSES SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN CIVIL CASES. UNTIL WHAT TIME NEW EVIDENCE MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT A DECISION RENDERED 64

CHAPTER IV.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING EXAMINATIONS AND CROSS-EXAMINATIONS OF WITNESSES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. THE DIFFERENCE IN JUDGING AND IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE SANHEDRIN WERE SEATED. HOW MANY RECORDING SCRIBES WERE NEEDED. HOW JUDGES WERE ADDED IF NEEDED, AND FROM WHAT PEOPLE. HOW WITNESSES SHOULD BE FRIGHTENED IN CRIMINAL CASES. THE REASON WHY ADAM THE FIRST WAS CREATED SINGLY. 97

CHAPTER V.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING PRELIMINARY QUERIES, EXAMINATION, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL CASES. WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A CONTRADICTION OF WITNESSES. HOW IS IT IF A DISCIPLE NOT BELONGING TO THE JUDGES SAYS: "I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO HIS ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE"? BY WHAT MAJORITY ONE MAY BE ACQUITTED AND BY WHAT ACCUSED; AND TO WHAT NUMBER JUDGES MAY BE ADDED, IF THEY CANNOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION 115

CHAPTER VI.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE EXECUTION BY STONING AND THE MANNER OF HERALDING. HOW THE CRIMINAL WAS URGED TO CONFESS BEFORE DEATH. THE STRIPPING OFF BEFORE DEATH OF THE DRESS OF A MALE AND OF A FEMALE. THE HANGING AFTER STONING, AND HOW IT WAS PERFORMED 126

CHAPTER VII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE FOUR KINDS OF DEATH PRESCRIBED IN THE SCRIPTURE, AND HOW THEY OUGHT TO BE EXECUTED. THE ENUMERATION OF THOSE WHO COME UNDER THE CATEGORY OF STONING. HOW THE EXAMINATION CONCERNING BLASPHEMY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. CONCERNING THOSE WHO TRANSFER THEIR CHILDREN TO MOLECH; FAMILIAR SPIRITS, ETC. CONCERNING CURSING FATHER AND MOTHER, SEDUCERS AND MISLEADERS, ETC. 149

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. AT WHAT AGE AND WHAT HAS HE TO DO TO BE CHARGED AS SUCH? HOW IS IT IF, e.g., HIS FATHER CONDEMNS HIM, BUT NOT HIS MOTHER, OR vice versa. IF ONE OF HIS PARENTS WERE LAME OR BLIND, ETC. IF HE RUNS AWAY BEFORE THE DECISION WAS RENDERED. CONCERNING BURGLARY AND IF A BURGLAR DESERVES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, MUST PAY THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY BREAKING IN 201

CHAPTER IX.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THOSE TO WHOM BURNING AND THOSE TO WHOM SLAYING APPLIES. WHO IS CONSIDERED A MURDERER DESERVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND WHO IS TO BE EXILED. THOSE WHO RECOVERED AFTER THEY WERE DIAGNOSED TO DIE; KILLING SOME OTHER ONE INSTEAD OF THOSE WHOM HE HAD INTENDED 222

CHAPTER X.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THOSE TO WHOM CHOKING APPLIES. CONCERNING A REBELLING JUDGE; WHAT SHALL BE HIS CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS TO BE EXECUTED; AT WHICH PLACE AND WITH WHICH KIND OF DEATH. AND CONCERNING A FALSE PROPHET 245

CHAPTER XI.

THE HAGGADIC PART ABOUT RESURRECTION; SHARES IN THE WORLD TO COME; AND ABOUT THE MESSIAH, ETC. 265

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

OF

TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL).

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA I. To which cases judges are needed to decide, and to which commoners; which three, five, twenty-three, and seventy-one. The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one, and the Small of twenty-three. How many a city should contain, that it should be fit for a supreme council. If one were known to the majority of the people as an expert, he alone might decide civil cases. A permission from the Exilarch holds good for the whole country (of Babylon and also for Palestine); from the Prince in Palestine, for the whole of Palestine and Syria only: he may teach the law, decide civil cases, and may also decide upon the blemishes of first-born animals. He (a priest) saw a divorced woman and married her, and with this he annulled his priesthood. He erred in his opinion—e.g., there were two, Tanaim and two Amoraim who differed in a case, and he decided the case according to one. There are three Tanaim who differ concerning arbitration. When the decision is already given in accordance with the strict law, an arbitration cannot take place. May or may not a judge say, "I do not want to decide this case"? and under what circumstances? Is mediation a meritorious act, or is it only permitted? There were many who used to say maxims of morality, and Samuel found that they were only repetitions of verses in the Scriptures. "Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister," means, if the thing is certain to you as that it is prohibited for you to marry your sister, then you may say it; but not otherwise. If one appoints a judge who is not fit to be such, he is considered as if he were to plant a grove in Israel. The court shall not listen to the claims of one party in the absence of the other (in civil cases). "You shall judge righteously" means, you shall deliberate the case carefully, and make it just in your mind, and only thereafter may you give your decision: "For the judgment belongeth to God." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "It is the least for the wicked to take away money from one and give it to another illegally," etc. Is warning needed to a scholar? Where is the hint that collusive witnesses are to be punished with stripes? Punishment of stripes is not applied to those who do no manual labor. The numbers three, five, and seven—to what have they a similarity?

A year must not be intercalated with one month, except by them who are invited for it by the Nashi. Since the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—the Holy Spirit has left Israel, etc. A leap year should not be made because of the kids, lambs, etc. For the following three things a leap year is made: Because of the late arrival of Spring, etc. A leap year must not be made in the years of famine, The year must not be intercalary before Rosh Hashana. A leap year must not be made in one year for the next. No appointment of a leap year must be because of defilement. If not for Ben Baba, the law of fines would be forgotten from Israel. The legend how Jehudah b. Baba supplied the degree of Rabbi to five (six) elders, and by this act he caused the oral law not to be forgotten from Israel. The custom of giving degrees must not be used out of Palestine. What is to be considered second tithe, of which the value is not known? Rotten fruit, etc. "Every great matter," means the matter of a great man. By the whole tribe, is meant the head of it. The legend how a battle was decided by King David. Whence do we know that it is a duty to appoint judges to each tribe? etc. The legend of Eldad and Medad, and what their prophecy was. How Moses selected the seventy elders from each tribe, and also the payment of the first-born who were not redeemed by Levites. Sentence of guilt must be by a majority of two. If all persons of a Sanhedrin are accusing, the defendant becomes free. How so? In a city in which the following ten things do not exist it is not advisable for a scholar to reside. and they are, etc. Of rulers of thousands were six hundred; of hundreds, six thousand; of fifties, twelve thousand; of tens, sixty thousand—hence the total number of the officers in Israel was seventy-eight thousand and six hundred. 1-42

CHAPTER II.
MISHNAS I. AND II. The high-priest may judge and be a witness; be judged and witnessed against. A king must not judge, and is not judged; must not be a witness, nor witnessed against. There are cases from which one may withdraw himself, and there are others from which he may not. How so? A king must not be a member of the Sanhedrin; nor he and a high-priest engage in discussion about a leap year. The legends of three pasturers who had a discussion about the month Adar, which the rabbis took as a support to establish a leap year. When he (high-priest) goes in the row to condole with others, his vice and the ex-high-priest are placed at his right, etc. Formerly the custom was for the mourners to stand, and the people to pass by, etc. A row is not less than ten persons, not counting the mourners. All agree that if a king has relinquished his honor, it is not relinquished. How could David marry two sisters while they were both living? The strength of Joseph was moderation on the part of Boas, and the strength of the latter was moderation on the part of Palti, etc., etc. If a death occurs in the house of the king, he must not leave the gate of the palace, 43-52 MISHNAS III. TO VI. Three positive commandments was Israel commanded when they entered Palestine, viz., they should appoint a king, etc. The treasures of kings which are plundered in time of war belong to the king, only. He (the king) must not marry more than eighteen wives. Even one wife, should she be liable to turn his heart away, he must not marry her. The number eighteen mentioned in the Mishna—whence is it deduced? Four hundred children were born to David by the handsome women whom he took captive (i.e., those mentioned in Deut. xxi. 11). Only a son may stay alone with his mother, but it is not allowed for any one besides to stay alone with a married woman. He (the king) must not acquire many horses, neither more gold and silver than to pay the military. He shall not acquire many horses, and lest one say, "Even those which are needed for his chariots," etc. He shall not acquire much gold and silver—lest one say, "Not even sufficient for paying the military," etc. Why does not the Scripture explain the reason of its law? Because in two verses it was so done, and the greatest men of a generation stumbled because of them, etc. Ezra was wrothy that the Torah should be given through him, if Moses had not preceded him. In the very beginning the Torah was given to Israel in Assyrian characters, etc. (see footnote,  1). One must not ride on his—the king's—horse, etc. Come and see how hard is divorce in the eyes of the sages! He who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears on account of him. The king must cut his hair every day, a high-priest every eve of Sabbath, and a commoner priest every thirty days, 52-63

CHAPTER III.

MISHNAS I. TO III. Civil cases by three: one party may select one, and so the other, and both one more. Pure-minded people of Jerusalem used not to sign a document unless, they were aware who was the other who was to sign it, and also would not sit down to judge unless they were aware who was to be their colleague, etc. One has no right to reject a judge who was appointed by the majority. There is a rule that the testimony of one who is interested in a case is not to be taken into consideration. Proof is needed to each claim, even if it is not so important that it could injure the case. He who saw Resh Lakish in the college saw one uprooting hills and crushing them, and he who saw R. Mair saw one uprooting mountains and crushing them. Gamblers (habitual dice-players) and usurers, and those who play with flying doves, are disqualified to be witnesses.

What crime is there in dice-playing? Because they do not occupy themselves with the welfare of the world. One who borrows to pay usurers is also disqualified. Gamblers are counted those who play with dice; and not only with dice, but even with the shells of nuts or pomegranates. Among those who play with doves—other animals are also meant. There was added to the disqualified witnesses robbers and forcers (i.e., those who take things by force, although they pay the value for them). There was secondly added to that category, collectors of duty and contractors of the government.

The father of R. Zera was a collector for thirteen years, etc. One's thought for his maintenance injures him in his study of the law, etc. They who accept charity from idolaters are disqualified to be witnesses, provided they do so publicly, etc. One who is wicked in money matters only is disqualified to witness, but not one wicked in heavenly matters. Bar Hama had slain a man, and the Exilarch told Aba b. Jacob to investigate the case; and if he really slew the man they should make the murderers blind, etc., 64-79 MISHNAS IV. TO VI.

The following are counted relatives who may not be witnesses: Brothers, brothers of father or mother, brothers-in-law, etc. "My father's brother shall not witness in my cases; he, his son, and his son-in law." "The brother of my mother-in-law cannot be a witness for me." The husband of one's sister, also the husband of the sister of one's father and the husband of the sister of one's mother, their sons and their sons-in-law, are also excluded from being witnesses. A stepfather . . . his son-in-law, etc. There was a deed of gift which was signed by two brothers-in -law—i.e., two husbands of two sisters, etc. How were the witnesses examined? They were brought into separate chambers, etc. How were the witnesses frightened?

There was one who had hidden witnesses under the curtains of his bed, and he said to his debtor: "Have I a mana with you?" etc. There was one who was named by the people "the man who has against him a whole kab of promissory notes." There was another who was named "the mouse who lies on dinars," etc. There was a document of confession in which it was not written: "He (the debtor) has said to us, 'Write a document, sign, and give it him' (the creditor)," etc. "I have seen your deceased father hide money in a certain place, saying, 'This belongs to so-and so,'" etc. How is the judgment to be written? So was the custom of the pure-minded in Jerusalem. They let parties enter, listened to their claims, and thereafter let the witnesses enter, listened to their testimony, then told all of them to go out, etc. This is a rule for every case in which is mentioned "a witness," that it means two.

Simeon b. Alyaqim was anxious that the degree of Rabbi should be granted to Jose b. Hanina, etc., etc. A confession after a confession, or a confession after a loan, may be conjoined; but a loan after a loan, or a loan after a confession, do not join (p. 91). Witnesses in civil cases who contradict one another in unimportant investigations are to be considered. So long as the defendant brings evidence to his advantage, the decision may be nullified by the court. However, if after he had said, "I have no witnesses," etc. What happened to R. Na'hman with a young man whom he made liable. If one who is summoning a party who says, "I want my case brought before the assembly of sages," etc., he maybe compelled to try his case in that city. In Babylon they are not allowed to try cases of fine, 79-96

CHAPTER IV.
MISHNAS I. TO III. Cases coming before the court, the witnesses thereof must be examined and investigated. What difference is there between civil and criminal? The following from (a) to (g). Biblically there is no difference between civil and criminal cases concerning investigations. But why is it enacted that civil cases do not need investigation? "Justice, only justice, shalt thou pursue," means that one shall follow to the city of a celebrated judge, etc. What has the court first to say to the advantage of the defense in criminal cases? If one has tried a case, and made liable him who is not, or vice versa, etc. Tudus the physician testified that not one cow or one swine was sent from Alexandria in Egypt of which the womb was not removed. If one was found guilty by the court, and thereafter one come, saving: "I know a defense for him, etc, So long as the fire in the stove burns, cut off all that you want to roast, and roast it. (i.e., when you are studying a thing, consider it thoroughly to prevent questions.) All who take part in the discussion may explain their reasons, until one of the accusers shall yield to one of the defenders. In the neighborhood of R. Johanan there was one who was blind who used to judge cases, etc. From the time of Moses until the time of Rabbi, we do not find one man who was unique in the possession of wisdom, riches, and glory, etc. One may teach his disciple, and at the same time may judge in association with him in criminal cases. In ten things civil cases differ from criminal cases. All are competent to judge civil cases. But not all of them are competent to judge criminal cases. The Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle in order that they could see each other, etc. The Torah has testified that we are such a kind of people that even a fence of lilies is sufficient for us, and will never be broken. How were the witnesses awestruck in criminal cases? A human being stamps many coins with one stamp, and all of them are alike; but the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the first, and, nevertheless, not one of them is like the other, Although the court of the Sanhedrin existed no longer, the punishment of the four kinds of death prescribed in the Scripture was not abolished by Heaven. Adam the first was created singly, and why? That disbelievers should not say there were many Creators in heaven, etc. In three things one is different from his neighbor—in voice, etc., 97-114

CHAPTER V.

MISHNA I. The court used to examine the witnesses with seven inquiries, etc. Should one of the witnesses say, "I have something to say in behalf of the defendant," or one of the disciples, I have something to say to the disadvantage of the defendant," the court silences him. Why not say that eight queries are necessary in the examination? Viz., how many minutes are there in the hour? Do you recognize this man as the murderer of him who was slain? Was he a heathen or an Israelite? Have you warned him? Did he accept the warning? etc. Whence do we deduce that the warning is prescribed biblically? Witnesses who testified in case of a betrothed woman, if they be found collusive, are not to be put to death. What is the difference between examination? etc. Until what time may the benediction of the moon be pronounced? If Israel should have only the meritorious act of receiving the glory of their heavenly Father once a month, it would be sufficient. They do not drink wine. And why not? In civil cases the court may say: The case becomes old, etc., 115-125

CHAPTER VI.
MISHNAS I. TO IV. If the conclusion was to condemn, the guilty one was taken out immediately to be stoned. A herald goes before him, heralding: So and so, etc. One stands with a flag. I doubt who had to bear the cost of the flag and horse mentioned in the Mishna, etc. If one of the disciples said, "I have something to say in behalf of the defendant," and thereafter he became dumb? He who is modest, the verse considers him as if he should sacrifice all the sacrifices mentioned in the Scripture. When he (the guilty) was far from the place of execution—a distance of ten ells—he was told to confess. Why are the words "unto us and to our children," and the Ayin of the "ad" pointed? The Lord said to Joshua: Thou thyself hast caused all the evils, because thou didst excommunicate the goods of Jericho. One should always proceed with prayer before trouble comes. It happened with one who was going to be executed, that he said: If I am guilty of this crime, my death shall not atone for all my sins. See footnote,  1, concerning the legend of Simeon b. S. of the eighty witches hung by him. A male was stoned while naked, but not a female. The stoning place was two heights of a man, etc. If before the execution the hands of the witnesses were cut off, he becomes free from death. "The avenger of the blood himself shall slay." Infer from this that it is a meritorious act for the avenger to do so himself, 126-139 MISHNAS V. AND VI. All who are stoned are also hanged. A male, but not a female. Two must not be judged on the same day, provided there are two kinds of death. How was one hanged? The beam was put in the earth, etc. King Sabur questioned R. Hama: Whence do you deduce from the Torah that one must be buried? etc. Is the burying because the corpse shall become disgraced if not buried, or is it because of atonement? Is the lamentation an honor for the living or for the deceased? And what is the difference? etc. A wicked person must not be buried with an upright one. All the curses with which David cursed Joab fell on the descendants of David. They were [II Sam. iii. 29], etc. If not for Joab, David would not have been able to occupy himself with the law, etc., 139-148

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNAS I. TO V. Four kinds of capital punishment are prescribed to the court by the Scriptures. According to R. Simeon, burning is more rigorous than stoning. With her father, burning applies; with her father-in-law, stoning applies. How is this to be understood? Do you come to teach a Halakha which will be used only then when the Messiah will appear? The prescribed punishment of burning was this: The sinner was placed in waste knee-deep. Then placing a twisted scarf of coarse material within a soft one, etc. But why should burning not be inferred from the offerings of the bullocks, which were burned bodily? Nadob said to Abihu: When will the two old men die, and you and I be leaders of Israel?

The prescribed punishment of slaying was thus: He was decapitated, etc. The prescribed punishment of choking was thus: The sinner was placed in waste knee-deep, etc. To the following sinners stoning applies: viz., one who had connection with his mother, etc. "A man" means to exclude a minor. [Lev. xxii.]: "That lieth with his father's wife" means, that there is no difference whether she is his mother or not, 150-164 MISHNAS VI. TO VII. One who had connection with a human male, or with an animal, and also a human female who uncovers herself before a male animal, are punished with stoning. "With an animal" makes no difference whether it was a large or a small one. A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God (Jehovah). "Any man whatsoever," etc., meaning to include the heathen, who are warned of blasphemy.

Ten commandments were commanded to Israel in Marah; seven of them are those which were accepted by the descendants of Noah. For transgression of these commandments a descendant of Noah is put to death, viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. A descendant of Noah may be put to death by the decision of one judge, by the testimony of one witness, etc. Every relationship for which the punishment of the courts of Israel is death, a descendant of Noah is warned of it; but all other relationships, the punishment of which is not death, are permissible to them. He who raises his hand to his neighbor, although he has not as yet struck him, is called wicked. "Flesh in which its life is, which is its blood, shall ye not eat," [Gen. ix. 4] means any member of the animal, while it is still alive.

We do not find any case where what is forbidden to the descendants of Noah should be allowed to the Israelites. An unclean thing never came from heaven. There is no difference if one hears it from the blasphemer himself or from the witness who heard it from the blasphemer—he must rend his garments 164-187 MISHNAS VIII. TO XII. One is considered an idolater who worships it with its proper worship; and even if he only sacrifices, smokes incense, or pours wine, etc. Why not say that from bowing "all kinds of worshipping" is to be inferred?

In our Mishna it is stated: "He who worships idols." There is another Mishna, farther on, which states: He who says: "I will worship," is always considered an idolater, etc. If one worship an idol because he loves it, or because he fears it, etc. Concerning Sabbath it is more rigorous than all the other commandments in one respect, and all other commandments are more rigorous in another respect, etc. There is a tradition: He who conjoins the name of Heaven with something else is to be destroyed. It happened to a female heathen who was very sick an vowed that if she recovered she would worship all the idols which were to be found, etc. If one gives one of his children to Molech, he is not guilty unless he has transferred him to the servants, etc. One is not guilty unless he let him pass in the usual manner. What was that?

A row of bricks were placed for passing, etc. Baal ob (mentioned in the Scripture) is the python that makes the dead speak from his armpit, and Yidoñi means one that makes the dead speak from his mouth. Is not he who queries an "ob" the same who inquires of the dead? Nay! etc. An observer of times is, according to R. Aqiba, he who reckons times and hours, saying: This day is good to go on the road, etc. He who curses his father or mother is not punished with a capital punishment, unless he curse them by the proper name of God, 187-194 MISHNAS XIII. TO XIV. He who sins with a betrothed damsel is not guilty to be stoned, unless she was a maiden betrothed and still in her father's house.

A seducer means one who is himself a commoner—e.g., he says: There is an idol in such and such a place which so and so eats, etc. Concerning all who are liable to capital punishment biblically, it is not allowed to hide witnesses except in this case, etc. A conjurer is liable to be stoned only when he did an act, but not if he dazzled the eyes. The Halakhas of witchcraft are similar to the Halakhas of Sabbath. There are some to which stoning applies, etc. I have seen a rider of a camel who took his sword, cut off the head of the camel, and thereafter rung a bell, and the camel stood up. It was only a dazzling of the eyes. The legend of R. Eliezer with his disciple, "Thou shalt not learn to do," means: "Thou must not learn to do, but thou mayest learn it to understand it for the purposes of deciding cases, 194-200

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNAS I. TO VIII. A stubborn and rebellious son—at what age may he be considered as such? From the time he brings forth two hairs, etc.; but the sages used to speak with delicacy. A minor of nine years and one day is fit to have connection with a woman, and in a case of adultery it is considered. Whence do we know that the first generation produced children at the age of eight? A daughter should be more open to the charges of stubbornness and rebelliousness, etc. But so is the decree of the Scripture—"a son, and not a daughter." He cannot be condemned as a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he eats meat and drinks wine. You shall not look for wine which makes red the faces of the wicked in this world, and makes them pale in the world to come. Thirteen ways are enumerated in the Scripture concerning wine, as in Genesis ix., from 20 to 25.

If he has stolen from his father and consumed on his premises, etc., he is not charged as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he stole from his mother and father. If the father is willing to transfer the case of the son in question to the court, and the mother is not willing, or vice versa, etc. Such a thing neither occurred nor ever will be, and the same is with the case of a misled town, and also with a house of leprosy, and was written only for study. If one hand of his father or mother is missing, or they limp, or are dumb, etc. If he runs away before the decision of condemnation is rendered, etc. The Scripture prefers that be should die innocent, and not be put to death because of his sins.

For the death of the wicked is both a benefit to them and a benefit to the world, etc. In the case of "breaking in" (Ex. xii., 1], for which there is no liability if one is killed by a detector, one is also punished because of his future crimes, etc. A burglar who broke in and succeeded in taking some utensils and escaped is free from paying. Because he acquired title to them by his blood. It happened that rams were stolen from Rabha by burglary and thereafter they were returned to him; he would not accept them because the above decision came from the mouth of Rabh, etc., 201-216 MISHNA IX.

The following may be killed for self-protection: He who pursues one to kill him, and he who pursueth a betrothed damsel, etc. According to the rabbis the Scripture cares for the violation of her honor, and as she also cares for it, though without life-sacrifice, she must be saved even by killing her pursuers, etc. One who intends to worship idols may be killed (if there is an impossibility of preventing his crime otherwise.) "In the city of Luda it was voted and resolved that if one were compelled, under threat of being killed, to commit any one of all the crimes which are mentioned in the Torah, he might commit it and not be killed, except idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed. Is a descendant of Noah commanded to sanctify, the Holy Name, or not? It happened to one that he saw a woman and became sick through his infatuation, etc,. 216-221

CHAPTER IX.
MISHNAS I. TO VI. Punishment of burning applies to one man who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and to a daughter of a priest, etc. Punishment with the sword applies to a murderer and to the men of a misled town. If one pressed down a person while he is in water, or in fire, preventing him from coming out, he is guilty, etc. If one bound a person, and he died thereafter of hunger, he is not guilty of a capital crime. If, however, he put him in a sunny place, and he died because of the sun, he is guilty. Ball-players—if one threw a ball with the intention of killing some one, he is to be put to death, and if it was unintentional, he is to be exiled, etc. All agree that if one kills a person whose windpipe and larynx (gullet) are cut or whose skull is fractured, he is free (for it is considered as if he attacked a dead man). If one strikes a person with a stone or with his fists, and he was diagnosed (by the physicians of the court) to die, and thereafter he improved, etc. Capital punishment does not apply to one who intended to kill an animal and killed a man, an idolater and killed an Israelite, etc.; but it does apply to one who intended to strike a person on the loins with an article which was sufficient for this purpose, and he strikes him to death on his heart, etc. A murderer mixed up among others—all of them are free, etc. If it happen that the persons sentenced to deaths of different kinds, and are so mixed that it is not known who comes under this kind of death and who under another, all of them must be executed with the more lenient death. If one committed a crime which deserves two kinds of death, he must be tried for the more rigorous one. Ezek. xviii. must not be taken literally, but "the mountains he eateth not" means that he does not live upon the reward of the meritorious acts done by his parents; "his eyes he lifteth not up to the idols" means that he never walked overbearingly, etc., 222-238 MISHNAS VII. TO IX. He who receives stripes, and relaxes into the same crime, the court takes him to the kyphos. He who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses is taken to the kyphos and is fed on scant bread and water. If one steals a kisvah, or one curses his neighbor, invoking God as a "carver," zealous people (like Pinchas) have a right to strike him when caught in the act. What is this punishment if there were no zealous men? Answer to this, it happened that it was read before R. Kahan in a dream, etc. In a case where there is a violation of the Holy Name the honor of the master must not be considered. "If a priest performs the service while he is defiled," etc. "If a common Israelite served in the Temple," etc., 238-244

CHAPTER X.
MISHNAS I. TO VI. Choking applies to him who strikes his father or mother, to him who steals a living soul, etc. A son is not guilty of a capital crime unless he wounds his father by striking him. Cursing is in one respect more rigorous than striking, as he is guilty even if he did it after his lather's death. If one steals a person, he is not guilty of a capital crime unless he brings him upon his own premises. There is no difference whether he stole a male or a female, a proselyte, or a bondsman, or a minor, etc. R. Jehudah says that there is no disgrace for slaves. "Thou shalt not steal," in the third commandment, means human beings. [Lev. xix., ii]: "Ye shalt not steal," meaning money. A judge rebelling against the Great Sanhedrin. There were in Jerusalem three courts, etc. In case a judge in the country had a dispute with his colleagues, they came to the first court. If this court were able to decide it traditionally they rendered their decision; and if not, all of them came to the Great Sanhedrin, which was in the Temple treasury, etc. A disciple who is not a judge who decides for practice against the Great Sanhedrin, is not culpable. A rebelling judge is not guilty unless he gave his decision in a matter to which, if done intentionally, korath applies, etc. The punishment of him who transgresses the decision of the scribes is more rigorous than for that which is plainly written in the Scriptures. The judge in question was not put to death by the court of his own city, etc., but was brought to the Supreme Council, in Jerusalem, etc. A false prophet who is to be sentenced by the court is only he who prophesies what he (personally) has not heard and what he was not told at all, etc. He who prophesied in the name of an idol, saying, "So and so was said by such an idol," although it corresponds exactly with the Hebrew law, he is punished by choking. See all illustrations, pp. 258-260. In every case mentioned in the Torah, if a true prophet commands you to transgress, you may listen, except as to idolatry, 245-261

CHAPTER XI.

MISHNA I. All Israel has a share in the world to come. The following have no share in the world to come: He who says, etc. Three kings and four commoners have no share in the world to come etc. Is he who does not believe that the resurrection is hinted at in the Torah such a criminal that he loses his share in the world to come? Where is the resurrection hinted at in the Torah? etc. From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. See 267, also footnote. Queen Cleopatra questioned R. Mair thus: When they shall be restored, will they be naked. or dressed? Cæsar questioned Rabbon Gamaliel: You say that the dead will be restored. Does not the corpse become dust? etc. The living die—should the dead come to life? That which has not existed at all comes to life—shall those who had life once not come to life again?

The legend of Gebiah b. Pessisa who advocated Israel before Alexander of Macedonia, etc. (Pp. 268, 270.) Antoninus said to Rabbi: The body and soul of a human may free themselves on the Day of judgment by Heaven. How so? Why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west? At what time does the soul come into the body? At what time does the evil spirit reach man? Lest one say that the verse just cited means, I make one die and another, one shall I bring to life, therefore it reads, "I wound and I cure." As wounding and curing apply to one person only, etc. He who hesitates in declaring a Halakha to a disciple, even the embryos in the entrails of their mothers denounce him. Great is wisdom, as it was placed between two divine names. Exiles atone for everything. The upright who will be restored in the future will never return to dust.

"What will they do at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, shall renew His world?" etc. Concerning the dead whom Ezekiel restored, the different opinions of Tannaim and Amoriam, if it was a reality or a parable only. (p. 278.) Six miracles occurred on the day Nebuchadnezzar threw Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah into the caldron. Even at the time of danger one shall not change the dress belonging to his dignity. Where was Daniel at the time that they were thrown into the caldron? The legend of Achab and Zedkiyahu with the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. According to the advice of three, Daniel went away before the affair of Chananyah, etc, Concerning the six barleys which Boaz gave to Ruth. All that is written in the book of Ezra was said by Nehemiah b. Chackhalyah. Why then was it not named after him? The angel who rules the souls after their departure from this world is named Dumah.

Hiskiah, who has eight names, shall take revenge on Sanherib, who also has eight names. Hiskiah's (king of Judah) whole meal consisted of a litter of herbs. Pharaoh, who personally blasphemed, was also punished by Heaven. Sanherib, who blasphemed through a messenger, was also punished through a messenger. Ten trips had the wicked made on that day, etc., as it reads [II Kings, x. 28 to 32]. There was one day more appointed for the punishment of the iniquity of Nob. And the astrologers told Sanherib, etc. If the judgment is postponed over one night there is hope that it will be abolished entirely. The legend how Abishai saved King David from Yishbi's hand at Nob. Sanherib, when he came to attack, brought with him forty-five thousand princes with their concubines in golden carriages, etc. See pages 293-296, the many legends concerning Sanherib.

Be careful with the children of the Gentiles, as it happens very often wisdom emanates from them. That the day on which Achaz died consisted of only two hours. And when Heskiah became sick and thereafter recovered, the Holy One returned the ten hours to that day, etc.

Three hundred mules loaded with iron saws which cut iron were given to Nebusaradan by Nebuchadnezzar while going to attack Jerusalem. Nebusaradan was a true proselyte, from the descendants of Sissera were such who studied the law in Jerusalem, and from the descendants of Sanherib were such who taught the Torah among a majority of Israelites, etc. Have you heard when the fallen son will come? etc. In his Sabbatic period when the son of David will appear in the first year there will be fulfilled, etc. The generation in which the son of David will come, young men will make pale the faces of the old, etc. The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which was a chaos, etc. There are no less than thirty-six upright in every generation who receive the appearance of the Shekinah. All the appointed times for the appearance of the Messiah have already ceased.

And it depends only on repentance and good deeds. Jerusalem will not be redeemed but by charity. What the Messiah told to Jehoshua ben Levi: Ben David will not arrive until Rome shall have dominated, etc. Discussion concerning the name of the Messiah. The cock said to the bat, I look out for the light because the light is mine (I see it), but for what purpose do you wait for it? The days of the Messiah will be as from the day of creation until now. "He hath despised the word of God," means he who learned the Torah but does not teach it. He who learned the Torah and does not repeat it is similar to him who sows but does not harvest, etc. Has not Moses written something better than: And Lotan's sister was Thimna, etc.? Who is meant by the term epicurian? What good have the rabbis done for us?

They have never permitted us to eat a crow, and they have not prohibited us to eat a dove, etc. The measure with which man measures will be measured out to him—i.e., as a man deals he will be dealt with. A good woman is a good gift; she may be given to one who fears God. A bad woman is leprosy to her husband, etc. One may ask the fortune tellers who tell fortunes by certain oils or eggs. But it is not advisable to do so, because they often lie. Support me, and I will bear the statement of Aqiba, my disciple, who says: "Pleased are chastisements," etc. Three men (biblical personages) came with indirectness, etc. What means, "and he lifted up his hands"? He took off his phylacteries in his presence. (See footnote, page  1.) The legends concerning Jeroboam, pp. 322-325. King Menashe appears to R. Ashi in a dream.

R. Abuhu used to lecture about the three kings and became sick, etc. Why was Achab rewarded by the prolongation of his kingdom for twenty-two years? Because he was liberal with his money and assisted many scholars from his estate; half his sins were atoned. Four sects will not receive the glory of the Shekhina, viz., scorners, liars, hypocrites, and slanderers. Achaz abolished the worship and sealed the Torah, etc. The angels wanted to put Michah aside, but the Lord, however, said leave him alone because his house is open for travellers. Great are entertainments, for its refusal estranged two tribes from Israel, etc. Why does not the Mishna count Achaz and Amon among those who have no share? etc. Explanation to verses of Lamentation, pp. 334 to 337.

The Scripture is particular that if any one tells his troubles to his neighbor, he should add: "May it not happen to you." The interpreters of notes said that all of them have a share in the world to come, etc. "A perpetual backsliding." Said Rabh: A victorious answer has the assembly of Israel given to the prophets, etc. Concerning Bil'am, the elders of Moab, and Midian, 265-340 One shall always occupy himself with the Torah and divine commandments, even not for the sake of Heaven, as finally He will come to do so for His own sake, etc. The caution that Achiyah, the Shilonite, gave to Israel is better for them than the blessings that Bil'am has given to them.

"And Israel dwelt in Shittim." Everywhere such an expression is to be found it brings infliction, etc. I saw the record of Bil'am, and it was written therein thirty-three years was Bil'am when he was killed by Pinchas, the murderer. One shall not bring himself into temptation, as David, king of Israel, placed himself in the power of a trial and stumbled. Six months was David afflicted with leprosy; the Shekhina left him, and the Sanhedrin separated themselves from him. Exclusion shall always be with the left hand, and inclusion with the right hand—i.e., if one is compelled to repudiate some one, he shall do it easy as with his left hand, etc. Concerning David's sin with Bath Sheba, 340-350 MISHNA II.

The generation of the flood have no share in the world to come, and are also not judged, etc. Concerning the generation of dispersion, men of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., pp. 350-355: "Noah was just, a perfect man in his generation;" in his generation, but not in others. According to Resh Lakish: In his generation which was wicked, so much the more in other generations. Eliezar, the servant of Abraham, questioned Shem the great, etc. Shem the great questioned Eliezar, etc. "The generation of dispersion." What had they done? What were the crimes of the Sodomites? Concerning the congregation of Korah. One must do all he can not to strengthen a quarrel, etc. "And all . . . on their feet," means the money which makes one stand on his feet. "The generation of the desert has no share," etc, Eliezar, however, said, they have, etc., 350-362 MISHNAS III. TO IV.

The ten tribes who were exiled will not be returned, etc., (pp. 362-363). From what age has a minor a share in the world to come? Your saying is not satisfactory to their creator. Say the reverse, even he who has studied but one law does not belong to the Gehenna. It happened once that I was in Alexandria of Egypt, and I found a certain old Gentile who said to me: Come, and I will show you what my great-grandfathers have done to yours, etc. Concerning Shebna and his society, ref. Isaiah, viii-12. Adam was created on the eve of Sabbath. And why?

The Minnim shall not say, etc. At the time the Lord was about to create a man, He created a cœtus of angels, etc. Every place where the Minnim gave their wrong interpretation the answer of annulling it is to be found in the same place—e.g., p. 370. The discussion with R. Gamaliel and other rabbis, pp. 372-376. "My creatures are sinking into the sea, and ye want to sing?" It reads [Ob. i. 1]: "The vision of the Lord . . . concerning Edom." Obadiah was an Edomite-proselyte. And this is what people say that the handle of the hatchet to cut the forest is taken from the wood of the same forest. [Gen. xxii. 1]: "After these things." After what? After the words of the Satan, etc. According to Levi, after the exchange of the words between Ishmael and Isaac, etc., 362-378 MISHNA IV. The men of a misled town have no share in the world to come (the Halakhas in detail, 378-383). Concerning the key of rain, which is one of the three keys which are not to be transferred to a messenger, Elijah, too, in the days of Achab, etc., 378-385

TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL).

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. WHICH ARE CONSIDERED CIVIL AND WHICH CRIMINAL. HOW MANY ARE NEEDED TO THE INTERCALATION OF A YEAR AND OF MONTHS; TO APPRAISE CONSECRATED REAL ESTATE AS WELL AS MOVABLE PROPERTIES; AND IF AMONG THE APPRAISERS MUST BE PRIESTS, AND IF SO HOW MANY. THE NUMBER OF PERSONS NEEDED TO ADD TO THE CITY FROM THE SUBURBS OF JERUSALEM. WHAT MAJORITY IS NEEDED TO ACCUSE AND WHAT TO ACQUIT. HOW MANY PEOPLE MUST BE IN A CITY THAT A COURT OF TWENTY-THREE JUDGES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED.

MISHNA I: To decide upon the following cases, three persons are needed (the Gemara explains for which common and for which judges): Civil cases, robbery, wounds, whole damages and half, double amount and four and five fold payments; 1 and the same in the case of forcing, seducing, and libel (i.e., an evil name, Deut. xxii. 19). So is the decree of R. Meir.

The sages, however, maintain: In the last case (libel) twenty-three are needed, as this is not a civil case, but a crime which may bring capital punishment. In the case of stripes, three. In the name of R. Ishmael, however, it was said: Twenty-three are needed. To the intercalation of a month and to proclaim a leap year, three. So is the decree of R. Meir.

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains: It begins with three persons and is discussed by five, and the decision is rendered by seven If, however, it was decided by three, their decision holds good.
The elders who had to lay their hands upon sacrifices [Lev. iv. 15], and also in the case of the heifer [Deut. xxi. 3]—according to R. Simeon, three are needed, and according to R. Jehudah, five. At the performance of the ceremony of Halitzah and denial, three; to appraise the value of the plants of the fourth year (which must be redeemed), and the second tithe, of which the value in money is to be appraised, three; to appraise the value of consecrated articles, three; in cases of Arakhin (vows of value, men or articles), if movable property, three—according to R. Jehudah, one of them must be a priest; and if real estate, ten, and one of them a priest; and likewise to appraise the estimated value of men [Lev. xxvii.].

Crimes (which may bring capital punishment), twenty-three; in the case of Lev. xx. 15, twenty-three, as verse 16 reads: "Then shalt thou kill the woman and the beast"; and also in the preceding verse: "The beast also shall ye slay." And the same is the case with the stoning of an ox, of which it reads [Ex. xxi. 29]: "The ox shall be stoned, and the owner . . . be put to death"—which means, as for the death of its owner twenty-three are needed, so also for the stoning of the ox.

The wolf, the lion, the bear, the tiger, the bardls, 1 and the serpent are killed by the judgment of twenty-three. R. Eliezer, however, maintains: Every one who hastens to kill them is rewarded. But R. Aqiba says: Twenty-three are needed.

A whole tribe, or a false prophet, or a high-priest, if they have to be judged for a crime which may bring capital punishment, a court of seventy-one judges is needed. The same number of judges is needed to decide upon battles which are not commanded by the Scriptures, and also for enlarging the city of Jerusalem by annexing its suburbs or free land; and the same is the case if it is necessary to enlarge the courtyard of the Temple. Also, the same number of judges is needed for appointing supreme councils to each tribe. A misled town [Deut. xii. 14] must also be condemned by seventy-one. However, a town which stands on the boundary cannot be condemned; nor three of them at one time at any place, but only one, or two.
The Great (Sanhedrin) consisted of seventy-one, and the small of twenty-three. Whence do we deduce that the great council must be of seventy-one? From [Num. xi. 16]: "Gather unto me seventy men." And add Moses, who was the head of them—hence seventy-one? And whence do we deduce that a small one, must be twenty-three? From [ibid. xxxv. 24 and 25]: "The congregation shall judge"; "And the congregation shall save." 1 We see that one congregation judges, and the other congregation saves-hence there are twenty; as a congregation consists of no less than ten persons, and this is deduced from [ibid. xiv. 27], "To this evil congregation," which was of the ten spies, except Joshua and Caleb. And whence do we deduce that three more are needed? From [Ex. xxiii. 2]: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil"—from which we infer that you shall follow them to do good. But if so, why is it written at the end of the same verse, "Incline after the majority, to wrest judgment"? 2 This means, the inclination to free the man must not be similar to the inclination to condemn; as to condemn a majority of two is needed, while to free, the majority of one suffices. And a court must not consist of an even number, as, if their opinion is halved, no verdict can be established; therefore one more must be added. Hence it is of twenty-three.

How many shall a city contain that it shall be fit for a supreme council? One hundred and twenty families. R. Nehemiah, however, maintains: Two hundred and thirty—so that each of them should be the head of ten families, as we do not find in the Bible rulers of less than ten.

GEMARA: Are not robbery and wounds civil cases? Said R. Abuhu: The Mishna means to explain the term "civil cases" by robbery and wounds; but to the admitting of debts or loans, three judges are not needed. And that so it should be understood, both expressions were needed; as, if it stated civil cases only, it would include loans, etc.; and if the expression "robbery," etc., only, one might also say the same is the case with loans, etc.; and the expression "robbery," etc., is because the main point wherein three judges are prescribed by the Scriptures is in cases of robbery [Ex. xxii. 7]: "Shall the master of the house be brought unto the judges." And concerning wounds, it is the same whether a wound be in one's body or in his pocket (money), and therefore it begins with civil cases, and explains that cases like robbery are meant, and not common ones, etc. But whence are common loans excluded, that they do not need three? Did not R. Abuhu say: If two persons have judged in a matter of civil law, all agree that their judgment is of no value? Therefore we must say that the Mishna means to exclude loans and admission of debts—to exclude from three established judges; but three common men are needed. And the reason is what R. Hanina said: Biblically, investigation is needed of crimes as well as of civil cases. As it is written [Lev. xxiv. 22]: "One manner of judicial law shall ye have." But why was it said that civil cases do not need investigation? In order not to lock the door to borrowers. And Rabha explained this statement as meaning that in two kinds of civil cases—loans, etc.—three common people are needed; but in cases of robbery, etc., three established judges. And R. Aha b. R. Ekha said: Biblically, even one is fit to decide civil cases, as it is written [ibid. xix. 15]: "In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." But the rabbis enacted three, in order to prevent men of the market, who are ignorant of law, to undertake to judge cases. But is it not the same with three common men? Are they not men of the market? If three undertake to judge a case, it is highly probable that at least one of them knows something of law. But if so, let two who should make an error in judging not be responsible? If this should be enacted, then all the market people would undertake to decide upon things.

But what is the difference between Rabha and R. Aha b. R. Ekha (according to both, three common men are needed in cases of common loans, etc.)? They differ in the following, which was said by Samuel: If two commoners have decided upon loan cases, their decision is to be respected; but they are considered an impertinent Beth Din. Rabha does not hold with Samuel, and maintains: Their decision must not be respected. And R Aha holds with him (Samuel). "Whole damages and half," etc. Are not damages the same as wounds (both are to be paid)? Because it has to state half damages, it mentions also whole damages. Are not half damages also the same? The Mishna teaches concerning money which is to be collected according to the strict law and that which is only a fine. But this is correct only as to him who says that half damages are a fine; but as to him who says damages are strict law, what can be said? Because it has to state about the double amount, and four and five fold, which are more than the amount damaged, it mentions also half damages, which is less; and as half is mentioned, it mentions also the whole.

Whence do we deduce that three are needed? From what the rabbis taught. It treats [Ex. xxii. 7 and 8] three times of judges; hence three are needed. So said R. Yachiha. R. Jonathan, however, maintains: The first expression "judges," as the beginning, must not be taken into consideration, as it is needed for itself, and therefore only the two expressions "judges," mentioned after, are to be counted, and the third one is added only because we do not establish a court of an even number (as said above).

The rabbis taught: Civil cases are to be discussed by three. Rabbi, however, said: It is discussed by five, so that the final decision should be by three. But even when there are three, is not the final decision made by two? He means to say, because the conclusion must be of three judges. This explanation was ridiculed by R. Abuhu, saying: On such a theory, then the great Supreme Council ought to be one hundred and forty-one, to the end that the final conclusion should be made by seventy-one; and of a small council there ought to be forty-five, so that the conclusion should be made by twenty-three. And therefore we must say, as the Scripture reads, "Gather unto me seventy," it means the seventy ought to be at the time established. And the same is it in the case above cited, "the congregation shall judge, and the congregation shall save," meaning that at the time of judging there shall be ten. And in the same way are to be interpreted the just cited verses 7 and 8, that the plaintiff has to bring his case before three only. Therefore it may be said that the reason of Rabbi's decision is that because in the first verse is written, "The judges may condemn," as in the last, three is meant, so is it with the word Elohim, mentioned before, which means judges, also two is meant, which makes four; and one is added, so that they shall not be an even number—hence five. The rabbis do not care for this, as the term which is translated, "They may condemn," is written in the singular, and is only read in the plural.

The rabbis taught: Civil cases are decided by three; but if one is known to the majority of the people as an expert, he alone may decide. Said R. Na'hman: e.g., I decide cases alone, without consulting any other rabbis. And so also said R. Hyya.
The schoolmen propounded a question: What does R. Na'hman mean by saying: As, for instance, I? Does he mean similar to him, who knew the laws traditionally and by common sense, and was also so empowered by the Exilarch; but if there was one who was equal to him in wisdom, but had no permission, his decision must not be respected? Or does he mean to say, if one were equal to him in wisdom he might so do without permission? Come and hear: Mar Zutra, the son of R. Na'hman, made an error in one of his decisions, and came to question R. Joseph whether he must make good the error. To which he answered: If he was appointed by the parties as a judge, he had not to pay; if not, he must pay. Infer from this that he who is appointed by the parties may so do even without permission from a higher court.

Said Rabh: If one wants to decide cases, and not be responsible in case of an error, he shall get permission from the Exilarch. And so also said Samuel.

It is certain that here in Babylon a permission from the Exilarch holds good for the whole country; and the same is the case from the Prince in Palestine, for the whole of Palestine and Syria. And it is also certain that if one has a permission from the Exilarch, he may practise in Palestine. As the following Boraitha states: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. These are the exilarchs of Babylon, who rule over Israel with their sceptres. "And a lawgiver," etc., [Gen. xlix, 10] means the grandsons of Hillel, who are teaching the Torah among the majority of the people. The question, however, is, if with the permission of the princes they may judge in Babylon?
Come and hear: Rabba b. Hana had decided a case and erred, and came to question R. Hyya whether he had to pay, To which he answered: If the parties appointed you as a judge, you have nothing to pay; but if not, you have. Now, as Rabba, b. Hana had permission from Palestine, and would be obliged to pay if not appointed, it is to be inferred that the permission from Palestine did not hold good in Babylon. But is it not a fact that Rabba b. R. Huna, when he would quarrel with the house of the Exilarch, used to say: I did not take any permission from you, but from my father, who had it from Rabh, and the latter from R. Hyya, and the latter from Rabbi? This was concerning worldly affairs only. But if the permission of Palestine does not hold good for Babylon, why did Rabba b. Hana take it? For the cities which are situated on the boundary of Palestine. How was the case when he took the permission? When he was about to descend from Palestine to Babylon, R. Hyya said to Rabbi: My brother's son, Rabba b. Hana, descends to Babylon. And Rabbi answered: He may teach the law, decide civil cases, and may also decide upon the blemishes of first-born animals which are prohibited to be slaughtered without a blemish on their body. 1 When Rabh was about to go to Babylon, R. Hyya said to Rabbi: The son of my sister goes to Babylon. Said Rabbi: He may teach the law, decide cases, but not about blemishes of the first-born of animals.

Why did R. Hyya name the first "my brother's son" and the second "my sister's son"? And lest one say that so was the case, did not the master say: Abu, Hana, Shila, Marta, and R. Hyya all were the sons of Abba b. Aha Kharsala of Khaphri? (Hence Rabh, who was Abu's son, was also his brother's son—why did he say "my sister's"?)

Rabh, who was his brother's and also his sister's son (on his mother's side), he named him "the son of my sister"; but Rabba b. Hana was the son of his brother only. And if you wish, it may be said that R. Hyya named him "my sister's," because of his great wisdom. As it is written [Prov. vii. 4]: "Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister." But why should Rabh not be permitted to decide about blemishes? Was he not wise enough for this? Is it not a fact that be was wiser than any of his contemporaries? Or was he not acquainted enough with the kind of blemishes? Did not Rabh say: I have dwelt eighteen months with a pasturer of cattle to learn the blemishes which are temporary, and those which remain forever? This was done that Rabba b. Hana should be respected, as Rabh was highly respected even without that. And if you wish, it might be said that because of the fact itself, that Rabh was an expert concerning blemishes, it was not allowed to him to practise, for the reason that Rabh would allow such blemishes as other experts were not aware of, and people who should see that would act likewise, relying upon Rabh, so that they would finally allow the animal which had a temporary blemish to be slaughtered.
It is said above: "Rabbi said: He shall teach law." To what purpose was this said? Does such a scholar as Rabh need such a permission for teaching? This was said because of the following case: It happened that Rabbi went into a certain place and saw that they kneaded dough without offering a sample for legal purity. And to the question why they did so, their answer was: There was a disciple who taught: Water of Bzein (swamp) does not make articles subject to defilement. In reality, however, the expression was: "Mee Beizim," which means eggs; and they took it for Bzein, and acted accordingly. And therefore it was taught: A decree was enacted that a disciple should not teach unless he had the permission of his master.

Tanchun, the son of R. Ami, happened to be in the city of Hthar, and lectured: One may wet wheat and pound for peeling on Passover. And they said to him: Is not there here R. Mani of the city of Zur, who is a great scholar, and there is a Boraitha: A disciple must not decide a Halakha at the place of his master, unless distant from him three parsas—which distance Israel took when travelling in the desert. And he answered: I was not aware of this.

R. Hyya saw a man standing in a cemetery, and said to him: Are you not the son of so and so, who was a priest? He said: Yea, but my father was one of those who follow their eyes. He saw a divorced woman and married her, and with this he annulled the priesthood.

It is certain, when one takes a permission to give judgment, in part, that it holds good (as so it was with Rabh). But how is it if the permission was conditionally for a certain time? Come and hear what R. Johanan said to R. Shauman: You have our permission until you shall return to us.
The text says: Samuel said: If it was decided by two, their, decision is valid; but they are called an impertinent Beth Din. R. Na'hman repeated this Halakha, and Rabha objected from the following. If two are defending and two are accusing, and one says, "I do not know how to decide," judges must be added; now, if it were as you say, that the decision of two is valid, let, then, the decision of the two hold good? There it is different, as they start with the intention that it should be decided by three. He then objected to him from the following: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Judgment in accordance with the strict law must be decided by three. In an arbitration, however, two suffice; and the strength of the mediation is greater than that of the law; as, if there were two who had decided a case in accordance with the law, although they were appointed by the parties, they (the parties) may retract. But if a mediation was made by the arbitrators, no retraction can take place. And lest one say that the rabbis differ with R. Simeon, did not R. Abuhu say: All agree that a decision passed by two is valueless? And he answered: Do you oppose one man to another (Abuhu may say so, and Samuel otherwise)?

R. Abba objected to R. Abuhu from the following: If one has decided upon a case—freed the guilty, or pronounced guilty the innocent, or decided unclean a thing which is clean, or vice versa, the act is valid and he must pay from his pocket. (Hence we see that even the decision of one is respected.) This Boraitha speaks of when the parties had appointed him for this purpose. But if so, why must he pay? It means, if they tell him: We appoint you to decide this case in accordance with the biblical law.

Said R. Safras to R. Abba: Let us see what was the error. If the error was that he decided against a Mishna, did not R. Shesheth say in the name of R. Assi that he who made an error as to a Mishna might retract from his decision? Hence such a decision is not valid, and he has not to pay from his pocket. Therefore it must be said that it means he erred in his opinion. How is this to be understood? Said R. Papa: E.g., there were two Tanaim and two Amoraim who differed in a case, and it was not decided with whom the Halakha prevailed. However, the world practised according to one party, and he had decided the case according to the other party; and this could be called erring in one's opinion.

Shall we assume that in that case in which Samuel and R. Abuhu differ, the Tanaim of the following Boraitha also differ: Arbitrating must be done by three persons. So is the decree of R. Meir. The sages, however, maintain: One is sufficient? The schoolmen who heard this thought that all agree that arbitration is similar to a strict law, and therefore they assumed that the point of their difference was: R. Meir holds three are needed, and the sages that two suffice. Nay, all agree that a strict law must be decided by three, and the point of their differing is: Whether arbitration must be similar to a strict law according to one it must, and according to the other it must not.
Shall we assume that there are three Tanaim who differ concerning arbitration? One holds: Three are needed; the second, two; and the third, that even one is sufficient. Said R. Aha b. R. Ekha, according to others R. Yema b. Chlamia: He says two are needed holds that even one is sufficient; and only to the end that they should be able to testify to this case as witnesses did he say two. Said R. Ashi: Infer from this that an arbitration does not need a sudarium; for if it should be necessary, why should not the one who maintains that three are needed be satisfied with two and a sudarium? The Halakha, however, prevails: An arbitration needs a sudarium.

The rabbis taught: Even as a strict law needs three, so is it with arbitration. However, when the decision is already given in accordance with the strict law, an arbitration cannot take place. R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, used to say: It is prohibited to mediate, and he who should do so sins; and he who praises the mediators despises the law, as it is written [Ps. x. 3]: "The robber blesseth himself when he hath despised the Lord." But it may be taken as a rule that the strict law shall bore the mountain, as it is written [Deut. i. 17]: "The judgment belongs to God." And so was it said by Moses our master. But Aaron (his brother) loved peace, ran after it, and used to make peace among the people, as it is written [Mal. ii. 6]: "The law of truth was in his mouth, and falsehood was not found on his lips; in peace and equity he walked with me, and many did he turn away from iniquity." And R. Jehoshua b. Karha also said: Arbitration is a meritorious act, as it is written [Zech. viii. 16]: "With truth and the judgment of peace, judge ye in your gates." How is this to be understood? Usually, when there is judgment, there is no peace; and vice versa. It must then be said that an arbitration is a judgment which makes peace. So also was it said about David [II Sam. viii. 16]: "And David did what was just and charitable 1 unto all his people."

Here, also, "just" and "charitable" do not correspond; as if just, it could not be called charitable, and vice versa. Say, then, it means arbitration, which contains both.
The first Tana, however, who said above that arbitration is prohibited, explains the passage thus: He, David, judged in accordance with the strict law—he acquitted him who was right, and made responsible him who was so, according to the law, but when he saw that the culpable one was poor and could not pay, he used to pay from his pocket. Hence he did judgment to one and charity to the other. Rabbi, however, could not agree with such an explanation, because of the expression, unto all his people"; and according to the above explanation, it ought to be "to the poor." Therefore said he: Although he did not pay from his pocket, it was counted as a charitable act that he delivered a theft out of the hands of the defendant.

R. Simeon b. Menasia said: If two persons brought a case before you, before you have heard their claims, and even thereafter, but you are still not aware to whom the strict law inclines, you may say to them: Go and mediate among yourselves. But after you are aware who is right according to the strict law, you must not advise them to mediate, as it is written [Prov. xvii. 14]: "As one letteth loose (a stream) of water, so is the beginning of strife; therefore before it be enkindled, leave off the contest"; which means, before it be enkindled you may advise a mediation, but not after you know with whom the law is. Similar to this is: If two persons came with a case before you, one being mighty (who can harm you) and the other common, you may say to them, "I am not fit to judge between you," so long as you have not heard their claims; or even thereafter, not knowing as yet to whom the law inclines. But you must not say so after you are aware; as it is written [Deut. i. 17]: "Ye shall not be afraid of any man."

R. Jehoshua b. Karha said: Whence do we deduce that if a disciple were present when a case came before his master, and saw a defence for the poor and an accusation for the rich (which his master might overlook), he must not keep silence? From the verse just cited. R. Hanin said: One must not keep in his words out of respect for any one; and witnesses also must be aware for whom they testify, and for whom their testimony goes. And who is he who will punish them for bearing false witness? As it is written [Deut. xix. 17]: "Then shall both the men who have the controversy stand before the Lord." And the judge must also be aware of same, as it is written [Ps. lxxxii. i]: "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of judges doth he judge." And so also it reads [II. Chron. xix. 6], which was said by the king Jehoshaphat: "Look (well) at what ye are doing; because not for man are ye to judge, but for the Lord."

And should the judge say: Why should I take the trouble and the responsibility to myself?—therefore it is written at the end of this verse: "Who is with you in pronouncing judgment." Hence the judge has to decide according to what he sees with his eyes.

What is to be understood by final judgment? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: When the judge is able to pronounce: You, so and so, are guilty, and you, so and so, are right. Said Rabh: The Halakha prevails with R. Jehoshua b. Karha. Is that so? Was not R. Huna a disciple of Rabh, and his custom was, to question the parties of a case before him: Do you desire strict law, or arbitration? Hence we see that he did not begin with mediation; and R. Jehoshua said that mediation is a meritorious act. R. Jehoshua, with his statement, means also to say: Ask the parties which they like better. But if so, it is the same as what the first Tana said (i.e., it is prohibited to arbitrate after the conclusion, but not before the case is begun)? The difference between them is—according to R. Jehoshua it is a meritorious act; and according to the first Tana it is only a permission for the judge, but not meritorious. But then it is the same as R. Simeon b. Menasia said. There is also a difference, as according to the latter we must not advise an arbitration after hearing the claim, which is not according to the former. All the Tanaim mentioned above differ with R. Thn'hum b. Hnilai, who said: The above-cited verse [Ps. x.] was said concerning the golden calf [Ex. xxxii. 5]: "And when Aaron saw this." What did he see? Said R. Benjamin b. Jeptheth in the name of R. Elazar: He saw Chur, who was killed by the people. And he thought: "If I do not listen to them, they will do likewise with me, and will commit a sin, as written [Lam. ii. 20]: 'Shall there be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet?' And they will have no remedy. It is better for them that I should make the golden calf, and to that probably there will be a remedy by repenting."
There was one who used to say: It is well for him who is silent while being reproved; and if he is accustomed to do so, it prevents a hundred evil things which he might have to overcome through quarrelling. Said R. Samuel to R. Jehudah: This man only repeats what is already written in the above-cited verse [Prov. xvii. 141]. 1 There was another who used to say: A thief is not killed for stealing two or three times (i.e., do not wonder if the punishment does not occur at once, as finally it will come). And Samuel said to R. Jehudah: This is also repeating the verse [Amos, ii. 5]: "Thus hath said the Lord, For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, will I not turn away their punishment."

There was another who used to say: Into seven pits does the man of peace fall and come out, and the wicked does not come out from the first into which he falls. And to this also said Samuel to R. Jehudah: It is a repetition of the verse, Prov. xxiv. 16: "For though the righteous were to fall seven times, he will rise up again"; and should the wicked fall in one, 1 he will not rise again.

There was another who used to say: If the court levied on one's mantle for a bet to his neighbor, he might chant a song and go on his way. And to this the same said to the same: This also is to be understood from [Ex. xviii. 23]: "The whole of this people will come to its place in peace."

There was another who used to say: She slumbers, and the basket which was placed on her head fell down. And also to this said Samuel: The same is understood of [Eccl. x. 18]: "Through slothful hands the rafters will sink," etc. And there was another who used to say: The man on whom I relied raises his fist against me. To which Samuel referred [Ps. xli. 10]: "Yea, even the man that should have sought my welfare, in whom I trusted, who eateth my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

There was one more who used to say: When love was strong, we—I and my wife—could place ourselves on the flat of a sword. Now, when love is gone, a bed of sixty ells is not sufficient for us. To which R. Huna said: We can see this from the Scriptures in [Ex. xxv. 22]: "I will speak with thee from above the cover." And a Boraitha. states that the ark measured nine spans, and the cover one; hence, altogether, it measured ten. Also in [I Kings vi. 2]: ". . . house which was built . . . sixty cubits in length." And finally we read [Is. lxvi. 1]: ". . . where is there a house that ye can build unto me?" (I.e., when the Tabernacle was built, ten spans sufficed, and at the exile no house in the world could be found in which the Shekinah would rest.)
R. Samuel b. Na'hmani in the name of Jonathan said: A judge who judges truth to his fellow-men makes the Shekinah to rest in Israel; as the above-cited Psalm lxxxii. I reads: "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of judges doth he judge." And those who do the contrary influence the Shekinah to leave, as it is written [ibid. xii. 6]: "Because of the oppression of the poor, because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord."

The same said again in the name of the same authority: A judge who takes away from one and gives to another, against the law, the Holy One, blessed be He, (in revenge) will take souls from his house. Thus it is read [Prov. xxii. 22, 23]: "Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither crush the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and despoil the life of those that despoil them."

And he said again, in the name of the same authority: A judge should always consider as if a sword lay between his shoulders and Gehenna was open under him. As it is written [Solomon's Song, iii. 7, 8]: "Behold, it is the bed which is Solomon's; sixty valiant men are round about it, of the valiant ones of Israel. All of them are girded with the sword, are expert in war; every one hath his sword upon his thigh, because of the terror in the night—which means the terror of Gehenna, which is equal to the night.

R. Jashyha, according to others R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak, lectured: It is written [Jer. xxi. 12]: "O house of David, thus hath said the Lord: Exercise justice on (every) morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor." Do, then, people judge only in the morning, and not during the entire day? It means, if the thing which you decide is clear to you as the morning, then do so; but if not, do not. R. Hyya b. Abba in the name of R. Jonathan, however, said: This is inferred from [Prov. vii. 4]: "Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister," which means, if the thing is as certain to you as that it is prohibited for you to marry your sister, then you may say it, but not otherwise.

R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: If there are ten judges discussing about one case, the collar lies upon the neck of all of them. But is that not self-evident? It means even a disciple who is sitting before his master (although the result does not depend upon him).
R. Huna used to gather ten disciples of the college when a case came before him, saying: In case of error, let them also have sawings of the beam. And R. Ashi, when it happened that there was the carcass of a slaughtered animal to examine if it was legal, used to gather all the slaughterers of the city, for the above-said purpose.

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said: R. Na'hman b. Kohen lectured: It is written [ibid. xxix. 4]: "A king will through the exercise of justice establish (the welfare of) a land; but one that loveth gifts overthroweth it"; meaning, if the judge is like unto a king, who needs not the favor of any one, he is establishing the land; but if like unto a priest who goes around the barns asking for heave-offering, he overthroweth it. The house of the Prince had appointed a judge who was ignorant, and it was said to Jehudah b. Na'hman, the interpreter of Resh Lakish: Go and be his interpreter. He bent himself to hear what was said for interpretation; but the judge said nothing. Jehudah then exclaimed: Woe unto him that saith to the wood, "Awake!" "Rouse up!" to the dumb stone. Shall this teach? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no breath whatever is in its bosom [Hab. ii. 19]. And the Holy One, blessed be He, will punish his appointer, as the following verse reads: "But the Lord is in his holy temple: be silent before him, all the earth."

Resh Lakish said: If one appoints A judge who is not fit to be such, he is considered as if he were to plant a grove in Israel. As it is written [Deut. xvi. 18]: "Judges and officers shalt thou appoint unto thyself"; and ibid. 21 it reads: "Thou shalt not plant unto thyself a grove-any tree." R. Ashi added: And if this were done in places where scholars are to be found, it is considered as if one should do it at the altar, as the cited verse continues: "near the altar of the Lord thy God."

It is written [Ex. XX. 23]: "Gods of silver and gods of gold," etc. Is it only prohibited from gods of silver, and of wood we may? Said R. Ashi: This means the judge who is appointed by means of silver and gold. Rabh, when he went to sit on the bench, used to say: By my own will I go to be slain (i.e., if I make an error I shall be punished for it), without attending the needs of my house; and I enter, clear the court, and I pray that the departing should be like the entering (as he came without sin, so should he depart). And when he saw the crowd run after him, he used to say: "Though his exaltation should mount up to the heavens, and his head should reach unto the clouds, yet when he but turneth round will he vanish for ever" [Job, xx. 6, 71 (to quiet his excitement).
Mar Zutra the Pious, when he was carried on the shoulders of his followers on the Sabbaths before the festivals (each Sabbath before the three festivals they used to preach festival laws), he used to say [Prov. xxvii. 24]: "For property endureth not forever, nor doth the crown remain for all generations."

Bar Kapara lectured: Whence do we deduce what the rabbis said: Be deliberate concerning judgment? From [Ex. xx. 23.]: "Neither shalt thou go up by steps upon my altar"; and the next verse is These are the laws of justice."

R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that the judge should not step upon the heads of the whole people (the hearers of the lectures used to sit on the floor during the lectures, and one who passed among them appeared as if he were stepping on their heads)? From the same cited verse. It treats: Thou shalt set before them the laws of justice; it ought to be: Thou shalt teach them? Said R. Jeremiah, and according to others R. Hyya b. Abba: It means the preparation of things belonging to judgment: the cane, the strap, the cornet, and the sandal. As R. Huna, when he used to go on the bench, used to say: Bring here all the things above mentioned.

It is written [Deut. i. 16]: "And I commanded your judges at that time." This was a warning to the judges that they should be careful with the cane and straps, which were in their hands to punish them who rebelled. Farther on it is written: Hear the causes between your brethren and judge righteously." Said R. Hanina: This is a warning to the court that it shall not listen to the claims of one party in the absence of the other (in civil cases); and the same warning is to one of the parties—he shall not explain his claim in the absence of his opponent. "You shall judge righteously" means, you shall deliberate the case carefully, and make it just in your mind, and only thereafter you may give your decision.

It is written: "Between a man and his brother, and his stranger." Said R. Jehudah: It means, even between a house and its attic. (I.e., if it were an inheritance, the judge must not say: You both need dwellings-what is the difference, if one take the house and one the attic? But he must appraise the value of each and then give his decision. "And his stranger" means, if you hire your house to a stranger for a dwelling, it cannot be said: What is the difference, if I give him an oven or a stove? But you must give him according to the conditions. So R. Jehudah. Farther on it reads: "Ye shall not recognize (respect) persons in judgment." According to R. Jehudah, it means: You shall not recognize him if he is your friend; and according to R. Elazar, it means: You shall not recognize him as strange to you, if he is your enemy.

The host of Rabh had to try a case before Rabh, and when he entered he said to Rabh: Do you remember that you are my guest? And he answered: Yea, but why? And he said: I have a case to try. Rejoined Rabh: I am unfit to be a judge for your case (because you reminded me that you favored me some time ago). And he appointed R. Kahana to judge the case. R. Kahana, however, had seen that he relied too much upon Rabh, so that he would not listen to him. He then said to him: If you listen to my decision, well and good; and if not, I will put Rabh out of your mind (i.e., I will put you under the ban). It reads farther on "The small as well as the great shall ye hear." Said Resh Lakish: It means, you shall treat a case of one peruta with the same care and mind as you would treat a case involving a hundred manas. To what purpose was this said? Is this not self-evident? It means, if two cases come before you, one of a peruta and one of one hundred manas, you shall not say: It is a small case, and I will see to it after. "Ye shall not be afraid of any man; for the judgment belongeth to God." Said R. Hama b. R. Hanina: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "It is the least for the wicked to take away money from one and give it to another illegally"; but they are troubling me that I shall return the money to its owner. "And I commanded you at that time." Above it reads: "I commanded your judges." Said R. Elazar in the name of R. Simlai: This was a warning for the congregation, that they should respect their judges; incidentally, also, a warning to the judges that they should bear with the congregation. To what extent? Said R. Hana, according to others R. Sabbathi: Even [Num. xi. 12] "as a nursing father beareth the sucking child."

It treats [Deut. xxxi. 23]: "Thou must bring this people," etc. And in verse 7 it is written: "Thou must go with." Said R. Johanan: Moses said to Joshua: You and the elders shall rule over them; but the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Thou shalt bring them (i.e., thou alone), because there must be one ruler to a generation, and not two or many.
There is a Boraitha: A summons must be by the consent of three judges. And this is in accordance with Rabha, who said: If the messenger of the court had summoned one in the name of one of the three judges who are in the court, the summons is nothing unless he state it is in the name of all the three judges, provided it was not a court day; but on a court day he has to mention nothing. "Double amount." R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda sent a message to R. Na'hman b. Jacob: Let the master teach us. In cases of fine, how many persons are needed? [What was the question—does not the Mishna state three? The question was, whether one judge, who is an expert, may do this, or not?] And the answer was: This is stated in our Mishna, in the double amount, and four and five fold-three. And it cannot be said it means three common men; for your grandfather said in the name of Rabh: Even ten commoners are illegal to decide cases of fine. Hence the Mishna means judges, of whom, nevertheless, three are needed. "It may bring capital punishment." And what is it (meanwhile his claim is money—why should three not be sufficient)? Said Ula: The point of their differing is, if an evil tongue is to be feared (i.e., while he comes to the court complaining about his wife, witnesses may come and testify that she had indeed sinned; and then it is a crime of capital punishment). According to R. Meir, the fear of such is not to be taken into consideration; and according to the rabbis, it is. Rabha, however, maintains: The fear of an evil tongue is not taken into consideration by all of the parties; but the point of their difference is, if the honor of the first should be respected or not. And it treats that twenty-three were gathered for that case, and the husband claimed that he would bring witnesses that his wife had sinned. But thereafter he could not bring witnesses, and the case remained as a claim for money only, and then the twenty departed. And he asked them to decide at least his civil claim. According to R. Meir, this case, as a money matter, might be tried by three; but according to the rabbis, we must respect the honor of the judges gathered, and therefore even in the latter case all the twenty-three have to take part.

An objection was raised from a Boraitha which states: The sages said: If the claim was money, then three suffice; but if a crime which could bring capital punishment, then twenty-three are needed. And this is correct only according to Rabha's statement, viz.: If the beginning of the claim was money, then three; and if the beginning was crime, then twenty-three. But according to Ula's it is contradictory.

Said Rabha: I and the lion of our society, who is R. Hyya b. Abbim, have thus explained this: The Mishna treats of a case in which the husband brought witnesses that his wife had sinned, and his father-in-law brought witnesses who proved the first collusive. And his claim against the husband was money; and therefore three sufficed. But in a case where crime is charged, twenty-three are necessary.

Abayi, however, maintains: All agree that an evil tongue is to be feared; and they also agree that the honor of the first must be respected. The Mishna, however, speaks of a case in which the warning was as to capital punishment, but not stoning. (I.e., as will be explained in the proper place, one should not be put to death for a crime of which he was not warned that the punishment for it was death; and according to some, the warning must be: The punishment for such a crime is such and such a death. And as the punishment of adultery is stoning, and she was warned only of death in general, according to him who holds that the warning must state the kind of death, in this case no capital punishment can occur.) And this is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who said elsewhere: One is not put to death unless he was informed in the warning what kind of death he should die.
R. Papa maintains: It speaks of a scholarly woman who was aware of what kind of punishment pertained to such a thing; and the point of their differing is, if to a scholar warning is needed. And R. Ashi maintains: The warning was as to stripes, instead of capital punishment; and the point of their differing is, if a trial involving stripes needs twenty-three, in accordance with the opinion of R. Ishmael, or not. 1 And Rabhina maintains: It speaks of when one of the witnesses was found a relative, or incompetent to be a witness; and the point of their difference is, if the testimony of the other witnesses should be ignored because of the incompetent one, or not (explained at length in Tract Maccoth). And if you wish, it can be said that it speaks of when one was warned by some others, but not by the witnesses; and there are some of the Tanaim who hold that the warning holds good only when it was made by the witnesses. And it might also be said that the witnesses contradicted one another, at the cross-examination, concerning certain unimportant things (e.g., how he and she were dressed when the crime was committed), but they did not contradict each other concerning the important thing (e.g.., the date and hour). And there is a difference between Tanaim whether such a contradiction is to be taken into consideration, or not?

R. Joseph said: If the husband brought witnesses that she had sinned, and the father brought witnesses who proved them collusive, the witnesses of the husband are put to death, but do not pay the prescribed fine. If, however, the husband brought a third party of witnesses, who proved collusive the second party, they are to be punished both with death and with payment of fine to the husband.
Rabha said: If witnesses testify that A had sinned with a betrothed woman, and thereafter they be found collusive, they are put to death, but do not pay the fine; if, however, they testified that A had sinned with the daughter of B, who was betrothed, they pay the fine also. And the same is the case if they testify that one had connection with an ox, and they were found collusive; if, however, they testify with the ox of so and so, they have to pay the fine to the owner of the ox also. But to what purpose did he state the other case—is it not the same as the first? Because he himself was in doubt concerning the following case: If one testified that so and so had connection with my ox, should he be trusted or not? Shall we say that only a testimony which incriminates one's self is not to be trusted—because one is kin to himself and cannot make himself wicked, but in a case where one's property is involved, we do not say that he is kin to his money, and therefore he should not be trusted. After deliberating, however, he decided that the testifying concerning his ox should be trusted, as the latter case is not taken into consideration. "The cases of stripes," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Huna: It is written [Deut. xxv. i]: "And they judge them," which is plural, and no less than two; and as a court must not be of an even number, one is to be added—hence it is three. In the same verse it reads: "And they justify . . . and they condemn," which is also plural, and no less than two -hence two and two are four, and with the three mentioned above it is seven?

The latter terms are needed for that which Ula said: Where is to be found a hint in the Scriptures concerning collusive witnesses? [A hint—does it not read (ibid. xix. 19): "Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother"?

Where is the hint that collusive witnesses are to be punished with stripes?] From the above-cited terms, "and they shall justify . . . condemn the wicked: Then shall it be, if the guilty man deserve to be beaten," etc., which is not to be understood as meaning the court only, as the words, "they shall justify the righteous," would be superfluous in that case. And therefore it is to be explained thus: If there were witnesses who had made the righteous guilty, and thereafter other witnesses came and justified the righteous who were indeed right, and made guilty the witnesses who accused them; then, if the former were to be punished with stripes, if found guilty, the same punishment is to be meted to the guilty witnesses.

But is there not a negative commandment in Ex. xx. 16: "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? This negative commandment is counted among those who do no manual labor; and for the transgression of such, punishment of stripes is not applied. "In the name of Ishmael it was said," etc. What is his reason? Said Abayi: The analogy of expression, Rosha (guilty). It reads [Deut. Xxv. 2]: "Guilty man," and [Num. xxxv. 31] "Who is guilty of death." As in case of death, twenty-three are needed, the same is the case with stripes. Rabha, however, maintains: His reason is simple, as stripes take the place of that. Said R. Aha, the son of Rabha, to R. Ashi: If so is the case, why must he be examined by the court to see if he can stand the forty stripes? Let him be beaten without any examination; and if he cannot stand them, let him die. And he answered: It reads [Deut. xxv. 3]: "And thy brother be rendered vile before thy eyes." Hence if you beat, you must beat one who is still alive, but not a dead body. If so (said R. Aha again), why does a Boraitha state that if the examination shows that he can stand only twenty, he is beaten with that number, which can be made a multiple of three, say eighteen only? Let him receive twenty-one; and if be cannot receive the last stripe let him die, as the last stripe was on a body which was still alive (i.e., thrice seven are twenty-one, and as he would not die by twenty according to the examination, the twenty-one would still be on a live body). Rejoined R. Ashi: The verse reads: "Thy brother thus rendered vile before thy eyes," which means that after the stripes he shall still be thy brother, which would not be the case if be died while being beaten. "To the intercalary month," etc. It does not state for the consideration of the intercalary, nor does it state for the consecration of the month; but for the intercalary itself, why are three needed? Let it be not consecrated at the thirtieth day, and it will become intercalary by itself (i.e., if the thirty-first day be consecrated as the first of the next month, the past month will be intercalary with one day). Said Abayi: Read: For the consecration of the month. And so also we have learned in a Tosephtha: For the consecration of the month and the proclamation of a leap year, three. So is the decree of R. Meir. Said Rabha: You say: Read "for the consecration"; but it is stated "the intercalary." Therefore, he maintains, the consecration in the additional day (e.g., the thirtieth) must be by three; but after the day is over, no consecration is needed. And it is in accordance with R. Elazar b. Zadok, who said (Rosh Hashana, p. 1): If the moon was not seen at the usual time, no consecration is needed, as it was already consecrated by heaven. R. Na'hman says: The consecration after the thirtieth day must be by three; but at the thirtieth no consecration takes place at all.

And it is in accordance with Plimi, who says in the following Boraitha: When the moon is seen at her usual time, no consecration is needed; but if not at the usual time, then it must be consecrated. R. Ashi, however, maintains: It is to be understood, the consideration if the month should be intercalary, and the expression "to intercalary" means the consideration of it. And because it needs to teach to proclaim a leap year, it says also intercalary. Hence only to the consideration, but not to the consecration, which is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who said: A month must not be consecrated at any time, as it is written [Lev. xxv. 10]: "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year," from which we infer that a year may be consecrated, but not months. "Rabban Simeon Gamaliel," etc. There is a Boraitha: How was it said by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel that it began with three, was discussed by five, and concluded by seven? Thus: If one of the three says it must be considered, and the other two say it is not needed, then the individual's opinion is abandoned. If, however, vice versa, two more must be added to discuss the matter; and then, if two say it needs, and three say no, the majority is considered. And if vice versa, then two more must be added, and the decision is according to the majority.

The numbers three, five, and seven, to what have they a similarity? R. Itz'hak b. Na'hmani and one of his colleagues, who was R. Simeon b. Pazi, and according to others just the reverse, differ. One said that the three were taken from the three verses specifying the blessings of the priests (Num. vi. 24, 25, 26). And the other said: Three from the "three doorkeepers" mentioned in II Kings, xxv. 18; and five, from [ibid. 19l: "The five men of those that could come into the king's presence"; and the seven from "the seven princes of Persia and Media" [Esther, i. 14].

R. Joseph taught the same as the latter, and Abayi questioned him: Why did not the master explain this to us before now? To which he answered: I was not aware that you needed the explanation. Has it happened that you questioned me, and I would not answer?
The rabbis taught: A year must not be intercalated with one month, except by them who are invited for it by the Nashi. It happened with Rabban Gamaliel, who commanded that seven persons should be invited for the morrow in his attic, for the purpose of the intercalation of the year, that on the morrow, when he came, he found eight persons, and said: He who was not invited shall leave. Samuel the Little then arose and said: I am the one who was not invited. I came here, not to take part in the intercalation, but to get experience in the practice of this ceremony. To which the former answered: Sit down, my son; sit down. All the years which have to be intercalated might be done by you. But so was the decision of the sages, that such must be done only by the persons who were invited. (Says the Gemara:) In reality, it was not Samuel the Little, but some other, and he did so only not to bring shame upon his colleague. It happened that as Rabbi was lecturing he perceived the odor of garlic, and he said: He who has eaten garlic shall leave. R. Hyya then rose and left the place; and every one, seeing R. Hyya go out, did the same. On the morrow R. Simeon, the son of Rabbi, met R. Hyya, and questioned him: Was it you who disturbed my father yesterday? And he answered: Save God! Such a thing would not be done in Israel by myself. And from whom did R. Hyya learn this? From R. Meir, as is stated in the following Boraitha: It happened with a woman who came to the college of R. Meir, saying: One of you has betrothed me, but I do not know who it was. Then R. Meir arose and wrote her a divorce, and handed it to her; and after him, all the people in the college did likewise. And from whom did R. Meir learn this? From Samuel the Little; and Samuel the Little from Shechanyah b. Yechiel, who said to Ezra [Ezra, x. 2]: "We have indeed trespassed against our God, and have brought home strange wives of the nations of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing." And he, Shechanyah, learned this from Jehoshua b. Nun, of whom it is said [Josh. vii. 10]: "Get thee up; wherefore liest thou upon thy face? Israel hath sinned," etc.

The rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit has left Israel; nevertheless they were still used to a heavenly voice. It happened once that they had a meeting in the attic of the house of Guriah, in the city of Jericho, and a heavenly voice was heard: Among these people there is one who is worthy that the Shekinah should rest upon him; but his generation is not fit. And the sages turned their eyes on Hillel the Elder. And when he departed, they lamented him. "Woe, pious! Woe, modesty! O thou disciple of Ezra." The same happened again when they had a meeting in an attic in the city of Yamnia, and the heavenly voice said: Among these people is one worthy that the Shekinah should rest upon him, but his generation is not fit. And the rabbis turned their eyes on Samuel the Little. When he departed, he also was lamented: "Woe, pious! Woe, modesty! O thou disciple of Hillel!"

The rabbis taught: A year must not be intercalated without the Prince's consent. It happened once that Rabban Gamaliel went to one ruler in Syria, and remained there longer than was expected; and the sages had intercalated the year on the condition that Rabban Gamaliel should agree; and then, when he came, he said, "I agree," and the year was intercalated without any other ceremony.

The rabbis taught: A leap year should not be made unless necessary, because of the spoiled roads, bridges requiring to be repaired, and because of the ovens where the paschal lambs were to be roasted, and they were not yet dry; and for them who reside in exile, and had left their places for Jerusalem to offer the paschal lamb, but could not reach in such a short time; but not if there was still snow or cold, and also not for them who resided in exile and had not as yet left their places for Jerusalem.

The rabbis taught: A leap year should not be made because of the kids, lambs, and pigeons which are too young. But this may be taken as a support. How so? Said R. Janai in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: We inform you that the pigeons are still soft, and the lambs still thin, and the time of spring has not yet arrived; and it has pleased me to add to this year thirty days. An objection was raised from the following Boraitha: How much is to be added to a leap year? Thirty days. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One month of twenty-nine days. Said R. Papa: If they wish, they can make it with thirty days; and if they wish, with one month of twenty-nine days. Come and see the difference between the old, mighty generation and that of the new, modest one. There is a Boraitha: It happened with Rabban Gamaliel, who used to sit on a step in the court of the Temple, that Johanan his scribe was standing before him, and three pieces of parchment were lying before him. And be told him: Take one parchment, and write to our brethren in Upper Galilee and to our brethren in Lower Galilee: May your peace be increased! We inform you that the time has come to separate tithe of the mounds of olives. And take another piece of parchment, and write to our Southern brethren: May your peace be increased! We inform you that the time has come to separate tithe of the garden sheaves. And take the third one, and write to our brethren in exile in Babylon, and to our brethren in Media, and to all other Israelites who are scattered in exile: May your peace be increased everlastingly! We inform you that the pigeons are soft, and lambs thin, and the time of spring has not yet come, and it pleases me and my colleagues to add to this year thirty days. (Hence Gamaliel wrote: "pleased me and my colleagues"; and Simeon his son did not mention his colleagues.) (Says the Gemara:) Perhaps this happened after R. Gamaliel was discharged and reappointed, as then he became more modest.

The rabbis taught: For the following three things a leap year is made: because of the late arrival of spring; of the unripeness of tree-products; and for the late arrival of Thkhupha (the equinox). 1 When two of the three things occur, the year is made intercalary; but not if one of them. And when one of the reasons is spring, all rejoiced. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: When Thkhupha (the equinox) was the reason. And the schoolmen questioned: How is he to be understood? Does he mean that they rejoiced when the Thkhupha (the equinox) was one of the reasons, or does he mean to say that if it was the reason it suffices to make the year intercalate even without other reasons? The question remains undecided.

The rabbis taught: For the following three lands the leap year was made: Judea, Galilee, and the other side of the Jordan. For two of them, but not for one. If it happened that Judea was one of them, all rejoiced, because the offer of the omer (as the first of the harvest) was brought only from the land of Judea.

The rabbis taught: The year is to be made intercalary only in the land of Judea; but if it was made already in Galilee, their act is valid. However, Hananiah, the man of Anni, has testified that if the leap year was made in Galilee it was not considered. And R. Jehudah b. R. Simeon b. Pazi said: The reason of Hananiah is [Deut. xii. 5]: "Even unto his habitation shall ye refrain," which means, all your repairing should be only in the habitation of the Omnipotent.

The rabbis taught: A leap year is to be made only during the day-time, and if it was done in the night it is not intercalate. And the same is the case with the consecration of the month; it holds good in the day-time, and not in the night.

The rabbis taught: A leap year must not be made in the years of famine. And there is a Boraitha: R. Meir used to say: It is written [II Kings, iv. 42]: "And there came a man from Ba'al-shalishah, and brought unto the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley-bread," etc. And we know by tradition that the city of Ba'al-shalishah was the most fruitful city in the whole land of Israel, in which the fruit became ripe previous to all other cities; and nevertheless at that time it was not ripe, but only one kind of grain; and not wheat, but barley, as so it reads. And lest one say it was before the time the omer was to be brought, therefore it is written at the end of this verse: "Give it unto the people, that they may eat." Hence, under such circumstances, that year ought to have been intercalary. And why was it not made so by Elisha? Because it was a year of famine, and every one went to the barns in order to get something to eat, and therefore it was not intercalated.
The rabbis taught: The year must not be intercalary before Rosh Hashana (i.e., no meeting must be appointed to discuss upon the necessity of an additional month in the next year). Even if it were so done, it is not to be taken into consideration. However, if circumstances compelled them to do so, they may do it immediately after Rosh Hashana; but the additional month must be no other one than Adar. Is that so? Was not a message sent to Rabha: A couple came from the city of Lecarte, and caught an eagle, and in their hands were found things which were made in the city of Luz (e.g., Thkhalth, for Tshitzith). And by the kindness of the Merciful One, and because of their unripeness, they were redeemed, and left in peace. And the descendants of Na'hshun desired to establish one nazib (ruler) more, but the Aramaic had prevented them. However, the prominent men of the cities held a meeting, and added one ruler (nazib) in that month in which Aaron (the high-priest) died. (Hence we see that a meeting about a leap year was appointed in the month of Ab, as Aaron died in that month?) 1 The discussion, and even the establishment, may be done even before Rosh Hashana; but it must be kept secret until the day of New Year is past. But whence do we know that with the above-mentioned word "nazib" they meant "a month"? From [I Kings, iv. 7]: "And Solomon had twelve superintendents (nazibun) . . . for the king's household, one month in the year"; but ibid. 19 reads: "Besides the one superintendent (nazib) who was in the land?"

R. Jehudah and R. Na'hman—one said: One manager over all the superintendents. And the other maintains that this nazib was for the intercalary month.

The rabbis taught: A leap year must not be made in one year, for the next; and also three successive years must not be intercalary. R. Simeon, however, said: It happened with R. Aqiba, that he established three leap years, one after the other, while he was in prison. And he was answered: This is no evidence, as the court had established each leap year in its proper time.

The rabbis taught: A leap year must not be appointed, neither in the Sabbatic year nor in the following year. But when were they used to be established? On the eve of the Sabbatic year. The house of Rabban Gamaliel, however, used to appoint it for the year following the Sabbatic.
The rabbis taught: No appointment of a leap year must be because of defilement. R. Jehudah, however, maintains it may, and adds: It happened with King Hezekiah, who had established such because of defilement, and thereafter he prayed for forgiveness. As it is written [II Chron. xxx. 18]: "For a large portion of the people, even many out of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun had not cleansed themselves, but ate the Passover not as it is written. However, Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: "The Lord, who is good, will grant pardon for this."

R. Simeon said: If they had established it because of defilement, it is intercalary; and Hezekiah prayed for forgiveness because the law dictates that only the month of Adar shall be intercalary. He, however, intercalated the month Nissin. R. Simeon b. Jehudah, however, said in the name of R. Simeon: He prayed for forgiveness because he seduced Israel to establish a second passover.

The master said: He intercalated the month of Nissin. Did he not hold the tradition [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month shall be unto you the chief of months," which means Nissin; and it is written, this is Nissin, but no other month shall be named Nissin? He erred in that which is said in the name of Samuel: In the thirtieth day of Adar no intercalary month must be appointed, because this day was fit that it should be the first of Nissin. And he, Hezekiah, did not hold this theory. There is also a Boraitha which states: In the thirtieth day of Adar no month must be intercalated because it is fit to be the first of Nissin.

But how is it if, notwithstanding this, it was established on that day? Said Ula: Then the month must not be consecrated on that day. But how is it if it was consecrated also? According to Rabha, the consecration abolishes the intercalary; and according to R. Na'hman, both hold good—the intercalary and the consecration. Said Rabba to R. Na'hman: Let us see! From Purim to Passover are thirty days; and on Purim we begin to lecture about the law of Passover. Now, if they should appoint another Adar on the thirtieth day after the lectures of Passover were already heard, people would not believe then that another month was appointed, and so they would use leavened bread on Passover. And he answered: Why, they would believe, as they know the establishment of a leap year depends on counting; and they would say that it was not as yet clear to the rabbis—the reckoning of this year—until the thirtieth day of Adar arrived.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: A leap Year must not be established unless the Thkhupha was less with a greater part of the month, which are sixteen days. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, said: Twenty-one days. And both took their reference from [Ex. xxxiv. 22]: And the feast of ingathering at the closing (Thkhuphat—equinox) of the year. One holds that the whole feast should be in the new Thkhuphat; and the other holds that it is sufficient if a few days of the feast should occur in the new Thkhuphat. How is this to be understood? If they hold that the day in which the Thkhupha occurs is counted to the past Thkhuphat, why, then, is it necessary for R. Jehudah that the Thkhuphat shall be less with sixteen, and to R. Jose with twenty-one days? Even if it would be less with fifteen days, according to R, Jehudah, and twenty days, according to R. Jose, the whole festival will not be on the new Thkhuphat according to R. Jehudah, as the fifteenth day of Nissin, which is the first day of the feast, and in which the Thkhuphat occurs, is counted to the past Thkhuphat; and also according to R. Jose, if the Thkhuphat occurs on the twenty-first day, which is counted to the past, not one of the festival days would occur on the new Thkhuphat, as the festival begins on the fifteenth, and the seventh ends with the twenty-first. Therefore it must be said, of the day in which the Thkhuphat occurs, both R. Jehudah and R. Jose count it as the beginning of the new Thkhuphat. 1 "Laying the hand of the elders upon sacrifices." The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. iv. 15]: "And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands," etc. (The expression in Hebrew is, Vsomkhu Ziqnye Hoedha"—literally, "and they shall lay," the elders," "of the congregation.") From the expression Hoedha, which means the congregation, instead of elders of the congregation, it is deduced that it means the prominent of the congregation, and from the plurality of Vsomkhu ("and they shall lay," which means no less than two) and the plurality of the elders who are also two, it is deduced four persons; and as the number of the court must not be even, one is added—hence it makes five. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, maintains: There is only one plurality in the elders, who are two, and one is added for the purpose mentioned above, making three only. And there is a Boraitha: To laying the hand upon the elders, and laying the hands of the elders upon the sacrifices, three are needed. What does this mean? Said R. Johanan: Laying the hand upon the elders means, to give one the degree of Rabbi: Said Abayi to R. Jose: Whence do we deduce this? From [Num. xxvii. 23]: "And he laid his hand upon him," etc. Then let one be sufficient, as Moses was only one person; and lest one say that Moses took the place of the Large Sanhedrin, who were seventy-one, then say that to confer a degree seventy-one are needed? This difficulty remains.

Said R. Aha b. Rabha to R. Ashi: Do we lay the hands upon the man to whom we want to give such a degree? And he answered: We support him with that, that we name him Rabbi and give him the permission to judge about fines upon them who deserve it.
Is it indeed so—that one man cannot bestow a degree? Did not R. Jehudah in the name of Rab say: Behold, the memory of that person shall remain blessed forever—I mean, R. Jehudah b. Baba, as, if not ben Baba, the law of fines would be forgotten from Israel. It happened once that the government passed an evil decree upon Israel, that he who bestowed a degree should be put to death, and the same should be done with him who received the degree. The city where the degree was conferred should be destroyed, and even the boundaries which were used while giving the degree should be torn out. Jehudah b. Baba then went and sat between two great mountains, and between two large cities—between the two suburban limits of the cities of Usha and Sprehen—and conferred the degree of Rabbi on five elders; and they were: R. Meir, R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, R. Jose, and R. Elazar b. Shamuas. According to R. Ivia, there was a sixth: R. Nehomai. When the enemy got wind of it, Jehudah said to them: My children, run away. And to their question: Rabbi, what will become of you? he answered: I shall remain before them as a stone which cannot be moved. It was said that three hundred iron spears were put by the enemy into his body, making it as a sieve. (Hence we see that even one person only is authorized to give a degree?) There were some other persons with him, but they were not mentioned because of the honor of Jehudah b. Baba. Was indeed Meir elevated by Jehuda? Did not Rabha b. Hanah say in the name of Johanan that R. Aqiba gave the degree to R. Meir? Yea, R. Aqiba did so, but it was not accepted; and from R. Jehudah b. Baba he accepted.

R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: The custom of giving degrees must not be used out of Palestine. What does he mean? Shall we assume that loss of fines should not be judged at all out of Palestine? This is not so, as there is a Mishna: Sanhedrins are to be established in Palestine as well as in other places out of Palestine. He means that one must receive his degree in Palestine only.

It is certain that a degree of Rabbi is not considered when the bestower is out of and the receiver is in Palestine. But how is it if the bestower is in Palestine and the receiver is out? Come and hear: R. Johanan was troubled for R. Shaman b. Aba, who was not present and could not receive the degree R. Johanan wished to honor him with. R. Simeon b. Zerud and his colleague Jonathan b. Ekhmai, according to others vice versa—one of them who was present they supported with a degree, and the one who was not did not receive such.

R. Hanina and R. Hoseah were two about whom R. Johanan troubled himself very much, to honor them with the degrees they deserved, but was always prevented, whereat he was very sorry. Said they to him: Let master not worry, as we are descendants of the house of Eli. And R. Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Jonathan said: Whence is it deduced that the descendants of Eli are prevented by Heaven from receiving degrees? From [I Sam. ii. 32]: "And there shall not be an elder in thy house in all times"—which cannot be meant literally—"an old man," as it is written [ibid. 33]: "And all the increase of thy house shall die as (vigorous) men." Hence it means a degree of an elder (scholar).

R. Zera used to hide himself so as not to be honored with a degree, because of R. Elazar's statement: Be always misty, in order to have a better existence. Thereafter, when he heard another statement of the same authority, "One is not raised to a great authority unless all his sins are forgiven by Heaven," then he went to receive a degree. When he was graduated as a rabbi, his followers sang for him thus: "There is no dyeing, no polishing, no painting, and nevertheless it is handsome and full of grace." When Ami and Assi were graduated as rabbis, likewise people sang of them thus: "Of such men—of such people—appoint rabbis for us, but not from the sermonisers"; and according to others, "not steel-hearted and impudent men"

R. Abuhu, when he came from college in the court of the Zaiser, the matrons of Zaiser's house used to sing for him: "Great man of his people! ruler of his nation! candle of light! may thy coming be welcomed in peace." "Case of the heifer." The rabbis taught [Deut. xxi. 2]: Then shall thy elders and thy judges go forth," etc. Elders, two, and judges, two, are four, etc. (will be translated in Tract Souta, as the proper place). "Plants of the fourth year and second tithe," etc. The rabbis taught: What is to be considered second tithe of which the value is not known? Rotten fruit, sour wine, and rusty coins. They also taught: Such second tithe must be redeemed by the appraisement of three buyers who all know the price of such stock; but not by three laymen who do not know the exact price. Among the buyers maybe a Gentile, and also the owner of the stock.

And R. Jeremiah questioned: How is it if the three were partners? Come and hear: One and his two wives may redeem the second tithe of which the value is not known. Hence it is allowed. This is no support, as this Boraitha may speak of such as were apart in business. E.g., R. Papa and his wife, the daughter of Aba of Sura (who used to do business for herself). "Consecrated articles," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob of the following Boraitha, who said: Even for a small fork of the sanctuary, ten persons are needed to appraise the value for redeeming. Said R. Papa to Abayi: R. Eliezer is correct that it needs ten, as he may hold with the statement of Samuel, who said: Priests are ten times mentioned in the portion which speaks of consecrated things. But whence did the rabbis take three? This difficulty remains.

"Arakhin . . . movable properly." What are they? R. Giddle in the name of Rabh said: If one vows, the value of this utensil is to be consecrated, then it must be appraised for its value, and he must pay. R. Hisda, however, said in the name of Abayi: It means, if one vows his own value, and appoints movable property for the collection. R. Abuhu said: If one vows his own value for the treasurer of the priests, when he came to collect, if he collects from movable property, three suffice to appraise it; but if from real estate, ten are needed. Said R. Aha of Diphthi to Rabhina: It is correct that three are needed to appraise articles which are to be redeemed from the sanctuary; but why are three needed for bringing into the sanctuary? And he answered: It is common sense. What is the difference between bringing in and taking out?

The reason of appraisement is because an error can occur by which the sanctuary would suffer; and this can take place in both taking out and bringing in. "A priest," etc. Said R. Papa to Abayi: It is correct that R. Jehudah requires that one of them should be a Cohen, as in that portion a Cohen is mentioned; but what is the reason of the rabbis, who do not require him—and for what purpose is a Cohen mentioned, according to them? This difficulty remains. "By ten, and one of them a priest," etc. Whence is all this deduced? Said Samuel: In this portion the word Cohenim is mentioned ten times, and only one of them is needed for itself; and all the others are considered as an exclusion after an exclusion, as to which there is a rule that such comes to add something. And therefore we add nine Israelites to one Cohen.

R. Huna b. R. Nathan opposed, saying: Why not say: Add five Israelites to five Cohenim? This difficulty also remains. "The value of men," etc. But does, then, a man become consecrated? Said R. Abuhu: If one vows, the money he is worth (not according to age, which is prescribed biblically) must be appraised as if he were a slave sold on the market; and a slave is equal to real estate. Therefore it needs ten: R. Abim questioned: How is it if one vows the value of his hair, and it should be cut off? Shall we say that things which ought to be cut off are considered as already cut, and movable, and the appraisement needs three only; or, so long as it is attached to the body, it is considered as the body itself, and ten are needed? Come and hear: If one consecrated his slave, no transgression is committed by using him for work.

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one uses his hair, it is a transgression: And we are aware that he speaks when the hair in question is still attached to the body and is ready to be cut off. Hence there is a difference of opinion among the Tanaim. "The stoning of an ox . . . and the owner put to death." Said Abayi to Rabha: Whence do we know this verse means to equal the judgment of the ox to that of its owner? Perhaps it is meant literally—that its owner also shall be put to death? Said Hezekiah, and so also was it taught by his school: It is written [Num. xxxv. 21]: "He who smites him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer." From which we infer that only when he himself smote is he to be put to death: but he is not to be killed for the death by his ox. "The wolf, the lion," etc. Said Resh Lakish: This is in case they have killed some one; but if not, it is not a meritorious act to kill them. [Hence we see that he holds that these beasts can be considered the property of one who domesticates them.] R. Johanan, however, maintains: In any case, it is a meritorious act to kill them. [Hence he holds that they cannot be domesticated, and are considered ownerless.]

There is an objection from our Mishna: R. Eliezer says: Every one who hastens to kill them is rewarded—which is correct according to R. Johanan, who may explain the word "rewarded"—with the skin of the animal; but according to Resh Lakish, who said, only when they have killed, there is a rule that when so it was, the rabbis considered them as if they were already sentenced to death by the court, and in such a case it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. What, then, means Eliezer by the expression "he is rewarded"? It means that he will be rewarded by Heaven. There is a Boraitha in accordance with Resh Lakish, as follows: An ox, as well as other animals or wild beasts which kill, must be judged by twenty-three. R. Eliezer, however, maintains: An ox which has killed, by twenty-three; but as to all wild beasts, he who hastens to kill them will be rewarded by Heaven. "*R.

Aqiba says*," etc. Is it not the same as the first Tana? They differ in the case of a serpent. "A whole tribe," etc. Let us see what sin a whole tribe may commit. Shall we assume that it has violated the Sabbath? We know that there is a difference between an individual and a majority only in the case of idolatry; but in the other commandments there is no difference, according to the Scripture. And if it means that the whole tribe was accused of idolatry, and they should be judged as a majority, then our Mishna is neither in accordance with R. Jashiah nor with R. Jonathan of the following Boraitha: How many people must be in the city which shall be misled? From ten to one hundred. So is the decree of R. Jashiah. R. Jonathan, however, maintains: From one hundred up to the majority of the tribe. Now we see that even Jonathan says the majority, but not the whole tribe.

Said R. Mathna: It means the Prince of the tribe only. As R. Ada b Ahaba explains [Ex. xviii. 22]: "Every great matter" means: the matter of a great man; so also here, by the whole tribe is meant the head of it. Rabhina, however, said: The Mishna speaks of a case in which the whole tribe was accused of idolatry, your difficulty being, do we then judge them as a majority? We may say, Yea! although their punishment is similar to that of an individual who is to be stoned. And this is in accordance with R. Hama b. Jose, who said in the name of R. Oseah: It is written [Deut. xvii. 5]: "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed this wicked thing, unto thy gates"—which means only an individual, but not the whole city, to thy gates. The same is the case with a whole tribe; only an individual can be brought to the gates to be stoned, but not the whole tribe.

(Hence they are judged by seventy-one, as a majority.) "False prophet," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: From an analogy of expression—"presume"—which is to be found in the case of a false prophet [Deut. xviii. 20] and in the case of a rebelling elder [ibid. xvii. 12]. As in the latter case seventy-two are needed, so also in the former. But is not the expression "presumptuously" used in the cited verse concerning death, of which. the verse reads; and death is judged by seventy-three only? Therefore said Resh Lakish: The analogy is in the expression "Dobhor," which is mentioned in both the verses cited. "High-priest," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said Ada b. Ahaba: From the above-cited Ex. xviii. 22, which is explained as the matter of a great man. "To decide upon battles," etc. Whence is this deduced?

Said R. Abuhu: From [Num. xxvii. 21]: "And before Elazar the priest shall he stand . . . he and all the children of Israel with him, and all the congregation." "He" means the king. "All Israel with him means the priest who was anointed to be the leader of the war. And all the congregation" means the Sanhedrin. But perhaps the cited verse means that only for the just-mentioned persons the Urim is allowed to be used; but not for common men. And the question, Wherefrom is it taken that seventy-one are needed to decide about battles? remains. Therefore it must be said, as R. Aha b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious said: A harp was placed over the bed of David, and when midnight arrived a north wind used to blow in it, so that the harp would play by itself and awake David, who used to get up and occupy himself with the Torah until the morning star arose.

And thereafter the sages of Israel used to enter to him, saying: Lord our king, thy nation Israel needs food. And to his answer: Go, then, and make business among yourselves, they answered him: A handful of food can never satisfy a lion, and a pit can never be filled with the earth taken out from it. Whereupon David decided: They shall go to a battle. Then they consulted Achithophel, took also advice from the Sanhedrin, and asked the Urim, etc.

R. Joseph said: Whence do we know from the Scripture that such was the custom? From [I Chron. xxvii. 34]: "And after Achithophel (came) Yehoyada, the son of Benayahu, and Ebyathar; and the captain of the king's army was Joab. Achithophel was the counsellor, as it reads [II Sam. xvi. 23]: "And the counsel of Achithophel, which he counselled in those days." Yehoyada means the Sanhedrin, as it is written of his father Benayahu [I Chron. xviii. 17]: "And Benayahu, the son of Yehoyada, was over the Kerethites and the Pelethites," which means the Sanhedrin, to whom Yehoyada his son was the head after Benayahu. And why was the Sanhedrin named Kerethites and Pelethites? Because the literal meaning of the two terms in Hebrew is "cutting" and "wonder"; and the Sanhedrin, with their decisions, used to cut off and do wonderful things. "And Ebyathar" means the Urim Vethumim; and then comes "the captain of the king's army, Joab," which means war. And R. Itz'hak b. Ada, and according to others B. Abudimi, said that [Ps. lvii. 9] "Awake, psaltery and harp, I will wake up the morning dawn," is a support to R. Aha b. Bizna's statement. "For enlarging, the city," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Shimi b. Hyya: From [Ex. xxv. 9]: "In accordance with all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it"—which means, so shall ye do in the later generations. Rabha objected from the following: "All the utensils which were made by Moses, the anointment sanctified them; however, the utensils which were made after him, the using of them for service consecrated them." And why? Apply, "So shall ye do," etc., to the utensils also; they shall need anointment in the later generations also? With this it is different, as [Num. vii. i]: "And had anointed them, and sanctified them," means them with anointment, but not those which should be made in a later generation. But how is it inferred from the passage that for the utensils made in the later generations anointing is prohibited?

Said R. Papa: It is written [ibid. iv. 12]: "Wherewith they minister in the sanctuary." We see, then, that the passage makes them sanctified by ministering with them. "Appointing supreme councils," etc, This is taken from Moses, who had established the first Sanhedrin; and the person of Moses is equalized to seventy-one of them.

The rabbis taught: Whence do we know it is a duty to appoint judges? From [Deut. xvi. 18]: "Judges and officers," etc. But whence do we know that it is a duty to appoint them to each tribe? From [ibid., ibid.]: "Throughout thy tribes." (From this verse is deduced that judges as well as officers are to be appointed to each tribe.) R. Jehudah maintains: It was also necessary to appoint one who should rule over all the judges; as this verse reads, "Shalt thou appoint," which means that the Great Sanhedrin, who ruled all the judges in the lower houses, should be appointed by them. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It reads: "Throughout thy tribes, and they shall judge," which means, it is a meritorious act to appoint judges to a tribe from its own people. "To condemn a misled town," etc. Whence is this deduced? From [ibid. xvii. 5]. "Then shalt thou bring forth that man," etc. An individual you may bring to thy gates, but not the whole city, as said above by R. Hama b. Joseph (here mentioned Hyya, instead of Hama). "Town on the boundary," etc. Why so? Because it reads, "From thy midst," but not from a boundary. "Nor three of them," etc. Because it is written [ibid. xiii. 13]: "One of thy cities." But why two? Because of the word "cities."

The rabbis taught: One, but not three. But perhaps one, and not two? Because it reads cities, two are meant. Hence with the term one, one, not three, is meant. Rabh used to say at one time that for one court it is not allowed to make three, but for two or three courts it is allowed; and at another time he said that it is not allowed to do so, even in several courts? And the reason is, that Israel must not be made bald-headed. Said Resh Lakish: This is said only in one country; but in several countries, it may. R. Johanan, however, is of the opinion that even then it must not, for the reason that the land should not be bald-headed. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Johanan. Three misled cities must not be made in the land of Israel; two, however, may—e.g., one in Judea and one in Galilee; but not two in Judea, nor two in Galilee. And if it were near to the boundary, even one must not be proclaimed misled; for, should it come to the ears of the heathens, they might destroy the whole land of Israel. But why not deduce it from the passage which states "from thy midst," and not from the boundary? This is in accordance with R. Simeon, who used to explain the reasons of what is stated in the Scriptures. "The Great Sanhedrin," etc. What is the reason of the rabbis, who said that Moses was as head of them? Because it reads [Num. xi. 16]: "And they shall stand there with thee," which means, and thou shalt remain with them. R. Jehudah, who says seventy only, maintains: It was necessary for Moses to remain with them, that the Shekinah should rest upon them.

The rabbis taught: It is written [ibid. xi. 26]: "And there remained two men in the camp." According to some, it means that their names remained in the urn. As, at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, he thought: How shall I do it? Shall I appoint six of each tribe? Then there will be two more. Or shall I take five of each? Then there will be ten less. Or shall I appoint from two tribes five only, while from the others six each? Then will I bring jealousy among the tribes. So he chose six from each, and wrote on seventy tickets "Zaqan" (elder), and two he left blank; then mixed, and put all of them into the urn. Then he said: Go, each, and take your ticket. To those who drew "elder," he said: You are already sanctified by Heaven. But those who drew the blanks had no claim, as such was their lot.

Similar was the case from [ibid. iii. 47]: "Thou shalt take five shekels apiece for the poll." And to this Moses also said: How shall I do it? If I should say to one, "Give the shekels," he may answer, "The Levite has already redeemed me." Therefore he wrote on twenty-two thousand tickets "Levite"; and on two hundred and seventy-three he wrote "five shekels," mixed them, put them in the urn, and told the people: Each shall draw his ticket. To the one who drew "Levite" he said: You are free, as the Levite has redeemed you. And he who drew five shekels was told to pay the amount and go.
R. Simeon, however, said: Not their names remained in the urn, but themselves remained in the camp in doubt, saying: We are not worthy of such a high appointment. And the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Because ye were modest, I will increase your grace. And what grace was increased to them? All the seventy had prophesied once, and ceased; but these two did not cease to prophesy. And what was their prophecy? They said: Moses shall die, and Joshua shall bring Israel to his land. Aba Hanin, however, said in the name of R. Elazar: They prophesied about the quail, saying, "Come up, quail. Come up, quail." And R. Na'hman said:, About Gog and Magog they prophesied, as it is written [Ezek. xxxviii. 17]: "Then hath said the Lord Eternal: Art thou (not) he of whom I have spoken in ancient days through means of my servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days (Shanim) years, that I would bring thee against them?" Do not read Shanim, but Shnaim, which means two. And who were the two who had prophesied at one period, with one and the same prophecy? Eldad and Medad.

It is correct in respect to him who said above that their prophecy was, "Moses shall die," what is written [Num. xi. 28]: "My lord Moses, forbid them." But in respect to them who said they prophesied about other things, why, then, should they be forbidden? Because it was not seemly for them thus to prophesy in the presence of Moses. What is meant by the words, "forbid them"? He meant to say: Appoint them, they shall occupy themselves with the needs of the congregation, and they will be destroyed by themselves.
Whence do we know that three more are needed, as, after all, sentence of guilt by a majority of two cannot take place; as, if eleven defend and twelve accuse, then there is only a majority of one; and if ten defend and thirteen accuse, there is a majority of three? Said R. Abuhu: Such a case can be only when there is a necessity to add more judges according to all. (I.e., in case eleven accuse and the same number defend, and one of them says: I am in doubt. And in such a case all agree that judges must be added, as the one who is in doubt cannot be counted; and then two more are to be added. And if the two who were added also accuse, there is a majority of two.) And such also can be found in the Great Sanhedrin, in accordance with R. Jehudah, who said: There was an even number of seventy. R. Abuhu says again: In case more judges are to be added, an even number may be made in the Small Sanhedrin also. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that the one who says he is in doubt is counted, and if thereafter he gives a reason for his decision after deliberating he may be listened to, he comes to teach us that as from the time he is in doubt he is not to be counted at all, so after the deliberation he may not be listened to.

R. Kahana said: If all the persons of the Sanhedrin are accusing, the defendant becomes free. Why so? Because there is a tradition that such a trial must be postponed for one night. as perhaps some defence may be found for him; but if all accuse him, it is not to be supposed that some will find any defence for him over night, and therefore they are no longer competent to decide in his suit.

R. Johanan said: The persons who are chosen to be members of the Sanhedrin must be tall, men of wisdom, of good appearance, and of a considerable age; and, also, they should understand something in cases of witchcraft; and they must also know seventy languages, so that they shall not need to hear a case through an interpreter. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: In a city in which there are not to be found two persons who can speak seventy languages, and one who can understand them although he cannot speak, Sanhedrin must not be established. In the city of Bethar were three; and in the city of Yamiam were four, namely: R. Eliezer, R. Jehoshua, R. Aqiba, and Simeon of Tehmon their disciple, who was not of age to become a rabbi.

An objection was raised from the following: A Sanhedrin in which three of them could speak seventy languages was considered a wise one; and if four, it was considered the highest one. We see, then, that three who could speak were needed? Rabh holds with the Tana of the following Boraitha: If two, it is a wise one; and if three, it is the highest one.

There is a rule that, where there is to be found throughout the Talmud the expression "the man who learned in the presence of the sages," Levi before Rabbi is meant; and where the expression, "discussed before the sages," Simeon b. Azi, Simeon b. Zoma, Hanan the Egyptian, and Hayanya b. Hkhinai are meant. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak taught five persons—the four mentioned above, and the fifth was Simeon of Tehmon. Where it is mentioned, "our Masters in Babylon," Rabh and Samuel are meant; "our Masters in Palestine," R. Abbi is meant; "the judges of the Exile," Karna is meant; "the judges of Palestine," R. Ami and R. Assi; "the judges of Pumbeditha," R.

Papa b. Samuel; "the judges of Nahardea," R. Ada b. Minumi; "the elders of Sura," R. Huna and R. Hisda; "the elders of Pumbeditha," R. Jehudah and R. Eina; "the geniuses of Pumbeditha," Eiphah and Abimi sons of Rabha; "the Amoraim of Pumbeditha," Rabba and R. Joseph; "the Amoraim of Nahardea," R. Hama. If it is said "the Nhardlaien taught," Rami b. Berokha is meant. But was it not said by Huna himself: "It was said in the college"? Therefore it must be said that "Hamnuna" is meant. "It was said in Palestine," R. Jeremiah is meant; "a message was sent from Palestine," R. Jose b. Hanina is meant. And where it is said, "it was ridiculed in Palestine," R. Elazar is meant. But do we not find a message was sent from Palestine: According to R. Jose b. Hanina it is so and so? Hence R. Jose b. Hanina cannot be meant in the expression, "there is a message from Palestine"? Therefore it must be reversed. Where it is said, "a message from Palestine," R. Elazar is meant; and "it was ridiculed in Palestine," R. Jose b. Hanina is meant. "How many shall a city . . . one hundred and twenty," etc. What is the reason of that number? Twenty-three of the Small Sanhedrin, and three rows of twenty-three each (hearers), make ninety-two; and ten idle men, who must always be in the houses of prayer and learning, make one hundred and two; and two scribes, two sextons, two parties for defendant and plaintiff, two witnesses, and two men who may be able to prove the witnesses collusive, and still two more who could prove the last ones collusive—hence in the total there are one hundred and fourteen. There is a Boraitha that in a city in which the following ten things do not exist, it is not advisable for a scholar to reside, and they are: Five persons to execute what the court decides; a treasury of charity (which is collected by two and distributed by three); a prayer-house, a bath-house, lavatories, a physician, a barber, a scribe, and a teacher for children. And according to others it was said in the name of R. Aqiba: In the city should be several kinds of fruit, as the consuming of fruit enlightens the eyes. "R. Nehemiah," etc. There is a Boraitha: Rabbi said: Two hundred and seventy-seven. And there is another: Rabbi said: Two-hundred and seventy-eight. And there is no contradiction, as one Boraitha is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who needs only seventy for the Great Sanhedrin.

The rabbis taught: It is written [Ex. xviii. 21]: "And place these over them, as rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." Rulers of thousands were six hundred; rulers of hundreds were six thousand; rulers of fifties, twelve thousand; and rulers of tens, sixty thousand. Hence the total number of the officers in Israel were seventy-eight thousand and six hundred.

Footnotes

1:1 All this is explained in Tract Baba Kama.

2:1 According to some, the hyena: to others, another sort of a preying beast.

3:1 Leeser translates, "to deliver," the meaning of which is to save, as it is adopted in the original text.

3:2 Leeser's translation here is incorrect, not only according to the Talmud, but also to the punctuation of the verse.

7:1 The first-born of cattle which might be legally eaten, and also of an ass, had biblically to be submitted to the priest when the Temple was in existence; but after the destruction of the Temple they had to be raised until a blemish on their bodies appeared. But what kind of a blemish made them fit for slaughtering? They had to be examined by an expert who understand blemishes, and was familiar with the entire law; and a permission was needed for the expert.

10:1 Zdakha is the term in Hebrew, which means also charity.

12:1 It is inferred from the term in Hebrew, "Reshit Madun," which is not translatable into English.

13:1 The end of the verse, "but the wicked shall stumble into misfortune," is not found in the Scriptures. This is one of several places which shows that at that time in the Bible was another text.

19:1 All this will be explained in the proper place in succeeding volumes.

25:1 See Rosh Hashana, p. 12, second edition.

27:1 This riddle was sent at the time when it was prohibited by the Roman government to establish a leap year, and even to discuss about it. Therefore the message was sent as a riddle so as to be unintelligible to those not concerned.

29:1 The detailed explanation of all this would take too much space. However, it will be understood by those who know the order of the Jewish calendar. Although in our work it is of no importance, we hope that the reader will have an idea of it from our text, without the detailed explanation and the discussion following, omitted.

CHAPTER II.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE HIGH-PRIEST: IF HE MAY JUDGE AND BE JUDGED, BE A WITNESS AND BE WITNESSED AGAINST; THE LAWS REGARDING A DEATH OCCURRING IN HIS FAMILY AND THE CUSTOM OF THE CONDOLENCE. THE SAME RULES CONCERNING A KING. REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT A KING MAY AND MAY NOT ALLOW HIMSELF: HOW MANY WIVES AND HOW MANY STABLES FOR HORSES HE MAY HAVE; HOW HE MUST BE RESPECTED AND FEARED BY HIS PEOPLE, ETC.

MISHNA I.: The high-priest may judge and may be judged; he may be a witness and may be witnessed against; he may perform the ceremony of Halitzah, and the same may be done to his wife if he dies childless, or his brother may marry his wife in such a case. He, however, must not marry his brother's wife when his brother dies childless—because it is forbidden for a high-priest to marry a widow. If a death occurs in his family, he must not accompany the coffin; but if the coffin with those accompanying it are no longer visible in the street, he goes after them. And so with other streets-when they are not visible, he may enter the street, etc.; and in such manner he may follow the coffin to the gate of the city. So is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: He must not leave the Temple at all, as it reads [Lev. xxi. 12]: "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go."

When he, the high-priest, condoled with others, it was usual that the people went one after another, and the superintendent of the priests would place him between himself and the people (so that he could say a word of condolence to every one of them); but when he was being condoled with, the people used to say to him: We shall be your atonement (i.e., to us shall occur what ought to occur to you), and his answer was: You shall be blessed by Heaven. And at the condoling meal, all the people were placed on the floor, but he sat on a chair.
A king must not judge, and he is not judged; he must not be a witness, nor be witnessed against. The ceremony of Halitzah does not exist for him, nor for his wife. He does not marry his childless brother's wife, and his brother must not marry his wife. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: If be was willing to give Halitzah or to marry his brother's wife, he may be remembered among the good. And he was told: Even if he is willing, he must not be listened to.

His widow must not remarry. R. Jehudah said: A king may marry the widow of a king, as so we found with David, who married the widow of Saul; as it reads [II Sam. xii. 8]: "And I gave unto thee the house of thy master, and (put) the wives of thy master into thy bosom."

GEMARA: Is it not self-evident that the high-priest may judge? It was stated, because it was necessary to say that he may be judged. But this is also self-evident; as if it were not permitted to judge him, how could he judge? Is it not written [Zeph. ii. 1]: "Gather yourselves," which Resh Lakish explained in Middle Gate (p. 287): "Correct yourself first, and then correct others"? Therefore we must say, because in the latter part it was necessary to teach that a king must not judge or be judged, it teaches also that the high-priest may judge and be judged. And if you wish, it may be said that it came to teach us what is stated in the following Boraitha: A high-priest who killed a person-if intentionally, he may be killed; and if unintentionally, he may be sent into exile: he transgresses a positive and a negative commandment, and is also, concerning other laws, considered as a commoner in every respect.

Intentionally-he may be killed. Is this not self-evident? It was necessary to state, if unintentionally, he might be sent into exile. But is this also not self-evident? Nay! One may consider, because it reads [Num. xxxv. 28]: "He shall remain until the death of the high-priest," that he who has a remedy to return to his land by the death of the high-priest shall be sent into exile; but he who has no such remedy should not; and there is a Mishna: He who kills a high-priest, or a high-priest who has killed a person, is not returned from the city of refuge for everlasting, and therefore he should not be exiled-it comes to teach us that it is not so. But perhaps it should be so? There is another verse [Deut. xix. 3]: "Every man-slayer," which includes a high-priest.
The Boraitha states: He transgresses a positive and negative commandment. Must he, then, transgress? It means to say that if it happened he should transgress a positive and a negative commandment, he is considered a commoner in every respect. "Be a witness, and witnessed against," etc. May he be a witness? Have we not learned in the following, Boraitha: It reads [Deut. xxii. I]: "And withdrew thyself." There are cases from which one may withdraw himself, and there are others from which he may not. How so? E.g., a priest who sees a lost thing lying in a cemetery is not obliged to pick it up for the purpose of returning it; or if there were an old, respectable man, and it was not in accordance with his honor to bother with such a thing, or even if one's time is more valuable than the value of the lost thing, he may withdraw himself. Hence it is self-evident that it is not fit for a high-priest to go and witness. Why, then, should he be obliged? Said R. Joseph: He may be a witness in a case that concerns the king. But does not our Mishna state "that a king must not be a witness, and not be witnessed against"? Therefore said R. Zera: He may be witness in the case of a prince, the son of the king. A prince—is he not considered a commoner in all respects concerning the law? Say he may witness before the king. But have we not learned that the king must not be a member of the Sanhedrin; and also that both the king and the high-priest must not take part in the discussion about a leap year? For the honor of the high-priest, the king comes and remains with the Sanhedrin until the testifying of the high-priest ends, and then both depart; and the Sanhedrin themselves deliberate and decide the matter.

The text states that a king must not be a member of the Sanhedrin, nor a king and a high-priest engage in the discussion about a leap year. The first is deduced from [Ex. xxiii. 2]. 1 And the second—a king—because he would not like to add a month to the year, because of the increase of the wages of the military; and a high-priest, because of the cold (i.e., it is prescribed by the Scriptures to take during the Day of Atonement legal baths five times in cold water, and by adding a month, the month of Tishri would fall when in a usual year is the month of Cheshvi, which is much colder than Tishri).

Said R. Papa: Infer from this that the seasons of the year follow the usual months, and not according to the intercalary month. Is that so? We know that it happened, three pasturers were standing and conversing in the presence of rabbis thus: One of them said: If there were enough heat so that the wheat which was sown in the beginning of the month, and the barley which was sown recently, should sprout, the month could be named Adar; and if not, it remains Shbat. The second said: If in the morning there is such a cold that the ox trembles from it, and in the middle of the day he should hide himself in the shadow of a fig tree, the month may be considered Adar; and if not, it remains Shbat. And the third said: If the winter has already lost its strength, and the air you blow from your mouth moderates the cold brought by the east wind, it is Adar; and if not, it remains Shbat. And as that year was not so in any of these cases, the rabbis intercalated it. Hence we see that the intercalary comes because of the cold, and not vice versa?

How can you conceive that the rabbis had relied upon the pasturers to intercalate a year? They relied upon their own reckoning, and the gossip of the pasturers was considered as a support only. "He may perform the ceremony of Halitzah," etc. The Mishna makes no difference if the widow was from betrothal or from marriage. And this can be correct only with a marriage, as there is a positive commandment that a high-priest must marry a virgin, and a negative commandment that he must not marry a widow; while to marry the wife of his childless brother is a positive commandment only, which cannot invalidate a positive and a negative commandment. But if the widow was from betrothal, she is still a virgin; there remains only one negative commandment, he shall not take a widow. And there is a rule that a positive commandment invalidates a negative commandment? The positive commandment applies only to the first intercourse, but not thereafter, upon which the negative commandments rest. And if the first were allowed, he would come to commit a transgression thereafter, and therefore it is prohibited. And so also a Boraitha states. "If death happens," etc. The rabbis taught: "He shall not leave the sanctuary" means he shall not go with them, but he may go out after them. How so? "When they are not visible in the street, he may appear," etc. "To the gate of the city," etc. Is not R. Jehudah correct with his statement? R. Meir may answer: According to your theory, he must not leave the Temple for home? You must then explain this passage, that it means that he must not go out from his sanctuary; and while he goes after them, when they are no longer visible, he will not come in contact with the corpse. R. Jehudah, however, fears that because of his sorrow it may happen that when he shall accompany them he will come in contact with the corpse, and violate his sanctity. "Condole with others," etc. The rabbis taught: When he goes in the row to condole with others, his vice and the ex-high-priest are placed at his right, and the head of the priest's family at the mourners'; and all other people are placed at his left. But when he stands in the row to be condoled with by others, the vice only is placed at his right, but not the ex-high-priest, as he may be dejected, thinking that the ex-priest sees a revenge in him.

Said R. Papa: From the Boraitha three things are to be inferred: (a) That the vice and superintendent are identical; (b) that the mourners stand and the people pass by; and (c) that the mourners are placed at the left side of the condolers.

The rabbis taught: Formerly the custom was for the mourners to stand and the people to pass by; but there were two families in Jerusalem who had quarrelled, one saying: I must pass first. according to my dignity; and the other said: I must pass first: Therefore it was enacted that the people should stand and the mourners pass. Said Rami b. Aba: R. Jose reëstablished the old custom that the mourners shall stand and people pass, in the city of Sephorias. And he said also: The same enacted in the same city that a woman should not go into the street with her child following her, but that she should follow the child, because of an accident that happened. (Rashi explained: It happened that immoral men had stolen a child who was following its mother, and put it in a house; and while she was crying and searching for it, they said to her: Come with us and we will show it to you. And while doing so, she was assaulted.) He also said: The same enacted in Sephorias that women should talk to each other while they were at their toilet, for the purpose that men should not intrude.

R. Menashia b. Evath said: I questioned R. Jashiah the Great in the cemetery of Huzl, and he told me that a row is not less than ten persons, not counting the mourners, who must not be among them; and there is no difference if the mourners stand and the people pass, or vice versa. "Being condoled with," etc. The schoolmen questioned: What did he say when he condoled with others? And they were answered from a Boraitha, which states: He used to say: Be comforted. "A king must not judge," etc. Said R. Joseph: This is concerning the kings of Israel; but the kings of the house of David are judged and judge. As it is written [Jer. xxi. 12]: "O house of David, thus said the Lord: Exercise justice on every morning." We see that they did judge; and if they were not to be judged, how could they judge?—as is said above by Resh Lakish. And what is the reason it is prohibited to the kings of Israel? Because an unfortunate thing happened as follows: The slave of King Janai murdered a person; and Simeon b. Cheta'h said to the sages: Notwithstanding that he is the slave of the king, he must be tried. They sent to the king: Your slave has killed a man. And Janai sent his slave to them to be tried. However, they sent to him: You also must appear before the court. As it is written [Ex. xxi. 29]: "Warning has been given to its owner"—which means the owner of the ox must appear at the time the ox is tried. He then came and took a seat. Said Simeon b. Cheta'h: King Janai, arise, so that the witnesses shall testify while you stand; yet not for us do you rise, but for Him who said a word, and the world was created. As it reads [Deut. xix. 17]: "Stand before the Lord." And the king answered: It must not be as you say, but as the majority of your colleagues shall decide. Simeon then turned to his right, but his colleagues cast their eyes upon the floor without any answer; and the same did his colleagues at his left. Simeon then exclaimed: You are all troubled in mind (disconcerted)! May the One who rules minds take revenge upon you. Gabriel came then and smote them to the floor, that they died. And at that time it was enacted that a king should neither judge nor be judged, neither be a witness nor be witnessed against. "If he was willing to give Halitzah," etc. This is not so? Did not R. Ashi say: Even he who holds that if a prince has relinquished his honor it holds good, agrees that if a king does so his honor is not relinquished. As it is written [Deut. xvii. 15]: "Set a king over you"—which means, that respect (fear) for the king should always be before thy eyes (i.e., and in the ceremony of Halitzah the woman takes off his shoe, and spits before him, which is a disgrace for a king, and must not be done even if he is willing)? R. Jehudah, however, maintains: Where there is a biblical commandment, it is different. "His widow must not remarry," etc. There is a Boraitha:

The sages answered R. Jehudah: The verse you refer to means, the woman who was ordained to him by the king, Saul; and they were Merab and Michal, his daughters.

The disciples of R. Jose questioned their master: How could David marry two sisters while they were both living? And he answered them: He married Michal after the death of Merab. And R. Jose said so in accordance with his theory in the following Boraitha, which states: He, R. Jose, used to lecture about passages in the Scriptures which were obscure, namely: It reads [II Sam. xxi. 8]: "And the king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Ayah, whom she had born unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne 1 to Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite." But was Michal given to Adriel? Was she not given to Palti b. Layish? It reads [I Sam. xxv. 44]: "But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Palti, the son of Layish." Hence the Scripture equalizes the betrothing of Merab to Adriel to the betrothing of Michal to Palti b. Layish; as the betrothing of Michal to Palti was a sin (for she was already the wife of David, and according to the law a second betrothing is not considered at all), so also was the betrothing of Merab to Adriel a sin (for she was already David's wife). R. Jesh b. Karha, however, maintains: The betrothal of Merab to David was by an error. As it is written [II Sam. iii. 14]: "Give up to me my wife Michal, whom I espoused," etc. But what would he say to that passage which reads, "the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul"? He might say: Did, then, Michal bear them? Was it not Merab who bore them, whereas Michal merely brought them up? But they bore the name of Michal, because the Scripture considers the one who brings up an orphan as if it were born to him.
R. Hanina says: This is inferred from [Ruth, iv. 17]: "There hath been a son born unto Naomi," etc. Did, then, Naomi bear him? Was it not, in fact, Ruth who bore him? Therefore we must say that, though Ruth bore him, he was nevertheless named after Naomi, because she brought him up. R. Eleaser said: From [Ps. lxxvii. 16]: "The sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah." Were they, then, born to Joseph, and not to Jacob? They were born to Jacob, but Joseph fed them, and therefore they were named after him.

R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: He who teaches the Torah to the son of his neighbor, the Scripture considers him as if he were born to him. As it is written [Num. iii. 1]: "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses"; and the following verse reads: "And these are the names of the sons of Aaron." It is only to say that they were born to Aaron and Moses taught them, and therefore they were named after him.

It is written [Is. xxix. 22]: "Therefore thus hath said the Lord unto the house of Jacob, he who hath re, deemed Abraham." Where do we find that Jacob redeemed Abraham? Said R. Jehudah. He redeemed him from the affliction of bringing up his children. (I.e., Abraham was promised by the Lord that He would multiply his children, and so the affliction of bringing them up was to lie upon Abraham; but, in fact, it was Jacob who was afflicted by bringing them up.—Rashi.) And this is what is written [ibid.]: "Not now shall Jacob be ashamed, and not now shall his face be made pale"—which means, he shall not be ashamed of his father and his face shall not become pale because of his grandfather.
In the Scripture there is written in some places "Palti," in other places "Paltiel." Said R. Johanan: His name was Palti; and why was he named Palti-El? "For God saved him from sin" (i.e., "Polat" in Hebrew means "to break through" and "El" means God, and according to tradition Palti did not live with Michal [although he slept with her in one bed], because of her betrothal to David). Said R. Johanan: The strength of Joseph was moderation on the part of Boas, and the strength of the latter was moderation on the part of Palti. "The strength of Joseph was moderation on the part of Boas"—as it is written [Ruth, iii. 8]: "And it came to pass at midnight, that the man became terrified," etc. And Rabh said: His body became as soft as (boiled) turnip heads. "And the strength of the latter was the moderation of Palti"—as with Boas it occurred only on one night, and with Palti it was continually. The same Said again: It is written [Prov. xxxi. 29]: "Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all." "Many daughters" means Joseph and Boas. "That feareth the Lord shall indeed be praised" [ibid. 30] means Palti b. Layish. R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said [ibid. 30]: "False is grace" means Joseph; "and beauty vain "means Boas"; ". . . that feareth the Lord" means Palti b. Layish. According to others, "False is the grace" means the generation of Moses, "and vain is the beauty" means the generation of Joshua; ". . . that feareth the Lord" means the generation of Hezkiah. And still according to others, "False is the grace" means the generation of Moses and Joshua, "and vain is the beauty" means the generation of Hezkiah; ". . fear of the Lord," etc., means the generation of R. Jehudah b. Elii. As it was said: In the time of that rabbi six disciples had covered themselves with one garment (as they were very poor), and occupied themselves with the study of the Torah.

MISHNA II: If a death occurs in the house of the king, he must not leave the gate of the palace. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: If he is willing to accompany the coffin, he may do so, as we find that David accompanied the coffin of Abner [II Sam. iii. 31]: "And King David walked behind the bier." But he was told that David did so only to appease the spirit of the people. And at the condoling meal all the people are placed on the floor and he is seated on the dais.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: In those places where it is customary for women to follow a coffin, they may do so; and where it is customary for them to precede the coffin, they have to do accordingly. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that women must always precede the coffin, as we find in the case of David, who followed the coffin, as in the above-cited verse in the Mishna. And he was told that this was only to appease the spirit of the people. And they were appeased, because David used to go from the men to the women and from the women to the men for this purpose. As it is written [ibid. 37]: "And all the people and all Israel understood on that day that it had not been of the king." Rabha lectured: It is written [ibid. 35]: "And all the people came to cause David to eat food while it was yet day." (The term "to cause" is expressed in Hebrew Le habroth, and according to him it was written Le hakhbroth. The first term means food and the second means to destroy—Korath); from which it is to be inferred that in the beginning the people came to destroy him because of the death of Abner, but after he had appeased them they caused him to eat. 1 Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Why was Abner punished? Because he ought to have warned Saul he should not kill the priest of Nob, and he did not do so. R. Itz'hak, however, maintains: He did warn, but was not listened to. And both infer this from the following verses [ibid. 33, 34]: "And the king lamented over Abner, and said, O that Abner had to die as the worthless dieth! Thy hands were not bound and thy feet were not put in fetters . . ." The one who said that he did not warn interprets thus: "Thy hands were not bound and thy feet were not put in fetters." Why didst thou not warn? And he who said that he did, but was not listened to, interprets it thus: "O that Abner should die as the worthless dieth! Thy hands were not bound . . ." And thou didst warn Saul. Why, then, "as one falleth before men of wickedness art thou fallen"? But according to the latter, that he did warn—why was Abner punished? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: Because he postponed the kingdom of David for two years and a half.

MISHNA III.: And he (the king) declares a war which is not commanded in the Scripture, after consultation with the court of twenty-one judges. He may also establish a way in private property, and nobody has a right to protest against it. The way of a king has no limit. When the military take plunder from the enemy, they must transfer it to the king, and he takes his share first.
GEMARA: Was not this already taught in the first Mishna of this tract: A court of seventy-one judges is needed to decide upon battles which are not commanded, etc.? Because it teaches of other things which belong to the king, this is also repeated. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: All which is written in I Samuel, viii. in that portion relating to a king, the king is allowed to do. Rabh, however, maintains that the whole portion was not said except to warn them. The above Amoraim differ in the same respect as the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xvii. 15]: "Set a king over thee," etc. According to R. Jose, all that is written concerning a king in Samuel, the king is allowed to do. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that the whole portion is written only to frighten them, as the expression, "to set a king over thee," means that the fear of the king shall be always upon you. And thus R. Jehudah used to say: There are three positive commandments which Israel was commanded at the time they entered Palestine, viz.: They shall appoint a king; they shall destroy the descendants of Amalek; and they shall build a temple. R. N'hurai, however, says: The whole portion was said only because they murmured against Samuel, requesting a king. As it is written [ibid., ibid. 14]: "And thou sayest, I wish to set a king over me," etc.

There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said:, The elders of that generation rightly asked Samuel for a king. As it reads [I Sam. viii. 5]: "Appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the commoners who were among them degraded the case. As it reads [ibid., ibid. 20]: "That we also may ourselves be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles."

There is another Boraitha: R. Jose said: Three positive commandments Israel was commanded when they entered Palestine, viz.: They shall appoint a king; they shall destroy the descendants of Amalek; and they shall build a temple. But it was not known which was the first. However, from [Ex. xvii. 16], "And he said, Because the Lord hath sworn on his throne that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation," it is to be inferred that the commandment relating to the king was first, because the word "throne" implies a king. As it is written [I Chron. xxix. 23]: "Then sat Solomon on the throne of the Lord as king." But it was still unknown which should be first, the case of Amalek or the temple. But from [Deut. xii. 10], "He will give you rest from all your enemies . . . and then shall it be that the place," etc., it is to be inferred that the cutting off of the nation of Amalek was to be first. And so was it with David. As it reads [II Sam. vii. 1]: "And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest," etc., he spake then to Nathan the prophet about the Temple.
The rabbis taught: The treasures of kings which are plundered in time of war belong to the king only; all other plunder, however, half to the king and half to the people. Said Abayi to R. Dimi, according to others to R. Aha: It is correct that the treasures of kings belong to the king, as so it is customary. But from where do we know that other plunder is half to the king, etc.? From [I Chron. xxix. 22]: "And they anointed him unto the Lord as chief ruler, and Zadok as priest." We see, then, that he compares the ruler to Zadok. As in the case of Zadok the high-priest, a half belongs to him and a half to his brother, the same is the case with the ruler. And wherefrom do you know that in the case of Zadok it is so? From the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: It reads [Lev. xxiv. 9]: "And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons," meaning half to Aaron and half to his sons.

MISHNA IV.: He (the king) must not marry more than eighteen wives. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: He may marry as many as he likes, provided that they shall not turn his heart away. And R. Simeon maintains: Even one wife, should she be liable to turn his heart away, he must not marry her. And the verse which reads, "Neither shall he take to himself many wives," means even when they were similar to Abigail.

GEMARA: Shall we assume that R. Jehudah takes account of the reason mentioned in the Scriptures and R. Simeon does not? Have we not heard elsewhere just the reverse? A widow must not be pledged, no matter if she be rich or poor. As it is written [Deut. xxiv. 17]: "Thou shalt not take in pledge the raiment of a widow." So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, maintains: If she be rich she may be pledged, but when she is poor she must not be pledged. And one is obliged to return the pledge to her. And to the question: How is this to be understood? it was said thus: If you take a pledge from her, you are obliged, biblically, to return it every evening, and by this act she will get a bad name, etc. Hence we see that R. Jehudah does not take account of the reason mentioned in the Scriptures (as there it is written: "You shall return to him; as if not, he will not have whereupon to sleep," which treats only of the poor, and R. Jehudah's theory is that even a rich person must not be pledged)? R. Jehudah does not take account of the reason in all other cases. But here it is different, as the verse itself explains the reason—that "his heart shall not be turned away." And R. Simeon may also say: Do we not take account in all other cases of the reason? Why, then, does the Scripture give the reason here? Let it say, "He shall not marry many wives," and we would understand the reason that it is because of his heart. And as the reason is mentioned, it is for the purpose that even if only one, and she is liable to "turn his heart away," he must not marry her.

The number eighteen mentioned in the Mishna, whence is it deduced? From [II Sam. iii. 2-5]: "And there were born unto David sons in Hebron: And his first-born was Amnon, of Achinoam the Yizreelitess; and his second was Kilab, of Abigayil the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Abshalom, the son of Maachah the daughter of Thalmai the king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah, the son of Chaggith; and the fifth, Shephatyah, the son of Abital; and the sixth, Yithream by Eglah, David's wife. These were born unto David in Hebron." And the prophet said [ibid., ibid. xii. 8]: "And if this be too little, I could bestow on thee yet many more like these." 1 Now let us see! The number of the wives mentioned in the Scriptures is six. "Like this" is six more, "and like this" is again six more, of which the total is eighteen. But was not Michal his wife, who is not mentioned? Said Rabh: Eglah is identical with Michal. And why was she named Eglah? Because he liked her with the liking of a cow for her new-born calf. And so also it reads in judges, xiv. 18: "And he said unto them, If he had not ploughed with my heifer," etc. (from which we see that he names the wife heifer or calf). 2 But had, then, Michal children? Is it not written [II Sam. vi. 23]: "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child," etc.? Said R. Hisda: She had no children after that time (mentioned in the Scripture), but previous to this she had children. But is it not written [ibid. v. 13]: "And David took yet more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem." (Hence it is to be supposed that he married more than eighteen.) Nay, he married more, to fulfil the number of eighteen. What are wives, and what are concubines? Said R. Jehudah: Wives are married by betrothal and marriage contract; concubines are without both of them.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh says: Four hundred children were born to David by the handsome women whom he took captive (i.e., those mentioned in Deut. xxi. 11). All of them had never cut their hair. They were placed in golden carra. And in time of war they were placed with the chief officers of the military, and they were the mighty soldiers in David's army. The same said again in the name of the same authority: Thamar was a daughter of one of the above-mentioned handsome women. As it reads [II Sam. xiii. 13]: "But now, O speak, I pray thee, unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee." And if she were really his daughter, how could she say that the king would allow a sister to marry her brother? Infer from this that she was one of the children borne by one of the above-mentioned handsome women. It reads [ibid. 3-10]: "But Amnon had a friend . . . and Yonadab was a very shrewd man." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: He was shrewd to advise evil. It reads [ibid. 19]: "And Thamar put ashes on her head, and the garment of divers colors which was on her she rent." There is a Boraitha in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Karha: From that which happened to Thamar, a great safeguard was decreed by the sages, as it was said: If it so happened to daughters of kings, so much the more could it happen to daughters of commoners; and if to the chaste, so much the more to the lewd. And therefore said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: At that time a decree was made that one must not stay with a married woman alone, nor with a single one. Is that so? Is this not prohibited biblically? As R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Johozadek said: Where do we find a hint in the Scriptures that one must not stay alone with a married woman? [Deut. xiii. 7]: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother . . . should entice thee." Does, then, only a brother from the mother's side entice, and not a brother from the father's side? It is but to say that only a son may stay alone with his mother, but it is not allowed for anyone besides to stay alone with a married woman. (Hence it is biblical?) Say that at that time it was decreed that one must not stay alone even with a single woman.

It is written [I Kings, i. 5]: "And Adoniyah the son of Chaggith exalted himself, saying, I shall be king." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Infer from this that he wanted to place the crown on his head and could not. (Rashi explains this that there was a band of gold in the crown which fitted the descendants of David who had an indentation in their heads which Adoniyah had not.) It is written further: "And he procured himself a chariot and horsemen, and fifty men who ran before him." What is there exceptional in this for a prince? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: The milt of all of them was taken out (so that it should be easy for them to run), and also the flesh of the soles of their feet was cut off.
MISHNA V.: He (the king) must not acquire many horses—only sufficient for his chariots; and also he must not acquire more gold and silver than to pay the military. He must also write the Holy Scrolls for himself; when he goes to war he must bear them with him; when he enters the city they must be with him, and the same when he sits judging the people; and when he takes his meals they must be placed opposite him. As it is written [Deut. xvii. 19]: "And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life."
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: He shall not acquire many horses, and lest one say even those which arc needed for his chariots, therefore it is written "for himself," from which it is to be inferred that for the chariots he may; but if so, what, then, is meant by "he shall not acquire many horses"? It means horses which should remain idle. And whence do we deduce that even one horse which is idle is under the negative commandment, "He shall not acquire many horses"? For it is written there [ibid., ibid. 16], "in order to acquire many horses." Is it not said above of even one horse, and it is idle, that he transgresses the commandment, "He shall not acquire many horses"? Why is it written "in order to acquire," etc.? That he should be responsible for the transgressing of the above commandment for each horse which is idle. But how would it be if in the Scripture were not mentioned "for himself"—he would not be allowed even for the chariots? Is this possible? Then, it could be explained, he should have the exact number needed, but not more. "Much gold and silver," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written: "He shall not acquire much gold and silver"—lest one say not even sufficient for paying the military, therefore it is written "for himself." But how would it be if this were not written—he would not be allowed, even for paying the military. Is that possible? Then, it could be explained that he should have the exact amount, but not more. Now, as we see that from the words "for himself" things are inferred, what do you infer from the same words which are written concerning wives? This excludes commoners, who are allowed to take as many as they please.

R. Jehudah propounded a contradiction in the following verses [I Kings, v. 6]: "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls for the horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen"; and [II Chron. ix. 25]: "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand whom he quartered in the cities for chariots, and near the king at Jerusalem." How is it to be understood? If there were forty thousand stables, every one of them contained four thousand stalls; and if it were only four thousand stables, then each contained forty thousand stalls. R. Itz'hak propounded the following contradiction: It reads [I Kings, x. 21]. "None were of silver; it was not in the

least valued in the days of Solomon"; and [ibid. 27]: "And the king rendered the silver in Jerusalem like stones." (Hence it had some value?) This presents no difficulty. The first verse speaks of before Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, and the second after this.

R. Itz'hak said: (Here is repeated from Tract Sabbath, 1st ed., page 109, in the name of R. Jehudah. See paragraph there—same rabbi.)

The same said again: Why does not the Scripture explain the reason of its law? Because in two verses it was so done, and the greatest men of a generation stumbled because of them. They are, "he shall not acquire many wives," for the purpose that they should not "turn his heart away." And King Solomon said: I shall take many wives, and my heart shall not be turned away. However [I Kings, xi. 4]: "And it came to pass . . . that his wives turned away his heart." And the same was the case with the horses, of which he said: I shall acquire many, and shall not return to Egypt. However [ibid. x. 29]: "And a chariot-team came up and went out of Egypt," etc. "Write the Holy Scrolls." There is a Boraitha: He must not suffice himself with those left by his parents. Rabba said: It is a meritorious act for one to write the Holy Scrolls at his own expense, though they were left to him by his parents. As it is written [Deut. xxxi. 19]: "Now therefore write this song." Abayi objected from our Mishna: "He shall write the Holy Scrolls for himself," and must not suffice himself with those of his parents. And this speaks only of a king, but not of a commoner. Our Mishna treats of two Holy Scrolls, as it is explained in the following Boraitha: It is written [ibid. xvii. 18]: "He shall write for himself a copy of this law," which means that he must write for himself two Holy Scrolls, one which he must bear with him wherever he goes, and one which shall remain in his treasury. The one he has to bear with him he shall write in the form of an amulet, and place it on his arm. However, he must not enter with it a bath or toilet house. As it is written [ibid., ibid. 19]: "And it shall be with him and he shall read," which means it shall be with him in those places where it is allowed to read it, but not in those where it is not.

Mar Zutra, according to others Mar Uqba, said: "Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the Hebrew language; the second time it was given to Israel in Ezra's time, but in Assyrian characters and in the Aramaic language; finally the Assyrian characters and the Hebrew language were selected for Israel, and the Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language were left to the Hediotim (Idiots). Who are meant by Idiots? Said R. Hisda: The Samaritans. What is meant by Hebrew characters? Said R. Hisda: The Libnuah characters. 1 There is a Boraitha: R. Jose said: Ezra was worthy that the Torah should be given through him, if Moses had not preceded him. Concerning Moses it reads [Ex. xix. 3]: "And Moses went up unto God"; and concerning Ezra it reads [Ezra, vii. 6]: "This Ezra went up." The term "went up" concerning Moses means to receive the Torah, the same being meant by the same expression concerning Ezra. Farther on it is written [Deut. iv. 14]: "And me the Lord commanded at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances." And it is also written [Ezra, vii. 10]: "For Ezra had directed his heart to inquire into the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances." And although the Torah was not given through him, the characters of it were changed through him. As it is written [ibid. iv. 7]: "And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic, and interpreted in Aramaic." And it is also written [Dan. v. 8]: "They were not able to read the writing, nor to make its interpretation." (Hence we see that the new characters the Aramaic people could not read.) And why are they named Assyrian? Because they were brought from the country of Assyria.

There is another Boraitha: Rabbi said: In the very beginning the Torah was given to Israel in the Assyrian characters, but after they had sinned it was turned over to them as a dasher. However, after they repented, it was returned to them. As it is written [Zech. ix. 12]: "Return you to the stronghold, ye hopeful prisoners: even to-day do I declare that I will recompense twofold unto thee." And why is it named Assyrian? Because the characters are praised above all other characters. ("Ashur" in Hebrew means "praise.") R. Simeon b. Elazar, however, said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Parta, quoting R. Elazar the Modai, that the characters were not changed at all. As it is written [Ex. xxvii. 10]. 2 And it is also written [Book of Esther, viii. 9]: "And to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language." From which it is to be inferred, that as their language was not changed neither was their writing. But if so, what means the term Mishna 1 in the verse in Deuteronomy cited above: "He shall write a copy of this law"—the two copies of the Holy Scrolls which a king has to write, as said above: One for the treasury and one which he must bear attached to his arm. As it is written [Ps. xvi. 8]: "I have always set the Lord before me, that, being at my right hand, I might not be moved." But he who maintains that the writing was not changed at all, what does he infer from the verse just cited? That which was said by R. Hana b. Bizna: He who praises should always think that the Shekinah is opposite him, as the cited verse reads.

MISHNA VI.: One must not ride on his, the king's horse, and also must not seat himself on his chair, and must not make use of his sceptre. And none must be present when he cuts his hair, and not when he is naked, and not when he is in the bathhouse. As it is written: "Thou shalt set a king over thee," which means that his fear shall be always upon thee.

GEMARA: R. Jacob in the name of R. Johanan said: Abishag was allowed to Solomon but not to Adoniyah, because Solomon was a king; and to a king it is allowed to make use of the sceptre of his predecessor, but not to Adoniyah, who was a commoner. How is to be understood that which is written in I Kings, 4: "And she became an attendant on the king"; and to her request that the king should marry her he answered: You are prohibited to me (as I have already eighteen wives). Said R. Shoman b. Aba: Come and see how hard is divorce in the eyes of the sages: So they permitted Abishag to be with David and did not allow him to divorce one of his wives in order to marry her. Said R. Eliezer: He who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears on account of him. As it is written [Mal. ii. 13]: "And this do ye secondly, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with loud complaint, so that he turneth not any more his regard to the offering, nor receiveth it with favor at your hand." And immediately after it reads: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast indeed dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant."

R. Johanan, according to others R. Elazar, said: Frequently, one's wife dies when her husband owes money and has not to pay. As it is written [Prov. xxii. 27]: "If thou have nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?" The same said again: To him whose first wife dies, it is as if the Temple had been destroyed in his days. As it is written [Ezek. xxiv. 16 and 19]: "I will take away from thee the desire of thy eyes," etc. "And when I had spoken unto the people in the morning, my wife died at evening"; and [ibid. 21]: "I will profane my sanctuary, the pride of your strength, the desire of your eyes." And R. Alexander said: To him whose wife dies, the whole world is dark for him. As it is written [Job, xviii. 6]: "The light becometh dark in his tent, and his lamp will be quenched above him." And R. Jose b. Hanina adds: Also his steps become shortened, as immediately it reads: "His powerful steps will be narrowed." And R. Abuhu adds. Also his advice is no more of use; as the end of the cited verse reads: "and his own counsel will cast him down."

Rabba b. Bahana said in the name of R. Johanan: It is hard for heaven to appoint marriages as it was to divide the sea; as in Ps. lxviii. 7: "God places those who are solitary in the midst of their families: he bringeth out those who are bound unto happiness." 1 R. Samuel b. Na'hman said: For everything there may be an exchange, but for the wife of one's youth. As it is written [Is. liv. 6]: "And as a wife of one's youth that was rejected." R. Jehudah taught to his son R. Itz'hak: One does not find pleasure only in his first wife, as it is written [Prov. v. 19]: "Thy fountain will be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth." And to the question of his son, Whom do you mean? he answered: E.g., your mother. Is that so? We are aware that the same read before R. Itz'hak his son [Eccl.

Vii. 26]: "And I find as more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets," etc. And to the question of his son, Whom do you mean? he answered. E.g., your mother. True, she was hard to him at the start, but finally she overruled herself and did all he pleased. R. Samuel b. Umaya said in the name of Rabh: A wife is similar to a piece of metal, and does not make any covenant but with him who makes her a vessel. As it is written [Is. liv. 5]: "For thy husband is thy master," etc. There is a Boraitha: One dies but to his wife, and the wife dies but to her husband. The first is deduced from [Ruth, i. 3]: "Thereupon died Elimelech Naomi's husband"; and the second from [Gen. xlviii. 7]: "And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me." "Cuts his hair." The rabbis taught: The king must cut his hair every day.

As it is written [Is. xxxiii. 17]: "The king in his beauty shall thy eyes behold." A high-priest every eve of Sabbath, and the commoner priest every thirty days. Why every eve of Sabbath? Said R. Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Johanan: Because the watching priests are relieved every eve of Sabbath. And why for a commoner every thirty days? Because it reads [Ezek. xliv. 20]: "And their heads shall they not shave close, nor suffer their hair to grow long: they shall only crop (the hair of) their heads." And there is an analogy of expression from a Nazarite [Num. vi. 5]. As concerning a Nazarite it is thirty days, the same is the case here. And whence do we know that for a Nazarite it is thirty days? Said R. Mathna: It reads: Holy shall he be. Because the generation of Yihiye counts thirty (a Yod counts ten, a He, five, and in the word yihiye there are two Yods and two Hes).

Said R. Papa to Abayi: Why not explain the above-cited verse as that they shall not be allowed to let their hair grow at all? And he answered: If it read: "They shall not let their hair grow," your explanation would be correct; but as it reads "to grow long," it must be explained as the rabbis enact: They shall let it grow thirty days. (Said R. Papa again:) If so, in our time, when there is no temple, it is to equalize the cutting of the hair to the partaking of wine, which was prohibited to the priests only when they had to enter the Temple (as after the case of hair-cutting immediately follows the prohibition of the partaking of wine). Is that so? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi said: I say that it is prohibited for the priest to drink Wine at any time whatever.

But what can I do, in that the destruction of the Temple was their remedy: as they were forbidden to drink wine in order that they should not enter the Temple while drunk, so, now that the Temple no longer exists, they do not care? Said Abayi: According to whom do the priests drink wine in our time? In accordance with Rabbi's statement.

Rabbi was questioned: How was the hair-cutting of the high-priest, which it is told was done very artistically? And he answered: Go and see the hair-cutting of Ben Aleshe. And there is a Boraitha: Rabbi said: Not in vain has B. Aleshe expended his money to learn the art of cutting hair: it was only to show how the high-priests used to cut their hair.

Footnotes

45:1 How it is deduced from this verse it is impossible to express in any living language. Even in the Hebrew we have to make from the word Rebh—literally. "quarrel"—the word Rab—literally, "great," and to interpret the passage in another fashion altogether. It would therefore be of no use to insert the verse as it is usually translated.

49:1 Leeser translates "brought up," according to the sense. The term in the Bible, however, is the same as in the first part of this verse; therefore the question in the text.

51:1 In the Scripture which is before us there is nothing of the kind. However, we have remarked several times that their text of the Scripture was different from ours. And so also is it remarked in a foot-note in the Wilna edition, 1895.

55:1 The term in Hebrew is "Khohino ve Khohino"—literally, "like this and like this." Hence the analogy in text.

55:2 Eglah is, literally, "a calf."

59:1 For the explanation of this passage see our "Pentateuch: Its Languages and its Characters" (pp. 14, 15). See also there who Utra or Uqba was.

59:2 We have not inserted the verse, as the translation of it does not correspond at all.

60:1 The term "Shana" means "to repeat," and also "change."

61:1 The Talmud takes the last cited words for the exodus from Egypt, and explains: "Do not read the Hebrew term so, but otherwise," which it is impossible to give in the English version.

CHAPTER III.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES AND WITNESSES WHO MAY DECIDE UPON STRICT LAW AND WHO IN ARBITRATION. WHEN A REJECTION AGAINST JUDGES AND WITNESSES MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE PLACE. OF RELATIVES THAT ARE DISQUALIFIED AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT. HOW THE WITNESSES SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN CIVIL CASES. UNTIL WHAT TIME NEW EVIDENCE MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT A DECISION RENDERED.

MISHNA I.: Civil cases by three; one party may select one and so the other, and both of them select one more; so is the decree of R. Meir. The sages, however, maintain that the two judges may select the third one. One party may reject the judge of his opponent, according to R. Meir. The sages, however, say: This holds good only when the party brings evidence that the judges selected by his opponent are relatives, or they are unqualified for any other reason. If, however, they were qualified, or they were recognized as judges from a higher court, no rejection is to be considered. The same is the case with the witnesses of each party, according to R. Meir, so that the rejection of each party against the witnesses of its opponent may be taken into consideration. The sages, however, say: Such holds good only in the cases said above concerning the judges, but not otherwise.

GEMARA: How is to be understood the expression of the Mishna: One party selects one, etc.? Does it mean one party may select one court of three judges, and likewise the other; and then both the third court, which would be altogether nine judges? Are, then, three not sufficient? It means, if one party selects one judge its opponent may also do so, and then both may select the third one. And what is the reason of such a selection? It was said in Palestine in the name of R. Zera: Because each party selects its own judge, and both agree in the selection of the third one, the decision will be a just one. "The sages, however, say," etc. Shall we assume that the point of their difference is what was said by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Witnesses may not sign a document unless they are aware who will be the others; and so R. Meir does not hold this theory and the rabbis do? Nay! All hold this theory, and the point of their difference is thus: According to R. Meir, the consent of the parties is also needed; but the rabbis hold that the consent of the judges, but not of the parties, is needed.

The text reads: R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: Witnesses, etc. There is also a Boraitha: Pure-minded people of Jerusalem used not to sign a document unless they were aware who was the other who was to sign it, and also would not sit down to judge unless they were aware who was to be their colleague, and would also not go to a banquet unless they were aware who were invited to it. "Each party may reject," etc. Has, then, one the right to reject judges? Said R. Johanan: It speaks of the little courts in Syria, where there were Gentile judges who were not recognized by the higher court. But if they were, no objection could be taken into consideration. But does not the latter part state: "and the sages, however, say . . . recognized by the court"? From which it is to be understood that their opponent R. Meir speaks even of them who were recognized? They mean to say: If not disqualified (on account of kinship or bad conduct) they are to be considered as if they were authorized judges against whom no rejection can take place.

Come and hear: The sages said to R. Mair: One cannot be trusted with any right to protest against a judge who was appointed by the majority? Read: One has no right to reject a judge who was appointed by the majority. And so we have learned in the following Boraitha: One may reject the selected judge of his opponent until he has selected a judge who was recognized by a majority. So is the decree of R. Mair. But are not witnesses considered as recognized judges, and nevertheless R. Mair. said that one party may disqualify the witness of his opponent? Aye! But was it not already said by Resh Lakish: How is it possible that a holy mouth like R. Mair's should say such a thing? Therefore it must be supposed that R. Meir did not say "witnesses," but "his witness" (i.e., a single witness). Let us see! What does he mean by one witness? If concerning a civil case, the law itself disqualifies him; and if concerning an oath, he is trusted by the law as if there were two witnesses. It speaks of a civil case, and the case was that previously the parties accepted him, saying that his testimony would be considered as if it were testified by two. But, after all, what news did he come to teach us—that he may retract? This we have learned already in the succeeding Mishna, which states that, according to R. Mair, he may retract, to which R. Dimi b. R. Na'hman b. R. Joseph said that the Mishna speaks of when he has accepted his father as a third judge (and because biblically a father is not fit to judge in a case of his son), he may retract even if he has previously accepted him. Why not say the same in our case, because one is not fit for a civil case he may retract although he had previously accepted him? Both cases were needed, as if the case about his father only were stated one might say that because the same is fit to be a judge in other cases, therefore the rabbis maintain that no retraction is to be considered; but in the case of a commoner, who is not fit to be a judge in any case whatsoever, the retraction would hold good, even in accordance with the rabbis. And if the case of a commoner were stated, one might say that only in that case R. Meir permitted to retract. But in the other case he agrees with the rabbis, therefore both are stated.

But how would the expression of the Mishna be understood? It speaks about the judge in the singular (one may reject the judge, etc.), and concerning witnesses, it speaks in the plural (one may reject the witnesses, etc.). Hence we see that the Mishna is particular in its expression. How, then, can you say that R. Mair maintains a single witness? Said R. Elazar: It means that he-one of the parties, and also another one who does not belong to this case—come to reject this witness, as then they are two against one, and therefore the rejection holds good. But, after all, why should one of the parties have a right to reject? Is he not interested in this case, and there is a rule that the testimony of such is not to be taken into consideration. Said R. Aha b. R. Ika: The case was that he laid before the court the reason of his protest, which can be examined.

Let us see what was the reason. If, e.g., robbery, it must not be listened to, as he is interested in this case. Therefore we must say that the reason was the incompetence of his family—e.g., that he or his father was a bondsman, who was not as yet liberated. According to R. Mair, he may be listened to, as his testimony is against the entire family. The rabbis, however, maintain that even then he must not be listened to because of his interest in this case, and the court has not to consider his testimony at all.
When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan that the point of their difference is two parties of witnesses, i.e., e.g., the borrower said: "I have two parties of witnesses who will testify to my right," and brought one party of them against which the lender protests. According to R. Mair, the protest holds good because the opponent himself confessed that he had another party. Hence he may bring the other party, against whom no protest would be considered (and his reason is that a proof is needed to each claim, even if it is not so important that it could injure the case); and according to the rabbis, no protest must be listened to even in such a case, as they do not desire a proof to each claim. But when there was only one party of witnesses, all agree that no rejection is considered.

Said R. Ami and R. Assi to R. Johanan: How is it if the other party of witnesses were found to be his relatives, or incompetent to be witnesses for any other reason, should the testimony of the first party be considered, or because of the incompetence of the other party, the first party also loses credit? Said R. Ashi: The testimony of the first party was already accepted, and therefore there is no basis to ignore their testimony because of the incompetence of the other party. Shall we assume that R. Mair and the rabbis differ the same as Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. differ concerning one who claims that he has bought a document and "hazakah" (Last Gate, p. 377), and in the discussion we come to the conclusion that the point of their difference is, if one must prove his words or not? Nay! According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, they do not differ at all, and the point of their difference is according to Rabbi's statement there. R. Mair holds with Rabbi. The rabbis, however, maintain that Rabbi does so only in case of the claim of hazakah, which is based upon the document; but in our case, where the testimony of the witnesses is not based upon that of others, even Rabbi admits that no proof is needed.
When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan that the first part of our Mishna treats of incompetent witnesses but competent judges, and because they reject the witnesses the judges are also rejected; and the latter part speaks of the reverse—that the judges were incompetent and not the witnesses, and the witnesses are rejected because of the judges. Rabha opposed: It would be correct to say that because of the incompetence of the witnesses one may reject the judges, as the case can be brought before other judges. But how can the witnesses be rejected because of the judges? Then the party would remain without witnesses at all. It speaks of when there was another party of witnesses. But how would it be if there were no other witnesses? Then no rejection is to be considered. Thus Rabbin said the same that R. Dimi said? The theory of "because" is the point of their difference. As to R. Dimi, the theory of because is not to be used at all, while according to Rabbin it is.

The text says: Resh Lakish said: "The holy mouth of R. Mair should say such a thing," etc. Is that so? Did not Ula say that he who saw Resh Lakish in the college saw one uprooting hills and crushing them? (Hence how could he say such a thing, which was objected to?)
Said Rabhina: Was it not said of R. Mair that he who saw him in the college had seen one uprooting mountains and crushing them (and nevertheless he was criticised by Resh Lakish). Therefore he (Ula) meant thus: Come and see how the sages respected each other (though Resh Lakish was such a genius, he nevertheless, in speaking of R. Mair, named him holy mouth). 1 MISHNA II.: If one says, "I accept as a judge in this case your father or my father," or, "I accept certain three pasturers to judge our case," according to R. Mair he may retract thereafter, and according to the sages he must not. If one owes a note to a party, and the latter said to him, "Swear to me by your life, and I will be satisfied," according to R. Mair he may retract, and according to the sages he may not.

GEMARA: Said R. Dimi b. R. Na'hman b. R. Joseph: It speaks of when he has accepted his father as a third judge. Even then he may retract, according to R. Mair. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Tanaim of the Mishna differ in case the creditor said to the debtor: Your or my father may judge this case, and if they should acquit you, I will renounce my claim. But if the debtor said to the creditor: I trust your father, and if they shall hold me liable, I will give you the money—all agree that he may retract. R. Johanan, however,: said that they differ in the latter case.
The schoolmen propounded a question: Does R. Johanan mean to say that they differ only in the latter case, but in the former, "I will renounce my claim," all agree that no retraction is to be considered; or, does he mean to say that they differ in both cases? Come and hear what Rabha, said: They differ only if he said, "I will satisfy your claim," but in case of "I will renounce my claim," all agree that he cannot retract. Now let us sec! If the question of the schoolmen is to be resolved according to Rabha's decision just mentioned, it is correct, as he is in accordance with R. Johanan; but if the question should be resolved that they differ in case of renouncing, etc., according to whom would be Rabha's opinion? Rabha may differ with both, and declare his own opinion. R. Aha b. Tahlipa objected to Rabha from the latter part of our Mishna's statement, that if he told him to swear by his life, according to R. Mair he may retract, etc. Does not the Mishna speak of one who is to be acquitted with an oath, which is equal to "I renounce my claim"? Nay; it speaks of them who ought to swear and collect, which is equal to "I will give you." But this was stated already in the first part? The Mishna teaches both cases, one in which he is dependent upon himself and one in which he is dependent on the mind of others. And both are needed; as, if there were stated the case when he is dependent upon others e.g., "I trust your father," etc.—one might say that only in such a case R. Mair permits to retract, as he has not as yet made up his mind to pay, thinking that probably he will be acquitted; but when he depends upon himself—e.g., "Swear by your life," etc.—R. Mair also admits that he cannot retract. And if this case only were stated, one might say that in such a case only the rabbis hold that he cannot retract; but in case he depends upon others. they agree with R. Mair. Therefore both are needed.

Resh Lakish said: The Tanaim of the Mishna differ in case the decision was not yet rendered; but after it was, all agree that no retraction can take place. R. Johanan, however, maintains that they differ in the latter case.
The schoolmen propounded a question: Does R. Johanan mean to state that they differ in a case where the decision was rendered, but in case the decision was not as yet rendered all agree that a retraction can take place, or does he mean to say that they differ in both cases? Come and hear what Rabha said: If one has accepted a relative or one who is legally disqualified to be a judge, if before the decision, his retraction holds good; but if after, no retraction is to be considered. Now let us see! If the saying of R. Johanan is to be explained that they differ when the retraction took place after the decision—but if before, all agree that it holds good—Rabbi's decision is correct, as it is in accordance with R. Johanan's explanation and in accordance with the rabbis. But if it should be explained that they differ also in case it was before the decision, according to whom would be Rabha's decision just mentioned? Infer from this that they differ in the case after the decision but before, all agree that a retraction holds good.

R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda sent a message to R. Na'hman b. to Jacob: Let the master teach us in which case the Tanaim of our Mishna differ—after or before the decision, and with whom the Halakha prevails. And the answer was: After the decision, and the Halakha prevails with the sages. R. Ashi, however, "I said that the question was: Do they differ in case he said, "I will renounce my claim," or in case "I will satisfy your claim"? And the answer was: They differ in the latter case: the Halakha prevails with the sages. So was it taught in the College of Sura. In the College of Pumbeditha, however, it was taught: R. Hanina b. Shlamiha said it was a message from the college, to Samuel: Let the master teach us how is the law if the retraction took place before the decision, but they have made the ceremony of a sudarium? And the answer was that nothing could be changed in such a case.

MISHNA III.: The following are disqualified to be witnesses: Gamblers (habitual dice-players) and usurers, and those who play with flying doves; and the merchants who do business with the growth of the Sabbatic year. Said R Simeon: In the beginning they were named the gatherers of Sabbatic fruit; i.e., even those who had gathered the fruit, not for business, were disqualified. However, since the demand of the government to pay duties increased, the gatherers of the Sabbatic fruit were absolved from the disqualification, and only those who did business with same were disqualified. Said R. Jehudah: Then the merchants and all the other persons named above were disqualified only when they had no other business or trade than this; but if they had, they were qualified.
GEMARA: What crime is there in dice-playing? Said Rami b. Hama: Because it is only an asmachtha, which does not give title. R. Shesheth, however, maintains that such is not to be considered an asmachtha; but they are disqualified because they do not occupy themselves with the welfare of the world—and the difference between them is if they had another business besides. As we have learned in our Mishna, according to R. Jehudah, if they have some business besides, they are qualified. Hence we see that the reason of the disqualification is because they do not occupy themselves with the welfare of the world—and this contradicts Rami b. Hama's above statement? And lest one say that R. Jehudah's opinion is only of an individual, as the rabbis differ with him, this is not so, as Jehoshua b. Levi said that in every place where R. Jehudah says "this is only," or if he says "provided," he comes only to explain the meaning of the sages, but not to differ with them; and R. Johanan maintains that when he says "this is only," he comes to explain, but when he says "provided," he means to differ. And as in our Mishna he expresses himself "this is only," all agree that he is only explaining.

Hence Rami is contradicted? Do you contradict one man with another man? Each of them may have his opinion. Rami holds that they do differ, and Shesheth that they do not.

Have we not learned in the following Boraitha that it does not matter if he has another business besides; he is nevertheless disqualified? The Boraitha is in accordance with R. Jehudah in the name of Tarphon of the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Tarphon, concerning a Nazarite (Tract Nazir, 34a), that wherever there is any doubt he is not deemed a Nazarite. And the same is in our case, as the gambler is not certain that he will win or lose, it cannot be considered a real business, but robbery, and therefore he is disqualified even when he has another business. "Usurers." Said Rabha: One who borrows to pay usury is also disqualified. But does not our Mishna state "usurers," which means the lenders, and not the borrowers? It means to say a loan which is usurious. There were two witnesses who testified against Bar Benetus.

One said: In my presence he has given money at usury; and the other said.. He has loaned to me at usury. And Rabha disqualified b. Benetus from being a witness. But how could Rabha take into consideration the testimony of him who said: I have borrowed from him at usury? Did not Rabha say that the borrower also is disqualified, because, as soon as he has borrowed at usury, he is wicked; and the Torah says: Thou shalt not bring a sinner as a witness. Rabha is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that one is not trusted to make himself wicked. (Hence his testimony that he himself has bor. rowed at usury is not taken into consideration, but that part, that Benetus has loaned to him at usury, was.) There was a slaughterer who sold illegal meat in his business, and R. Na'hman disqualified him .

And he let his hair and nails grow as a sign of repentance; and Na'hman was about to remove the disqualification. Said Rabha to him: Perhaps he is deceiving you. But what remedy can he have? As R. Aidi b. Abin said elsewhere: For him who is suspected of selling illegal meat there is no remedy, unless he goes to a place where he is not known and returns a valuable lost thing, or he recognizes the illegality of meat in his business, even if it is of great value. "Flying doves," etc. What does this mean? In this college it was explained: If your dove should fly farther than mine (such and such a distance), you shall take an amount of money. And Hama b. Oushia said that it means an ἀρυω , one who uses his doves to entice to his cot doves belonging to other cots—and this is robbery. But to him who maintains, "If your dove shall fly farther," etc., is this not gambling?

(Why, then, is it repeated?) The Mishna teaches both cases—depending upon himself and depending upon his dove; as if depending upon himself only were stated, one might say that, because he was sure he would win, he offered such an amount, and be has not made up his mind to pay the sum willingly in case of a loss, and therefore it is considered an asmachtha, which does not give title. But in the other case, where he is dependent upon his dove, in which he is not sure, and has nevertheless offered a sum of money, it is to be supposed that he made up his mind to pay willingly in any event, and therefore it is not considered an asmachtha. And if this latter case were stated, one might say that he did so probably because the winning of the race depends on the clapping, and he knew better how to clap (at the pigeon race); but when he depends upon himself, it is different. Therefore both are stated.

An objection was raised from the following: Gamblers are counted those who play with dice; and not only dice, but even with the shells of nuts or pomegranates. And when is their repentance to be considered? When they break the dice and renounce this play entirely, so that they do not play even for nothing. And usurers are counted both the lender and the borrower, and their repentance is to be considered only then when they destroy their documents and renounce this business entirely, so that they do not take usury even from a heathen, from whom it is biblically allowed. And among those who play with doves, those who train doves to fly farther are counted; and not only doves, but even other animals; and their renunciation is considered only when they destroy their snares and renounce the business entirely, so that they do not catch birds even in deserts. Among those who handle Sabbatic fruits are counted those who buy or sell, and their renunciation is considered only when they cease to do so in the next Sabbatic year. Said R. Na'hamia: It is not sufficient that they cease to do so, but they must return the money which they derived from the sale of the fruit. How if one say: I, so and so, have obtained two hundred zuz from the Sabbatic fruit, and I present them for charity? We see, then, that among those who play with doves, those who do so with other animals are also counted; and this can be correct only according to him who explains our Mishna: "If your dove should fly farther than mine," as the same can be done with other animals. But to him who says an ἀρυω , could this be done with other animals? Aye, this can be done with a wild ox; and it is in accordance with him who says that a wild ox may be counted among domesticated animals.

There is a Boraitha: There was added to the disqualified witnesses robbers and forcers (i.e., those who take things by force, although they pay the value for them). But is not a robber disqualified to be a witness biblically? It means even those who do not return a found thing which was lost by a deaf-mute or by minors (which according to the strict law is not to be returned, but it was enacted that it should be returned for the sake of peace—that there should be no quarrel with their relatives), and as this does not occur frequently, they were not counted among the disqualified. Thereafter, however, they were added, as, after all, they take possession of money which does not belong to them. And the same is the case with the forcers, who were not placed among the disqualified, because this does not happen frequently. Thereafter, however, as the rabbis saw that it became a habit, they added them also.
There is another Boraitha: There was secondly added to that category, pasturers, collectors of duty, and contractors of the government. Pasturers were not put in this category previously, because, when it was seen that they led their animals into strange pastures, it was only occasionally; but later, when it was seen that they did it intentionally, they were also added. And the same is the case with the collectors of duty and the contractors, as at first it was thought that they took only what belonged to them; but after investigation, when it was found that they took much more than they ought, they were added. Said Rabha: The pasturer in question—it matters not if he is a pasturer of small cattle or of large ones. Did Rabha indeed say so? Did he not say that a pasturer of small cattle is disqualified only in Palestine, but not outside of it, and pasturers of large cattle even in Palestine are qualified? This was taught of them who raise the cattle for themselves; and if they are small cattle, they are disqualified because it was forbidden to keep small cattle in Palestine, as explained elsewhere. And so it seems to be as the previous Mishna expresses, "three pasturers," and it is to be assumed for witnesses. Nay; it means for judges, and this is to be understood from the number three. As if for witnesses, for what purpose are three needed? But if for judges, why does the Mishna express itself "pasturers"—let it state three laymen who do not know the law? It means to say that even pasturers who spend their time in uninhabited places are nevertheless qualified to judge of the appointment of the parties.

R. Jehudah said: A pasturer of whom it is not heard that he leads his cattle into strange pasture is nevertheless disqualified, but a duty collector of whom it is not said that he takes more than he ought, is qualified.
The father of R. Zera was a collector for thirteen years, and when the governor would come to that city he used to say to the scholars: Go and hide yourselves in the houses, so that the governor shall not see so many people, or he will demand from the city more taxes. And also to the other people, when he saw them crowded in the streets, he used to say: The governor is coming, and he will kill the father in presence of the son, and the son in presence of his father. And they also used to hide themselves. And when the governor came, he used to say to him: You see that there are very few people in this city. From whom, then, shall we collect so much duty? When he departed, he said: There are thirteen maes which are tied in the sheet of my bed; take and return them to so and so, as I took it from him for duty and did not use it. "They were named gatherers of Sabbatic fruit," etc. What does this mean? Said R. Jehudah thus: Formerly it was said the gatherers of the fruit were qualified, but the merchants were not. But when it was seen that they used to pay the poor that they should gather the fruit for them and bring it to their houses, it was enacted that the gatherers as well as the merchants were disqualified. This explanation, however, was a difficulty to the scholars of the city of Rehaba as to the expression of our Mishna, "since the demand of the government," and according to this explanation it ought to be, "since the increase of buyers," and therefore they explain thus: Since the government has increased their duties [as R. Jani announced, "Go and sow in the Sabbatic year, because of the duties"], it was enacted that the gatherers were qualified, but not the merchants.

Hyie b. Zarssuqi and Simeon b. Jehuzdack went to intercalate a year in Essia, and Resh Lakish met them and said: I will go with them to see how they practise. In the meantime he saw a man who was ploughing in the Sabbatic year, and he said to them: Is this man a priest, who is suspected of doing work in the Sabbatic year? And they answered: Probably he is hired by a Gentile to do so. He saw again a man who was collecting the fluid in a vineyard and putting it back into the bale. And he said again: Is this man a priest, who is suspected, etc.? And they answered: He who trims vines in the Sabbatic year may say: I need the twigs to make a bale for the press. Rejoined Resh Lakish: The heart knows whether it is done for "ekel" (a legitimate purpose) or out of "akalkaloth" (perverseness). And they rejoined: He is a rebel. When they came to their place, they ascended to the attic and moved the steps that he (Resh Lakish) should not ascend with them. The latter then came to R. Johanan and questioned him: Men who are suspected of transgressing the Sabbatic year, are they fit to establish a leap year? After deliberating, however, he said: It presents no difficulty to me, as they may be compared with the three pasturers mentioned above (p. 46), and the rabbis recommended them to do so, as so it should be according to their reckoning.

Afterward, however, he said to himself: There is no similarity, as, concerning the three pasturers mentioned thereafter, the rabbis selected the right number needed for intercalation. Here, however, they themselves did it, and they are only a society of wicked men who are not at all qualified to intercalate. Said R. Johanan: I am distressed that you called them wicked. When the above-mentioned rabbis came to R. Johanan, complaining that Resh Lakish called them pasturers of cattle in the presence of R. Johanan and he kept silent, he answered: If he were to call you pasturers of sheep, what could I do to him?

1Ula said: One's thought for his maintenance injures him in his study of the law (i.e., because of his sorrow it remains not in his mind for a long time, and he forgets it easily). As it is written [Job, V., 12]: "Who frustrateth the plans of the crafty, so that their hands cannot execute their well-devised counsel." Said Rabba, however: If he occupies himself with the Torah for the sake of Heaven, he is not injured. As it is written [Prov. xix. 21]: "There are many thoughts in a man's heart; but the counsel of the Lord alone will stand firm"—which is to be explained: A study which is for the sake of Heaven, no matter in what circumstances one is, it remains forever. 1 "Only then," etc. Said R. Abuhu in the name of R. Elazar: The Halakha prevails with R. Jehudah. And the same said again in the name of the same authority: All the persons mentioned in the Mishna and in the Boraithas are disqualified only then when their crime was announced by the court. However, concerning a pasturer, R. Aha and Rabhina differ. According to one, even concerning him announcement is needed; and according to the other, no announcement is needed for his disqualification. (Says the Gemara:) It is correct, according to him who holds that no announcement is needed, that which R. Jehudah said above, that a pasturer is disqualified even if we are not aware of any crime; but according to him who holds that even a pasturer must be announced, why, then, Jehudah's decision? Because he holds that the court has to announce of each pasturer, no matter what he is, that he is disqualified. There was a document for a gift which was signed by two robbers, and R. Papa b. Samuel was about to make it valid because they were not announced by the court. Said Rabha to him: When to a robbery which is only rabbinical an announcement is needed, should we say that the same is needed to a biblical robbery R. Na'hman said: They who accept charity from idolaters are disqualified to be witnesses, provided they do so publicly, but not if privately; and even publicly, they are disqualified only then when it was possible for them to do same privately and they do not care to disgrace themselves publicly; but if not, one is not disqualified, as he is compelled to get a living. The same said again: He who is suspected of adultery is qualified to be a witness. Said R. Shesheth to him: Master, answer me. Should a man who has forty stripes on his shoulders 2 be qualified?

Said Rabha: R. Na'hman admits that concerning a woman he is disqualified to be a witness. And Rabhina, according to others R. Papa, said: This is said only concerning a divorce, but concerning bringing her into the house of her husband, the suspicion does not matter. R. Na'hman said again: If one has stolen in the month of Nissan at the harvest-time, and has stolen again in the month of Tishri, he is not named a thief so that he should be disqualified, provided he was a gardener and stole a thing of little value, and if it was a thing which could be consumed without any preparation. The gardener of R. Zebid stole a kab of barley, and R. Zebid disqualified him. And also another one stole a bunch of dates, and was also disqualified.

There were undertakers who had buried a corpse on the first day of Pentecost, and R. Papa put them under the ban and disqualified them to be witnesses. However, Huna b. R. Jehoshua qualified them, and to the question of R. Papa: Are they not wicked? he answered: They thought they were doing a meritorious act. But were they not put under the ban for this transgression, and nevertheless did it again? They thought that the putting under the ban was only a kind of atonement imposed by the rabbis for violating the holiday. However, the burial act itself is meritorious, though they will have to be under the ban for a few days for violation of a holiday.
An apostate who eats illegal meat, which is identical with carcasses, because it is cheaper, all agree that he is disqualified. But if he does this not because it is cheaper, but for the purpose of angering his former brothers in faith, 1 according to Abayi he is disqualified and according to Rabha he is not. The reason of Abayi is because he is wicked, and the Scripture reads plainly: "Thou shalt not bring a sinner as a witness." Rabha's reason, however, is that it speaks of one wicked in money matters only. An objection was raised from the following: "The meaning of the Scripture concerning the testimony of a sinner means one who is wicked in money matters; as, for instance, robbers and perjurers. No matter if the oath was a vain one (e.g., if one has sworn that a stone is a stone), or if the oath was a false one concerning money matters." Hence we see that even a vain swearer is also disqualified? By the expression "vain swearer" is not meant as explained, but that he has sworn in vain concerning money matters—e.g., A owes money to B, which was not necessary at all, as A has never denied it. An objection was raised from the following: "Thou shalt not bring a sinner as a witness," means one wicked in robbery—namely, robbers and usurers. Hence this Boraitha contradicts Abayi's statement. The objection remains.

Shall we assume that the above Amoraim differ in the same respect as the Tanaim of the following: A collusive witness is disqualified in all law cases. So is the decree of R. Mair. R. Jose, however, maintains: Provided he was made collusive in a case of capital punishment; but if in money matters, he is still qualified to be a witness in criminal cases? Now, shall we say that Abayi holds with R. Mair, who maintains that even from a lenient we disqualify to a rigorous one, and Rabha holds with R. Jose, who maintains that only from a rigorous case we disqualify, even to a lenient one, but from lenient to rigorous we do not? Nay! In accordance with R. Jose's theory, they do not differ. But the point of their difference is concerning R. Mair's theory, as Abayi holds with him, and Rabha maintains that even R. Mair said so only concerning a collusive witness in money matters, which is both wicked against man and wicked against heaven; but in our case, where the wickedness is in heavenly things only, even R. Mair admits that he is qualified to be a witness in money matters. The Halakha, however, prevails with Abayi. But was he not objected to? The Boraitha which contradicts Abayi is in accordance with R. Jose. But even then, is it not a rule, when R. Mair differs with R. Jose, that the Halakha. prevails with the latter? In this case it was different, as the editor of the Mishnayoth taught an anonymous Mishna in accordance with R. Mair's opinion. And where is it? This was, explained in the following case: Bar Hama had slain a man and the Exilarch told Aba b. Jacob to investigate the case; and if he really slew the man, they should make the murderer blind. (Since the Temple was destroyed, capital punishments were abolished by Israel, and therefore to make a man blind was to make him dead to the world.) And two witnesses came to testify that he surely killed the man. The defendant, however, brought two witnesses who testified against one of the witnesses. One of them said: In my presence this man stole a kab of barley; and the other said: In my presence he stole the handle of a borer.

And the Exilarch said to him: You wish to disqualify this man to be a witness because of R. Mair's theory, but I know of the rule that the Halakha prevails with R. Jose when he differs with R. Mair; and according to R. Jose, if one was collusive in money matters, he is still qualified in criminal cases. Said R. Papa to him: This is so in other cases; but in this case it is different, as there is an anonymous Mishna in accordance with R. Mair. But which Mishna is it? Shall we assume it to be that which stated that he who is competent to judge criminal cases is competent for civil cases also, which cannot be in accordance with R. Jose, as, according to his theory, there is a witness who was made collusive in civil cases and is still competent in criminal cases? Hence it is in accordance with R. Mair. But perhaps the cited Mishna does not speak about collusive witnesses, but of such as are incompetent to be witnesses because of their family. Therefore we must say that he means our Mishna which states the following are disqualified for witnesses: Players with dice, etc.; and a Boraitha adds: And also slaves. This is the rule in all cases in which women are not allowed to be witnesses—they also are disqualified. And this cannot be in accordance with R. Jose, as he holds that they are qualified to be witnesses in criminal cases, for which women are disqualified. Hence it is in accordance with R. Mair. B. Hama then arose and kissed him, and freed him from paying duties all his life.

MISHNA IV.: The following are counted relatives who may not be witnesses: Brothers, brothers of father or mother, brothers-in-law, uncles by marriage from father's or mother's side, a stepfather, a father-in-law, the husband of one's wife's sister, they and their sons and their sons-in-law, and also a stepson himself—but the latter's children are qualified. Said R. Jose: This Mishna was changed by R. Aqiba. The ancient Mishna, however, was thus: One's uncle, one's first-cousin, and all those who are competent to be one's heirs and also all one's relatives at that time; but if they were relatives and thereafter became estranged, they are qualified. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that even if a daughter dies and leaves children, her husband is still considered a relative. An intimate friend, as well as a pronounced enemy, is also disqualified. Who is considered an intimate friend? The groomsman. And who is considered a pronounced enemy? The one who has not spoken to him for three days because of animosity. And the sages answered R. Jehudah: The children of Israel are not suspected of witnessing falsely because of animosity.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? From that which the rabbis taught. It is written [Deut. xxiv. 16]: "Fathers shall not be put to death for the children . . . for his own sin," etc. To what end is this written? If only to teach the meaning of it literally, it would not be necessary, as the end of the verse reads, "for his own sin shall every man be put to death." It must therefore be interpreted, fathers should not die by the witnessing of their children, and vice versa. From this is deduced fathers by sons, and vice versa; and so much the more fathers who are brothers are incompetent to' testify for each other. But whence do we know that grandsons (cousins) are also incompetent to testify for each other? It should read, "parents shall not die because of their son." And why "sons" in the plural? To teach that their sons are not competent to testify for each other. But whence do we know that two relatives are not qualified to testify in one case even for a stranger? It should read in the singular, "and a son for his parents." And why in the plural, "and sons"? To teach that two sons are incompetent to testify in one case, even for a stranger. But from this is deduced the relatives from the. father's side only. Whence, however, do we know that the same is the case with the relatives from the mother's side? From the repetition of the word "fathers" in the same verse. And as it was not necessary for the relatives on the father's side, apply it to the relatives on the mother's side. But this verse speaks of accusation. Whence do we know that the same is the case concerning advantage? From the repetition of the words, "shall not die," which were not necessary in the case of accusation. Apply it, therefore, to cases of advantage. All this, however, is said concerning criminal cases. But whence do we know that it is the same with civil cases? Hence it reads [Lev. xxiv. 22]: "One manner of judicial law," etc., meaning that all cases must be judged equally.

Rabh said: My father's brother shall not witness in my cases; he, his son, and his son-in-law. And similarly, I, for my part, will not witness in his cases, neither my son nor my son-in-law. But why? Is not one's son a grandnephew, who is a third to a father's brother, and our Mishna teaches that only a cousin is not competent, who is second to the party, but not a second-cousin, who is third to the party? The expression in our Mishna, "his son-in-law," means the son-in-law of his son, who is already a third. But if so, why does it not teach "the son of his son" (grandson)? Incidentally, the Mishna teaches us that the husband is equal to his wife. But if so, according to whom would be the following Boraitha, taught by R. Hyya: Eight fathers, which counts twenty-four, including their sons and sons-in-law (i.e., father and brother, two grandfathers, and four great-grand fathers—two from each side—and eight sons and eight sons-in-law)? And if our Mishna means the son's son-in-law, then it ought to be thirty-two, viz.: eight fathers, eight sons, eight sons-in-law, and eight grandsons. Therefore we must say that our Mishna means his son-in-law. And why does Rabh name him the son-in-law of his son? Because he is not a descendant from him, but came from strangers, he is considered not of the second generation but as of the third. But, after all, according to Rabh's saying it is a third to a second-cousin, and we are aware that Rabh holds that such is qualified to be a witness? Therefore we must say that Rabh holds with R. Elazar, who says in the following Boraitha: Even as my father's brother cannot be a witness for me, neither his son nor his son-in-law, the same is the case with the son of my father's brother and with his son and son-in-law. Still, this cannot serve as an answer to the objection that Rabh himself has qualified a third to a second-cousin? Say, Rabh holds with R. Elazar only concerning his son, but differs with him concerning the son of his father's brother. And the reason of Rabh's theory is because it reads: "Fathers shall not die because of their sons; and sons," etc.—which means the addition of one more generation. And the reason of R. Elazar is: "For their children" means that the incompetence of the fathers shall extend to their children also.

R. Na'hman said: The brother of my mother-in-law cannot be a witness for me, and the same is the case with his son, and also with the son of the sister of my mother-in-law. And there is also a Boraitha similar to this, viz.: The husband of one's sister, also the husband of the sister of one's father And the husband of the sister of one's mother, their sons and their sons-in-law, are also excluded from being witnesses. Said R. Ashi: While we were with Ula we questioned him: How is it concerning the brother of one's father-in-law and his son, and also concerning the son of the sister of his father-in-law? And he answered: This we have learned in a Boraitha: One's brothers, the brother of one's father and of one's mother, they, their sons and their sons-in-law—all are incompetent.

It happened that Rabh was going to buy parchments, and he was questioned: May one be a witness to his stepson's wife? The answer to this question was, according to the College of Sura, that the husband is the same as his wife; and according to the College of Pumbeditha, the answer was that the wife is the same as her husband—which means that he is considered as if he were really her father-in-law. And as Huna in the name of Rabh said: Whence do we know that the woman is considered to be the same, as her husband? From [Lev. xviii. 14]: "She is thy aunt." Is she indeed his aunt? Is she not the wife of his uncle only? We see, then, that the wife is considered the same as her husband. "A stepfather . . . his son and son-in-law." Is not his son a brother of the: party from the mother's side? Said R. Jeremiah: It means the brother of his brother—e.g., the son of his stepfather from another wife. R. Hisda, however, qualified such ~ a person. When he was questioned: Was he not aware of Jeremiah's explanation of our Mishna just mentioned? He answered I do not care for it. But if so, it is his brother. The Mishna teaches concerning a brother from the father's side, and also from the mother's side. R. Hisda said the father of the groom and the father of the bride may be witnesses for each other, as their relation is similar to the relation of a cork to a barrel only, which cannot be counted relationship. Rabba b. b. Hana said: One may be a witness for his betrothed, but not for his wife. Said Rabhina: Provided he testified against her; but if his testimony is in her behalf, he is not trusted. In reality, however, (says the Gemara,) there is no difference: One is not trusted in any case, as the reason concerning witnesses is that one is too near in mind to his relatives; and as she is betrothed to him, he is not fit to be a witness in any case.

The rabbis taught: One's stepson only. R. Jose says: The husband of one's wife's sister only. And there is another Boraitha: The husband of one's wife's sister only. R. Jehudah says: One's stepson only. How is this to be understood? Shall we assume that the Tana of the first Boraitha has mentioned only the stepfather, but that the case is the same with the husband of one's wife's sister? And R. Jose with his statement also does not mean to differ, but he mentioned the latter, and the same is it also with the former. Then our Mishna, which states, "the husband of one's wife's sister, he, his son, and his son-in-law are excluded, would be neither in accordance with R. Jedudah nor with R. Jose. "Or does the Boraitha mean to say that regarding a stepfather only is he excluded, but concerning the husband of the wife's sister, he, with his sons, etc., is excluded; and R. Jose differs, as, according to his opinion, the latter only is excluded, but not his sons, etc.; but a stepfather, with his sons, etc., is excluded? Then the Boraitha of R. Hyya, mentioned above, which states that there are twenty-four, would be neither in accord with R. Jose nor with R. Jehudah. Therefore we must say that the Boraitha is to be explained thus: The stepfather only is to be excluded, but concerning the husband of his wife's sister, his children are also excluded. And R. Jose came to teach that even concerning the latter he only is excluded, but not his children, and so much the more a stepfather. And then our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah and the Boraitha in accordance with R. Jose. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose.

There was a deed of gift which was signed by two brothers-in law—i.e., two husbands of two sisters—and R. Joseph was about to make it valid, based upon the decision of Samuel that the Halakha prevails with R. Jose. Said Abayi to him: Whence do you know that Samuel meant R. Jose of our Mishna, who qualified the husband of one's wife's sister? Perhaps he meant R. Jose of the Boraitha who disqualified him. This could not be supposed, as Samuel said, e.g., I and Pinchas, who are brothers and brothers-in-law—but if only brothers-in-law, they are qualified. And Abayi rejoined: It is still uncertain, as perhaps Samuel meant to say: Because Pinchas was the husband of his wife's sister. Therefore said R. Joseph to the beneficiary: Acquire title to this gift by the testimony of the witnesses who were present when the gift was transferred to you, in accordance with R. Aba's decision. Said Abayi again: But did not Aba admit that if there was a forgery in the deed while writing, it is invalid even in the latter case? And R. Joseph said to the beneficiary: Go! you see people do not allow me to transfer it to you. "R. Jehudah said," etc. Said Thn'hum in the name of Tabla in the name of Bruna, quoting Rabha: The Halakha prevails with R. Jehudah. Rabha, however, in the name of R. Na'hman, and also Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan, said: The Halakha does not prevail with him: There were some others who taught the saying of Rabba with regard to the following: Thus lectured R. Jose the Galilean: It is written [Deut. xvii. 9]: "And to the judge that may be in those days." Was it necessary to state thus? Can it then be supposed that one should go to a judge that is not in his days? Therefore it is to be explained that it means that the judge was previously a relative of his, and that thereafter he became estranged. And to this said Rabba, etc., the Halakha prevails with R. Jose the Galilean.

The sons of Mar Uqba's father-in-law were relatives, and became thereafter estranged. And they had a case, and came, with it to his court. He, however, exclaimed: I am disqualified from being your judge. They then rejoined: Is it because you hold with R. Jehudah? We will bring you a letter from Palestine stating that the Halakha does not prevail with him. Rejoined he: I myself know that I am not attached to you with wax, and my saying that I am disqualified to judge you is because I know that your custom is not to listen to my decision. "A friend is a groomsman." But how long shall this friendship hold? R. Aba in the name of R. Jeremiah, quoting Rabh, said: All the seven days of the wedding. The rabbis, however, in the name of Rabha said that after the first day the friendship is no longer considered, and he is qualified. "An enemy," etc. The rabbis taught: It reads [Num. xxxv. 23]: "He was not his enemy and did not seek his harm"—which means, he who is not one's enemy may be a witness and he who does not seek one's harm may be his judge. This is concerning an enemy. And whence do we know that the same is the case with a friend? Read, then, "and he is not his enemy and not his friend"—and then he may be a witness; and if he does not seek his harm and not his welfare, then he may be his judge. But is it, then, written a friend? This is common sense. Why not an enemy? Because his mind is far from doing any good to him; and the same is it with a friend, whose mind is near to do all that he can in his behalf. The rabbis, however, infer from this two things: one concerning a judge and the other that which we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Jose b. R. Jehudah said: From the verse, "he is not his enemy and does not seek his harm," is to be inferred that if two scholars have animosity toward each other they must not judge in a case together.

MISHNA V.: How were the witnesses examined? They, were brought into separate chambers and were frightened to tell the truth. And then all except the eldest were told to go out, and he questioned: How do you know that A owes money to B?, And if his answer was: "Because A himself told me that he owes,. him," or, "C told me that such was the case," he said nothing, unless he testified that, in the presence of myself and my colleague, A confessed that he owed to B two hundred zuz: and then the second witness is brought in and they examine him, and if both testimonies correspond the court discusses about the case. If two of the judges acquit and one makes him liable, he is acquitted; and if vice versa, he is liable. If, however, one acquits and the other makes him liable, and the third one says, "I don't know," then judges must be added. And the same is the case if there were five, and two of them were against two, while the fifth was doubtful. After the conclusion of the judges is arrived at, they are told to enter, and the eldest of the judges announces, "You, R, are acquitted," or, "You, A, are liable." And whence do we know that one of the judges must not say: I was in favor of the defendant, but my colleagues were against, and I could not help it, as they were the majority. As to this it reads [Lev. xix. 16]: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people"; and it reads also [Prov. xi. 131 He that walketh about as a talebearer revealeth secrets."

GEMARA: How were the witnesses frightened? Said R. Jehudah. Thus [ibid. xxv. 14]: "Like clouds and wind without rain, so is a man that vaunteth falsely of a gift" (i.e., that because of false witnesses, even though it is cloudy, the rain is withheld), Said Rabha: This is no frightening, as they may think what people say, even seven years of famine do not pass the gate of a specialist. "Therefore," said he, "it was said to them [ibid., ibid. 18]: 'A battle-axe, and a sword, and a sharpened arrow is a man that testifieth as a false witness against his neighbor.'" And R. Ashi maintains that even this is not sufficient, as they may think, even in time of a pest one does not die before his time. Therefore said he: I was told by Nathan b. Mar Zutra that they were frightened that false witnesses were disgraced even in the eyes of those who hired them. As it reads [I Kings, xxi. 10]: "And set two men, sons of Belial, opposite to him, and let them bear false witness against him," etc. "'A' himself told me," etc. This is a support to R. Jehudah, who said in the name of Rabh: If one wants the case to be recognized by the court, he must insist that the debtor shall say: Ye shall be my witnesses. And so also was taught by Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan. And there is also a Boraitha as follows: (A said to B:)"I have a mana with you," and he answered, "Yea." On the morrow A asked him, "Give it to me," and B said it was only a joke, he is free. And not this only, but even if A has had two witnesses hidden under a fence (so that B could not see them), and questioned him: "Have I a mana with you?" and B answered, "Yea." And to the question, "Would you like to confess before witnesses?" B answers, "I am afraid, if I do so, you will summon me to the court"; and on the morrow A asks B to give him the mana, and his answer is, "It was only a joke," he is not liable. However, one must not defend a seducer. A seducer! Who has mentioned this term? The Boraitha is not complete, and should read thus: If, however, B does not defend himself, the court must not question him; perhaps it was a joke. But in criminal cases, a similar question must be asked by the court, although he has not so defended himself, except in the case of a seducer. And why? Said R. Hama b. Hanina: From the lecture of R. Hyya b. Aba I understand that it is because it reads [Deut. xiii. 9]: "Nor shall thy eye look with pity on him, nor shalt thou conceal it for him."

Said Abayi: All that is said above is, provided the defendant claims, "It was a joke"; but if he claims, "I have never confessed," he must be considered a liar and is liable. R. Papa b R. Aha b. Ada, however, maintains: In the case of a joke, people do not remember their confession, and therefore even such a claim must be investigated.
There was one who had hidden witnesses under the curtains of his bed, and he said to his debtor, "Have I a mana with you?" and he answered, "Yea." And he questioned him again, "May the people who are here sleeping or awake be witnesses?" and he answered, "No." And when the case came before R. Kahana, he said: He cannot be liable, as he said no. A similar case happened with one who had hidden witnesses in a grave, and to the question, "May the living and the dead be witnesses?" he answered, "No." And when the case came before Resh Lakish, he acquitted him. Rabhina, according to others R. Papi, said: The decision of R. Jehudah that it must be said by the party, "Ye are my witnesses," is no matter whether it is said by the lender in the presence of the borrower and he keeps silent, or by the debtor himself. And this is inferred from that which was said above, that the debtor had answered the question with no; but if he should remain silent, he would be liable. There was one who was named by the people "the man who has against him a whole kab of promissory notes." And when he heard this, he exclaimed: Do I owe to anyone but B and C? The latter then summoned him before the court of R. Na'hman, and R. Na'hman decided that the above exclamation could not be taken as evidence, as it might be that he said so for the purpose that people should not think him too rich. There was another one who was named "the mouse who lies on dinars," and at the time he was dying he said: A and B are my creditors. After his death the creditors summoned his heirs before R. Ismael b. R. Jose, and he made the heirs pay, for the reason that, if he said so while in good health, it might be supposed that he did so for the purpose mentioned above, but this could not apply to a man who was dying. The heirs, however, only paid the half, and were summoned for the other half in the court of R. Hyya, who decided, as it is supposed that one may say so for the purpose that he shall not appear too rich, so it may be said that the deceased did so that his children should not appear too rich. The heirs then demanded what they had already paid, to which R. Hyya answered: It was decided long ago by a sage, and the decision must remain.

If one has confessed before two witnesses and they have made the ceremony of a sudarium, they may write it down; but if there was no sudarium, it must not be written. If he has, however, confessed before three without a sudarium, according to Rabh it may, and according to R. Assi it must not be written. However, there was such a case before Rabh, and he took into consideration R. Assi's decision.

R. Ada b. Ahba said: Such a document of confession is dependent upon circumstances. If the people were gathered by themselves and he confessed before them, then it must not be written; but if he himself caused the gathering, it may. Rabha, however, is of the opinion that even in the latter case it must not be written unless he said to them, "I accept you as my judges"; and Mar b. R. Ashi maintains that even then a judgment is not to be written unless they appoint a place, and summon him to the court.
It is certain, when one has confessed with the ceremony of a sudarium in cases of movable property, that a judgment may be written, but not otherwise. But how is it with real estate—without a sudarium? According to Ameimar it may not, and according to Mar Zutra it may be written. And so the Halakha prevails. It happened that Rabhina came to the city of Damhariah, and R. Dimi b. R. Huna of the same city questioned him: How is the law if the confession was for movable property which is still in full possession of the parties? And he answered: Then it is considered as real estate. R. Ashi, however, maintains that so long as the creditor has not collected it, it is to be considered as money, because if the possessor would like to sell it, he could do so even after the confession, which is not the case in real estate.

There was a document of confession in which it was not written: "He (the debtor) has said to us, 'Write a document, sign it, and give it to him' (the creditor)," and both Abayi and Rabha decided that this case was similar to that of Resh Lakish, who decided that witnesses would not sign a document unless they were aware that the person who told them to sign was of age; the same is the case here, they would not sign it unless he said to them, "Sign and give." R. Papi, according to others R. Huna b. Joshua, opposed: Is there a thing of which we, the judges, are not sure, and the scribes are? Therefore the scribes of Abayi and of Rabha were questioned, and they were aware of the law, when it must be written and when not. There was another document of confession in which the memoranda, and all the versions which are needed thereto, were written correctly, but. the words, "in the presence of us three," were missing, and the document was signed by two only. And Rabhina was about to say that this case was similar to that of Resh Lakish mentioned above; but R. Nathan b. Ami said to him: Thus was it said in the name of Rabha: In such a case it may be feared that it was an error by the court—i.e., they thought that such might be done by two. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: If in the document was written, "we the Beth Din," although it was signed by two, it is valid without any investigation. But perhaps it was written by an impudent Beth Din of two, of which, according to Samuel, the decision is to be considered, but they are named impudent (and the Halakha does not so prevail). The case was that the document read, "the Beth Din appointed by R. Ashi." Still, perhaps the same holds with Samuel. It means that it was written: Our master, Ashi, thus said.

The rabbis taught: If one said I have seen your deceased father hide money in a certain place, saying this belongs to so and so," or, "The money is for second tithe," if this place is to be found in this house, he said nothing. if, however, the place was in a field, where the witness could take it without being prevented, his testimony is to be considered, this being the rule in such a case. If he is able to take it himself without notifying, his word is to be trusted, but not otherwise. Moreover, if they themselves saw their father hide money in a chest, or the like, and he said to them, "This money belongs to so and so," or, "It is for second tithe," if it looks as if he told this as his last will, he is to be trusted; but if it appears that he desires to deceive them, then his words are not to be considered.

The same is the case if one became harassed, searching for the money which his father left for him, and he dreamed that the sum was of such and such an amount and was placed in a certain place, but it was for second tithe. Such a case happened, and the sages decided that the caprices of dreams are not to be taken into any consideration. "If two of the judges acquit," etc. But how is the judgment to be written? According to R. Johanan, "So and so is ac. quitted," and according to Resh Lakish, "Such and such judges acquitted, and such hold him liable." R. Elazar, however, says it should be written, "From the discussion of the judges, the decision is that such is acquitted." And what is the difference? The tale-bearing.

According to R. Johanan it must not be written who acquits and who holds liable, as this would appear like tale-bearing; and according to Resh Lakish, it must be written, as, if not, it would appear like a unanimous verdict, and it would look as though they had lied; and R. Elazar's decision is: To prevent vainglory it may be written, "From their discussion, the decision is that the defendant is acquitted," in which there is no tale-bearing and it does not appear unanimous. "Are told to enter." Who? Shall we assume the parties? It is not stated the parties, but the witnesses, must go out. You must then say that the witnesses are told to enter, and this would not be in accordance with R. Nathan of the following Boraitha: The testimony of the witnesses is not to be conjoined unless both witnesses have seen the case together.

R. Jehoshua b. Karha, however, maintains that, even if they have seen one after the other, their testimony is not to be approved by the court unless they both testify together. R. Nathan, however, maintains that the court may hear the testimony of one to-day, and on the morrow from the other one, when he appears. Hence, according to him, both witnesses may not be present? The Mishna means the parties, and it is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who said in the following Boraitha: So was the custom of the pure-minded in Jerusalem. They let the parties enter, listened to their claims, and thereafter let the witnesses enter, listened to their testimony, and told all of them to go out, and then discussed the matter.

The text says that their testimony is not conjoined, etc. What is the point of their difference? If you wish, it may be said common sense. If, for instance, one testifies that he has seen A borrow a mana from B, and on the morrow the other witness testifies that he has seen A borrow a mana from B, one may say, e.g., C has seen one mana and D has seen another mana. Hence their testimony cannot be conjoined according to the first Tana of the Boraitha; but according to R. Jehoshua b. Karha it may be conjoined, as both admit that A owes a mana to B. This is common sense. And if you wish, they differ in the meaning of the verse [Lev. v. 1]: "And he is a witness," etc. And there is a Boraitha: It reads [Deut. xix. 15]: "There shall not rise up one single witness against." Why is it written "single"? This is a rule for every case in which is mentioned "a witness," that it means two, and the term single is expressed because their testimony is to be considered only then when they saw it together. So is the explanation of the first Tana. B. Karha, however, gives his attention to the verse cited [Lev. v.]: "And he is a witness, since he either hath seen or knoweth something." Hence it matters not whether they have seen together or singly. And what is the point of difference between R. Nathan and the first Tana? Also, if you wish, it is common sense; and if you wish, in the explanation of the Scripture. "Common sense"—usually one witness is brought not to make the defendant pay, but to make him liable for an oath. Hence, if their testimony does not come together, it cannot be conjoined to make the defendant pay. Such is the meaning of the first Tana. But Nathan maintains: Even when they come together, does, then, their testimony go out from one mouth? They testify one after the other, and we conjoin them. The same is the case when they come on two days. "In the explanation of the Scripture "[ibid., ibid.]: "If he do not tell it, and thus bear his iniquity." And both the first Tana and Nathan hold with the opponents of B. Karha, that both witnesses have to see the case together. And the point of their difference is, if the testimony is to be similar to the seeing of the case. One holds it is: hence it cannot be conjoined if not seen together; and one holds it is not.

Simeon b. Alyaqim was anxious that the degree of Rabbi should be granted to Jose b. Hanina, but the opportunity did not present itself. One day they were sitting before R. Johanan, and the latter questioned: Is there one here who knows if the Halakha prevails with B. Karha or not? And B. Alyaqim pointed to Jose b. Hanina, saying: He knows. Johanan then said: Then let him tell. But B. Alyaqim, however, rejoined: Let the master give him the degree of Rabbi, and then he will tell. And he did so, and then said to him: My son, tell me just so as you have heard. And he answered: I have heard that B. Karha yielded to R. Nathan. Rejoined R. Johanan: Is that what it was necessary for me to know? Is it not self-evident that B. Karha could not demand that they should testify together, as he does not desire that the seeing shall be together? Nevertheless, since you have already ascended to the degree of Rabbi, it may remain with you. And R. Zera said: Infer from this act that if a great man gives a degree, even conditionally, it remains forever.

Hyya b. Abin in the name of Rabh said: The Halakha prevails with Jehoshua b. Karha concerning real estate, as well as movable property. Ula, however, maintains: It prevails with him concerning real estate only. Said Abayi to Hyya: You say that the Halakha prevails. Is there one who differs with him? 'Did not Aba say in the name of R. Huna, quoting Rabh: The sages yield to B. Karha concerning the testimony as to real estate. And so also taught Idi b. Abin in the Section Damages, taught by the College of Karna: The sages yield to B. Karha concerning the testimony as to a first-born, as to real estate, as to hazakah, and concerning the signs of maturity—for a male as well as for a female? You contradict one person with another. People may hold different opinions. Said R. Joseph: I say in the name of Ula that the Halakha prevails with B. Karha concerning real estate, as well as movable property. However, the rabbis who came from the city of Mehuza say in the name of Zera, quoting Rabh: Concerning real estate, but not concerning movable property. And Rabh is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that a confession after a confession, or a confession after a loan, may be conjoined; but a loan after a loan, or a loan after a confession, do not conjoin. (I.e., if one says, "In my presence A confessed on Monday that he owed a mana to B"; and the second witness says, "In my presence A confessed on Tuesday that he owed a mana to B," they may be conjoined. And the same is the case if one says, "On Monday A borrowed from B a mana in my presence," and the other witness testifies, "In my presence A confessed on Tuesday that he owed a mana to B." But if one testifies that in his presence A made a loan to B on Monday, and the other testifies that the same was done on Tuesday, they are not to be conjoined, as they may be two different manas. And the same is the case if one testify that A confessed on Monday that he owed a mana to B, and the other testified that B had made a loan to A on Tuesday.)

Na'hman b. Itz'hak met Huna b. R. Jehoshua, and questioned him thus: Let us see why the testimony of a loan after a loan is not to be conjoined. Because the loan which one witness has seen may not be the same which the other saw. Why, then, not say the same concerning a confession? Say, the confession of Tuesday was not the same as that of Monday? The answer was: He speaks of when he said to the last witness, "The mana which I confess before you is the same as that which I confessed yesterday before so and so." But even then, the second witness only knows this, but not the first. It means that after he has confessed before the second he goes again to the first witness, telling him, "The mana which I confessed before you, I did so also before so and so." Rejoined Na'hman: Let your mind be at rest, for you have set my mind at rest. And Huna asked him: What was the trouble? Because I had heard that Rabha, and according to others R. Shesheth, swung an axe at it (i.e., disproved the opinion), saying: Is this not similar to a confession after a loan? Which means that he said in his confession, "I confess before you that I owe a mana to so and so, which I borrowed yesterday in the presence of so and so." Hence it was already said once by Rabh. Why, then, the repetition? Rejoined Huna: This is what I have heard of your people—when they tear out trees, they plant them again (i.e., you answer questions, and then object to them again). The sages of Nahardea, however, say that, no matter if it is a confession after a confession, a loan after a confession, or a loan after a loan, they are to be conjoined, as they hold with B. Karha.

R. Jehudah said: Witnesses in civil cases who contradict one another in unimportant investigations are to be considered. Said Rabha: It seems that he meant that the contradiction was that one said the purse in which the mana was given was a black one and the other said it was a white one. But if one says that the loan was with old coins and the other said it was with new ones, they are not to be conjoined. But is such a contradiction not to be taken into consideration even in criminal cases? Did not R. Hisda say that if one testifies that he killed him with a sword and the other with an axe, it is not to be considered; but if one says the murdered or the murderer was dressed in white, while the other testifies that he was dressed in black, their testimony holds good? And the answer was: Do you contradict one scholar with another? Each may have his own opinion. The Nahardeans, however, maintain that even if one testifies old coins and the other new, they are nevertheless to be conjoined; and this is because they hold with B. Karha. But have you then heard B. Karha say that they may be conjoined even when they contradict each other? Therefore we must say that the Nahardeans hold with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: The schools of Shamai and Hillel do not differ, if there were two parties of witnesses. If one party testifies that he owes him two hundred, and one party testifies one hundred, the latter amount is to be collected, as in the testimony of two hundred one hundred is certainly included. In what they do differ is that, if among one party of witnesses was this contradiction (i.e., one says that he owes two and the other one hundred), according to the school of Shamai the whole party must be disqualified, because one of them is surely a liar; and according to the school of Hillel they are not, as both admit that he owes one hundred (and so the Nahardeans, be it old or new coins, both admit that he owes a mana). Suppose one testifies that he borrowed a barrel of wine and the other of oil. Such a case came before Ami, and he made him liable to pay the value of a barrel of wine, as a barrel of oil amounts to twice as much as a barrel of wine. But according to whom was his decision? Is it in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar? He said so, because in the amount of two hundred a hundred is surely included; but did he say so in such a case as that of the barrels? The case was that they testified not for the barrels themselves, but for the value (i.e., one testified that he owed him the amount of a barrel of wine and the other the amount of a barrel of oil, which is twice as much).

Suppose one of the witnesses says the law was made in the first attic, and the other says in the second attic. Said R. Hanina: Such a case came before a rabbi, and he conjoined their testimony. "And whence do we know that one of the judges must not say?" The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that one of the judges, when he is going out, must not say, "I was in favor of the defendant, but my colleagues were against, and I could not help it, as they were the majority"? To this it reads [Lev. xix. 16]: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people"; and it reads also [Prov. xi. 131 "He that walketh about as a talebearer revealeth secrets." There was a disciple of whom there was a rumor that he told a secret thing which was taught in the college, after twenty-two years, and R. Ami drove him out of the college, saying: This man is telling secrets.

MISHNA VI.: So long as the defendant brings evidence to'. his advantage, the decision may be nullified by the court. If he was told: "All the evidence which you have, you may bring before the court within thirty days," if he found such within thirty days, it affects the decision, but after that it does not. Exclaimed R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: But what should the man do who could not find such within thirty days, but found it after? If he was told to bring witnesses, and he said, "I have none"; "Bring any other evidence," and he said, "I have none," and after the time had elapsed he brought evidence and found also witnesses, it is as nothing. And to this also R. Simeon b. Gamaliel exclaimed: What should this defendant do if he was not aware that there were witnesses and evidence? However, if, after he said "I have no witnesses," seeing that he is about to be liable, he says, "Bring in so and so to testify in this case," or he takes out from under his girdle a new evidence, it counts nothing (even according to R. Simeon).

GEMARA: Said Rabba b. R. Hana: The Halakha prevails with R. Simeon. And the same says again: The Halakha does not prevail with the sages. Is this not self-evident? If it prevails with R. Simeon, it cannot prevail with the sages? One might say the Halakha prevails with R. Simeon to start with; but if some have done in accordance with the sages, it should remain so. He comes to teach us that even if it was so done, it must be changed. "If he was told to bring witnesses," etc. Said Rabba b. R. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails with the sages. And the same said again: The Halakha does not prevail with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Is this not self-evident—that if the Halakha prevails with the sages it cannot prevail with R. Simeon? He comes to teach us that only in this case the Halakha does not prevail with R. Simeon, but in all other cases it does; and this is to deny what Rabba b. b. Hana said in the name, of R. Johanan, that everywhere R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is mentioned in the Mishnayoth the Halakha prevails with him, etc. (Last Gate, p. 388). There was a young man who was summoned to the court before R. Na'hman, and he asked him: "Have you no witnesses?" and he answered: "No." "Have you some other evidence?" and he answered: "No." And R. Na'hman made him liable. The young man went and wept; and some people heard him cry, and said: We know something in your behalf in the case of your father. Said R. Na'hman: "In such a case even the rabbis would admit that the young man was not acquainted with the business of his father and therefore the new evidence is to be taken into consideration." There was a woman with whom a document was deposited and she gave it away to some one, saying: "I am aware that this document is already paid," and R. Na'hman did not believe her. Said Rabha to him: Why should she not be trusted? Should she desire to tell a lie, she could burn it. And R. Na'hman answered: Inasmuch as it was approved by the court and known that it was deposited with her, the supposition that if she wanted to lie she could burn it does not apply. And Rabha objected to R. Na'hman from the following: A receipt which was signed by witnesses may be approved by its signer. If, however, there were no witnesses, but he was coming out from a depository; or the receipt was written on the document after the signature of the witness (which was in the hands of the creditor), it is valid. Hence we see that a depository is to be trusted. This objection remains. When R. Samuel b. Jehudah came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: The defendant has always a right to bring evidence against the decision of the court, unless all his claims are concluded and he himself confesses that he has no more witnesses nor any other evidence.

However, even after this, if witnesses arrived from the sea countries, or the box of documents of his father was deposited with a stranger who has returned it after he was found liable, it may be taken into consideration to change the first decision. When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: If one is summoning a party who says, "I want my case to be brought before the assembly of sages," while the plaintiff says, "It is sufficient that it be tried in the court of this city," the plaintiff may be compelled to follow the defendant to the assembly. Said R. Elazar: Rabbi, is it right that, if the plaintiff claims one mana from the defendant, he shall spend another mana to go with him to the assembly? Therefore the reverse must be done: The defendant should be compelled to bring the case before the court in that city. It was taught also in the name of R. Saphra: If two men were cruel to one another, and one of them insisted, "We shall try our case here," while the other says, "Let us go to the assembly," the latter must be compelled to try his case in that city.
However, if there was a necessity to question the assembly, they might write and send it in writing. And also, if the defendant demands, "Write down the reason why you accused me, and give it to me," he may be listened to. In the case of a widow whose husband dies childless and she has to marry his brother, she is obliged to go to that place where the brother is to be found (that he should marry her or perform the ceremony of Halitzah). And to what distance? Said R. Ami: Even from Tiberias to Sephorius. Said R. Kahana: Whence is this deduced? From the Scripture [Deut. xxv. 8]: "The elders of his city"; of his, but not of hers. Said Ameimar: The Halakha prevails that one may be compelled to go to the assembly (and there try his case). Said R. Ashi to him: But did not R. Elazar say: He maybe compelled to try his case in that city? This is when the borrower said thus to the lender; but if the lender claims so, we apply to him [Prov. xxii. 7]: "The borrower is servant to the man that lendeth."

A message was sent from Palestine to Mar Uqba: To him to whom the world is light as to the son of Bathiah (it means to Moses), peace may be granted. Uqban the Babylonian complained before us that Jeremiah his brother destroyed his way (i.e., he has treated me badly, through which I have lost my money), and we have decided that he shall be compelled to appear before us in the city of Tiberias. (How is this to be understood? Thus:) They said to him: You may try him. If he will listen to you, well and good; and if not, you must compel him to see us in the city of Tiberias. Said R. Ashi: This was a case of fine, and in Babylon they are not allowed to try cases of fine; and that which they said to Mar Uqba, "You shall try him," etc., was only to honor him.

Footnotes

68:1 Here is a repetition from Tract Sabbath, pp. 89-92, which is already translated.

75:1 The Haggadic passage we have transferred to the last chapter of this tract, which is all Haggadah.

76:1 Rashi gives also another interpretation to this passage; viz., mental resolution frequently fails, even if it is concerning the study of the Torah—e.g., if one made up his mind to finish such and such a tract in a certain time. And to this came Rabba to say, if it was for the sake of Heaven, it would not fail, etc.

76:2 Rashi explains this, that one is suspected of such an offence, but cannot be punished with the prescribed punishment because there were no legal witnesses or he was not warned, has nevertheless been punished with stripes, as so it is stated (Tract Kidushin, 81b).

77:1 Our explanation in the case of angering may be new, as we are not in accord with other commentators. However, it seems to us that this is the correct interpretation, as to which we challenge criticism.

CHAPTER IV.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING EXAMINATIONS AND CROSS-EXAMINATIONS OF WITNESSES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. THE DIFFERENCE IN JUDGING AND IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE SANHEDRIN WERE SEATED. HOW MANY RECORDING SCRIBES WERE NEEDED. HOW JUDGES WERE ADDED IF NEEDED, AND FROM WHAT PEOPLE. HOW WITNESSES SHOULD BE FRIGHTENED IN CRIMINAL CASES. THE REASON WHY ADAM THE FIRST WAS CREATED SINGLY.
MISHNA I.: Cases coming before the court, be they civil or criminal, the witnesses thereof must be examined and investigated. As it is written [Lev. iv. 22]: "One manner of judicial law shall ye have." But what difference is there between civil and criminal cases? It is the following: (a) The former cases are to be tried by three, and the latter by twenty-three judges. (b) In the former the discussion may commence either with the accusation or with the defence, while the latter must commence with the defence and not with the accusation. (c) In the former case one voice suffices either to accuse or to acquit, and in the latter he is acquitted by one voice, while to condemn two are needed. (d) In the former the judge who proclaimed his view either to advantage or to disadvantage may, after deliberating, announce his view to the contrary. In the latter, however, he may do so only to acquit, but not to condemn. (e) In civil cases the whole body of the court may defend or accuse, while in criminal cases all of them may acquit, but the whole body must not accuse. (f) The former may be discussed in the daytime and the decision rendered at night, while in the latter the decision must be in the daytime. But if they did not come to a conclusion on the same day, they have to postpone it to the morrow. (g) The decision concerning the former may be reached on the same day either to one's advantage or to his disadvantage, while in the latter the decision may be rendered on the same day to free him, but not to condemn him until the next day; and, therefore, cases of capital punishment must not be begun on the eve of Sabbath or of a legal holiday. In civil cases, and regarding defilement and purity, they begin by asking the opinion of the eldest, while in criminal cases they begin with those who are sitting on the side.

All are qualified to judge civil cases, but not every one is qualified to judge criminal cases; as to the latter—only priests, Levites, and Israelites who may legally marry daughters of priests.

GEMARA: Are investigation and examination indeed needed in civil cases? If so, there is a contradiction from the following Tosephta: A document of which the date shows the first of Nissan in a Sabbatical year and witnesses came, saying, "How can you testify in favor of this document—were you not with us at the same date mentioned in the document in such and such a place?" The document as well as the witnesses are valid, as it is to be supposed that they might have written the document after the date mentioned therein. Hence if investigation and examination are needed, why should they be valid because of the above reason? Would not the investigation show if it were so or not. But according to this theory, how is to be understood the following Mishna: Promissory notes which were written at an earlier date are invalid. However, if they were written at a later date, they are. Now, if an investigation in civil cases is needed, why should that which was written at a later date be valid? (The investigation would show that the witnesses who signed the document were not present when the loan was made, as it was signed at an earlier date. Hence the loan which was made earlier is to be considered a verbal loan, which does not collect from encumbered estates, and the note should be considered a forgery?) This presents no difficulty, the objection mentioned applying more to the statement of the Boraitha, as it speaks of a Sabbatical year, in which people do not usually lend money because of the law [Deut. xv. 2] of that year, and nevertheless it makes valid that which was written in the month of Nissan, because the above-mentioned law concerning promissory notes applies only at the end of the year. However, the contradiction to our Mishna remains!

R. Hanina said: Biblically there is no difference between civil and criminal cases concerning investigations, as it reads, "One manner of judicial law," etc. But why was it enacted that civil cases do not need investigation? So as not to close the door to borrowers. (And our Mishna, which states that it is needed, was taught before the enactment; and the Boraitha cited after the enactment.) But if so, let the judge who made an error in the decision of the case not be responsible? If this should be enacted, so much the more would the door be closed to borrowers. Rabha, however, maintains that our Mishna treats of fine cases and the Boraitha of loan cases. However, both were taught after the above-mentioned enactment. And R. Papa maintains that both treat of loan cases. But our Mishna speaks of a case which appears to the court unfair; and to such, investigation is needed. The Boraitha speaks of non-suspicious cases. And this is in accordance with Resh Lakish, who used to propound a contradiction to the following: It reads [Lev. xix. 15]: "In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor"; and Deut. xvi. 20 reads: "Justice, only justice, shalt thou pursue," from which it is to be understood that an investigation is needed? And he answered that the first verse speaks of an ordinary case and the second of a suspicious one. R. Ashi, however, maintains that the above answer of R. Papa, concerning the contradiction from the Mishna, holds good. However, the supposed contradiction of the verse is to be explained that the first speaks of a strict law and the second of an arbitration, as the following Boraitha states: "Justice, only justice," etc., one word means strict law and the other means arbitration. How so? If, e.g., two boats are plying on a river and they meet each other, if both try to pass where there is not room, both would be lost; but if one passes after the other, both would be saved. And the same is the case with two camels passing the steps of Beth Chorin, which met each other. If both tried to pass together, both would fall; but if one after the other, both would be saved. Then the strict law is that the unloaded one should wait, and the loaded one pass; or, if one was near to the dangerous place and the other far off, the nearer one has to pass; but if both were loaded, or if both were at the same distance, then arbitration must be used as to which one has to pay to the other for loss of time.

The rabbis taught: "Justice, only justice, shalt thou pursue," means that one shall follow to the city of a celebrated judge, e.g., at Luda, after R. Elazar; at Brur-Heil, after Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. [There is a Boraitha: (At the time the government had forbidden circumcisions and weddings, they made use of handmills to announce a circumcision.) Then, if one heard the sound of a handmill in the city of Burni, he understood that there was a ceremony of circumcision in that city; and if one saw many lights in Bene Heil, he understood that there was a wedding banquet in that city].

There is another Boraitha interpreting the cited verse thus: You should always trouble yourself to follow after the sages in assembly, as, for instance, after R. Elazar at Luda; after R Johanan b. Zakkai at Brur-Heil; after Jehoshua at Pekiein; after Rabban Gamaliel at Jamnia; after Aqiba at Bene Braq; after Matia at Rome; after Hanania b. Thrduin at Sikhni; after Jose at Sephorius; after Jehudah b. Bathyra at Nzibin; after Hanina, the nephew of Jehoshua, in exile; after Rabbi at Beth Shearin; and (when the Temple was in existence) after the sages at their assembly in the chamber of the Temple. "With the accusation or with the defence." But what has the court first to say to the advantage of the defence in criminal cases?

Said R. Jehudah: The court may ask the witness: "Whence do we know that it was as you say?" But from such an interrogation the witness will become dejected, and will refrain from saying anything. [But let him be dejected? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, R. Simon b. Eleazar said: The witnesses may be transferred from one place to another that they shall become dejected and retract from their statement if it was not true? What comparison is this? There they become dejected by themselves; but here, if you say to them, "Whence do we know that what you say is true?" you cause them to be dejected.] Therefore said Ula: The court questioned the other party, "Have you other witnesses to make collusive the witnesses of your opponents?" Said Rabba to him: Is this what you call beginning with the defence? With this saying you begin by accusing witnesses of the other party.

Therefore said he: The court may say to the other party, "Have you other witnesses who may contradict the witnesses of your opponent?" R. Kahna says: The court may say, "From your testimony it seems that the defendant may be acquitted"; and thereafter they discuss the matter. Both Abayi and Rabha say: The court may say to the defendant, "Do not fear; if you have not committed the crime, nothing will be done to you." And R. Ashi said: The beginning should be with the announcement of the court: Every one who knows of a defence concerning the defendant may come to tell it before the court.

There is a Boraitha in accordance with Abayi and Rabha as follows: It reads [Num. v. 19]: "If thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness behind thy husband, then be thou free." Said Rabbi: Infer from this that in criminal cases the beginning must be with the defence (as it is written first, "then be thou free"). "May after deliberating . . . announce to the contrary." There is a contradiction from the following: If one has tried a case and made liable him who is not, or vice versa; has purified a thing which is unclean, or vice versa, his decision holds good, but he has to pay for his error from his own pocket. (Hence we see that he must not retract?) Said R. Joseph: This presents no difficulty. A judge who was appointed by the court, if he made an error, he must pay for it; but if he was appointed by the parties only, he has not.

But is there not a Boraitha: If he was appointed by the court, he has not to pay? Said R. Na'hman: The just cited Boraitha treats of when there was a superior judge to him, who ignores his decision; therefore he is free from paying, as the superior judge decides it properly. But if there is no superior and his decision remains, then he must pay for his error. R. Shesheth, however, maintains: It depends in what the error was made. If he erred in that which is plainly taught in a Mishna, then he has not to pay, because his decision will not be executed; but if he erred in his opinion, then he has to suffer. So did he hear from R. Assi. Rabhina questioned R. Ashi: Is it the same even if he has erred in that which was taught in the Boraithas of R. Hyya and R. Oshia? And he answered: Yea. And how is it if he erred in that which was said by Rabh and Samuel? And he answered: Yea.

And how is it if he erred in that which was said by you and me? And he rejoined: What, then, are we? Are we splitting wood or gathering splinters in the forest! How is to be understood, "erred in his opinion"? (See the answer in Chapter I., page 9, line 21.)

R. Hamnuna objected to R. Shesheth from the following: It happened that a cow of which the womb had been removed was brought before R. Tarphon, and he made the owner give it to the dogs. However, a similar case came before the sages in Jamnia, and they made it valid, because Tudus the physician testified that not one cow or one swine was sent out from Alexandria in Egypt of which the womb was not removed, Or the purpose that they should not bring forth offspring. And R. Tarphon exclaimed thus: O Tarphon, thy ass is gone! (I.e., I have to sell my ass to pay for the error.) Said R. Aqiba to him: You are free, as there is a rule that a judge who is appointed by the majority h-as not to pay for his error. Now, if an error in that which was taught in a Mishna does not hold good and must be redecided, why does not Aqiba say: You have erred against a Mishna? R. Aqiba meant to say both—first: You have erred against a Mishna; and secondly: Even if you erred in your own opinion you would also be free, because you were chosen by the majority.

Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak to Rabha: How could R. Hamnuna object to Shesheth from the case of the cow? Did not Tarphon give it to the dogs? Hence the cow was no longer in existence, and it could not be redecided. Hamnuna meant to say thus: If the decision should be that the case of one who erred against a Mishna is not to be redecided, it is correct that Tarphon was afraid that he must pay, and R. Aqiba told him that he must not, because he was a recognized judge. But if the Halakha is that in such a case it must be redecided, let Aqiba say to him: How would it be if the cow were still in existence—your decision would not remain and the cow would be declared valid? The same is the case even now that it is not in existence, as you did not yourself give it to the dogs: You had only decided that it was invalid, and as your decision does not count, the owner of the cow, himself, has to suffer for his act.

R. Hisda, however, explains our Mishna that it means: If the judge himself took from the one who was liable in his eyes and gave to his opponent, only then must he pay from his pocket, but not otherwise. But this would be correct in one case only—namely, if he had made liable the just, then we could say that he took from the just and gave to his opponent. But how could this be done in the second case, in which he has acquitted the one who was liable, as he only said to him: You are not liable? His decision, "You are free," is counted as if he would take with his hand and give to him.

But if so, how is to be understood the following statement of the Mishna, that the judge may retract from this view, no matter if it is concerning defence or accusation, as this can be explained only in case he said to the just, "You are liable," but did not collect from him, as then he may retract and say, "You are not liable"? But in case he made liable a just man, how could such a case take place, if not by the decision, "You are free"? And it is said above that such a decision is considered as if he would take from one party and give to the other: hence, after such, no retraction can take place.

Our Mishna, with its expression, "whether in defence or in accusation," means to say that with the acquittal of one party the other party is accused; namely, a retraction may take place in behalf of one who was erroneously made liable but it was not as yet collected, although it is a disadvantage to his opponent, but in case he has acquitted the one who is liable he has to pay from his pocket. But if so, then in criminal cases a retraction could take place only when it is in behalf of the defendant. but at the same time his opponent is not accused. And this can be said if the criminal case was a violation of Sabbath or a case of adultery; but in case of murder, how can such be found? But how, if there is a retraction that he is not guilty of slaying a person, who is accused?

It may be said the relatives of the person murdered; as biblically, if the relatives of the person murdered took revenge on the murderer and slew him, he is freed; and by the retraction from guilty to not guilty, if the relative should put his hand on the murderer, he would be accused. But could such a thing be supposed? You mean to say, because perhaps the relative of the person murdered will take revenge, therefore no retraction shall take place and the defendant shall be put to death. And secondly, does not the Mishna state, whether concerning defence or accusation? This difficulty remains. Rabhina, however, says: Even in case he has acquitted the one liable, it may also be found that the judge did it with his hand—namely, in case he had a pledge and the judge took it away from him and transferred it to the borrower.

"Criminal cases," etc. The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that if one was found guilty by the court, and thereafter one came, saying: I know a defence for him, that the case may be retried? Because it reads [Ex. xxiii. 7]: "Him who hath been declared innocent and righteous, thou shalt not slay." Read: Him who was declared innocent even by one person, you shall not slay (without a reinvestigation). And whence do we know concerning the one who was acquitted by the court, and thereafter one says, "I know of a fact which will make him guilty," that he must not be listened to? From the same cited verse: "Him who hath been declared righteous, ye shall not slay." Said R. Shimi b. Ashi. And just the reverse may be done with a seducer, as the Scripture reads [Deut. xiii. 9]: "You shall not have any pity," etc. R. Kahana infers this from [ibid., ibid. 10]: "You shall surely kill him," etc.

R. Zera questioned R. Shesheth: Whence do we know that the same law applies to them who are to be punished with exile? And the answer was: From an analogy of the expression "murder," which is to be found in both cases. And whence do we know that the same is the case with them that are to be punished with stripes? From an analogy of the expression, "wicked," which, is to be found in both cases. And so also is it plainly stated in a Boraitha. "But not to condemn." Said Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan: Provided he has erred in a thing which the Sadduceans oppose; but if they admit, it must read so plainly in the Scripture. And such a decision is not to be taken in consideration at all, as schoolchildren are aware of it; it must be retried. The same Hyya questioned R. Johanan: How is it we err in a case of adultery? And he answered: So loner as the fire in the stove burns, cut off all that you want to roast, and roast it. (I.e., when you are studying a thing, consider it thoroughly to prevent questions. You have heard from me that, a thing which the Sadduceans admit, his decision is not counted. Is not adultery one of these?) "All of them," etc. Does the Mishna mean that even their witness who had accused him may also thereafter defend him? Then our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jose b. Jehudah, and,, not in accordance with the rabbis of the following Boraitha: It is written [Num. xxxv. 30]: "But one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die." It means whether to defend or to accuse. Jose b. Jehudah, however, maintains that he may testify to defend, but not to accuse. (Hence our Mishna is not in accordance with him.) Said R. Papa: Our Mishna with its expression all, means to add one of the disciples who sat in a row before the judges, and such may make use of his opinion according to all.

What is the reason of R. Jose's statement? Because it reads: "to cause him to die," we infer that only to accuse he must not testify, but to defend he may. But if so, why do the rabbis differ? Said Resh Lakish: Because it appears that the witness is interested in this case. And what do the rabbis infer from the words "to cause him to die"? They apply this to one of the disciples, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one of the witnesses says: "I have something to say in defence. of the defendant," whence do we know that he must not be listened to? From the verse cited: "One witness shall not testify." And whence do we know, if one of the disciples say, "I have something to say to the disadvantage of the defendant," that he must also not be listened to? From the same: "One shall not testify to cause him to die." "Only to acquit, but not to condemn." Said Rabh: This is said only at the time they discuss this matter; but at the time of the conclusion he may change his views from defence to accusation also. An objection was raised from the following: "On the morrow they arise early and come to the court. He who defended has to say: I defended yesterday and am of the same opinion to-day. And he who accused has also to say: I accused, and am of the same opinion to-day. However, he who had accused may change his view to defence, while this is not allowed to him who defended." Now, on the morrow it is time for the conclusion, and it nevertheless states that the defendant may not change his view? According to this theory, no discussion is to be prolonged on the morrow; and this is certainly not so. Hence the Boraitha means that he must not do so at the time of discussion.

Come and hear another objection: "All who take part in the discussion may explain their reasons, until one of the accusers shall yield to one of the defenders (and then the majority of one will suffice to acquit)." Now, if you say that one may change his view from defence to accusation, why does not the Boraitha state, "or to the contrary"? It is simply because the Tana of the Boraitha does not care to repeat a matter of accusation.

Come and hear another objection: "R. Jose b. Hanina said: If one of the disciples has defended and dies at the time of the conclusion, his view should be considered as if he were still alive." And why? Let it be said that if he were alive he might retract from his view? This is no objection, as in reality he did not retract. But how can you explain that the decision of R. Jose b. Hanina may correspond with Rabh's statement? Was not a message sent from Palestine as follows: R. Jose's statement denies our master's (Rabh's) statement? Nay, the message was just the contrary: R. Jose's statement does not deny the statement of our master in Babylon. "Discussed in the daytime," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Aha b. Papa: From [Ex. xviii. 22]: "And let them judge the people at all times." But how is it to be inferred from this that the conclusion must not be at night, and the discussion may? This is in accordance with Rabha, who has propounded a contradiction from the just cited verse to that of Deut. xxi. 16: "Then shall it be, on the day 1 when he divideth . . . what he hath"—on the day, "but not at any time"? And the answer was that the beginning of the trial must be in the daytime, but the conclusion may be even at night-time in civil cases. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Mair of the following Boraitha: It reads [ibid., ibid. 5]: "Every controversy and every plague." 1 What have plagues to do with controversies? The Scripture compares controversies to plagues, in order to apply the law of the latter to the former. As concerning plagues it must be in the daytime [Lev. xiii. 14]: "But on the day," etc., the same is the case with controversies. And also as, concerning plagues, it cannot be judged by one who is blind, as the priest must see the signs, the same is the case with controversies. And also the law concerning controversies, which must not be judged by relatives, applies to plagues—that the priest must not be a relative of him who has the plague.

In the neighborhood of R. Johanan there was one who was blind who used to judge cases, and R. Johanan did not protest. But could R. Johanan be silent in such a matter? Is it not against his own decision? Did not he himself declare that the Halakha always prevails with an anonymous Mishna, and there is one which states: Every one who is qualified to judge is also qualified to be a witness? However, there are some who are qualified to witness, but not to judge; and the same R. Johanan has declared that it means one who is blind of one eye, who is qualified to witness, but not to judge. Hence one who is blind, who is disqualified to be a witness because he cannot see, ought also to be disqualified to judge?

R. Johanan found another anonymous Mishna for his basis, namely: "Civil cases may be discussed in the daytime and the conclusion at night," which is the same as a case of one who is blind. But why does he give preference to the latter Mishna, and not to the first? If you wish, it may be said because the latter treats of a majority, while the first treats of an individual. And if you wish, it is because the latter is taught concerning the laws of trying cases. "If they did not come to a conclusion," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said Shini b. Hyya: From [Num. xxv. 4]: "Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord in the face of the sun." If people have sinned, wherein have the heads of the people sinned, that they should be hanged?

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: "Take the heads of the people, and set them at separate places, that they shall judge the guilty ones and hang them in the face of the sun (which means in the daytime)." And why in separate places? Shall we assume, because two capital punishments must not be decided on one and the same day? Did not R. Hisda say that this is said only when capital punishments are of different kinds, but if of one kind they may? Therefore it must be said: To hasten the execution of the guilty, that the anger of Heaven shall cease. "They have to postpone it until the morrow." Whence is this deduced? Said R. Hanina: From [Is. i. 21]: "Righteousness lodged therein; but now murderers"—which means, formerly they used to postpone the condemnation for a night, and now that they are not doing so they are considered murderers.

"Must not be begun on the eve of Sabbath," etc. Why so? Because it could not be done otherwise; as, if they should begin and finish on the eve of Sabbath, perhaps they would need to condemn him, and then they would have to postpone it over night. And to conclude the case on Sabbath and to execute on the same day, the execution does not violate the Sabbath; and should it be executed at night, after Sabbath the law requires, "in the face of the sun"; and should the conclusion be on Sabbath and the execution on the following day, then it would be torture for the guilty one, which is not allowed. Should they begin on the eve of Sabbath and conclude on the day after Sabbath, then they are liable to forget the reasons.

Although there were two scribes who used to write down the discussions—the defence as well as the accusation—they wrote only what was said, but could not write the heart of the man. And, therefore, it was impossible otherwise. "They used to ask the opinion," etc. Said Rabh: I used to be among the judges of the court of Rabbi, and they used to begin the question of opinions with me. But does not the Mishna state that they have to begin with the eldest? Said Rabba b. Rabba, according to others Hillel b. Wals: It was different in the court of Rabbi, as in all cases they used to begin from those who were sitting at the side. The same said again: From the time of Moses until the time of Rabbi we do not find one man who was unique in the possession of wisdom, riches, and glory. Is this so? Was it not so with Jehoshua? Nay, there was Elazar the high-priest, who was equal to him.

But was not Pinchas such a man? Nay, there were the elders who ruled with him. But was there not King Saul, of whom the same could be said? Nay, there was Samuel. But did not Samuel die before Saul? It means, all the years of his life. But was not David such a man? There was Era of Ja'ir. He also departed before him. It means, also, all the years of his life. Was not King Solomon such a man? There was Shimi b. Geara. But did not Samuel slay him? It means, all the years of his life. Was there not Hezekiah? There was Shbna. Was there not Ezra? There was Nehemiah. Said R. Ada b. Ahbah: I can add thus: From the time of Rabbi until the time of R. Ashi there is also not to be found a man who was unique in all that is said above. But was there not Huna b. Nathan? R. Huna was under the influence of R. Ashi. "Criminal cases they began from those sitting at the side." Whence is this deduced?

Said R. Aha b. Papa: It is written [Ex. xxiii. 3]: "Neither shalt thou speak in a cause." (The term for "cause" is "rib," literally "quarrel," and "rab" means "great." ) Do not read "rib," but "rab," which means: You shall not contradict one who is greater than you. Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: This is inferred from [I Sam. xxv. 13]: "Gird ye on every man his sword, and they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword." (We see that first it was done by the people and afterwards by the master.)

Rabh said: One may teach his disciple, and at the same time may judge in association with him in criminal cases. An objection was raised from the following concerning purification and defilement. A father with his son, or a master with his disciple, are counted as two voices. However, in civil cases, in criminal cases concerning stripes, in consecration of the month and in the, establishment of leap year, a father with his son, or a master with his teacher, is counted as one voice only. (Hence we see that the master with his disciple cannot judge together in criminal cases, so that they should be counted two.) Rabh speaks of such disciples as R. Kahana and R. Assi, who needed only Rabh's tradition, but not his sagacity, to equalize things.

R. Abuhu said: In ten things civil cases differ from criminal cases. However, all of them do not apply to the case of an ox which is to be stoned, except as to the number of judges, twenty-three being needed, similar to all other criminal cases. But whence is this deduced? Said R. Aha b. Papa: From [Ex. xxiii. 6]: "Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause"; i.e., thou shalt not wrest the case of thy poor, but thou mayst wrest the case of the stoning of an ex. (And as this law does not apply to the stoning of an ox, so do not apply the other laws except the one of the twenty-three, judges mentioned above.) But are there not some other things in which criminal cases differ from civil? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that among the Sanhedrin must not be any one of great seniority, a castrate, and those who have no children? R. Jehudah also adds to these a cruel man. "All are competent to judge civil cases." What does the Mishna mean by the expression "all"? Said R. Jehudah. To add a bastard. But this was taught already in the above-mentioned Boraitha, that all who are competent to judge criminal cases are competent for civil cases. However, there are those who are competent for civil cases but not for criminal. And in our discussion we have debated: "What does it mean by all who are competent?" The same R. Jehudah said: It means to add a bastard. One means to add a proselyte and the other means to add a bastard; and both cases are necessary to be stated. For if a proselyte only were stated, one might say, it is because he is eligible to marry a daughter of an Israelite; but a bastard, who is not allowed to do so, is not competent. And if a bastard only were stated, one might say, because, after all, he is a descendant of an Israelite; but a proselyte, who is a descendant of a heathen, is not competent. Therefore both statements are necessary. "But not all of them are competent to judge criminal cases." What is the reason? That which was taught by R. Joseph: As the court must be select in its uprightness, so it must be select in all other things—without any blemish. And R. Ameimar said: Where is there to be found an allusion to this in the Scripture? In [Solomon's Song, xiv. 7]: "Thou art altogether beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish on thee." But perhaps it means literally that the judges shall be without any bodily blemish? Said R. Aha b. Jacob: It reads [Num. xi. 16]: "And they shall stand there with thee"—which means those who are equal to thee (i.e., in birth, but not a proselyte and a bastard). But perhaps there is a difference, because of the glory of the Shekinah. Therefore said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: This is inferred from [Ex. xviii. 22]: "When they shall bear with thee." This means they shall be equal to thee in birth.

MISHNA II.: The Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle in order that they could see each other. Two scribes of the judges stood before them, one on the right and one on the left, and they wrote down the reasons of the accuser and of the defender. According to R. Jehudah there were three—one who wrote down the reasons of the accuser and one the reasons of the defender, and one the reasons of both. And before them sat three rows of scholars (disciples). To every one of them his seat was known. If it was necessary to add a judge, one from the first row was elevated, and one from the second came and took the latter's place, and one from the third took the place of this one; and for the place in the third row one of the standing people was selected, but he did not take the same seat as the one departed occupied, but that to which he was entitled.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Aha b. Hanina: From [Solomon's Song, vii. 3]: "Thy navel is like a round goblet which lacketh not the mixed wine." By "navel" is meant the Sanhedrin. And why were they named navel? Because they used to sit in the middle of the world (according to the Talmud, Jerusalem was the middle of the world and the Temple was in the centre of Jerusalem), and also protected the whole world. And why were they named a "round goblet"? Because the Sanhedrin sat in a circle: "Which lacketh not the mixed wine "—i.e., if one wished to leave, it must be seen that besides him twenty-three remained, and if there were less, he must not. "Thy body is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies," means that as from a heap of wheat all derive benefit, so all were pleased to hear the reasons given by the Sanhedrin in their discussions. "Fenced about with lilies" means that even a fence of lilies was not broken by them to go out of it. This is what was said by a certain Minn to R. Kahana: Your law permits a, man to stay alone with his wife during the days of her menstruation. Is it possible that flax and fire should be together and should not burn? And he answered: The Torah has testified that we are such a kind of people that even a fence of lilies is sufficient for us, and will never be broken. Resh Lakish said: This is inferred from ibid. vi. 72, which means that even thy vain fellows, are full of meritorious acts—like the pomegranate. 1 R. Zera said: From [Gen. xxvii. 27]: "And he smelled the smell of his garments," etc. Do not read "bgadov," which means dress, but "bagdov," which means his transgressor. There were ὓβριον  2 (insolent fellows) in the neighborhood of R. Zera, who nevertheless associated with them and showed them respect, to the end that they should repent. The rabbis, however, were not satisfied with this. But after the soul of R. Zera had gone to its resting-place the above-mentioned people took this to heart, saying: Hitherto there was the little man who prayed for us, but now who will do so? And they repented and became good. "Three rows," etc. Said Abayi: Infer from this that if one left his place, all in the row had to change their places. But could one not protest, saying: Hitherto I have sat in front, and now you place me in the back? Said Abayi: To such a protest he was answered: There is a parable that it is better for one to be the tail of a lion than the head of a fox.

MISHNA III.: How were the witnesses awestruck in criminal cases? They were brought in and warned: Perhaps your testimony is based only on a supposition, or on hearsay, or on that of another witness, or you have had it from a trustworthy man; or perhaps you are not aware that finally we will investigate the matter by examination and cross-examination. You may also be aware of the fact that there is no similarity between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases one may repay the money damage and he is atoned; but in criminal cases the blood of the person executed, and of his descendants to the end of all generations, clings to the originator of his execution. So do we find in the case of Cain, who slew his brother. It reads [Gen. iv. 10]: "The voice of the 'bloods' of thy brother are crying unto me from the ground." It does not read "blood," but "bloods," which means his blood and the blood of his descendants. [According to others it reads "bloods" in the plural, because his blood was scattered all over the trees and stones.] Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world. And also because of peace among creatures, so that one should not say: My grandfather was greater than yours; and also that the heretic shall not say: There are many creators in heaven; and also to proclaim the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He. For a human being stamps many coins with one stamp, and all of them are alike; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the First, and nevertheless not one of them is like the other. Therefore every man may say: The world was created for my sake, hence I must be upright, just, etc. Should you (witnesses) say: Why should we take so much trouble upon ourselves? To this it is written [Lev. v. 1]: "And he is a witness, since he hath seen or knoweth something; if he do not tell it, and thus bear his iniquity." And should you say: After all, why should the blood of this man cling to us? To this it is written [Prov. xi. 10]: "When the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: What means a supposition? The court may say to them: Although you saw that one ran after his companion to a ruin and you ran after them, and found a sword in his hand from which the blood dripped, and you also saw the one killed move convulsively, you saw nothing (so long as he did not kill him in your presence).

There is a Boraitha: Simeon b. Shetha said: May I not live to see the consolation of our people if I did not see one who ran after his companion to a ruin, and I ran after him, and saw a sword in his hand from which blood dripped, and the one killed moved convulsively, and I said to him: You wicked one, who has slain this man—I or you? But what can I do that your blood is not legally in my hands, as it reads [Deut. xvii. 6]: "Upon the evidence of two . . . be put to death." But He who knows the thoughts of man shall take revenge on this man who has slain his companion. It was said that both (Simeon and the murderer) had not moved before a snake came and stung the guilty one that he died.

But was this man liable to be killed by a snake? Did not R. Joseph say, and so also taught the disciples of Hiskia: Since the Temple was destroyed, although the court of the Sanhedrin existed no longer, the punishment of the four kinds of death prescribed in the Scripture was not abolished by Heaven—as, e.g., he who is liable to be stoned finds his death by falling from a roof or by being trodden down by a wild beast; he who is liable to be burned finds his death by fire or by the bite of a snake; he who is liable to be slain by the sword falls into the hand of the government, which slays him, or he comes to death by the sword of murderers; and he who ought to be hanged finds his death by drowning in the river or by diphtheritis.

(But the murderer is only to be slain, and not burned?) This man was liable to be burned for another, crime; and the master said elsewhere that he who is guilty of two crimes is to be punished by the heavier death. "Supposition." We see that a supposition does not hold good in the case of crimes. Does it hold good in civil cases? And if yea, it would be in accordance with R. Aha, who said in the "Last Gate" that if there was a biting camel among camels and a killed camel was found at its side, it might be taken for a certainty that it had killed him and its owner was liable. But according to this theory, if there was a witness who heard this by hearsay from another, which is not considered in criminal cases, it should be considered in civil.

Does not the Mishna state that if he said, "The defendant has confessed to me that he owes," etc.; or, "So and so told me that he owes him," he said nothing? Hence if such does not hold good in civil cases, why should this be repeated concerning criminal cases? Therefore we must say that, notwithstanding that such a testimony is not considered in civil cases, they nevertheless warned them in criminal cases. The same is the case with the above-mentioned case of supposition. "You shall be aware," etc. R. Jehudah b. Ahia said: Infer from the verse cited in the Mishna that Cain made wounds and gashes on the body of his brother Abel, as he did not know by what member the soul departed until he reached his neck. The same said again: From that time when the earth opened its mouth to receive the blood of Abel, it has not again opened.

As it is written [Is. xxiv. 16]: "From the edge of the earth," etc. Hence it reads "from the edge," but not "from the mouth." Hiskia, his brother, however, objected to him from [Num. xvi. 32]: "And the earth opened her mouth," etc. And he answered it opened for disadvantage, but not for advantage. The above said again in the name of the same authority: Exile atones for only half of a sin, but not for all of it, as it reads [Gen. iv. 14]: "And I shall be a fugitive and vagabond on the earth," etc.; and [ibid. 16]: "And dwelt in the "land of Nod" (vagabond). Hence half of his sin was atoned. 1 "Therefore after them man was created singly." The rabbis taught: Adam the first was created singly, and why? That disbelievers should not say there were many Creators in Heaven.

And another reason is because of the upright and the wicked, that the upright should not say: We are descendants of an upright man; and the wicked should not say: We are descendants of a wicked one (hence we are not to be blamed). There is another reason: Because of families, that they should not quarrel, saying Our parents were better than yours. As we see that when only one man was created there are quarrels of rank, how much the more if many original Adams had been created. Still another reason: Because of robbers and forcers. As even now, when he was created singly, there are robbers and forcers although they are all from one father, how much the more would there be robbers and forcers if they were from different parents. "To save the glory," etc. The rabbis taught: To save the glory of the King of the king of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he!

A human being stamps many coins and all are alike, but the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the First, and nevertheless not One is like his neighbor. As it reads [Job, xxxviii. 14]: "She is changed as the sealing-clay; and (all things) stand as though newly clad." And why are not the faces of men alike? Because one might see a nice dwelling or a handsome woman, and say: It is mine. As it reads [ibid. 15]: "And from the wicked is their light withdrawn, and the high-raised arm is broken."

There is a Boraitha: R. Mair used to say: In three things one is different from his neighbor—in voice, in face, and in mind: in voice and in face, because of adultery; and in mind, because of robbers. (I.e., if one were to know the mind of his neighbor, he would know of all his treasures and mysteries and would rob him of them. 1)

Footnotes

105:1 In Leeser's version it is not mentioned "on the day," notwithstanding that the text so reads, which, according to the sense, may mean "the time." The Talmud, however, takes it literally.

106:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

110:1 It is useless to quote the passage, as its translation does not correspond with the saying of Resh Lakish at all.

110:2 We have translated in accordance with Schönhack's Dictionary, as it seems to us correct.

113:1 Here come Haggadah, which we have transferred to the Haggadic part of this tract.

114:1 Here also are a few pages of Haggadah, which we have transferred to the Haggadic chapter.

CHAPTER V.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING PRELIMINARY QUERIES, EXAMINATION, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL CASES. WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A CONTRADICTION OF WITNESSES. HOW IS IT IF A DISCIPLE NOT BELONGING TO THE JUDGES SAYS: "I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO HIS ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE"? BY WHAT MAJORITY ONE MAY BE ACQUITTED AND BY WHAT ACCUSED; AND TO WHAT NUMBER JUDGES MAY BE ADDED, IF THEY CANNOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION.

MISHNA I.: The court used to examine the witnesses with the following seven inquiries: (a) In what Sabbatic period? (b) In what year of the latter? (c) In what month? (d) On what date of the month? (e) On what day? (f) At what hour? (g) And in what place? R. Jose, however, maintains: "Only on what day? At what hour? In what place?" And also: Did you know this man? Did you warn him?

If the crime was idolatry, they were questioned which idols they worshipped and what kind of worship? He who is more particular and who enlarges the examination is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Sakkai had examined the witnesses concerning the kind and the size of the figs of a certain fig tree which was connected with the crime.
What is the difference between examination and queries? In the latter, even if only one answered, "I don't know," the complaint is dismissed; while in examination, if one of the witnesses, and even two, claim that they did not know, their testimony holds good. In both cases, however, if they contradict each other, their testimony is ignored. If one says, "It happened on the second of the month," and the second says, "on the third of it," their testimony holds good, as it is to be supposed that to one was known the intercalation of the last month and to the other it was not. However, if one says "on the third" and the other says "on the fifth of the month," their testimony is ignored. If one says "in the second hour" and the other says "in the third," it holds good; but if one says "in the third" and the other "in the fifth hour of that day," it is ignored. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that it still holds good; but if one says "in the fifth hour" and the other says "in the seventh," even according to R. Jehudah it is ignored, as in the fifth hour the sun is in the east, while in the seventh hour it is already in the west.

After one witness was examined they let the second enter and examined him. And if their testimony correspond, the discussion begins with the defence. Should one of the witnesses say, "I have something to say in behalf of the defendant, or one of the disciples, "I have something to say to the disadvantage of the defendant," the court silences him. If, however, one of the disciples says, "I have something to say in his behalf," they take him out of his place, and set him among them, and he remains there the whole day; and if his words are reasonable, he is listened to. Furthermore, if the defendant says, "I have something to say in my behalf," he is to be listened to if there is something in his defence. If the judges find a good reason to acquit him, they do so immediately; and if not, they postpone the trial to the morrow. The judges then go out in pairs, and eat something—not much, but do not drink wine the whole day. They continue their discussion (outside of the court) all night, and on the morrow they come early to the court. He who was among the defenders says: I defended yesterday, and am still of the same opinion. The same is it with the accuser—he has to say: I accused, and am still of the same opinion. The one who has accused may retract from his statement of yesterday, to the advantage of the defendant. This is not allowed to him who has defended. If some of them erred in their statements, the scribes of the judges remind them of it. And again, if the conclusion is to the advantage of the defendant they free him immediately; and if not, they arise to be numbered. If twelve of them acquit and eleven accuse, he is acquitted. But if twelve accuse and eleven acquit, and even if eleven accuse and eleven acquit, but the twenty-third says, "I am in doubt"; even if twenty-two are for acquitting or accusing and one says, "I don't know," judges are to be added. And to what number? Two and two, till the whole number reaches seventy-one. And then if thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted; but if vice versa, the discussion is prolonged until one of the accusers accepts the opinion of the acquitters.

GEMARA: Whence is all this deduced? Said R. Jehudah:

From Deut. xiii. 15: "Then shalt thou inquire and make search, and ask diligently." And it reads also [ibid. xvii. 4]: "And it be told thee, and thou hearest of it, thou shalt inquire diligently"; and also [ibid. xix. 18]: "And the judges shall inquire diligently." But perhaps the Scripture does not require seven queries in one case, and it is meant literally (namely, in the crime of a misled town three queries, and concerning idolatry two, and the same also concerning collusive witnesses; as in the former searching is mentioned three. times and in the latter searching is mentioned twice). As if seven in one case were needed, let the Scripture state all the above cases together, and then all other criminal cases would be inferred from this. Because searching is mentioned in all three cases above, we infer one from the other, so as to apply everything which is in one case to the others. But the law concerning those cases is not similar, as the case of a misled town cannot be equalized to the other two cases, as they are punished only in their body, but not in their estate; while in the case of a misled town all its estates must be destroyed. Neither can idolatry be equalized to the two cases, as the latter are put to death by the sword, while an idolater is to be stoned. And the case of collusive witnesses is also in one respect more rigorous than the others, as they are put to death without warning? One is inferred from the other, because of the analogy of the expression "diligently," which is to be found in all the cases, and would be superfluous if it were not written for that purpose. And to such an analogy, which comes from a superfluous expression, an objection is not to be made. Hence we infer the case which is to be punished with hanging by an a fortiori conclusion, from those which are to be punished by stoning or by the sword; and those by burning, by an a fortiori conclusion from those by stoning, etc. But such an a fortiori conclusion would be correct if all of the rabbis agreed that stoning is a more rigorous death than all the others. But there are some who hold that burning is more rigorous.

Hence, according to them, the above a fortiori conclusion could not he drawn. Therefore said R. Jehudah: The seven queries of examination are inferred from [ibid. xiii. 15]: "And behold, if it be true—the thing is certain," which term is again repeated in ibid. xvii. 4. The words "certain" and "true," which are repeated, make four, and in the above three cases "searching" is mentioned seven times. These altogether make eleven, of which seven are to be taken for the seven queries, three of them for an analogy, and the one which remains applies to that case of which the punishment is burning, in accordance with R. Simeon's theory that burning is more rigorous. And concerning the rabbis, who hold that stoning is more rigorous, it does not matter if a thing which is to be inferred by the drawing of an a fortiori conclusion is nevertheless mentioned in the Scripture.

R. Abuhu ridiculed this statement. Why not say that the superfluous word of the eleven in question is to teach that eight queries arc necessary in the examination? Eight queries! What is this? How many minutes are there in the hour? And so, also, a Boraitha states that queries were used. But such a question is correct, according to Abayi, who said that R. Mair maintains that one is not liable to err in the minutes at all, or in a few minutes. But according to him, after R. Jehudah, who maintains that one is liable to err in a half hour, and according to Rabha, who maintains that one can err even in a whole hour, what should be the eighth query? "What period of the jubilee year?" However, he who maintains that the eleventh word mentioned above is applied to something else, maintains that the latter query is not necessary, as they were already questioned: What period of the Sabbatic year? "R. Jose said," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Jose said to the sages: According to your theory, if a witness came before the court testifying, "Yesterday this man killed some one," may he be questioned in what period of the Sabbatic year, or in what year, month, and on what day of the month? And he was answered: The same as, according to your theory, that the queries should be: On what day, at what hour, and in what place? How is it if one testifies before the court, "This man has just killed a man"? Nevertheless the above queries are put to him: On what day, and at what hour? Hence, although not necessary, nevertheless he is to be questioned in accordance with the theory of R. Simeon b. Elazar, who maintains that the examination should be made severe, that the witnesses may lose heart in case they do not tell the truth. The same is the case with the other queries—they have to be put although it is not necessary. R Jose, however, may say: Usually the case is not tried just after the crime is committed, and therefore it is very seldom that the witness has to say: He killed him just now. However, one or a few days after the crime has been committed, it frequently happens that the case is tried. "Do you know this man?" etc. The rabbis taught: The query was: Do you recognize this man as the murderer of him who was slain? Was he a heathen or an Israelite? Have you warned him? Did he accept the warning? Did he answer in spite of this? Did he commit the crime just after he was warned? And if the crime was idolatry: Which idol has he worshipped—the idol Peor or Markulis? Now did he worship it? Did he sacrifice an animal or incense to it, or pour out wine for it, or bow himself down before it?

Ula said: Whence do we deduce that the warning is prescribed biblically? From [Lev. xx. 17]: "And if a man take his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother, and see her nakedness." Is he guilty because he has seen it? It must therefore be said that it means he is aware of the crime (i.e., aware that she is his sister and that it is a crime). Hence the same is it with all other crimes—that he is not to be sentenced unless he was aware that it was a crime; and to be certain that he was aware, it can only be through warning. And as this verse speaks of a crime for which he is punished with "korath," which means through Heaven, to which warning is not applied, apply to it the punishment of stripes. The school of Hiskia deduces it from [Ex. xxi. 14]: "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile," which means it was presumptuously done even after he was warned. The school of R. Ismael inferred this from [Num. xv. 33]: "And they that find him gathering sticks," which means that after they warned him he still gathered the sticks. And the school of Rabbi deduced this from [Deut. xxii. 24]: "Because he had done violence." 1 And all of them are needed; as if it were stated only in the case of his sister, as to which it was explained that it means the punishment of stripes, one might say that this applies only to stripes, but not to capital punishment. Therefore the cited verse in Ex. xxi. And if the two only were stated, one might say that it applies only to a kind of death which is more lenient than stoning, but to the punishment of stoning, which is very rigorous, it does not apply. Therefore all are needed.

The Boraitha states: Did he answer in spite of this? Whence do we know this? Said Rabha, and according to others Hiskia:

From [ibid. xvii. 6]: "Shall he that is worthy of death be put to death," which means, provided he answered, "I will do this even should it cause my death."

R. Hanan said: Witnesses who testified in case of a betrothed woman, if they be found collusive, are not to be put to death, as they may say: Our intention was to make it unlawful for her to be his wife only, but not that she should be put to death. But did they not warn her? It speaks of when they did not. But in such a case it is self-evident, as without warning she is not to be put to death. He speaks of a scholarly woman, and this is in accordance with R. Jose b. Jehudah, who said in the following Boraitha: Warning does not apply to a scholar, as the purpose of warning is only to recognize if the perpetrator of the crime did it while he was not aware that such was a crime, or he did it although he was aware; and as a scholar is aware of this crime, no warning is needed. And as they are not to be put to death, she also is exempted from death, as the Scripture requires that the collusive witnesses should be punished with the same punishment as the perpetrator of the crime, if it were true; and as they claim that they intended only to make it unlawful for her to be the wife of her betrothed, such a punishment is not applicable to the witnesses, and therefore she also is acquitted.

R. Hisda said: If one of the witnesses testifies that he slew him with a sword and the other says "with a razor," it is not admissible. But if one says that the murderer or the one murdered was dressed in white, and the other testifies, "He was in black," it is to be considered admissible. An objection was raised from the following: "It should exactly correspond," means that if one testifies that he slew him with a sword and the other with a razor, or if one says that he was dressed in black and the other that he was dressed in white, it does not? R. Hisda explains this Boraitha, that it means if both have testified that he strangled him With a muffler, and one said "It was a white one," and the other said "It was a black one." Come and hear another objection: If one says, "He wore black sandals," and the other says, "white ones," it is not considered corresponding?

Also this Boraitha may be explained that he kicked him with his sandals and killed him. Come and hear another objection from our Mishna: It happened that Ben Sakkai examined the witnesses . . . of a certain fig tree? Said R. Jose: Do you want to contradict a man from Ben Sakkai's theory? He was of the opinion that there is no difference between. examination and query, and his theory is individual. Who was Ben Sakkai? Shall we assume that it means Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai? Was he, then, among the Sanhedrin? Is there not a Boraitha that the age of R. Johanan was one hundred and twenty: the first forty years he was engaged in business, the middle forty he studied, and the last forty he taught? And there is another Boraitha: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of the Temple to a store.

And R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi explained that it means that from that time the Sanhedrin did not try cases of capital punishment. And there is also a Mishna which states that after the Temple was destroyed R. Johanan ben Sakkai enacted, etc. Hence we see that during forty years of his life there were no cases of capital punishment in the court of the Sanhedrin, and it cannot be that the examination in question was made by him. Therefore it must be said that this Ben Sakkai was some one else. And so it seems to be, as if it were R. Johanan b. Sakkai, how is it possible that Rabbi, the editor of the Mishnayoth, should name him Ben Sakkai only. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: It happened that R. Johanan b. Sakkai examined . . . the kind of figs?

Therefore it must be said that at that time he was a disciple who was sitting in the row before the Sanhedrin, and he said something which was accepted by the Sanhedrin, and therefore it was established in his name. Hence while he was as yet a student he was named Ben Sakkai; and afterwards, when he began to teach, he was named Rabban Johanan. And the Mishna which mentioned him by the name of Ben Sakkai did so because when this happened he was still Ben Sakkai; the Boraitha, however, mentioned him by his name of the latter period. "What is the difference between examination?" etc. How is to be understood: If two claim, etc.? Is it not self-evident that if the testimony holds good when one says, "I don't know," the same is the case also when two say so?

Said R. Shesheth: This statement applies to the first part—namely, if the investigation shows that two of them are aware and the third says, "I don't know," even then their testimony is ignored; and it is in accordance with R. Aqiba, who compares three witnesses to two. As with two, if there is a difference in their testimony, the case is to be dismissed, the same is it with three, if even only one of them says, "I don't know." Said Rabba: How can such an explanation hold good? Does not the Mishna state that their testimony holds good? Therefore said he: It is to be explained just in the reverse. Even concerning queries, if two witnesses are aware, but the third one says, "I don't know," their testimony holds good; and it is not in accordance with R Aqiba.

R. Kahana and R. Saphra used to learn the Tract Sanhedrin in the college of Rabba, and when Rami b. Hama met them, he questioned them: What new have you found in the Tract Sanhedrin, as taught by Rabba? And they rejoined: And how would it be if we had learned Tract Sanhedrin other than at Rabba's college—would you ask us for any news? It must be that there is some difficulty to you in this tract. Tell us, then, what it is. And he answered: The statement of the Mishna, which makes a difference between queries and examination—the reason for which is unknown to me. Are not both prescribed biblically? And they answered: What comparison is this? In the inquiry, if one said, "I don't know," their testimony is annulled, because the witnesses of such a testimony cannot be made collusive. And there is a rule that such a testimony is not to be taken into consideration; while in examination, if one said, "I don't know," their testimony still holds good. Hence they remain legal witnesses who can be made collusive. Rejoined he: If it is so, then you have brought with you very great news, Rejoined they: Because of the kindness of you, master, not to object to us, it may be named good news; but if you were to use your sagacity to object to us, we would have nothing to say. "The intercalation of the month," etc. Until what date of the current month should the supposition of the ignorance of the intercalation of the last month hold good? Said R. Aha b. Hanina in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan. Until the greater part of the month is passed (i.e., e.g., if one says, "It was on the twentieth of the month," and the other says, "on the twenty-first," the supposition of the intercalation is not to be taken into consideration, and their testimony is annulled). Said Rabha: This we infer also from our Mishna, which states that, if one says "on the third," and the other "on the fifth," their testimony is ignored. And if the intercalation were taken into consideration, why not say that one of the witnesses was aware of two intercalations (i.e., from the last two months), and the other was not aware of it? Hence the reason must be, because one may not be aware of it during the first half of the month, but in the second half it is impossible that he has not heard of it. (Says the Gemara;) This, however, is not to be taken as a support, as it may be said that one is not aware of it even during the second half of the month. And the reason why the Mishna does not say that he was not aware of two intercalations is because, usually, each intercalation was announced by blowing in the cornet and it could happen that one might overhear one blowing, but not two.

R. Aha b. Hanina said again in the name of the same authority., Until what time may the benediction of the moon be pronounced? Until it becomes more round. But until what date? R. Jacob b. Bibi in the name of R. Jehudah said: Until the seventh. And the sages of Nahardea said: Until the sixteenth. And the basis of both is R. Johanan's statement. They differ, however, in the explanation of it. According to R. Jehudah, his expression, "until it becomes more round," means when it is already half; and according to the others, R. Johanan means a full moon. Said R. Aha of Diphthi to Rabhina: Let one pronounce, after the time of the month's benediction has elapsed, the benediction of "Who is good, and does good to the world," And he answered: Do we then pronounce the benediction of "Blessed is He who judges true" when the moon diminishes, so that we shall pronounce the blessing, "Who is good," etc., after the full moon? But why not pronounce both? Because to a custom no such benedictions are used. The same said again in the name of the same authority: He who pronounces the benediction of the moon in time is considered as if he had received the glory of the Shekinah. And this is deduced from the analogy of the expression "zeh" mentioned in Ex. xiii. 2 and ibid. xv. 2.

In the school of R. Ismael it was taught. If Israel should have only the meritorious act of receiving the glory of their heavenly Father once a month, it would be sufficient. Said Abayi: Therefore we must pronounce the above benediction standing. Miramar and Mar Zutra used to stand shoulder to shoulder, pronouncing this benediction. Said R. Aha to R. Ashi: In the West they used to pronounce the benediction, "Blessed be He who renews the moon." And he answered: Such a blessing our women also pronounce. We, however, have adopted that which was composed by R. Jehudah: "Blessed be He who with His words has created the heavens, and with the breath of his mouth all their hosts, to whom he gave order and time, that they should not change His command; and they rejoice and are happy in doing the will of their creator. They work truthfully, and what is done through them is truth." 1 And to the moon He commanded that she renew herself every month, and that she should he a crown and a guide to the people who were selected by Him from their birth. It is a symbol to the children of Israel that, finally, they also will be renewed like unto her (the moon), and they will praise their Creator, his name, and the glory of His kingdom. Blessed be Thou, Eternal, who dost renew the moon.

[R. Aha b. Hanina in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, said: With whom can you fight a war of the Torah? With him who posesses bundles of Mishnayoth. And R. Joseph, who was a master in Mishnayoth, applied to himself (Prov. xiv. 4): "But the abundance of harvests is (only) through the strength of the ox." 2] "If one says, 'in the second hour,'" etc. Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: This is only when they differ concerning the hour; but it one says, "It was before sunrise," and the other says, "It was after," their testimony is to be ignored. Is this not self-evident? even if one says, "It was before sunrise," and the other says, "At the sunrise." Is this also not self-evident? Lest one say that the one who says it was before the rising of the sun stood at such a place that he could not see it well, he comes to teach us that it is not so. "The whole day," etc. The whole day only? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that if they accepted his reasons he remains with them all the time; but if his reasons were not accepted, he nevertheless remains there the whole day to the end that his descent should not be a disgrace to him? Said Abayi, Explain, then, our Mishna that he remains there the whole day if his reasons were not accepted. "They do not drink wine," etc. And why not? Said R. Aha b. Hanina. Because of [Prov. xxxi. 4]: "Nor for rausnim (princes) strong drink." By "rausnim" is meant that those who occupy themselves with raus (secrets) of the world should not drink strong drinks. "The opinion of the acquitter." But how is it if he does not accept it? Said R. Aha, and so also R. Johanan., They have to acquit him. Said R. Papa to Abayi: if so, why was he not acquitted previously when they (were still twenty-three)? And he answered: So said R. Johanan. Because they should not leave the court disputing, According to others the answer was . R. Jose of the following Boraitha holds with you. As there is no addition to the court of seventy-one, so there is no addition to the court of twenty-three (but if there is no majority for condemning, the defendant is freed).

The rabbis taught.. In civil cases the court may say: The case becomes old. But this cannot be said in criminal cases. What does this mean? If it means it becomes so old that it is hard to reach a conclusion, and that therefore it must be postponed, then the reverse should be the case. It means, in criminal cases they must postpone it, as perhaps they will find some defence, but not in civil. Said Huna b. Monoach in the name of Aha b. Ika. Reverse the Mishna. R. Ashi, however, said., The Mishna must not be reversed, as the expression "become old" means that the matter has received a thorough discussion and may not be further prolonged. An objection was raised from the following "The oldest of the judges may proclaim the case old. And this is correct according to the explanation of R. Ashi, as such a proclamation belongs to the oldest. But according to the first explanation, should the oldest blame himself? Nay, it would be a disgrace if some one else should say this to him. But if he himself proclaims this, there is no disgrace. According to others, it was questioned: How could the oldest praise himself, saying that the matter has become so clear that objection cannot be made? Is it not written [Prov. xxvii. 2]: "Let another man praise thee, and not thy own mouth." With a trial it is different, as it rests upon the shoulders of the oldest; for the Mishna states. After the conclusion, the oldest of the judges proclaims: "You, so and so, are acquitted"; or, "You, so and so, are guilty."

Footnotes

119:1 The expression in Hebrew is al dbar asher enah, etc.—literally, "the thing which he has violated," etc.; and it should be written "because he has violated," without the term, "dbar" (thing). The Talmud takes the term "dbar," which means "thing," and which if punctuated "dibur" means "talk," to mean that he was told was a crime and he did not listen.

124:1 This benediction, which is copied in the prayer books, is not exact as in the original Talmud. And also not of that which was copied by Hananiel, but of that which was copied by Asher. And there is a great difference in the translation. We, however, have translated according to that of the Talmud, as so is our method.

124:2 It is unknown to us why the passage in the text is inserted here; it also quotes a verse from Prov. xxiv., which does not correspond. However, according to our method, we could not omit it.

CHAPTER VI.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE EXECUTION BY STONING AND THE MANNER OF HERALDING. HOW THE CRIMINAL WAS URGED TO CONFESS BEFORE DEATH. THE STRIPPING OFF BEFORE DEATH OF THE DRESS OF A MALE AND OF A FEMALE. THE HANGING AFTER STONING, AND HOW IT WAS PERFORMED.

MISHNA I.: If the conclusion was to condemn, the guilty one was taken out immediately to be stoned. The place where he had to be executed was outside of the court, as it reads [Lev. xxiv. 13]: "Lead forth the blasphemer." One stood at the gate of the court with a flag in his hand, and one who rode on a horse stood so far distant that he could see the signal of the flag in case there were any. And then if one came before the court, saying, "I have something to say in his defence," the man raised up the flag, and he who was on horseback rushed and stopped the procession; and even if the guilty one himself says, "I have something new to say in my defence," he is to be brought back to the court, even four and five times, provided there is something in it which is worthy of consideration. And then, if the court finds that he is not guilty, he is acquitted, and if not, he is taken back to be stoned. And a herald goes before him, heralding: So and so, the son of so and so, is taken to be stoned, because he committed such and such a crime, and A and B are his witnesses. Every one who knows something in his defence may come and tell it before he is executed.
GEMARA: Was, then, the place of execution outside of the court only? Does not a Boraitha state that it was outside of all the three camps (when they were in the desert), and when they were in the cities the place of execution was outside of them? Yea! it is as you say, and the expression of the Mishna, "outside of the court," means that if it happened that the court took its place outside of the three camps or outside of the towns, even then the place of execution must be outside of the court, for the purpose that it should not appear that the court itself executed him, or for the purpose that there should be a procession, to give time to one who might have some defence for the guilty.

Whence is this deduced? From that which the rabbis taught: It reads: "Lead out the blasphemer to without the camp," meaning out of all the three camps. But perhaps only out of one camp? There is an analogy of the expression "camp" which is mentioned here, with that in the case of the burning bullocks [ibid. iv. 20]: "And he shall carry forth the bullock to without the camp, and burn him"; and as there it means outside of all three camps, as explained elsewhere, the same is the case here. R. Papa, however, maintains that this is to be inferred from the following: Let us see. Moses sat in the camp of the Levites, and the Merciful One said to him: "Lead out the blasphemer to without the camp." Hence, out of the camp of the Levites. And thereafter it reads [ibid. xxiv. 23]: "And they led forth the blasphemer to without the camp, and they stoned him," which means out of the camp of the Israelites.

But is not the verse necessary in itself, to state that it was done as Moses commanded? This is written plainly farther on: "And the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses." But to what purpose is it written, "they have stoned him with stones?" It is already written they did it, and it is self-evident that they stoned him? It is needed, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It reads, "they stoned him with a stone," which means him—his body—but not his garments; i.e., they had to undress him before the execution. "With a stone" means that if he dies by the first stone no others are needed. In Num. xv, 35 it reads: "With stones," in the plural. And both expressions are needed, as if it were stated only in the singular, one might say that one stone should be thrown, and should it not cause death, no other stones must be thrown; and if it were mentioned in the plural only, one might say that many stones are needed to start with. Therefore both are stated. 1 But how could R. Papa differ from the Boraitha mentioned above? Does not the Tana state it was said so? Hence the analogy of expression was traditional, to which an Amora had no right to object. The Tana meant to say that if there were not a verse it could be inferred from the analogy; but inasmuch as there is a verse, the analogy is not necessary. R. Ashi said that from the same cited verse this is inferred. Let us see! Moses was in the camp of the Levites, and the Merciful One commanded him: "Lead out the blasphemer," etc.—meaning from the camp of the Levites. "Out of the camp," means the camp of Israel. "One stands with flag," etc. R. Huna said: "I am certain that the stone with which the executed was stoned, as well as the tree upon which he was hanged, the sword with which he was slain, and also the cloth with which he was choked must be at the expense of the congregation. However, I doubt who had to bear the cost of the flag and the horse mentioned in the Mishna. The defendant, as they are provided only for his sake, or the congregation, because they are obliged to do all they can to save him? I am in doubt also as to that which was said by R. Hyya to R. Ashi in the name of R. Hisda. When one was going to be killed, they used to put a grain of frankincense in a goblet of wine and gave him to drink, so that he should become dazed. As it is written [Prov. xxxi. 6]: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those who have an embittered soul." And there is a Boraitha that the wine and the frankincense were donated by the respectable women of Jerusalem. Now, if it happened that they were not donated, who must bear the expense? Says the Gemara concerning the latter: Common sense dictates, at the expense of the congregation, as the verse reads "give," which means the congregation.

R. Aha b. Huna questioned R. Shesheth: How would it be if one of the disciples said, "I have something to say in behalf of the defendant," and thereafter he became dumb? Gestured R. Shesheth, saying: Then we would have to consider that there was some one at the other end of the world who had some defence for him. But, after all, it was said by the disciple that he had a defence, and when he became dumb, would it not be right for the court to investigate again-perhaps they would find out what he meant? Come and hear that which was said above by R. Jose b. Hanina: If one of the disciples who defended him at the time of the discussion dies, it will be seen at the time of the conclusion whether he is still alive and defends him.

Hence we see that if he has already defended, and he says: "I have something to say in his defence," and he becomes dumb before he gives his reasons, it is not to be taken into consideration. Rejoined R. Aha: Notwithstanding that it is certain to you that R. Jose meant when his defence was already made by him, but not otherwise, it is still a question to me. For perhaps R. Jose said so because it is usual, if one has something to say, that he says it immediately; but if it happened that he became dumb before telling the reasons, it might be that even R. Jose would admit that the court must look the matter up again.

"Which is worthy of consideration," etc. Does the Mishna mean that for the first two times it must be examined while he is yet at his place—if there is something, etc.? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that the first two times he is to be brought back to the court, even if he does not give a good reason; and only at the third time it is to be examined if there is something in his defence before he is taken back? Said R. Papa: I interpret it that the Mishna means after the second time. But who decides whether it is a good reason or not? Said Abayi: After the second time the court appoints a pair of the rabbis to follow him, and if he has something to say, they examine him and decide if there is a good reason to take him back or not.

But why should not the same rabbis be appointed previously, so that even at the first time he should not be brought back unless the rabbis found a good reason? Because he is affrighted he cannot say at the beginning all he wishes to say. "Such and such a crime," etc. Said Abayi: "The herald must also proclaim the day, the hour, and the place, for the purpose that perhaps there will be found some people who know that the witnesses were not in that place on that day or at that hour, and they will come to make them collusive. "The herald goes before him," etc. It means only when he is already sentenced, but not before. R. Jehoshua b. Lev! said. Him who repents and mortifies his passions after they have taken a firm hold of him, and he confesses before Heaven, the verse considers him as if he should glorify the Holy One, blessed be He, in both this world and the world to come.

As it is written [Ps. l. 23]: "Whoso offereth thanksgiving, glorifieth me." 1 The same said again: When the Temple was in existence, if one brought a burnt-offering the reward for such was with him; a meat-offering, the reward of such was with him: but him who is modest, the verse considers him as if he should sacrifice all the sacrifices mentioned in the Scripture. As it reads [ibid. li. 19]: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." Furthermore, his praying is never despised, as it reads farther on: "A broken and a contrite heart, O God, wilt thou not despise."

MISHNA II.: When he (the guilty one) was far from the place of execution—a distance of ten ells—he was told to confess, as so is the custom, that all who are to be executed should confess, and they who do so have a share in the world to come. And so do we find with Achan, to whom Joshua said: "My son, give . . . and make confession." And [ibid., ibid. 20] Achan answered Jehoshua: "Truly, I have sinned, and thus and thus have I done." And whence do we know that he was atoned after his confession? From [ibid., ibid. 25]: "And Joshua said, How hast thou troubled us! So shall the Lord trouble thee this day." This day—but not in the world to come. However, if the guilty one does not know how to confess, he is told to say. My death shall atone for all my sins. R. Jehudah said: If he knew that he was innocent of this crime, he might say. My death shall atone for all my sins, except this one. And R. Jehudah was answered.. If it were so, all those who were to be executed would say so, to the end that they should be innocent in the eyes of the people.

The rabbis taught: In the verse cited—in what Jehoshua said to Achan—the term "na" is used, and "na" means "I pray." At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, saw [Joshua, vii. ii]: "Israel hath sinned," Jehoshua said before Him: "Lord of the Universe, who has sinned?" To which He answered. "Am I a talebarer, to tell you who. Go and draw lots." And he did so, and the lot fell on Achan. And he said to him. Joshua, do you accuse me on account of a lot? Thou and Elazar, who are the greatest of this generation, if I were to draw lots between thee and him, to one of you the lot would fall. And Jehoshua rejoined: I pray thee, do not discredit the decision of the lots, as the land of Israel will be divided by lots. As it is written [Num. xxvi. 55]: "Through the lot shall the land be divided." "Give confession!" Said Rabhina: He bribes him with words. We want of you only the confession. Give the confession, and you will be free: And Achan answered Jehoshua, and said: "Truly, I have indeed sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done." Said R. Assi in the name of R. Hanina: Infer from this that Achan had committed a similar crime trice—twice in the days of Moses and once in the day of Jehoshua. As it reads: "And thus and thus I have done."

R. Johanan in the name of R. Elazar b. Simeon said: Five times—four in the time of Moses and once in the time of Jehoshua. As it reads. "I have sinned, and thus and thus I have done." But why was he not punished until the last crime? Said R. Johanan in the name of the same authority. Because Israel was not punished for crimes which were committed secretly until they passed the Jordan.

On this point the Tanaim differ. It is written [Deut. xxix. 28]: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are publicly known belong unto us and to our children for ever, to do all the words of this law." Why are the words, "unto us and to our children" and the Ayin of the "ad" pointed? To teach that they were not punished for secret crimes until they passed the Jordan. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. Said to him R. Nehemiah. Where is the plain which it is written that they were punished for secret crimes at any time? Is it not written in the cited verse, "forever?" Say, then, as they were not punished for secret crimes, so they were not punished for crimes which were done publicly until they passed the Jordan. But why was Achan punished—his crime was in secret? Because his wife and children were aware of it. "Israel hath sinned!" Said R. Abbah b. Zabda: Although he had sinned he was still called an Israelite. And said R. Abbah: This is what people say: "A myrtle which stands between thorns is still a myrtle," and so it is named. In Joshua, vii. 11, five times is "gam" (also) written in the cited verse: Infer from this that he had transgressed all that is written in the five books of Moses.
The Exilarch said to R. Huna: It reads [ibid., ibid. 24]: "And Joshua took Achan the son of Zerach, and the silver, and the mantle, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his ox, and his ass, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had, and all Israel were with him, and they brought them up unto the valley of Achor." Yea! he had sinned; but wherein had his sons and daughters sinned? And he answered: According to your theory, what had all Israel to do with this? Hence it was only to terrify them. The same was it with his sons and daughters. It reads farther on: "And all Israel burned them with fire and stoned them with stones." 1 Were they, then, punished with both? Said Rabhina: That which was fit for burning, e.g., silver, gold, and garments, was burned, and those which were fit for stoning, e.g., oxen and other cattle—were stoned. It reads [ibid., ibid. 21]: "I saw among the spoil a handsome Babylonish mantle, and two hundred shekels of silver." Rabh said: A silk mantle; and Samuel said: A σαραβαλλα . It reads farther on [ibid., ibid. 23]: "And as they laid them out before the Lord." Said R. Na'hman: Joshua cast them down before the Lord, saying: Lord of the Universe, were these little things worth that the majority of the Sanhedrin should be killed on account of them? It reads [ibid., ibid., 5]: "And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men." There is a Boraitha: Thirty-six men were slain. So said R. Jehudah. Said R. Nehemiah, to him: "Is it, then, written thirty-six? It reads, "about," and it means that only Joer b. Menasseh, who was equal to the majority of the Sanhedrin, was put to death.

R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabh: It reads [Prov. xviii. 23]: "The poor speaketh entreatingly, but the rich answereth roughly." "The poor speaketh," means Moses; and "the rich," etc., means Joshua: But why? Is it because he cast them down before the Lord and said: "Little things," etc.? Did not Pinchas do the same? As it reads [Ps. cvi. 30]: "Then stood up Phinehas," etc. It ought to be written, "vayitpalel," which means, "and he prayed," instead of "vayiphalel (debated). Infer from this that he had debated with his Creator. He cast them before the Lord, saying: "Lord of the Universe, were they, then, worthy that on account of them twenty-four thousand persons of Israel should fall?"—as it reads [Num. xxv. 9]. So said R. Elazar. And if because of [Joshua, vii. 7]: "Wherefore hast thou caused this people to pass over the Jordan?"—did not Moses say similar to this [Ex. v. 22]: "Wherefore hast thou let so much evil come upon this people?" Therefore it must be said, because Joshua said at the end of the above-cited verse (7): "Would that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan." It reads [ibid., ibid. 10]: "Get the cup," etc. R. Shilla lectured: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Thou thyself hast transgressed more than Israel, as I have commanded [Deut. xxvii. 4]: "And it shall be so, as soon as ye are gone above the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones," and ye went a distance of sixty miles before ye did this.

After Shilla went away, Rabh appointed an interpreter and lectured: It reads [Joshua, xi. 15]: "As the Lord had commanded Moses and his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses." But why is it written, "Get thee up?" It means that the Lord said to him: "Thou thyself hast caused all the evils, because thou didst excommunicate the goods of Jericho, and no crime would have been committed if thou hadst not done so." And this is what is written [ibid. viii. 2]: "Only its spoil and its cattle shall ye take for booty unto yourselves." It reads [ibid. v. 13, 14]: "And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho . . . And he said, No; for as a captain of the host of the Lord, am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth," etc. How could Joshua do so? Did not R. Johanan say: One must not greet a stranger, with peace in the middle of the night, as perhaps he is a demon, and so much the more must he not bow before him? There it was different, as he said: I am a captain of the Lord. But perhaps he lied? We have a tradition that even the demons do not pronounce the name of the Lord in vain. And then the angel said to him: "Yesterday you abolished the presenting of the daily eve-offering, and to-day you abolished the studying of the law." And to the question, "For which of the two transgressions hast thou come?" he answered: For that of to-day. Hence it reads [ibid. viii. 18]: "And Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley." And R. Johanan said: Infer from this that he had occupied himself the whole night with the deepness of Halakhoth. 1 Samuel b. Unya in the name of Rabh. said: The study of the Torah is greater than the sacrifices of the daily offerings, as the angel said: For that of to-day.

Abayi said to R. Dimi: It reads [Prov. xxv.]: "Do not proceed to a contest hastily, lest (thou know not) what thou wilt have to do at its end, when thy neighbor has put thee to confusion. Carry on thy cause with thy neighbor; but lay not open the secret of another." How do the people of the West explain this passage? And he answered "At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Ezekiel [Ezek. xvi. 3]: "And thou shalt say . . . thy father was an Emorite and thy mother was a Hittite," the arguing spirit (Gabriel) before the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Lord of the Universe, if Abraham and Sarah should come and stand before thee, and thou saidst to them this, they should become ashamed." "Carry on thy cause with thy neighbor; but lay not open the secret of another." Had he, then (Gabriel) a right to say such a thing? Yea! As R. Jose b. Hanina said: Gabriel has three names—Piskon, Aitmun, Zigoron. Piskon means that he argues before Heaven for Israel's sake; Aitmun means that he restrains the sin of Israel; Zigoron means that when he concludes his defence for Israel and it does not have any effect, none of the other angels would attempt any further defence, being certain that none would accomplish anything if Gabriel had not done so.

It reads [Job xxxvi. 19]: "Hast thou prepared thy prayer before thy trouble came?" 1 said R. Elazar: One should always proceed with prayer before trouble comes. As if Abraham had not proceeded with his prayer until the trouble between Bith-El and the city of Ai, not one of Israel would have remained alive when the trouble happened at the city of Ai. Resh Lakish said: He who strengthens himself with prayer on the face of the earth has no enemies on the face of Heaven. R. Johanan said: One should always pray mercy, that all shall support his strength to pray, and he should not have enemies to accuse him in Heaven. "Atoned after confession," etc. The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that his confession has made atonement for him from Joshua: "How hast thou troubled us! so shall the Lord trouble thee this day." This day, but not in the world to come. And it is also written [I Chron. ii. 6]: "And the sons of Zerach: Zimri and Ethan, and Heman and Calcol and Dara, in all five." To what purpose is it written "in all five"? It means all five have a share in the world to come. Here it reads "Zimri," and in Joshua he is named Achan. Rabh and Samuel—according to one, his name was Akhan. And why is he named Zimri? Because his acts were according to Zimri of the Pentateuch. And according to the other his name was Zimri. And why is he named Akhan (circle)? Because he caused the sins of Israel to rest upon them like a circle. "To the end that they should be innocent," etc. But what harm could he do, if he should say so? He could cast suspicion on the court and the witnesses. The rabbis taught: It happened with one who was going to be executed, that he said: If I am guilty of this crime, my death shall not atone for all my sins. And if I am innocent of this crime, my death shall atone for all my sins, and I have nothing against the court and all Israel; but to the witnesses I do not surrender my innocence, and they shall not be atoned for, for ever. When the sages heard this, they said: It is impossible to bring him back, as the sentence is already rendered; but be shall be executed, and the collar shall rest upon the neck of the witnesses. Is this not self-evident—for who could trust such a man? The case was, that the witnesses retracted from their first statement. But even then, what did it amount to? Is there not a rule that after testimony has been made and accepted no retraction can take place? The case was, that they gave a good reason for their retraction, and nevertheless they were not listened to. (So did it happen with the contractor Bar Mayon.) 1 MISHNA III.: When he came to four ells from the place of execution, he was stripped of his garments. If a male, he was covered in front; and if a female, she was covered on both sides. So said R. Jehudah. The sages, however, say: A male was stoned while naked, but not a female.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If it was a male, he was covered a little in front, but a female was covered in the greater part of the front and back. So said R. Jehudah. But the sages say: Only a male was stoned while naked, but not a female. And what is their reason? [Lev. xxiv. 14]: "And all the congregation shall stone him." And what does it mean? It cannot be said "him," but not "her" (a female), as it reads [Deut. xvii. 5]: "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman," and therefore it must be said, it means him without his garments, but her with her garments. Hence he is to be stoned while naked, but not a female. R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu said: (The reason why a woman was not stripped is because it reads [Lev. xix. 18]: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," which means, in case he is sentenced to death, select for him a decent death, that he shall not be disgraced. 1)

MISHNA IV.: The stoning-place was two heights of a man. One of the witnesses pushed him on his thighs (that he should fall with the back to the surface), but if he fell face down, he had to be turned over. If he died from the effects of the first fall, nothing more was to be done. If not, the second witness took a stone and thrust it against his heart. If he died, nothing more was to be done; but if not, all who were standing by had to throw stones on him. Thus [Deut. xvii. 7]: "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him, to put him to death, and the hand of all the people at the last."
GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: With his own height he was thrown down from the height of three men. Was such a height necessary? Does not a Mishna in First Gate state that as a pit which causes death is of ten spans, so all other heights which may cause death must be no less than ten spans. Hence the height of ten spans is sufficient? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: From the above-cited verse [Lev. xix.], it is inferred that a decent death must be selected for him. If so, why not from a still higher place? Because his body would be mangled. "One of the witnesses pushed him," etc. The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that he must be pushed? From [Ex. xix. 13]: "But he shall surely be stoned, or shot through." From the term "yorauh yeyoreh," which means pushing. And whence do we know that he must be stoned? From the term "soqueul." And whence do we know with both stoning and pushing? Therefore it reads "soquoul yisoquel auyorauh yeyoreh." And whence do we know that when he died from pushing nothing more was to be done? From "au," which means "or." And because the term is future, we infer that the same shall be in later generations. "Took a stone," etc. Took! Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: There was a heavy stone, which two men had to carry, and this he took and thrust against his heart, and if he died he fulfilled his duty. (Hence if two men had to carry it, it could not be taken by one.) He lifted it up with the support of his comrade, and then he alone threw it, that the blow should be stronger. "To throw stones," etc. Is there not a Boraitha: It never happened that he did not die from the hand of the witnesses, so that one should need to throw another stone? Does, then, the Mishna state that it was so done? It states, "should it be necessary."

The master said: "There was a stone," etc. But does not a Boraitha state that the stone with which he was stoned, as well as the tree upon which he was hanged, or the sword with which he was killed, or the muffler with which he was choked, must be buried with him? It means that before it was buried they prepared another like it, which remained. But is there not another Boraitha which states that the above things were not buried with the one executed? Said R. Papa: It does not mean that it was buried just with him, but near him, at a distance of four ells.

Samuel said: If before the execution the hands of the witnesses were cut off, he becomes free from death, because the commandment, "the hand of the witnesses should be on him first," cannot be fulfilled. But if so, should witnesses who have no hands be disqualified? There it is different, as the verse reads, "the hand of the witnesses," which means that when they testified they had hands. An objection was raised from the following: Every one, of whom two witnesses testify that he was sentenced at such and such a court, and A and B were his witnesses, he is to be put to death. Hence we see that in any case he is executed? Samuel may explain the Boraitha that it means that the witnesses themselves testified that they were witnesses in the former court. But is it indeed needed that it should be done as the verse dictates?

Is there not a Boraitha: It reads [Num. xxxv. 21]: "He that smote him shall surely be put to death; (for) he is a murderer." We know that one is to be put to death by that which applies to him; but whence do we know that if it is impossible that he should be killed by that which applies to him, he is nevertheless to be executed by any death which is possible? From the verse cited, "he shall surely die," which means in any case? That case is different, as it reads, "he shall surely die." But let all other cases be inferred from it? Because the verse cited, which speaks of a murder, and the verse which speaks of the avenger of the one murdered, are two verses which dictate one and the same thing (death), and there is a rule that from two such verses nothing is to be inferred.

What verse of the avenger is meant? [Ibid., ibid., 19]: "The avenger of the blood himself shall slay." Infer from this that it is a meritorious aft for the avenger to do so himself. And whence do we know that if the murdered one had none such, that the court is obliged to appoint one? From the end of the verse, "when he meeteth him, shall he slay him?" Said Mar the elder b. R. Hisda to R. Ashi: How can one say that it is not needed as the verse dictates? Does not Mishna 5 in Chapter viii. of this tract state that it must be done just as the verse dictates, and it is deduced from the Scripture. With the verse cited in the Mishna in question it is different, as that verse is altogether superfluous, and is written only so that it should be done just as it dictates.

But does not a Boraitha say in the eleventh chapter, concerning a misled town, that if there was not a main street in this city, according to R. Ismael such is not to be recognized as a misled town, as the verse dictates, "You shall gather all its goods in the main street," and according to R. Aqiba a main street should be made? We see, then, that they differ only if such should be made or not, but both agree that it must be done just as the verse dictates? In this case Tanaim differ, as a Mishna in Tract Negaim (xiv. 9) states. If he (referring to Lev. xiv. 25) lacked the thumbs of his right hand and foot, or the right ear, he can never be purified. R. Eliezer, however, said: It may be done at the place they are lacking. And R. Simeon said: It shall be placed on the left one.

MISHNA V.: All who are stoned are also hanged. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. The sages, however said: Only a blasphemer and an idolater are hanged (but no others). A male is hanged with his face toward the people, and a female with her face toward a tree. So R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say: A male is hanged, but not a female. Said R. Eliezer to them: Did not Simeon b. Shetha hang females in the city of Askalon? And he was answered: He hanged eighty women in one day, and there is a rule that even two must not be sentenced in one day, if the punishment is with the same death. (Hence Simeon's act was only temporary, because of the need of that time, and nothing is to be inferred from it.)

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxi. 22]: "And he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree." And lest one say: "All who are put to death must also be hanged," therefore it is written in the second verse [ibid.., ibid. 23]: "For he that is hanged is a dishonor of God" (a blasphemer), and as a blasphemer is to be stoned, the same is the case with all others who are to be stoned. So R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say: that as with a blasphemer who has denied the cardinal principle of our faith (i.e., he does not believe in God), the same is the case with an idolater who denies the might of God, but all others who are stoned are not to be hanged. And what is the point of their difference? According to the rabbis, when there is a general expression and an explicit statement, we infer from the general expression and from the explicit statement which comes after it.

And R. Eliezer infers from additions and exclusions. According to the rabbis, "He should be put to death and hanged," is a general expression; "The dishonor of God—hangs," is an explicit statement. And if they were in one verse it might be said, that the general expression applies only to that which is in the explicit statement; viz., only those which are mentioned in that case, but no others. But as they are in two verses, we infer from these an idolater, who is equal to a blasphemer in all particulars. And according to R. Eliezer, "He shall be put to death and hanged," is considered an addition; "the dishonor of God" is considered an exclusion. And if they were in one verse, we would add an idolater only; but, seeing that they are in two verses, all the cases of stoning are to be added. "A male is to be hanged," etc. What is the reason of the rabbis?

It reads, "thou hang him," which means him, but not her. And according to R. Eliezer, it means him, without his garments; and the rabbis also hold this theory, But as it reads, "And if a man has committed," etc., it means a man, but not a woman. And R. Eliezer infers from the word "man," to exclude a stubborn and rebellious son. But is there not a Boraitha which states that, according to R. Eliezer, even a stubborn and rebellious son is stoned and hanged? Therefore said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: R. Eliezer infers from this to include a stubborn son, and his reason is this: It reads, "If a man," meaning a man, but not a son; "committed a sin," means he is put to death, because he has already committed a sin; but a stubborn son is put to death, not because he has sinned, but because in the future he will sin.

And this is an exclusion after an exclusion, of which the rule is, that it comes to add. "Said R. Eliezer to them," etc. Said R. Hisda: Two must not be judged on the same day, provided there are two kinds of death; but if there is only one kind, two may be judged. But was not the case of Simeon b. Shetha one kind of death? And nevertheless it was said to him: Two cases of capital punishment must not be judged on one day. Therefore if it was taught in the name of R. Hisda, it was thus: Provided there is one kind of death applicable to two kinds—namely, for two separate crimes; but if there was only one crime, and only one kind of death, it may. R. Ada b. Ahabah objected from the following: Two must not be judged in one day, even in the case of adultery—the two adulterers, he and she?

R. Hisda explained this Boraitha, that it speaks of a daughter of a priest, and her paramour, in which case, according to the law, she is to be burned Hence there are two different kinds of and he is to be stoned. death. There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: I have heard that the court may punish with stripes and even capital punishment, not in accordance with the biblical law—not with the intention to violate the law, but to make a safeguard for it.

So it happened with one who rode on a horse on Sabbath, at the time Palestine was under the Greeks, and this man was brought before the court, and stoned, not because he deserved such a punishment, but because it was a necessity of that time, to warn others. And it also happened that one had connection with his wife under a fig tree, and he also was brought to the court, and was punished with stripes, not because he deserved such a punishment, but because of the necessity of that time.

MISHNA VI.: How was one hanged? The beam was put in the earth, and it was fastened at the top, and he tied the hands of the culprit one upon the other, and hung him up. R. Jose said: The beam was not put in the earth, but the top of it was supported by the wall, and he hung him up as the butchers do, and he took him off immediately. And should he leave him over night, he transgressed a negative commandment, as it reads [Deut. xxi. 23]: "Thou shalt not leave his corpse on the tree over night, but thou shalt surely bury him on that day (for he that is hanged) is a dishonor of God," etc. How so? "Why is this man hanged?" "He is a blasphemer." Hence the name of Heaven is violated. [Said R. Mair: When a man is in trouble, in what language does the Shekinah lament over him? Qalleni meiraushi, qalleni miz'raay. 1 Now, if the Omnipotent grieves over the blood of the wicked which was shed, so much the more about the blood of the upright!] And not only of him who was executed it was said that he should not remain over night? But even every one who leaves unburied his corpse over night transgresses the negative commandment. However, if he left it over night for the sake of its honor, as for instance to prepare for it a coffin or shroud, he does not transgress.
The one executed was not buried in the cemetery of his parents, but two cemeteries were prepared by the court, one for those who were slain with a sword and choked, and one for those who were stoned and burned. After the flesh of the corpse was consumed, the relatives gathered the bones and buried them in their right place. And the relatives came, and greeted in peace the judges, as well as the witnesses, to show they had nothing in their heart against them, as the judgment was just. The relatives also did not lament for him loudly, but mourned in their heart.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If the verse read, "If a man committed a sin, he shall be hanged," we would say that he should be hanged until death occurs, as the government does; but it reads, "He shall be put to death and hanged," which means he shall be put to death and thereafter hanged. How was it done? They kept him till near sunset, condemned him, killed him, and then hanged him; one hangs him up, and the other immediately loosens the knot, as his hanging was only to fulfil the commandment.
The rabbis taught: It is written, "on a tree," from which ought to be inferred that it makes no difference if the tree was still attached to the ground or not. Therefore is it written, "Thou shalt surely bury him," from which it is to be understood that everything should be already prepared for the burying. And if the tree were still attached to the ground, it could not be considered prepared, as the tree was not as yet cut off. R. Jose, however, maintains that this verse excludes also a beam which is put in the ground, as it is not considered prepared, for the tree was not as yet taken out from the ground. But the sages say that the taking out is not to be considered. "Why is he hanged? Because he is a blasphemer." There is a Boraitha: R. Mair used to say: There is a parable. To what can this be compared? To two twin brothers, one of whom was selected for a king and the other became a robber, and was hanged at the command of the king. Now, people who saw him hanged would say that the king was hanged, and therefore the king commanded the corpse to be taken off (i.e., as man was created in the image of God). "And not only for him who was executed," etc. R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jochi said: Where is to be found an allusion to this in the Torah? In "thou shalt surely bury him." King Sabur questioned R. Hama: Whence do you deduce from the Torah that one must be buried? And the latter remained silent—without answer. Said R. Aha b. Jacob: The world is transferred into the hands of fools. Why did he not answer from the above-cited verse? Because the above is to be explained that it means a coffin and shroud are to be prepared for him. But let him say: Because all the upright were buried. This is only a custom, and not a command of the Torah. And why not say: Because the Holy One, blessed be He, buried Moses? It may be said that this also was not to change the custom. Come and hear [I Kings, xiv. 13]: "And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him." This, also, was not to change the custom. But is it not written [Jer. xvi. 4]: "They shall not be lamented for; nor shall they be buried"? Them Jeremiah cautioned, that with them should be a change of custom.

The schoolmen propounded a question: Is the burying because the corpse shall become disgraced if not buried, or is it because of atonement? And what is the difference? If one says, "I do not wish to be buried," if it is because of the disgrace, he must not be listened to; but if it is for atonement, he should be listened to, as he says, "I don't want any atonement." Come and hear! "Because all the upright were buried." And if the reason should be for atonement, do, then, the upright need atonement? Yea, as it reads [Eccl. vii. 20]: "For no man is so righteous upon earth that he should do always good, and never sin." Come and hear the above-cited verse about Jeroboam, in which it reads that only he should be buried. Now, if the reason is atonement, why should not the others also be buried and atoned? He who was upright ought to be buried and atoned, the others who were wicked were not worthy to be atoned. The same is the case with them who were cautioned by Jeremiah that they should not be buried, because they were not worthy of atonement.
The schoolmen propounded another question: Is the lamentation an honor for the living or for the deceased? And what is the difference? If, e.g., one says, "I do not wish to be lamented," if it is an honor for the deceased only, he may be listened to; and if for the living, he may not. Or, on the other hand, if his heirs do not want to pay the mourner, if it is an honor for the deceased, they may be compelled to pay; and if it is for the living, they may not. Come and hear [Gen. xxiii. 2]: "And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her." Now, if this were only an honor for the living, should the body of Sarah have been kept till Abraham came, for his honor? Nay! Sarah herself was pleased that Abraham should be honored because of her. Come and hear! "All Israel shall mourn for him."

Now, if it is for the honor of the living, were, then, the people of Jeroboam worthy to be honored? The upright are pleased that any human being should be honored on their account. But is it not written that they shall not be mourned for and buried? The righteous do not wish that they shall be honored because of the wicked. Come and hear Jeremiah [xxiv. 5]: "In peace shalt thou die; and as burnings were made for thy fathers, the former kings who were before thee so shall they make burnings for thee; and, 'Ah Lord,' shall they lament for thee."

Now, if it is to the honor of the living, what good can this do to Zedekiah? The prophet said to him thus: Israel shall be honored because of thee as they were honored because of thy parents. Come and hear! It is said elsewhere [Ps. xv. 4]: "The despicable is despised," meaning King Hezekiah, who bore the remains of his father on a bed of ropes.

Now, if it is for the honor of the living, why did Hezekiah do so? For the purpose that his father should have an atonement. But has he a right to invalidate the honor of Israel because of the atonement of his father? The people themselves were pleased to relinquish their honor, because of the atonement of Achaz. Come and hear what was said by Rabbi in his will: "Ye shall not lament me in the small cities, but in the large ones."

Now, if it is for the honor of the living, why such a will? He thought: Let the people be more honored because of me. Come and hear the statement in our Mishna: If he left it over night for its honor, to prepare for it a coffin and shroud, he does not transgress. Hence we see it is to the honor of the dead? Nay, "for his honor" means for the honor of the living. But has one the right to leave the corpse over night, for the sake of his own honor? Yea, as the commandment not to let the corpse hang was because of the disgrace; but if it is not disgraced, the honor of the living is to be considered.

Come and hear another Boraitha: If he left him over night for his honor, that his friends in other cities should hear of his death or bring for him the lamenting-women, or prepare for him a coffin and a shroud, he does not transgress the negative commandment: for all he does is for the honor of the dead? It means to say that all he does for the sake of his own honor is not considered a disgrace for the dead. Come and hear another Boraitha: R. Nathan said: It is a good sign for one deceased if he was punished after his death; namely, if he was not lamented, not buried properly, or a wild beast seized upon his corpse, or if, while carrying him to burial, rain wet the corpse. All these are good signs that it was done for his atonement. Hence we see that all these are to be done for the honor of the dead. Infer from this that so it is. "But two cemeteries," etc. And why so?

Because a wicked person must not be buried with an upright one. As R. Ahha b. Hanina said: "Whence do we know that a wicked person must not be buried with an upright? From [II Kings, xiii. 22]: "And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they saw the hand; and they cast down the man into the sepulchre of Elisha; and as the man came and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and rose up on his feet." Said R. Papa to him: But perhaps this was done to fulfil what is mentioned [ibid. ii. 9]: "Let there be, I pray thee, a double portion of thy spirit upon me." And as Elijahu restored only one man, so did Elisha also restore one while he was alive; and the second was restored after his death. And he answered: If it were so, why, then, does a Boraitha state that the restored only stood upon his feet, but did not go home?

And if it were for the purpose said above, he would remain alive. But if, as you say, Elijahu's promise was not fulfilled? As it was said by R. Johanan: This was fulfilled with the cure of Na'hman from his leprosy, for leprosy is equal to death. As it reads [Num. xii. 12.]: "Let her not be as a dead-born child." And as it is prohibited to bury an upright person with a wicked, so also it is not allowed to bury a lesser wicked with a greater one. But if so, there should have been four cemeteries. The two cemeteries were traditional. 1 The rabbis taught: They who are put to death by the government, their estates belong to the government; and they who, are killed by the court, their estates belong to their heirs. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that their estates belong to the heirs even when they are killed by the government.

Said the sages to him: Is it not written [I Kings, xxi. 16]: "And it came to pass, when Achab heard that Naboth was dead, that Achab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth, the Yizreelite, to inherit it"? And he answered: Achab was his brother's son. and was a legal heir. But had not Naboth many sons? Rejoined R. Jehudah: He slew him and his sons. As it reads [II Kings, ix. 26]: "Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons." The rabbis, however, maintain that the expression "sons" means those who would come out from him had he remained alive. It is correct for him who says that the estates belong to the government, as it reads [I Kings, xxi. 13]: Naboth hath blasphemed God and the king." But to him who says the estates belong to the heirs, why was it. necessary to add "and the king"?

But according to your theory that they belong to the heirs, why was God mentioned? You may say it was done to increase the anger of the people. For the same reason, it was also mentioned, "and the king." It is correct to him that it belongs to the government, as it is written [ibid. ii. 30]: "No; but here will I die"—which means: I do not wish to be counted among those who were killed by the government, so that my estate should belong to it. But according to him who says that it belongs to the heirs, what difference did it make to Joab. The simple one of remaining, alive one hour longer. It reads [ibid., ibid. 30]: "And Benayahu brought the king word again, saying, Thus hath Joab spoken, and thus hath he answered me." Joab said to Benayahu thus: Go and tell the king: You cannot do two things with me.

If you wish to slay me, you must accept for yourself the curses with which your father cursed me. And if you will not accept them, you will have to leave me alive. Farther on it is said: "Then said the king unto him, Do as he hath spoken, and fall upon him, and bury him." Said R. Jehudah in the, name of Rabh: All the curses with which David cursed Joab fell on the descendants of David. They were [II Sam. iii. 29]: "And may there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a crutch, or that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread."

The first fell on Rehoboam (this is inferred from an analogy of expression which we do not deem it necessary to translate); the second—"leper"—on Uzziyahu. As it reads [II Chr. xxvi. 9]: "The leprosy even broke out on his forehead." "Leaneth on a crutch"—Azza, of whom it reads [I Kings, xv. 23]: "Nevertheless, in the time of his old age he became diseased in his feet." And R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: Podagra caught him. Said Mar Zutra b. Na'hman to R. Na'hman: What kind of a sickness is this? And he answered: It pains like a needle in raw flesh. (Asked the Gemara: Wherefrom did he know this? He himself suffered from this sickness. And if you wish, he had it as a tradition from his master; and also, if you wish, from [Ps. xxv. 14]: "The secret counsel of the Lord is for those that fear him; and his covenant, to make it known to them.") Falleth by a sword—on Josiah, as it reads [II Chr. xxxv. 23]: "And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Carry me away, for I am sorely wounded." And R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: They made his body like a sieve. "Lacketh bread"—fell on Jechonyah [II Kings, xxv. 30]: "And his allowance was a continual allowance," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: This is what people say: It is better for one to be cursed than to curse, as usually a curse in vain falls upon the invoker—Rashi. Joab was brought before the court to justify himself for the killing of Abner; and he answered that he was the revenger of the blood of Asahel. But did not Asahel prosecute Abner? And he said: Then he could save himself by striking on one of the members of his body. And to the question: Perhaps he could not do so? he answered: Did he not strike him [II Sam. ii. 231 "On the fifth rib"? to which (according to R. Johanan) the bile and the liver are attached. Now, if he could aim at the fifth rib, could he not do so at some other member? The court then said: Let us leave out Abner. But why did you kill Amassa? And he answered: He was a rebel to the king. As it reads [ibid. xx. 5]: "So Amassa . . . he remained longer than the set time." And he was answered: Amassa was not a rebel, as he had a good reason for his delay. 1 But you are indeed a rebel, as you were inclined to Adoniyahu against David's will. It reads [I Kings, ii. 28]: "And the report came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adoniyahu, though he had not turned after Abshalom." Why is it mentioned here that he had not turned after Abshalom? Said R.

Jehudah: He was inclined to turn, but did not. And why? Said R. Elazar: Because the "moisture of David" was still in a good condition. And R. Jose b. Hanina said: Because the active force of David were still in their strength. As it is said above (p. 55) in the name of Rabh: "Four hundred children," etc. All the Amoraim mentioned above differ with R. Abbah b. Kahana, who said: "If not for Joab, David would not have been able to occupy himself with the law; and if not for David, Joab would not have been able to wage the war. As it is written [II Sam. viii. 16 and 17]: "And David did what is just and right unto all his people. And Joab the son of Jeruyah was over the army." It means that, because Joab was over the army, David was able to do justice, etc.; and also vice versa. It reads [ibid. iii. 26]: "Who brought him back from the well of Sirah." What does "well of Sirah" mean? Said R. Abbah b. Kahana: The well means the pitcher of water which David took from under the head of Saul; and Sirah—literally "a thorn"—means the piece of cloth which David cut off from the garment of Saul, which were good reasons for Abner to reconcile Saul with David, if he should care to do so; but he did not. It reads farther on [ibid., ibid. 27]: "Joab took him aside in the gate, to speak with him in private." Said R. Johanan: He brought him before the Sanhedrin to try him for having killed his brother Asahel. And to his answer that Ashael was his persecutor, he was told as said above. It reads [I Kings, ii. 32]: "And may the Lord bring back his bloodguiltiness upon his own head, because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he." Better than he? Because they were commanded verbally (to kill the priests of Nob) and did not listen, and Joab was commanded in a letter to kill Uriah, and he listened. It reads farther on [ibid., ibid. 34]: "And he was buried in his own house in the wilderness." Was, then, his house in the wilderness? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It was like a wilderness. As a desert is ownerless, and every one who wishes can derive a benefit from it, so was the house of Joab. And also as a desert is free of robbery and adultery, so was the house of Joab. It reads [I Chr. xi. 8]: "And Joab repaired the rest of the city." Said R. Jehudah: Joab supplied to the poor of that city everything to which they were accustomed, even little things and fishes.

Footnotes

127:1 Leeser translates all the verses in the plural; in the text, however, in Leviticus it is in the singular and in Numbers in the plural.

129:1 The term in Hebrew is "zobeach touhda yichabdon'ni"—literally, "He who slaughters thanks-offering, glorifieth me"; and as the last word is written with a double Nun instead of one, he infers both worlds.

131:1 Leeser has translated this improperly. The real translation is thus: "And all Israel stoned him with a stone, and they burnt them with fire and stoned them with stones. Hence the supposition of Rabhina.

133:1 The term in Hebrew, "emek," has two meanings—"valley" and "deep." Hence the explanation of R. Johanan.

134:1 We translate according to the Talmud. Leeser's translation, among others, does not correspond.

135:1 Rashi thus explains this: It happened with a contractor, who was wicked, that he died and was to be buried on the same day as a great man in Israel. And all the inhabitants of the city came to take part in the funeral of the latter, and the relatives of the contractor were also occupied in bearing the coffin of the contractor in the same street, following after the coffin of the great man. Suddenly, however, enemies fell upon them, and all of them left the coffins and ran away, except one disciple, who did riot leave the coffin of his master. Thereafter, when they returned, people exchanged the coffin of the contractor for that of the great man, notwithstanding the disciple's cry that it was an error, and buried the contractor with great honor instead of the great man; and the relatives of the contractor buried the scholar. And the disciple was much grieved because his master was buried in such disgrace and the contractor with such honor. Finally his master appeared to him in a dream, and counselled him not to grieve, saying: Come with me and I will show you my glory in the garden of Eden, and also the place of that wicked man in Gehenna. And the reason why I was punished was because I was present when a scholar was disgraced, and I did not protest.

And the contractor prepared a banquet for the governor of his country, and as the governor did not appear he donated the banquet to the poor of the city, and this was his reward. And to the question of the disciple: Till when shall this man be in Gehenna? The answer: Until Simeon b. Shetha shall die and take his place. And what is the sin of b. Shetha? There are many Israelitish women who occupy themselves with witchcraft in the city of Askalon, and Simeon b. Shetha, who is the head of the court, does not seize them. On the morrow this disciple told this to Simeon b. Shetha. And he selected eighty tall young men, gave to every one a big pitcher which contained a mantle, to the end that it should be kept dry, as that day was a rainy day, and told them that they should be careful to complete the task, as there were eighty witches, and every one of them had to lift up one woman, as then they could not employ any more witchcraft. He then visited the witches at their palace, leaving the young men outside. And to the question who he was and what he wanted, he answered: I am a witch, and am come to try how far you are skilled in it, And they said to him: What can you do? To which he answered: To-day is a rainy day, but nevertheless I can bring you eighty young men, all of whom aye wrapped in dry mantles. And they said to him. Bring them in. He went out, and at his hint they took out the mantles from the pitchers, wrapped themselves in them, and entered. Each of them lifted up a woman; and so they overcame them, took them out, and all of them were hanged. Their relatives, however, who grieved over them, plotted against Simeon's son, and two of them plotted together that their false testimony concerning a crime which results in capital punishment should correspond, and so testified before the court, and he was condemned. And when he was brought to be executed, he said; If I am guilty of this crime, etc. After the witnesses heard this they retracted, and gave the execution of the women as a reason for their false testimony; and nevertheless he was executed. This legend is to be found in the Palestine Talmud—Tract Hagigah, Chapter II.—with many changes; and according to the Aruch, the name of this contractor mentioned was Bar Mayon.

136:1 In the text there is repeated here a contradiction from Tract Souteh, its proper place, which we therefore omit.

141:1 We cannot find in the English idiom any equivalent for this. In the German translation of the Mishna (Berlin, 1823) it is translated in accordance with Rashi. "Wie lässt sich gleichsam die Gottheit bei solcher Gelegenheit aus? Mein Kopf ist mir zu schwer! Meine Arme sind mir zu schwer!" notwithstanding that such is objected to by Rabha in the Gemara farther on, and his explanation is: As one who is in trouble says, "The world is ignominous to me." And all this is taken from the term "qillelath elohim" [Deut. xx. 23], (translated by Leeser "dishonor of God"), which one reads, "qal leth," literally, "not easy," and the other "qollal-eth," literally, "an ignominy" (according to Thosphath and Hananel). And therefore it seems to us better to give the original expression of the Mishna, without any explanation, leaving the matter to the reader, as we could not omit it, according to our method.

145:1 Here are omitted two pages of the text, as their contents are repeated in different places. Much of it is already translated, and the rest will appear in the proper place. However, the following difference of Abayi and Rabha is important—namely, according to Abayi, if one dies a usual death, while he is still wicked, without repentance, his death does not make atonement for him. And the same is the case even if he is executed by the court, if he did not repent. But if one were slain by the government, his death atones. And his reason is, because the government does not always act justly in its decisions, while the court does. But according to Rabha, even if he is executed by the court, death atones; as, according to him, there is no comparison between a death from a usual sickness and that by an execution; and therefore in the latter case he is atoned, but not in the former. And Ameimar said that the Halakha prevails in accordance with Abayi, but the rabbis said that the Halakha prevails with Rabha, with which the Gemara agrees.

147:1 In the text the reason is given, but if translated it would not sound well in English; and, besides, it is unimportant, and therefore omitted.

CHAPTER VII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE FOUR KINDS OF DEATH PRESCRIBED IN THE SCRIPTURE, AND HOW THEY OUGHT TO BE EXECUTED. THE ENUMERATION OF THOSE WHO COME UNDER THE CATEGORY OF STONING. HOW THE EXAMINATION CONCERNING BLASPHEMY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. CONCERNING THOSE WHO TRANSFER THEIR CHILDREN TO MOLECH; FAMILIAR SPIRITS, ETC. CONCERNING CURSING FATHER AND MOTHER, SEDUCERS AND MISLEADERS, ETC.

MISHNA I.: Four kinds of capital punishment are prescribed to the court by the Scriptures; viz., stoning, burning, slaying by the sword, and choking. R. Simeon, however, maintains: Their order is: burning, stoning, choking, and slaying by the sword. The laws of stoning are already explained above (in the preceding chapter).

GEMARA: Rabha in the name of R. S'hora, quoting R. Huna, said: Where the sages give an arrangement (plan of action), one must not be particular with it, as it does not matter if one changes the order and acts with the latter before the former, except in the case of the seven dyes with which a spot of menstruum is to be tested, which are mentioned in Chapter IX., Mishna 4, of Tract Nida, of which the Mishna says: If one tested with them not according to the order mentioned, or one mixed all the seven together and tested with them, he has done nothing. R. Papa the Elder in the name of Rabh said: The same is the case in the four kinds of capital punishment mentioned in our Mishna. As R. Simeon differs in their order, it must be understood that the Mishna is particular in their arrangement. But why does not R. Huna mention them? R. Huna speaks of that in which all agree, but where there is dissension he does not. R. Papa himself said: Also concerning the arrangement of worshipping on the Day of Atonement (when the Temple was in existence), as there is a Mishna (Yoma, p. 84). All the rites on the Day of Atonement, whose order is prescribed by the Bible . . . if they are performed in a wrong order, one has done nothing. R. Huna, however, did not mention this.

For the reason of not changing the order prescribed by the Scripture is because of the holiness of that day, and not because one act is more rigorous than the other. R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua maintains that the order of the daily offerings is also not changeable, as there is a Mishna (in Tract Thamid): This is the arrangement. However, R. Huna, who did not mention it, maintains that this is only meritorious. And the rule mentioned above in the name of R. Huna excludes also the ceremony of Halitzah, and also the dressing of the priests at their worship in the Temple, as explained elsewhere. 1 "Stoning, burning," etc. Stoning is more rigorous than burning, as blasphemers and idolaters are punished with it. And why are these two crimes considered more rigorous than others?

Because the sinners laid their hands on the main principle of the Jewish faith (i.e., disbelief and denying the power of God). But why not say, on the contrary, that burning is more rigorous, as it applies to the daughter of a priest who has sinned? And why should this crime be more rigorous? Because it reads that she violates her father, which means that her father loses his priesthood. The rabbis hold that only a married woman who was the daughter of a priest is to be burned if she sinned; but if betrothed, stoning is applied. And because a betrothed woman is distinguished from a married one, who bears the name of her husband and not of her father, while a betrothed still bears the name of her father, we see that stoning is more rigorous. The same is also more rigorous than slaying by the sword, because of the reason stated above.

But why not say that the sword is more rigorous, because it applies to the men of a misled town? And what is the rigor of a misled town—that their property is to be destroyed? It may be answered that a misleader is always considered more criminal than those who are seduced. And there is a Boraitha that the punishment of a misleader is stoning. Stoning is also more rigorous than choking.

And lest one say that choking is more rigorous, as it applies to one who strikes his father or mother, and the rigor is because the honor of the parents is equalized with the honor of the Omnipotent, it is inferred from the case of a daughter of a common Israelite, who is excluded from choking, which applies to a married daughter of the same, and is included in the category of stoning; and it is already explained above that a betrothed disgraces her father and his whole family, while the disgrace of a married one belongs more to her husband. 1 Burning is more rigorous than the sword, as it applies to a sinning daughter of a priest, whose crime is more rigorous for the reason stated above. But why not say, on the contrary: The sword is more rigorous, because it applies to a misled town, the property of which is to be destroyed?

We find the term "her father" concerning stoning, and the same term is used concerning burning. And it is to be said: As the term "her father," used concerning. stoning, is more than the sword, the same is it with the term which is used by burning-that burning is also more rigorous than the sword.

Burning is also more rigorous than choking. This is inferred from the fact that a married daughter of a priest is excluded from choking, which applies to a married daughter of a common Israelite, and is included in the category of burning. And lest one say that choking is more rigorous, as it applies to him who has struck his father or mother, the honor of whom is equalized with the honor of the Omnipotent, it is already decided above that they who laid their hands on the main principle, etc., are considered the greatest criminals. "R. Simeon said," etc. According to him, burning is more rigorous than stoning because it applies to a daughter of a priest who has sinned; and it is considered more criminal because her father loses his- priesthood. And he (Simeon) differs from the rabbis, who make a distinction between a betrothed and a married woman, as according to him both are punished with burning; and because the greatest criminal is punished with burning, it is to be inferred that this punishment is more rigorous than all others. 2 R. Simeon also differs concerning the punishment of misleaders of a misled town, as according to him they also are punished with choking.

R. Johanan used to say: A betrothed young girl, who is the daughter of a priest, is to be stoned if she has sinned; but according to R. Simeon, she must be burned. And the same is the case if she had sinned with her father. (Although, if such a case happened with a commoner, burning is applied, nevertheless she is to be stoned, according to the rabbis); as according to their theory stoning is more rigorous, and there is a rule that he who is guilty of two crimes liable to capital punishment is to be executed with the more rigorous one. And according to R. Simeon, that burning is more rigorous, she is to be put to death by that. And where do we find R. Simeon saying so? In the following Boraitha: R. Simeon said: There are already two general expressions about adultery; viz. [Lev. xx. 10]: "Then shall the adulterer be put to death, "together with the adulteress." And this applies either to a betrothed or to a married woman, with whom the daughter of a priest is certainly included. Why, then, does the Scripture distinguish a daughter of a priest [ibid. xxi. 9]: "And if the daughter of any priest profane herself by committing harlotry, her father doth she profane: with fire shall she be burnt," which makes no difference between a betrothed and a married woman? To exclude her from the punishment of a betrothed commoner, to whom stoning applies; and if married, choking applies, and puts her in the category of those who are to be burned. Now, as to the punishment of a married one, which applies to a daughter of a priest, all agree that it is more rigorous than that of a commoner; the same is the case with a betrothed one, whom the Scripture excluded from an easier punishment, for a severer one. Hence burning is more severe than stoning. However, collusive witnesses (to whom, according to the Scripture, the same must be done as to the defendant, if their testimony were true) are not excluded from that punishment which they would have to suffer if they had been found collusive in the case of a daughter of a commoner, and are punished with the death of their accused; no matter if the accused were the daughter of a commoner or of a priest; namely, if they had testified regarding a betrothed one, and thereafter were found collusive; the death which would apply to her, were she a daughter of a commoner, applies to them. And the same is the case if they had testified regarding a married one.

The rabbis taught: It reads: "And if the daughter of any priest profane herself." Lest one say that it means that she profaned herself by violating the Sabbath, Therefore it reads further, "by committing harlotry." But lest one say, even if she were single, it reads here, "her father." And the same expression is used concerning a betrothed woman; as there the sin is because of her bond to a husband, the same is the case here. It is considered a crime liable to capital punishment if she were already betrothed or married. But perhaps it means when she has sinned with her father, and not with some one else? Therefore it reads, "she profane," which means that she has profaned him, and not he her. Hence from the analogy of expression, father, we infer that the sin is because of her husband. But from this analogy of expression it is inferred when she was betrothed. Whence do we know that, if she was not of age and nevertheless married, or of age and betrothed or married, or even if she were already an old woman, that the same is the case? Therefore it is written: "And the daughter of any priest," which means, whatever her condition. But lest one say: It speaks only when she was married to a priest, but if to Levite or to a common Israelite, to a heathen, to a descendant of one who has profaned the priesthood, to a bastard, or to a descendant of the Gibeonites who were temple-servants, it is different? Therefore it is written: "The daughter of any priest," which means, even though she was not the wife of a priest. She is to be burned, but not her paramour. She is to be burned, and not her collusive witnesses.

R. Eliezer said: With her father, burning applies; with her father-in-law, stoning applies. How is this to be understood? Shall we assume that he means she has sinned with her father? Then why only a daughter of a priest? Is not the case the same even when she was a daughter of a common Israelite? Burning applies to committing a crime with a daughter, and stoning to the crime with a daughter-in-law. We must then say that with the expression, "with her father," he means when she was still under the control of her father; and the same is it with the expression, "with her father-in-law." Now, let us see in accordance with whom is his theory. It is not in accordance with the rabbis, as they hold that only a married woman is to be burned, but not a betrothed. It is also not in accordance with R. Simeon, as he holds that there is no difference between betrothed and married—both are to be burned. And also not in accordance with R. Ishmael, as he holds that only a betrothed is to be burned, but not one married. And he also holds that if she had committed a crime with her father-in-law, choking applies. As to this, Rabin sent a message in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina: This Boraitha is to be explained thus: It is in accordance with the rabbis. And the expression of R. Eliezer, "with her father," means thus: If such a crime be punished, with an easier death than if the crime had been committed with her father—e.g., that of a married woman, daughter of a commoner, to whom choking applies, in her case, because she is a daughter of a priest, the death of her father, if he should commit the crime with her, applies to her—viz., burning. And if such a crime by a commoner were punished with a heavier death than if the crime were with her father—e.g., a betrothed daughter of a commoner, to whom stoning applies, no exception is to be made, and the punishment of her sinning with her father-in-law applies—viz., stoning. R. Jeremiah opposed: Does, then, the Boraitha read "easier" and "heavier death," which it should do according to your explanation? "Therefore," said he, "it must be said that R. Eliezer is in accordance with R. Ishmael; and the expression, 'with her father,' means under the control of her father-viz., a betrothed, not yet married, to whom burning applies; and 'with her father-in-law' means, literally, if she had sinned with her father-in-law she is to be stoned, but if with some one else choking applies."

Said Rabha: This explanation is still more complicated than the first one, as both expressions must be explained equally: either both are to be taken literally, or both mean "under the control." And therefore said Rabbhina: R. Eliezer is in accordance with the rabbis, and his decision was just the reverse. "With her father," stoning applies, and "with her father-in-law," burning applies. And both expressions mean "under the control." And although a betrothed woman is no longer considered under the control of her father, he so expressed himself because of the latter expression, "under the control of her father-in-law."
Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabha b. Abuhu, quoting Rabh: The Halakha prevails according to the message which was sent by Rabbin in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina. Said R. Joseph: Do you come to teach a Halakha which will be used only then when the Messiah shall appear? Said Abayi to him: According to your theory, why should we study the section Holiness (which treats about sacrifices, at the time when the Temple was in existence) at all? Is not the whole for the time when the Messiah shall appear? You must then say that we must study and be rewarded for it by Heaven. The same is the case here. We have to study, although it is not for use to us at this time, and the reward will come from Heaven." Answered R. Joseph: I mean to say, may one name Halakha in the explanation of a Boraitha (i.e., the message of Rabbin was only concerning the explanation of the Boraitha)? To which it may be said, that such an explanation is correct. The expression "Halakha," however, means "law," which does not correspond with his meaning.

Where do we find R. Ishmael's opinion, of which it is said above that Eliezer holds with him? In the following Boraitha: It reads, "the daughter of any priest profane," etc., speaking of a young betrothed maiden. But perhaps it means a married woman? This is not the case, as the law about adultery is already written in Lev. xx., in which a daughter of a priest is included. However, we find that the Scripture has distinguished a daughter of a commoner, and applied stoning to her, if she was betrothed and not married. The same is the case with the distinction of a priest's daughter, to whom the Scripture applies burning, meaning also when she was betrothed only. Her collusive witnesses, however, are to be punished with the same death that applies to her paramour, because it reads [Deut. xix. 19]: "Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother." "To his brother," but not to his sister. So is the decree of R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, maintains: There is no difference whether she was betrothed or married, as in both cases burning applies. And to the question of R. Ishmael: Why should we make a distinction concerning a daughter of a priest, the expression for which is "Naahra" (a maiden), while the same expression is used concerning a commoner who is betrothed only? R. Aqiba rejoined: Ishmael, my brother, I infer it from the word and, which begins the verse—"and the daughter of any priest." Rejoined R. Ishmael: "Do you desire that this should be burned, because the Vav (which means and) is in your way?
Let us see! R. Ishmael infers the punishment of a priest's daughter from an analogy of expression. How does he explain the above-cited verse, "her father has she profaned"? He explains it as in the following Boraitha: R. Meir used to say: This phrase means that if, until now, their custom was to consider her father holy, from that time they consider him common; if until that time he was honored, from that time he is disgraced. As people say: "Cursed be such a man who has born such a daughter; cursed is he who has brought her up; cursed is he that he has such an offspring." Said R. Ashi: According to whom do we name a wicked person, "wicked, the son of a wicked," although his father was upright? In accordance with the Tana of the just-mentioned Boraitha.

MISHNA II.: The prescribed punishment of burning was thus: The sinner was placed in waste knee-deep. Then, placing a twisted scarf of coarse material within a soft one, they wound it around his neck. One (of the witnesses) pulled one end to ward himself, the other doing the same, until he opened his mouth. Meanwhile the executioner lights (heats) the string, and thrusts it into his mouth, so that it flows down through his inwards and shrinks his entrails. To which R. Jehudah said: Should the culprit die before the string is thrust into his mouth, the law of burning has not been properly executed, and there fore his mouth must be opened forcibly with a pair of pincers. Meanwhile, the string having been lighted, is thrust into his mouth so that it may reach his intestines and shrink his entrails. R. Eliezer b. Zadok, however, said: Once a daughter of a priest, having sinned, was surrounded with fagots and burned. He was answered: The court which so decided was ignorant of the exact law.

GEMARA: What kind of a string was it? Said R. Matnah: A string of lead. And whence is this deduced? They infer this burning from the burning of the congregation of Korah. As there the souls only were burned, but the bodies remained, so also here only the soul is to be burned, but the body is to remain. R. Elazar said: They infer this burning from the burning of the sons of Aaron. As there the souls only were burned and the bodies remained, the same is the case here.
Let us see! He who infers it from the congregation of Korah, wherefrom does he know that the soul, and not the body, was burned? From [Num. xvii. 3]: "The censers of these sinners against their own souls." 1 Which means that the souls only were burned, but the bodies remained. And the other, who infers it from the sons of Aaron, maintains that this phrase means they were burned bodily, and the expression "own souls" means that they were liable to be burned because of their souls. And it is in accordance with Resh Lakish, who said elsewhere: It reads [Ps. xxxv., 16]: "With flattering, babbling mockers, they gnashed upon me with their teeth," which means that, because they had flattered Korah for the sake of entertainments (to which he used to invite them), the ruler of Gehenna gnashed upon them with his teeth. And he who inferred this from the sons of Aaron, wherefrom does he know that their souls only were burned, etc.? From [Lev. x. 2]: "And there went out a fire from before the Lord, and consumed them, and they died before the Lord," which means that, although they died before the Lord, they died as all others-only their corpses remained. And the other maintains that the sons of Aaron were burned bodily, and the expression, "they died," means, that the beginning was from inside the body. As we have learned in a Boraitha: Abba Jose b. Dusthai said: Two fire cords came out from the Holy of Holies chamber, and were divided into four: two of them entered the nostrils of one, and two the nostrils of the other, and burnt them. But is it not written, "and consumed them"? From which it is to be inferred "them," and not something else. Yea—"them," and not their garments.

But why should burning not be inferred from the offerings of the bullocks, which were burned bodily? Common sense dictates that a man must be inferred from man, and not from cattle: as a man sins, and one infers a man who has sinned from another man, and from him whose soul was taken for his sin to him whose soul is to be taken. But he who infers it from Korah's congregation-why did he not infer it from the sons of Aaron? Because he maintains that the sons of Aaron were burned bodily, and to infer from them would not be proper, as R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabha b. Abuhu: From the phrase "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," we deduce that one may select a decent death for the sinner. But as the theory of R. Na'hman is accepted—why, then, the analogy of expressions at all? If not for the analogy, one might say that the burning of the soul, while the body remains, is not called burning at all, and that which is written, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor," etc., could be done by increasing the fire by bundles of fagots so that he should die quickly. Therefore the analogy of expression shows that such a burning, although the body remains, is called burning.

There is a tradition that Moses and Aaron used to walk, and Nadob and Abihu followed them, and all Israel after them. And Nadob said to Abihu: When will the two old men die, and you and I be the leaders of Israel? To which the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Time will show who will bury whom. Said R. Papa: This is what people say: "There are many old camels who are laden with the skins of young ones." R. Elazar said: A scholar, in the eyes of a commoner, at first acquaintance (the scholar) appears to him (the ignorant man) like a golden kithon. However, after he holds conversation with him, he appears like a silver kithon; if he accepts a benefit from him, he appears like an earthen one, which, once broken, cannot be mended.

Aimretha bath Tli was the daughter of a priest, who had sinned, and R. Hama b. Tubiah surrounded her with bundles of twigs and burned her. And R. Joseph, when he heard this, said: He erred twice. In the explanation of the Mishna, in which, according to R. Na'hman, the sinner was burned with lead; and (b) he was not aware of the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xvii. 9]: "And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that may be in those days." At that time, when the priests acted, judgments concerning capital punishments might be rendered; but when there were no more acting priests, no such judgment could be rendered. "Said Elazar b. Zadok," etc. Said R. Joseph: The court in question was of the Sadducees (who take the commandments of the Scripture literally). Did, indeed, Elazar say so? And the answer was as stated in the Mishna? Is there not a Boraitha which states: R. Elazar b Zadok said: I recollect, when I was a child, being carried upon the shoulders of my father, and a daughter of a priest, who was a sinner, was brought, and was surrounded with bundles of twigs and burned? To which the sages answered: At that time you were a child, and we cannot accept any evidence from a child? Two such cases happened in the days of R. Elazar, and when be was answered that no evidence of a child is to be taken into consideration, he related before them the other case which be saw when he was already of age, and to this they answered him: That court was an ignorant one.

MISHNA III.: The prescribed punishment of slaying was thus: He was decapitated, as was customary with the Roman government. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: Such a death is repulsive. But they put his head on the (executioner's) block and cut it off with a butcher's hatchet. And he was answered: There is not a more detestable death than this.
GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said to the sages: I myself am aware that the death I explained is repulsive; but what can we do against the Scripture, which reads [Lev. xviii. 13]: "And in their customs shall ye not walk," etc.? To which the rabbis answered: As this is written in the Scripture, we are not learning this from them, but they learned it from us. And should one disagree with us, then what would he say to the following Boraitha: Garments and some other valuable things may be burned on the grave of kings, for the sake of their honor. And this custom is not considered the custom of the Amalekites. And why? It is because it is mentioned in the Scripture [Jer. xxxiv. 5].: "And as burnings were made for thy father," etc., we do not learn from them. The same is the case here.

Let us see! In the succeeding chapter, there is a Mishna: The following are slain with a sword: a murderer, and the men of a misled town. It is correct, "a misled town," as it is plainly written [Deut. xiii. 16], "with the edge of a sword." But whence do we know that the same is the case with a murderer? From the following Boraitha: It reads [Ex. xxi. 20]: "And if a man smite his servant or maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, it shall be surely avenged." And as we do not know what "revenge" means; therefore it is written [Lev. xxvi. 25]: "And I will bring unto you the sword avenging." Hence avenge means with a sword.
But whence do we know that they decapitated him—perhaps they killed him with the sword in another part of the body? It reads, "with the edge of a sword," which excludes stabbing. But perhaps it means splitting the head. It is already inferred by Rabha b. Abuhu from the phrase: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," that one must select a decent death. But all this speaks of when one has slain a bondman. Whence do we know that the same is the case with a freeman (whose punishment is death in general, and there is a rule that wherever the kind of death is not mentioned, it means choking)? This cannot be, as an a fortiori conclusion is to be drawn: A slave, who is less in value than a freeman, if one kills him, he is punished with slaying by the sword (which is more rigorous than choking); if one kills a freeman, so much the more should he be punished with a more rigorous death. But this would be correct only to him who holds that the sword is more rigorous than choking. But to him who holds the contrary, what can be said? He infers this from another verse, as is stated in the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xxi. 9]: "And thou shalt put away (the guilt of) the innocent blood from the midst of thee." From this we see that all shedders of blood are compared to the heifer in that connection. And lest one say that as the heifer is killed with a butcher's knife toward the back part of the neck, the same shall be done with all other shedders of blood, it is already inferred above that a decent death must be selected.

MISHNA IV.: The prescribed punishment of choking was thus: The sinner was placed in waste knee-deep. Then, placing a twisted scarf of coarse material within a soft one, they wound it around his neck. One (of the witnesses) pulled one end toward himself, the other doing the same, until the soul of the culprit departed.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [Lev. xx. 10]: "And if there be a man "—" man" means to exclude a minor, "Who committeth adultery with a man's wife"—"man's wife" means to exclude the wife of a minor (whose marriage is not considered). "With his neighbor's wife" means to exclude those people who live with their wives in common. 1 [Ibid.]: "Then shall the adulterer be put to death" means choking. But perhaps it means some other kind of death which is prescribed by the Scripture? It was said that wherever it is written in the Torah "death," without specifying which, you must not apply a rigorous one, but an easier one (and choking is the easiest of all the kinds of death mentioned in the Torah). So is the decree of R. Jashiah. R. Jonathan, however, maintains: The reason is not because choking is an easier death, but because there is a tradition that in any place where death is mentioned in the Scripture, without specifying which, it is choking. Rabbi said: The reason is because there is mentioned in the Scripture a heavenly death [Gen. xxxviii. 10], and there is also mentioned death from human hands. And as a heavenly death does not leave any marks on the body of the man, the same must it be by death from human hands. But perhaps burning is meant, which also does not leave any signs outside of the body? As the Scripture prescribed burning to a daughter of a priest, it is to be understood that all other sinners are not punished with the same.

It is correct that choking is to be used, according to R. Jonathan, who says that it is a tradition; and Rabbi gives the reason. But R. Joshiah, who wants only an easier death—whence does he deduce choking at all? (Such is never mentioned in the Scripture.) And perhaps there is no more than three kinds of death, and from these three the easier one must be selected, which is the sword? Said Rabha: The four kinds of death are known traditionally. And the expression of R. Jonathan, "not because it is easier," shows that he and R. Joshiah differ concerning choking, whether it is an easier death. In the same manner differ R. Simeon and the rabbis.

R. Zera said to Abayi: There are sinners who are punished with stoning, although it is not so mentioned in the Scripture. But they are inferred from an analogy of expression, "from a familiar spirit." I question you which expression of the two following is meant—"put to death," or "their blood shall be upon them"? And he answered: The latter expression, as the first is needed, "to death," which is explained above.

MISHNA V.: To the following sinners stoning applies: viz., one who has had connection with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a human male, or with cattle; and the same is the case with a woman who uncovers herself before cattle; with a blasphemer; an idolater, he who sacrifices one of his children to Moloch; one that occupies himself with familiar spirits; a wizard; one who violates the Sabbath; one who curses his father or mother; one who has assaulted a betrothed damsel; a seducer who has seduced men to worship idols, and the one who misleads a whole town; a witch (male or female); a stubborn and rebellious son.
One who has had connection with his mother is guilty of transgressing two negative commandments—the negative commandment as to his mother and the negative commandment as to his father's wife. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: He is guilty only for his mother. One who has connection with his stepmother is also guilty in respect to two negative commandments—the commandment of adultery and the separate commandment as to his father's wife. There is no difference if he has done it while his father was still alive or after his death; and there is also no difference if she was only betrothed to his father, or already married. One that commits a crime with his daughter-in-law transgresses also two commandments-adultery and of the separate commandment of his son's wife. And there is also no difference if it was done while his son was still alive or after his death, after her betrothal or after marriage.

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: "If his father had married his mother illegally; he transgresses only the commandment as to "mother" and not as to "his father's wife." And the expression illegally means that by marrying, he has transgressed a negative commandment which is not punished capitally or with korath. As to such, even according to the rabbis, such a marriage is not considered at all. But to death which is only of a negative commandment—e.g., a widow to a high-priest—according to the rabbis the marriage is considered, and according to R. Jehudah it is not, as he holds with R. Aqiba, who is of the same opinion. R. Oushia objected: There is a Mishna in Yebamoth [Chap. II., 3]: "Owing to other legal prohibitions, or on account of the holiness of station" [ibid. ix.]. By "legal prohibitions" (to marry as above mentioned) are meant the secondary degrees of relationship prohibited by the rabbins as to intermarriage. Those prohibited to intermarry on account of holiness of station are a widow to a high-priest; a woman who had been divorced or performed the ceremony of Halitzah; who had (unlawfully) been married to an ordinary priest. To which a Boraitha adds: R. Jehudah changes the expression, viz., by "legal prohibition," a widow to a high-priest, etc., is meant; and "on account of holiness of station," the secondary degrees of relationship, etc., are meant. Hence we see that R. Jehudah changes the expression only, but nevertheless the ceremony of Halitzah is required. And if it were in accordance with R. Aqiba (that a marriage within secondary degrees is not considered at all), why, then, the ceremony of Halitzah? R. Jehudah collected only the expressions which ought to be in accordance with the opinion of the first Tana, but he himself does not require anything of that kind.

When R. Itz'hak came from Palestine, he taught just as our Mishna teaches, viz.: R. Jehudah said: He is guilty only concerning the negative commandment as to the mother. And what is the reason? Said Abayi: Because it reads [ibid. xviii. 7]: "She is thy mother," which means: You have to make him guilty only because of his mother, but not because of the wife of his father. But why do the rabbis make him guilty concerning two commandments? Do they not hold this theory? The rabbis apply this expression to that which was said by R. Shesha b. R. Idi, which is stated farther on. But does not R. Jehudah also hold the theory of R. Shesha? Hence, his theory cannot be inferred from it. Therefore said R. Aha b. Iki: It reads [ibid. 7]: "She is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness," meaning, "for one nakedness you can make her guilty, but not for two." But if so, why does not R. Jehudah differ concerning a daughter-in-law, who is guilty, according to our Mishna, as to two commandments? It then must be said, because there is one body, although there are two transgressions, he is culpable only for one, as it reads, "her nakedness." The same should be the case concerning the mother? Therefore said Rabha: R. Jehudah holds: At the beginning of the verse, "the nakedness of thy father" means "thy father's wife." And that it means thus he infers from an analogy of expression, as stated farther on. And "father's wife" means that there is no difference whether she is his mother or not. But whence do we know that it is the same with his mother, who is not his father's wife? Therefore it is written: "She is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." Hence only for the crime as to the mother you make him guilty, but not as to that of his father's wife.

There is a Boraitha according to Rabha: "A man" means to exclude a minor [Lev. xxii.]: "That lieth with his father's wife" means that there is no difference whether she is his mother or not. But whence do we know that the same is the case with his mother who is not his father's wife? Therefore it reads: "His father's nakedness," which is pleonastic, 1 and is written only for the purpose of an analogy of expression. "Both of them shall be put to death" means by stoning—but perhaps with some other death? It is written here: "Their blood shall be upon them"; and in the case of "familiar spirits" there is also the same expression. And as concerning the latter stoning is plainly applied by the Scripture, the same is the case here. But here we have heard only of the punishment. Whence do we know of the warning? Therefore it is written: "The nakedness of thy father," etc., which means of "thy father's wife." But perhaps it means literally the father himself? It is written here, "The nakedness of thy father thou shalt not uncover," and there it is written, "The nakedness of his father he had uncovered." As the latter means his wife, so does the former. And from the expression "his father's wife," it is inferred, whether his mother or not. But whence do we know as to his mother who is not his father's wife? Therefore it is written, "the nakedness of thy mother," etc. But this is only in the warning in which the Scripture has equalized the mother who is not his father's wife with her who is. But whence do we know that the punishment is also equal? From the analogy of the expressions: "the nakedness of thy father thou shalt not uncover," and it reads also: "He has uncovered the nakedness of his father." And so as in the warning it is equalized with the mother who is the wife of his father and with her who is not, the same holds good concerning the punishment. "She is thy mother" means, you can make her guilty only for the crime as mother, but not for the crime as father's wife. But the rabbis, who do not use the above analogy of expression, whence do they deduce the punishment of a mother who is not the wife of one's father? Said R. Shesha b. R. Idi: It reads: "She is thy mother," which means that the Scripture equalized the mother who is not the wife of his father with her who is. "Who had connection with his daughter-in-law." But let him be guilty also because of the wife of his son? Said Abayi: The verse begins with his daughter-in-law and ends with the wife of his son—to teach that "daughter-in-law" and "wife of his son" are one and the same.

MISHNA V.: One who had connection with a human male or with an animal, and also a human female who uncovers herself before a male animal, are punished with stoning. And should one say: If man has sinned, what is the fault of the animal? Because a misfortune has happened to a human being through it, therefore says the verse: "It shall be stoned," There is also another explanation; viz., should it happen that people saw the animal passing the street, they would say: On account of it so and so was stoned.

GEMARA: A human male—whence is deduced? That which the rabbis taught: "A man" means to exclude a minor; with a male," of any age whatever or a minor. "As they lie 1 with a woman" means to say that with a woman there are two kinds of lyings, one usual and one unusual; and one is guilty as to both. Said R. Ishmael: This verse came to teach that which was just mentioned, as if not for this teaching it would be pleonastic, for regarding a male there is only one kind of connection. "Both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death"—by stoning, but perhaps by some other death. Therefore it is written: "Their blood shall be upon them." And the same expression is used concerning "a familiar spirit," etc. And as the punishment of the latter is known to be stoning, the same applies here. From this we have heard the punishment. Whence is the warning? [Ibid. xviii. 22]: "And with a man shalt thou not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination." But this is a warning only to him who has done so. But whence is the warning to them with whom the connection was made? As to this it reads [Deut. xxiii. 18]: "There shall not be a courtesan of the sons of Israel"; and also [I Kings, Xiv. 24]: "And courtesans also were in the land . . . the Lord had driven out." So R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, said: "It was not necessary to have another verse warning him with whom the connection was made, as this is inferred from the same verse, which may apply also to the latter by some change in pronunciation.

Concerning animals, whence is this deduced? The rabbis taught: From Lev. xx. 15. "A man" excludes a minor; "with an animal," it makes no difference whether it was a large or a small one; "shall be put to death" means stoning—but perhaps some other kind of death? It reads here (ibid.) "thahargu" (ye shall kill), and in Deut. xiii. 10, "thahargenu" (thou shalt kill). And as there the punishment is stoning, as it reads plainly in ibid. 11, the same is the case here. Here, however, we have learned only the punishment to the man. But whence do we know that the animal with which the crime was done is also to be killed in the same manner? It reads [Ex. xxii. 18]: "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death," which was not necessary for the man, as there is another verse cited above. Apply it, therefore, to the beast. From this we have learned the punishment for both. But whence is the warning? From the above-cited verse [Lev. xviii. 23]. But this is only a warning to the man, and whence the warning concerning the animal? From Deut. xxiii. 18. (Here are repeated the cited verses in the name of R. Ishmael, and also in the name of R. Aqiba, that it is not necessary, as in the above verses there is a warning for both. 1)

MISHNA VI.: A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God (Jehovah). Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously—i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." (Rashi explains that the name Jose was selected because it contains four letters, as does the proper name of the Lord.) When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: I heard exactly the same as he told. And so also says the third witness.
GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: One is not guilty unless he blesses (i.e., curses) the Holy Name by the Holy Name (as illustrated in the Mishna): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." And whence is this deduced? Said Samuel: From Lev. xxiv. 16, of which the term in Hebrew is "we-nauquib shem," which means, "when he has cursed with the name." And whence do we know that the term "nauquib" means cursing? From [Num. xxiv. 8]: "How shall I curse," etc. And the warning as to this is [Ex. xxii. 27]: "Thou shalt not revile Elohim." But does not "nauquib" mean "hole"? Why, then, not so say—i.e., suppose one wrote the Holy Name on a piece of parchment and tore it, the term "we-yiqaub" [II Kings, xii. 10]? meaning he "bored a hole in its lid"—and the warning as to which should be from [Deut. xii, 3, 4]: "Ye shall destroy their name out of the same place. Ye shall not do so to the Lord," etc. It was said above if the Name should be cursed by the Name, which is not the case here. But perhaps the term "nauquib is meant as plainly expressed, as the same is used in Num. i. 17, which are expressed by name" (i.e., it was forbidden to express the name Jehovah in any case whatever, except in that of the high-priest in his worshipping on the Day of Atonement when the temple was in existence; and even then, when the people heard this expression, they used to fall upon their faces). And the warnings should be from [Deut. vi. 13]: "The Lord thy God shalt thou fear" (which means to pronounce His name). This does not hold good, firstly because, as said above, it must be by the Name; and secondly, a warning of a positive commandment cannot be counted as a warning. And if you wish, it may be said because it is so written plainly [Lev. xxiv. 11]: "The son of the Israelitish woman pronounced (weyiqaub) the holy name and blasphemed." Hence this term is used to blaspheme. But perhaps one is not guilty unless he did both-expressed the name and blasphemed? This cannot be supposed, as farther on it reads [ibid. 14]: "Lead forth the blasphemer," and the expression "nauquib" is not mentioned. Hence it is one and the same.

The rabbis taught: It reads: "any man whatsoever," etc., meaning to include the heathen, who are warned of blasphemy the same as an Israelite. And they are to be executed by the sword, as wherever it is mentioned in the Scripture concerning death to the children of Noah, it means by the sword, and not otherwise. But is this inferred from the verse cited? Is it not stated farther on that such is inferred from a verse in Genesis? Said R. Itz'hak of Navha: This verse is needed to include the pseudonyms. And it is in accordance with R. Mair of the following Boraitha: Any man whatsoever that blasphemeth his God shall bear his sin. To what purpose is this written? It reads earlier [ibid. 16]: "But he that pronounced the name of the Lord (with blasphemy) shall be put to death"? Because from this one might say that he is not guilty, unless he has done so with the unique proper Name, but not with the pseudonyms. Therefore it reads in the cited verse (15), "his God"—no difference between proper and pseudonym. So is the decree of R. Mair. The sages, however, maintain: For the unique proper Name death is the punishment; and for the pseudonyms it is only a warning by a negative commandment, and the punishment is as for the transgression of a negative commandment. (Says the Gemara:) Itz'hak of Navha differs with R. Maisha, who said: One of the children of Noah, who blasphemed God by any of His pseudonyms whatsoever is guilty, and is put to death, even according to the rabbis.

The rabbis taught: Seven commandments were given to the children of Noah, and they are: Concerning judges, blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and that they must not eat of the member of a body while the animal is still alive. R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel said: Also of the blood of the same. R. Hidka said: Also castration was forbidden to them. R. Simeon said: Also witchcraft. And R. Jose said: All that is said in: the portion on witchcraft is forbidden to a descendant of Noah. As it reads [Deut. xviii. 10-12]: "There shall not be found among thee any one who causeth his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one who useth divination, one who is an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a conjurer, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or who inquireth of the dead. For an abomination unto the Lord are all that do these things; and on account of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." And as there is no punishment without preceding warning, hence they were commanded not to do all this. R. Elazar said: Also Kilaim. I mean to say, the descendants of Noah are allowed to dress themselves with a mixture of wool and flax; and also sow different kinds of seeds together (which are forbidden to the Israelites); but they are forbidden to gender different kinds of animals and to graft two kinds of trees together.

Whence is all this deduced? Said R. Johanan: From Genesis ii. 16. 1 Were the descendants of Noah indeed commanded concerning judges? Is there not a Boraitha: Ten commandments were commanded to Israel in Marah; seven of them are those which were accepted by the descendants of Noah, and three were added to them: viz., Judges, Sabbath, and to honor father and mother. Judges—as it is written [Ex. xv. 25]: "There he made for them a statute and an ordinance," etc. And concerning Sabbath and the honor of parents it reads [Deut. v. 12 and 16]: "As the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." And R. Jehudah said: "As he hath commanded thee in Marah." Said R. Aha b. Jacob: This means that Israel was commanded to establish courts of justice in every district and city; and the children of Noah were commanded concerning judges in general only. But is there not a Boraitha: As Israel was commanded to establish judges in every city and district, so also were the children of Noah commanded? Said Rabha: The Tana of the Boraitha cited above is in accordance with the school of Manasheh, which excluded from the seven commandments judges and blasphemy, and included castration and kilaim. Thus was it taught in the school of Manasheh: Seven commandments were the descendants of Noah commanded: Concerning idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, a member of a living animal, castration, and kilaim. R. Jehudah, however, said: Adam the First was commanded as to idolatry only, as it reads [Gen. ii. 16]: "And the Lord commanded the man" i.e., the Lord commanded him about the law of God (that he should not be exchanged for another). R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said: Also as to blasphemy. And there are some others who say, also concerning judges.

According to whom is that which was said by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: God said to Adam: I am God, thou shalt not blaspheme me. I am God, thou shalt not exchange me for an idol. I am God, the fear of me shall be always upon thee? According to the "some others" just mentioned. (The expression "the fear of me," etc., means to appoint judges who shall punish them who transgress my commandments.)

Said R. Joseph: It was said in the college: For transgression of the following three commandments a descendant of Noah is put to death: viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth opposed: It is correct concerning bloodshed, as it reads [Gen. ix. 6]: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." But whence do you deduce the two others? And should you say that it is inferred from bloodshed, then why not infer all the seven? And if you infer it from "any man whatsoever," then idolatry is also inferred from same? Therefore said he: In the college it was said: For four they are but not put to death? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It means ant of Noah indeed put to death because of idolatry? Have we not learned in a Boraitha concerning idolatry, if for such a crime one is put to death by the court of Israel, the descendants of Noah are warned of it? Hence they are only warned, but not put to death? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It means that they are warned if they should commit this they will be put to death. R. Huna and R. Jehudah and also all other disciples of Rabh say: For each case of the seven commandments a descendant of Noah is to be killed. As the Scripture prescribed death for one, it shall serve as an example for the others.

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Elazar, quoting R. Hanina: A descendant of Noah who has separated a female slave to one of his male slaves, and thereafter had connection with her, is to be put to death for this crime. A similarity to this in the crime of bloodshed was not taught. Said Abayi: If such a similarity is to be found, it may be in that which we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Jonathan b. Saul said: If one runs after his neighbor to kill him, and the one who flees could save himself by injuring one of the members of his pursuer, and he did not so, but killed him, it is a crime of bloodshed and he is put to death for it. 1 R. Jacob b. Aha found a writing in a Haggadic book written by the college of Rabh, thus: A descendant of Noah may be put to death by the decision of one judge, by the testimony of one witness, and although he was not warned previously. However, the testimony must be from a man, and not from a woman; and the testimony holds good even if given by one of his relatives. In the name of R. Ishmael it was said: He is put to death even for killing an embryo. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jehudah: From [Gen. ix. 5]: "Your blood, however, on which your lives depend, will I require," meaning even by one judge. "At the hand of every beast" means even without warning; "at the hand of man" means even with one witness; "at the hand of every man" means of a man but not of a woman; "brother" means even when the witness was a relative. And the reason of R. Ishmael is [ibid. 6]: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood in man, 2 his blood shall be shed." What is meant by "a man in man," if not an embryo, which is in the entrails of his mother? And the first Tana, who holds that a descendant of Noah is not guilty for an embryo, is in accordance with the school of Manasheh, which maintains that every death which is mentioned regarding the descendants of Noah is choking; and he explains the above-cited verse "in man shall his blood be shed," that it means choking, from which death occurs inside of the body as illustrated above. R. Hamnuna objected: Does, then, the commandment of bloodshed not apply to a woman? Is it not written [Gen. xviii. 19]: "For I know him, that he will command his sons and his household after him"? And by the "household" it means the woman, as the sons are already mentioned? He objected, and he himself answered: It reads farther on, "that they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice." It means that he shall command his sons to appoint judges for justice and his household to do righteousness and charity.

Said R. Ibiah the Elder to R. Papa: Say, then, that a woman who is a descendant of Noah shall not be put to death if she has killed a man; as it reads "from the hand of a man," which means not from the hand of a woman? And he answered: So said R. Jehudah: It reads, "Whoso sheddeth the blood of a human," etc., which means any human whatsoever. (Said R. Ibiah again: "Say, then, that a female descendant of Noah should not be punished if she sinned, as it reads [ibid. ii. 24]: "Therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother"—a man, and not a woman. And he answered: So said R. Jehudah: It reads further, "and they become one flesh"; and with this the verse associates them to be equal in every respect.)

The rabbis taught: It should read "a man." Why is it written "any man whatsoever"? To include heathens in the warning of adultery, as well as Israelites. But was it not said above that in the seven commandments which were given to the descendants of Noah adultery is included? Said R. Johanan: It is needed for such a relationship which they do not recognize, but the Israelites do; e.g., a betrothed woman before marriage, whom they consider as single. And if it happened that a heathen should sin with a woman betrothed of an Israelite, he is to be tried in the courts of the Israelites. But if he sins with a married woman, he may be tried in his own courts—the punishment of which is by the sword, and not choking. But is there not a Boraitha: A heathen who has sinned with a betrothed woman is to be stoned; and if with a married, choked? Hence he is tried in the Israelitish courts, as in his own courts he would be slain by the sword. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: By the term married woman is meant that the ceremony of marriage was performed, but her husband had not as yet had any connection with her; and such a marriage their courts do not consider, and the bride is still deemed single. Therefore he is to be tried in the courts of Israel, and punished with their prescribed death. And so taught R. Haninah: The law of the heathen considers the wife of a man only after their connection, but not after the ceremony of marriage.

There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Johanan: Every relationship for which the punishment of the courts of Israel is death, a descendant of Noah is warned of it; but all other relationships, the punishment of which is not death, are permissible to them. So is the decree of R. Mair. The sages, however, say: There are many relationships which in our courts are not punished with death, nevertheless the descendants of Noah are warned of them. If it happens that one of the latter has committed a crime with a daughter of Israel, which is considered adultery in the courts of the Israelites, but not in the courts of the heathens, he is to be tried in the courts of Israel. But if such a crime is considered adultery also in the courts of the heathen, he may be tried in their own courts. However, we do not find a case which would be a crime for Israelites and not for heathens, except that of a betrothed woman (as said above). But why does the Boraitha not count the case of a married woman—by the ceremony of marriage only—which is a crime according to our law, and not according to their law? The Boraitha is in accordance with the school of Manasheh: The death of the descendants of Noah is also choking. Hence it makes no difference in which court he should be tried. 1 Resh Lakish said: He who raises his hand to strike his neighbor, although he has not as yet struck him, is called wicked. As it is written [Ex. ii. 13]: "And he said to the wicked one, wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?" It does not read, "why hast thou smitten," but "why smitest thou." Hence he is called wicked even if he only raises his hand to strike. Zeairi in the name of R. Hanina said: He is named sinner. As it reads [I Sam. ii. 16]: "If not, I will take it by force." And immediately after it reads: "The sin of the young men was very great." R. Huna said: If one has the habit of raising his hand against man, his arm may be cut off. As it reads [Job, xxxviii. 15]: "And the high-raised arm should be broken." 2 (And R. Huna acted according to his theory, and cut off the arm of a man whose habit was to strike men with it.) R. Elazar said: There is no remedy for such a man, but burial. As it is written [ibid. xxii. 8]: "But as for the man of a strong arm, for him is the land." He said again: Only one who has a strong arm may obtain land (as usually there is much trouble to keep away cattle and all other animals which harm the growth, and also to preserve it from thieves, etc.). Resh Lakish said again: It reads [Prov. xii. 11]: "He that tilleth 1 his ground will be satisfied with bread." It means, when one makes himself a slave to the earth, he may be satisfied with bread, but not otherwise.

The Boraitha states: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel, etc. The rabbis taught: It reads [Gen. ix. 4]: "But flesh in which its life is, which is its blood, shall ye not eat." This means any member of the animal, while it is still alive. And Haninah b. Gamaliel said: Also the blood of same. And his reason is that the verse is to be read thus: Flesh in which its life is, ye shall not eat, and blood in which its life is, ye shall not eat. The rabbis, however, maintain that blood is here mentioned to teach that other animals, as reptiles, are allowed to a descendant of Noah. Similar to this, it reads [Deut. Xii. 23]: "Only be firm, so as not to eat the blood; for the blood is its life," which the rabbis explain as meaning the blood of the veins, by which the soul departs.

For what purpose is it written concerning the descendants of Noah, and thereafter repeated in the laws which were given on Mount Sinai? It is as R. Jose b. Hanina said: Every commandment Which was given to the descendants of Noah, and thereafter repeated in the laws given on Mount Sinai, applies to both Israel and the descendants of Noah. And that which was given to the descendants of Noah, and not repeated, applies to Israel only. However, we have only one case [Gen. xxxii. 33] which was commanded before the laws were given on Mount Sinai, which was not repeated, and applies only to Israel, according to R. Jehudah's theory (in Tracts Chulin, Chap. vii., which will be explained there).

The master said: A commandment which was repeated on Sinai is for both. Why not the contrary-because it was repeated on Sinai, it must be said it was given to Israel only? Although idolatry was repeated on Sinai, as we find that the descendants of Noah were already punished for idolatry, therefore it applies to both. He says further that that which was given to the descendants of Noah and not repeated is for Israel only. Why not the contrary—because it was not repeated, it applies to the descendants of Noah and not to Israel? Because we do not find any case where it is forbidden to the descendants of Noah and allowed to the Israelites, a commandment which was given to the children of Noah and repeated on Sinai applies to both. Is there not circumcision? [Gen. xvii.]: "And God said unto Abraham: But thou, for thy part, shalt keep my covenant"; and it reads also [Lev. xii. 3]: "And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." And nevertheless it applies to Israel only, and not to the descendants of Noah? The verse just cited was needed to permit the circumcision to be done on Sabbath; as the term "on the eighth day" means even on Sabbath. And if you wish, it may be said that circumcision was given to Abraham especially. As it reads [Gen. xvii.]: "But thou, for thy part, shalt keep my covenant: thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations"—which means "thou and thy children," but not some other man's. But according to this, let the descendants of Ishmael be obliged to circumcise? It reads [ibid. xxi. 12]: "For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." But if so, let this obligation be for the children of Esau also? It reads "in Isaac," but not the whole of Isaac, which means to exclude the descendants of Esau. R. Oushia opposed: Let, then, the children of Kturah not be obliged to circumcision. And R. Jose b. Abin or R. Jose b. Hanina said: From [ibid. xvii. 14]: "He hath broken my covenant" is understood even the sons of Kturah.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: Adam the First was not permitted to eat meat. As it reads [ibid. i. 29, 30]: "To you it shall be for food, and to every beast of the field," meaning, but not the beasts to you. However, after the descendants of Noah came, he permitted them. As it reads [ibid. ix. 3]: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be yours for food: even as the green herbs have I given you all things." And lest one say that they may be eaten while still alive, therefore it reads: "But flesh in which its life is, which is its blood, shall ye not eat." And lest one say that this forbids also reptiles, the term "but" excludes them. How is this to be understood? Said R. Huna: It reads "his blood," which means of animals in which the blood is separated from the flesh, and excludes reptiles, of which the blood is not separated from their flesh.

There was an objection to that which was said that Adam the First was not allowed to eat meat, from that which Jehudah b. Bathyra said (Vol. IX., p. 7): "Adam the First was sitting in the garden of Eden, and the angels served him with roasted meat," etc. Hence he was allowed? And the answer was that with meat which came from heaven it is different. And the question is, was there any meat which came from heaven? It was answered: Yea! As it happened to R. Simeon b. Chalafta, who, being on the road, met lions, which were stirred against him; and a miracle occurred, and two legs fell from heaven, one of which the lions consumed, and the other one remained. Simeon then took it, brought it into the college, and questioned if it was allowed to eat it. And he was answered: An unclean thing never came from heaven. And R. Zera questioned R. Abuhu: How is it if such should come from heaven in the form of an ass? And he was scolded for this question thus: Was it not decided long ago that no unclean thing descends from heaven? "R. Simeon said: Also witchcraft." What is his reason? It reads [Ex. xxii. 17]: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"; and farther on: "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death"—which applies also to the descendants of Noah. And as this applies to them, the same is the case with the first verse. R. Elazar said: Kilaim! Whence is this deduced? Said Samuel: From [Lev. xix. 19]: "My statutes shall ye keep," which means the "statutes which I stated long ago" (long ago, to the descendants of Noah). "Thy cattle shalt thou not let gender with a diverse kind; thy field shalt thou not sow with mingled seeds." And as concerning cattle "gender" is prohibited, so concerning fields grafting is prohibited; and as the prohibition of the first applies to every place—in Palestine and outside of it—the same is the case with the fields. But if so, why not explain [ibid., ibid. 37]: "Ye shall therefore observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances," in the same way: "my statutes which I stated long ago"? Nay! "You shall therefore observe my statutes" means which I have now given to you. But in the above-cited verse, which begins, "my statutes ye shall observe," it must be said the statutes which are already stated. "Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha," etc. Said R. Aha b. Jacob:

Infer from this that one is not guilty unless he blesses (curses) the Name which contains four letters, but not that of two letters (e.g., a Jud and Heh—"Ja"; or Aleph and Lamedh, which is "ehl." But is this not self-evident? Does not the Mishna state, e.g., "Jose . . . by Jose," which contains four letters? Lest one say that this is only an example, but not in particular, he comes to teach us that it is not so. According to others, Aha b. Jacob said: Infer from this that a name which contains four letters is also considered. Is this not self-evident? The example is given, "Jose by Jose," which contains four. Lest one say that one is not guilty, unless he blesses (curses) the great Name (Rashi explains: Which contains forty-two letters—which are not known to us, and the example is not particular, he comes to teach us that it is not so). 1 "They arise." Whence is this deduced? Said R. Itz'hak b. Ami: From [Judges, iii. 20]: "And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in the summer upper chamber, which was for himself alone. "And Ehud said: I have a word of God unto thee. And he arose out of his chair." Is there not to be drawn an a fortiori conclusion—Eglon, the king of Moab, who was a heathen, to whom the God of Israel was known only by a pseudonym, rose up from his chair when he heard the Name of God: An Israelite, hearing the great Name, so much the more must he arise? "Rend," etc. Whence is this deduced? From [II Kings, xviii. 37]: "Then came Elyakim the son of Chilkiyah, who was superintendent over the house, and Shebuah the scribe, and Yoach the son of Assaph the recorder, to Hezekiah, with their clothes rent; and they told unto him the words of Rabshakeh." "Not to be mended." Whence is this deduced? Said R. Abuhu: From an analogy of expression—"rent." It reads here: "With their clothes rent"; and [ibid. ii. 12]: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and their horsemen. And be saw him no more; and he took hold of his clothes and rent them in two pieces." Why the word "pieces"? Is it not self-evident that when he rent them in two, they became pieces? Hence this term means that they should remain pieces and never be mended.

The rabbis taught: There is no difference if one hears it from the blasphemer himself or from the witness who heard it from the blasphemer—he must rend his garments. However, the witnesses themselves are not obliged to rend their garments gain, as they already did so when they heard the blasphemy. But supposing they have already rent? Do they not hear this now? Hence they should rend again? This cannot be supposed, as it reads [Ibid., ibid., 19]: "And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes." Hence Hezekiah rent, but they who told him did not rend again.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: If one hears a blasphemy from the mouth of a heathen, he is not obliged to rend his garments. And should one say: Why did they rend when they heard it from Rabshakeh?—he was not a heathen, but an apostate Jew. The same said again in the name of the same authority: Garments must be rent only upon the unique proper Name, but not upon a pseudonym. And he differs from R. Hyya in both his decisions, as R. Hyya said: If one hears a blasphemy in our times, he is not obliged to rend; for if one should say he is obliged, then all garments would be full of rents. Now, who are the blasphemers—Israelites? Are they so bold as to blaspheme God? Hence he means heathens. And are, then, the heathen aware of the unique proper Name? Hence he means a pseudonym. And nevertheless he says, "in our times," from which we understand that in previous times it was obligatory to rend upon a pseudonym also. Infer from this that so it was. "The second witness says: I heard exactly the same," etc. Said Resh Lakish: Infer from this that in civil cases, as well as in criminal, if one of the witnesses says: "I have heard just the same," and does not repeat what he has heard, it is lawful. And that which the court used to require from the witnesses, that each of them should explain how the case was, is only a higher standard which the rabbis have enacted. In the case of blasphemy, however, in which it is impossible that the second witness should repeat, they leaned on the biblical law. As, if it were biblically illegal, how could it be supposed that because it is forbidden to repeat, a man should be put to death? "And so also says the third witness." This anonymous Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba, who compares three witnesses to two.

MISHNA VII.: He is considered an idolater who worships it with its proper 1 worship; and even if he only sacrifices, smokes incense, or pours wine. He is also so considered if he bows himself to it, or accepts it as a god, even without any other act. And also if he only says: Thou art my god. However, he who arms, kisses, wipes the dirt, sprinkles water, washes, anoints, dresses, or shoes it, transgresses a negative commandment [Ex. xx. 5]. He who vows or determines in its name transgresses also a negative commandment [ibid. xxiii. 13]. He who uncovers himself before Baal Peor, and commits a nuisance (is guilty, for) this is the mode of worshipping him; also, he who casts a stone on a merculis (hermaeon)—that is the way of worshipping it (and he is guilty).

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? The rabbis taught: It is written [Ex. xxii. 19]: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed. If the word "any" were omitted from this verse, I would say it speaks of one who sacrifices animals outside of the sanctuary; but as the word is written, it is to explain that it means: who sacrifices to any idol. From this, however, we infer sacrificing only. But whence do we know that the same is the case with smoking incense or pouring wine? From the words "unto the Lord only," which would be superfluous if they do not mean: all the kinds of worshipping the Lord—if he has done it to an idol, he is guilty. Now, as sacrificing is included in the worshipping of the Eternal, and nevertheless specified, it is to be assumed that it comes to teach that one is guilty for that kind of worshipping which takes place inside of the sanctuary. Whence, then, do we know that bowing is also considered? From [Deut. xvii. 3]: "And he hath gone and served other gods and bowed 2 himself to them"; and [ibid., ibid. 5]: it reads: "Then shalt thou bring forth that man," etc. But from this we know the punishment—whence is the warning? [Ex. xxxiv. 14]: "For thou shalt bow thyself to no other god." And lest one say that arming, kissing, shoeing are also included to be crimes subject to capital punishment, as they are to be inferred from bowing, therefore sacrificing was specified, to show that nothing is to be inferred from bowing, and also to teach that as a distinction is made concerning the worshipping inside of the sanctuary, the same is the case with all other worshippings which are used inside—if with such one has worshipped an idol, he is liable to a capital punishment. However, bowing is out of this rule and stands alone.

The master said: If not for the word "any," I would say it speaks of sacrificing out of the sanctuary. But is not such a crime under the category of Korath? Should one say that it is when he was not warned, but if he was, capital punishment applies, he comes to teach us that it is not so.

Said Rabha b. R. Hanan to Abayi: Why not say that from bowing "all kinds of worshipping" is to be inferred, and the specification of sacrificing is needed for itself, to teach that an intention of worshipping an idol with any future act, although one does not intend it by the first act, is considered worship; e.g., if one slaughters a cow with the intention of sprinkling its blood, or of burning its fat before the idol, although with the slaughtering he does not worship it, it is nevertheless considered, and it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the cow, according to Johanan? But according to Resh Lakish the cow is permissible for use, as he does not hold this theory. And the reason of R. Johanan is because he infers it from the worshipping inside, as to which a future intention, e.g., to sprinkle the blood on the morrow—makes invalid the whole sacrifice. The same is the case with an outside act, as illustrated here.

Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabhina: According to Rabha b. R. Hanan, who said to Abayi: Why not say that from bowing all kinds of worshipping are to be inferred? What, then, would he exclude from the passage which reads [Deut. xii. 30]: "How did these nations serve their god?" And lest one say that one who uncovers himself for such idols as are worshipped with sacrifices is excluded, this may be inferred from bowing: as the act of bowing is an honor to the idol, so are all kinds of worship which are in order to honor. But uncovering, which is a disgrace, is not considered a worship? Say—to exclude the one who uncovers himself for Merculis. And lest one say that as the kind of worship of Merculis is a disgrace, the same shall be the case with the disgrace of uncovering, it comes to teach us that it is not so. But did not R. Elazar say: Whence do we know that if one sacrifices an animal to Merculis he is guilty? From [Lev. xvii. 7]: "So that they shall offer no more their sacrifices unto evil spirits," which is not needed for itself, as this is already written elsewhere? Apply it, therefore, to bringing an offering to an idol of which the kind of worshipping is not sacrificing. Now, as from bowing is inferred all kinds of worshipping which are of honor, so one is liable if he did it for any idol, whatsoever be the kind of its worship. Why, then, does R. Eliezer need the above-cited verse? He means to say: Even if he had sacrificed to Merculis, not as an honor but for dishonor, he is nevertheless liable for the transgression of the negative commandment cited above.

It happened to Hamnuna that he lost his oxen, and while searching for them Rabha met him, and propounded to him a contradiction from the two following Mishnayoth: In our Mishna it is stated: "He who worships idols," from which is to be inferred only worshipping, but not saying. And there is another Mishna, farther on, which states: He who says: "I will worship," or "I will go to worship," or "We will go to worship"—is already considered an idolater. And he answered: Our Mishna means that he said: I do not accept this idol as a god unless by worshipping. Said R. Joseph to him: You are saying this as if it were your own opinion. Do you ignore the Tanaim who differ on this point in the following Boraitha: If one says: "Come ye and worship me, for I am a god," R. Mair makes him guilty as a seducer, and R. Jehudah frees him.

However, if there were some who had already worshipped him, all agree that he is guilty. Thus it reads [Ex. xx. 41 Thou shalt not make unto thyself," etc., which means also, "Thou shalt not make thyself for an image." But the point of their difference is that he was not as yet worshipped. R. Mair makes him guilty because, according to his opinion, talking is to be taken into consideration; and according to R. Jehudah it is not. Hence we see that Tanaim differ on this point?

After deliberating, however, said R. Joseph: What I said was not correct; as we find in the following Boraitha that R. Jehudah also makes one guilty for talking: R. Jehudah said: One is not guilty unless he says: "I will worship," or "I will go and worship," or "We will go and worship." And the point of their difference in the Boraitha cited above is thus: If one who is a seducer for himself (i.e., "Worship me"), and there were some people who said, "Yea," according to R. Mair he is considered a seducer because there were some people who answered, "Yea"; and according to R. Jehudah this is not considered, as their answer, "Yea," is only a joke. They ridicule him, saying: Are you not a man like us?

And the Mishnayoth, which contradict each other, are to be explained thus: Our Mishna, which states "who worshipped," treats if he who was seduced, listened and worshipped him, he is guilty; because if an individual made up his mind to worship him, it is to be presumed that he will not retract. And the other Mishna treats of when many people were seduced and worshipped him, it is not to be considered, as it is to be supposed that they will reconsider, seeing there is nothing in him, and will retract. And R. Joseph said: Whence did I take my theory? From [Deut. xiii. 9]: "Then shalt thou not consent unto him, nor shalt thou hearken unto him." From which it is to be understood that if he did listen, and consented unto him, he is culpable. Abayi objected to him: Is there indeed a difference between an individual who was seduced and a majority?

Is there not a Boraitha: It reads [ibid., ibid. 7]: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, should entice thee," means that there is no difference between an individual and a majority, if they were seduced? And the verse which excluded an individual from a majority, is to make more rigorous his body—viz., to be stoned—and lenient concerning his property, which remains for his heirs; and excluded also a majority from an individual, to make more lenient their bodies—viz., slaying by the sword—and rigorous concerning their property, which must be burned. Hence we see that only on this point is there a difference between them, but on all other points they are equal.

And therefore he explains the two contradictory Mishnayoth, that one speaks of when he has seduced himself—therefore he is not culpable unless he worshipped, as from his talk only, it is supposed that he will retract after deliberating. And that Mishna which makes him culpable for talking only, speaks of when he was seduced by others, as it is not to be supposed that he will retract.

On the contrary, as they are many, it is highly probable that he will be inclined to them. And Abayi also infers his theory from the above-cited verse, "If he did not consent," etc., from which it is to be understood that if he did, he is culpable. Rabha, however, maintains that both Mishnayoth speak of when he was seduced by others, but one treats of when the seducers said to him: "So does the idol eat, so does it drink, so does it good, and so does it harm; and the other one treats of when he was not so informed. And he adds: Whence do I deduce my theory? From [ibid., ibid. 8]: "Some of the gods of the nations which are round about you, that are nigh unto thee," etc. To what purpose is it written? Is there a difference if the idols were near to him or far from him?
It must be explained that the verse means thus: From the nature of the idols which are near to thee, thou mayst understand the nature of those which are far from thee. (I.e., usually a seducer comes to tell one from such as are not known to him, and relates before him all the good of the idol, and so seduces him to worship. Hence he said to him: "So does it eat, so does it drink," etc.) R. Ashi maintains: The Mishna which makes one guilty for talking treats of an apostate, who is guilty for talking, as such would not retract after it is seen that such is his habit." Rabhina, however, said: Both Mishnayoth speak of an Israelite, not of an apostate, and they do not differ at all, as the first Mishna says, "who worshipped," and the second states not only "worship," but if he says, "I will," he is also culpable.

It was taught: If one worship an idol because he loves it, or because he fears it, according to Abayi he is culpable, and according to Rabha he is free. The former said so because, after all, he has worshipped it, and therefore he is guilty; and the latter maintains: He is guilty only when he accepts it as a god; but when this is no longer the case, he is free.
Said Abayi: I take my theory from our Mishna, which states, "If one worship," etc., "sacrifice," etc. Now, as the Mishna explains farther on all the kinds of worshipping, the term "worshipped," without specifying the kind, means for love or for fear. Rabha, however, maintains that the Mishna is to be explained as by R. Jeremiah. Said Abayi: I may infer my theory from the following Boraitha: It reads: "Thou shalt not bow thyself to them"—but thou mayst bow thyself to a man who is equal to thee. But lest one say, "Even if the man were worshipped like Haman?" therefore it reads: "Thou shalt not worship them." Now, Haman was worshipped for fear. We see, then, that such a worship is considered. Rabha, however, explains the Boraitha: Like Haman, who established himself as an idol, but not like him who was worshipped only for fear. And Abayi said again: I infer my theory from the following Boraitha: The anointed priest for war may bring an offering, if he acted unintentionally concerning idolatry. So is the decree of Rabbi. Now, let us see! What means, "he acted unintentionally"? Shall we assume that he thought, of a house of idolatry, that it was a synagogue, and bowed himself? Then why should he bring an offering—his heart was toward Heaven? We must then say that he saw an image and bowed himself. Now, if he accepted it is a god, then he has acted intentionally and should be put to death. But if he has not accepted it as a god, but bowed himself—e.g., for the honor of the king who was with him? Then it cannot be considered a sin at all, even to the extent of bringing an offering. We must then say that "unintentionally" means for love or for fear. Rabha, however, maintains that his error was that he thought that such a thing was allowed.

R. Zakkai taught in the presence of R. Johanan: If one has sacrificed, smoked incense, poured wine, and bowed himself before an idol, because of one forgetfulness (that the law does not allow it), he is liable for one sin-offering only. And R. Johanan answered him: Go and teach your teaching outside of the college (i.e., it is nonsense). Said R. Abba: As to the theory of R. Zakkai, R. Jose and R. Nathan differ in the following Boraitha: The negative commandment of kindling on Sabbath, which is already included in the negative commandment, "Thou shalt not do any labor," is written for the purpose of teaching that he who kindles transgresses only a negative commandment, which is not under the category of Korath or capital punishment, as for all other labor on Sabbath. And R. Nathan differs from him (see Sabbath). And there is the same difference here concerning bowing. According to R. Jose, bowing was specified for the purpose of showing that he who does so transgresses only a negative commandment, to which capital punishment does not apply. And R. Nathan differs from him with the same theory as concerning kindling.

When R. Samuel b. Jehudah came from Palestine, he said that R. Zakkai had taught before R. Johanan thus: Concerning Sabbath it is more rigorous than all other commandments in one respect, and all other commandments are more rigorous than concerning Sabbath in another respect—viz., concerning Sabbath, if one has done two kinds of labor by one forgetfulness (e.g., he forgot that it was Sabbath), he is liable for two sin-offerings; and in all other commandments—if, for instance, he worshipped with two kinds by one forgetfulness—he is liable to one sin-offering. And in another respect the other commandments are more rigorous than concerning Sabbath; as concerning Sabbath, if he had done any labor unintentionally—i.e., he intended to do another thing and did this—he is not liable at all, while concerning other commandments, if such a thing occurs, he is liable for a sin-offering.

R. Ami said: If one has worshipped by all three worships— viz., sacrificing, smoking, and pouring—in one forgetfulness, he is liable only for one sin-offering. Said Abayi: The reason of R. Ami's theory is: Because it is written, "Ye shall not worship them," hence the Torah has included all kinds of worship into one. Did Abayi indeed say so? Has he not said: There is written in the Scripture three times "bowing," concerning idolatry: once, that one is culpable if the worship of the idol was by bowing; second, that one is culpable even if the worship of the idol was not by bowing; and the third, to distinguish it from all other worships—that one is liable for it to a capital punishment? You say once, when the usage is to worship thus. Is, then, a verse needed as to this? Is it not written plainly [Deut. xii. 30]: "How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise"? Say then, once, for such an idol as is not accustomed to be worshipped by bowing, but only occasionally; and once, for such as before which bowing is not used at all"—e.g., Baal Peor; and once, to separate it for capital punishment? Hence we see that he is not in accordance with R. Ami? He said so to give a reason for R. Ami's theory, but he himself does not agree with him. "And also if he only says, 'Thou art my god.'" R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu, quoting Rabh, said: As soon as he has said, "Thou art my god," he is culpable. But what news is this? If he means capital punishment, did not the Mishna say so? He means to say that he is liable to bring a sin-offering, if this was said by an error, even according to the rabbis, who require an act. But does not a Boraitha state: One is not culpable unless by acting—e.g., sacrificing, smoking, pouring, or bowing? To which Resh Lakish said: Who is the Tana who holds that bowing is also an act? R. Aqiba, who does not require a mental act—from which it is to be understood that the rabbis do? Rabh also means to say in accordance with R. Aqiba. But is this not self-evident? Does not R. Aqiba say that even an unintentional blasphemer is also liable for a sin-offering? Lest one say that R. Aqiba holds liable a blasphemer because the punishment of korath is mentioned in the Scripture concerning him, but concerning bowing, which is not mentioned, even R. Aqiba frees him from this obligation, he comes to teach us that they are compared. As it reads [Ex. xxxii. 8]: "They have bowed themselves to it, and have sacrificed unto it," etc.

R. Johanan said: If not for the Vav in the word "he-elukha" (brought thee up) in the above-cited verse (which makes it plural and means that they also took part in the exodus from Egypt), all Israel would be liable to be destroyed. However, in this the following Tanaim differ: Anonymous teachers say: If not for the Vav in the word "he-elukha," etc. Said R. Simeon b. Johai to them: This is still worse, as there is a tradition: He who conjoins the name of Heaven with something else is to be destroyed; and therefore the Vav in "he-elukha," which makes the word plural, shows that they were fond of many gods. "He who arms, kisses," etc. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Elazar that one is not punished with stripes for all them, unless one vows or determines in its name. But let us see! Why is one not punished for all these?

Because the negative commandment is not plainly written to this effect, but was included in the negative commandment, "Thou shalt not worship them." And there is a rule that for such a commandment no stripes apply. Why, then, should stripes apply to one who vows? This commandment is also not for mental labor, but for manual. And there is a rule that concerning a commandment in which mental labor is not involved, stripes do not apply. He is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who said that for such a negative commandment stripes do apply.

As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It reads [Ex. xii. 10]: "And ye shall not let anything of it remain until morning, and that which remaineth of it until morning ye shall burn with fire." Hence the Scripture came to give a positive commandment (ye shall burn) after a negative commandment (ye shall not leave), to say that for the transgression of such a negative commandment stripes do not apply. So R. Jehudah. R. Jacob, however, says: The reason why stripes do not apply is not because of that which is said by R. Jehudah, but because in this commandment no mental labor is involved, and to such no stripes apply. Hence we see that, according to R. Jehudah, even to such stripes do apply. "He who vows in its name," etc. Whence is this deduced?

From [Ex. xxiii. 13]: "And of the name of other gods ye shall make no mention"—which means, one must not say to his neighbor: Await me in such and such a place, where such and such an idol is to be found. "It shall not be heard out of thy mouth" means, one shall not vow or determine in its name, and shall also not cause others to do so. Another explanation to, "It shall not be heard out of thy mouth," is that it is a warning to a seducer and to a misleader. But concerning a seducer is it not written plainly [Deut. xiii. 12]: "And all Israel shall hear and be afraid"? Therefore it must be said that it is a warning to a misleader, and also that one shall not cause others to vow or determine in its name.

And this is a support to Samuel's father, who said that one must not make partnership with an idolater, as it may be that his partner will owe an oath to him, and he will swear by the name of his idol. And the Torah says: "It shall not be heard out of thy mouth," which means: You shall not cause others to vow in its name.

It happened once that Ula lodged in Khalmbu, and when he came to Rabha, he asked him: "Where did the master lodge last night?" And he said: In Khalmbu. Said Rabha to him: Is it not written: "The name of other gods ye shall not mention"? Rejoined Ula: So said R. Johanan: Every idol which is mentioned in the Scripture, one may mention.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: It happened to a female heathen who was very sick and vowed that if she recovered she would worship all the idols which were to be found. And after her recovery she did so. When she reached Baal Peor she asked how it should be worshipped. And she was told that worshippers ate mangcorn, drank beer, and then uncovered themselves in its face. And she said: "I would rather suffer the same sickness again than perform such a worship." But yet the house of Israel have not done so, as it reads [Num. xxv. 5]: "That have been joined unto Baal Peor," which means like the cover to a pot. However [Deut. iv. 4]: "But ye that cleave unto the Lord," etc., as a twin of dates. A Boraitha states. "Joined to Peor," as a ring on the finger of a woman, "cleave to the Lord" means, literally.
The rabbis taught: It happened to Saphta b. Als, who hired his ass to a certain female heathen. And when she reached the place of Baal Peor, she said to him: "Await me here, I will enter only for a while and come out." And when she came out, he also said to her: "Await me here, I will also do the same." And to her question: "Are you not a Jew?" he answered: "What do you care?" He then entered, uncovered himself and put the dirt on the nose of the idol. And the ministers of Peor praised him for this, saying that there was no man who worshipped Peor as properly as he did. The sages, however, made him guilty for the proper worship of the idol, although his intention was to disgrace it. And the same is the case if he throws a stone at Merculis, although with the intention of stoning it, he is nevertheless guilty, for so is the kind of its worship.

R. Menassah went to the city of Turta, and was told that this place is of an idol. And he took up a lump and threw it at it (the idolatrous statue). He was then told that it was Merculis, and he answered that the Mishna states "he who throws a stone at Merculis," i.e., to worship. And when he came to the college he was told that the Mishna means, even if his intention was to stone it. He then said: I will go and take it up. However, he was told that it is the same transgression, for by taking one stone he makes room for another.

MISHNA VIII.: If one gives one of his children to Molech, he is not guilty unless he had transferred him to the servants of Molech and let him pass through the fire. If, however, he had transferred and not passed through the fire, or vice versa, he is not guilty.

GEMARA: The Mishna speaks of idols, and mentions Molech. Said R. Abiu: Our Mishna is in accordance with him who says that Molech is not an idol at all. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: There is no difference whether one has given of his children to other idols or to Molech—he is culpable. R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, however, maintains: Only if he has done it to Molech he is guilty, but not if to another idol. Said Abayi: R. Elazar b. Simeon and Hanina b. Antiguus have said the same—R. Elazar b. Simeon, in the Boraitha cited; and Hanina, who said in the following Boraitha: Why does the Torah use the term Molech? 1 To say of every one whom they have accepted as a king over them—be it even a piece of wood—one is guilty if he had transferred one of his children for it. Hence we see that, according to him, one is guilty only concerning Molech, but not concerning another idol. Rabha, however, maintains that Simeon and Hanina differ concerning a temporary Molech, as according to R. Simeon one is not guilty on account of such.
R. Janai said: One is not guilty unless he transfers a child to the servants of the idol, as it reads [Lev. xviii. 2]: "And from thy children thou shalt not give to pass through the fire to Molech." And so also we have learned in the following Boraitha: Lest one say that when he passed his child and has not transferred, he should be guilty, therefore it reads, "Thou shalt not give." If he has transferred and not passed through the fire, he is also not guilty, because it reads, "to pass through the fire." And if one has done both, but not for Molech, one might say he is guilty? Therefore it reads, "to Molech." If one has transferred and passed to Molech, but not through fire, he is also not guilty, because it reads, "through fire." And it is written also [Deut. xviii. 10]: "There shall not be found among thee any one who causeth his son or his daughter to pass through the fire." And we infer one from the other. As there it is mentioned plainly "fire," so here also it is meant fire; and as here is meant Molech, so also there is meant Molech. Said R. Aha b. Rabha: If one has transferred all his children to Molech, he is not guilty, as the verse reads, "and from thy children"—but not all. R. Ashi questioned: How is it if one has passed through the fire a son blind or asleep, or one of his grandchildren? The last question may be answered from the following: It reads [Lev. xx. 3]: "Because of his seed he has given unto Molech." To what purpose was it written? Because in the above-cited verse in Deuteronomy it reads "son" and "daughter," and one might say, but not of grandchildren. Therefore it is written [ibid., ibid. 4]: "When he giveth of his seed," in which grandchildren are included.

Let us see! The Tana begins with verse three [3] and ends with verse four [4]. He did so because of another teaching. One might say that one is guilty only for legitimate children, but not for illegitimate; therefore it reads in verse four, from his "seeds," which includes all.

Said R. Jehudah: One is not guilty unless he let him pass in the usual manner. What was that? Said Abayi: A row of bricks were placed for passing, and on both sides fire was kindled. Rabha, however, maintains that it was by jumping, as children used to jump on Purim. (Rashi explains that they used to have a pit in which fire was kindled, and the people used to jump over it.)

There is a Boraitha in accordance with Rabha: One is not culpable unless he has passed in the usual manner of worship. However, if he passed it by, not jumping, he is not guilty. He is also culpable only when he passed his descendants; but not if his brother, sisters, father, mother, or even himself. R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, however, makes guilty him who passed himself. There is no difference whether he has passed to Molech or to any other idol. R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, however, maintains: To Molech, but not to others.

Said Ula: The reason why R. Elazar makes guilty him who passes himself is because it reads: "bkho"—literally, "in thee," which means "thyself." But do not the rabbis also give attention to the word "bkho"? Is there not a Mishna in Middle Gate: And R. Jehudah said: The reason of it is because it is written "bkho"? There is also another reason—because the verse begins with "although, indeed."

R. Jose b. Hanina said: Three times korath is mentioned concerning idolatry: once for worshipping it as it is done usually; once as not done usually; and once for Molech, although it was not considered an idol. And to him that holds that Molech was also an idol, why is a separate korath needed for it? Is it not included in idolatry? To him who passes his son not in its usual manner (i.e., although he is not put to death by the court, the punishment of korath rests upon him). And to him who holds that he who worships idols—e.g., he sings before one—is also considered blasphemous,—to what purpose is korath mentioned concerning blasphemy? To that which we have learned in the following Boraitha: It reads [Num. xv. 3 1]: "hekorath tekorath"—"hekorath," which means cut off from this world; "tekorath," from the world to come. So R. Aqiba. Said R. Ishmael to him: Is it not written in the preceding verse, "Shall be cut off"? Are there then three worlds? Therefore the expression [in 30] means from this world, and the term "hekorath" means from the world to come; and the expression "tekorath" is not to be considered, as the Torah speaks with the usual language of human beings.

MISHNA IX.: Baal ob (mentioned in the Scripture) is the python that makes the dead speak from his armpit, and Yidoui means one that makes the dead speak from his mouth. These two are to be stoned; and he who queries from them is warned [Lev. xix. 31].

GEMARA: Why does our Mishna count both Baal ob and Yidoui, and in Tract Keritoth the Tana mentioned only Baal ob and omitted Yidouim, etc.? (The discussion here is a repetition from Tract Kheritoth, which is the proper place, where it will be translated.)

The rabbis taught: Baal ob is one who ventriloquizes, and a Yidoui is he who puts a certain bone in his mouth, which speaks from itself.

The rabbis taught: There are two kinds of "ob": one who brings up the dead, and one who questions a dead head. He who brings up the dead—it appears before him not in the usual manner, but with its feet on top; and on the Sabbath it does not come up at all. But he who does this with the head of one dead answers as usual, and answers also on Sabbath. Also about this, R. Aqiba was questioned by Turnusrupus: Why is this day (of Sabbath) distinguished from all other days? To which Aqiba answered: Why is this man (Turnusrupus) distinguished from all other men? And he answered: Because it is the will of my master (the king). Rejoined R. Aqiba: Sabbath is also distinguished because it is the will of the Lord of the Universe. Said Turnusrupus: You misunderstand me. My question is: Whence do you know that this day is Sabbath? And he answered: From the river of Sabbation (which rests on this day); and it may also be proved from the fact that he who occupies himself with bringing up the dead cannot do his work on Sabbath; and also the grave of your father may prove that the smoke which comes out of it on all week days does not come out of it on all week days does not come out on Sabbath. Exclaimed Turnusrupus: You have disgraced, ashamed, and insulted me.

Is not he who queries an "ob" the same as one who inquires of the dead? Nay! The latter is as we have learned in the following Boraitha: By "inquire of the dead" is meant he who does not take food all day, and while he suffers hunger he goes to a cemetery, and remains there overnight for the purpose that the unclean spirit should rest upon him. And when R. Aqiba used to read this passage, he would weep, saying: Is not an a fortiori conclusion to be drawn from this passage? If one who makes himself suffer from hunger, for the purpose that the unclean spirit should rest upon him, usually succeeds, and the spirit in question rests upon him, so much the more, if one makes himself suffer hunger for the purpose that the pure spirit should rest upon him, should he succeed in reaching his desire; but what can we do if our sins cause that our desire shall not be reached, as it reads [Is. lix. 2]: "But your iniquities have ever made a separation between you and your God"? Said Rabha: If the upright would take care to be clean from any sin whatsoever, they would be able to create a world (and he infers it from the verse just cited). Rabha created a man and sent him up to R. Zera. The latter spoke to him, and he did not answer. Exclaimed R. Zera: I see that thou wast created by one of our colleagues. It is better that thou shouldst be returned to the earth from which thou wast taken. R. Hanina and R. Oshia were accustomed to sit every eve of Sabbath studying the book of creation, and create a calf like that of the third offspring of a living cow, and they used to consume it on Sabbath.

The rabbis taught: An observer of times is, according to R. Simeon, he who passes the outcome of a certain male over his eye (for the purpose of witchcraft); according to the sages, it is he who dazzles the eyes. R. Aqiba, however, said: The one who reckons times and hours, saying: This day is good to go on the road, such a day is good to buy things, on the eves of the Sabbatic years the wheat is fine, such and such a time is good for picking peas as they will not become verminous.

The rabbis taught: An enchanter is he who says: "My bread has fallen from my mouth to-day, and it is a bad sign"; or, "My cane has fallen from my hands"; or, "My son called me up from my back"; or, "A robin is calling me"; or, "A ram has crossed my way"; or, "A snake is on my right, a fox is on my left, and all this is a bad sign." Or, if one says to a collector: Do not begin with me, as this will be a bad sign for me. And the same is it if he says: "To-day is the first day of the month," or, "It is the Sabbath eve, and if I should pay at this time I will have a bad week" or "a bad month." And the same is the case with them who enchant with cats, birds, and fish (i.e., I will not begin this thing because a cat has crossed my way, etc.). So is the teaching of the rabbis.

MISHNA X.: He who violates the Sabbath with such a labor as is liable to korath if done intentionally, and to a sin offering if unintentionally.

GEMARA: From this we see that there are violations of Sabbath to which neither korath nor a sin-offering apply. What are they? The limit of the cities (Te'humi), in accordance with R. Aqiba; and kindling, according to R. Jose.

MISHNA XI.: He who curses his father or mother is not punished with a capital punishment, unless he curse them by the proper Name of God. If he has done so with a pseudonym, according to R. Mair he is guilty, and according to the sages he is not.

GEMARA: Who are the sages? R. Mnahem b. Jose of the following Boraitha, who said thus: It reads [Lev. xxiv. 16]: "When he pronounceth the holy name," etc. Why is here repeated "the holy name"? It should read: "If he blaspheme," etc. To teach that in the case of cursing father and mother one is not guilty unless he do so with the Holy Name.

The rabbis taught It reads [ibid., xx. 9]: "Every one," instead of "one." This came to include a daughter, or an hermaphrodite, or an andogyn. "That curseth his father and his mother." But whence do we know that the same is the case when he curses his father only, or his mother only? Therefore it reads farther on, "his father and his mother has he cursed." Hence the word "cursed" corresponds with the word mother"; and in the beginning of the verse the word "cursed" corresponds with "father," which is to be explained as that he is equaly guilty if he has cursed his father or his mother. So is the decree of R. Jashia. R. Jonathan, however, said: The beginning of the verse can be explained that it means both together, and also one or the other; and in such a case the applicability is to each of them, unless the verse itself explains that both together are meant.

"Shall be put to death"—by stoning! But perhaps with some other kind of death mentioned in the Scripture? It reads here, "His blood shall be upon him," and elsewhere it is written, "Their blood shall be upon them." As there it means stoning, the same is it here. But here we have heard of the punishment. Where is the warning? [Ex. xxii. 27]: "The judges thou shalt not revile, and a ruler among thy people thou shalt not curse." "If one's father were one of the two, he is included; but if he was neither a judge nor a Nasi, whence do we know that the same is the case?

This can be inferred from the construction of the leading rule in both cases (i.e., one who is to be respected must not be cursed, although the nature of respecting them is not equal), as concerning a judge we are commanded to follow his decision, which is not the case with a Nasi; and concerning the latter We are commanded not to rebel against him, which is not the case with a judge. However, in one case they are equal, in that they are of "thy people," and thou must not curse them. The same is the case with the father, who is also of "thy people" and must be respected by thee. Hence you are warned not to curse him.

And lest one say that, after all, we can infer nothing from the case in which they are equal, as their dignity is the reason of their equality, which is not the case with a common father, concerning this it reads [Lev. xix. 14]: "Thou shalt not curse the deaf"—from which we see that the verse speaks of the unfortunates of "thy people." And lest one say that this is also different, as the misfortune is the reason, the above case of judge and Nasi proves that this is not so. And again, their dignity is the reason? The case of the deaf proves that it is not so. Hence, although the reason of the one is not similar to that of the other, in one thing, however, they are equal, in that they are of "thy people" and must not be cursed. The same is the case with his father.

And still, lest one say that, after all, the three above mentioned are distinguished, which is not the case with the father, it may be said that I the reason is because of distinction, it would not be necessary for the Scripture to write all the three, as a judge and a death or a Nasi and a death would suffice. Why, then, all the three? As it is not needed for itself, apply it to a common father. And all this is correct to him who explains the word "Elohim" in the above-cited verse [Ex. xxii.] with "judges"; but to him who explains the word "Elohim" as meaning God, what can be said? For there is a Boraitha: Elohim in this verse is common, and means "judges." So R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, maintains that Elohim is "holy." And there is another Boraitha: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said that this verse is a warning against blasphemy. He who holds that the word Elohim here is common, must say that the holiness is inferred from this passage (by drawing an a fortiori conclusion—if one is warned not to curse a human judge, so much the more is he warned not to curse the Holiness), as we do not find any other warning besides; and he who holds that the word Elohim is "holy," the case of a commoner may also be inferred—from the double Lamed in the word "tekhalel" (curse), which could be expressed "tekhal" with one Lamed.

MISHNA XI.: He who sins with a betrothed damsel is not guilty to be stoned unless she was a maiden betrothed and still in her father's house. Should it happen that two had sinned with her, the first is to be stoned and the second choked.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxii. 23]: "if a damsel"—not a vigaros; "a maiden"—not one who had already known man; "betrothed"—not married. And [ibid., ibid. 21] it reads, "in her father's house," excluding if the father had already transferred her to the messengers of her husband.
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: This is in accordance with R. Mair. The sages, however, say: A betrothed damsel, even if she is still a minor. Said R. Aha of Diphthi to Rabhina: Whence do you know that the Mishna is in accordance with R. Mair and excludes a minor—perhaps it is in accordance with the rabbis excluding a vigaros only? And he answered: If so, the Mishna should state that he is not guilty but as concerning pression means to exclude a minor also; and about this no more discussion.

R. Jacob b. Adda questioned Rabh: In accordance with R. Mair, if it happened one had sinned with a betrothed minor, does he exclude him from any punishment, or from stoning only? And he answered: Common sense dictates from stoning only. But is it not written [ibid., ibid. 22]: "Shall both of them die," which is explained elsewhere, that it means, provided both were alike concerning age? And Rabh kept silent. Said Samuel: I do not understand why Rabh was silent, and did not refer him to ibid., ibid. 26, which reads: "He shall die alone"?

In this point Tanaim differ. "Both shall die" means, provided both were alike concerning age. So R. Jashia. R. Jonathan, however, said: From the verse [25] is inferred that he alone must be put to death. But what does R. Jashia infer from the verse, "He alone," etc.? That which we have learned from the following Boraitha: If ten men knew her while she was still a virgin, all of them are to be stoned. Rabbi, however, maintains that only the first one is to be stoned, and all the others choked, as thus it reads: "And the man that lay with her shall die alone." What does it mean? Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua: Rabbi holds with R. Ishmael that a betrothed damsel is to be burned, but not one married. And the verse which reads about one betrothed is to be explained thus: Only the beginner is to be burned, but all others are to be choked. Said R. Bibi b. Abayi: Our master, R. Joseph, does not say so. But that Rabbi holds with R. Mair, who said that if the daughter of a priest was married to one who was prohibited from marrying her, and she has sinned, her death is choking. And Rabbi meant to say thus: If the beginning of her profanation was sin, then she is to be burned; but if she was already profaned by an illegal marriage, she is to be choked. And his expression, "And so also it reads: 'He shall die alone,'" is not to be taken particularly, but as a remark.
MISHNA XII.: A seducer means one who is himself a commoner and seduces a commoner—e.g., he says: There is an idol in such and such a place which so and so eats, so and so drinks, and so and so does good, and so does harm.

Concerning all who are liable to capital punishment biblically, it is not allowed to hide witnesses except in this case: If, e.g., he said the above to two persons, they are his witnesses—they bring him up to the court, and they themselves stone him. If, however, he said it only to one, he may say: I have some colleagues who will also follow your advice, if you will say the same to them. But if he is shrewd, and does not want to talk in the presence of two persons, they may hide witnesses behind a fence, and he may say to him: Repeat to me what you said at first. And if he repeats, he may say to him: How can we leave our Heavenly Father and go to worship idols of stone and wood? If he retracts—well and good. If, however, he answers: This will be good for us and also is our duty, the witnesses who are hidden behind the fence may bring him to court and stone him.

A seducer is considered he who says: I will worship; I will go and worship; Let us go and worship; I will sacrifice to such and such an idol; or, Let us go and sacrifice; I will smoke incense before it; I will go and smoke; Let us go and smoke; I will pour wine before it; I will go and pour; Let us go and pour; I will bow myself; I will go and bow; Let us go and bow.
GEMARA: The Mishna states: A seducer means a commoner. But how would it be if he should say: I am a prophet, and tell you to do so in the name of the Lord? Choking would apply. And also "he seduces a commoner" (individual). But how if he should seduce many? Then also choking would apply and not stoning. We see, then, that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Simeon of the following Boraitha: To a prophet who had misled, stoning applies. R. Simeon, however, said: Choking. To the misleader of a misled town, stoning applies, according to R. Simeon, choking. How, then, will be understood the succeeding Mishna, which states: A misleader is named he who says, "Let us go and worship idols"? To which R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: It speaks of the misleader of a misled town, who is to be stoned, which is in accordance with the rabbis. Hence our Mishna is in accordance with R. Simeon, and the succeeding Mishna in accordance with the rabbis. Said Rabhina: Both are in accordance with the rabbis; and by the expression, "he seduced a commoner," he does not mean to exclude a majority. But it was said in the Mishna, "not only"—i.e., not only is he to be stoned who seduces a majority, but even a single commoner. And R. Papa said: Even the beginning of the Mishna, "the seducer is a commoner," does not mean to exclude a prophet, as it was supposed, but it means to say: He is a commoner idiot, to whom hiding witnesses is allowed, which is not the case with all other criminals. And how used they to do with such a person? They used to light a candle in the inner chamber, engaging him with talk, and the witnesses were placed in the outer chamber so that they should see him and hear his voice, while he could not see them; and there the person whom he attempted to seduce tried to make him repeat, as stated above in the Mishna.

MISHNA XII.: By a misleader is meant one who says: Let us go and worship idols. A conjurer is liable to be stoned only when he did an act, but not if he dazzled the eyes. R. Aqiba said in the name of R. Jehoshua: As, for instance, if there are two who gather cucumbers from a field by enchantment—one of them is liable to a capital punishment and one of them is entirely free. If one has really gathered all of them to one place by witchcraft, he is to be stoned; and the other, who did so only by dazzling the eyes, but in reality the cucumbers remained in their place, is entirely free.
GEMARA: R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: The Mishna speaks of the misleader of a misled town. "A conjurer," etc. The rabbis taught: It reads: "A witch." There was no difference whether male or female—why, then, the term "witch"? Because in most cases women used to be engaged in witchcraft. What kind of death applies to them? R. Jose the Galilean said: It reads [Ex. xxii. 17]: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"; and it reads [Deut. xx. 16]: "Shalt thou not let live a single soul." As there it is meant by the sword, the same is the case here. R. Aqiba, however, said: It is to be inferred from [Ex. xix. 13]: "It shall not live." As there stoning is meant, the same is the case here. Said R. Jose: My analogy is from "techaiah"—"let not live" (a female), while your analogy is from "yechaiah"—"shall not live" (a male). And he answered: My analogy is to infer Israel from Israel, to whom many kinds of deaths are prescribed, while according to your analogy, Israel from the descendants of Noah should be inferred, and there is only one death prescribed for descendants of Noah. Ben Azai, however said. Ex. xxii. 17 is to be inferred from the next verse [18] "Whosoever lieth with a beast," etc. As to this stoning applies, the same is the case here. Said R. Jehudah. to him: Because this verse is near to the other, therefore the witch should be stoned? According to my opinion there is another reason. Ob and Yidoui ought to be included in the case of conjurers—why, then, does the Scripture separate them? Only for the purpose of comparing other conjurers to them. As to them stoning applies, so does it to all conjurers.

According to R. Jehudah: Let Ob and Yidoui be considered as two verses which command one and the same. And there is a rule that from such nothing is to be inferred. Said R. Zecharias: Infer from this that R. Jehudah does not hold this theory and maintains that from such it may be inferred. It reads [Deut. iv. 35]: "There is none else besides him." Said R. Hanina: Even witchcraft has no effect against a heavenly decree. There was a woman who tried to take earth from beneath the foot of R. Hanina. And he said to her: If you think you will succeed in affecting me with your witchcraft, go on and do so, as I am not afraid. It reads: "There is none else besides Him." Is that so? Did not R. Johanan say: It may happen that witchcraft may affect even against heavenly decrees? With R. Hanina it was different, as his strength was great, being righteous all his life. Aibu b. Nagri in the name of R. Hyya b. Abba said: In Ex. vii. 11 it reads, "blahatehem," and in ibid. viii. 3 it is written, "blatehem." The latter means by the act of demons, and the former by the act of sorcery. And so also is it expressed in Gen. iii. 24, "lahat," or the sword which revolveth (revolveth by itself, which looked like witchcraft). Said Abayi: A conjurer who is particular to use a utensil, it is by a demon, and he who is not particular, it is by witchcraft.

He said again: The Halakhas of witchcraft are similar to the Halakhas of Sabbath. There are some to which stoning applies; there are some which are not allowed to start with, but if, nevertheless, one has done them, he is free; and some are allowed even to start with. To him who did an act by witchcraft, stoning applies. To dazzle the eyes is not allowed to start with, but if one did, he is free. And it is allowed to start with, as said above. R. Hanina and R. Oshia were accustomed to create a calf, etc.
Said R. Ashi: I have seen the father of a certain man Karna scatter strips of silk from his nose. It reads [Ex. viii. 15]: "Then said the magicians of Pharaoh, This is the finger of God." Said R. Elazar: Infer from this that a demon is not able to produce a creation the size of which is less than a barley. Said R. Papa: They are not able to create even the size of a camel; but if they needed it, they got it from far places, which they could not do with smaller creations.

Said Rabh to R. Hyya: I have seen a rider of a camel who took his sword, cut off the head of the camel, and thereafter rung a bell, and the camel stood up. Said R. Hyya to him: Did you see after it stood up, that the place was dirty from blood and dust? There was nothing. Hence it was only a dazzling of the eyes.

It happened that Zera was in Alexandria of Egypt, and bought an ass. Afterward, when he carne (to a river) to let the ass drink, it disappeared (the charm was broken), and there stood a landing board. And he was told: If you were not Zera, your money would not be returned, as there is no one who buys something here and does not try it on water. Janai happened to stop at a certain inn and asked for water. And he was supplied with sthitha (water mixed with flour), and he noticed that the woman who brought it mumbled. He poured out a little and a serpent came out of it. And then he said to her: I drank from your water, now you may also drink from mine. She did so and became an ass. He then rode upon her to the market. And her associate, who recognized the witchcraft absolved her, and then every one saw that he was riding on a woman.

It reads [ibid., ibid. 2]: "And the frogs came up." Said R. Elazar: It was only one frog which multiplied over all Egypt with its offspring. In this point Tanaim differ. R. Aqiba said the same as Elazar. Said Elazar b. Azariah to him: Aqiba, what have you to do with Haggadah? Leave it, and show forth thy study in the difficulties of Negaim and Ohaloth. It was only one frog to whose croaking all other frogs were gathered. "R. Aqiba said," etc. Did R. Aqiba indeed learn this from R. Jehoshua? Is there not a Boraitha: When R. Eliezer became sick, R. Aqiba and his colleagues came to make him a sick-call. He was under a canopy, and they were placed in his palace. That day was an eve of Sabbath, and Hurcanos, his son, entered to undress his phylacteries. 1 His father rebuked him, and he went out as if he had been under the ban, and said to his colleagues: It seems to me that the mind of my father is not clear. And R. Eliezer, who heard this, said to them: And I think that the minds of both his mother and himself are unsound, as they occupy themselves with undressing phylacteries on account of which the Sabbath would not be violated, even if they were to remain upon him the whole Sabbath, while so long as they have not as yet prepared other things for Sabbath, which would be a violation subject to a capital punishment if done on Sabbath.

When the above-mentioned sages saw that his mind was clear, they approached him a distance of four ells, and became seated. He then questioned them: To what purpose is your call? To which they answered: We came to learn Torah from you. And to his question: Why have you not come until now? They answered: We had no time. He then exclaimed: I wonder if these people will die a natural death! Said Aqiba to him: And what will be my lot? And he said: Yours will be still harder than theirs. He then took his two arms, put them on his heart, and said: Woe to ye! my two arms, which are as two parchments of the Holy Scrolls, of which nothing can be read when they are rolled together (he meant that when he should die, all his wisdom would go with him, as there were none to whom to teach it). I have studied much and taught much. I have studied much, and have not diminished from the wisdom of my masters even to the extent of what a dog laps from the sea. I taught much, and my disciples have not diminished from my wisdom—even as the painting pencil which is inserted in a tube. And not this only, but I have learned about three hundred Halakhas as to planting cucumbers, and there was no man who could question me something concerning them except Aqiba b. Joseph. As it once happened, I was on the road with him, and he said to me: Rabbi, teach me something about planting cucumbers. And I said something, and the whole field was filled with cucumbers. And he said to me: Rabbi, with this you taught me the planting of them; now teach me the removing of them. And I said something and all were gathered to one place. Hence we see that he had learned this of R. Eliezer, and not of R. Jehoshua? He learned it from R. Eliezer, but did not understand thoroughly. But thereafter, however, he learned this from R. Jehoshua thoroughly, and it remained in his mind. But how could he do so? Have we not learned in a Mishna that he who does an act with witchcraft deserves a capital punishment? To learn it is different. As the Master said: It reads [Deut. xviii. 9]: "Thou shalt not learn to do"—which means: Thou must not learn to do, but thou mayst learn it to understand it for the purpose of deciding cases.

Footnotes

150:1 Mishnas mentioned in the text will be translated in their proper places.

151:1 The text here is very complicated, and Rashi, who tries to explain it at length against his method, admits that there may be objections to it, and maintains that the reason of betrothed and married does not hold good. But the basis is, what is said above, that stoning applies to a blasphemer, etc., who laid their hands on the main principle. We have done our best to give an idea of the text to the reader.

151:2 Here also is repeated why stoning is more rigorous than the two others, and the same reasons are given, which it is not necessary to repeat.

156:1 Leeser translates "own lives" according to its sense. We, however, translate it literally, according to the Talmud.

160:1 The text reads, "לאשת אהרים {Hebrew L?ShT ?HRYM}," literally, "the wife of many strangers," and so it means. The explanation of Rashi that the word acherim means a Samarite, is probably because he did not know of the existence of such a sect who live in common with their wives. It may also be that the word "Samaritan," in Rashi, was corrected by the censor instead of "heathen" or idolator. However, this is certain, that the expression "acherim" in the Gemara is original, and if it meant a heathen or a Samarite, it would not hesitate to say so. It therefore seems to us, that our translation is correct.

163:1 For the explanation of a pleonastic term we refer the reader to Mielziner's "Introduction to the Talmud" (page 150).

164:1 The term "as they lie," translated by Leeser, is not correct, as it reads "mishkhbey," which is plural and means "lyings," from which the Gemara infers that there are two lyings regarding a woman.

166:1 We deem it expedient not to translate about two pages of the text preceding the next Mishna, treating of miserable crimes with men and animals, and giving the discussion with questions and answers, it would be undesirable to express in the English language. However, it seems to us important to give the opinion of Rabh: "A minor who was over nine years and one day is guilty, and may be punished the same as one of age, if he commit a crime with man, or an animal of any kind and age." (And there is a Boraitha which agrees with him.) This is all that we think proper to take from the text.

168:1 It would be of no use to quote the verse, as every word in it is used for an analogy of expression of the Hebrew terms. There, is besides, a difference of opinion among the Amoraim, which expression is to be used for an analogy, and what it means; and to translate it all, we would have to fill our page with Hebrew words and their explanations. After all, it would be of no importance, as the fact that to the children of Noah seven commandments were given is traditional.

170:1 We do not understand this similarity, although Rashi in his commentary tries to explain it at length. It is so complicated as to be untranslatable into English.

170:2 The term in Hebrew is "be-adam," literally, "in the man"' Leeser, how, ever, translates according to the sense.

172:1 The text farther on discusses about a proselyte, whose mother embraces Judaism when he was yet an embryo—which relationship is allowed to him and which not; also if a heathen is allowed to marry his daughter; if a slave may marry his sister or daughter, etc.—all of which, as we deem it not fit for translation, we omit.

172:2 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

173:1 The term in Hebrew is "obed"; literally, "worshipped," and also "works up"; and ebed means "a slave." Hence his analogy.

176:1 It is almost the first time that we have translated against our method, announced in the third of the explanatory remarks on back of title pages, the reason of which we hope the render will understand.

178:1 This is explained in the Gemara by R. Jeremiah.

178:2 Leeser has omitted this; we do not know the reason why.

187:1 The term for king in Hebrew is melech.

198:1 See our "Phylacterien Ritus," p. 49, footnotes.

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. AT WHAT AGE AND WHAT HAS HE TO DO TO BE CHARGED AS SUCH? HOW IS IT IF e.g., HIS FATHER CONDEMNS HIM, BUT NOT HIS MOTHER, OR vice versa. IF ONE OF HIS PARENTS WERE LAME OR BLIND, ETC. IF HE RUNS AWAY BEFORE THE DECISION WAS RENDERED. CONCERNING BURGLARY AND IF A BURGLAR DESERVES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, MUST PAY THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY BREAKING IN.

MISHNA I. A Stubborn and rebellious son—at what age may he be considered such? From the time he brings forth two hairs till they encompass the face: it does not mean the chin, but the bottom (pubes); but the sages used to speak with delicacy.

It reads [Deut. xxi. 18]: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son," etc. A son, and not a daughter; a son, but not a mature man. However, a minor is free from such a charge, as the commandment's obligation does not as yet rest upon him.
GEMARA: Whence do we know that a minor is free? Whence do we know! Does not the Mishna give the reason, "because the commandment's obligation does not as yet rest upon him." And secondly, where do we find that the Scripture has made a minor liable, so that in this case it is necessary to free such? We mean to say thus: Is, then, the punishment of a stubborn son because of his sins? He is punished because of his future (as will be explained farther on). Then it would be supposed that the same. is the case even when he is still a minor. And again, the Mishna itself states, "a son, but not a mature man." And if it Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It reads: "If a man has a son," which means a son who has grown up almost to maturity. "Till they surround," etc. R. Hisda said: A minor who has born a son—the latter does not become a rebellious son: which means, when a man has a son, but not a son who has a son. But was not what R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh inferred from the same verse? It should read, "If there shall be a son to a man."

And from what is written, "when a man has a son," we infer also what R. Hisda said. However, he differs with Rabha, who said elsewhere that a minor cannot beget children. As it reads [Num. v. 8]: "But if a man have no kinsman." And to the question: Is it possible that a man in Israel should have no kinsman? it was said that the verse speaks about the robbery of a proselyte (who has no kinsman in Israel). But why does the Scripture mention a man? It should read, "if he has no kinsman," to teach that if the proselyte was already a man you have to inquire; for perhaps he has begotten children, and thus has kinsmen. But if he was a minor, you have not to inquire, as a minor cannot beget children. Abayi objected to him from [Lev. xix. 20]: "And if a man lie," etc.—as to which a Boraitha states, "A man!" But whence do we know that the same is the case with a minor after the age of nine years and one day, who is already fit to have connection with a woman? Therefore it is written, "and if a man," to add the minor just mentioned. (Hence we see that such is already fit to beget children.) Rejoined Rabba: He is fit to have connection, but not to beget children, which is equalized to grain which has not as yet grown up to a third of its usual growth; and if such were sown, it would not reproduce. Is this so? Did not the disciples of R. Ishmael teach: It is written, "a son"; but not when he is a father. Now let us see how was the case. Shall we assume that his wife was pregnant just after he grew two hairs, and that he begot the child before the above-mentioned encompassing was completed. Has she, then, so much time? Did not R. Khruspdai say that the prescribed time for a rebellious son is only three months? You must then say she was pregnant before he grew two hairs, and begot a child before the encompassing was complete. Hence we see that a minor begets children? Nay! she was pregnant after he grew two hairs, and begot after the encompassing. And the difficulty about what was said by Khruspdai was explained by R. Dimi after his return from Palestine thus: In the West it was said, "a son," but not one who is fit to be called a father, as he has already a pregnant wife.

The text says: Khruspdai in the name of R. Sabatta said: The time for a rebellious son is only three months. We, however, have learned in a Mishna that the prescribed time is from when he grows two hairs until the encompassing is complete. However, if the completion was before three months, the time has already elapsed; and the same is the case when the encompassing was not completed after the three months had elapsed.

R. Jacob of the city of Nhar Pauqud was sitting before Rabhina, and said in the name of R. Huna b. Jehoshua: From Khruspdai's theory we may infer that a woman who bears in the seventh month cannot be recognized as pregnant after the first third of her pregnancy. For if it were so, why was it said in the West that he is fit to become a father after three months—would not two and a third suffice, as then the pregnancy is already recognizable? Answered Rabhina: This cannot be taken as evident, as the majority do not bear children in the seventh month, but in the ninth. All this was declared to R. Huna b. Jehoshua, and the latter exclaimed: Do we, then, consider a majority in criminal cases? The Torah says: The congregation shall judge, the congregation shall save and you say that we shall go after a majority. His answer was brought back to Rabhina, to which the latter replied: Is it indeed so—that we do not consider a majority in criminal cases? Have we not learned in a Mishna that if one witness says it was in the second of the month and the other says that it was on the third, their testimony is valid, since to one the intercalation of the month was known, but not to the other. Now, if a majority which does not know of the intercalation should not be considered, why should their testimony be valid? Say they are aware of it, but they contradict each other! Hence we must say that the majority is considered.

R. Abiah b. Rabba b. Nahmani in the name of R. Hisda, according to others the latter in the name of Zeeli, said: All agree that a minor of nine years and one day is fit to have connection with a woman, and in a case of adultery it is considered; and they agree also that at less than eight years of age one is not fit, and it is not considered. And the point of their difference is from the age of eight up.

The school of Shammai holds: We may infer from the first generation. And the school of Hillel holds: We may not.

And whence do we know that the first generation produced children at the age of eight? From [Gen. xi. 27]: "Now these are the generations of Therach: Therach begat Abram, Nachor, and Charan." Abram was one year older than Nachor, and Nachor was one year older than Charan. And it reads [ibid., ibid. 29]: "And Abram and Nachor took themselves wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nachor's wife was Milcah, the daughter of Charan, the father of Milcah, and the father of Yiscah." And R. Itz'hak said: There is a tradition that Yiscah is identical with Sarai. Now, how much was Abram older than Sarai? Ten years. And how much was he older than her father? Two years. Hence, when Charan bore Sarai he was eight years. But perhaps Abram was the younger, and the enumeration in Scripture is not particular, being according to their wisdom. And that the Scripture used to enumerate according to wisdom, and not age, may be seen from [ibid. vi. 10]: "And Noah begat three sons—Shem,, Ham, and Japheth." And from the latter passage it is inferred that Shem was the youngest, and nevertheless he is named first, because of his wisdom. Said R. Kahana: I told this to R. Zebith of Nahardea, and he answered: Ye learned this from the cited passage. We, however, infer this from [ibid. x. 21 "But unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Elier the brother of Japheth the elder." Hence we see that Japheth was the oldest of all the brothers.

Now the question, "Whence do we know that the first generations produced children at eight years?" still remains unanswered. This is to be inferred from the following. It reads [Ex. xxxv. 30]: "And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the Lord hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Chur, of the tribe of Judah"; and in I. Chron. ii. 19, 20, it reads: "And when Azubah (the wife of Caleb) died, Caleb took unto himself Ephrath, who bore unto him Chur. And Chur begat Uri, and Uri begat Bezaleel." And when Bezaleel was engaged in building the Tabernacle, he was at least thirteen years old. As it reads [Ex. xxxvi. 4]: "Every man from his own work which they were doing"; and one is not called a man before the age of thirteen. And there is a Boraitha: The first year Moses prepared all that was necessary for the Tabernacle, and in the second year he erected it and sent the spies. And it reads [Joshua, xiv. 7]: "Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me"; and [ibid., ibid. 10]: "Behold, I am this day eighty and five years old." Now, take off fourteen, the age of Bezaleel from the forty of Joshua when he was sent as a spy, and there remain twenty-six; take off two years for the three pregnancies with Uri, Chur, and Bezaleel, and there remain twenty-four. Hence each of them produced at the age of eight. "A son, and not a daughter," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon said: According to common sense, a daughter should be more open to the charges of stubbornness and rebelliousness, as it is to be supposed that her future be to stand in the way and entice men to sin. But so is the decree of the Scripture—"a son, and not a daughter."

MISHNA II.: When does such become guilty? When he consumes ατρι τημόριον of meat and drinks half a lug of Italian wine. R. Jose, however, maintains: Meat not less than a manna, and wine not less than a whole lug. If, however, he ate at a banquet of a meritorious society, or at the intercalation of a month, or at second tithe in Jerusalem; or he ate carcasses, illegal meat, or reptiles, and second tithe and consecrated things which were not redeemed, or mixed grain of first tithe from which the heave-offering was not separated. There is a rule: If he ate a thing which is meritorious, or, on the contrary, a thing which is a transgression—if he consumes any kind of food but not meat, any kind of beverages but not wine—he cannot be condemned as a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he eats meat and drinks wine. As it reads [Deut. xxi. 20]: "He is a glutton and a drunkard." And although there is no direct support in the Scripture that gluttony means meat, and drunkenness, means wine, a hint of this is to be found in [Prov. xxiii. 20]: "Be not among those that drink wine, among those that overindulge in eating meat." 1 GEMARA: R. Zerah said: The term "tertimory" mentioned in the Mishna—I don't know how much it weighs. But from the fact of R. Jose having doubled the measure of wine from half a lug to a lug, I understand that he means also to double the weight of meat. Hence a "tertimory" must be half a manna.

R. Hanan b. Muldha in the name of R. Huna said: He is not guilty unless he consumes the meat and the wine raw. Is that so? Did not both Rabha and R. Joseph say that he who consumes meat and wine raw is not to be condemned as a stubborn and rebellious son? Said Rabhina: By raw wine is meant refined and not refined, and by meat is meant cooked and uncooked, as usually consumed by thieves.

Both Rabha and R. Joseph said: If he consumed salted, meat and drank wine from the press, he cannot be condemned as a stubborn and rebellious son. What is to be considered salted meat? When it has lain in salt for three days. And, what is called wine from the press? When it is still fermenting.

R. Itz'hak said: It reads [Prov. xxiii. 3 1]: "Do not look on the wine when it looketh red"—meaning that you shall not look for wine which makes red the faces of the wicked in this; world, and makes them pale in the world to come. Rabha said: You shall not look for wine which causes bloodshed. 1 When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said: About the verse [ibid., ibid. 29, 30]: "Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath quarrels? who hath complaints? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry late over the wine; they that come to seek for mixed drink." It was said in the West that he who tries to explain them from their beginning to their end is correct, and he who tries to explain them from their end to their beginning is also correct. 2 Eubar the Galilean lectured: Thirteen vavs are enumerated, in the Scripture concerning wine, as in Genesis ix., from 20 to 25, there are thirteen vavs: "And Noah, who was a husbandman, began his work, and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and became drunken; and he uncovered, himself within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told it to his two brothers without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon the shoulders of both of them, and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned backwards, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and discovered what his younger son had done unto him." 1 R. Hisda in the name of Uqba, according to others Mar Uqba in the name of R. Sakkai, said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: "Noah, why didst thou not learn from Adam the First that all the troubles he had were caused by wine"? And this is in accordance with R. Mair who maintains that the tree of whose fruit Adam the First partook was a vine. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Mair said that the tree of whose fruit Adam the First partook was a vine, as there is no other thing which causes so much lamentation as wine does. And R. Jehudah said: It was wheat, as a child is not able to call mother or father before it has experienced the taste of wheat. R. Nehemiah said: It was a fig-tree, as their remedy came from the same thing by which they had transgressed. For it reads [Gen. iii. 7]: "And they sewed fig leaves together."

It reads [Prov. xxxi. i]: "The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy with which his mother instructed him." Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jochai: Infer from this that his mother tied him to a pillar, saying: "What (hast thou done), O my son? and what, O son of my body? and what, O son of my vows?" "O my son"—all are aware that thy father has feared Heaven, and now that people see thee going in a wrong way, they will say: "It was caused by his mother." "The son of my body" means: All the wives of thy father never saw the king again after their pregnancy, which was not the case with me, as I have troubled myself to see him again after pregnancy, for the purpose that my child should be of good health.

"The son of my vows"—all the wives of thy father used to vow to the sanctuary for the purpose that their child should be fit for the throne, and I have vowed that my son should be full of wisdom, and fit for prophecy. "Not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings (is it fitting) to drink wine, nor for princes (rausnim) strong drink!" She said to him: "What hast thou to do with kings who drink wine, become intoxicated, and say: "For what purpose do we need God" ("Lomo-el"—literally, "why God")? "And to rausnim strong drink." Is it right that be to whom all the mysteries of the world are revealed should drink wine to intoxication —according to others: He to whose door all the princes of the world are hastening, shall he drink wine to intoxication? Said R. Itz'hak: And whence do we know that Solomon repented and confessed to his mother?

From [ibid. xxx. 2]: "Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a common man." "Than any man" means Noah. As it reads [Gen. ix. 20]: "And Noah, who was a husbandman, began his work, and he planted a vineyard." "Of a common man" means Adam the First (the term for this in Hebrew being "adam"). "Of a meritorious society," etc. Said R. Abuhu: He is not guilty unless he consumed the above-mentioned meat and wine with a society of reckless persons (as then there is no hope that he will depart from his way after he is bound to such a company). But does not our Mishna state "A meritorious society"—he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son? From which it is to bc understood that if it was not a meritorious one, he is culpable even if not all of the society were reckless men?

The Mishna comes to teach us that if it happened that to the meritorious banquet were invited men all reckless, he is nevertheless not culpable, as he was engaged in a meritorious banquet and eating and drinking to excess will not become his habit. "At the intercalation of the month," etc. Was there then used meat and wine at the meal of intercalation? Does not a Boraitha state only bread and peas? The Mishna comes to teach us that although they were used only to bread and peas, and one in spite of this took for this meal meat and wine, he is not culpable, as the meal was of a meritorious nature and it will not become a habit.

The rabbis taught: To the intercalation meal no less than ten persons were invited, and nothing else was used but bread and peas; and it was prepared only oil the thirtieth day, and not in the daytime but at evening. But is there not a Boraitha, "not at evening but in the day"? As R. Hyya b. Abbah said to his sons: Try to go to this meal when it is yet day, before sunset: and also to leave before sunrise, that people shall know that you were engaged in a meal of intercalation. "Second tithe," etc. Because he consumed it in the usual way, it will not become a habit. "Carcasses," etc. Said Rabha: If he has consumed meat of fowls, he is not to be charged as a stubborn son. But does not our Mishna state "carcasses, illegal meat," etc., from which it is to be understood that if it was legal he is to be charged? Our Mishna means that even if he has eaten this to complete the prescribed quantity—e.g., he has eaten a "tertimory" less an eighth, and this eighth he ate from illegal meat—he is also not culpable, for the reason stated farther on. "A thing which is meritorious," etc.—means a meal of condolence. "A transgression"—means when he ate on a fast day of the congregation. And what is the reason? It reads [Deut. xxi. 20]: "He will not hearken to our voice." "Our voice"—but not of him who does not hearken to the voice of the Omnipotent. "But not meat," etc.—means to add even pressed figs of the city of Kaêla, which cause intoxication. "But not wine"—means even honey and milk, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one consumed pressed figs of Kaêla and drank honey and milk and entered the sanctuary, he is culpable as to [Lev. x. 91 "wine and strong drink," etc. "He eats meat and drinks wine," etc. The rabbis taught:

If he consumes any kind of food, but not meat, any kind of beverages but not wine, he cannot be condemned as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he eats meat and drinks wine. (???—jbh)bles, it will not become a habit. In the second case, although there is no direct support the Scripture that gluttony means meat and wine, a hint to this is to be found in—"Be not among those that drink wine, among those that overindulge in eating meat." And it is also written [ibid., ibid. 21]: "For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty; and drowsiness clotheth a man in rags Said R. Zerah: He who sleeps in a house of learning, his wisdom is rent to pieces. As it reads: "And drowsiness clotheth a man in rags."

MISHNA III.: If he has stolen from his father and consumed on his premises, or he has stolen from strangers and has consumed on the premises of still other strangers, or he has stolen from strangers and consumed on the premises of his father, he is not charged as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he stole from his father and consumed on the premises of strangers. R. Jose b. Jehudah maintains: Unless he stole from his mother and father.
GEMARA: In the first case, when he stole from his father and consumed on the premises of the father, because he trembles, it will not become a habit. In the second case, although he does not tremble after stealing, as it cannot be frequently done, it will not become a habit. From strangers, and consumed on the premises of his father, there are both, because this can be done only occasionally and when consuming he trembles for his father. Unless he stole from his father and consumed on the premises of strangers—which includes both, because it can be done frequently and without any trembling. "From his mother," etc. Where did his mother get this, so that it should belong to her only? Is there not a rule that all a woman buys belongs to her husband? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: He took it from the meal which was prepared for his father and mother. But did not R. Hana b. Mouldha in the name of R. Huna say that he is not culpable unless he buys meat and wine cheap and consumes them? Say that he has stolen the money which was prepared to buy a meal for his father and mother; and if you wish, it might be said that some one else gave it to his mother, with the condition that her husband should have no share in it.

MISHNA IV: If the father is willing to transfer the case of the son in question to the court and the mother is not willing, or vice versa, he cannot be accused as a stubborn and rebellious son, unless both arc willing to do so. Furthermore, R. Jehudah says: If his mother was not fit to be the wife of his father, their son cannot be charged as a stubborn and rebellious son.
GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by the words "was not fit"? Shall we assume that his father married a woman who was under the liability of the korat, or capital punishment by the court? Why? After all, the father is his father and the mother is his mother. Hence it must mean that she was like to his father. And so also we have learned plainly in the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: If his mother was not alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance and her height, he cannot be charged as the son in question. And what is the reason? Because it reads: "He does not hearken to her voice." As we see that their voices must be alike, the same is the case with the appearance and height. According to whom is the following Boraitha? The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and will never occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying and the reward for it. It is in accordance with R. Jehudah (who requires such things as can never occur). And if you wish, it is in accordance with R. Simeon, who said in the following Boraitha thus: Does the law indeed dictate that because this boy consumed a "tertimory" of meat and drank half a lug of Italian wine his father and mother shall deliver him to be stoned? Hence such a thing neither occurred nor ever will be, and it is written only for studying. R. Jonathan, however, said: I myself have seen such, and have sat on his grave.

According to whom is the Boraitha that a case of a misled town never occurred and will never be—and was written only for studying? In accordance with R. Eliezer, who said in the following Boraitha thus: A misled town in which there is to be found even one mezuza (a piece of parchment on which a portion of the Holy Writ is written to be placed on the doorpost) cannot be condemned as misled town, because it reads [Deut. xiii. 17]: "And all its spoils shalt thou gather into the midst of the marketplace thereof, and thou shalt burn them with fire." And as there is a mezuza this cannot be done, as it reads [ibid. xii. 4]: "ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God." R. Jonathan, however, said: I have seen such and I myself have sat on its heap.

According to whom is the following Boraitha?: A house of leprosy never occurred and will never be, and it is written only for studying, etc. In accordance with R. Elazar b. Simeon, who says in the following Mishna: A house of leprosy cannot be condemned unless the leprosy was of the size of two beans upon two stones at the two walls in the corner—the length of two beans and the width of one.

There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezer b. Zadok said: There was a place within the limit of the city of Azah which was named the "ruin of leprosy." And R. Simeon, head of the village Akhu, said: It happened once that I went to Galilee and saw a place which they used to mark, saying, It was because stones of leprosy were placed there.

MISHNA V.: If one hand of his father or mother is missing, or they limp, or are dumb, blind, or mute, he cannot be condemned as a stubborn son. As it reads [Deut. xxi. 19]: "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him"—which cannot be done with one hand. "And bring him out." This cannot be when they limp."—And they shall say"—not when they are mutes. "This our son"—not when they are blind. "He will not hearken"—not when they are dumb.
They must first warn him in the presence of two witnesses and then bring him to the court of three judges, who punish him with stripes. And only then when he offends again must he be tried before twenty-three judges, but must not be stoned unless the first three judges are among the twenty-three. As it reads: "This our son"—which means, this is our son who was beaten according to your decision.

GEMARA: Infer from our Mishna that wherever the Scripture commands something, it must be taken literally? (See above, Chapter VI.) With this passage it is different, as it is entirely superfluous. (It should read: "Ye shall deliver him at the gate of that city, to be stoned.") But where is it written that he must first be beaten? Said R. Abuhu: From an analogy of the expressions [Deut. xxi. 18]: "And they chastise him," which same is to be found in ibid. xxii. 18. And also from the expression "son," which same is to be found in ibid. xxv. 2, Which speaks of stripes. "This our son." But is not this verse needed for this not when they are blind? It should read: "He our son." Why "this"? To infer both statements.

MISHNA VI.: If he run away before the decision of condemnation is rendered and the encompassing (mentioned in the first Mishna) occurred afterwards, he is free. But if he runs away after the decision was rendered, the encompassing which occurs afterwards does not free him.

GEMARA: R. Hanina said: A descendant of Noah who blasphemed, and thereafter he embraced Judaism, is free from capital punishment, because the law concerning him was changed (for when he was yet a heathen one witness and one judge sufficed, while as au Israelite two witnesses and three judges are needed). And also capital punishment was changed—as to a heathen the sword applies, and to an Israelite stoning; and as he cannot be punished with stoning (for at the commission of the crime he was yet a heathen), he is entirely free.
Shall we assume that our Mishna, which states that if he runs away before the decision is rendered and the encompassing in question occurred afterwards, he is free, is also because, there being a change, the punishment is also changed? Nay, here it is different; because, if he were to commit the crime at the time after the encompassing, capital punishment would not apply at all. Should we say that the second case stated: If he runs away after the decision was rendered, the encompassing in question does not free him—forms an objection to R. Hanina? Do you wish that after the decision was rendered the change should affect the decision? After the decision is rendered he is considered as dead, which changes cannot affect.

Come and hear another objection: A descendant of Noah who killed his neighbor or committed a crime with his neighbor's wife, and afterwards he embraced Judaism, he is free from capital punishment. But if he did the same with an Israelite while he is yet a heathen, he is guilty even if, after the crime, he becomes a Jew. And why? Say, because it was a change, the capital punishment should also be changed? It requires a change in both—in the trial and in the kind of punishment. Here, however, the change is only in the trial (as said above), but not in the punishment, as either to a heathen or an Israelite the sword applies.

MISHNA VII.: A stubborn and rebellious son is tried because of his future. The Scripture prefers that he should die innocent, and not be put to death because of his sins. For the death of the wicked is both a benefit to them and a benefit to the world, while to the upright it is a misfortune for them and for the world. Drinking and sleeping are a benefit to the wicked and to the world, while they are so doing (do they not do harm to the world), and the reverse is it with the upright (because when they are drinking or sleeping they cannot do any good). Separation of the wicked is also a benefit for themselves and for the world; the reverse, however, is the case with the upright. The assembling of the wicked is a misfortune for them as well as for the world, while as to the upright it is a benefit for themselves and for the world. The idleness of the wicked is a misfortune for them and for the world (because in the time of their idleness they will conspire to do harm, but the repose of the upright is a benefit for them as well as for the world).

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Jose the Galilean said: Is it possible that because this boy ate a "tertimory" of meat and drank half a lug of Italian wine he shall be stoned? But the Torah foreshadows the final thought of the son in question, as in the future he will squander his father's property, and pursuing his habit, which he will find difficult, he will proceed to rob people in the street. Therefore the Torah said: "He shall rather die while he is still innocent than be put to death because of his sins, as the death of the wicked is a benefit," etc., as stated above in the Mishna.
MISHNA VIII.: In the case of "breaking in" [Ex. xii. i], for which there is no liability if one is killed by a detector, one is also punished because of his future crimes (i.e., because of his intention to kill his opponent, although no crime involving capital punishment was as yet committed). And therefore, if he broke a barrel while breaking in, if according to the laws he must not be killed when caught (e.g., a father who breaks into the premises of his son, who could not have intended to kill his son if he made opposition, and therefore if his son kills him he is liable to capital punishment, he must pay for damaging the barrel. But with respect to other persons who, if killed by the detector, would not be punished, he is free.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: The reason why the Scripture freed the detector if he killed the burglar, is because it is certain that a man cannot control himself when he sees his property taken. And as the burglar must have had the intention to kill anyone, in such a case, who should oppose him, the Scripture dictates that if one comes to kill you, hasten to kill him first.

Rabh said: A burglar who broke in and succeeded in taking some utensils and escaped, he is free from paying for the utensils. Why so? Because he acquired title to them by his blood. Said Rabha: It seems to me that Rabh's decision was in case he broke the utensils: and as they are no longer in existence, he is free from paying their value. But if he took them and they still exist, he must return them. [Says the Gemara: By God! Rabh's decision was even if they were still in existence, and his reason is that if they were taken by a burglar of that class, the opponent being guilty of shedding his blood, for which the Mishna makes him liable, would he not be responsible if the utensils were broken or taken away by force by someone else? He would be, because they were already under his control. The same is the case with an ordinary burglar, as by his blood he has acquired title to them, and therefore he is not obliged to return them.] However [continued Rabha], it is not so, as the Scripture considers the things stolen by the burglar to be under his control only concerning a contingency—i.e., if they were taken away from him. But the Scripture never meant him to acquire title to them when they were still in his possession, for he is considered as a borrower.

It happened that rams were stolen from Rabha by burglary, and thereafter they were returned to him; but he was not willing to accept them because the above decision came from the mouth of Rabh.
The rabbis taught: It reads [Ex. xxii. 2]: "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him." What is meant by the sun being risen upon him? Does the sun rise upon him only? It means therefore if it is as clear to you as the sun that it is impossible to be at peace with him, then you may kill him, but not otherwise. There is another Boraitha: If it is as clear to you as the sun that it is possible for you to be at peace with him, then you should not kill him; but if not, you may. Hence the Boraithas contradict each other? It presents no difficulty: one speaks in case a father breaks into his son's house, whose usual intention is not to kill his son, and the other case speaks of the reverse—namely, when the son breaks into the house of his father.

Rabh said: Anyone whatsoever who should break into my house, I would kill him, except R. Hanina b. Shila. If it should happen that he should break in, I would not kill him, as I am sure that he would have mercy upon me as a father for his son.

The rabbis taught: The expression "blood shed" mentioned in ibid., ibid. 1 and 2 means that it makes no difference whether such a case happened on week days or on a Sabbath. Let us see I The teaching that a burglar may be killed even on Sabbath is correct, lest one say as there is a rule that the execution by the court does not violate the Sabbath the same applies here. But why the teaching that the burglar must not be killed, the same being the case if the burglary occurred on Sabbath? Even on week days he is not to be killed?

Said R. Shesheth: The teaching was needed in case it happened that while breaking in on Sabbath a heap of earth covered him. If he is of that class who are to be killed, then the heap must not be removed on Sabbath; if of the other class, it must be done to save the man, if still alive.

The rabbis taught: It reads "to be smitten so"—by any man whatsoever; "he die"—through any kind of death possible. This teaching was necessary. Lest one say, only if he were killed by the owner, who could not control himself; but if he were killed by some other detector, he is liable, it comes to teach us that the burglar is considered a life-seeker, who may be killed by anyone.

The rabbis taught: The text speaks only of breaking in whence can it be proven that the thief found on one's roof, in one's yard, or in any building whatsoever may be killed? Therefore it reads, "If a thief be found," which means in any place whatsoever. But if so, why is the term" breaking in" mentioned?

To say that his breaking in serves the place of warning (for he knew what he might expect).

Said R. Huna: Even a minor who seeks one's life may be killed for self-protection. He holds that one who seeks one's life does not need any warning, be he of age or a minor.

R. Hisda objected to him from a Mishna (Ohaloth, VII., 7): If the head of a child were already without the womb, it must not be killed to save the life of its mother in case of danger, as one's life must not be given for that of another. And why not consider the child as the seeker of the life of its mother, so that it shall be killed? There it is different, as the child cannot intend to seek the life of its mother, and the danger in question is decreed by Heaven.

MISHNA IX: The following may be killed for self-protection: He who pursues one to kill him, and he who pursues a betrothed damsel, or pursues a male person to lie with him; but he who pursues an animal for this purpose, or he who intends to commit idolatry or to violate the Sabbath, must not be killed before the crime is committed.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that one may kill for self-protection? From [Lev. xix. 16]: "Thou shall not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor." But how can you so infer from this passage? Is it not needed to that of the following Boraitha: Whence do we know that if one sees his neighbor drowning in a river, or a wild beast or robbers seize him, he is obliged to save him? From the verse just cited? Yea, so it is. And that one may be killed in self-protection, is to be inferred by an a fortiori conclusion which is to be drawn from "a betrothed damsel." If in this case, in which one only intended assault, the Torah says he may be killed in self-protection, how much the more a seeker of life. But do we then punish from an a fortiori conclusion? The school of Rabbi taught that this is not only an a fortiori conclusion, but also an analogy. As it reads [Deut. xxii. 26]: "As a man riseth against his neighbor and striketh him dead, even so is this matter." And what have we to learn from the case of a murder? This passage is intended to throw light (on the case of a violated betrothed) and is at the same time receiving light. 1 He compares a murder to a betrothed damsel. As in case of a damsel one may be killed in self-protection, the same is it in the case of a murder.

And whence do we know that so is the case concerning a betrothed damsel? From what was taught in the school of R. Ismael. It reads [ibid. xxi. 27]: "There would have been none to aid her"—which means, if there were one he must help her under all circumstances, even to killing her pursuer.

The rabbis taught in addition to what is stated in the Mishna concerning self-protection: However, in the pursuing by a high-priest of a widow, or by a common priest of a divorced woman, or of one with whom the ceremony of Halitah was performed, or even in the pursuing of a betrothed damsel who had already had connection with some one, killing in self-protection is not allowed. And R. Jehudah said: Also, if the damsel herself said to the pursuers of her assaulter: Let him go—although it is to be supposed that she said so, only because of fear lest the pursuers should kill her-he must not be killed before the crime was committed. Whence is all this deduced? From [ibid., ibid. 26]: "But unto the damsel shalt thou not do anything: there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death." It is written "naar" (youth), and it reads "naaro"—from which we infer, both him who is pursuing a male for the purpose of sin and a betrothed damsel. And from the term "sin" we infer crimes of a kind to which the punishment of korath applies; and from "worthy of death," we infer those who are to be executed by the court.

The Boraitha states: R. Jehudah said: Also if the damsel herself said, etc. What is the point of their difference? Said Rabha: They differ in case the damsel cares for her honor, but without sacrificing her life for it. According to the rabbis the Scripture cares for the violation of her honor, and as she also cares for it, though without life-sacrifice, she must be saved even by killing her pursuers. And according to R. Jehudah, the Scripture commands to kill him, only in case the damsel herself is willing to sacrifice her life for her honor, but not otherwise.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: Let us see! In case a high-priest is pursuing a widow, is not this also a violation of her honor? Why, then, is he not to be killed? Is not the Scripture particular about the honor of a woman? And Abayi answered: For the honor of a damsel, who is ruined forever, the Scripture is particular to save her even to the killing of the pursuer, which is not the case with a widow.

It says farther on, "sin"—meaning those who are liable to be punished with death. There is a contradiction from the following: Among the assailants of damsels who must pay a fine besides the bodily punishment, is counted also one who assaults his sister (the punishment for which is korath). Now, if he is to be killed while pursuing, he must be counted in the class subject to capital punishment. And there is a rule that he who commits a crime subject to capital punishment is absolved from paying a fine.

Said Abayi: The Boraitha which states that he must pay a fine treats of a case in which, she could be saved by injuring one of the members of her pursuer's body, and it is in accordance with R. Jonathan b. Shaul who said in the following Boraitha thus: A seeker of life whom the pursued killed, although he was able to protect himself by injuring a member of the pursuer's body—it is to be tried as a case of capital punishment. And what is the reason of Jonathan? It reads [Ex. xxi. 22, 23]: "If men strive . . . and if any mischief follow, then shalt thou give life for life." And R. Elazar said: The cited verses treat about him who intended to kill his opponent.

And nevertheless it reads: "And yet no further mischief follow, he shall be surely punished." Now, if you say that the law dictates that the pursuer must not be killed in case his crime could be prevented by injuring one of the members of his body, it is correct that he is to be fined. But should you say that even in the latter case there is no liability if the pursuer was killed—his offence being in the class subject to capital punishment—why, then, is he to be fined? And should you say that he is fined because his intention was to kill another, and the fine belongs to another person, we understand from Rabha's decision 1 (First Gate, pp. 269 and 270) that it is not so. "He who pursues an animal," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Jochai said: The one who intends to worship idols may be killed (if there is an impossibility of preventing his crime otherwise).

And this is to be drawn by an a fortiori conclusion thus: When the dishonoring of a commoner is to be saved even by killing the pursuer, so much the more because of a heavenly dishonor. But is one to be punished because of an a fortiori conclusion? R. Simeon holds that so it is. There is another Boraitha: R. Eliezar b. Simeon said: The same is the case with one who intends to violate the Sabbath. He holds with his father, that one may be punished from a decision drawn from an a fortiori conclusion. And he infers the violation of Sabbath from the case of idolatry by the analogy of the expression "violation," which is termed in Hebrew "chillul," and is to be found in both cases.

Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadok, in the Ethic of Beth Nithza: "In the city of Suda it was voted and resolved that if one were compelled, under threat of being killed, to commit any one of all the crimes which are mentioned in the Torah, he might commit it and not be killed, except idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed." But is not the case the same with idolatry as the following Boraitha states: R. Ismael said: Whence do we know that, if one were told under threat of being killed, to worship an idol, he should rather worship than be killed? From [Lev. xviii. 5]: "He shall live in them"; i.e., but not die in them. But lest one say that the same is the case when he is told to do so publicly, therefore it reads [ibid. xxii, 32]: "And ye shall not profane my holy name; so that I may be sanctified." Hence we see that privately he may rather worship than die? They (R.

Johanan and R. Simeon b. Jehozadok) hold with R. Eliezer who said in the following Boraitha thus: It reads [Deut. vi. 5]: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Why, then, with all thy soul and with all thy might—is not one of them sufficient? Because people are of different natures. There are among them some who prize their body more than their money—for them it is written, "with all thy soul." And there are some others who prize their money more than their body, and for them it is written, "with all thy might? And from this we infer that even if one were told to commit idolatry privately, he must not do so, even under threat of being killed. This is concerning idolatry. But whence do we know that the same is the case with adultery and bloodshed.

From the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: It reads [ibid. xxii. 26]: "For as when a man riseth against his neighbor". He compares a murder to the case of a betrothed damsel. As concerning a betrothed damsel one may be killed to save her, the same is it in the case of a murder. And as concerning a murder one is obliged to sacrifice his own life rather than kill another by command, the same is the case with a betrothed damsel—she is held to be killed rather than be ravished. And whence do we know that in a murder case one is obliged to sacrifice his own life, etc. This is common sense. Thus it happened to one who came before Rabha.

(See Pesachim, p. 37, line 11.) When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: All this was said when there was no civil decree by the government to violate religious duties; but if there was, one must sacrifice himself even for a most lenient commandment. And when Rabbin came, he said in the name of the same authority: Even when an evil decree did not exist, he might do so privately; but publicly, one must sacrifice his life, even for a most lenient commandment. What is meant by a most lenient commandment? Said Rabba b. R. Itz'hak in the name of Rabh: (In days of religious persecution you must resist, even to changing the shoe-strap. And what is to be considered publicly? Said R. Jacob in the name of R. Johanan: If this is to be done in the presence of no less than ten Israelites. R. Jeremiah questioned: How is it if there were nine Israelites and one heathen?

Come and hear what R. Janai the brother of R. Hyya b. Aba taught: It reads [Lev. xxii. 32]: "In the midst of the children of Israel," and [Num. xvi. 21]: "From the midst of this congregation"; and from the analogy of the expression "midst," we infer that, as in the case of Korach there were no less than ten, and all Israelites, the same is the case with the sanctification in question. But was not Esther compelled to sin with Ahassuerus, in the presence of more than ten Israelites? Said Rabha: In case they do it for their own benefit it is different; as, if this were not the case, how could we lend copper vessels to the Persians for the purpose that they should fill them in their houses of worship with live coals at the time of their holidays?

But as this is for their own benefit, it is not considered a transgression; and Rabha is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that if a heathen commands an Israelite to cut hay on Sabbath for his cattle, with threat of killing him, he shall rather cut the hay than be killed. But if he tells him, "Cut it and put it in the river," from which we see that he wants only to overcome his religious scruples, it is better for him to resist and be killed than to comply with his command.

R. Ami was questioned: Is a descendant of Noah commanded to sanctify the Holy Name, or not? And Abayi answered: Come and hear! "There were seven commandments which were given to the descendants of Noah," etc. Now, if they were commanded to sanctify the Holy Name, there would be eight. Said Rabha to him: From this we can infer nothing, as by the seven commandments is meant all that pertains to them (and sanctifying the Holy Name pertains to the negative commandment of idolatry). However, how should this question be decided? Said Adda b. Ahaba: It was said in the college: It reads [II. Kings v. 18 and 19]: "For this thing may the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my lord goeth into the house of Rimmon to prostrate himself there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I prostrate myself also in the house of Rimmon. . . . and he said unto him, Go in peace." Now, if a descendant of Noah were commanded concerning sanctification, Elisha would not say to him, "Go in peace," but would keep silent. This also is not a support, as Nahman's request was considered privately as no Israelites were present. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It happened to one that he saw a woman and became sick through his infatuation, and he consulted physicians, who saw that there was no remedy for him unless he had connection with her, and the sages decided that he should rather die than have connection. The physicians, however, said: "Let her stand before him naked; perhaps this may do something in his behalf. But even this the sages did not allow. Let her talk to him behind a fence. Even this the sages forbade. R. Jacob b. Idi and Samuel b. Na'hmani differ. According to one she was a married woman, and according to the other she was single. Single! Why such strictness? Said R. Papa: Because of the dishonor of her family, as a daughter of an Israelite must not be sold for prostitution. And R. Ahbah b. R. Ika said: To prevent such becoming a habit among the daughters of Israel. But why did he not marry her? Said R. Itz'hak: This would not satisfy him. As it reads [Prov. ix. 171: "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread of secrecy is pleasant."

Footnotes

205:1 The term in Hebrew is "zaulel v' saube," which Leeser translates "glutton," etc. In Proverbs, however, be translates the same term with "overindulging", which also means gluttony.

206:1 The term in Hebrew for "becoming red" is "yithadom," and for "blood" the term is "dom"; and Rabha divides "yithadom" into two—yitha, dom—literally "will bring blood."

206:2 Rashi explains the passage thus: From the beginning to the end means, "To whom is woe?" etc. To them that tarry late over the wine. And from the end to the beginning means, "For whom is it right to tarry late over wine?" For those who are crying woe—e.g., mourners, and those who have quarrels, and wounds without cause, and those who have redness of eyes because they are stout or are idleness may drown their troubles in the wine.

207:1 There are sixteen "ands" in these passages, three of which, being for connection only, are excluded.

216:1 A proverbial phrase: "This one comes as a teacher and turns out a learner" (Jastrow).

218:1 See p. 269, third line from the bottom, which begins: "This decision of Rabha," to Mishna 7, which is here repeated literally, with the difference that there it is Rabba and here it is Rabha. Concerning the difference in the names, see Thosphat Khethuboth, 30b, paragraph beginning with the name "R. Ashi."

CHAPTER IX.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THOSE TO WHOM BURNING AND THOSE TO WHOM SLAYING APPLIES. WHO IS CONSIDERED A MURDERER DESERVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND WHO IS TO BE EXILED. THOSE WHO RECOVERED AFTER THEY WERE DIAGNOSED TO DIE; KILLING SOME OTHER ONE INSTEAD OF THOSE WHOM HE HAD INTENDED.

MISHNA I.: To the following the punishment of burning applies: To one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and to a daughter of a priest who has sinned. Under the general rule of a woman and her daughter comes his own daughter, the granddaughters of his daughter and son, the daughter of his wife, her granddaughters of her daughter and her son, his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother and father-in-law.

GEMARA: The Mishna does not state a woman whose daughter he has married, but "a woman and her daughter," which seems to be that the intercourse with both of them was a sin, and this can only be with his mother-in-law and her mother. And from the expression, "Under the general rule of a woman and her daughter," it is to be assumed that both are mentioned in the Scripture, which is not so, as the mother of his mother-in-law is only inferred from an analogy. Read: If one has had intercourse with a woman whose daughter he has married. Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: It reads [Lev. xxi. 4]: "And if a man take a woman and her mother." This is concerning a legal wife and her mother. But whence do we know that the same is the case with the illegal daughter of a ravisher (referring to Deut. xxii. 28), and her granddaughters from her daughter and her son? From the analogy of the expression "incest" (zimha), which is to be found here in the verse cited and also in Lev. xviii. 17. And as there it speaks of an ordinary woman, and it is plainly mentioned the granddaughters of her son and daughter, the same is the case here (that all of them must be punished by burning).

And whence do we know that the males who have committed the crimes in question are also to be punished by burning, the same as the females? Again from the same analogy of the expression zimha. As there the verse speaks of the male perpetrator of the crime, so also in the case here we are not to make any difference in the punishment between males and females. And whence do we know that the latter generations—i.e., the daughters and the granddaughters—are to be equalized to the earlier generations—i.e., the mothers of one's father and mother-in-law? Again from the analogy of the same expression. As there the Scripture does not make any difference between the expression in verse 15, which speaks of a father with his daughter-in-law, and that of the seventeenth, which speaks of the latter generations, and at the end of which it reads: for they are near kins-"women," which refers to all of them, so here the punishment of the earlier generations is to be equalized to that of the latter. 1 The father of R. Abbin taught: Because there is no definite commandment in the Scripture concerning the daughter of a ravisher, it was necessary for the scripture to state [Lev. xxi. 9]."And if the daughter of any priest"—"esh cohn," instead of "cohen." From which we infer that, were she a legal or an illegal daughter, if he sins with her, she must be burned.

But if so, let the punishment of burning apply only to the daughter of the abuser, but not to the abuser himself, as so is the case with the daughter of a priest in which the punishment applies only to her, but not to her abuser. Said Abayi: Concerning the daughter of a priest it reads: "Her father does she profane." Exclude this case, in which the father is profaning her. Rabha, however, said: For this no verse is necessary, as it is common sense. In the case of a priest's daughter, if you have excluded her abuser from burning, he is nevertheless left under the category of choking, which applies to any one having intercourse with a married woman. But here, if you exclude the abuser from the punishment which applies to her, under what category can you put him? Should you put him under the category of those who have had intercourse with single women, who are free from any punishment, is it possible that she should be burned for this crime, and he who is the abuser of her mother and the seducer of herself should be free? Now we have had the punishment for such, but where is the warning? It is correct for both Abayi and Rabha as they infer the warning from the same which states the punishment. But according to the father of R. Abbin, whence is deduced? Said R. Ailea, from [Lev. xix. 29]: "Do not profane thy daughter, to cause her to be a prostitute." R. Jacob, the brother of R. Abha b. Jacob, opposed: Is not the verse just cited necessary to that of the following Boraitha: "Thou shalt not profane thy daughter," etc? Lest one say that it speaks of a priest who marries his daughter to a Levite or an Israelite, therefore it reads "to cause her to be a prostitute." Hence it speaks only of him who gives his daughter other than in marriage. From the "ll" in the word "techallel" (profane), instead of "tochal," which would have the same meaning, the warning in question may also be inferred. And both Abayi and Rabha, who have inferred the warning in this case from the same verse mentioning the punishment—what do they infer from the verse just cited? Said R. Mani: Him who marries his daughter to an old man, as the following Boraitha states: "You shall not profane your daughter," etc. According to R. Eliezer: He who marries his daughter to an old man is meant; and according to R. Aqiba, he who leaves his daughter unmarried until she becomes "vigaros."

R. Kahana in the name of R. Aqiba said: There is none poor in Israel, but a shrewd-wicked and he who has left his daughter unmarried until "vigaros." How is this to be understood? Is not one to be called a shrewd-wicked if he left his daughter unmarried for his own benefit, that she should do the housework until "vigaros"? Said Abayi: He means thus: There is none poorer than he who is compelled because of his poverty to leave his daughter unmarried until "vigaros," as then he is equal to a shrewd-wicked.

R. Kahana in the name of R. Aqiba said again: Be careful in your counsellor in order that you shall not listen to him who counsels you for his own benefit.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: He who marries his daughter to an old man and he who marries his minor son to a woman of age; to both the verses [Deut. xxix. 18, 19]: "In order that the indulgence of the passions may appease the thirst (for them): The Lord will not pardon him," apply.
The rabbis taught: Concerning the verse Lev. xx. 14, in which the words "him and them" are mentioned, R. Ismael and R, Aqiba differ. According to the former it means "him and one of them," and according to the latter, "him and both of them." What is the point of their differences (even R. Ismael agrees that both of them are to be punished)? Said Abayi: They differ only as to the texts from which the law is derived. According to R. Ismael, who maintains "him and one of them," it is because in Greek εν means one, and the expression in the passage is "es'-en." Hence, biblically his mother-in-law is to be burned, while her mother is inferred only rabbinically by an analogy of expression. And according to R. Aqiba both of them are meant in this verse. Hence both, biblically, are to be burned. Rabha, however, maintains that the point of their difference is an intercourse with one's mother-in-law after the death of his wife. According to R. Ismael, even then she must be burned, as in the verse cited it reads "and them," which makes no difference whether his wife is still alive or dead. And according to R. Aqiba, after the death of his wife, it is only a prohibition, but not a crime to which burning applies.

MISHNA II.: To the following, punishment with the sword applies: To a murderer and the men of a misled town. A murderer who strikes his neighbor with a stone or with an iron so that he dies; if one pressed down a person while he is in water or in fire, preventing him from coming out, until he dies—he is guilty. If, however, he pushes him into water or into fire and he was able to come out, but nevertheless dies without being prevented by him who pushed him, he is not guilty of a capital crime. If he sets a dog or a serpent upon him, he is not guilty of a capital crime. If, however, he applies the snake to his body with his hand, and it bites him to death, R. Jehudah makes him guilty of a capital crime, and the sages free him.
GEMARA: Samuel said: Why is there not mentioned in the Scripture the word "yod" concerning iron in Num. xxxv. 16, as is done concerning stones and wood in ibid., ibid. 17, 18? Because even a fragment of iron brings death. So also we have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi said: It is known to Him who created the whole world by one word, that a fragment of iron may bring death, and therefore He has not prescribed any size concerning iron. (Says the Gemara:) This is only when he pierced him with it; but if (he struck him with iron), it must be of a size to cause death. "If he presses down," etc. The first part teaches a preponderance, and so does the second. The preponderance of the first part is that, although he did not push him, but only prevented him from coming out, he is nevertheless guilty of a capital crime. And the preponderance of the second part is that, although he pushed him in, yet, so long as the victim could come out and was not prevented, he is not guilty of a capital crime. But whence do we know that one is guilty for pressing down? Said Samuel: From [ibid., ibid. 21]: "Or if in enmity he have smitten him with his hand," which means to include him who pressed him down.

There was one who urged cattle of his neighbor into the sun until they died. And Rabbini made him liable, but R. A'hal b. Rabh freed him. The former made him liable because of an a fortiori conclusion drawn from a murderer. As concerning a murderer the Scripture makes a difference between intentionally and unintentionally, between accident and premeditation, and nevertheless makes guilty the presser; and as concerning damages, where there is no difference between intentionally and unintentionally, between accident and premeditation, so much the more should a pusher be liable. And as to the reason of R. A'hal, who freed him, said R. Mesharshia: The reason of my grandfather, who freed him, is the above-cited verse: "He that smote him shall surely be put to death, for he is a murderer," meaning only in case of murder is one guilty of pressing, but not in a case of damages.

Rabha said: If one bound a person, and he died thereafter of hunger, he is not guilty of a capital crime. If, however, he bound him and put him in a sunny place, and he dies because of the sun, or he puts him in a cold place and he dies of cold, he is guilty. But if he put him in a sunny or a cold place, where there was not as yet either sun or cold, and thereafter, when it came, it caused his death, he is not guilty of a capital crime.

The same said again: If one bound a person and left him before a lion, he is not guilty of a capital crime. (Rashi explains that he could not save himself from the lion even if he were unbound. Rashi's reasons are not quite clear to us.) But if he bound him in a place where mosquitoes are abundant, he is guilty. R. Ashi, however, maintains that even in the latter case he is not guilty, as the mosquitoes which were on his body at the time he tied him, went away, and others came. Hence he did not cause his death directly.
It was taught: If one places a vat over a person and he dies from heat, or he removes the ceiling to let the cold come in, and he dies from cold-Rabha and R. Zerah—one of them makes him guilty and the other frees him. Says the Gemara: It seems that Rabha is the one who frees him, as it is in accordance with his theory. Said above: If one bound a person and he dies of hunger, he is free. On the contrary, it seems R. Zerah is the one that makes him free, as it is in accordance with his theory elsewhere: He who puts a person in a house closed from all sides so that the air cannot go out, and lights a candle, which causes his death, is guilty. Hence we see that the reason of making him liable is the lighting of the candle, and if this were not done he would be free? Nay! It may be said that the heat which caused his death began with the lighting of the candle. The same is the case with the vat-the heat began just when he turned it over him.

Rabha said again: If one pushed a person into an excavation in which a ladder stood for coming out, and someone came and removed the ladder, or even if he himself removed it after he pushed him in, he is not guilty of a capital crime, as at the time he pushed him in he was able to come out.

The same said again: If one shot an arrow at a person who wore an armor and someone removed the armor, or even if he himself removed it after he shot, he is not guilty of a capital crime, as at the time he shot the arrow it could not injure him.

And he said again: If one shot an arrow at a person who was supplied with spices which could cure the wounds from the arrow, and someone came and scattered them, or even if he himself scattered them before the arrow reached him, he is not guilty, because the victim, at the time he shot, could be healed by the spices. Said R. Ashi: According to this theory he would not be guilty if there should be spices in the market which could cure the wounds? Said R. Ahbah, the son of Rabha, to R. Ashi: How is the law if it happened that spices were brought to him after he was shot, and he did not make use of them? And he answered: In such a case the court would not overlook this, and would accept the defence to his advantage.
Rabha said again: If one throws a stone at a wall, with the intention of killing a person with it, the stone, however, killing the man only by the rebounding, he is guilty of a capital crime. In explanation of this, it was taught, e.g., ball-players—if one threw a ball with the intention of killing someone, he is to be put to death, and if it was unintentionally, he is to be exiled. Is this not self-evident? The teaching that one is to be put to death, if done intentionally, was necessary. Lest one say that such a warning was of a doubtful nature, as who could predict that the ball would kill him by rebounding so that he should be forewarned of it, he comes to teach us that he is nevertheless guilty.

R. Tachlifa of the West taught in the presence of R. Abuhu concerning those who play ball: If the ball killed one by rebounding within a distance of four ells from the wall, he is free from exile, but if it exceeded four ells, he is guilty.

Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: Let us see, how was the case! If the player was pleased with the rebounding of the ball, then let him be guilty if the man was killed even within a nearer distance (as the law of killing a man unintentionally prescribes). And if he was not pleased with the rebounding, let him be free even at a greater distance. And he answered: The greater the distance a ball rebounds, the more is the pleasure of the ball-player.

It was taught: R. Papa said: If one bound a person and turned a stream of water upon him, it is considered as if the man were killed directly by his arrow, and he is guilty of a capital crime. However, this is only when he was killed by the first stream which poured upon him; but if he dies from the continued flow, it is not considered direct killing, but only a cause of death.

The same said again: If one throws a stone on high and it swerves and kills a man, he is guilty. Said Mar. b. R. Ashi to him: Let us see what is the reason of your theory! Because the stone went by his force? But if so, the force must only be considered when it went on high; and when his force ends it should fall down vertically. But according to your theory it swerves, hence it is not by his force. It must be said, however, if this cannot be called his exact force, it may nevertheless be considered a part of his force.
The rabbis taught: If one was assaulted by ten different persons, no matter whether at once or at different times, and was killed, none of them has to suffer capital punishment, as according to the Scripture it must be known who was the cause of the death. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra, however, holds: In case the assault was made by one after the other, the last one is guilty, for he hastened his death. 1 Said R. Johanan: Both parties took their theories from one and the same passage [Lev. xxiv. 17]: "And he that taketh the life of all the soul of man." 2 The rabbis hold that all the "soul" means one is not guilty unless he takes the whole soul. And R. Jehudah holds that it means all that was as yet left of the soul.

Said Rabha: All agree that if one kills a person whose windpipe and larynx (gullet) are cut, or whose skull is fractured, he is free (for it is considered as if he had attacked a dead man). And they agree also that, if one killed a person who was struggling with death through sickness caused by Heaven, he is guilty of a capital crime. And the point of their difference in the above Boraitha is, if one killed a man who was struggling with death through sickness caused by man. According to the rabbis, it is similar to him whose windpipe, etc., are cut. But according to R. Jehudah b. Bathyra, it is similar to him who was struggling with death through sickness caused by Heaven.

A disciple taught in the presence of R. Shesheth: The above cited verse, which commences with "and a man," means if one struck a person with an article which can cause death, but the man was not entirely without life, and another came and put an end to him entirely, the latter is responsible, as the ordinary opinion is in accordance with R. Jehudah b. Bathyra.

Rabha said: If one kills a person whose windpipe and larynx are cut he is free; but if the latter killed a person, if this was in the presence of the court, he is guilty. As it reads [Deut. xiii. 6]: "And thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee." But if not in the presence of the court, but in the presence of other witnesses, he is free, as their testimony cannot be taken into consideration, because they cannot be made collusive (as their intention was to kill a man already dead). And there is a rule that such a testimony as was given by those cannot be made collusive is not considered as testimony at all.

And he said again: Although the witnesses who had testified against the man whose windpipe, etc., were cut were thereafter found collusive, they are not to be put to death; if the windpipe, etc., of the witnesses themselves were cut at the time they, testified, and thereafter they were found collusive, they are to be put to death, because of the above-cited verse. R. Ashi, however, maintains that they are not, because the witnesses who made them collusive could not be punished if their testimony were found false, as their intention was to kill men who are considered already dead.
And Rabha said again: An ox of such a kind, if he killed a person, is guilty. But if the ox was a healthy one and his owner was of that kind, he is free; because it reads [Ex. xxi. 29]: "The ox should be put to death and the owner also." And as in this case the owner is considered already dead, and the expression "he shall also be put to death," does not apply to him, we therefore do not apply to the ox the beginning of the verse. R. Ashi, however, maintains that even if the ox was of that kind, he is also free for if its owner would be such it would be free; therefore it is to be tree when it itself is of this kind. "If he set a dog or a serpent," etc. Said R. Abbah b. Jacob: If you wish to know the reason of their difference, it may be said thus: According to R. Jehudah, the venom of the serpent is always between its teeth (i.e., with the bite of the serpent the venom is injected into the body, which causes death directly) and, therefore, if he applied the serpent to the body he is to be decapitated, and the serpent is free. And according to the sages, the poisoning comes after the bite, from the venom of the serpent Hence the biting did not cause death directly, and therefore the serpent must be stoned and he who applied it is free from capital punishment.

MISHNA III.: If one strikes a person with a stone or with his fists, and he was diagnosed (by the physicians of the court) to die, and thereafter he improved, and was diagnosed to live, and then again becomes worse and dies, he is guilty of a capital crime. R. Nehemiah, however, maintains that he is free, because it is reasonable to say that he did not die directly from the blow, but from some other cause.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The lecture of Nehemiah concerning this matter was thus: It reads [Ex. xxi. 19]: "If he rise again and walk abroad upon his crutch, then shall he that smote him be acquitted." Can it be supposed that one should be put to death because he struck a person who later walks in the market, if there were not a passage which commands the contrary? We must then say that the passage means that if when he was struck he was diagnosed to die, and thereafter he improved, walked in the street, and was diagnosed to live, and then became worse and died, he is nevertheless free. What do the opponents of R. Nehemiah infer from the words "be acquitted"? That the person who struck must be kept in arrest until the outcome shall be known. R. Nehemiah, however, maintained that no verse is necessary for this, as this is to be inferred from the woodgatherer, who was arrested immediately after committing the crime. Why did not the rabbis also infer from the woodgatherer? (Moses was aware that) he was surely guilty of a capital crime, but did not know what kind of death applied to him. But concerning the murderer in question, it is not known whether he came under the category of capital punishment at all? R. Nehemiah, however, infer this from the blasphemer, of whom Moses did not know whether he came under the category of capital punishment at all, and nevertheless he was imprisoned. The rabbis, however, do not infer this from the blasphemer, as according to their opinions it was only a decision for that time, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Moses our master was aware that the woodgatherer was guilty of capital crime. As it reads (Ex. xxxi. 14]: "Everyone that defileth it shall be put to death." But he did not know what kind of death; as it reads: [Num. xv. 341: Because it had not been declared what should be done to him." Concerning the blasphemer, however, it is not so written, but "To the decision of the Lord," hence Moses was not aware whether he came under the category of death at all.

The rabbis taught: If one struck a person and he was diagnosed to die, but he nevertheless remained alive, they may free him. And if he was diagnosed to die and he improved, the sick man must be examined again, and appraisement made concerning the money which is to be collected from his smiter; and if thereafter he becomes worse and dies, he must be charged according to the second examination. So is the decree of Nehemiah. The sages, however, maintain that there is no other examination after the first. There is another Boraitha: If he was diagnosed to die, but he did not, he must be examined again. But if the first opinion was that he would live no second examination as to dying may take place (for if it happened that he dies, it is probably not from the previous blow). If, however, he was diagnosed to die, and he becomes better, the sick man must undergo an appraisement concerning money. And if thereafter he becomes worse and dies, his murderer must pay for damages and the suffering of the deceased, to the heirs from the time he was struck till his death. And this anonymous Boraitha is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who frees such from capital punishment.

MISHNA IV.: To the following, capital punishment does not apply: To one who intended to kill an animal and killed a man, an idolator and killed an Israelite, a miscarried child and killed a mature one. The same is the case with one who intended to strike another on the loins with an article which was not sufficient to cause death, but the blow was made on his heart, for which it was sufficient, and he dies; or if he intended to strike him on the heart with an article which was sufficient to cause death if striking same, but he struck the loins and the man dies, although it was not sufficient to cause death if struck on the heart or even if he intended to strike an adult with an article which was not sufficient for such, but it happened that he struck a minor and he dies, as for a minor it was sufficient; or, on the contrary, if be intended to strike a minor with an article which was sufficient for such, but not for an adult, and it happened that he struck with it an adult and he nevertheless dies. To the following, however, capital punishment does apply: To one who intended to strike a person on the loins with an article which was sufficient for this purpose, and he strikes him to death on his heart, or if he intended to strike an adult with an article which was sufficient to cause his death, but it happens that he strikes to death a minor with it. R. Simeon, however, maintains: Capital punishment does not apply even to him who intended to kill a certain person, and it happened that he killed another.

GEMARA: To which part of the Mishna belongs R. Simeon's, theory? If to the latter part only it should read: And R. Simeon frees him (i.e., him who intended to kill an adult and killed a minor). We must then say that it belongs to the first part, which states: an animal—an idolater—an Israelite—a miscarried child, etc., to which capital punishment does not apply, from which it is to be understood that if there were two resembling persons, and he intended to kill one and killed the other, capital punishment does apply. And to this R. Simeon came to say that even in such a case capital punishment does not apply. Now, let us see! If, e.g., there were Reuben and Simeon, and the murderer said, "I intend to kill Reuben and not Simeon," and finally Simeon was killed, and not Reuben—this is the case in which the first Tana and R. Simeon differ. But how is it if the murderer said, "I intend to kill one of them"; or the murderer mistook Simeon for Reuben? Does R. Simeon differ even in this? Come and hear the following Boraitha: R Simeon said: Capital punishment does not apply, unless one said, "I intended to kill so and so," and he did so. And what is his reason? [Deut. xix. 11]: "But if any man be an enemy to his neighbor and lie in wait for him," which means only when he killed the intended person. Said the disciples of Janai: And what do the rabbis say to this verse? It excludes him who throws a stone into an excavation in which men are standing without the intention of killing any particular one. Now, let us see! According to the rabbis, who apply capital punishment to him who killed one person, although he intended to kill another, the verses Ex. xxi. 22 and 23, "If men strive . . . then shalt thou give life for life," are in accordance with the explanation of R. Elazar, stated above, that the verses speak about him who intends to kill. But how should this passage be explained in accordance to Simeon's theory? In accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: "Thou shalt give life for life" means money (i.e., the value of the woman should be paid to her heirs). You say "money," but perhaps it means literally it life"? The expression here "thou shalt give," is to be explained similarly to ibid., ibid. 22: "He shall give according to the decision," etc. As there it means money, the same is the case here.

Rabha said: The following statements, taught in the school of Hiskia, correspond neither with Rabbi nor with the rabbis mentioned above. Namely: It reads [Lev. xxiv. 21]: "And he that killeth a beast shall make restitution for it, and he that killeth a man shall be put to death." As in the case of a beast there is no difference whether it was intentionally or unintentionally, by an error or by premeditation, while he was ascending or descending, he is always liable and must pay. The same is it in the latter case of a human being: there is no difference whether it was intentionally, etc.,—he is absolved from any money payment.

Now let us see what is meant by the expression "unintentionally" concerning a human being. Shall we assume, i.e., that it was done without any intention? Then it was an error, which has been already mentioned. Why, then, the repetition? You must then say that it means, if he intended to kill one and killed another person, and nevertheless it states that he is absolved from any payment. Now, if he should hold with the rabbis that such is guilty of a capital crime, then such a statement is not necessary, as there is a rule that no payment is required in a case of capital punishment. We must therefore say that it does not agree with them; nor can we say, on the other hand, that it agrees with Rabbi, as the latter requires payment, while Heskia does not.
MISHNA V.: A murderer mixed up among others—all of them are free. R. Jehudah maintains: All of them must be taken to χυφος ; (a life-long prison, to be done with as explained farther on). If it happen that the persons sentenced to deaths of different kinds, and are so mixed that it is not known who comes under this kind of death and who under another, all of them must be executed with the more lenient death, e.g., if those who are to be stoned are mixed up among those who are to be burned, according to the sages all of them must be executed by burning, as stoning is more rigorous; and according to R. Simeon all of them are to be executed by stoning, as burning is more rigorous. Said R. Simeon to the sages: Were burning not more rigorous, it would not apply to a daughter of a priest who had sinned. Answered the sages: Were stoning not more rigorous, it would not apply to a blasphemer and an idolater. If they who are to be slain by the sword are mixed among those who are to be choked, according to R. Simeon they must be decapitated, and according to the sages, they must be choked.

GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by the words, "among others"? Does it mean others who are innocent? Is it not self-evident that they are all free? And secondly, could R. Jehudah say that such are to be imprisoned? Said R. Abuhu in the name of Samuel: It speaks of a murderer who was not as yet sentenced, and was mixed among those who were already sentenced; and as the verdict of death must be rendered only in the presence of the criminal, therefore all of them are free from execution according to the rabbis. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that such cannot be entirely free, since they are murderers, and therefore, they must be taken to the kyphos.

Resh Lakish said: The Mishna does not mean human beings at all, but oxen—i.e., whether an ox which was not as yet sentenced to death was mixed among others which were already sentenced is the point of their difference. According to the rabbis the ox must be judged the same as its owner. As its owner cannot be sentenced to death if not present, the same is the case with the ox; and as he is now mixed among others, all of them are free. And R. Jehudah maintains that all of them must be taken to the kyphos.

Said Rabha: How can such an explanation be given to the Mishna? Does not a Boraitha add to this: Said R. Jose: Even if among the others was Abbah Halafta (who was known as a great man). How, then, can the Mishna be interpreted that it means other murderers or oxen? Therefore explains he: It means if, e.g., two were standing shoulder to shoulder and an arrow came out from one of them and killed a person, both of them are free. And to this R. Jose said: Even if Abbah Halafta was among the two, and it is certain that Abbah Halafta would not commit such a crime. Nevertheless, the other is free. And the saying of R. Jehudah belongs to another case, as the Mishna is not completed, and should read thus: And if an ox which was sentenced to death was mixed among other innocent oxen, they must all be stoned. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that all of them must be taken to the kyphos, and it is in accordance with the following Boraitha: If a cow has killed a human being, and thereafter gave birth, before she was sentenced to death, the offspring is valid; but if it happened after she was sentenced, the offspring is invalid. And if such were mixed among others, and even if some of the others among which it is mixed were mixed with still others, all of them must be taken to the kyphos. R. Elazar b. Simeon, however, maintains: All of them are to be brought to the court and stoned. "All who were sentenced to death," etc. Infer from this that if one is forewarned of a rigorous crime, it suffices for a lenient one. (This question was not yet solved.) Said R. Jeremiah: The Mishna speaks of a case where the criminal was warned in general; and it is in accordance to the Tana of the following Boraitha: All the crimes to which capital punishment applies, the perpetrators of them are not put to death unless there were witnesses who warned them, and unless they warned them that they were liable to die by the decision of the court. And according to R. Jehudah, only when they notified them by which kind of death they would be executed.

The first Tana, who does not require that they should be notified by which death, infers it from the case of the woodgatherer; and according to R. Jehudah, nothing is to be inferred from the case of the woodgatherer, as it was only a decision of that time. "Among those who are to be burned," etc. R. Ezekiel taught to Rami his son: If those who are to be burned were mixed among those who are to be stoned, according to R. Simeon, they are to be executed by stoning, as burning is more rigorous. Said R. Jehudah (his older son) to him: Father, do not teach so, for, according to your teaching (as "those who are to be burned were mixed among those who are to be stoned") it seems that the majority of them come under the category of stoning: Hence the reason why they are to be stoned is not because it is more lenient, but because so was it to be done with the majority. And to the question of his father: How, then, shall I teach? The answer was: As our Mishna states: If those who are to be stoned were mixed among those who are to be burned, R. Simeon said, etc. But if so, how is the latter part, "And the sages said that they are to be executed by burning, because burning is more rigorous," to be understood? Also here the reason may be that the majority who are to be executed come under the category of burning? Nay! The expression of the rabbis, "stoning is more rigorous," was not as a reason, but as an answer to R. Simeon. And it is to be explained thus: If they were mixed among those who are to be burned, it must be done with them in accordance with their majority. And your supposition to care about the minority, because we have to select for them a lenient death, does not hold good, as in reality stoning is more rigorous. Said Samuel to R. Jehudah: Genius! do not express yourself in such terms to your father, as there is a Boraitha: If a son saw his father transgressing what is written in the Scripture, he must not say to him, "Father, you have transgressed the law," but, "Father, so and so is written in the Scripture."

But is it not finally one and the same? It means he shall say: "Father, there is a verse in the Scripture which reads so and so," and in such a tone that it shall not seem a rebuke, but an intimation.

MISHNA VI.: If one committed a crime which deserves two kinds of death (e.g., one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law who is married, commits two crimes—with a married woman, to which choking applies, and with his mother-in-law, to which burning applies), he must be tried for the more rigorous one. R. Jose, however, maintains: According to that act, he began first. (Illustrations in the Gemara.)

GEMARA: Is this not self-evident? Should one who has committed another crime which brings an easier punishment be benefited by it? Said Rahba: It speaks of where he was tried for a case which deserved a lenient death, and was sentenced, and then committed a crime to which a more rigorous death applies. Lest one say that this man is to be considered as already killed and not to be tried again, it comes to teach us that he must be tried and punished with the more rigorous death.

The brother of R. Jose b. Hanna questioned Rabba b. Nathan: Whence is this law deduced? (And the answer was:) from Ezek. xviii. 10-13; " . . . Upon the mountains he eateth . . . and his eyes he lifteth up to the idols of the house of Israel . . . and the wife of his neighbor he defileth . . . " To bloodshed the sword applies, to adultery with a married woman choking applies, and to idolatry stoning applies, and it ends with "his blood shall be upon him," which means stoning. Hence he is to be executed with the more rigorous one. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak opposed: Perhaps all the crimes mentioned in this passage come under the category of stoning, namely, a "dissolute son," means a stubborn and rebellious son, to whom stoning applies; "he defileth the wife of his neighbor" means a betrothed damsel, to whom also the same applies; "to the idols he lifteth up," which is idolatry, to which stoning applies? If it were so, then what came Ezekiel to teach? And lest one say that he was only repeating what is in the Scripture, then he ought to have done as did Moses our master, who said [Deut, xvii. 18]: "He shall write the repetition of the law." 1 R. Abhah b. Hanina lectured about the passage [ibid. 6]: Upon the mountains he eateth not," which ends with [ibid. 9]: "He is righteous, he shall surely live." Is it possible that, because he has not committed such crimes, he should be called righteous? Therefore these verses must not be taken literally, but "upon the mountains he eateth not" means that he does not live upon the reward of the meritorious acts done by his parents; "his eyes he lifteth not up to the idols" means that he never walked overbearingly; "and the wife of his neighbor he defileth not," means that he never tried to compete in the special trade of his neighbor; "unto a woman on her separation he cometh not near" means that he never tried to derive any benefit from the treasure of charity—and to this it reads: "He is righteous, he shall surely live."

Rabban Gamaliel, when he came to this passage, used to weep, saying: It seems as if he who has done all of them is righteous, but not he who has done only one. Said R. Aqiba to him: According to your theory, the verse [Lev. xviii. 24]: "Do not defile yourself with all of these things," also means with all of them, but one of them is allowed? Hence it means to say with "any" of them. The same is to be said here: If one does one of the things mentioned above, he is righteous. "A crime which deserves two kinds," etc. There is a Boraitha: How is R. Jose's decision in our Mishna to be illustrated?—e.g., if the crime which he committed with this woman was that she became first his mother-in-law and then married. Hence the prohibition of having intercourse with her applied, even before she married again. Then he must be tried under the crime "with a mother-in-law." But if she became his mother-in-law after her marriage, then he must be tried under the crime "with a married woman," as the prohibition against intercourse with her existed already before she became his mother-in-law.

Said R. Adda b. Ahabah to Rabha: In the first case, in which she married after she became his mother-in-law, why should he not also be tried for the crime with a married woman? Did not R. Abuhu say that R. Jose agrees in case a prohibition were added. (E.g., when she was his mother-in-law but unmarried, she was prohibited to him only, but allowed to the whole world, and when married she became prohibited to the whole world. Hence one prohibition was added. And in such a case R. Jose agrees that the second crime must also be taken into consideration.) And Rabha answered: Adda, my son, do you want us to execute him twice? (R. Jose considers the added prohibition to be only concerning sin-offerings, when incurred through error.)

MISHNA VII.: He who receives stripes, and relaxes into the same crime, and is punished again and does not repent, the court takes him to the kyphos, and feeds him with barley until his abdomen bursts.
GEMARA: Because he received stripes twice, should the court imprison him in the kyphos forever? Said Jeremiah in the name of Resh Lakish: The Mishna speaks of crimes to which korath applies, and he was forewarned of stripes, and was punished twice for the same crime. And as this man deserves death by Heaven, but his time has not yet come, and we see that he devotes his life to sin, the court imprisons him to hasten his death. Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: Come and I will explain to you the real meaning of Resh Lakish: The Mishna means that he has committed the same crime thrice, for two of which he has received stripes. And as the court does not see any remedy for him, it puts him in the kyphos after the third time. If, however, he has committed different crimes to which korath applies, he is not taken to the kyphos, as he is not considered as devoting his life to this crime, but as one careless concerning prohibitions. "He who receives stripes twice," etc. Twice, although he was not punished a third time! Shall we assume that our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who says that until one has repeated the same crime thrice it is not considered a hazakah 1 (habit), Said Rabhina: It may be even in accordance with R. Simeon, as the crime was committed thrice, and he considers it a habit, although he was not beaten thrice.

An objection was raised from the following: He who has committed a crime twice to which the punishment of stripes applies receives the stripes twice; repeating same a third time, the court puts him in the kyphos. Abba Shaul, however, maintains that even to the third time he receives stripes, and only after he has committed the crime a fourth time does the court imprison him. Is it not to be assumed that the Tanaim of this Boraitha differ in the same point as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and Rabbi differ—namely, whether it should be considered a hazakah after two times, which is the opinion of Rabbi, or after three times, according to R. Simeon? Nay; all agree with R. Simeon. And the point of their difference is that, according to the first Tana, the crimes which were committed thrice counted, and according to Abba Shaul, the stripes, and not the crimes, are to be counted.

Where is to be found an allusion in the Scripture to the kyphos in question? Said Resh Lakish [Ps. xxxiv. 22]: "The evil will slay the wicked." And the same said again: It reads [Eccl. ix. 12] "For man also knoweth not his time, like the fishes that are caught in an evil net," from which the same is to be inferred.

MISHNA VIII.: He who kills a person, not in the presence of witnesses, is taken to the kyphos and is fed on scant bread and water.

GEMARA: But whence do we know if it was not in the presence of witnesses? Said Rabh: If there was only one witness, or even if there were two who saw this from separate places. And Samuel said: If he committed the crime without forewarning. And R. Hisda in the name of Abimi said: Even when the witnesses contradicted themselves in unimportant matters—as, e.g., a Mishna stated above. Ben Sakkai examined them concerning the size of figs, etc., and they were not contradicted in the examination. "And is fed with scant bread and water." And above it was said that he was fed with barley? Said R. Shesheth: In both cases it is meant that he was first fed with scant bread and water till his abdomen shrank, and afterwards with barley, from which it swelled till it burst.

MISHNA IX.: If one steals a kisvah, or one curses his neighbor, Invoking God as "a carver," or one has intercourse with a female heathen, zealous people (like Pinehas) have a right to strike him when caught in the act. If a priest performed the service in the Temple while he was unclean, his fellow-priests would not bring him to the court, but the youths would take him out of the sanctuary and split his head. If a common Israelite served in the Temple, according to R. Aqiba, he was choked by the court, and according to the sages he would come to his death by Heaven.

GEMARA: What is meant by "kisvah"? Said R. Jehudah: It means service vessels [cf. Num. iv. 7]. And where is there to be found an allusion to this in Scripture? [Ibid., ibid., 20]: "That they may not go in to see when the holy things are covered, and die." "Who curses," etc. R. Joseph taught: May the carver strike his carving. And another explanation by Rabah b. Mari is: May the carver strike him himself, and his creator and his creation. "One who has intercourse," etc. R. Kahana questioned Rabh: What is this punishment if there were no zealous men? Rabh forgot his traditional answer to this, and it happened that it was read before R. Kahan in a dream, etc. [Mal. ii. 11]: "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination hath been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which he loveth, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." And he came to Rabh and told him that so was it read to him, and therefrom Rabh recollected that this passage was an answer to his question, as it reads immediately after it: "The Lord will cut off, unto the man that does this, son and grandson, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that bringeth near an offering unto the Lord of hosts"—which means, if he was a scholar, that he should not have a son among the scholars or a grandson among the disciples; and if he was priest, that he should not have a son who should bring an offering, etc. Hyya b. Abuhu said: He who has had intercourse with the daughter of an idolater is considered as if he mingles himself with the idols. As it reads: "He hath married the daughter of a strange god." Has, then, an idol a daughter? Hence it means as is just mentioned above.

When R. Dimi, or Rabbin, came from Palestine, he said that the court of the Maccabees decreed: He who does so transgresses concerning the following four things: Neda (menstruation), Shif'ha (female-slave), Goiye (strangers in faith), and prostitution.

Said R. Hisda: If one comes to the court with the question, "May one take revenge on the criminal mentioned above?" his question must not be answered. And so also said Rabba b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan, and not only this, but if it should happen that Zimri were killed by Phinehas after he separated himself from Cozbi, Phinehas would be put to death for this crime. Furthermore, if Zimri, seeing that Phinehas seeks his life, were to kill him in self-protection, he would not be punished, as Phinehas would be considered a seeker of life.

It reads [Num. xxv. 5]: "Moses said to the judges of Israel," etc. The tribe of Simeon went to Zimri ben Saul and said: They (the judges) are judging cases of capital punishment, and you keep silent! What did he do? He gathered twenty-four thousand of his tribe and went to Cozbi, pleading with her to listen to him. And to her answer, "I am a princess, the daughter of a king, and my father commanded me not to listen to any one but the greatest of Israel," he said: I myself am a prince of a tribe in Israel, and I am greater than Moses, as I am from the second tribe, while he is from the third. He took her by the locks of her hair, and brought her to Moses, saying: Son of Amram, is this damsel allowed to me, or prohibited? And should you say that she is prohibited, I would ask you, Who allowed to you the daughter of Jethro? Moses, however, had forgotten the traditional Halakha, and he and all who accompanied him wept. As it reads [ibid., ibid. 6]: "And these were weeping by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

And farther on it reads: "And Phinehas saw." What did he see? Said Rabh: He saw Zimri's act, from which he recollected the traditional Halakha. And he said to Moses: Granduncle, didst thou not teach me, on thy descending from Mount Sinai, that zealous men might take revenge on him who has had intercourse with the daughter of an idolater? To which Moses answered: Let him who reads the letter be the carrier—i.e., let him who gives the advice be its executor.

Samuel, however, said: Phinehas saw [Prov. xxi. 30]: "There is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord—i.e., in a case where there is a violation of the Holy Name the honor of the master must not be considered (and therefore Phinehas did it without the consent of his master Moses).
R. Itz'hak, in the name of R. Elazar said: He saw the angel who destroyed the people. It reads: "Arose and took a javelin in his hand." From this it may be inferred that one must not enter with arms into the house of learning. He took out the javelin from its sheath, sharpened it, and replaced it in the sheath so that it should not be visible; and went to the headquarters of Simeon's tribe, saying: Whence do we know that the tribe of Levi is greater than Simeon's? And the people who were there thought: Phinehas himself is coming to do the same as Zimri has done. Hence the scholars decided that this is allowed.
Said R. Johanan: Six miracles occurred to Phinehas when he came to smite Zimri. One—Zimri has not separated himself, etc (The continuation of the Haggadah will be translated farther on.) "If a priest performed the service while he is defiled," etc. R. Ahbah b. Huna questioned R. Shesheth: Is a priest who does service, being defiled, deserving of death by Heaven, or not? And he answered: This we have learned in our Mishna: "A priest who does service in the Temple, being defiled, his fellow-priests would not bring him to court, but the youths would take him out and split his head." Now, if it should be supposed that he was guilty of death by Heaven, why did not they leave him to the heavenly punishment? Rejoined he: Do you mean to say that he was not guilty at all? Is there such a thing—that Heaven frees him and we should put him to death? Yea! Does not the court put one who is twice beaten with stripes in the kyphos and cause him to die? (What comparison is this?) Did not R. Jeremiah say that it speaks of crimes of a kind to which korath applies? Hence such an offender deserves death. But is the case not the same with him who steals a kisvah, and with the two other cases mentioned in our Mishna? To all of them it is taught that there are allusions in the Scripture implying that they deserve death, viz., concerning a kisvah [Num. iv. 20]: "That they may not go in to see when the holy things are covered, and die," concerning one cursing his neighbor, etc., it was explained by R. Joseph that it looks like blasphemy, and concerning an intercourse with a daughter of an adulterer, Rabh recollected his tradition, as said above.

An objection was raised from a Boraitha which states: And the following are liable to death by Heaven: An unclean priest who served in the Temple, etc. Hence we see that his punishment is death, R. Shesheth being objected to, and the objection remains.

The same Boraitha continues thus, The following deserve death by Heaven: One who eats grain in which the heave-offering is mixed, an unclean priest who eats a heave-offering while defiled, and a commoner who partakes of the heave-offering, a commoner who performs service in the Temple, a priest, while defiled, serving in the Temple, a priest who has had a legal bath after defilement and performs the service in the Temple before sunset, the same is if he performs the service without the prescribed dress, or he who performs service before the prescribed offering after defilement is brought, and also he who serves without the prescribed washing of his hands and feet, or he serves while drunk, or without having cut his hair at the prescribed time. However, one uncircumcised, a mourner while the corpse is not yet buried, and he who worships while sitting, do not come under the category of death by Heaven, but are only forewarned. A priest who has a blemish and he who derives benefit from the sanctuary intentionally—according to Rabbi he comes under the category of death by Heaven, and according to the sages he comes under the category of the forewarned.

Concerning heave-offering mentioned in the Boraitha, said Rabh: A commoner who partakes of heave-offering is to be punished with stripes. Said R. Kabana and R. Assi to him: Let the master say he deserves death by Heaven. And he answered: It reads [Lev. xxii. 9, 10]: "They die therefore . . . I am the Lord who sanctify them. And no stranger shall eat of a holy thing." Hence between "they will die" and "no stranger shall eat" intervenes "I am the Lord," etc., to teach that the punishment of death does not apply to a stranger. But does not the above Boraitha state that such comes under the category of punishment by Heaven? Do you want to contradict Rabh from a Boraitha? Rabh is a Tana, and has the right to differ. 1 "If a common Israelite served in the Temple," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Ismael said: It reads [Num. xviii. 7] "And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death"; and [ibid. xvii. 28] "Everyone that cometh near at all unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die." As the verse just cited speaks of death by Heaven, the same is the case with the former.

R. Aqiba, however, said: Here the Scripture says: "And die therefore"; and [Deut. xiii. 6]: "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death." And as there it means by stoning, the same is the case here. And R. Johanan b. Nuri said: As a false prophet is punished with choking, the same is the case here. What is the point of their difference? R. Aqiba holds that the expression "put to death" must be analogized with "put to death," and not "put to death" with "shall die." And R. Ismael holds that we should equalize a commoner with a commoner, and not a commoner with a prophet. According to R. Aqiba, however, a prophet who has misled is worse than a commoner.

And the point of difference between R. Aqiba and R. Johanan b. Nuri is the same wherein R. Simeon and the rabbis differ in the following Boraitha: To a prophet who has misled, stoning applies; according to R. Simeon, however, choking applies. But does not a Mishna above state (p. 239): R. Aqiba said: Choking applies. There are two Tanaim who differ concerning R. Aqiba's statement. Our Mishna mentioned R. Simeon, who said so, in accordance with R. Aqiba's theory; but the Boraitha is in accordance with the rabbis, who are of the opinion, with R. Aqiba. that choking applies.

Footnotes

223:1 It is impossible to give a literal translation of this Boraitha with even an abstract of the explanation as discussed by the Amoraim at length in the text. It is so complicated that the Amoraim themselves could not explain it without correcting the Boraitha or without giving to it an entirely strange interpretation. As was said by Rabha: "In any event, the analogy of expressions cannot be used without objections and difficulties." We therefore give a free rendering of the Boraitha, omitting the discussion.

228:1 Against our method, here are repeated a few lines from First Gate, pp. 55 and 56; but we could not do otherwise, because of the explanation in the text.

228:2 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

237:1 Leeser's translation, "a copy of the law," is entirely wrong.
239:1 See footnote, Vol. XIV., p. 217 243:1 All that is mentioned in the Boraitha cited is inferred from different passages in the Scripture by analogy of expression, followed by a discussion at length about them, which does not belong here and is therefore omitted.

CHAPTER X.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THEM TO WHOM CHOKING APPLIES. CONCERNING A REBELLING JUDGE; WHAT SHALL BE HIS CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS TO BE EXECUTED; AT WHICH PLACE AND WITH WHICH KIND OF DEATH; AND CONCERNING A FALSE PROPHET.

MISHNA I.: To the following, choking applies: To him who strikes his father or mother, to him who steals a living soul of Israel, to a judge rebelling against the Great Sanhedrin, to a false prophet, to him who prophesies in the name of an idol, to the paramour of a married woman, and to the collusive witnesses of the married daughter of a priest who has sinned, and to her abuser.

GEMARA: Whence do we know that choking applies to the smiter of his father or mother? From [Ex. xxi. 15]: "Put to death"; and wherever the Scripture mentions death without specifying what kind, choking is meant. But perhaps the verse cited means "when he kills him or her"? How can it be supposed if one who kills a stranger is executed by the sword, that he who kills his father should be executed by choking, which is more lenient? However, this is correct according to him who holds that choking is lenient; but according to him who holds that the sword is lenient, what can be said? Therefore, from [ibid., ibid. 12]: "He that smiteth a man so that he die," and from [Num. xxxv. 21]: "Smitten with his hand that he die," we infer that when it is not mentioned "that he die," it means smitten only. And it was necessary for the Scripture to write both of the following passages, namely [Ex. xxi. 12]: "He that smiteth a man so that he die," and [Num. xxxv. 30]: "Whoever it be that killeth a person (soul)," for if the first only were written, one might say that one is liable only when he kills an adult, but not a minor; and if the second only were written, one might say that one is liable even if he killed a miscarried child or one who was born in the eighth month, and therefore both are necessary.

But from the above theory it is to be understood that if one smote his father he is guilty of a capital crime even if he did not wound him. Why, then, does the succeeding Mishna state that he is not guilty unless he wounds him? This is inferred from [Lev. xxiv. 21]: "And he that smiteth a beast shall make restitution for it, and he that smiteth a man shall be put to death." 1 As concerning a beast the striker is not liable unless he makes a wound, as in ibid. 18 it reads "nefesh" (soul, blood of it), the same is the case if he smote a person—he is not guilty unless he made a wound. R. Jeremiah opposed: According to this theory, if one has made lean an animal by using it to carry stones, should he not be responsible? Therefore we must say, as verse 30 is not necessary for this case, because of verse 18, apply it to human life. If so, why the analogy? In accordance with what was taught by the school of Hiskia (above, p. 233). But this is only correct for him who agrees with the school of Hiskia. But for him who does not agree with this theory, to what purpose is the analogy? To teach that, as there is no liability if one wounds an animal for the purpose of curing it, the same is the case with a human being. A similar question was propounded by the schoolmen: May one bleed his father to cure him? R. Mathna said: From "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" it may be inferred that he may. And R. Dimi b. Henna said: It is inferred from the analogy just mentioned. As there is no liability for wounding an animal to cure, the same is the case with a human being. Rabh did not allow his son to take out a string from his finger, lest he might wound him unintentionally, which is prohibited for one to do to his father; and Mar b. Rabhina did not allow his son to open for him a wound, for the same reason.

R. Shesheth was questioned: May a son be a messenger from the court to punish his father with stripes, or to put him under the ban? 2 Said Rabba b. R. Huna: And so also was it taught by the school of R. Ismael: Concerning all the crimes mentioned in the Torah, the court must not appoint the son of the criminal to strike, to curse his father, etc., except in the case of a seducer, about whom it reads [Deut. xiii. 9]: "Nor shall thy eye look with pity on him," etc.
MISHNA II.: A son is not guilty of a capital crime unless he wounds his father by striking him. Cursing is in one respect more rigorous than striking, as for the latter one is guilty when done to his living father only, and for the former he is guilty even if he did it after his father's death.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [Lev. xx. 9]: "His father and mother has he cursed," which means even after his death. And this is repeated only for this purpose, lest one say that one is guilty for striking his father and for cursing him. Hence, as the former applies to a living father only, the same is the case with the latter. But this is correct only for R. Jonathan, as according to him the verse just cited is superfluous; but for R. Jashiah, who uses this verse for inferring father or mother (above p. 192), whence does he deduce the above statement? From [Ex. xxi. 17]: "And he that curseth his father," etc. But let the Mishna state that in another respect striking is more rigorous than cursing, as concerning the former one is guilty if he did so to his father even if he were of another faith, which is not the case with cursing (according to the opinion of some Tanaim). The Tana of our Mishna holds that cursing is compared to striking even in the latter case; i.e., one is also guilty if he curses his father who is of another faith.

Shall we assume that the Tanaim of our Mishna differ in the same way as the Tanaim of the following Boraithas, one of which states: If one's father was a Samaritan, he is forewarned against striking him, but not against cursing; and the other states: He is forewarned neither against striking nor against cursing? The schoolmen who learned these Boraithas thought: Both Boraithas agree that at the beginning the Samaritans were true proselytes (this refers to II. Kings, vii. 23-34), but at that time they were decadent. Hence the point of their difference is that, according to one Boraitha, striking is equal to cursing, and according to the other it is not? Nay! All agree that they are not equal, consequently the point of their difference is, whether the ancient Samaritans were true proselytes, or only embraced Judaism from fear of the lions. Hence they were not considered Israelites at all, but heathens.

MISHNA III.: If one steals a person, he is not guilty of a capital crime, unless he brings him upon his own premises. R. Jehudah, however, said: One is not guilty for only bringing him upon his premises, but after he used him for work. As it reads [Deut. xxiv. 7]: "And he treateth him as a slave."
If one steals his own son and sells him, R. Ismael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, makes him guilty; the sages, however, free him. If one steals a person who is half free and half slave, i.e., a slave of two owners, one of whom has freed him, R Jehudah makes him guilty, and the sages free him.

GEMARA: And the first Tana of our Mishna does not require any work (notwithstanding that so it is written in the Scripture)? Said R. Ahbah b. Rabha: They differ if he worked with him to the value of less than a perutha. (According to the first Tana he is guilty, and according to R. Ismael he is not.)

R. Jeremiah questioned: How is the law if one steals a person while asleep and sells him in this condition, or if he stole a pregnant woman for the purpose of selling her embryo, is it considered treating as a slave, or, because he has not done it in the usual manner, is it not so considered? Usual manner! Let him say that there was not any kind of slavery at all? He speaks of when he used the sleeping one as a support and the pregnant woman as a protection against the wind (and as she is more stout because of the embryo, the protection is stronger). And to this was the question: "Is it considered slavery, or, because it was in an unusual manner, is it not? This question is now decided.

The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxiv. 7]: "If a man be found stealing any one of his brethren of the children of Israel." From this we know only concerning a male, but whence do we know concerning the stealing of a female? It reads [Ex. xxi. 16]: "And he that stealeth a man—whatsoever. However, from both verses we know about a man who stole either a male or a female. But whence do we know that the same is the case when a woman steals a male or female? As to this, it reads in the verse above cited: "Then shall that thief die," meaning what person soever.

There is another Boraitha: The verse just cited means that there is no difference whether he stole a male or a female, a proselyte, or a bondsman who was freed, or a minor. However, if he stole him and did not sell him, or even if he sold him, but he is still on his own premises, he is not condemned to capital punishment. If he sold him to the father or brother of the stolen one, or to some one else of his relatives, capital punishment does apply. However, for stealing slaves it does not. This Boraitha was repeated by one of the disciples before R. Shesheth, and he rejoined: I teach: R. Simeon said: It reads: "From his brethren," which means that he is not guilty unless he took him out from the control of his brother. And you teach: He is guilty of a capital crime if he sold him to his father or brother.

Go and teach that he is free. (Says the Gemara:) And what is the difficulty? Why not say that the Boraitha is in accordance with the rabbis? This cannot be supposed, as there is a rule that all the anonymous Mishnayoth are in accordance with R. Mair, anonymous Tosephtas in accordance with R. Nehemiah, anonymous Siphra in accordance with R. Jehudah, and anonymous Siphri in accordance with R. Simeon. And all of them are after R. Aqiba's instructions. And the Boraitha above cited is to be found in Siphri. "If one stole his own son," etc. What is the reason of the rabbis, who free him? Said Abayi: It reads [Deut. xxiv. 7]: "If a man be found 'stealing,'" which means to exclude him who is often with him. Said R. Papa to Abayi: According to your theory [ibid. xxii. 22]: "If a man be found lying with a woman," etc., is also to be explained to exclude him who is often with her; e.g., in the house of so and so, which is crowded, and men and women are often together—should one not be liable for adultery? And he answered: I call your attention to [Ex. xxi. 16]: "And he will be found in his hand" (which is not the case with a father, whose son is usually in his hand). Said Rabha: According to this theory, teachers of schoolchildren and masters with their disciples are considered often together, and if it happened that one of the masters stole one of the children, he is free from capital punishment. "Half a slave," etc. There is a Mishna (First Gate, p. 193): R. Jehudah says that there is no disgrace for slaves. And ibid. 195 (q.v.), the reason of R. Jehudah is given from [Deut. xxv. 11]. However, what would be his reason here? Thus: "From his brethren" means to exclude slaves; "children of Israel" means to exclude a half slave; "of the children of Israel" means again an exclusion, and means to exclude the same. And there is a rule that an exclusion after an exclusion comes to add. Hence a person who is half slave and half free is added to those for whom guilt is incurred. The rabbis do not hold his theory that "of his brethren" means to exclude slaves, as a slave is also considered a brother who is obliged to perform all the commandments which are obligatory on a woman. Hence, according to them, "children of Israel" means to exclude a slave, and "of the children of Israel" means to exclude half a slave and half a free man. But whence do we know about the forewarning of stealing a person of Israel? According to R. Jashiah: From [Ex. xx. 13]: "Thou shalt not steal." And according to R.

Johanan: From [Lev. xxv. 42]: "They shall not be sold as bondmen are sold." And they do not differ, as one master counts the negative commandment of stealing, and the other the negative commandment of selling.

The rabbis taught: "Thou shalt not steal," in the third commandment, means human beings. But perhaps it means simply money? It may be said: Go and learn it from the thirteen methods by which the Torah is to be explained, one of which is that a word or (passage) is to be explained from its connection or from what follows, 1 and as the connection of this passage speaks of human beings, you must explain also that "stealing" applies to human beings. There is another Boraitha: It reads [Lev. xix. 11]: "Ye shalt not steal," meaning money. You say money, but perhaps it means human beings? Go and learn it from the thirteen methods, etc., one of which is that a word or (passage) is to be explained from what follows. And as the continuation of this passage is concerning money [ibid. 13] so also stealing is to be explained as meaning money.

It was taught: If there were two parties of witnesses, and one party testified that one stole a human being and the other testified that he sold him, and thereafter one of the parties, or both, were found collusive, they are not to be put to death, according to Hiskia. According to R. Johanan, however, they are. Hiskia's reason is that he holds in accordance with R. Aqiba, who used to say (Last Gate, p. 135): A case, but not half a case. And R. Johanan is in accordance with the rabbis, who said: Even for half a case. R. Papa, however, said, concerning the witnesses of selling: All agree that they are to be put to death. But the point of their difference is concerning the witnesses of the stealing. According to Hiskia they are not to be put to death, because stealing and selling are two separate crimes. R. Johanan, however, is of the opinion that the stealing is the beginning of the selling. The latter, however, agrees that the first witnesses concerning a stubborn and rebellious son are not to be put to death if found collusive, as they could say: Our intention was only that he should be punished with stripes, as it is said above that the son in question is not put to death unless he first received stripes.
Said Abayi: There are three cases concerning a stubborn and rebellious son. In two of them all agree, and in one of them they differ. Namely, concerning the first witnesses in this case, all agree that they are not to be put to death if collusive, as they could say: Our intention was only that he should receive stripes. And their claim must be taken into consideration. And also all agree concerning the second witnesses of same, that they are to be put to death, as the first witnesses are considered as concerning stripes only. Hence the second witnesses only would be the cause of death to the criminal son, if they were not collusive; and they have done the whole case even according to R. Aqiba, who requires the whole, and not half a case.

And the third case in which they differ is, if there were two parties of witnesses, one of which testifies: "In our presence he stole," and the other testified: "In our presence he consumed." And as the law regarding the criminal son dictates that he is not to be put to death unless he stole from his father and consumed on the premises of strangers, both things depend on each other. Hence according to R. Aqiba each of the parties has done only half a case. And if one or both were found collusive, they cannot be put to death for half a case; and according to the rabbis they can, as they make one guilty for half a case.
MISHNA IV.: A judge rebelling against the Great Sanhedrin (to whom, as stated in the first Mishna of this chapter, choking applies) is commanded in the Scripture as in Deut. xvii. 8-13. There were in Jerusalem (at the time of the Temple) three courts: one was situated at the gate of the Temple Mount (this was the east gate, inside of the surrounding wall, preceding the women's court); and another was situated after the women's court, but preceding the court of the common Israelites; and the third one was situated in the Temple treasury for congregational sacrifices. And in case a judge in the country had a dispute about the law with his colleagues, as to which the Scripture commands to bring their case before the court in Jerusalem, they came to the first court, situated at the above-mentioned gate. And the judge in question related his case before the court: I have lectured thus and thus, and my colleagues have lectured otherwise—thus and thus. I have taught in accordance with my lecture so and so, and my colleagues so and so. And if this court were able to decide it traditionally, they rendered their decision; and if not, they came before the other court, explaining the same again. If this court were able to decide it traditionally, they rendered their decision; and if not, all of them came to the Great Sanhedrin, which was in the Temple treasury, from which the law proceeds to all Israel, wherever found. As it reads [ibid., ibid. 10]: "From that place which the Lord will choose, and thou shalt observe to do according to all that may instruct thee." Then if the judge returns to his own city and continues his lectures as before, he is not culpable. If, however, he gives his decision for practice, he is subject to capital punishment. As it reads [ibid., ibid. 12]: "And the man that will act presumptuously," etc., which means that he is not culpable unless he decides for practice.

A disciple who is not a judge, who decides for practice against the decision of the Great Sanhedrin, is not culpable. Hence the rigorousness which lies upon him, not to give his decision in any law (until he shall be forty years of age), becomes lenient concerning the punishment.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [ibid., ibid. 8]: "khi j'pola," literally, "if it will wonder." Hence the passage speaks of the wonder (prime) judge of the courts. "Mimcho"—from thee," means a counsellor. As it reads [Nahum, i. 11]: "There is gone forth (mimcho) out of thee he that devised evil against the Lord, the counsellor of infamous things." "Dabhor"—"a matter," means a Halakha; L'michphat means a decision of money matters. "Between blood and blood" means blood of menstruation and the blood of purification after birth (referring to Lev. xii. 4) or blood of infliction. "Between plea and plea" means criminal and civil cases and cases of stripes; "Between lepers and lepers"—bodily leprosy, leprosy of houses, of dress, etc.; "matters"—excommunications, appraisement of things belonging to the sanctuary; "controversy"—a thing which came from a controversy between a husband and wife (ref. to Num. v. 11-25); breaking the neck of the heifer (Deut. xxi.)—the purification of men who were afflicted with leprosy; "within thy gates"—about gathering grain of the poor, forgetters of sheaves and peah (corner tithe); "shalt thou arise"—from thy court. "Get thee up" infer from this that the Temple was the highest building in all Jerusalem, and the land of Israel was situated higher than all other countries. "Unto the place"—infer from this that the place is the cause of the situation of the high court.

The rabbis taught: A rebelling judge is not guilty unless he gave his decision in a matter to which, if done intentionally, korath applies; and if unintentionally, a sin-offering. So is the decree of R. Mair R. Jehudah said: As to a matter of which the source is to be found in the Scripture, and the interpretation is by the scribes. R. Simeon, however, maintains: Even as to one observation of the many observations of the scribes.

Said R. Huna b. Hinna to Rabha: Can you explain to me this Boraitha which has enumerated all the cases inferred from Deut. xvii. 8, in accordance with R. Mair's decree? And Rabha said to R. Papa: Go and explain it to him. And he explained thus: The Boraitha which states a counsellor, means him who is able to establish leap years and to appoint the days of the month. And a difference of opinions may cause the eating of leavened bread on Passover; namely, according to some a leap year may be established during the whole month of Adar, and according to others only until Purim. Hence if the law is in accordance with one of them, and it was done to the contrary, people would eat leaven on Passover.

The Halakha which is mentioned in the same Boraitha means the difference of opinion between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish concerning the tenth day of menstruation—whether it is still to be counted menstruation blood or of infliction (explained in Tract Nidda, 72b). Criminal cases means the case concerning the daughter of a coercer mentioned above. Concerning blood of menstruation, Akabia b. Mahalalel and the rabbis differ (Nidda, 19a). Concerning blood of purification, Rabh and Levi differ (ibid. 35b). Concerning blood of infliction, R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua differ (ibid. 36b). Concerning civil cases, Samuel and R. Abuhu differ (above, p. 7).

Concerning criminal cases, Rabbi and the rabbis differ (above, p. 3); stripes, R. Ismael and the rabbis differ (in the first Mishna of this tract); leprosies, R. Jehoshua and the rabbis differ (Nidda, 19b); leprosy of houses, R. Elazar b. Simeon and the rabbis differ (above, p. 4); leprosy of dresses, Jonathan b. Abtulmes and the rabbis (Nidda, 19a); appraisement of men, R. Mair and the rabbis (Arachin, 5a); excommunications, Jehudah b. Bathyra and the rabbis (ibid. 28b); sanctification, Eliezer b. Jacob and the rabbis (above, p. 32); controversies concerning a woman who is suspected by her husband, R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua (Sota, 2a); breaking the neck of the heifer, R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba (ibid. 45b); purification of leprosy, R. Simeon and the rabbis (above, p. 137); gathering, the schools of Shamai and Hillel (Tract Negaim, XIV. 9); forgotten sheaves (the same, ibid., ibid.); peah, R. Ismael and the rabbis (Themura, 6a).

(And of all of them, the sources are in the Scripture and the explanation is by the scribes.) "There were three courts," etc. Said R. Kahana: If he says, "I have it from a tradition," and they (the Great Sanhedrin) also say the same, he is not put to death. And the same is the case if he says: So is it according to my opinion; and they also say: According to our opinion. And so much the more if he says: I have it from a tradition; and they say: So is it according to our opinion. And only when they say: We have it from a tradition; and he says: According to my opinion it is the contrary—then (if he gives his decision for practice) he is put to death. And an evidence in support of this is that Akabia b. Mehalalel, who decided against the Great Sanhedrin, was not killed.

R. Elazar, however, maintains that even if he says, "I have it from a tradition," and they say, "So it is according to our opinion," he is put to death, for the reason that quarrels should not increase in Israel. And your evidence from Akabia b. Mehalalel does not hold good, as he was not killed because his decision was not for practice. An objection was raised from our Mishna: I have lectured, etc. Does not the latter expression mean that he taught so from a tradition? Nay! "I taught so because of my opinion, and they taught so from a tradition."

Come and hear another objection: R. Jashiah said: The following three things I was told by Zeerah, one of the citizens of Jerusalem: A husband who has sacrificed his claim against his wife, it is considered (and his wife is not to be brought to the court); and the same is the case if the parents of a stubborn and rebellious son have sacrificed their claim; and the same is it also if the high court were willing to sacrifice their honor in the case of a rebelling judge. And when I came to my brethren in the South, they yielded to me concerning the first two, but not concerning the third—for the reason that quarrels should not be increased in Israel. Hence the reason as to a rebelling judge is not to increase quarrel, and there is no difference whether he says, "I have it from a tradition" or "from my own opinion." This objection remains.
There is a Boraitha: R. Jose said: Formerly there was no quarrel in Israel, but a court of seventy-one was situated in the Temple treasury, and two courts of twenty-three sat at the gate of the Temple Mount and at the gate of the common Israelites; and the same courts of twenty-three were established in every city of Israel; and if there was a matter of difference concerning which it was necessary to inquire, they used to bring it before the court of their own city. And if they were able to decide from a tradition, they did so; and if not, they brought it to the court of a near-by city; and if also they could not decide it, they brought it before the court which was at the gate of the Temple Mount, and thereafter to that of the common Israelite, and he related to them: So have I lectured, etc., and so have I taught, etc. And if they had any tradition concerning this, they explained it; and if not, all of them came before the court of the Temple treasury, in which the judges sat from the morning daily offering until that of the evening on week days. And on Sabbaths and on holidays they used to take their place in the chamber of the surrounding wall, and the question was laid before them. If they could decide it, they did so; and if not, they stood up to vote, and their decision was according to the majority. However, since the disciples of Shamai and Hillel who had not accomplished their study increased in number, quarrels were increased in Israel, and it seemed as if the law came from two different lawgivers.

From the court of the Great Sanhedrin they used to write and send to all the cities of Israel: Whosoever is wise, modest, and is liked in the eyes of his people may be a judge in his own city. And thereafter, if he deserved it, he was advanced to the court at the gate of the Temple Mount; and farther on, until he reached to be a member in the court of the Temple treasury.
A message was sent from Palestine: Who is the man who has surely a share in the world to come? He who is modest, bends his head when he goes in, and the same when he goes out; is always studying the Torah, and does not become proud thereof. And the rabbis gave their attention to R. Ula b. Abba (who possessed all these qualifications). "Returned to his own city," etc. The rabbis taught: He is not guilty unless he himself practised according to his decision; or, he decided so for others, and they practised. it is correct when he so decided for others, etc., as if he did so before he was not subject to a capital punishment. But if he himself has done according to his decision, he is guilty even before he goes to the higher courts? Previously, if he gave a good reason for his decision, it would be accepted; but after he came from the court, no longer is any reason accepted.
MISHNA V.: The punishment of him who transgresses the decision of the scribes is more rigorous than for that which is plainly written in the Scriptures, e.g., if one says, "I do not see any commandment in the Torah about tephyilin (phylacteries)," with the intention of transgressing that which is written concerning them (i.e., giving another interpretation to Deut. vi. 8, etc.), he is free. However, if he (the rebelling judge) should decide that the phylacteries must contain five Totaphoth (portions), instead of the four enacted by the scribes, he is guilty.

GEMARA: Said R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshia: One is not considered a rebelling judge unless he decides upon a thing the sources of which are in the Scripture and the explanation is by the scribes, and there is something to add. However, if it is added, it harms the whole matter; and we cannot find such a thing in the whole Scripture but phylacteries, according to E. Jehudah (who maintains the four portions in question are to be attached one to the other 1).

MISHNA V.: (The judge in question) was not put to death by the court of his own city, and also not by the court of the great Sanhedrin which was established temporarily in the city of Jamnia, but was brought to the supreme council in Jerusalem, kept in prison until the feast days, and executed on one of the feast days. As it reads [Deut. xvii. 13]: "And all the people shall hear and be afraid." So R. Aqiba. R. Jehudah, however, maintains that he must not be tortured by postponing the execution, but must be put to death immediately after being sentenced; and messengers were sent out to all the inhabitants of Israel that the judge so and so was sentenced and executed by the court for such and such a crime.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught concerning what was said by R. Aqiba mentioned in our Mishna: R. Jehudah rejoined: Does the Scripture read: "The people shall see and be afraid?" It reads: "They shall hear and be afraid." Why, then, should this man be tortured? Therefore I say that he is executed immediately, and messengers are sent out to notify the people.

The rabbis taught: The following four crimes must be heralded—of a seducer, a stubborn and rebellious son, a rebelling judge, and collusive witnesses. Concerning the first three it reads: "All the people of Israel (shall hear and be afraid)." And concerning collusive witnesses it reads [Deut. xix. 20]: "And those who remain shall hear"—because not all of Israel are qualified to be witnesses.

MISHNA VI.: A false prophet who is to be sentenced by the court is only he who prophesies what he (personally) has not heard and what he was not told at all. However, he who does not proclaim what he was told to do, or did not listen to another prophet, or he who acted against what he himself was instructed by Heaven, his death depends upon Heaven. As it reads [ibid. xviii. 19]: "I will require it from him."

He who prophesied in the name of an idol, saying, "So and so was said by such and such an idol," although it corresponds exactly with the Hebrew law, he is punished by choking. The same was the case with him who had intercourse with a married woman, as soon as she comes under the control of her husband, even before she has had intercourse with him. The same punishment applies to the collusive witnesses of the married daughter of a priest, and also to her abuser, there is a difference between this case and all other cases of collusive witnesses, who are to be punished with the same death which would apply to the accused if it were true; and also between the adulterer in this case and other adulterers to whom the death of those abused applies.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Concerning prophecy, there are three who are to be sentenced by the court; viz., he who prophesies what he has not heard, he who prophesies what was not said to him, and he who prophesies in the name of an idol. And there are three whose death is by Heaven; viz., he who does not proclaim his prophecy, he who acts against what he was told by another prophet, and he who acts against his own prophecy.

Whence is this deduced?' Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It reads [Deut. xviii. 20]: "But the prophet who may presume to speak a word in my name" means him who has prophesied what he has not heard; "which I have not commanded him"—although it was commanded to his colleague. "Or who may speak in the name of other gods" means in the name of any idol. "That prophet shall die" means by choking, as choking applies to all the deaths which are mentioned in the Scriptures without specifying which. And the other three above mentioned are inferred from the preceding verse [19]: "A man who will not hearken," etc.—which is to be understood both of him who does not make the people hear it and him who himself does not listen to it—which ends: "I will require it of him." (Now the illustrations.) He who prophesies what he has not heard—e.g., Zedekiah ben Kenaanah, of whom it is written [II. Chron. xviii. 10]: "Made himself horns of iron," etc. But why was he guilty? Did not the spirit of Naboth make him err? As it reads [ibid., ibid. 19 to 21]: "And the Lord said, Who will persuade Achab, the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then came forth a spirit, and placed himself before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth and I will become a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and also prevail; go forth and do so." And to the question: What spirit? R. Johanan said: The spirit of Naboth Haisraeli. And what is meant by "go forth"? R. Jehudah said: Go outside of the fence of my glory (as a liar must not remain in it, hence it was not Zedekiah's fault, as he was deceived by the spirit)? He ought to have given his attention to what was said by R. Itz'hak: The sense of a divine oracle is given by Heaven to many prophets equally; the language, however, by the prophets cannot be identical even in two of them, as each prophet expresses it in his own language—e.g. [Jer. xlix. 16]: "Thy hastiness hath deceived thee—the presumption of thy heart"; and [Ob. i. 3]. "The presumption of thy heart hath beguiled thee." Here, however, it reads [II. Chron. xviii. 11]: "And all the prophets so prophesied, saying, Go up against Ramoth-gilead," etc.

Hence, as all prophesied in identical language, he ought to have known that it was not a true prophecy. But perhaps Zedekiah did not know what was said by R. Itz'hak? There was Jehoshaphat, who told him that. As it reads [ibid., ibid. 6]: "Is there not a prophet of the Eternal besides?" And to the question of Achab: Are not all these, who prophesy in the name of the Lord, sufficient? Jehoshaphat answered: I have a tradition from my grandfather's house that the sense of a divine oracle is given by Heaven, etc. And here I hear the same version from all of them.

He who prophesies what was not said to him—e.g., Chananyah ben Azzur, who said [Jer. xxviii. 2]: "Thus hath said the Lord . . . I have broken the yoke." And this was only by an a fortiori conclusion, drawn from what was said by Jeremiah [ibid. 49]: "Thus hath said the Lord . . . behold, I will break the bow of Elam." And his a fortiori conclusion was thus: Elam, who came only to assist the king of Babylon, should be broken; the king of Babylon, who himself came to destroy the kingdom of Judah, so much the more should be broken. [Said R. Papa to Abayi: But this illustration does not correspond, as such a prophecy was not given to anyone? And he answered: For if such an a fortiori conclusion were to be drawn, it is equal to its having been said to some one else; however, it was not said to him directly.] He who prophesied in the name of an idol—e.g., the prophets of Baal.

He who does not proclaim the prophecy—e.g., Jonah b. Amitthai. He who does not listen to what he was told by another prophet—e.g., the colleague of Michah; as its reads [I. Kings, xx. 35, 36]: "And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his companion, by the word of the Lord, Smite me, I pray thee. But the man refused to smite.

Then said he unto him, Forasmuch as thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord . . . " And a prophet who acted against that wherein be himself was instructed by Heaven—e.g., Edah the prophet, of whom it is written [ibid. xiii. 9]: "For so was it charged me by the word of the Lord"; and [ibid., ibid. 18]: "And he said unto him, I also am a prophet like thee." And farther on it is written [19]: "So he returned with him," ending [34]: "And when he was gone, a lion met him on the way and slew him." [A disciple taught in the presence of R. Hisda: He who does not proclaim the prophecy he was told has to receive stripes. And R. Hisda said to him: Should one who ate dates from a sieve receive stripes? Who warned him? And Abayi said: His colleagues, the prophets. And whence did they know this?

Said Abayi: From [Amos, iii. 7]: "For the Lord Eternal will do nothing, unless he have revealed his secret unto his servants the prophets." But perhaps the decree was changed by Heaven? If it were so, all the prophets would be notified. But was not such the case with Jonah, who was not notified that the decree was changed? There was the prophecy: Nineveh will be overthrown, which had two meanings, to be destroyed, and also to be turned over from evil to righteousness, and he did not understand the real meaning. "Who does not listen to another prophet." But whence is one aware that he is a true prophet, that he should be punished? In case he gives him a sign. But was not Michah, who was punished for not listening to the prophet (as said above), although he did not give any sign? With him who has long been recognized as a true prophet it is different.

For if the case were not so, how could Isaac have trusted his father that his prophecy was a true one, since such a commandment was never before heard, and also no sign was given by Abraham. And also, bow could they rely upon Elijah, who commanded them to sacrifice outside of Jerusalem, which was prohibited by the Scripture? Hence, because they were recognized prophets, one must listen to them in any event. 1 The rabbis taught, concerning what was taught by rabbis (above, p. 151) as to a prophet who had misled, to whom stoning applies according to the rabbis, and choking according to R. Simeon: Said R. Hisda: The point of their difference is in case one removed the whole portion of the Scripture concerning idolatry, saying: I was so commanded by Heaven. Or even if he said: To perform some of its worship and to abolish the rest.

But if he removed a portion which speaks concerning other commandments, all agree that choking applies. And if he told to perform some of them and abolish the others, he is free according to all. R. Hamnuna, however, said: The point of their difference is if he removed a portion of any commandment, be it concerning idolatry or some other; and also in performing some worship of idolatry and abolishing the rest. As it reads: "From the way"—which means even a part of it. But if he prophesied as to performing some of the commandments and abolishing the others, all agree that he is free.

The rabbis taught: If one commands by prophecy to remove a commandment from the Scripture, he is guilty; but if to abolish some of it, and perform the remainder, R. Simeon frees him. However, concerning idolatry, even if he commands "To-day worship," and on the morrow to abolish it, all agree that he is guilty. Hence it contradicts the explanations of both R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna? Abayi, who holds with R. Hisda, explained the Boraitha just cited: According to his theory-viz., if one commands by prophecy to remove a commandment from the Scripture—all agree that be is to be choked. "As to performing some," etc., R. Simeon makes him free, and the same do the rabbis. But concerning idolatry, even if he said: "To-day worship," and on the morrow to abolish, he is subject to a capital punishment—according to the rabbis by stoning, and according to R. Simeon by choking. Rabha, however, who holds with R. Hamnuna, explains according to his theory thus: He who commands by prophecy to remove, etc., either concerning idolatry or some other commandment, is subject to a capital punishment—each of the masters according to his opinion. "As to performing some," etc., R. Simeon makes him free, and so also do the rabbis. Concerning idolatry, however, even if he says: "To-day," etc., he is guilty accordingly—each of the masters according to his opinion.

R. Abuhu in the name of R. Johanan said: In every case mentioned in the Torah, if a true prophet commands you to transgress, you may listen, except as to idolatry, when you must not listen, even if he were to stop the sun for you, as was done by Joshua.
R. Jose the Galilean said: "There is a Boraitha! The Torah foreshadowed the final mind of idolatry and therefore gave force to it, for the purpose that one should not listen to him who commands to commit it, even if he were to stop the sun for him in the middle of the sky. Said R. Aqiba: God forbid that the sun should be stopped for them who are acting against His will. But it means even, e.g., Hananiah b. Azzur, who was a true prophet when he began to prophesy, and became a false one only afterwards. "Collusive witnesses of the married daughter of a priest," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said Abhah b. R. Ika: From the following Boraitha: R. Jose said: Why is it written: "Then shall ye do unto him . . . unto his brother." (Would it not be sufficient if it should read: "As he purposed to do"?) Because all who are to be put to death biblically, their collusive witnesses and their abusers are punished with the same, except in the case of the married daughter of a priest, where she is to be burned, but not her abuser, who is to be choked. However, concerning her collusive witnesses, it would not be known whether they were to be equalized to him or to her? Therefore the expression, "unto his brother," which means, not unto his sister.

END OF TRACT SANHEDRIN, PART I. (HALAKHA), AND OF VOL. VII. (XV.).

Footnotes

246:1 Lesser's translation does not correspond.

246:2 A discussion at length about this matter is omitted from the text, as most of the objections and answers are already translated, or will be translated in their proper places. Here, however, it is of no importance at all, as the question is solved by Rabha without any objection or opposition.

250:1 "We refer the reader for the real meaning of this method to Mielziner's "Introduction to the Talmud" (par. No. 50 of page 174).

256:1 For the explanation of this passage we published a book, "Ursprung und Entwickelung des Phylacterien Ritus bei den Juden" (Pressburg, 1883), in which it is explained thoroughly. It is remarkable that the chief commentator of the Talmud (Rashi) does not give any sensible explanation hereon, other than that he dislikes the interpretation mentioned in our text in parentheses, and he would say that the expression, "according to R. Jehudah," means what was said by him elsewhere—that one is not guilty unless the matter discussed contains a study which relies upon the teaching of the sages how to practise. Thosphat remarks that R. Oshia, the author of this saying, ignores all that was inferred from Deut. xvii. 8, said above, without any other explanation. All the other commentators, however, keep silent.

Our book, mentioned above, is written in the language of the Talmud, and the very essence of this strange passage is that this Mishna was written after the Jewish Christians began to add to the four portions of the Scripture (viz.: Ex. xiii. 1-10; ibid., ibid. 11-17; Deut. vi. 4-9; and ibid. xi. 13-21) the first portion of John in the New Testament. For the sources from which we establish that so was the custom of the Jewish Christians in the first centuries, A.C., we refer to the above-mentioned book, and also to our little book, "The History of Amulets, Charms, and Talismans," published in English (New York, 1893).

260:1 Here are also some Haggadas, which we transfer to the Haggadic chapter.

VOLUME VIII. (XVI.)—TRACT SANHEDRIN.

PART II.—(HAGGADA.)

CHAPTER XI.

THE HAGGADIC PART ABOUT RESURRECTION; SHARES IN THE WORLD TO COME; AND ABOUT THE MESSIAH, ETC.

MISHNA I.: All Israel has a share in the world to come. As it reads [Is. lx. 21]: "And thy people-they will all be righteous, for ever shall they possess the land, the sprout of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may glorify myself." The following have no share in the world to come: He who says that there is no allusion in the Torah concerning resurrection, and he who says that the Torah was not given by Heaven, and a follower of Epicurus R. Aqiba added, him who reads books of the Hizunim and him who mumbles over a wound, reciting the verse [Ex. xv. 26]: "I will put none of those diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for I the Lord am thy physician." Abba Shaul said: Also he who speaks out the Holy Name with its vocals. 1 Three kings and four commoners have no share in the world to come. The three kings are Jeroboam, Achab, and Menasseh. R. Jehudah, however, said: Menasseh has a share in the world to come. As it reads [II. Chron. xxxiii. 13]: "And he prayed unto him and he permitted himself to be entreated by him, and heard his supplication and brought him back to Jerusalem unto his kingdom." And he was answered: He was returned to his kingdom, but not to the world to come. The four commoners are Bileam, Doeg, Achitopel, and Gechazi.
GEMARA: Is he who does not believe that the resurrection is hinted at in the Torah such a criminal that he loses his share in the world to come? It was taught: He denies resurrection therefore he will not have a share in it, as punishment corresponds to the deed; for all retributions of the Holy One, blessed, be He, are in correspondence with man's doing. And R. Samuel b. Na'hmani in the name of R. Jonathan said: Whence do we know that so it is? From [II. Kings, vii. 1, 2]: "Then said Elisha, Hear ye the word of the Lord: Thus hath said the Lord, About this time to-morrow a seah of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two seahs of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. Then answered the lord of the king, on whose hand he used to lean, the man of God, and said, Behold will the Lord make windows in the heavens, that this thing shall be? And he said, Behold, thou shall see it with thy eyes, but thereof shalt thou not eat." And this chapter ends [ibid. 20]: "And it happened unto him so; for the people trod him down in the gate and he died." But perhaps this was because Elisha cautioned him? As R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: If a sage cautions some one, even if the one cautioned had not deserved such, it falls upon him nevertheless? If it were so, it should read: "And the people trod on him and he died." Why in the gate? Thus because of his protest which he made at the gate.

Where is resurrection hinted at in the Torah? [It reads, Num. xviii. 28]: "And ye shall give thereof the heave-offering of the Lord to Aaron the priest." Should, then, Aaron remain alive forever? He did not even enter into the land of Israel. How, then, could Israel give him heave-offering? Infer from this that he would experience resurrection and Israel would give him heave-offering. Hence here is a hint of resurrection. The school of R. Ismael, however, taught: (Nothing is to be inferred from this,) as the words "to Aaron" mean priests who are similar to him—viz., scholar as he was. And from this it is inferred that no gift whatsoever should be given to a priest who is ignorant. Samuel b. Na'hmani in the name of R. Jonathan said: Whence do we know that one must not give heave-offering to a priest who is an ignoramus? From [II. Chron. xxxi. 4]: "To give the portion of the priests and the Levites, in order that they might hold firmly to the law of the Lord." Hence the priest who knows to hold firmly the law has a portion, but not he who is ignorant of the law. R. Johanan said that he who does so causes death to the ignorant priest. As it reads [Lev. xxii. 9]: "That they may not bear sin through it, and die therefor, if they profane it." The disciples of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught that [ibid., ibid. 16] also applies to him who gives heave-offering to an ignoramus.
There is a Boraitha: R. Sinai said: The hint of resurrection in the Torah is to be found in [Ex. vi. 4]: "And as I did also establish my covenant with them, to give unto them the land of Canaan." It does not read "to you" (as it should, the patriarchs of that time being already dead), but "to them"—hence this is a hint that they would be restored. The Minim questioned Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do you deduce that the Holy One, blessed be He, would restore the dead? And he answered: From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. However, they did not accept it. From the Pentateuch—[Deut. xxxi. 16]: "Thou shalt sleep with thy parents 've-qom,'" "and arise." 1 And they answered: Perhaps this word ve-qom is connected with its succeeding words.

From the Prophets—[Is. xxvi. 19]: "Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew on herbs is thy dew, and the earth shall cast out the departed." And they answered: Perhaps the verse cited means those dead who were restored by Ezekiel [chap. xxxvi.]. In the Hagiographa—[Solomon's Song, vii. 10]: "And thy palate like the best wine, that glided down for my friend gently, exciting the lips of those that are asleep." And they answered: This cannot be taken as an evidence, for it is not certain that "are asleep" means the dead. [(Says the Gemara:) R. Johanan, in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozodok, used to cite this verse with his statement that if a Halakha is mentioned in the name of a dead sage the lips of the latter move (mumble) in his grave.] Thereafter, when Gamaliel mentioned to the Minim [Deut. xi.

9], "And the Lord hath sworn unto your fathers to give unto them" which does not read "to ye," but "to them"—hence it is a hint of resurrection from the Torah—it was accepted. According to others he mentioned before them [Deut. iv. 4]: "But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day" which means, as this day every one of you is alive, so will it be in the world to come. The officers of Rome questioned R. Jehoshua b. Hananiah: Whence do you know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore the dead and that there is also revealed before Him all that will be in the future? And he answered: Both things are inferred from Deut. xxxi. 16, cited above. And to their answer: Perhaps the word "ve-qom" belongs to its succeeding words, he rejoined: Accept at least the half (the second question)—that there is revealed before Him all that will be in the future. The same was taught also by R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehai, that from this verse both the resurrection and that there is revealed before Him all that will be in the future is inferred.

There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezer b. Jose said: I have shown the falsification in the books of the Minim, who used to say that there is no hint about resurrection in the Pentateuch. And I said to them: You have falsified your Torah, but you have nothing in your hand to say that there is no hint of resurrection. Does it not read [Num. xv. 31]: "That person shall be cut off, his iniquity is upon him"? Upon him—when? Does it not mean after he shall be cut off? Hence it means even in the world to come. (Questioned the Gemara:) Above, this passage is explained by R. Aqiba and R. Ishmael. But neither of them has explained what means "his iniquity shall be upon him"? They may explain it as in the following Boraitha: Lest one say that he will be cut off even after his repentance, therefore "the iniquity is upon him" means only when it is still upon him, but if he repented it is no more upon him.

Queen Cleopatra questioned R. Mair thus: I am aware that the dead will be restored. As it reads [Ps. lxxii. 16]: "And (men) shall blossom out of the city like herbs of the earth." My question, however, is: When they shall be restored, will they be naked or dressed? And he answered: This may be drawn by an a fortiori conclusion from wheat. A grain of wheat which is buried naked comes out dressed in so many garments: the upright, who are buried in their dress, so much the more shall they come out dressed in many garments.

Cæsar questioned Rabbon Gamaliel: You say that the dead will be restored. Does not the corpse become dust? How, then, can dust be restored? And the daughter of Cæsar said to R. Gamaliel: Leave the question to me and I myself shall answer it. And she said (to her father): If there were two potters in our city, of whom one should make a pot from water and the other from clay, to which of them would you give preference? And he said: Certainly to him who creates from water; for if he is able to create from water, he is undoubtedly able to create from clay. (And she said: This is an answer to your question.)

The school of R. Ismael taught: One may learn it from glass-wares, which are made by human beings, and if they break there is a remedy for them, as they can be renewed: human beings, who are created by the spirit of the Lord, so much the more shall they be renewed (restored).

There was a Min who said to R. Ami: You say that the dead will be restored. Does not the corpse become dust? How, then, can dust be restored? And he told him: I will give you a parable showing to what this thing is similar. A human king said to his servants: Go and build me a palace in such a place, where there is no earth and no water. And they did so: and after it collapsed he commanded the same to build it for him in a place where there was earth and water. And they answered: We cannot do so. And he became angry, saying: When you could build it in such a place where there was no earth and no water, ought you not to be able to build it where they are? And if you don't believe it, go into a valley and see a mouse, which is half flesh and half earth (it being believed that there is a species of mice developed from earth), and to-morrow it multiplies and becomes all flesh. And should you say that it takes much time till it becomes so, go up into the mountain, and see that to-day you cannot find even one helzun, 1 and on the morrow, after rain, you will find the mountains full of them.
There was another Min who said to Gebiah b. Psisa: Woe to you, wicked, who say that the dead are restored. The living die—should the dead come to life? And he answered: Woe to you, wicked, who say that the dead will not come to life. That which has not existed at all comes to life—shall those who had life once not come to life again? Said the Min to him: You call me wicked. If I arise, I will kick thee and level thy hump from off thee (drive out thy conceit). And he rejoined: If you do so, you will be a specialist physician, and you will receive a great reward.

The rabbis taught: On the twenty-fourth of Nissan the contractors of duty were taken off from Judah and Jerusalem. This was when the Africans summoned Israel before Alexander of Macedonia, claiming that the land of Canaan belonged to them. As it reads [Num. Xxxiv. 2]: "The land of Canaan according to its boundaries"—and that they were the descendants of Canaan. Said Gbiah b. Psisa to the sages: Permit me, and I will appear before Alexander as advocate of the defendant Israel, and if they defeat me, say to them, "You have defeated an ignoramus among us"; and if I defeat them, say to them, "The law of Moses has defeated you." He got this permission, and did so. Then he said to them: What is your evidence? And their answer was: From your Torah. Then said he: I in defence will also bring my evidence from the same. It reads [Gen. ix. 25]: "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Now, to whom belongs the estate of a slave, if not to his master. And not this only, but I summon you before the king for the many years you have not done any service for us. And Alexander commanded them to give answer, for which they requested from him three days' time. And he gave it to them. And as they could not find any right answer at the appointed time they fled, leaving their fields, which were sown, and their vineyards, which were planted. And this year was a Sabbatical one.
It happened again that the Egyptians summoned Israel before Alexander of Macedonia, demanding from them the gold and silver which they had borrowed from them at the time of their exodus. As it reads [Ex. xii. 36]: "And the Lord hath given the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they gave unto them what they required; and they emptied out Egypt." And Gbiah b. Psisa requested from the sages permission to be the advocate of the defendant Israel, with the same reason mentioned above. He got this permission, and did so. Then he said to them: What is your evidence? And their answer was: From your Torah. Then said he: I in defence will also bring my evidence from the same, which reads [ibid., ibid. 40]: "Now the time of the residence of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." Hence I demand of you the wages for the labor of six hundred thousand men whom your parents compelled to work for them all the time they were in Egypt. And Alexander decided that the Egyptians should give a proper answer—for which they requested three days' time, which was allowed to them. But they could not find a satisfactory answer, and they fled, leaving their sown fields and their planted vineyards. And also this year was a Sabbatical one.

And it happened again that the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Keturah summoned Israel before Alexander, claiming to have a share in the land of Canaan, as they also were descendants of Abraham. And again Gbiah b. Psisa requested for permission to be Israel's advocate, which he received. And the same question of evidence was put to them, and their answer was: From your Torah [Gen. xxv. 12 and 19], which shows that Ishmael as well as Isaac were Abraham's children. And he then also brought his evidence from the same [ibid., ibid. 5 and 6]: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son." Now, on a father who made a legatum (bequest) to his children, and separated them while he was still alive, can they have any claim thereafter!
Antoninus said to Rabbi: The body and the soul of a human may free themselves on the day of judgment by Heaven. How so? The body may say: The soul has sinned; for since she has departed I lie in the grave like a stone. And the soul may say: The body has sinned; for since I am separated from it, I fly in the air like a bird. And he answered: I will give you a parable to which this is similar: A human king, who had an excellent garden which contained very fine figs, appointed two watchmen for it—one of whom was blind, and the other had no feet. He who was without feet said to the one who was blind: I see in the garden fine figs. Take me on your shoulders, and I shall get them, and we shall consume them. He did so, and while on his shoulders he took them off, and both consumed them. And when the owner of the garden came and did not find the figs, and questioned them what became of them, the blind one answered: Have I, then, eyes to see them, that you should suspect my taking them? And the lame one answered: Have I, then, feet to go there? The owner then put the lame one on the shoulders of the one who was blind, and punished them together. So also the Holy One, blessed be He—He puts the soul in the body and punishes them together. As it reads [Ps. 1. 4]: "He will call to the heavens above, and to the earth beneath, to judge his people." "To the heavens above" means the soul, and, "to the earth beneath" means the body.

Antoninus again questioned Rabbi: Why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west? And he answered: If it were contrariwise, you would also question the same. Rejoined Antoninus: I mean to say, why does he set in the west (let him go around without setting, until he reach the place where he arose)? And he answered: For the purpose of greeting with peace his Creator (as the Shekhina is in the west). Rejoined again Antoninus: Let him then travel to half of the sky, greet the Creator, and set? This would harm the laborer, and those who are on the road.
The same questioned again the same: At what time does the soul come into the body—at the moment of conception, or at the time the embryo is already formed? And the answer was: When it is already formed. Said Antoninus to him: Is it possible that a piece of flesh shall keep three days or more without being salted, and it shall not become stinking? And therefore it must be said: At conception. Said Rabbi: This teaching I accepted from Antoninus, and a support to him is to be found in [Job, x. 12]: "And thy providence watched over my spirit." 1 Antoninus questioned Rabbi again: At what time does the evil spirit reach man? At the time the embryo is formed, when it comes out from the womb? And he was answered: At the time it is formed. Rejoined Antoninus: If so, the embryo would kick the entrails of the mother and go out; therefore it must be from the time it comes out. And Rabbi said: This teaching I received from Antoninus, and he is supported by Gen. iv. 7: "Sin lieth at the door."
Resh Lakish proposes the following contradiction: It reads [Is. xxxv. 6]: "Then shall the lame leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing"; and [Jer. xxxi. 7 2]: "Among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and she that travaileth with child together." (Hence the passages contradict each other.) It must therefore be said: They will be restored with the blemishes they had in their life, and thereafter they will be cured.

Ula advanced another contradiction: It reads [Is. xxv. 8]: "He will destroy death to eternity; and the Lord Eternal will wipe away the tear from off all faces, and the shame of his people will he remove from off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it"; and [ibid. lxv. 20]: "There shall no more come thence an infant . . . for as a lad shall one die a hundred years old"? This presents no difficulty. The former speaks of Israel's self, and the latter of those concerning whom it reads [ibid. lxi. 5]: "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the son of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vintners."

R. Hisda also advanced a contradiction: It reads [ibid. xxiv. 23]: "And the moon shall be put to the blush and the sun be made ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on mount Zion"; and [ibid. XXX. 26]: "And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days"? This presents no difficulty. The latter speaks of the time when the Messiah shall appear, and the former, of the world to come. And to Samuel, who maintains that there will be no difference between this time and the time of Messiah, except that Israel will no longer be under the dominion of foreigners, the explanation of these contradictory verses may be thus—that the latter speaks of the camp of the upright and the former of the camp of the Glory of the Shekinah.

Rabha propounded another contradiction: It reads [Deut. xxxii. 39]: "I make one die and I make one alive"; and further on it reads: "I wound and I heal"? It means that the Holy One, blessed be He, says: All that I made to die shall I bring to life again, and thereafter shall I cure what was wounded.

The rabbis taught: Lest one say that the verse just cited means, I make one die and another one shall I bring to life, therefore it reads, "I wound and I cure." As wounding and curing apply to one person only, the same is the case with death and life—they apply to one person. This is an answer to those who say that there is no hint in the Torah about resurrection.
There is a Boraitha: R. Mair said: It reads [Ex. xv. 1]: "Then Moses and the children of Israel will sing this song." It does not read "sang," but will sing (yoshir). This is a hint of resurrection in the Torah. Similar to this is [Joshua, viii. 30]: "Then Joshua will build an altar." It does not read "did build," but "will build." This is also a hint of resurrection. (Says the Gemara): However, this cannot be taken as a support, as the same expression is to be found in I. Kings xi. 7, and nevertheless it does not mean in the future, but in the past.

R. Jeoshuah b. Levi said: It reads [Ps. lxxxiv. 5]: "Happy are they who dwell in thy house: they will be continually praising thee." It does not read "praised thee" in the past, but in the future. Hence it is a hint of resurrection.

The same said again: He who sings to his Creator in this world will be rewarded by singing the same in the world to come, as the verse just cited reads.

Hyya b. Abah in the name of R. Johanan said: It reads [Is. lii. 8]: "The voice of thy watchmen—they raise their voice, together shall they sing; for eye to eye shall they see, when the Lord returneth unto Zion." It does not read "sung," in the past, but in the future. Hence it is a hint of resurrection.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: In the future all the prophets together will sing a song of praise with one voice, as the verse just cited reads.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: He who hesitates in declaring a Halakha to a disciple is considered as if he would rob him of the inheritance of his parents. For it reads [Deut. xxxiii. 4]: "The law which Moses commanded us is the inheritance of the congregation of Israel." Hence the law is considered as an inheritance to all Israel since the creation of the world.

R. Hana b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious said: He who hesitates in declaring a Halakha to a disciple, even the embryos in the entrails of their mothers denounce him As it reads [Prov. xi. 26]: "Him that withholdeth corn, the people 1 will denounce." And what is the reward for declaring such? Said Rabha in the name of R. Shesheth: He will be rewarded with the blessing with which Joseph was blessed, as the end of the verse cited reads: "But blessing will be heaped upon the head of the one that selleth it," which means Joseph; as it reads [Gen. xlii. 6]: "And Joseph, he was the governor over the land, he it was that sold corn to all the people."

R. Shesheth said again: He who teaches the Torah in this world will be rewarded by teaching it in the world to come. As it reads [Prov. xi. 25]: "He that refresheth (others) will do same in the future." 1 Rabha said: Resurrection is hinted at in the Torah in [Deut. xxxiii. 6]: "May Reüben live, and not die"—which means that he may live in this world, and not die in the world to come. Rabhina, however, maintains that it is hinted at in [Dan. xii. 2]: "And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence." And R. Ashi said: From [ibid., ibid. 13]: "But thou, go (thy way) toward the end; and thou shalt rest, and arise for thy lot at the end of the days."

R. Elazar said: A leader of a congregation, who leads them humbly, will be rewarded by leading the same in the world to come. As it reads [Is. xlix. 10]: "For he that hath mercy on them will lead them, and by springs of water will he guide them."

The same said again: Great is wisdom, as it was placed between two divine names [I Sam. ii. 3]: "For a God of knowledge is the Lord."

And he said again: Great is the Temple, as the word "mikdash" (Temple) [Ex. xv. 17] is also placed between two divine names.
R. Adda b. Karthinaah opposed: According to this theory "revenge" is also great, as it is also placed [Ps. xciv. 1] between two divine names. And he was answered: And it is in accordance with Ula. (This will be translated in Berachoth, as the proper place.) R. Elazar said again: Every man who possesses wisdom may consider himself as if the Temple were built in his days, as both "wisdom" and "temple" are placed between two divine names. And he said again: A man who possesses true wisdom will finally become rich. As it reads [Prov. xxiv. 4]: "And thorough knowledge are chambers filled with all manner of precious and pleasant wealth." And he said again: He who does not possess any knowledge does not deserve that one should have mercy with him." As it reads [Is. xxvii. 11]: "For it is not a people of understanding: therefore he that made it will not have mercy on it, and he that formed it will show it no favor." And he said again: He who feeds one who does not possess any knowledge, chastisement will be the reward for it. As it reads [Ob. i. 7]: "They that eat thy bread have struck thee secretly a wound. There is no understanding in him." And he said again: Such a man as has no knowledge will finally be exiled. As it reads [Ps. v. 13]: "Therefore are my people led into exile, for want of knowledge." 1 R. Jehudah said: Exile atones for three things. As it reads [Jer. xxi. 9]: "He that remaineth in this city shall die by the sword, or by the famine, or by the pestilence; but he that goeth out and runneth away to the Chaldeans that besiege you, shall remain alive, and his life shall be unto him as a booty."

R. Johanan, however, said: Exiles atones for everything. As it reads [ibid. xxii. 30]: "Thus hath said the Lord, Write ye down this man as childless, as a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall succeed to sit upon the throne of David, and to rule any more in Judah." And in I Chron. iii. 17, it reads: "And the sons of Yechonyah: Assir, Shealthiel his son." And there is a tradition that Assir, Shealthiel is one person, and was Nehemiah b. Chachalyah. And why was he called Assir? Because he was conceived in prison. (The term in Hebrew for prisoner is Azzir.)
R. Elazar said: A house in which the words of the Torah are not heard in the nights will finally be burned. As it reads [Job, XX. 26]: "Entire darkness is laid by for his treasures: a fire not urged by blowing will consume him; it will destroy any one left in his tent." The Hebrew term for left is "sharid." As it reads [Joel, iii. 5]: "Among the remnant (shridim)." And he said again: He who does not benefit scholars by his estate will never see a sign of blessing: As it reads [Job, XX. 21]: "Nothing was spared from his craving to eat; therefore shall his wealth not prosper." (There also the Hebrew term is "sharid," which, according to him, means a scholar, as analogized above.) And from the same passage the same inferred that he who does not leave any bread after his meal will not see any blessing. But did not the same say elsewhere that he who left pieces of bread after his meal is considered as if he were to worship idols? This presents no difficulty. In the latter saying he means, after finishing the meal he puts a whole loaf on the table, which is prohibited. As it reads [Is. lxv. 11]: "That set out a table for the god of Fortune and that fill for Destiny the drink-offering." On the former saying he speaks of leaving some crumbs of bread for the poor. The same said again: He who changes his word is considered as if he were to worship idols. As Gen. xxvii. 12 reads: "Seem to him as a deceiver"; and as in Jer. x. 15: They are vanity, the work of deception." And he said again: A man shall always be modest, but nevertheless shall be strong in his mind, so that he shall not be overruled by any one. (As then he may be sure that he will exist.) Said R. Zera: A hint of this is to be found in the following Mishna (Negaim vii. 3): If there seems to be leprosy in a house which is dark, windows must not be opened for investigation. (Hence if one is strong in his mind, and at the same time modest, his defects cannot be investigated.)

R. Tabi in the name of R. Joshiah said: It reads [Prov. xxx. 16]: "The nether world, and a barren womb; the earth which is not satisfied with water; and the fire which never saith, Enough." What correspondence is there between the nether world and the womb? This is only to say that as the nature of the womb is, if something be brought in, to give it out, the same is the case with the nether world—it gives out what is brought in. And it is to be inferred by an a fortiori conclusion thus: A womb into which corpses are privately brought gives them out with much noise, the nether world, into which corpses are brought with much noise, so much the more shall they come out with great noise. And this may be an answer to those who say that resurrection is not hinted at in the Torah.

The disciples of Elijah taught: The upright who will be restored in the future by the Holy One, blessed be He, will never return to dust. As it reads [Is. iv. 3]: "And it shall come to pass that whoever is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, everyone that is written down into life in Jerusalem." And as the Holy One is forever, so also those who are mentioned in this verse will be forever. And lest one say, "What will they do at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, shall renew his world," as it reads [ibid. ii. 17]: "And exalted shall be the Lord alone on that day." The upright in question will be supplied with wings similar to the wings of the eagles, and they will fly over the world.

As it reads [Ps. xlvi. 3]: "Therefore will we not fear when the earth is transformed, and when mountains are moved into the heart of seas." And lest one may say that they will be inflicted—to this it is written [Is. xl. 3 1]: "Yet they that wait upon the Lord shall acquire new strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not become faint." But why not infer from the dead who were restored by Ezekiel, and who died again? He (Elijah) holds with him who says that in reality Ezekiel did not restore any dead at all, and the prophecy was only a parable for the Jewish nation that it would be restored again. And this is related in the following Boraitha: The dead whom Ezekiel restored arose on their feet, sang a song, and died again. And what kind of a song was it? The Lord makes one die justly, and mercifully restores him.

So R. Eliezer. R Joshua said: The song was from I Sam. ii. 6: "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." R. Jehudah, however, said: Really, it was only a parable Said R. Nehemiah to him: If really, then it is not a parable; and if a parable, it is not really. Say, then, in reality it was a parable R. Eliezer b. R. Jose the Galilean, however, said: The dead who were restored by Ezekiel went to the land of Israel, married, and brought forth sons and daughters. And R. Jehudah b. Bathyra arose on his feet, saying: I myself am a descendant of them, and these are the phylacteries which I inherited from my grandfather, who told me that they were used by the restored. But who were the restored dead in question? Said Rabh: They were the sons of Ephraim who erred concerning the promised time of redemption from Egypt.

As it reads [I Chron. vii. 20-23]: "And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelach, and Bered his son, and Thachath his son, and Eladah his son, and Thachath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelach his son, and Eser and Elad whom the men of God that were born in that land slew . . . And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him." Samuel, however, said: They were the men who disbelieved in resurrection. As it reads [Ezek. xxxvii. 11]: "Then said he unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, Dried are our bones, and lost is our hope; we are quite cut off." R. Jeremiah b. Abah said: They were the bodies of men in whom there was no sap of any meritorious act.

As it reads [ibid., ibid. 4]: "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." And R. Itz'hak of Nabhar said: They were the men who did what was mentioned in [ibid. viii. 10]: "So I went in and saw; and behold there was every form of creeping things, and cattle, abominations, and all the idols of the house of Israel, engraven upon the wall all round about." And it reads [ibid. xxxvii. 2]: "And he caused me to pass by them all round about," etc. And R. Johanan said: They were the dead of the valley of Dura, whom Nebuchadnezzar killed. This is what he said elsewhere, that from the river Achar to the city of Rabath in the valley of Dura there were young men of Israel who were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, who were so beautiful that there were none similar to them under the sun; and the women of Chaldea became sick when they looked upon them. The king then commanded to slay them all and to tread down their faces.

The rabbis taught: At the time Nebuchadnezzar threw Chananya, Mishael and Azaryah into the caldron the Holy One, blessed be He, told Ezekiel to go and restore the dead of the valley of Dura, and the vessels which were made from the bones of those who were slain by Nebuchadnezzar kicked him in the face. And to his question, "What is the matter?" he was told that the colleagues of those whom he had thrown into the caldron were engaged in restoring the dead of the valley of Dura. He then said [Dan. iii. 33]: "His signs—how great are they! and his wonders—how mighty are they! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his rule is over every generation." Said R. Itz'hak: May hot melted gold be put in the mouth of that wicked, for if an angel had not come and shut his mouth, he would have brought to shame all the songs and praises which were said by David in the Psalms.

The rabbis taught: Six miracles occurred on that day: (a) The caldron floated upwards; (b) it broke; (c) its foundation was crumbled by the heat; (d) the golden image fell upon his face; (e) men from four kingdoms were burned; and (f) Ezekiel restored the dead in the valley of Dura. All of them are known tradition. ally. However, concerning the men from the four kingdoms, there is to be found in the Scripture [Dan. iii. 2]: "And King Nebuchadnezzar sent to assemble (his) lieutenants, the superintendents and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, those learned in the law, and all rulers of the provinces; and [ibid., ibid. 12]: "There are certain Jewish men," etc., and further on (27) it reads: "And the lieutenants, superintendents and governors, and the king's counsellors, being assembled together, saw these men," etc. (Hence four of those mentioned in verse 2 are missed.)
The disciples of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Even at the time of danger one shall not change the dress belonging to his dignity. As it reads: [ibid., ibid. 21]: "Then were these men bound in their mantles," etc. Said R. Johanan: Upright men are greater than angels, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 25]: "He answered and said, So, I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no injury on them; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." (Hence the angels are mentioned last.)

R. Tanhin b. Hanilai said: When Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah came out of the caldron, the nations came and kicked Israel in their faces, saying: Ye have such a God, and ye bowed yourself to the image! They (Israel) immediately confessed, saying [ibid. ix. 7]: "Thine, O Lord, is the righteousness, but unto us belongeth the shame of face, as it is this day."
R. Samuel b. Nah'maine, in the name of R. Jonathan, said: It reads [Solomon's Song, vii. 9]: "I thought, I wish to climb up the palm-tree, I wish to take hold of its boughs." I thought, I will take hold of the whole tree, but now I claim only one branch (of the palm Israel)—that of Hanania, etc. R. Johanan said: It reads [Zech. i. 8]: "I saw this night, and behold there was a man (ish) riding upon a red horse," etc. "This night"—the Lord intended to plunge the whole world into night. "Behold there was a man"—the Holy One, who is named [Ex. xv. 31 "ish, lord of war." "Upon a red horse"—he intended to plunge the world into blood, but after looking upon Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah he gave up his intention. As it reads further on, "And he was standing among the myrtle-trees (hadisin)." And by myrtle-trees are meant the upright. As it reads [Esther, ii. 7]: "And he brought up Hadassah." And "deep valley" means Babylon. As Is. xliv. 27 reads: "That saith to the deep, Be dry, and thy rivers will I dry up." "Behind them were red"—immediately the red which were filled with anger became pale, and the red became white. Said R. Papa: Infer from this that if one sees a white horse in his dream, it is a good sign. But what became of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah after they came out of the caldron (as there is no further mention of them)? According to Rabh, they died from an evil eye; and according to Samuel, they died in order not to bring further shame on Israel. R. Johanan, how. ever, said that they returned to Palestine, married, and begot children. As it reads [Zech. iii. 8]: "Do but hear, O Joshua the high-priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee, for men of wonder are they." And who were the men to whom wonder was done, if not Chananyah, etc.? But where was Daniel at the time that they were thrown into the caldron? Said Rabh: He went to dig a river in the city of Tiberius. And Samuel said: He was sent by Nebuchadnezzar to bring a certain kind of grass from Palestine, to build it in Babylon. And R. Johanan says: He was sent to bring swans from Alexander of Egypt. But was it not said above by Tudus the physician that no swan left Alexandria without removal of the womb (for the purpose that they should not multiply in other countries)? He brought little ones, and the Egyptians were not aware that he took time for the purpose that they should multiply in Babylon.

The rabbis taught: According to the advice of the following three, Daniel went away before the affair of Chananyah, etc., happened: The Holy One, blessed be He, Daniel himself, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Holy One, for the reason that people should not say they were saved because of Daniel's good deeds. Daniel said: I shall go away that it shall not be done with me as in Deut. iii. 25: "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire," And Nebuchadnezzar said: Let Daniel go, in order that people shall not say I have burnt my god in fire. And whence do we know that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped him? From [Dan. ii. 46]: "Then did king Nebuchadnezzar fall upon his face, and he bowed down to Daniel."

It reads [Jer. xxix. 21-23]: "Thus hath said the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Achab the son of Kolayah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maasseyah, who prophesy unto you in my name falsehood . . . And a curse shall be derived from them for all the exiled of Judah who are in Babylon, saying: May the Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Achab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire." It does not read whom he "burned," but whom he "roasted." And R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai said: Infer from this that they were roasted as people roast grain. It reads farther on [ibid., ibid. 23]: "Because they have done scandalous deeds in Israel, and have committed adultery with the wives of their neighbors." What had they done? They went to the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Achab said: The Lord has commanded me to tell thee that thou shalt listen to Zedekiah. And the latter said the same-that she should listen to Achab. And she went and told this to her father. To which he answered: It is known to me that their God abhors incest. When they shall come to you again, send them to me. She did so. And to the question of Nebuchadnezzar: Who told you to do so? they said: The Lord. "But Chananyah and his colleagues told me that such a thing is prohibited." And they answered: We are also prophets as they are, and this command was given to us, of which they were not aware. Then said the king: I would try you as I did Chananyah and his colleagues. And to their claim, "They were three, and we are only two," he gave them the choice of any one they liked, who should be thrown with them into the caldron. And they selected Jehoshua the high-priest, thinking that his merit was so great that it would save them also. Jehoshua was then brought, and all three were thrown into the caldron. They were burned, but Jehoshua was saved; only his garments were singed. And this is what it reads [Zech. iii. 1-3]: "And he showed me Jehoshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord. And the Lord said unto the accuser, The Lord rebuke thee, O accuser," etc. Satan said to him: I know that you are an upright man, but why did the fire affect your garments, which was not the case with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah? And he answered: They were three, and I one. And to the question: Was not Abraham the patriarch also only one when he was thrown into the caldron? he answered, With Abraham there were no wicked ones whom permission was given to the fire to affect, but with me were two wicked, and permission was given to the fire. And this is what people say: Two dried pieces of charred wood burn the third which is wet.

But why was he punished? Said R. Papa: Because his sons married such as were not fit to be the wives of priests, and he did not object; and this is meant by "filthy garments," mentioned in the verse cited.

R. Tanhun said: Bar Kappara lectured in Ciporias thus: It reads [Ruth. iii. 17]: "These six barleys gave he unto me." How is to be understood six barleys? It cannot be meant literally, for would a man like Boas give six grains of barley as a gift? And it also cannot be said "measures of barley," as it is not customary for a woman to carry six measures. Therefore the six barleys were a hint that in the future six sons would come out from her, each of whom would be blessed with six blessings: viz., David, Messiah, Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah. David—as it reads [I Sam. xvi. 18]: "Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlechemite, who is skilful as a player and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and intelligent in speech and a person of good form, and the Lord is with him." Messiah—as it reads [Is. xi. 2]: "And there shall rest upon him the spirit of the Lord, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord." Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah—as it reads [Dan. i. 4]: "Lads in whom there should be no kind of blemish, but who should be handsome in appearance, and intelligent in all wisdom and acquainted with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as should have the ability to serve in the king's palace, and that these should be taught the learning and the language of the Chaldeans." (Hence all of them were blessed with six things.)

[Concerning the verse cited about David, said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: The whole verse is a slander, said by Doeg the Edomite. "Who is skilful as a player"—who knows how to propound questions; "mighty valiant man"—who knows how to answer questions; "a man of war"—who understands argument in the disputations of the Torah; "intelligent in speech" 1—he understands from one thing another one; "a person of good form"—who is able to give good reasons for Halakhas; "the Lord is with him"—the Halakha always prevails with him. To all the things mentioned above Saul said: "My son Jonathan possesses all the same qualities. But when he heard that the Halakha prevailed with him, a qualification which he himself did not possess (for concerning Saul it reads [I Sam. xv. 47]: "And whithersoever he turned himself, he caused terror," and about David it is written: "In whatsoever he turned to be he was successful" 2), he was dejected, and began to be jealous. But whence do we know that it was Doeg who said so? From [ibid. xvi. 18]: "One of the servants"—the most distinguished of them and [ibid. xxvi. 8]: "And his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen that belonged to Saul." Concerning the verse cited about Messiah, it reads also farther on "vahari'hu" (animated), from which R. Alexandri infers that he is always overloaded with the divine commandments and chastisements resting upon him as "re'hayim" (a handmill). And Rabha said: The term "vahari'hu" means smelling—i.e., he judges by smelling. As farther on it reads: "And not after the sight of the eyes shall ye judge, and not after the hearing of the ears . . . (but nevertheless) he judges with righteousness the poor and decides with equity for the suffering ones of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breadth of his lips shall he slay the wicked." Hence, if not by the eye and not by the ear, it must be by smelling; and therefore the sages did not recognize Bar Kochba, who claimed to be the Messiah and ruled two and a half years, because he did not judge by smelling. And now concerning the verse cited about Chananyah, Mishael, etc., that they had no blemish. Said R. Haman b. Hanina: Not even a scratch was to be found on their bodies. "The ability to serve in the king's palace"—that they were able to restrain themselves from laughing, sleeping, and dreaming, and even from departing for one's necessity for fear of the king. It reads farther on [ibid. 6]: "Now there were among these, of the children of Judah," etc. According to R. Elazar, all of them were of the tribe of Judah, and according to Samuel b. Na'hmane, Daniel only was of Judah, but Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah were of other tribes.

It reads [Is. lvi. 5]: "I will indeed give unto them . . . an everlasting name." Said R. Tanhun: Bar Kappara lectured in Ciporias that this means the book of Daniel, which is named after him. 1 Let us see! All which is written in the book of Ezra was said by Nehemiah b. Chackhalyah. Why, then, was it not named after him? (The book of Nehemiah in our Bible was not as yet separated from Ezra in the time of the Talmud.) Said R. Nehemiah b. Abah: Because he was proud of it. As it reads [Neh. v. 19]: "Remember for me, my God for good, all that I have done for this people." But did not David also say similar to this [Ps. lvi. 4]: "Remember me, O Lord, when thou favorest thy people?" This was said only as a prayer.
R. Joseph said: The book was not named after him because he slandered the former governors. As it reads [Neh. v. 15]: "Former governors . . . had made it heavy . . . had taken of them bread and wine, besides forty shekels." And in this slander Daniel, who was greater than he, was also included, as he was of the former governors who made their exodus from Babylon a long time before Nehemiah. And whence do we know that Daniel was greater than he? From [Dan. x. 7]: "And I, Daniel, saw alone this appearance; but the men that were with me did not see the appearance; nevertheless a great terror fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves." Who were these men? Said R. Jeremiah, and according to others, R. Hyya b. Abah: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. In one respect he was better than they, for he saw the appearance, but they did not. And in another respect they were better than he, as they were prophets, while he was not. But why were they shocked when they saw nothing? Though they did not see it, their guardian angels did. Said Rabhina: Infer from this, that if a man is shocked, unaware of the cause, his guardian angel must be aware of it; and his remedy is stepping back four ells, or reading the portion of Shema. And if he stands in a dirty place, where it is not allowed to recite the portion of "Shema Israel," he may say, "The goats of the butcher are stronger than I."

It reads [Is. ix. 6]: "For promoting the increase of the government, and for peace without end," etc. Said R. Tan'hun: Bar khapara lectured in Ciporias about this verse thus: Why is the first word of this verse distinguished? In all other words if a "mem" happens to be among its letters, if at the beginning or in the middle, it is an open one מ {Hebrew M}. Here, however, the "mem," which is the second letter of this word, is closed ם {Hebrew M}, which is usually only at the end of a word? It is because the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to make Hiskiah the Messiah, and Sanherib who declared war against him as a substitute for Gog and Magog the future nations who will declare war against the Messiah. Said the divine attribute of justice for Him: Lord of the Universe, David, the king of Israel, who recited before Thee so many songs and praises, Thou madest him not a Messiah; Hiskiah to whom Thou hast done so many miracles, and he recited neither songs nor praises—shouldst Thou make him a Messiah? And therefore the "mem" was closed (as a hint to this). The earth, however, opened her mouth and said: Lord of the Universe, I will recite songs before Thee instead of this upright, and Thou, I pray Thee, make him a Messiah. And she did so immediately, as it reads [ibid. xxiv. 16]: "From the edge of the earth have we heard songs 'Glory be to the righteous.'" And the governor of the world also said before Him: O Lord of the Universe, do, I pray Thee, the desire of this upright. Then a heavenly voice was heard saying: "It is my secret, it is my secret! To which the prophet exclaimed: Woe is me! Tell what time will it be postponed? And the heavenly voice answered: "Till the treacherous will have dealt treacherously." And Rabha, and according . to others, R. Itz'hak, explained this: Until disgrace after disgrace will have come upon Israel.

It reads [ibid. xxi. 11]: "The prophecy concerning Dumah. Unto me one calleth out of Le'ir, Watchman, what of the night?

Watchman, what of the night? Said R. Johanan: The angel who rules the souls after their departure from this world, is named Dumah. And the latter said that all spirits gathered themselves to him questioning him: What said the watchman of the world (the Lord) about the exile which is equalized to night? And he answered. So said the watchman: The morning cometh, but previously will be a long, long night. If, however, ye desire to pray that He shall hasten it, try to do so by repenting of your sins, and coming again prepared for redemption.

It was taught in the name of R. Pepiyas: It is a shame for Hiskiah and his associates not to have recited any song until the earth recited hers, as the verse "from the edge of the earth," etc., cited above, reads. Similar to this it reads [Ex. xviii. 10]: "Blessed be the Lord who hath delivered you." And it was taught also in the name of Pepiyas: It was a shame for Moses and the six hundred thousand Israelites with him who didn't say this benediction till Jithro came. It reads [ibid., ibid. 9]: "Vayi'had" (rejoiced) Jithro, the Hebrew term "had" means to sharpen. And according to Rabh, it means that he passed a sharp razor upon the flesh of his body. (He performed the ceremony of circumcision). And according to Samuel it means that his whole body pained as if stuck with sharp needles. Said R. Papa: This is what people say: One shall not dare to disgrace any heathen before a descendant of a proselyte, even if he is of the tenth generation.

It reads [Isa. x. 15]: "Therefore will the Lord, the Eternal of hosts, send forth among his 'bmashmanov' (fat ones) leanness." What is meant by the term "bmashmanov"? (in Hebrew shamuno means eight). The Lord said: Hiskiah who has eight names shall take revenge on Sanherib who also has eight names. Hiskia's eight names are enumerated in [Isa. ix. 5]: "For a child is born unto us, a son hath been given unto us, and the government is placed on his shoulders and his name is pele, yaez, el gibaur, abbi, ad, sar, shalaum." And concerning Sanherib it reads [II Kings, xv. 9]: "Thiglash pilesser" [ibid., ibid. 19]: "Pul" [II Chron. xxviii. 20]: "Pilnesser" [II Kings, xvii. 3]: "Shalmanesser" [Isa. xx. i]: "Sargon" and [Ezra, iv. 70]: "Assnapper, rabha, v'yaqira." The name Hiskia is not counted, for he was named so because God strengthened him. And the name Sanherib is also not counted, for he was named so because he said vile words against Heaven.
Said R. Johanan: Why was he named Assnapper, the honored and the great? Because he did not speak evil of the land of Israel, as it reads [II Kings, xviii. 32]: "Until I come and take you away to a land like your own," etc.

Rabh and Samuel. According to one he was a clever king, because if he would have said that he would take them in a better land than theirs they would consider him a liar. And according to the other he was a fool, for what use could it be for them to go in a land which is not better than their own? To where did he exile the ten tribes of Israel? According to Mar Sutra to Africa, and according to R. Hanina to the mountains of Slug. However, the ten tribes of Israel slander the land of Israel, for when they reached the city of Sus they said that it was like their own land. And when they came to the city of Elmin they said that it is like our Elmin (Jerusalem). And when they reached the second Sus they said that it was much better than their own land.

It reads [Isa. x. 16]: "And under his glory shall be kindled." According to R. Johanan it means "under his dress garments," as he used to call garments glory. Hence the body was burned, but not the garments. R. Elazar, however, maintains "under his glory" means under the flesh—i.e., only the soul was burned as by the children of Aaron.

There is a Boraitha in the name of R. Joshua b. Kharha: Pharaoh who personally blasphemed Heaven, was also punished by Heaven. Sanherib, who blasphemed though a messenger, was also punished though a messenger. Concerning Pharaoh, it reads [Ex. V. 2]: "And Pharaoh said, Who is the Everlasting, whose voice I am to obey?" And he was punished by Heaven, as it reads [ibid. Xiv. 27]: "And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea." And also [Habakkuk, iii. 15]: "(But) thou didst pass along over the sea." Concerning Sanherib it reads [II Kings, xix. 23]: "By thy messengers thou has blasphemed the Lord." He was punished through a messenger, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 3 5]: "And it came to pass . . . that an angel of the Lord smote in the camp of the Assyrians, one hundred eighty and five thousand.
R. Hanina b. Papa propounded a contradiction from [Isa. xxxvii. 24]: "I will enter into the height of its summit." [II Kings, xix. 23]: "I will enter into the lodgings of its summit." Thus thought Sanherib: I will first destroy the lower dwelling and thereafter the higher one. R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: It reads [ibid. xviii. 25]: "Now am I come up without the Lord('s will) against this place to destroy it? The Lord hath said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it." What is it? He heard the prophet who said [Isa. viii. 6-7]: "Forasmuch as this people despiseth the waters of Shiloach that flow softly, and rejoice in Regin and Remalyabu's son," etc. Said R. Joseph: Were it not for the translation of this verse into Chaldaic, we would not understand its meaning. The translation is thus: Because this people despised the kingdom of David, who ruled them gently like the waters of Shiloach which flow gently, and grew fond of Regin and the son of Remalyabu.

R. Johanan said: It reads [Prov. iii. 33]: "The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked"—Peckach b. Remalyabu, who used to consume forty saas of pigeon as a dessert. "But the habitation of the righteous will he bless"—Hiskia, king of Judah, whose whole meal consisted of a liter of herbs.

It reads [Isa. viii. 7 and 8]: "The king of Assyria . . . and he shall penetrate into Judah, overflood and flood over, even to the neck shall he reach. Now as Sanherib acted in accordance with the prophecy, why then was he punished? The prophet prophesied concerning the ten tribes, and he himself made up his mind to go to Jerusalem. Then came the prophet and said [ibid., ibid. 23]: "And no fatigue (befalleth) him that oppresseth them." And R. Elazar b. Breakhya explained the passage thus: A people who are occupied with the study of the law will not be delivered over to their oppressor. "In the first time, he made light of the land of Zebulun and of the land of Naphtali, and at the last he will deal hard, with the way by the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, (up to) the Galilee of the nations"—not like the first, who threw off the yoke of the Thorah, but like the latter, who tolerated the heavy yoke of the Thorah, and therefore deserved that a miracle should happen to them as happened to those who passed the Red Sea and to those who stepped over the Jordan. Hence if he will retract to turn away from Jerusalem, well and good, but if not, I will make him a shame among all other nations.
It reads [II Chron. xxxii. i]: "After these things and veritable events came Sanherib the king of Assyria, and invaded Judah, and encamped against the fortified cities, and thought to break them open for himself." Is such a present given to the men of truth? And also what is meant by "after"? Said Rabhina: It means after the Holy One, blessed be He, had sworn, saying, If I would tell Hiskiah that I will bring Sanherib, and deliver him in his hands, he would say I want neither to be scared nor to have him delivered to me. And therefore the Lord swore that he will bring him in, as it reads [Isa. Xiv. 24 and 25]: "Sworn hath the Lord of host, saying, Surely as I have purposed, so doth it come to pass; and as I have resolved, so shall it occur. To break Asshur in my own land, and upon my mountains will I tread him under foot; then shall his yoke be removed from off them, and his burden shall be removed from off their shoulders."

Said R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Sanherib with his companions shall come and be made a crib for Hiskiah and his associates.

It also reads [ibid. x. 27]: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be removed from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be broken because of the fatness." Said R. Itz'hak of Nafha: The yoke of Sanherib was broken because of the fats of Hiskia which he used to kindle in the prayer house and in house of learning. He placed a sword on the gate of the house of learning as a sign that he who will not occupy himself with the Thorah shall be slain by the sword. And thereafter a search was made from the city of Dan to the city of Beersheba, and there was not found one ignoramus among them. And also from the city of Gebeth to the city of Antiphras, and there was not found one who was not acquainted with the law of purification, even among the women and children. And to that generation it reads [ibid. vii. 21]: "And It shall come to pass on that day, that a man shall nourish (but) one young cow and two sheep." And (23): "And it shall come to pass on that day that every place, where there are (now) a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, shall be—yea, this shall be (given up) to briers and thorns," which means though the vine was so valuable it was left to briers and thorns because all of them occupied themselves with the study of the law.

It reads [ibid. xxxiii. 4]: "And your spoil shall be gathered as the cricket gathereth." The prophet said to Israel: Gather your spoils. And to the question: Shall each one gather for himself or shall it be divided into equal shares? the prophet answered: As the cricket gathereth—as the gathering of the cricket is each one for himself, so also shall be your gathering. And when they objected, saying, Is there not among these the property of the ten tribes which was robbed by the Assyrian? he answered; So long as it was mingled among it, it is not considered the property of the ten tribes. 1 R. Huna said: Ten trips had the wicked made on that day, as it reads [ibid. x. 28 to 32]: "He cometh to Ayath, he passeth on to Migron; at Michmash he layeth up his baggage: They go through the pass; they take up their lodgings at Geba; Rama trembleth; Gib'ah of Saul fleeth. Let thy voice resound, O daughter of Gallim! listen Layshah; O poor Anathoth! Madmenah is in motion (the inhabitants of Gebin)," etc. Are there not enumerated more than ten places? Verse 30 the prophet said to the assembly of Israel thus: Those daughter of Gallim means Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who performed divine commandments as numerous as the waves of the sea. Layshah means be not afraid of Layshah, which means Sanherib, but of Nebuchadnezzar, who is equalized to a lion, as it reads [Jer. iv. 7]: "The lion has come up from his thicket. O poor Anathoth!"—there will come a prophet from Anathoth, Jeremiah, who will prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem.

(Verse 32): "As yet will be remain at Nob." What does this mean? Said R. Huna: There was one day more appointed for the punishment of the iniquity of Nob. And the astrologers told Sanherib that if he could reach Jerusalem on that day he would be victorious. He therefore hastened his march and made a journey of ten days in one. And when he reached Jerusalem a ladder was made for him, upon which he ascended to view the whole city which was visible from that place. And it appeared to him very small, so that he exclaimed: Is this the city of Jerusalem for which I have troubled all my forces? Is she not smaller and weaker than all the great cities and countries which I have besieged with my powerful arm? He nodded his head, and gestured with his hands over the mountain of the Temple in Zion and over the court of the Temple in Jerusalem. And as his army wanted to put their hands on Jerusalem immediately, he told them that they were at present too tired, but on the morrow everyone of them should bring with him a piece of the wall which surrounds it. Concerning that night, however, it reads [II Kings, xix. 35]: "And it came to pass, on that same night, that an angel of the Lord . . . . smote . . . . of the Assyrians one hundred eighty and five thousand men; and when the people arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses."

Said R. Papa: This is what people say: If the judgment is postponed over one night, there is hope that it will be abolished entirely.

It reads [II Sam. xxi. 16]: "And Yishbi at Nob, who was of the children of the Raphah, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of copper, he being girded with a new armour, thought to slay David." What is meant by "Yishbi at Nob"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It means that this happened because of that which was done to the city of Nob. The Lord said to David: How much longer will the iniquity of Nob rest upon thee? Thou caused the destruction of the priest's city of Nob. Thou caused the iniquity of Doeg the Edomite, and through thee Saul and his three sons were killed. Now thou hast the choice of one of the following two. Either thou shalt not leave any issue, or that thou couldst be delivered over to thy enemies. And he answered: Lord of the Universe, it is better for me to be delivered over to the enemy than my descendants shall be destroyed.
It happened then that David went to a village and the Satan appeared to him in the form of a ram. He shot an arrow at it, but it did not reach it. So he ran after it till he passed the border of the Philistines. And when Yishbi of Nob saw him he said: This is he who killed my brother Goliath. He bound him, gagged him and put him under an olive press. However, a miracle occurred in that the earth under him became soft, and he was not killed. To this it is written [Ps. xviii. 37]: "Thou enlargest my steps under me, so that my joints do not slip." That day was an eve of Sabbath. And Abishai b. Zeruyah used to wash his head with four pitchers of water, and spots of blood appeared on the water. According to others, a dove flew to him, flapped her wings as if in trouble. And he said the assembly of Israel is equalized to a dove. Hence it must be that David the king of Israel is in trouble. He went to David's house but did not find him there. And he said, I was taught: One must not ride on a king's horse, must not sit on his chair, etc. But how is it at the time of danger? He went to the college and questioned concerning it. To which he was answered that at the time of danger one may. Then he rode upon the king's mule and miraculously the earth jumped towards him. And while riding he saw Arpa, the mother of Yishbi, sitting and spinning. When she saw him she broke the thread of her spindle and threw it at him with the intention of killing him (simulating that it had accidentally slipped). Then she said: Young man, hand me my spindle. And he took the spindle, threw it at her head, and she was killed. When Yishbi of Nob saw Abishai, he said: Now there are two, and they will be able to kill me. He took David and threw him up high, and placed the point of his spear so that David should fall upon it, and be killed. And Abishai mentioned a certain holy name, through which David remained between the sky and the earth. [But why didn't David himself mention such a name? Because a prisoner cannot liberate himself from prison without help.]

Abishai then questioned David what he was doing there. And he narrated before him what the Lord told him and what his answer to it was. Said he to him: Reverse thy prayer. Thy grandson may go and sell wax, but thou thyself must not take any trouble upon thee. Rejoined David: If it must be so, then succor me to pray. For it reads [Sam. xxx. 17]: "But Abishai the son of Zeruyah succoured him." And R. Jehudah, in the name of Rabh, said that he succored him in prayer. Thereafter Abishai mentioned another holy name and took David up on the knees, and both ran away. And Yishbi ran after them. And when they reached the village of Kubi (situated on the boundary of Palestine) they thought: Let us stop here and fight him. However, they went to the village of Tri and said to themselves that two cubs of a lion are able to kill a big lion. When the fight began they said to him: Go back, and you will see that your mother is dead. And when he heard this he became weak, and then they killed him. And this is what is written [ibid. 17]: "Then swore the men of David unto him, saying: Thou shall go out no more with us to battle, that thou mayest not quench the lamp of Israel."
The rabbis taught: To the following three the earth jumped: To Eliezar the servant of Abraham, to Jacob our father, and to Abishai b. Zeruyah: To the latter, as it was said above. To Eliezar the servant of Abraham, as it reads [Gen. xxiv. 42]: "And I came this day unto the well." "This day" means on the same day he went from home. To Jacob our father, as it reads [ibid. xxviii. 10 and 11]: "And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went towards Charan. And he "vayiphga" (lighted) upon a certain place and tarried there all night, because the sun was set," etc. When he reached Charan he said: Is it right of me not to have prayer when I passed the place my parents passed? He resolved to return, and soon after his resolution the earth jumped and he met Bethel.

And another explanation is that "vayiphga" means praying, as it reads [Jer. vii. 16]: "But thou—pray not thou in behalf of this people, nor lift up in their behalf entreaty or prayer, nor make an intercession ("al-tiphga") to me, for I will not hear thee." "And tarried there all night," etc. He wanted to return after he prayed, but the Holy One, blessed be He, however, said: This upright came to my inn and he should go away without staying over night. He made, therefore, the sun set immediately. And this is what it reads farther on [ibid. xxxii. 32]: "And the sun rose unto him as he passed by Penuel." Does the sun only rise to him and not to the whole world? Therefore said R. Itz'hak, it means the sun which has set for his sake has risen now for him.

And whence do we know that David's children were destroyed? From II Kings xi. 1: "And when Athalyah the mother of Achazyahn saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. But did not Yoash remain? There in the case of Nob also Ebyathar remained, as it reads [I Sam. xxii. 20]. And R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: If from Achimelech's family there would not one have remained there would not have remained from David's family a single soul.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: Sanherib the wicked, when he came to attack, brought with him forty-five thousand princes with their concubines in golden carriages, and eighty thousand valiant men which were clothed in coats of mail, and sixty thousand girded with swords, who ran before the army. And the remainder were riders. Similar to this army was the one that attacked Abraham. And such will come in the future with Gog and Magog. In a Boraitha it was taught: The length of his camp was four hundred parsus, and the width of the necks of his horses were forty parsus. And the total of camp was two hundred and sixty thousand, less one. Questioned Abayi: What is meant by "less one"? Less one thousand, less one hundred, or less, one literally? The question was not decided.
There is a Boraitha: The first part of Sanherib's army passed the Jordan by swimming, as it reads [Is. viii. 8]: "He shall penetrate into Judah, overflow," etc.; the middle part standing on their feet, as it reads: "Even to the neck shall he reach." (The water was so diminished by the swimming of the first part, that these had to pass over on foot.) And by the last part (the Jordan was so dry) that the dust whirled up by the tramping of their feet. And they found no water to drink, and they had to bring it from another place; as it reads [ibid. xxviii. 25]: "I have dug and drunk water." But is it not written that the angel smote only one hundred eighty and five thousand, and when they arose early in the morning they were all corpses? Said R. Abuhu: This enumerates only the officers of the army. Said Rabhina: It seems to be so from [II Chr. xxxii. 21]: "And the Lord sent an angel, who cut off every mighty man of valor and leader and captain in the camp of the king of Assyria, and when he returned with shame of face to his own land, he went into the house of his god, and (those) that were come forth from his own bowels felled him there with the sword."

With what did the angel smite them? R. Eliezar said: With his hand. As it reads [Ex. xiv. 31]: "And Israel saw that great hand which the Lord had shown," i.e., that which will take revenge on Sanherib. And R. Jehoshua said: With the finger. As it reads [ibid. viii. 15]: "Then said the magicians unto Pharaoh, this is a finger of God," "this" means the one which will take revenge on Sanherib. And R. Eliezar b. R. Jose the Galilean said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel: Is thy sickle (of death) polished? And he answered: Lord of the Universe, it is ready, polished, since the six days of the creation. As it reads [Is. xxi. 15]: "From the drawn sword, from the bent bow." R. Simeon b. Jochai said: That was the time when the fruit became ripe, and the Holy One said to Gabriel: When thou will go to make the fruit ripe, by the way, thou shalt attend to them. As it reads [ibid. xxviii. 19]: "For morning by morning shall it pass by, by day and by night; and the mere understanding of the report shall cause terror." Said R. Papa: This is what people say: When thou passest by the door of thy enemy, look at it. According to others the angel blew into their nostrils till they died. As it reads [ibid. X1. 24]: "When he breathed upon them, they withered." R. Jeremiah b. Abah said: They died from the striking of his hands. As it reads [Ezek. xxi. 22]: "I will strike my hands together, and I will cause my fury to be assuaged."

And Itz'hak of Nafha said: He revealed their ears so that they hear the songs of the angel and become death from it. As it reads [ibid. xxxiii. 3]: "When thou liftedst thyself up nations were scattered." And how many remained of them? According to Rabh, ten, as it reads [ibid. x. 19]: "And the rest of the trees of his forest shall be few in number, so that a boy may write them down." And what can a boy write a י {Hebrew Y} (yad) which counts ten. And Samuel said: Nine, as it reads [ibid. xvii. 6]: "Two or three berries on the top of the uppermost bough, four to five on the outmost branches of a fruitful tree." And R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: Fourteen, as the just cited verse reads two, three . . . four, five. R. Johanan, however, said: Only five, and they were Sanherib and his two sons, Nebuchadnezzar and Nebusaradan, the latter is known by tradition, and concerning Nebuchadnezzar, it reads [Dan. iii. 25]: "And the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods," and if he would not have seen him first, how would he know how an angel looks? And concerning Sanherib, it reads [II Kings xix. 37]: "And it came to pass, as he was prostrating himself in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smite him."

R. Abuhu said: Were it not for the following verse it would be impossible to believe. It reads [Is. vii. 20]: "On the same day, will the Lord shave with the razor that is hired, from among those on the other side of the river, with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet, and also the beard shall it entirely remove." The Lord sent an angel, who appeared before Sanherib as an old man, and questioned him: When thou wilst return to the kings of the East and the West, whose sons thou broughtst with thee, and who were killed, what excuse canst thou give to them? And he answered: I myself am trembling about this. Canst thou advise me what to do? And he rejoined: Go and change thyself that thou mayest not be recognized. And to the question how should this be done, he told him, Bring me scissors and I will cut your hair off. And to the question where he shall take the scissors, he showed him a certain house, telling him to go there and that he will find what he needs. He went there, and found angels who had appeared before him as men, engaged in grinding the kernels of dates. And he asked them for a scissors. To which they answered, grind one kernel and thou wilst get it. He did so and got the requested scissors. But when he returned it grew dark, and he was told to bring light. And while carrying the light, the wind blew and caught his beard, and therefore he was compelled to cut off his hair and his beard. And this is what is written, "and also the beard shall it entirely remove." [Said R. Papa, this is what people say: Then you are engaged in cutting the hair of an Aramaen, cinge his beard, and you will have to laugh for a long time.] When he went away he found a board from the ark of Noah. And he exclaimed, This is the great God, who saved Noah from the flood. I vow that if I will succeed in the future, I will sacrifice my two sons to him. This his sons heard, and therefore they killed him, and this is what is written in the above cited verse [II Kings, xix. 37].

It reads [Gen. xiv. 15]: "And he divided himself against them, he and his servants by night (lajlha), and smote them." Said R. Johanan: The name of the angel who came to assist Abraham was lajlha (night), as it reads [Job, iii. 3]: "And the night when it was said, There hath been a male child conceived," etc. And R. Itz'hak of Nafha said: The term lajlha concerning Abraham means that the stars of the night assisted him in his war as they did in the war with Sissera [Judges, V. 20]: "From heaven they fought—the stars in their courses fought against Sissera." Said Resh Lakish: The explanation of Nafha is better than that of the bar Nafha (Johanan, who is always called bar Nafha).

R. Johanan said: When this upright (Abraham) reached the city of Dan he became weak, as he saw that in the future his children will worship idols in Dan, as it reads [I Kings, Xii. 29]: "And the other put he in Dan." And also this wicked (Sanherib) did not feel. strong until he reached Dan, as it reads [Jer. viii. 16]: "From Dan was heard the snorting of his horses."
R. Zera said: Although R. Joshua b. Levi sent a message, in which among other things he said be careful with the children of the gentiles, as it happens very often wisdom emanates from them, the following may be nevertheless proclaimed. It reads [ibid., xii. 1 to 3]: "(Too) righteous art thou, O Lord, that I could plead with thee; yet must I speak of (the principles of) justice with thee: Wherefore is the way of the wicked happy? Do all those prosper that deal treacherously? Thou hast planted them; they have also taken root; they grow; they also bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their mind." And he was answered [ibid., ibid. 5]: "If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, how then canst thou contend with the horses? and if in the land of peace, (wherein) thou trusted, (they wearied thee), how then wilt thou do in the swelling of the Jordan?" As a parable to this is: One who proclaims that he is able to run three parsus in front of horses in the swamps. And a pedestrian happened to say to him that he is able to do the same. And he tried to run in front of him three miles and became tired. And then he said, If you become tired by running in front of me, how much the more in front of horses? If only from three miles, how much the more from three parsus? If you become tired on dry land, how much the more would you become so in the swamps! Similar to this was it said to Jeremiah. Thou art wondering that I have rewarded that wicked for the four steps he was running for the sake of my glory: how much more will you wonder when I will come to pay the reward of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who used to run for me like horses! And this is what is written [ibid. xxiii. 9]: "To the prophets—Broken is my heart within me; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, because of the Lord, and because of his holy words."

But what four steps arc meant? Those of [Isa. xxxix. i]: At that time sent Merodach-baladon, the son of Baladon, the king of Babylon, letters and presents to Hezekiah, for he had heard that he had been sick, and was becoming strong again." And to this it reads also [II Chron. xxxii. 31]: "And in the same manner in the business of the ambassadors . . . who sent unto him to inquire concerning the wonder that had happened in the land." (And what is it?) What R. Johanan said: That the day on which Achaz died consisted of only two hours. And when Heskiah became sick and thereafter recovered, the Holy One, blessed be He, returned the ten hours to that day, as it reads [Isa. xxxviii. 8]: Behold, I will cause the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down on the dial of Achaz by the sun, to return backward ten degrees. So the sun returned ten degrees, by the degrees which he was gone down." Merodach-baladon then questioned why that day is so long. And he was told, because Hiskia was sick and recovered. He said then: If there is such a man, must he not be greeted? Write him a letter of greeting. And they wrote, Peace to the king Hiskiah, peace to the city of Jerusalem, and peace to the great God.
At that time Nebuchadnezzar was Merodach's scribe. But this letter was written in his absence. When he returned and heard of this he asked them what they wrote. And they told him so and so. And he exclaimed: Ye named Him the great God, and greet Him at the end! It ought to have been written, Peace to the great God, peace to the city of Jerusalem, and peace to Hiskiah! And they told him that the dictator of the letter should be the messenger. He then ran after the messenger to make him return. But after he ran four steps Gabriel came and stopped him. And R. Johanan said: If Gabriel would not have stopped there would be no remedy for the people of Israel.

What does the term "ben baladon" mean? It was said that Merodach's father was a king whose appearance was changed to that of a dog. And his son baladon sat on the throne. And when he used to sign his name he did so in conjunction with his father's for the sake of his honor. And to this it reads [Malachi, i. 6]: "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master." A son honoreth his father, as just mentioned, and a servant his master, as in [Jer., lii. 12 and 13]: "And in the fifth month on the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, came Nebusaradan, the captain of the guard, (who) served the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem. And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. But was Nebuchadnezzar, indeed, at that time in Jerusalem? Is it not written [II Kings xxv. 20]: "And Nebusaradan, the captain of the guard, took these, and conducted them to the king of Babylon to Riblah." And R. Abuhu said that Riblah is identical with Autukhia? R. Hisda and R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi: One said that the image of Nebuchadnezzar was engraved on his carriage, and the other that the fear of Nebuchadnezzar rested upon Nebusaradan, so that it always appeared to him that he was standing by him.
Rabha said: Three hundred mules loaded with iron saws which cut iron were given to Nebusaradan by Nebuchadnezzar while going to attack Jerusalem. And all of them were broken at one gate of Jerusalem, as it reads [Ps. lxxiv. 6]: "And now they hew in pieces the carver work thereof altogether with hatchets and hammers." Seeing this he thought to return, but a heavenly voice was heard: "Jumper, the son of a jumper, O Nebusaradan, jump now, and thou wilst succeed, as the time for the destruction of the sanctuary and for the burning of the Temple has arrived." And one saw remained with him, and with it he struck the gate, and it opened, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 5]: "(The enemy) is known as one that lifteth up high axes against the thickets of a forest." Then he slew every one coming under his hand till he reached the Temple and kindled it. However, the Temple wanted to fly away, but it was prevented by Heaven and was trodden down, as it reads [Lamentations, i. 15]: "A winepress hath the Lord trodden over the virgin, the daughter of Judah." Nebusaradan became proud of all this, and a heavenly voice was heard saying: "You slew a killed nation, a burnt temple have you burned, grind flour have you grind," as it reads [Isa. xlvii. 2]: "Take the mill and grind meal; Uncover thy locks, lift up the train, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers." It does not read "and grind wheat," but "grind meal."

He then saw the blood of Zecharyah the prophet, which was boiling. He asked: What is it? And he was told that it is blood of sacrifice which was spilled. And he said: I will bring such blood and see if it will be similar. He did so, but it didn't correspond. Said he to them: Reveal to me this secret, for if not I will scratch your flesh with iron combs. They told him then that it was that of a priest and prophet, who had prophesied the destruction of the Temple and was slain. Said be to them: I will reconcile him. He slew the rabbis over his blood, but it didn't become quiet. He brought then the little school children, slew them, and it didn't effect. He slew then the young priest over it, and it didn't cease to boil. He slew then altogether nine hundred and forty thousand, and still the blood did not rest. He approached the blood, saying: Zecharyah, the best of thy people I slew; dost thou want that I shall slay all of them? And the blood immediately rested. He then repented, thinking they had suffered so much only for one person. I who have shed so much blood, how much will I have to suffer? He then ran away, sent his will to his house, and became a proselyte.

The rabbis taught: Naamani's proselytism was only to perform the seven commandments given to the descendants of Noah. Nebusaradan, however, was a true proselyte, from the descendants of Sissera were such who studied the law in Jerusalem, and from the descendants of Sanherib were such who taught the Torah among a majority of Israelites, and they are Shmayah and Abtalia. From the descendants of Haman were such who learned the Torah in the city Bne-Brack. And even the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar, the Holy One, blessed be He, thought to enter them under the wings of the Shekinah. But the angels prayed before Him: Lord of the Universe, he who has destroyed your house, burned your Temple, shouldst thou enter him under the wings of the Skekinah? And this is what reads [Jer. li. 9]: "We would have healed Babylon, but she was not healed." And Ula said this means Nebuchadnezzar. Samuel b. Na'hman, however, said: It means the waters along the (dry, or stony) palms of Babylonia.

Ula said: Amon and Moab were the two bad neighbors of Jerusalem, and when they heard the prophets prophesying the destruction of same, they sent to Nebuchadnezzar, "Come up," and to his answer that he is afraid that they will do to him as they have done with their former enemies, they said to him [Prov. vii. 19]: "For the man is not in his house," and by the man is meant the Lord. He, however, sent to them; he is near to them, and will return. They sent again to him, "He is gone on a journey a great way off." Nebuchadnezzar, however, sent to them: I am aware that among them are upright, who will pray for them to Him and He will return; and they answered: The bag of money hath he taken with him, and by a "bag of money," the upright are meant, as it reads [Hosea, iii. 2]: "So I bought me such a one for fifteen pieces of silver," etc. He sent again: The wicked of them will repent, pray, and will be listened to. And they answered: He has already appointed a time for repenting, as it reads [Prov. vii. 19]: "By the day of kesa only will he return," and the term kesa means "an appointed time," as it reads [Ps. lxxxi. 4]: "Blow on the new moon, the cornet at the time appointed (kesa) on the day of our feast." He, however, sent to them: It is winter, and I cannot come up because of snow and rain. And they sent to him: The mountains will protect thee, as it reads [Is. xvi. 1]: "Send ye the lambs of the ruler of the land from Sela, through the wilderness unto the mount of the daughter of Zion." He (Nebuchadnezzar) sent to them: When I will arrive there I will have no place to reside. And they answered: Their graves are better than your palaces, as it reads [Jer. viii. 1 and 2]: "At that time, saith the Lord, shall they bring out the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of the princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves. And they shall spread them out before the sun, and the moon and all the hosts of heaven, which they have loved, and which they have served, and after which they have walked."

R. Na'hman said to R. Itz'hak: Have you heard when the fallen son will come? And to the question, Who is it? He answered: The Messiah. And the Messiah you call "The fallen son"? And he said: Yea, for it reads [Amos, ix. 11]: "On that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David, which is fallen." And he answered: Thus said R. Johanan: In the generation in which the son of David will come scholarly men will decrease, and by the remainder their eyes will protrude from sighing and sorrow, many chastisements and many evil decrees will be renewed, one will not cease as yet, while another will have come.

The rabbis taught: In this Sabbatic period in which the son of David will appear in the first year there will be fulfilled what is written, in [Amos, iv. 7]: "And I caused it to rain upon one city, and upon another city I caused it not to rain." In the second year, arrows (tokens) of famine will be sent. In the third, a great famine, from which men, women, and children, pious men and men of good deeds will die, and the Torah will be forgotten by their scholars. In the fourth there will be abundance, and not abundance. In the fifth there will be great abundance, and the people will eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, and the Torah will return to her scholars. In the sixth, voices will be heard saying that the Messiah is near. In the seventh, war will be, and at the end of the seventh, ben David will come. Said R. Joseph: Were there not many Sabbatical periods which were like this, but still he did not come? Said Abayi: Were then the above-mentioned voices heard in the sixth? And was there in the seventh war? And secondly, has it then happened in the same order as said above? There is a Boraitha. R. Jehudah said: The generation in which the son of David will come, the houses of assembly will be converted into houses of prostitution. Galilee will be destroyed. The place called Gablan will be astonished. Men of the borders of Palestine will travel from one city to another, but will find no favor. The wisdom of the scribes will be corrupted. Men fearing sin will be hated. The leaders of that generation will have the nature of dogs. And truth will be missing, as it reads [Is. lix. 15]: "And thus is the truth missing." What does this mean? It was said in the college that it passes away like flocks. 1 "And he that departeth from evil is regarded as foolish." Said the school of Shila: He who turns away from evil is regarded as foolish in the eyes of the people. Said Rabha: Previously I thought there is no truth in the whole world. However, I met thereafter a certain rabbi named Tubuth, according to others R. Tibumi, and if the whole world filled with gold would be given to him, he would not change his word or tell a lie. It happened once that he came to a city named Kushta (truth). And the inhabitants of that city would not change their word, and it never happened that one should die an untimely death. And he married one of its inhabitants, and she bore him two children. It happened once that his wife washed her head and a female neighbor came to ask for her, and he thought that it was not nice to say that she is washing her head, and therefore said that she is out. And the two children died. And when the inhabitants came to ask him what was the reason that such an unusual thing happened to him, he told them the truth. And they requested him to move away from their city in order not to cause untimely death.

R. Nehuraia taught: The generation in which the son of David will come, young men will make pale the faces of the old, old men will rise before youth, a daughter will rebel against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, the leaders of the generation will have the nature of dogs, and a son will not be ashamed when his father reproaches him.

There is a Boraitha: R. Nehemiah said: The generation in which ben David will come, insolence will increase, an evil man will be honored, respect will be missed, the vine will give forth its fruit abundantly; wine, however, will be dear, and all the governments will be turned over to Minuth (will embrace the religion of the Minim), and no preaching will avail. And this is a support to R. Itz'hak, who said that ben David will not come unless all governments will be turned over to Minuth. Where is to be found a hint to this in the Scripture? [Lev. xiii. 13]: "It is all turned white, he is clean."

The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxxii. 36 and 37]: "For the Lord will espouse the cause of his people, and bethink himself concerning his servants: When he seeth that their power is gone, and the guarded and fortified are no more." Ben David will not come until the denouncers will increase. According to others, unless the disciples will decrease; and still according to others, until the pockets will be empty of aperuthar. And some others also say unless they will renounce their hope to be redeemed. And this is as R. Zera found the rabbis occupying themselves with the question of the Messiah. And he told them, I beg you do not make the thing further than it is, as there is a Boraitha that the following three come suddenly after renouncing all hope for them, viz., the Messiah, found and a bite of a serpent. R. Ktina said: For six thousand years the world will continue, and in the seventh it will be destroyed. As it reads [Isa. xii. 11]: "And exalted shall be the Lord alone, on that day."

Abayi, however, said two thousand will be destroyed, as it reads [Hosea, vi. 2]: "He will revive us after two days. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ktina: As in the Sabbatic period, the seventh year is a release, so will it be with the whole world that one thousand years after six will be a release, as above cited verse [Isa. xii. i] and [Ps. xcii. 11]: "A Psalm or song for the Sabbath day," which means the day which will be all Sabbath. And as [ibid. xc. 4]: "For a thousand years are in thy eyes but as the yesterday when it is passed."

The disciples of Elijah taught: The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which were a chaos (Tahu), the second two thousand were of wisdom, and the third two thousand are the days of the Messiah, and because of our sins many, many years of these have elapsed, and still he has not come. Elijah said to R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious: The world will continue for no less than eighty-five jubilaic periods, and in the last jubilaic period ben David will come. And to the question: At its beginning or at its end? he answered: I don't know. Has this passed already, or will it come? He also answered, I don't know. R. Ashi, however, said: Elijah told him thus: Until the above mentioned time will pass you shall not have any hope for him. But after that time, you may hope.

R. Hanan b. Tahlipha sent a message to R. Joseph: I met a man who possessed scrolls written in Assyrian characters and in the holy language. And to my question from where he got it, he answered: I hired myself to the Persian army, and among the treasures of Persia I found it. And it was written therein that after two thousand, two hundred and ninety-one years of the creation, the world will remain an orphan, many years will be the war of whales, and many more years will be the war of Gog and Magog, and the remainder will be the days of the Messiah. But the Holy One, blessed be He, will not renew the world before seven thousand have elapsed. And R. Aha b. R. Rabha said: After five thousand years from to-day.

There is a Boraitha: R. Nashan said: The following passages bore a hole to the depth (i.e., as no one can fathom the depth, so no one can come to the exact meaning of these), viz. [Habukkuk, ii. 3]: "For there is yet a vision for the appointed time, and it speaketh of the end, and it will not deceive: Though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not be delayed." It is not as our masters lectured about this from [Dan. vii. 25]: "And they will be given up into his hand until a time and times and half a time." And not in accordance with R. Simlai, who used lecture about this form [Ps. lxxx. 6]: "Thou feedest them with the bread of tears, and givest them tears to drink in great measure. And also not in accordance with R. Aqiba, who used to lecture about this from [Haggai, ii. 6]: "For thus said the Lord. . . . Yet one thing more (will I do), it is but little, when I will cause to quake the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land." But the. first kingdom was of seventy years, the second of fifty-two, and the kingdom of Bar Kochba, two years and a half. 1 What does the verse "Speaketh of the end" to mean? Said R. Samuel b. Na'hman, in the name of R. Jonathan: Blown out shall be the souls of those who are sitting and appointing times for the arrival of the Messiah. Because they usually err, and when the appointed time comes and the Messiah does not appear, they say that he will not come anymore. But everyone has to wait for him, as it reads: "Wait for him, because he will surely come." And lest one say, We are awaiting but He does not wait, therefore it reads [Isa. xxx. 18:] "And therefore will the Lord wait, to be gracious unto you, and therefore will he exalt himself, to have mercy upon you." But if He and we are awaiting, who prevents Him to come? The divine attribute prevents. But if so, what is the use of our waiting? To receive reward for waiting, as the cited verse ends: "Happy are those that wait for him."

Abayi said: There are no less than thirty-six upright in every generation who receive the appearance of the Shekhina (see Succah, p. 68, and there it reads every day instead of every generation.) Is this so? Did not Rabha say that the row in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, contains eighteen thousand parsus, as it reads [Ezek. xlviii. 35]: "All around it shall be eighteen thousand rods"? This presents no difficulty. Abayi speaks of those who are looking in a "speculare," which gives the right light. And Rabha speaks of those who are looking in such, which does not give the right light. But are there, indeed, so many? Did not R. Simeon b. Jochai say: I see the very greatest men in the world are very few, etc. (see ibid., ibid., line 6)? This presents no difficulty. R. Simeon b. Jochai speaks of those who may enter without permission, and Rabha speaks of those who must have permission. Said Rabh: All the appointed times for the appearance of the Messiah have already ceased. And it depends only on repentance and good deeds. Samuel, however, said: It is sufficient for the mourner to remain with his own sorrow (i.e., the suffering of Israel for such a long time is sufficient that they should be redeemed even without repentance.) And on this point the following Tanaim differ. R. Eliezar said: If the people of Israel will repent they will be redeemed, but not otherwise. Said Jehoshua to him: According to you, if they will not repent they will not be redeemed at all? (Replied R. Eliezar 1): The Holy One, blessed be He, will appoint, for this purpose, a king whose decrees concerning Israel will be as severe as Haman's were. And this will bring them back to the better side, and they will repent.

There is another Boraitha: R. Eliezar said: If the people of Israel will repent they will be redeemed, as it reads [Jer. iii. 14]: "Return, O backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings." Said R. Jehoshua to him: Is it not written [Isa. lii. 3]: "For thus hath said the Lord, for naught were you sold, and without silver shall ye be redeemed," i.e., for naught were you sold to the idolaters, and not because of repentance and good deeds will you be redeemed. Rejoined R. Eliezar: But does it not read [Malachi iii. 7]: "Return unto me, and I will return unto you, said the Lord"? Rejoined he: Does it not read [Jer. iii. 14]: "For I am become your husband, and I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and bring you to Zion"?

Said R. Eliezar again: It reads [Isa. xxx. 15]: "In repose and rest shall ye be helped." And R. Jehoshua answered: I call your attention to [ibid. xlix. 7]: "Thus hath said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised by men, to him who is abhorred by nations, to the servants of rulers, kings shall see it and rise up, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord who is faithful." And R. Eliezar rejoined: To this it is written [Jer. iv. 1]: "If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, unto me, must thou return." Said R. Jehoshua to him: I call your attention to [Dan. xii. 7]: "Then heard I the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; and he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto the heavens, and swore by the Everliving One that after a time, times and a half, and when there shall be an end to the crushing of the power of the holy people, all these things shall be ended." And R. Eliezar kept silent.

Said Rabha: The appointed time for the Messiah cannot be more revealed than in this passage, as it reads [Ez. xxxvi. 8]: "But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall send forth your boughs, and your fruits shall ye bear for my people Israel." R. Elazar said also from [Zech. viii. 10]: "For before those days, there was no reward for man, nor any reward for beast; and for him that went out or came in there was no peace, because of the oppressor." What do the last words in this passage mean? Said Rabh: Also the scholars, of whom it reads [Ps. cix. 165]: "Abundant peace have they who love thy law," will also have no peace from the oppressor. Samuel, however, said: The cited verse means the Messiah will not come until high prices will be for all articles of life.

R. Hanina said: The son of David will not come unless even a piece of fish will be sought for a sick one and it will not be found, as it reads [Ez. xxxii. 14]: "Then will I make clear their waters, and cause their rivers to flow like oil." And it reads also [ibid. xxix. 21]: "On that day will I cause to grow a horn for the house of Israel, and unto thee will I open the mouth in the midst of them. 1 R. Hana b. Hanina said: Ben David will not appear unless every office of the government, even the least one will be removed from the children of Israel, as it reads [Isa. xviii. 5]: "He will both cut off the tendrils with pruning-knives, and the sprigs will he remove and cut down." And thereafter it reads [ibid. 7]: "At that time shall be brought as a present unto the Lord of hosts a people pulled and torn." And Zera, in the name of R. Hanina, said: Ben David will not come until the haughty men of Israel will cease to be, as it reads [Zeph. iii. 11]: "For then will I remove out of the midst of thee, those that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shall never more be haughty again on my holy mount." And thereafter it reads [12]: "I will leave remaining in the midst of thee an humble and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord." R. Simlai said, in the name of R. Elazar b. Simeon: Ben David will not come unless there will cease to be judges and officers of Israel, as it reads [Isa. i. 25 and 26]: "And I will turn my hand against thee, and I purge away as with lye thy dross, and remove all thy tin. And I will restore thy judges as at first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning," etc.

Said Ula: Jerusalem will not be redeemed but by charity, as it reads [Isa. i. 27]: "Zion shall be redeemed through justice, and her converts through zdaha" (the meaning of which is both righteousness and charity). Said R. Papa: When insolence shall cease to be in Israel, the magus of the Persians who causes much trouble will also cease to be, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 25]: "And purge away as with lye thy dross, and remove all thy tin." When judges of Israel will cease to be, the brutal executions of the Persian court-servants will be abolished, as it reads [Zeph. iii. 15]: "The Lord hath removed mishophtakha (literally "the judges from thee"), he hath cleared away thy enemy." R. Johanan said: When you see that wisdom decreases continually from a generation, you may hope for the Messiah, as it reads [II Sam. xxii. 28]: "And the afflicted people thou wilt save." And he said again: If you see chastisements and evils are increasing in a generation like the waters of the rivers, await the Messiah, as [Isa. lix. 19]: "For there shall come distress like a stream." And the next verse reads: "But unto Zion shall come the redeemer." He said again: Ben David will appear either in a generation in which all will be upright or in one in which all shall be wicked. "All upright," from [ibid. ix. 21]: "And thy people—they all will be righteous, for ever shall they possess the land." And "all wicked," from [ibid. lix. 16]: "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor." And [ibid. xlviii. ii]: For my own sake, for my own sake, will I do it."

R. Alexandri said: Jehoshua b. Levi propounded a contradiction: It reads [ibid. ix. 22]: "I the Lord will hasten it in its time." "Hasten" and "in its time" contradict each other. And the answer was that if they will be worthy I will hasten it, and if not, they must wait till the right time will come. The same said again that the same authority propounded another contradiction from [Dan. vii. 13]: "Behold with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man . . . " [Zech. ix. 9]: "Lowly and riding upon an ass." And the answer was, if they will be worthy he will come with the clouds of heaven, and if not, he. will come upon an ass.
The king Sabur said to Samuel: You say that your Messiah will come upon an ass, let me send him the best horse of my stable. And he answered him: Do you then possess a horse of a hundred colors as the ass of the Messiah? (a joke to a joke). R. Jehoshua b. Levi met Elijah standing at the gate of the cave of R. Simeon b. Jochai and asked him if he will have a share in the world to come. And he answered: If it will be the will of this Lord. Said R. Jehoshua: Two persons have I seen and the voice of the third have I heard. 1 I questioned him further when the Messiah will appear. And he answered: Go and ask him himself. "But where is he to be found?" "At the gate of Rome, among poor people inflicted with wounds." "And how can I recognize him?" All the inflicted poor open the bandages of all their wounds, fix all of them and then dress them. And he opens one bandage, fixes the wound and dresses it, and then goes on to the next one, for the reason that perhaps he will be cold and there will be a delay till all the wounds are dressed. R. Jehoshua went to him, and when he met him he said: Peace be to thee, my master and teacher. And he answered: Peace be with thee, son of Levai. And to Jehoshua's question: When will the master appear? he answered: This day. When Jehoshua met Elijah again, the latter questioned him as to what the Messiah said to him. And he said: Peace be with thee, son of Levai. Said Elijah: He assured you of a share for thyself and for thy father in the world to come. Rejoined Jehoshua: He made a fool of me by saying that he will come this day. And Elijah answered: The expression "this day" means as in [Ps. xcv.] "Yea this day, if you will hearken to his voice."

The disciples of R. Jose b. Kisma questioned him when the son of David will appear. And he answered: I am afraid you will request from me a sign. And they assured him that they would not. He then said to them: When this gate will fall, be rebuilt and fall again, be rebuilt again and fall again. And before it will be rebuilt for the third time the Messiah will appear. The disciples then said: Our master, give us a sign. "Have you not promised that you will not ask of me for any sign?" They answered: Nevertheless we would like to have it. And he said: If it is as I say, the spring of the cave of Paneas shall be converted into blood. And so it happened. While dying he said to his disciples: Put my coffin very deep into the earth, for there will not be one tree in Babylon to which a horse of the Persians will not be tied. And there will not remain one coffin in the land of Israel from which the horses of the Modoites will not eat straw.

Rabh said: Ben David will not arrive until Rome shall have dominated over Israel nine months (see Yomah, p. 13, where it is said, "over the entire world"; see there the sources also). Said Ula: Messiah may appear in the near future; I, however, wish not to see him. And the same said Rabba. R. Joseph, however, said: I pray for his coming in my days, and that I shall have the preference to sit in the shadow of his ass. Said Abayi to Rabba: Why does the master not wish to see the Messiah? Is it because of the lot which will be at that time? Is there not a Boraitha that the disciples of R. Elazer questioned him: What may one do to be saved from the lot of the Messiah? And he answered: He shall occupy himself with the Torah and with bestowing favors to the people, and you, master, are doing both; why then are you afraid? And he answered: Perhaps sin will cause me to suffer by the lot. And this is in accordance with R. Jacob b. Idi, who propounded the following contradiction: It reads [Gen. xxviii. 15]: "And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee withersoever thou goest." And [ibid. xxxii. 8]: "Then Jacob was greatly afraid, and he felt distressed." Hence after he was promised by the Lord, he was still afraid? And the answer was that he was afraid perhaps his sins caused what happened, as we have learned in the following Boraitha. It reads [Ex. xv. 16]: "Till thy people pass over "—i.e., their first coming to Palestine; "till this people pass over"—i.e., their second coming to Palestine from Babylon; from which we may infer that the second coming ought to be equal in miracles with the first. And why did not miracles occur at the second coming? Because of their sins. R. Johanan also said: The Messiah may come, but I shall not see him. Said Resh Lakish to him: What is your reason? Is it because of [Amos, v. 19]: "As if a man were to flee from a lion, and a bear should meet him; and he enter into the house, and lean his hand against the wall, and a serpent should bite him." Come, and I will show you a similarity to this in the world at this time—e.g., one is going to his field and a bailiff meets him (trying to contest this title to the field): is this not equal as if a lion should meet him? And when he enters the city a collector from the government meets him: is this not equal as if a bear should meet him? And when he enters his house and finds his sons and daughters starving: is this not equal as if a serpent would bite him? It must then be because of [Jer. xxx. 6]: "Ask ye now, and see whether a male doth give birth to a child? Wherefore do I see (gebher) every man with his hands on his loins as a woman in giving birth? and why are all faces turned pale?"

What is meant by "I see every gebher? Said Rabba b. Itz'hak in the name of Rabh: Him (God) from whom all the strength comes. And what is meant by "all faces turned pale"? Said R. Johanan: The heavenly household and the household of the earth, as at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Both Israel and the nations are my work, why then should I destroy the one for the other? Said R. Papa: This is what people say: If the ox which is liked by the owner falls while going on his way, and he is compelled to substitute for it a horse which he does not like very much, when the ox, however, becomes better it is difficult for him to remove the horse because of the ox. 1 R. Giddel said in the name of Rabh: The years of abundance in the time of the Messiah, will benefit Israel. Said R. Joseph: Is this not self-evident? Who else then should have benefit from them, Hilek and Bilek (as in English Dick and Harry)? This was said by him in order to deny R. Hillel's theory, who said farther on, that Israel has no more to wait for a Messiah, as they have consumed him already at the time of Hezekiah. Said Rabh: The world is created only for such men as David. And Samuel said: For such men as Moses. And R. Johanan said: For such men as the Messiah. But what is his name? The disciples of R. Shilah said: Shilah is his name, as it reads [Gen. xlix. 10]: "Until Shilah will come." The disciples of R. Janai said Jinun is his name, as it reads [Ps. lxxii. 17]: "In the presence of the sun, Jinun is his name." And the disciples of R. Hanina said: Hanina is his name, as [Jer. xvi. 13]: "So that I will not grant you Hanina." (Favor.) According to others, Menachem b. Hiskia is his name as in [Sam. i. 16]: "For from me in Menachem (comforter) that should refresh my soul." And the rabbis said: The sufferer of the house of Rabbi is his name, as [Is. liii. 4]: "But only our diseases did he bear himself, and our pains he carried: while we indeed esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted." Said R. Na'hman: If Messiah is among the living he is a man like myself, of whom it reads [Jer. xxx. 21]: "And their leader shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them." Said Rabh: If he is among the living it is our holy rabbi, and if he was from the death it was Daniel. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will create for them another David, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 9]: "And David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." It does not read "I raised," but "I will raise." Said R. Papa to Abayi, Does it not read [Ezek. xxxvii. 25]: "David my servant shall be prince unto them forever"? As it is now a Cæsar and a half Cæsar.

R. Simlai lectured: It reads [Amos, v. 18]: "Woe unto you that long for the day of the Lord! for what do you wish the day of the Lord? It is (one of) darkness and not of light." It is similar to a cock and a bat who were waiting for light. The cock said to the bat, I look out for the light, because the light is mine (I see it), but for what purpose do you wait for it? And this is what a Min said to R. Abushu: When will your Messiah appear? When your people will be surrounded with darkness. Rejoined the Min: Do you caution me? And he answered: No, but [Isa. Ix. 2] reads: "For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and a gross darkness the people; but over thee will shine forth the Lord, and his glory will be seen over thee."

There is a Boraitha: R. Eliezar said: Forty years will be the days of the Messiah. As it reads [Ps. xcv. 10]: "Forty years long did I feel loathing on this generation." R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: Seventy years, as [Isa. xxiii. 15]: "Seventy years like the days of one king." By "one king" the Messiah is meant. Rabbi, however, said: It will continue three generations, as [Ps. lxxii. 5]: "They shall fear thee, as long as the sun shineth, and in the presence of the moon throughout all generations." R. Hillel, however, said: There is no more any Messiah for Israel, as they have consumed him already in the days of Hiskia. Said R. Joseph: May the Lord forgive R. Hillel! Hiskia was at the time of the first Temple, and Zacharyah prophesied at the time of the second Temple, and said [Zech. ix. 9]: "Be greatly glad, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, thy king will come unto thee, righteous and victorious is he lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of a she-ass.
There is another Boraitha: The days of the Messiah are forty years, as it reads [Deut. viii. 3]: "And he afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger," and [Ps. xc. 15]: "Cause us to rejoice as many days as those wherein thou hast afflicted us," Hence, as their journey in the desert was forty years, so long will be the days of the Messiah; so R. Eliezar. R. Dusa, however, said: Four hundred years, as in [Gen. xv. 13]: "And they will afflict them four hundred years." And as the above cited verse reads, "to rejoice as many days as thou afflicted us," hence it is four hundred years. Rabbi said: Three hundred and sixty-five years, according to the days of the year when counted after the sun, as [Isa. xxiii. 4]: "For the days of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeemer was come." What is meant, the day of vengeance is in my heart? Said R. Johanan: I revealed it to my heart, but not to any other member of my body. And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: I revealed it to my heart, but not to the angels. Abimi b. Abuhu taught: Seven thousand years will be the days of Messiah, as it reads [ibid. lxii. 5]: "And as a bridegroom is glad over the bride, so will be glad over thee thy God," which is seven days, and each day of the Lord is a thousand years.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: The days of the Messiah will be as from the day of creation till now, as it reads [Deut. xi. 2 1]: "As the days of heaven over the earth." R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said: As from the day of Noah till now, as [Isa. liv. 9]: "For as the waters of Noah is this unto me; as I have sworn," etc.

R. Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan said: All the prophets have prophesied only for the days of the Messiah, but concerning the world to come it reads [ibid. lxiv. 3]: "No eye (also) had seen a god beside Thee." And he differs with Samuel, who says that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah only concerning the dominion of foreigners over Israel. R. Hyya said again in the name of R. Johanan: The prophets prophesied only to those who have repented, but concerning the entirely upright, it reads: "No eye has seen," etc. And they differ with R. Abuhu, as he said that at the place where those who have repented will be placed, entirely upright cannot be placed, as it reads [Isa. lvii. 19]: "Peace, peace to him that is afar off, and to him that is near." Hence "afar off" is first, and then is "that is near." And what is meant, by "far off"? Who previously was far off and now is near. And what is meant by "near"? He who was first near, and is also now near. R. Johanan, however, explained "far off" means one who was always far off from sin, and "near" means one who was near to sin, but now is far off.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: The prophets prophesied only to him who marries his daughter to a scholar, to him who is in business for a scholar, and to him who benefited the scholars by his estate, but to the scholars themselves "an eye has not seen," etc. What is this? Said R. Jehoshua b. Levi: This is the wine which is preserved in the grapes since the days of the creation. And Resh Lakish said: That is the Eden which no eye has seen. And lest one say that Adam the First was there? Adam dwelt only in the garden. And lest one say that both are one and the same. To this it reads [Gen. ii. 10] And a river went out of Eden to water the garden." "And he who says that the Torah is not given by Heaven," etc. The Rabbis taught: It reads [Num. xv. 31]: "Because the word of the Lord hath he despised and his commandment hath he broken." It means him who says that the Torah is not given by Heaven. According to others it means an Epicurean. Still another explanation is that "the word of the Lord hath he despised," means him who explains the Torah against the true law. "His commandment hath he broken"—means circumcision, Hikorath—shall be cut off from this world. Tikorath—from the world to come. Said R. Elazar the Modoi: It is inferred from this that he who profanes the sanctuary, who despises the festivals, he who breaks the covenant of Abraham our father, he who explains the Torah in a wrong way, he who makes pale in public the face of his neighbor, although they possess wisdom and good deeds, have no share in the world to come. There is another Boraitha: "He hath despised the word of God," means him who says that the Torah was not given by Heaven, and even if he says that the Torah is given by Heaven, except such and such, which is not by the Holy One, but by Moses himself. And even if he says that the whole Torah is by Heaven except such and such an explanation, such an a fortiori conclusion, such an analogy of expression, they are considered as despising the word of the Lord.

There is another Boraitha. R. Mair said: The just cited verse means him who learned the Torah but does not teach it. R. Nathan said: It means him who does not care for the Mishna. R. Nehoraim said: It means him who is possible to study the law, but does not. R. Ismael, however, said: It means an idolater. How does he infer this from this passage? As in the following Boraitha: The disciples of R. Ismael taught: "He hath despised the word of the Lord," means him who has despised the words which were said to Moses at Sinai, "I am the Lord thy God, there shall not be any other god before thee."

R. Jehoshua b. Karcha said: He who learns the Torah and does not repeat it, is similar to him who sows but does not harvest.

R. Jehoshua said: He who learned the Torah and forgot it, is similar to a woman who bears children and buries them. Said R. Aqiba: One shall systematize his study as a song which is to be sung daily (and this will cause his singing in the world to come). Said R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi: Where is an allusion to be found to this in the Scriptures? [Prov. xvi. 26]: "The desire of the laborer laboreth for him; for his mouth imposeth it on him," Which means he is laboring here and the Torah labors for him in another place. R. Elazar said: Every man is created to labor, as it reads [Job, v. 7]: "But man is born unto labor." From this, however, we do not know if it means mental or manual labor. As the end of the above-cited verse [Prov. xvi. 26] ends "for his mouth imposeth it on him," hence mental labor is meant. But still I am not aware if it means wisdom or gossip. But as [Josh. i. 8] reads: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth," hence it means for the labor of the Torah. And this is what Rabha said: Every body is a δρνφατο . Well is to him who is a "druphanto" for the Torah. Resh Lakish said: He who occasionally studies the Torah lacks sense, as it reads [Prov, xxii. 18]: "For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thy bosom, if they be altogether firmly seated upon thy lips."

The rabbis taught: It reads [Num. xv. 30]: "But the person that doth aught with a high hand," means Menasseh b. Hiskia who was offending the legends of the Torah by saying: Has not Moses written something better than in [Gen. xxxvi. 22]: "And Lotan's sister was Thimna," or that she was a concubine of Eliphaz b. Esau, or that of [ibid. xiii. 14]. "And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field." A heavenly voice was then heard [Ps. l. 20]: "Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother, against thy own mother's son thou utterest slander." And to him also applies [Isa. v. 18]: "Woe unto those that draw iniquity with the cords of falsehood, and as with a wagon-rope, sinfulness." What does a "wagon-rope" mean? (See Succah, p. 80, line 3.) But what means in reality the verse "Lotan's sister was Thimna"? Thimna was a princess, as it reads [Gen. xxxvi. 40]: "Duke Thimna," and a dukedom is a kingdom without a crown; and she desired to become a proselyte, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not accept her. And she went and became the concubine of Eliphaz b. Esau, saying it is better to be a servant in this nation than to be a princess of another.

And the offspring from her was Amalek, who troubled Israel as a punishment to their parents, who ought not to have driven her out. "Reuben went in the days of harvest," etc. Said Rabha b. Itz'hak in the name of Rabh: Infer from this that the upright do not stretch their hands out to robbery. What are the dudaim which Reuben found? According to Rabh they were jabruchen, and according to Samuel mandrake flower.

R. Alexandri said: Those who occupy themselves with the Torah for her own sake cause peace to reign in the heavenly household and in the household here below, as it reads [Isa. xxvii. 15]: "If he but take hold of my strength, make peace with me, make peace with me." And Rabh said: He is considered as if he had built both palaces of heaven and earth, as it reads [ibid. li. 16]: "And I have placed my words in thy mouth, and with the shadow of my hand have I covered thee: to plant the heavens and to lay the foundations of the earth." R. Johanan said: He is also considered as a protector of the world, as it reads "with the shadow of my hand have I covered thee." Levi said: He makes redemption sooner, as this verse ends "to say to Zion, Thou art my people." Resh Lakish said: He who teaches the Torah to his neighbor's son the verse considers him as if he had created him, as it reads [Gen. xii. 5]: "And the persons they had obtained in Charan." R. Elazar said: He is considered as if he has created the law, as it reads [Deut. xxix. 8]: "Keep ye therefore the words of the covenant, and do them." And Rabha said: He is considered as if he created himself from the same verse; do not read authom, but athem (ye yourselves).

R. Abuhu said: He who hastens his neighbor to do a meritorious act, the verse considers him as if he himself has done it, as it reads [Ex. xvii. 5]: "And thy staff wherewith thou smotest the river take in thy hand and go." Did he, then, smite the river? Did not Aaron do this? Hence it was written to teach that the verse considers him as if he himself has done it. "Epicurean," etc. Both Rabh and R. Hanina said: He who disgraces a scholar is meant. And both R. Johanan and R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: He who disgraces his neighbor in the presence of a scholar. It is correct according to them who said that an Epicurean is he who has done as in the latter case, as then he who disgraces a scholar himself is considered as explaining the Torah a wrong way.

But according to them who say that he who disgraces a scholar himself is considered only an Epicurean, who then is considered as explaining the Torah wrongly? E.g., Menassah b. Hiskia. There were those who taught the same concerning the latter part of the Mishna, "who explains the Torah not according to the true law." And to this Rabh and R. Hanina said: He who disgraces a scholar. And Johanan and Jehoshua b. Levi said: He who disgraces his neighbor in the presence of a scholar. And the question was, if he who disgraces his colleague in the presence of a scholar is considered as explaining the Torah wrongly, who then is considered an Epicurean? Said R. Joseph: E.g., those who say, What good do the rabbis do to us? They read and study the Torah for their own sake.

Said Abayi to him: Such are also considered as explaining the Torah wrongly, as it reads [Jer. xxxiii. 25]: "Thus said the Lord, If my covenant be not day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth." 1 This is inferred also from [Gen. xviii. 26]: "Then will I spare all the places for their sake." So R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak. And an epicurean is considered—e.g., if one sits before his master and recollects a Halakha stated somewhere else and says, so and so we have learned there, but does not say: And the master said so. Rabha, however, said: An epicurean is considered—e.g., the disciples of Benjamin the physician, who used to say, What good have the rabbis done for us? They have never permitted us to eat a crow, and they have not prohibited us to eat a dove (hence all remains as it is in the Scriptures).

It happened that a question of legal or illegal meat was brought before Rabha from the house of Benjamin the physician, and he saw a reason to permit the use of it, and he said then: See, I have permitted you a crow. The same happened again and he saw a reason to prohibit it, and also said: See, I have prohibited a dove to you. R. Papa said: Even he who speaks of the rabbis in the same language as when he speaks of common people. However, he himself forgot his statement in talking about the rabbis, and thereafter when he recollected it, he fasted. Levi b. Samuel and R. Huna b. Hyya used to prepare mantles for the holy scrolls in the college of R. Jehudah. When they came to the Book of Esther, they said: For this certainly no mantle is needed. Said R. Jehudah to them: Even such a language is as used by the followers of Epicurus.

R. Na'hman said: He who named his master by his name without adding "my master." As R. Johanan said: Why was Gechazi punished? Because he named his master by his name [II Kings, viii. 5]: "This is our son whom Elisha restored." R. Jeremiah was sitting in the presence of R. Zera and said: The Holy One, blessed be He, will create a river in the future, which will issue from the holy of holy chamber, and on its edges the best fruit will be grown, as it reads [Ezek. xlvii. 12]: "And by the stream upon its banks, on this side and on that side, shall grow up all kinds of trees for food, the leaves of which shall not fade, and the fruit of which shall not come to an end, every month shall they bring forth new ripe fruit; because its water is that which issueth out of the sanctuary; and their fruit shall serve for food, and their leaves for remedies."

And there was a certain old man who said: Thanks, so also said R. Johanan. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: Is such a language also not used by the epicureans? And he answered: Nay, he is only supporting you, and if you have heard that such a language must not be used, it is what is said in Last Gate (pp. 210 and 211, from "it is written" to "Rabha"). What means "leaves for remedies"? R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi and R. Hisda. One said: To make the dumb speak. And the other: To open the womb when there is a difficulty in bearing the child. And so also was it taught by Hiskia, to open the mouth of the dumb and by Bar khapara, to open the womb. R. Johanan, however, said: It is to be explained literally remedies for everything. R. Samuel b. Na'hmani said: It means a remedy for the appearance of those who have studied with their mouth, as R. Jehudah b. Simon lectured: He who makes his face black by studying the Torah in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make radiant his face in the world to come, as it reads [Sol. Song, v. 15]: "His countenance is as Lebanon, excellent like the cedars." R. Tanhun b. Hanilai said: He who starves because of the words of law in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, will satiate him in the world to come, as it reads [Ps. xxxvi. 9]: "These will be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house: and of the stream of thy delight wilt thou give them to drink." When Abdimi came from Palestine, he said: The Holy One, blessed be He, will give in the future to every upright his handful of reward, as it reads [ibid. lxviii. 20]: "Blessed be the Lord; day by day he loadeth us (with benefits); our God is our salvation." Said Abayi to him:

How is it possible to say so? Is it not written [Isa. X1. 12]: "Who hath measured in the hollow of his hand the waters, and meted out the heavens with the span"? And he answered: Why are you not used to study Haggadah? It was said in the West in the name of Rabha b. Mari: The Holy One, blessed be He, will give in the future to every upright man, three hundred and ten worlds, as it reads [Prov. viii.]: "That I may cause those that love me יש {Hebrew YSh}" etc., and these two letters count 310. (And this is called a handful.)

There is a Boraitha: R. Mair said: The measure with which one measures will be measured out to him—i.e., as man deals, he will be dealt with, as it reads [Isa. xxvii. 8]: "In measure, by driving him forth, thou strivest with him." Said R. Jehoshua to him: How is it possible to say so? E.g., if one gives to a poor man a handful of charity, will then the Holy One, blessed be He, give the donator His handful? Does it not read "he meted out the heavens with a span"? Said he to him: And you do not say so? What measure is greater of good or of evil?

You must say that the former is greater than the latter, as concerning good it reads [Ps. lxxviii. 23 and 24]: "Then he ordained the skies from above, and the doors of heaven he opened; and he let rain down upon them manna to eat, and the corn of heaven gave he unto them." And concerning evil it reads [Gen. vii. 11]: "The windows of heaven were opened." (It is said elsewhere that the size of a door is as the size of four windows.) Now, come and read what is written about chastisement. [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, nor shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence unto all flesh." And how is this to be understood? We know that in this world, if a man puts his finger in the fire, immediately he is burned.

You must then say, that as the Holy One, blessed be He, gives strength to the wicked to receive their punishment. The same is the case with the upright; he gives them strength to be able to accept their reward. "The books of the Hizumni." In a Boraitha it was taught: In the books of the atheists. R. Joseph said: One must not read even in the book of Ben Sirra. Said Abayi to him: Is it because it reads: Thou shalt not take off the skin of a fish, even that of the ear, as the skin will be damaged, but roast it in fire, and eat with it two loaves of bread? Is not similar to this also written in the Scripture [Deut. xx. 19]: "Thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof," etc.? And if because it reads: "A daughter to a father is a false treasure, as because he is afraid of her, he does not sleep in the night. When she is a minor, perhaps she will be seduced.

When she becomes of age, perhaps she will sin, when she becomes vigaros, perhaps she will not marry. If she is married, perhaps she will have no children. And when she becomes old, perhaps she will become a witch?" Similar to this, the rabbis also said: The world cannot be without males and females, however happy are those who have male children, etc. And if because there is written "Thou shalt not bring worry in thy heart," as such has killed strong men. This was also said by Solomon [Prov. xii. 25]: "If there be care in the heart of a man, let him suppress it." (See Yomah, p. 140, for explanation.) And if because it reads: "Prevent many people to enter thy house," as not all of them are fit to come into it; this was said also by Rabbi in a Boraitha elsewhere.

Therefore we must say, because it reads there, "He who has a long and thin beard is shrewd." And he who has a thick one is a fool. He who blows off the foam, it is sign that he is not thirsty. And he who says with what he shall eat his bread, take the bread away from him. And he whose beard is parted in two, the whole world will not overrule him.

Said R. Joseph: However, the good teachings which are in this book may be proclaimed. It reads there: A good woman is a good gift, she may be given to one who fears God. A bad woman is leprosy to her husband, and there is no remedy for him till he divorces her, and be cured. A beautiful woman, happy is her husband, the numbers of his days are doubled. Turn away thy eyes from a beautiful woman, as thou canst be easily caught in her net. Abstain thyself from drinking beer and wine with her husband, as by the appearance of a beautiful woman many were destroyed. And numerous are those who were killed by such.

A great number of pedlars were wounded by the husbands who found them trading with their wives. As a spark kindles a coal, or like a coop full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit. Many may be who wish you peace, however thy secrets you may reveal only to one from thousand. Be careful with words even with her that lies on thy bosom. Don't worry of the morrow, as thou knowest not what the morrow may bring. For perhaps thou wilt not exist any more to-morrow, and thou hast worried for a world which belongs not to thee. All the days of a poor are bad. Ben Sirra said: Also the nights, as his roof is lower than others, the rain from these falls on his. And his vineyard is usually on the top of the mountain, and the manure which he brings up for it is blown off to the other vineyards which are lower. (Here is repeated from Last Gate, p. 328, paragraph commencing with R. Zera in the name of Rabh said, till Mishna VI. See there also footnote.)

The rabbis taught: If one reads a verse of the Songs of Solomon in a different manner than it is written, and makes a song of it; or any other verse in the drinking-places not in its proper time, causes evil to the world, because the Torah, dressed in a sack, stands before the Holy One, blessed be He, and says: Lord of the Universe, thy children have made of me a fiddle on which frivolous persons play. And He said to her: My daughter, with what else, then, shall they occupy themselves while they are eating and drinking? And she said before Him: Lord of the Universe, if they are masters in the Scriptures, they may occupy themselves with the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa; if they understand Mishnayoth, they may study Mishna, Halakha, and Haggadah, and if they are Talmudists they may study Halakhas in time of Passover on Pesach. Of Pentecost at that time. And the Halakhas of Feast of Tabernacle at that time. R. Simeon b. Elazar in the name of R. Simeon b. Hanania testified: If one reads a verse in its proper time, he benefits the world, as it reads [Prov. xv. 23]: "And a word spoken at the proper time, how good is it." "He who mumbles over a wound," etc. Said R. Johanan: Provided he also spits, as the name of Heaven must not be mentioned by spitting. It was taught: Rabh said: Even a verse which does not contain the name of Heaven—e.g., a plague, if it will be on a man. And R. Hanina said: Even the words: And He has called to Moses.

The rabbis taught: One may ask the fortune tellers who tell fortunes by certain oils or eggs. But it is not advisable to do so, because they often lie. They usually mumble over the oil in a utensil, but not over that which is in the hand, and therefore one may use the oil from the hand, but not that in a utensil. R. Itz'hak b. Samuel b. Marta happened to be in a certain inn. They brought him oil in a utensil, and he anointed himself with it, and blisters came out on his face. When he went to the market a certain woman saw him, and said: I see on your face a sickness caused by witchcraft. And she did something for him and he was cured.

Abba said to Rabba b. Mari: It reads [Ex. xv. 26]: "I will put none of those diseases upon thee . . . as I the Lord will heal thee." Now if he did not put any, why the cure? Said R. Johanan: This verse explains itself. "If thou wilt diligently hearken," etc., I will not put disease upon thee, but if thou wilt not hearken, I will. However, at any rate, I will heal thee.

Rabba b. b. Hana said: When R. Eliezar became sick his disciples came to make him a sick call, and he said to them, I have high fever, and they began to weep. R. Aqiba, however, smiled. And to the question: Why are you smiling? he returned the question: Why are you weeping? And they answered: Is it possible not to weep when we see the Holy Scrolls are in such a distress? Rejoined he: And therefore I smile, for so long as I have seen our master's wine does not become sour, his flocks undamaged, his oil unspoiled, and his honey unfermented, I was afraid that perhaps he received all his reward in this world, now as I see him in trouble, I rejoice. Said he to him: Aqiba, have I failed to perform or transgressed anything of that what is written in the whole Torah? And he answered: You, master, yourself taught us [Ecc. vii. 20]: "For no man is so righteous upon earth, that he should do always good and never sin."

The rabbis taught: When R. Eliezar became sick four elders entered to make him a sick call—R. Tarphun, R. Jehoshua, R. Elazar b. Asaryah, and R. Aqiba. Exclaimed R. Tarphun: You are better to Israel than drops of rain, as the latter are only in this world, While you are in both, in this and in the world to come. Exclaimed R. Jehoshua: You are better to Israel than the planet of the sun, which is only in this world, while you are in both. And R. Elazar b. Asaryah exclaimed: You are better to Israel than a father and mother, who are only in this world, etc. R. Aqiba, however, exclaimed: Pleased are chastisements. And R. Eliezar answered: Support me, and I will hear the statement of Aqiba, my disciple, who says: "Pleased are chastisements." And he said: Aqiba, whence is this known to you? And he answered: From the following: It reads [II Kings, xxi. 1 and 2]: "Twelve years old was Menasseh when he became king, and fifty and five years did he reign in Jerusalem . . . and he did what is evil in the eyes of the Lord." It reads also [Prov. xxv. 1]: "Also these are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, the king of Judah, have collected." Could it be possible that Hiskia taught the law to the whole world, but not to his son Menasseh? It must then be said that of all the troubles which Hiskia has troubled himself to bring him, and from all his toil to correct him nothing was done, and only until chastisement had turned him over to the better side, as it reads [II Chron. xxxiii. 10-14]: "And the Lord spoke to Menasseh, and to his people; but they listened not. Wherefore the Lord brought over them captains of the army belonging to the king of Assyria; and they took Menasseh prisoner with chains, and bound him with fetters, and led him off to Babylon. And when he was in distress he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he prayed unto Him, and He permitted Himself to be entreated by him, and heard his supplication and brought him back to Jerusalem unto his kingdom. Then did Menasseh feel conscious that the Lord is indeed the (true) God." Learn from this that chastisements are pleased.

The rabbis taught: Three men (biblical personages) came with indirectness (instead of praying in a straightforward manner), and they were Cain, Esau, and Menasseh. Cain who says [Gen. iv. 13]: "My sin is greater than I can bear." He said before Him: Lord of the Universe, is then my sin greater than that of the six hundred thousand Israelites who will sin before Thee in the future, and Thou wilt forgive them? Esau said [Ex. xxvii. 38]: "Hast thou then but one blessing, my father?" And Menasseh, who at the beginning called to many gods, and only finally called to the God of his parents. "Abba Shaul," etc. There is a Boraitha: Provided he does so out of the sanctuary in a profane language. "Three kings," etc. The rabbis taught: Jeroboam means who made Israel quarrel among themselves. According to others, who has made a controversy between them and their Heavenly Father. Ben Nebat means the son of him who had a vision, but did not see (interpret it properly). As the following Boraitha Nebat is identical with Michah and with Sheba ben Bichri Nebat because of the reason said above. And Michah, because he became poor while occupying himself with building. And his real name was Sheba ben Bichri.

The rabbis taught: There were three who had a vision, but have not seen it properly. Nebat Achitopel and the astrologers of Pharaoh. Nebat saw that some light will come out from him. He thought he himself will become a king, and he erred, as this was his son Jeroboam. Achitopel saw also the same. He thought that he himself will become a king, but he erred, as it was his daughter, Bath Sheba, from whom Solomon came out. And the astrologers of Pharaoh, who saw that the redeemer of Israel will be beaten through water, and therefore advised Pharaoh to command. [Ex. i. 22]: "Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river." And they erred, as this was [Num. xx. 13]: "These are the waters of Meribah where the children of Israel quarreled." But whence do we know that Jeroboam has no share in the world to come?

From [I Kings, xiii. 34]: "Blotted out, and destroyed from the face of the earth. Blotted out from this world and destroyed from the world to come. Said R. Johanan: What has Jeroboam done that he was rewarded to be king? Because he rebuked Solomon. And why was he punished? Because he rebuked him in public, as it reads [ibid. xi. 27]: "And this was the occasion that he lifteth up his hand against the king: Solomon built up the Milo and closed up the breach of the city of David his father." He said to 'him: David, thy father hath broken in holes in the surrounding wall of Jerusalem, for the purpose that it shall be easier for Israel to enter the city. And thou hast fenced it for the purpose to make an angaria to Pharaoh's daughter. What means "and he lifteth up his hands"?

Said R. Na'hman: He took off his phylacterious in his presence. 1 R. Na'hman said again: The insolence of Jeroboam destroyed him from the world, as it reads [ibid. xii. 26-28]: "And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now may the kingdom return to the house of David. If this people go up to prepare sacrifices in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then may the heart of this people turn again. unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam, the king of Judah, and they might kill me, and return to Rehoboam, the king of Judah." He said: We have a tradition that in the Temple there are no seats except for the kings of the house of David. Now if they see that Rehoboam, the king, is sitting and I am standing, then they will say that he is the king and I am his servant.

And if I will sit, Rehoboam's people will say that I am a rebel, and they will kill me, and therefore (28): "Whereupon the king took counsel, and he made two calves of gold, and saith unto the people, You have been long enough going up to Jerusalem; behold here are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." What is meant by "the king took counsel"? Said R. Jehudah: He has conjoined an upright to a wicked, and said to them: Will you sign your name to all what I will command you? And they said: Yea. "Even to worship an idol"? The upright answered: God forbid. But the wicked saith to him: Do you think a man like Jeroboam will worship idols? He wants only to try us. And in this thing even Achiyah, the Shilonite, erred and signed his name.

As Jehu, who was one of the greatest of upright about whom it reads [II Kings, x. 30]: "Forasmuch as thou hast acted well in doing what is right in my eyes, and hast done in accordance with all that was in my heart unto the house of Achab: children of the fourth generation after thee shall sit upon the throne of Israel." And thereafter it reads (31): "And Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord the God of Israel with all his heart: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, who induced Israel to sin." But what caused him to sin? Said Abayi: There is a covenant to one's lips. He said [ibid., ibid. 18]: "Achab hath served Baal a little: Jehu will serve him much." And Rabha said: He saw the signature of Achiyah the Shilonite and he erred, as reads [Hosea, v. 2]: "And for murdering they who had rebelled (against God) concealed themselves in deep places; but I will inflict correction on them all." Said R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: They laid deeper plans than that of mine: I said: He who does not ascend to Jerusalem for the festivals transgresses a positive commandment only, and they say that he who will ascend to Jerusalem shall be slain by the sword.

It reads [I Kings, xi. 29]: "And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Achiyah the Shilonite found him on the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and these two were alone by themselves in the field." It was taught in the name of R. Jose: "At that time" means the time which was designated for chastisement. [Jer. ii. 18]: "In the time of their punishment shall they vanish," was also taught in the name of the same authority, means at the time designated for chastisement. [Isa. xlix. 8]: "In the time of favor have I answered thee," according to the same authority: The time which is designated for doing good [Ex. xxxii. 8]: "But on the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them," according to the same, at the time which is designated for chastisement. And the same is with Gen. xxxviii. i: "And it came to pass at that time." It reads [I Kings, xii. i]: "And Rehoboam went to Shechem (. . .) to make him king." It was taught in the name of R. Jose. That place was designated for trouble. In Shechem, Dina was assaulted in the same place, Joseph was sold by his brothers, and in the same place the kingdom of David was divided. And (ibid. 29) "Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem." Said R. Hanina b. Papa: It means he went out of the destiny of Jerusalem (i.e., was to have no share in the welfare of Jerusalem). "And the prophet Achiyah . . . with a new garment," what does it mean? Said R. Na'hman: As a new garment has no spots so also the wisdom of Jeroboam was clean, without any error. According to others: They renewed things which no ear has ever heard of. And what is meant by "The two were alone in the field"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: All other scholars were like the plants of the field in comparison with them. According to others: All the reasons for the commandment of the Torah were revealed to them as a field.

It reads [Michah, l. 14]: "Therefore shalt thou have to give presents to Moreshe thgath: the houses of Achzib shall become a deception to the kings of Israel." Said R. Hanina b. Papa: A heavenly voice was heard saying: "To him who has killed Goliath the Philistine and inherited to you the city of Gath, should ye send away his descendants?" Therefore the house of Achzib shall be a deception to the kings of Israel. It reads [II Kings, xvii. 21]: "And Jeroboam misled Israel from following the Lord, and caused them to commit a great sin." Said R. Hanina: As one throws a stick by means of another stick—i.e., he makes Israel to sin against their will. Said R. Aushia: Until Jeroboam came, Israel had to bear the iniquity of one golden calf, and from that time farther on for two and three. Said R. Itz'hak: Every evil dispensation which came upon Israel contained in it a twenty-fourth part as punishment for the golden calf, as the above cited verse [Ex. xxxii.] states. Said R. Hanina: After twenty-four generations this verse was fulfilled, as it reads [Ezek, ix, i]: "The 'pkudas' of the city came already at an end." 1 It reads [I Kings, xiii. 33]: After this event Jeroboam returned not from his evil way. After what! Said R. Abba: After the Holy One, blessed be He, held Jeroboam by his garment, saying: Repent, and I and David Ben Yishai and thou will walk in the Garden of Eden. And to Jeroboam's questions: Who will have the preference? he said: Ben Yishai. And he rejoined: If so I don't want it.

R. Abuhu used to lecture about the three kings and became sick, and he made up his mind not to lecture about them, and he was cured. However, he lectured about them as before, and to the question of his disciples: Have you not made up your mind not to lecture any more about them? he answered: Did they then repent that I shall do so?

R. Ashi appointed a time for lecturing about the three kings, and said: On the morrow we will begin our lecture about our colleague Menasseh. He then appeared to him in a dream, and said to him: You call me a colleague and a colleague of your father? Answer me the question: Where must one begin to cut the bread by the benediction of thamotzi? And he said: I don't know. Rejoined Menasseh: If you are not aware to answer even that what I questioned you how can you call me a colleague? Rejoined R. Ashi: Teach this to me, and tomorrow I will proclaim it in your name in the college. And he said: From that part where it begins to bake when in the oven. Said R. Ashi again: If you are so wise, why did you worship idols? And Menasseh answered: If you would have been at that time you would have lifted up the edges of your dress, that they shall not impede you to run after me to worship the idols. On the morrow said R. Ashi to the rabbis: Let us lecture about the great men. Achab—means "Ach," a thorn to Heaven, and "ab," a father to idolatry, as it reads [I Kings, xvi. 31]: "And it came to pass as if it had been too light a thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam." Said R. Johanan: The lenient things which were done by Achab were more rigorous than the rigorous things done by Jeroboam. And why then does the Scripture make Achab dependent on Jeroboam, because Jeroboam was the beginner and all his followers were dependent upon him.
It reads [Hosea xii. 12]: "Their altars also are as stone heaps." Said R. Johanan: There was not one heap in the land of Israel upon which Achab had not placed an idol and bowed himself to it. And whence do we know that he has no share in the world to come? From [I Kings, xxi. 21]: "Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and I will sweep out after thee and will cut off from Achab every male and the guarded and fortified in Israel." "Guarded" means in this world, and "fortified" in the world to come.

R. Johanan said: For which good deeds was Omri (Achab's father) rewarded that he obtained the kingdom? Because he added one great city to the land of Israel, as it reads [ibid. xvi. 24]: "And he bought the mount Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the mount, and called the name of the city which he had built, after the name of Shemer, the lord of the mount, Samaria."

R. Johanan said again: Why was Achab rewarded by the prolongation of his kingdom for twenty-two years? Because he respected the Torah which is written with the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, as it reads [ibid. xx. 2, 7, and 9]: "And he sent messengers to Achab, the king of Israel, into the city. And he said unto him: Thus hath said Ben-hadad, Thy silver and thy gold are mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the best are mine. And the king of Israel answered and said, According to thy word, my lord, O king, thine am I, and all that I have. And the messenger returned and said: Thus hath said Ben-hadad, to say (to thee) I have indeed sent unto thee, saying, 'Thou shalt give unto me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children.

Nevertheless, about this time to-morrow will I send my servants unto thee, and they will search through thy house, and the houses of thy servants, and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in thy eyes, they shall place it in their hand, and take it away.' Then did the king of Israel call for all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see that this man seeketh mischief, for he hath sent unto me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold, and I have not refused them to him. Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Ben-hadad: Say to my lord the king, all that thou didst send for to thy servants at the first will do; but this thing I am not able to do. And the messengers went away, and brought him word again." What is meant by "pleasant in thy eyes" if not the holy-scrolls? But perhaps it means an idol.

This cannot be supposed, as it reads farther on (8): "And all the elders, and all the people said unto him, Thou must not hearken nor consent." But perhaps it means the elders of the same kind as was Achab, as we find such in [II Sam. xvii. 4], that they are also named the elders of Israel. There it does not read "all the people," but here it does; and it is impossible that among them were no righteous, as it reads [I Kings xix. 18]: "And I will leave in Israel seven thousand, all the knees which have not bent unto Baal and every mouth which has not kissed him." Said R. Na'hman: Achab's sins and good deeds were just equal, as it reads [ibid. xxii. 20]: "Who will persuade Achab," hence it is difficult to punish him, as his sins did not overweigh his good deeds.

R. Joseph opposed: He of whom it reads [ibid. xxi. 25]: "But indeed there was none like unto Achab," etc., etc. And you say that his sins and good deeds were equal? The reason, however, that it was necessary to persuade him, is because he was liberal with his money and assisted many scholars from his estate, and therefore half his sins were atoned. And there came out a spirit," etc. (see above). It reads [ibid. xvi. 33]: "And Achab made a grove; and Achab did yet more, so as to provoke the Lord the God of Israel to anger, than all the kings of Israel that had been before him." Said R. Johanan: He wrote on the gates of Shemer: Achab denies the God of Israel, and therefore he has no share in Him.

Menasseh means "he has forgotten the Lord." According to others it means that he made Israel to forget their Heavenly Father. And whence do we know that he has no share in the world to come? From [II Kings, xxi. 3]: "And he built up again the high places which Hezekiah hath destroyed and he reared up altars for Baal and made a grove as Achab the king of Israel hath done." As Achab has no share in the world to come the same is the case with Menasseh. "R. Jehudah said Menasseh has a share," etc. Said R. Johanan: Both infer their theory from one and the same passage [Jer. xv. 4]: "And I will cause them to become a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth on account of Menasseh the son of Hezekiah." According to one: Because Menasseh has repented and the other kings have not. And according to others: Because be himself had not repented. Said R. Johanan: He who said that Menasseh has no share in the world to come weakens the hands of those who are repenting. As a disciple taught before. R. Johanan: Menasseh repented thirty-three years, as it reads [II Kings, xxi. 1-3]: "And fifty-five years did he reign in Jerusalem . . . and he made a grove as Achab did." How long did Achab rule? Twenty-two years; take off the twenty-two from the fifty-five years which Menasseh reigned, there remains thirty-three years.

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai: It reads [II Chron. 13]: "And he prayed unto Him, and He permitted himself v'ychtar 1 instead of voyethar. Infer from this that the Lord made for him an opening like a machteres (opening) in the Heaven to receive him; because of the opposition of the divine attribute.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: In [Jer. xxvi., xxvii. and xxviii., the first verses]: "In the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim. . . . The beginning of the reign of Zedekiah." Were there not rulers before them? But this signifies that the Lord was about to return the world to tahu vebahu because of Yehoyakim. But when he looked upon his generation who were upright, he reconsidered it. And the reverse was the case with Zedekiah. He wanted to destroy the world because of his generation, but when he looked upon him he reconsidered it.

But does it not also read about Zedekiah [II Kings, xxiv. 18]: "And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord"? This was because he had to warn them, but did not do so.
The same said again in the name of the same authority: It reads [Prov. xxix. 9]: "If a wise man contend with a foolish man, whether he be angry or whether he laugh, he will have no rest." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I became angry with Achaz and delivered him to the king of Damascus. What had he done? He sacrificed and smoked incense to their gods, as [II Chron. xxviii. 2]: "And he sacrificed unto the gods of the people of Damascus, who had smitten him; and he said, "Because the gods of the kings of Syria do help them (therefore) will I sacrifice unto them, that they may help me." But they only became to him a stumbling-block for him and for all Israel. I smiled on Amazia and had delivered the kings of Edom to his hand. And what has he done? He brought their gods and bowed himself to them, as it reads [II Chron. xxv. 14]: "After Amasyahu was come home from smiting the Edomites he brought the gods of the children of Le'ir, and set them up unto himself as gods, and before them he used to prostrate himself and unto them he used to burn incense." Said R. Papa: This is what people say: You can do nothing with the ignoramus; weep before him, laugh with him, he does not care. Woe is to him who does not understand between good and evil. It reads [Jer. xxxix. 3]: "In the middle gate." Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai: This was the place the Sanhedrin decided upon Halakhas. Said R. Papa: This is what people say: Should the hook which was used by the herd, etc. (see Middle Gate, p. 216, line 14 from the bottom). R. Hisda said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Aba: It reads [Prov. xxiv. 30-31]: "By the field of a slothful man I once passed along, and by the vineyard of a man void of sense: And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, nettles had covered its surface, and its stone wall was broken down." "By the field of a slothful man," etc., means Achaz, "void of sense" means Menasseh, "with thorns" means Amon, "nettles had covered," etc., means Yehoyakim, "broken down"—Zedekiah, in whose days the temple was destroyed.

The same said again in the name of the same authority: Four sects will not receive the glory of the Shekhina; viz., the scorners, as it reads [Hosea, vii. 5]: "He groweth his land with scorners"; liars, as it reads [Ps. ci. 7]: "He that speaketh falsehood shall not succeed in my eyes"; hypocrites, as [Job, xiii. 16]: "For a hypocrite cannot come before Him," and slanderers, as [Ps. ii. 5]: "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness. Evil cannot abide with thee," and thereafter it reads [7 and 10] "Thou wilt destroy those that speak lies . . . For there is not in their mouth any sincerity."

The rabbis taught: Menasseh used to learn fifty-five arguments (ways of interpretation) concerning the book of Leviticus, as many as the years of his reign. Achab, eighty-five, and Jeroboam, one hundred and three.

There is a Boraitha: R Mair used to say: Absalom has no share in the world to come, as it reads [II Sam. xviii. 15]: "Smote Absalom"—in this world, and "slew him"—in the world to come.
R. Simeon b. Elazar said in the name of R. Mair: Achaz, Achazyah and all the kings of Israel about whom it is written, and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord," will not be restored at the time of resurrection, but are also not sentenced to Gehinem.

It reads [II Kings, xxi. 16]: "And also innocent blood, did Menasseh shed in very great abundance, till he had filled (therewith) Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he induced Judah to sin, to do what is evil in the eyes of the Lord." Here in this college it was explained because he had slain Isaiah. In the West it was explained that he made an image the weight of a thousand persons. And those who were engaged in carrying it from one place to another would die because of the great exertions.

According to whom is what Rabba b. b. Hana said? One soul of an upright is equalized to the whole world—i.e., if one kills an upright, he is considered as if he would slay the whole world. It is in accordance with him who says that Menasseh has killed Isaiah.

Achaz placed the images in the attics of the Temple, as it reads [II Kings, xxiii. 12]: "Altars that were on the upper chamber of Achaz." And Menasseh placed them in the Temple, as it reads [ibid. xxi. 7]: "And he placed a hewn image of the Asherah that he had made, in the house of which the Lord had said to David, and to Solomon, his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel will I put my name forever." And Amon placed them in the holy of holy chamber, as it reads [Isa. xxviii. 20]: "For the bed shall be," etc. (See Yomah, p. 10, line 14, for the explanation and continuation which are repeated here. By the way, we have to remark that there is a misprint, Jeremiah instead of Isaiah.)

Achaz abolished the worship and sealed the Torah, as it reads [ibid. viii. 16]: "Bind up the testimony, seal up the law among my disciples." Menasseh cut the divine names out (of the Scriptures) and destroyed the altar. Amon burned the Torah and caused spider-webs to be on the place where the altar stood, as it reads [II Chron. xxxiii. 23]: "For he, Amon, made his guiltiness great."
Questioned Rabba, Rabba b. Mari: Why did not the Mishna also count Yehoyakim, of whom it reads [ibid. xxxvi. 8]: "And the rest of the acts of Yehoyakim, and his abominable deeds which he did, and which was found upon him," which, according to one of the sages, means that he engraved the name of the idol upon his body? And he answered: Concerning kings I have not heard, but I have heard concerning common men thus: Why did not the Mishna count Michah? Because his house was open to travellers (who used to eat and drink there without being charged).

It reads [Zech. x. 11]: "And he will pass through the sea (with) distress, and he will smite in the sea the waves." Said R. Johanan: This is the image which Michah had made in Egypt and which passed with him the Red Sea. There is a Boraitha: R. Nathan said: From the city of Grab to the city of Shilah (where the tabernacle was temporarily) is a distance of three miles, and the smoke from the altar in Shilah used to mix itself with the smoke from the altars which were made for the image of Michah. And the angels wanted to put Michah aside, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Leave him alone because his house is open to travellers. And for this were punished the men who took revenge in the case of the concubine of Gibah (Judges, xix. and xx.). And the Holy One said to them: Ye took revenge for the honor of a man, but did not act so for my honor-i.e., they did not care to destroy the image of Michah, etc.
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jose b Kisma: Great are λυνμος entertainments, for a little refreshment plays an essential part, for its refusal estranged two tribes from Israel (Ammon and Moab), as it reads [Deut. xxiii. 5]: "For the reason that they met you not with bread and with water, on the way." And R. Johanan himself said: It estranges relatives and brings near strangers; shuts the eye not to look upon the wicked, makes the Shekhina rest on the prophets of Baal, and even an error in this affair is considered as if it would be done intentionally. (Now the illustrations.) It estranges relatives—e.g., Ammon and Moab (who were relatives to Israel). It brings near strangers—e.g., Jithro, as he said elsewhere that the reward for [Ex. ii. 20]: "Call him that he may eat bread" was that his descendants were rewarded to sit among the Sanhedrin in the chambers of the Temple, as it reads [I Chron. ii. 55]: "And the families of the scribes who dwelt at Jabez; the Thirathites, the Shimathites and the Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came from Chammoth, the father of the house of Rechab, and [Judges, i. 16]: "And the children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is south of Arad, and they went and dwelt with the people." Shuts the eye not to look upon the evil deeds of the wicked, e.g., Michah, as said above. Makes the Shekhina to rest upon the prophets of Baal, as [I Kings, xiii. 20]: "And it came to pass as they were sitting at the table, That the word of the Lord came unto the prophets, who had brought him back." And even an error is considered as if done intentionally, as R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: If Jonathan would have supplied David with some loaves of bread the priests of the city of Nob would not have been slain, Doeg, the Edomite would not have been lost, and Saul and his three sons would not have been killed.

Why does not the Mishna count Achaz among those who have no share in the world to come? Said R. Jeremiah b. Aba: Because he was placed between two uprights (Jotham, his father, and Hezekiah, his son).

And R. Joseph said: Because he was ashamed before the prophet Isaiah, as [Isa. vii. 3]: "And the Lord said unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Achaz, thou with Shear Yashub, thy son, to the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool, on the highway of the washers' field." Why is mentioned the washers' field"? Because Achaz was ashamed to look at Isaiah, and to put upon his face the αβλυο of the washers when he passed Isaiah in order not to be recognized.

And why was Amon not counted? Because of the honor of his son, Yeshiyahu. If so, let them not count Menasseh, because of the honor of Hezekiah? There is a tradition that a son can save his father, but not a father his son, as it reads [Deut. xxxii. 39]: "And no one can deliver out of my hands," which means Abraham cannot save Ishmael, and Isaac, Esau. Now, when we come to this theory it may be said that Achaz was not counted because of the honor of Hezekiah. However, the above question, why Yehoyakim was not counted is as yet unanswered. It is because of what was said by Hyya b. Abuiha that on the head of Yehoyakim was written "This and something else"—i.e., one revenge more will be taken from it. The grandfather of R. Praida found a skull in the gates of Jerusalem upon which was engraved: "This and something else." He buried it once and twice, but it came out again. He then said that it must be the skull of Yehoyakim, of whom it reads [Jer. xxii. 19]: "With the burial of an ass shall he be buried, dragged about and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem."

He then said: It is the skull of a king, and it must be nicely treated. He wrapped it in a silk garment and put it in a bag. When his wife saw this she thought it was the skull of his first wife, whom be does not want to forget. And she heated the oven and burned it. This was what was engraved upon it: "This and nothing else."

There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Hiskia praised himself [II Kings, xx. 3]: "And have done what is good in thy eyes" caused what is said [ibid., ibid. 8]: "What sign," etc., and this caused that idolaters were invited to his table [ibid., ibid. 13]. And these altogether caused the exile of his descendants [ibid., ibid. 17]. This is a support to Hiskia, who said that he who invites an idolater to his house and serves on him, causes exile to his children, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 18]: "And of thy sons . . . they shall be court servants in the palace," etc.

Lamentation I. begins with aichoh (O'how). Said Rabha in the name of R. Johanan: Why was Israel beaten with aichoh? Because they transgressed thirty-six things to which Korath applies, and the word aicho counts 36. And he said again: Why is Lamentations written according to the alphabet? Because they have transgressed what is written in the Torah, which is written with the letters of the alphabet. "Doth she sit solitary?" said Rabha in the name of R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I said [Deut. xxxiii. 28]: "And then dwelt Israel in safety, alone, the fountain of Jacob; in a land of corn and wine; also, its heavens shall drop down dew." And now solitary is their sitting. "The city that was full of people." Said Rabha again in the name of the same authority. They used to marry a minor to an adult and vice versa, for the purpose that they shall have many children.

"Is become like a widow." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Like a widow, but not a widow. Like a woman whose husband has departed to the cities of the countries of the sea, who intends to return. "She that was so great among the nations, the princess among the provinces." Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: Everywhere they came they became masters of their masters, as the rabbis taught: It happened with two men who were captured in the mountain of Carmel, and their capturer was walking behind them. Said one of the captured to his colleague: The camel which walks in front of us is blind in one eye and carries two bags, one of wine and the other of oil. And the men who lead it, one of them is an Israelite, and the other is a heathen. Said the capturer to them: Hard-necked people, whence do you know this?

And they answered: From the grass which is in front of the camel that is consumed only from one side, hence from the side on which he sees he consumes, and on the other side on which he is blind he leaves it. It carries two bags of wine and oil; because drops of wine sink, and drops of oil float. And the leaders, one of them is an Israelite and the other a heathen; because an Israelite when he needs to do his necessity, usually turns aside, and the heathen does it on the way. The capturer then ran after them and found that it was as they said. He then kissed them on their heads, brought them to his house, prepared for them a great meal, danced before them, saying: "Blessed be He who chose the descendants of Abraham and gave them of his wisdom, and everywhere they go they become masters of their masters." He freed them, and they went in peace to their home.

"Weeping, are they weeping?" 1 Why two weepings? Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: One for the first Temple, and the other for the second Temple. "In the night," means because of what happened in a former night [Num. xiv. 1]: "And the people wept that night." And Rabba in the name of R. Johanan said: This day was the ninth of Ab, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Ye have cried on this night in vain, and I shall ordain it that your generations shall lament on this day forever." (See Taanith, p. 88, line 9.) According to others: In the night, because he who weeps in the night, it looks like the stars and planets are weeping with him. And so also with human beings. He who hears one weeping in the night, weeps with him, as it happened with Rabban Gamaliel, whose female neighbor wept because her son died, and he wept with her until the eyelids dropped.

On the morrow his disciples recognized it, and they made her move away from his neighborhood. "And her tears are on her checks." Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: As a woman weeps for the husband of her youth, as it reads [Joel, i. 8]: "Lament like a woman girded with sackcloth for the betrothed of her youth." "Her adversaries are become chiefs." Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: Every one who oppresses Israel becomes a chief, as it reads [Isa. viii. 3]: "For no fatigue befalleth him that oppresseth them." And the same said again in the name of the same authority: That from the same verse is inferred that an oppressor of Israel never becomes tired. "Not for you, ye travellers, behold and see," etc. Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: From this may be inferred that the Scripture is particular that if one tells his troubles to his neighbor, he should add, "May it not happen to you." "All that pass this way." Said R. Amram in the name of Rabh: They (the nations) have made of me the perpetrator of a crime to whom burning applies, as about Sodom it reads [Gen. xix. 24]: "And the Lord rained upon Sodom." And here it reads [13]: "From on high hath he sent a fire into my bones."

It reads [ibid. iv. 6]: "For greater is the iniquity of the daughter of my people than the sin of Sodom." Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: Jerusalem was punished with such that even Sodom was not. As concerning Sodom, it reads [Ezek. xvi. 49]: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: Pride, abundance of food . . . but the hand of the poor and needy did she not strengthen." And concerning Jerusalem, it reads [Sam. iv. 10]: "The hands of merciful women choked their own children." [Ibid. i. 15]: "The Lord hath trodden under foot all my mighty men in the midst of me." As one says to his neighbor: This coin is already out of current.

[Ibid. ii. 16]: "All thy enemies open wide their mouth against thee." (The whole portion is in alphabetical order). Here, however, the peh is before the ayin, and why? Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: Because of the spies, who said with their mouths (peh) what they had not seen with their eyes (ayin).

It reads [Ps. xiv. 4]: "Who eat up my people, as they eat bread (while), they do not call on the Lord." Said Rabba in the name of R. Johanan: It is so the custom of Israel's enemies that he who robs Israel and consumes his bread feels a good taste, while he does not feel any taste if he has not done so. "They do not call on the Lord," means the judges. So Rabh. And Samuel said that it means the teachers of children who are doing their work falsely. (However, what was said in the Mishna) of having and not having a share in the world to come? Who were they who have decided so? Said R. Ashi: The men of the great assembly. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh:

They wanted to count one king more, and the appearance of his father's face came and spread itself before them, but they did not care. And then a fire from heaven came and charred the benches on which they were sitting, but they did not care. Then a heavenly voice said to them [Prov. xxii. 29]: "Seest thou a man that is diligent in his work? Before kings may he place himself: let him not place himself before obscure men." He has built his house during thirteen years, and my house during seven years. But not this only, but he built first my house and then his house. Should he have such luck? And still they did not care. Then came another heavenly voice [Job, xxxiv. 33]: "Should He then according to thy view send a recompense, because thou hast rejected him? Because thou must choose and not I?"

However, the interpreters of notes said that all of them have a share in the world to come, as it reads [Ps. lx. 9 and 10]: "Mine is Gilead," which means Achab, who fell at Ramoth Gilead. "Menasseh"—literally, "Ephraim the stronghold of my head," means Jeroboam, who was an outcome of the tribe Ephraim. "Judah are my chiefs," means Achitopel, who was of the tribe of Judah. "Moab my washpot," means Gechazi, who was beaten because of the business of washing. "Upon Edom will I cast my shoe," means Doeg the Edomite. "Philistia, triumph thou but over me." The angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, if David, who has killed the Philistines, would come before Thee and would complain to that what Doeg and Achitopel shared in the world to come, what wilst Thou say to him? And He answered: It is for me to make them friends.
It reads [Jer. viii. 5]: "A perpetual backsliding." Said Rabh: A victorious answer has the assembly of Israel given to the prophets. The prophet said to Israel: Repent ye of your sins, as you may look upon your parents who have sinned, where are they? And they answered: And your prophets who have not sinned, where are they? As it reads [Zech. i. 5]: "Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, could they live forever?" He then said to them: But your parents have repented and confessed, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 6]: "But my words and my decrees, which I commanded my servants, the prophets, behold, they did overtake your fathers: and (then) they returned and said, just as the Lord of hosts had purposed to do unto us, in accordance with our ways, and in accordance with our doings, so hath he dealt with us." Samuel said: The victorious answer was thus: Ten men came to the prophet and sat down. And the prophet said to them: Repent of your sins. And they answered: A slave whom his master has sold, and a woman whom her husband has divorced, has then one something to do with the other? Said the Holy One to the prophet: Go and say to them [Isa 1. 1]: "Where is your mother's bill of divorcement, wherewith I have sent her away? or who of my creditors, is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother sent away?" And this is what Resh Lakish said: This is what is written [Jer. xliii. 10]: "Nebuchadnezzar my slave." It was known before Him, who said a word and the world was created, that Israel will claim so in the future, and therefore He said in advance, "Nebuchadnezzar my slave." And to whom, then, belongs the property of a slave, if not to his master?

It reads [Ezek. xx. 32-34]: "And that which cometh up into your mind shall not at all come to pass (namely), that ye say, We will be like the nations, like the families of the other countries to serve wood and stone. As I live, saith the Lord Eternal, surely, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm and with fury poured out, will I rule over you." Said R. Na'hman: With such an anger may the Merciful One be angry with us and redeem us.

[Isa. xxviii. 26]: "For his God had instructed him rightly, taught him (so to do)." Said Rabba b. b. Hanna: The prophet said to Israel: Repent. And they answered: We cannot, as we are under the dominion of the evil spirit. And he said to them: Overrule him. To which they answered: This can be done only by his God.
It reads concerning Bil'am [Num. xxii. 5]: "The son of Beor." And [Num. xxiv. 3]: "Bil'am, his son Beor." Said R. Johanan: His father was a son to him what concerns prophecy. The Mishna says that Bil'am has no share in the world to come, but other nations will have. Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehoshua of the following Boraitha: It reads [Ps. ix. 18]: "The wicked shall return into hell, all the nations that are forgetful of God." "The wicked" means the transgressors in Israel. "All the nations," means idolaters. So R. Eliezar. Said R. Jehoshua to him: Does it read, "And all the nations"? It reads "All the nations." This passage is to be explained thus: The wicked shall return to hell, means all the nations that are forgetful of God. And even Bil'am gave a sign concerning himself with his saying [Num. xxiii. 10]: "May my soul die the death of the righteous, and may my last end be like his." If I will die a death of the righteous, then will be my end like his, and if not [ibid. xxiv. 14]: "I am going with my people."

It reads [Num. xxii. 7]: "And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed." There is a Boraitha: Midian and Moab were always enemies with each other. This is a parable to two watch-dogs who were jealous of each other. But it happened that a wolf came to fight one of them. Said the other: If I will not help him the wolf will kill him to-day, and to-morrow he will kill me. And they therefore conjoined together and killed the wolf. Said R. Papa: This is what people say: The χρεχος and the cat (who are always enemies with each other) made a wedding meal of the fat of Bichgada.

It reads [ibid., ibid. 8]: "And the princess of Moab abode with Bil'am." And what became of the princess of Midian? As soon as they heard that Bil'am told them to stay there over night, they thought: Does then exist a father who dislikes his son? (The Holy One is the father of Israel, and will certainly not advise him to curse Israel.)

Said R. Na'hman: Impudence affects even Heaven, as [ibid., ibid. 12] reads: "Thou shalt not go with him," and finally [20]: "Go with them." Said R. Shesheth: Impudence is a kingdom without a crown, as [II Sam. iii. 39]: "And I am this day yet weak, and just anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruyah, are too strong for me."

R. Johanan said: Bil'am was lame on one foot and blind on one eye, as [Num. xxiv. 3]: "Whose one eye is open."
[Num. xxxiv. 16]: "Knoweth the knowledge of the Most High." Is it possible for him, who does not know the knowledge of his ass, to be aware of the knowledge of the Most High? It means he was aware of that moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, became angry. And this is what the prophet said to Israel [Michah, vi. 5]: "O my people, do but remember what Balak the king of Moab resolved, and what Bil'am the son of Beor answered him, from Shittim unto Gilgal, in order that ye may know the gracious benefits of the Lord." What do the last words mean? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: Beware of the gracious benefits I have done to ye, that I have not become angry on that day in the time of Bil'am, for if I would have done so, there would not remain one living soul from ye. And this is what Bil'am said to Balak: What is the use of my anger when God was not angry these days in spite of what he used to do every day, as it reads [Prov. vii. 12]: "God is indignant (with the wicked) every day." How long is the duration of the anger? One second, as it reads [Ps. xxx. 6]: "For his anger is momentary." And if you wish, it is from [Isa. xxvi. 20]: "Go, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, and shut thy door behind thee: hide thyself for a little moment, until the indignation be passed away." And at what time in the day does He become angry? In the first three hours when the comb of a cock becomes white. But is the comb not white at any other time of the day? At any other time there are red points in the white, and at that time it is white without any points.

There was a Min in the neighborhood of R. Jehoshua b. Levi who caused him great trouble. And on a certain day Jehoshua tied a cock on the posts of his beds, thinking that when the comb will become white I will caution him. However, when that time arrived he slumbered. He said then: I understand from this that such a thing must not be done, even to Minnim.

There is a Boraitha in the name of R. Mair: When the sun rises and the kings put their crowns on their head, and bow themselves down to the sun, the Lord immediately becomes angry.

It reads [Num. xxiv. 21]: "And Bil'am rose up in the morning and saddled his ass." There is a Boraitha in the name of R. Simeon b. Elazar: Love abandons the custom of great men, and the same animosity does. Love abandons their custom, as we have seen by Abraham, who himself saddled his ass (because of his love to the Creator), and the same we saw by Bil'am, who himself saddled his ass, because of his animosity to Israel.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: One shall always occupy himself with the Torah and divine commandments, even not for the sake of heaven, as finally he will come to do so for its sake. This can be inferred from Balak, who offered forty-two sacrifices, and was rewarded by that what Ruth was the outcome from him. As R. Jose b. Huna said: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, the grandson of Balak, king of Moab.

Rabha said to Rabba b. Mari: It reads [I Kings, i. 47]: "May God make the name of Solomon more famous than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne." Is it the usual way of saying to a king thus? And he answered: It is not to be taken literally; they meant to say "similar to thy name," as if you would not say so, how is to be understood [Judges, V. 24]: "Dwelling in the tent may she be blessed"? Who is meant by "dwelling in the tent," if not Sarah, Rebekha, Rachel, and Leah? Does, then, this passage mean that Ja'el shall be more blessed than they? Hence it is not to be taken literally; and it means "similar to them"; and the same is the case here. However, Rabba b. Mari differs with R. Jose b. Huni, who said that usually one becomes jealous of every one but of his son and disciple. Of his son, as we see from the above-cited verse concerning Solomon. And of his disciple [II Kings, ii. 9]: "And Elisha said, Let there be, I pray thee, a double portion of thy spirit upon me," and if you wish, from [Num. xxvii. 23]: "And he laid his hands upon him," though he was commanded [ibid., ibid. 18]: "Thou shalt lay thy hand upon him."

It reads [ibid. xxviii. 16]: "And put a word in his mouth." Said R. Johanan: From all the blessings of that wicked you may learn what he intended to say, if he would not have been prevented. He wanted to say: Israel shall not possess any houses of assembly and of learning. And what was he compelled to say [ibid., ibid. 5]: "How beautiful are thy tents, O Jacob." He intended to say that the Shekhina shall not rest upon them, and said, "Thy dwellings, O Israel."
He intended to say that their kingdom shall not be prolonged, and said, "As streams are they spread forth." He intended to say that they shall not possess olives and vineyards, and said, "As gardens by the river's side." They shall have a bad odor, and said, "As aloe-trees which the Lord had planted." They shall not have kings of nice appearance, and said, "And cedar-trees beside the waters." Their kings shall not be descendants of kings, and said, "Water runneth out of His buckets." Their kingdom shall not rule over other nations, and said, "That his seed may be moistened by abundance of waters." Their kingdom shall not be strong enough, and said, "And exalted above Agag shall be his king." And their kingdom shall not be feared, and said, "And raised on high shall be his kingdom." Said R. Abba b. Kahana: All Bil'am's blessings were overturned to cautions, except concerning houses of assembly and of learning, as [Deut. xxiii. 6]: "And the Lord thy God changed unto thee the curse into a blessing, because the Lord thy God loved thee." It reads "curse," singular, but not "curses," plural.

Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Jonathan said: It reads [Prov. xxvii. 6]: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but deceptive are the kisses of an enemy." The caution that Achiyah the Shilonite cautioned Israel is better for them than the blessings that Bil'am has blessed them. The former cautioned Israel with a reed, as it reads [I Kings, xiv. 15]: "As the reed is shaken in the water." As this reed stands in water-places, the branches of it change, but its roots are many, and even all the winds of the world when blowing upon it are not able to uproot it, but it bends in every direction of the wind. However, when the wind ceases it remains straight in its place. But Bil'am, the wicked, blessed them with a cedar, Which does not stand in water-places, does not change its branches, and its roots are few, and although no winds can affect it, however, as soon as a south wind comes it uproots it and turns it over on its face. Moreover, a pen for writing the Holy Scrolls, Prophets, and Hagiographa was made from a reed.
Farther on it reads [Num. xxiv. 21]: "And he looked on the Kenites. . . . Strong is thy dwelling-place," etc. Bil'am said to Jithro: Kenite, wast thou not with us at the time we consulted to destroy Israel? How, then, does it come that thou art placed now among the strongest of the world? And this is what R. Hyya b. Aba in the name of R. Simlai said: The following three—Bil'am, Job, and Jithro—were the advisers of Pharaoh, concerning his command of throwing in the river the children of Israel. Bil'am, who gave this advice, was killed; Job, who kept silent, was punished with chastisement; and Jithro, who ran away, was rewarded by having his descendants placed among the Sanhedrin, in the chamber of the Temple, as the above-cited verse [of I Chron. ii. 55, p. 327] reads. "And he took up his parable, and said, Alas, who shall live when God doth appoint this one?" [Num. xxiv. 23]. Said R. Johanan: Woe will be to that nation which will try to prevent the redemption of Israel, when the Holy One, blessed be He, will do it to his children. Who can prevent a lion to come together with his lioness at the time they are both free?

It reads [ibid., ibid. 14]: "And now, behold, I am going unto my people: come, I will advise thee against what this people will do to thy people in the end of days." This people to thy people! It ought to be the reverse: "I will advise thee against what thy people will do to this people." Said R. Abah b. Kahana: It is similar to one who intends to caution himself, and does it by cautioning his neighbor. (Rashi explains this that Bil'am said as it ought to be, but the verse changed its language.) Bil'am said to Balak: The God of this nation hates incest, and they, I am aware, are fond of linen dresses. Put up shops for them, and place therein prostitutes, an old woman outside, and a young one inside, and they shall sell them linen dresses. He put up shops from Har Shelek to the place of Beth Hayishimon, and placed therein prostitutes accordingly. And when Israel were eating, drinking, and rejoicing themselves and taking a walk, the old woman said to him: Do you want to buy a linen dress for a reasonable price? But the young woman from inside offers it to him thrice cheaper, and finally she says to him: You are at home, choose what you like. And there stood a pitcher full of Ammonite wine, which was not as yet prohibited. And she treats him with a goblet of wine. And after he drinks it, it kindles him as a fire, and he makes his proposition to her. She, however, takes out her idol from her bosom, saying: Worship it. And to his answer: I am a Jew, she said: What is it, it is required only of you to uncover yourself before it. While he was not aware that so was the custom of its worship, as it reads [Hosea, ix. 10]: "But they, too, went to Baal Peor, and devoted themselves unto that shameful idol, and became abominations as those they loved."

It reads [Num. xxv. 1]: "And Israel dwelt in Shittim." Said R. Johanan: Everywhere such an expression is to be found it brings infliction. Here the people began to commit incest. [Gen. xxxvii. 1]: "And Jacob dwelt in the land of his fathers sojourning," and (2) "Joseph brought evil reports of them to his father." [Ibid. xlvii. 27]: "And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen," and [ibid. 29]: "And the days of Israel drew near that he was to die." [I Kings, v. 5]: "And every man dwelt in safety," and [ibid. xi. 14]: "And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite."
It reads [Num. xxxi. 8]: "And the kings of Midian they slew, besides the rest of their men that were slain . . . and Bil'am, the son of Beor, they slew with the sword." What hath Bil'am to do there? Said R. Johanan: He went to take the reward for the twenty-four thousand Israelites who were killed through his advice. Said Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rabh: This is what people say: A camel wanted to get horns, and therefore the ears he possessed were cut off.

[Josh. xiii. 22]: "And Bil'am, the son of Beor, the soothsayer." The soothsayer! Was he not a prophet? Said R. Johanan: At the beginning he was a prophet, but thereafter became a soothsayer.

A Sadducaer said to R. Hanina: Are you aware of Bil'am's age when he was slain? And he answered: There is nothing written about it, but from [Ps. iv. 24]: "Let not the men of blood and deceit live out half their days," I understand that he must have been thirty-two or thirty-three when he was killed. And the Sadducaer answered: Thou sayest well, as I saw the record of Bil'am, and it was written therein thirty-three years was Bil'am when he was killed by Pinehas, the murderer.

Said Mar b. Rabhina to his son: About all the commoners who are mentioned in the Mishna, you have not to be anxious to lecture of them to their disadvantage, except Bil'am, about whom you may lecture as much as you like.

About Doeg is found in the Scripture this word differently, in some places with an aleph and in others with double yods instead of an aleph. Said R. Johanan: At the beginning Heaven was worrying that perhaps this man will go out in a wrong way, and after it happened so, it was exclaimed that this man is lost by his bad habits.

R. Itz'hak said: It reads [Ps. lii. 3]: "What vauntest thou thyself of wickedness, O mighty man? the kindness of God endureth all the time." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Doeg: Art thou, then, not mighty in the Torah? Why art thou fond of slandering?
And the same said again: It reads [Ps. 1. 16]: "But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to relate my statutes?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Doeg the wicked: What hast thou to relate my statutes when thou reachest the portion of murderers and the portion of slanderer (which thou hast done both)? How wouldst thou explain them? "Why bearest thou my covenant upon thy mouth?

[ibid.]. Said R Ami: Infer from this that the study of Doeg was only with his mouth, but not with his heart.

R. Itz'hak said: It reads [Job, xx. 15]: "The wealth which he hath swallowed, will he have to vomit up again: God will drive it out of his belly." David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Let Doeg die. And he was answered: Thou must wait until he will have forgotten the Torah, which he has swallowed. And he prayed again: Let God drive it out of his belly.

R. Itz'hak said again: It was said before David: Let Doeg have a share in the world to come. And he answered [Ps. lii. 7]: "Therefore God will also destroy thee forever." Let there at least a Halakha be mentioned in his name in the college. And he answered: "Pluck thee out of his tent." Let his descendants be rabbis. "And root thee out of the land of life."

The same said again: It reads [Isa. xxxiii. 18]: "Where is he who wrote down? where is he that weighed? where is he that counted the towers?" (All this passage is concerning Doeg.) Where is he who counted the letters of the Torah? Where is he who weighs the lenient and rigorous things mentioned therein? Where is he who counted three hundred decided Halakhas (about Levitical cleanness) concerning a turret flying in the air? Said R. Ami: Four hundred questions had Doeg and Achitophel asked concerning turrets flying in the air, and not one of them could be decided. Said Rabha: Is it also a great thing to ask questions?

In the years of R. Jehudah all their studies were confined to the Section of Damages, etc. (See Taanith, p. 71, from line 12 to the end of that chapter.) However, here the answer is: The Holy One, blessed be He, wants the heart of one, but not his mouth, as it reads [I Sam. xvi. 7]: "But the Lord looketh on the heart." Said R. Ami: Doeg was not dead before he had forgotten all his studies, as it reads [Prov. v. 23]: "He will indeed die for want of correction; and through the abundance of his folly will he sink into error." Said R. Johanan: Three angels of destruction attended to Doeg: one who had made him forget his study, and one who burned his soul, and the third who scattered his ashes in prayer and learning houses.

The same said again: Doeg and Achitophel did not see each other, as Doeg was in the days of Saul and Achitophel in the days of David.

And he said again: Both Doeg and Achitophel have not lived half of their days. So also we have learned in the following Boraitha: All the years of Doeg were only thirty-four, and those of Achitophel thirty-three. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: One shall not bring himself into temptation, as David i king of Israel, placed himself in the power of a trial and stumbled. He said before Him: Lord of the Universe, why is it said the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not the God of David? And he was answered: Because they were tried by Me, and thou wast not. And he said before Him: Lord of the Universe, try me, as it reads [Ps. xxvi. 2]: "Try me, O Lord, and prove me." And he was answered: You will be tried, and, furthermore, I will do with thee a thing which I have not done with the patriarchs, as them I have not informed that I will try, and thee I inform that thou wilt be tried with a case of adultery. And this is what it reads [II Sam. xi. 2]: "And it happened at evening tide that David arose," etc. Said R. Jehudah: He did in the daytime what is usually done at night. And he overlooked a Halakha: There is a small member in the body of a man which is always hungry if one is trying to satisfy it, and is always satisfied if one starves it. "And he walked upon the roof of the king's house; and he saw from the roof a woman bathing herself, and the woman was of a very beautiful appearance." Bath Sheba used to wash her head under a bee-hive. The Satan then appeared before David as a bird, and he shot an arrow at it, and the arrow fell on the bee-hive and broke it, so that Bath Sheba was visible to David. And immediately [ibid., ibid. 3 and 4]: "David sent and inquired after the woman; and some one said, Behold, this is the Bath Sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriyah the Hittite. And David sent messengers and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her, and she had just purified herself from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house." And this is what it reads [Ps. xvii. 3]: "Thou hast proved my heart; thou hast thought of me in the night; thou hast refined me—thou couldst find nothing; my zamuthi (purpose) doth not pass beyond (the words of) my mouth," which means it would be better for me that a zmama (a bit) should have been put in my mouth than to have prayed: Try me.

Rabha lectured [Ps. li. 6]: "To thee, thee only, have I sinned, and what is evil in thy eyes have I done; in order that thou mightest be righteous when thou speakest, be justified when thou judgest." David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: It is known before Thee, that if I would want to overrule my impulse (concerning Bath Sheba) I would be able to do so. But I didn't, so people shall not say that the slave has conquered his master. He lectured again: It reads [Ps. xi. 1]: "In the Lord have I put my trust; how can ye say to my soul, Flee to your mountain as a bird?" David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, forgive me this sin for the purpose that people shall not say that your mountain was lost through a bird (as said, above that the Satan appeared to David as a bird). He lectured again: It is written [ibid. xxxviii. 18]: "For I am prepared for (my) downfall, and my pain is continually before me." From the six days of creation Bath Sheba was destined for David; however, she came to him only by infliction. And so also taught the disciples of R. Ishmael: Bath Sheba, the daughter of Eliam, was destined to David, but he enjoyed her as an unripe fruit (did not wait until she was his legitimate wife). (Here is repeated from Middle Gate, p. 138, from "Rabha lectured" until Rabha said.")

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: David was about to worship idols, as it reads [II Sam. xv. 32]: "When David was come to the head where he used to bow himself to God." By "head" is meant an idol, as it is to be found in Daniel that the head of the image was of gold. "Behold, Chushai, the Arkite, came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head." And he said to him: Is it proper that a king like thyself shall be an idolater? And he answered: Is it proper that a king like myself should be slain by his son? It is better for me to worship an idol privately than that the Holy Name should be profaned publicly. Said Chushai to him: Why, then, hast thou married a handsome woman? And to his answer: The Merciful One has allowed to marry such. Rejoined Cushai: Why have you not given your attention to the interpretation founded on the facts of local junction of texts, as after "A woman of handsome form is near" [Deut. xxi. 11], the 18th verse, which speaks of "A stubborn son "?
R. Dusthai, of the city of Biri, lectured: David's following prayer is similar to a peddler who wanted to sell out his stock little by little. He said before the Holy One, blessed be He [Ps. xix. 13-15]: "Lord of the Universe, who can guard against errors?" And he was answered: They will be forgiven to you. "From secrets (faults) do thou cleanse me," and the same answer was given. "Also from presumptuous sins withhold thy servants," and he was also answered that it will be forgiven. "Let them not have dominion over me"—the rabbis shall not talk about me, and he was also promised that so it will be. "Then shall I be blameless"—my sins shall not be written. And he was answered: This is impossible as the Jod which I took away from the name of Sarai complained before me several years, until Joshua came and I added it to his name, as it reads [Deut. xiii. 16]: "And Moses called Hoshea, the son of Nun, Joshua." How then can I omit a whole portion of the Torah? "Clear from any great transgression"—He said before Him: Lord of the Universe, forgive me the whole sin. And he was answered: It is revealed before Me what Solomon, thy son, will say by his wisdom in the future [Prov. vi. 27-30]: "Can a man gather up fire in his lap, and shall his clothes not be burnt? Can a man walk along hot coals, and shall his feet not be burnt?" So it is with him that goeth in to his neighbor's wife: no one that toucheth her shall remain unpunished. He then exclaimed: If so, I am lost. And he was answered: Accept chastisements upon thyself. And he did so.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Six months was David afflicted with leprosy; the Shekhina left him, and the Sanhedrin separated themselves from him. "Inflicted with leprosy" [Ps. li. 9]: "Cleanse me from sin with hyssop," etc. "The Shekhina left him" [ibid., ibid. 14]: "Restore unto me the gladness of thy salvation." "The Sanhedrin separated themselves" [ibid. cxix. 79]: "Let those that fear thee return unto me and those that know thy testimonies." And whence do we know that all this lasted full six months? From [I Kings, ii. 11]: "And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; in Hebron he reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years. And in [II Sam. v. 5]: "In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah." Hence we see that the six months more which are counted in II Samuel are not counted in I Kings, and this was because the six months in which he was inflicted with leprosy were not counted. (Here is repeated from Minor Festivals, p. 13, line 6: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh—to the end of the par. See there.) Now about Gechazi. It reads [II Kings, viii. 7]: "And Elisha came to Damascus." What did he do there?

Said R. Johanan: He went to make Gechazi repent of his sins. He tried to do so, but he did not want, saying: I have a tradition from thee, that he who sins and causes others to sin, Heaven gives no opportunity to him to repent. But what has he done to cause others to sin? According to some he put a magnet over the casts made by Jeroboam, and they were suspended in the air. And according to others, he engraved a holy name on its mouth, and it heralded: "I am the God," etc. And according to still others, he drove away disciples from Elisha's college, as it reads [ibid. vi. 1]: "Behold now the place where we dwell before thee is too narrow for us." (And this was after the departure of Gechazi, hence it was not narrow when he was there, because he drove away many disciples.)

The rabbis taught: Exclusion shall always be with the left hand, and inclusion with the right hand, i.e., if one is compelled to repudiate some one, he shall do it easy as with his left hand, and at the same time try to admit him again with his right hand. And not as Elisha has done with Gechazi, whom he rejected with both hands, as it reads [II Kings, V. 23, 27]: "And Naaman said, Give thy assent, take two talents. And he urged him. . . . Whence comest thou, Gechazi?" And he said, Thy servant went not hither or thither. And he said unto him, "My mind was not gone when the man turned around from his chariot to meet thee. Is it time to take money, and to take garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants?" Hath then Gechazi taken all this? He took only silver and garments. Said R. Itz'hak: At that time Elisha was occupied with the study of the chapter of eight reptiles (the 14th chap. of Tract Sabbath). Naaman, the captain of the king of Syria, was inflicted with leprosy, and his servant girl, who was captured from Israel, told him that if he will go to Elisha he will be cured. And when he came and was told to dip himself in the Jordan, he said: They ridicule me. But the men with him induced him to do so. He followed their advice and he was cured. And he brought all what he had with him to Elisha, but he did not want to accept it from him. Gechazi, however, departed from Elisha, took what he took, and hid it, 1 and when he came before Elisha again he saw that the leprosy was flying over his head. Then he said to him: Has then the time come that you should be rewarded for my studying of the chapter of eight reptiles, as you took from him the value of the eight things mentioned in this passage? And therefore he went out of his presence a leper (as white) as snow. It reads [ibid. vii. 3]: "And there were four leprous men at the entrance of the gate." Said R. Johanan: These were Gechazi and his three sons. There is a Boraitha: The animal impulses of man, a child and a woman, should always be repulsed with the left hand, and at the same time embraced with the right hand. The rabbis taught: Thrice Elisha became sick, etc. (See Middle Gate, p. 229, which is repeated here with the change that the paragraph "until the time of Abraham there was no mark of age," in line 15, reads here after the paragraph, "The rabbis taught," in line 21. See there.)

MISHNA II.: The generation of the flood have no share in the world to come, and are also not judged, as it reads [Gen. vi. 3]: "Lau jodun ruchiy bheodom," literally "My spirit shall not judge in man"—no judgment and no spirit. The generation of dispersion (cf. to ibid., chap. 11) have also no share in the world to come, as it reads [ibid. 8]: "And the Lord scattered them abroad"; and it reads also (9): "From there the Lord scattered them"—"scattered them" in this world, and "from there the Lord scattered them"—in the world to come. The men of Sodom have also no share in the world to come, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 13]: "For the men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly"—"wicked" in this world, and "sinners" in the world to come. However, they are standing for judgment. R. Nehemiah said: Both of the following are not standing for judgment, as it reads [Ps. i. 5]: "Therefore shall the wicked not be able to stand in the judgment"—the generation of the flood. And "sinners in the congregation of the upright"—men of Sodom. But he was told by the sages: The latter do not stand up among the congregation of the upright, but they stand among the congregation of the wicked. The spies have no share in the world to come, as it reads [Num. xiv. 37]: "Died by the plague before the Lord." "Died"—in this world, "plague"—in the world to come. The generation of the desert has no share in the world to come, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 35]: "In this wilderness shall they be spent"—in this world, and therein shall they die"—in the world to come. So R. Aqiba. R. Eliezar, however, maintains: To them is written [Ps. i. 5]: "Gather together unto me my pious servants, who make a covenant with me by sacrifice." The congregation of Korah will not be restored at the time of resurrection, as it reads [Num. xvi. 33]: "And the earth closed over them"—in this world, and "they disappeared from the midst of the congregation"—in the world to come. So R. Aqiba. R. Eliezar, however, maintains: To them it reads [I Sam. ii. 6]: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The generation of the flood has no share in the world to come, as it reads [Gen. vii. 23]: "And it swept off every living substance"—in this world, "and they were swept from the earth"—in the world to come. So R. Aqiba. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said: They will neither be restored nor judged, as it reads in the cited verse of the Mishna: "No judgment and no spirit." R. Menahem b. Jose said: Even at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, will return the souls to the corpses, the souls of the generation in question will still be judged hard in the Gehenim, as it reads [Isa. xxxiii. 11]: "Ye shall be pregnant with hay, (and) ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath is a fire, which shall devour you."

The rabbis taught: The generation of the flood were exalted only because of the overflowing goodness, the Holy One, blessed be He, overflooded them, as concerning them it reads [Job, xxi. 9-14]: "Their houses are at peace without any dread, and no rod of God (cometh) over them. The bull of each one gendereth and disappointeth not: the cow of each one calveth, and casteth not her young. They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children skip about (with joy). They sing to the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the pipe. They wear out their days in happiness." The verse continues, and "in a moment they go down to the nether world." This was caused by what they said, "Depart from us and the knowledge of thy ways we desire not," etc. They said: We need the Almighty only for the drops of rain with which He supplies us; however, we possess springs and rivers, of which we can make use. Said the Lord: With the same good I have overflooded them they anger me, I will therefore punish them with the same, I will bring a flood of water, etc.
R. Jose said: The generation of the flood were exalted because the sclerotic coat of the eye which resembles water, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 2]: "And they took themselves wives of all whom they chose," and therefore they were punished with water, which resembles the eye, as [ibid. vii. 11]: "On the same day, were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

R. Johanan said: The generation in question sinned with the word rabbha. [ibid. vi. 5]: "God saw that rabbha the wickedness of men, and they were punished with the same word [ibid. vii. 11]: "All—the fountains of the deep rabbha." And he said again: Three of the hot springs of that time remained forever, and they are, of Gedda, of Tiberius and the great springs of Biram.
It reads [ibid. vi. 12]: "For all flesh has corrupted his way upon the earth." Said R. Johanan: Infer from this that cattle, beast and men had intercourse with each other. Said R. Aba b. Kahana: All of them returned to their usual manner of propagation, except the bird Thushl'mi. 1 It reads [ibid., ibid. 13]: "The end of all the flesh is come before me." Said. R. Johanan: Come and see how severe is the force of robbery, as the generation of the flood had committed all kinds of crimes and their evil decree was not sealed until they stretched out their hand to robbery, as it reads (13) "for all the earth is filled with violence through them, and I will destroy them with the earth," and also [Ezek. vii. 11]: "The violence is grown up into the staff of wickedness: nothing is left of them, and nothing of their multitude and nothing of theirs; and there shall be no lamenting for them." Said R. Elazar: Infer from this passage that the violence itself has grown up as a cane and placed itself before the Lord, saying: Lord of the Universe; nothing shall be left of them, etc.

The disciples of R. Ismael taught: In that evil decree Noah was included, but found favor in the eyes of the Lord, as it reads [Gen. vi. 7 and 8]: "For it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."
It reads [ibid., ibid. 6]: "And it repenteth the Lord that he had made man on the earth." When R. Dime came from Palestine, he said: (The Lord said) I have not done well that I prepared for them graves in the earth. (As it might be that if I would leave them alive, they would repent.) And this is inferred from the analogy of the expression "and it repented," which is to be found here and in [Ex. xxxii. 14]: "And the Lord bethought himself."

It reads [Gen. vi.. 9]: "Noah was a just, perfect man in his generation;" according to R. Johanan in his generation, but not in others who were more righteous. And according to Resh Lakish: In his generation, which was wicked, so much the more in other generations. Said R. Hanina: As a parable to that of R. Johanan, may be, e.g., if one places a barrel of wine among barrels of vinegar. In that place, the good smell of wine is marked, which would not be the case if placed among other barrels of wine, And a parable to that of Resh Lakish, said R. Oshia, may be, e.g., a glass of perfume which was placed in a filthy place, and the smelling was marked, so much the more would it be marked if placed among spices.

It reads further on [Gen. Vii. 23]: "And it swept off," etc. If man sinned, what were the sins of the animals? It was taught in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Kar'ha: It is similar to one who made a canopy for his son, and prepared all kinds of delicacies for the wedding-meal, but his son dies before the wedding and he destroys all what he prepared, saying: All this was done only because of my son; now, as he is dead, to what purpose do I need the canopy and all what I prepared? So the Holy One, blessed be He, said: To what purpose have I created cattle and beast, only for the sake of man; now, when man has sinned and is to be destroyed, to what purpose do I need all other creatures? [Gen. vi. 22]: "All that were on dry land died," but not the fishes in the sea.

R. Jose of Tesarius lectured: It reads [Job, xxiv. 18]: "Swift are such men (to flee) on the face of the water; accursed is their field on the land." Infer from this that Noah, the upright, warned them, saying: Repent and pray to God, for if not He will bring the flood upon you and will make your corpses swim upon the water like bags filled with air; and not only this, but ye will be accursed to future generations (i.e., one will curse this enemy that his lot shall be like yours). And they answered: Let him do so, who prevents him? And he answered: There is one pigeon among ye which must be taken away from this evil (i.e., Methushelech, the upright, who must depart, not to see the evil). And they answered: If it is so, then we will continue on our way and will not hide ourselves in the vineyards.
Rabha lectured: It reads [Job, xii. 5]: "To the unfortunate there is given contempt—according to the thoughts of him that is at ease—prepared (also) for those whose foot slippeth." Infer from this that Noah, the upright, warned them in hard words. But they scorned him, saying: Thou old man, why buildest thou the ark? And to his answer: The Lord will bring the flood, they said: A flood of what? If a flood of fire, then we have an animal by the name of Elita which extinguishes fire. And if of water, we have iron plates with which we can pave the ground (to prevent water coming up). And if of the sky, we have a thing named Akeb or Ikosh, which can prevent it. And Noah answered: He will bring you (the flood) from under your heels, as the just cited verse reads, "prepared for those whose foot slippeth."

Said R. Hisda: With their hot blood have they sinned, and they were punished with hot water, and it is inferred from ah analogy of the expression [Gen. viii. 3]: "And the water was appeased," and [Esther, vii. 10]: "And the fury of the king was appeased."

It reads [Gen. vii. 10]: "And it came to pass after the seven days that the waters of the flood were upon the earth." Seven days of what? Said Rabh: The seven days' mourning for Methushelech. From this you may learn that the lamentation of uprights delays the chastisement to come. Another explanation: The Lord appointed for them at first a long time for repenting, and thereafter a short time. And still another explanation: The seven days in which was given them a taste of the world to come, for the purpose that they shall know what good they are losing.

[Ibid., ibid. 2]: "Of every clean heart thou shalt take to thee seven pair of each, the male and his female." Have these animals wives? Said Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Jonathan: It means from those with whom a crime was not committed. And whence did he know this? Said R. Hisda: He passed them by the ark, and those who were accepted by the ark he was certain that no crime was committed, and those who were not, he was certain that a crime was committed. R. Abubu said: It means from those animals which came by themselves.

[Ibid. vi. 14]: "An ark of gopherwood." What is meant by gopher? R. Adda, in the name of the school of Shila, said: It means an oak tree, and according to others, a cedar tree.

[Ibid., ibid. 16]: "A window shalt thou make." Said R.
Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: Put there diamonds and pearls, that they shall give you light as the middle of the day. "With lower second and third stories shalt thou make it." The lower for manure, the second for animals and the third for man.

[Ibid. viii. 7]: "He sent forth a raven." Said Resh Lakish: A victorious answer has the raven given Noah: Thy master hates me and thou doest the same. Thy master hates, as from the clean he took seven and from the unclean only two, and thou hatest me as thou sends a creature of which you have only two, while from others you have seven. If I would be killed by heat or by cold would not the world be lacking my creation?

[Ibid., ibid. 8] "He then sent forth a dove from him." Said R. Jeremiah: Infer from this that clean fowls may be kept in the residence of uprights.

[Ibid., ibid. 11]: "And the dove came in to him at the time of evening." Said R. Elazar: The dove said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, may my food be bitter like an olive, but I shall receive it from thy hand rather than that it should be sweet like honey, and I shall receive from beings of blood and flesh. "Plucked off tereph." And whence do we know that tereph means food? From [Prov. xxx. 8]: Let me eat the bread," in which the same term tereph is used.

It reads farther on [Gen. viii. 19]: "After their families." Infer from this that each family was placed separate. R. Hana b. Bisna said: Eliezar, the servant of Abraham, questioned Shem the Great: As all the animals were placed separately, where was your family placed? And he answered: We had great trouble in the ark to feed all the animals. The creature whose habit it is to eat in the daytime we had to feed in the day, and those whose habit it is to eat in the night, we have to feed in the night. A chameleon, my father did not know what its food is. It happened one day that he cut a pomegranate and a worm fell out of it, and the above consumed it, and from that time prepared its food from the worms found in rotten apples. The lion was fed by his fever, as Rabh said: No less than six and no more than twelve months one can live in fever without taking any food. The Aurshina my father found that it slept in a corner of the ark; and to his question: Dost thou need any food, it answered: I saw thou art very busy, and I thought I would not trouble thee. And he blessed her that it shall never die, and this is what it reads [Job, xxix. 18]: "As the chaul (aurshina) shall I have many days."

R. Hana b. Levai said: Shem the Great questioned Eliezar, the servant of Abraham: When the kings of the West and East came to fight you, what have you done? And he answered: The Holy One, blessed be He, took Abraham, sat him down to His right, and we, however, took earth, threw it, and they became swords. Straw and they became arrows, as it reads [Ps. cx. 1]: "Sit thou at my right hand, until I place thy enemies a stool for thy feet." And also [Isa. Xli. 2]: "Who waketh up from the east the man whom righteousness met in his steps? He giveth up nations before him, and maketh him rule over kings. That his sword may render them as the dust, as driven stubble his bow." (Here is repeated from Taanith, p. 56, the legend of Nahum of Gim-zu.) "The generation of dispersion has no share," etc. What had they done? The school of R. Shila said: They wanted to build a tower to ascend to the sky and split it with hatchets, so that the contained water shall pour down. This legend was ridiculed in the West. If they intended to ascend to the sky they ought to have built the tower on a mountain, and not in a valley. Therefore, said R. Jeremiah b. Elazar: They were divided into three parties. The first party said: Let us go there to dwell; the second: Let us go there and worship their idols, and the third: Let us go there to fight. The party that said, Let us go there to dwell, were scattered all over the world, and the party that said, Let us go there and fight, became demons, devils, etc. And the party that said, Let us go there and worship their idols, were scattered to Babylon, to which it reads [Gen. xi. 9]: "Therefore is the name Babel, because the Lord did there confound the language."

Said R. Johanan: From the tower, a third of it was burned, the second was swallowed and a third is still in existence. "Men of Sodom," etc. The rabbis taught: Men of Sodom have no share in the world to come, as the verse cited in the Mishna. And in addition to it, said R. Jehudah: They were wicked with their bodies and sinners with their money. With their bodies, as it reads [ibid. xxxix. 9]: "How then can I do this great evil and sin against God?" and sinners with their money, as it reads [Deut. xv. 9]: "It will be sin in thee." Before the Lord means blasphemy. "Exceedingly"—all their sins were intentionally. In a Boraitha it was taught the reverse: wicked with their money, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 9] "And thy eye be thus evil against thy needy brother," and sinners with their bodies [Gen. xxxix. 9]: "And sin against God." "Before the Lord" means blasphemy, and "Exceedingly" means bloodshed, as it reads [II Kings, xxi. 16] "And also innocent blood did Menasseh shed exceedingly." The rabbis taught: The men of Sodom were exalted because of the overflowing goodness of the Lord. Concerning them it reads [Job, xxviii. 58]: "The earth out of which cometh forth bread, is under its surface turned up as it were with fire. Her stones are the place whence the sapphire cometh; and golden dust is also there. On the path which no bird of prey knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not surveyed," etc. And they said: As our land supplies us with sufficient bread, why shall we leave in travellers who come only to lessen our money? Let our land forget that there is a foot of stranger, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 4]. 1 He said again: It reads [Ps. lxii. 2]: "How long will ye devise mischief against a man? Will ye all assault him murderously, as though he were a falling wall, a tottering fence?" Infer from this that they used to place a wealthy man under a tottering wall and pushed the wall over him, and robbed him of his money.

He said again: It reads [Job, xxiv. 16]: "They break into houses in the dark, in the daytime they lock themselves in: they know not the light." Infer from this that when they saw a wealthy man they used to deposit with him balsam, which usually the depositories placed in their treasure box, and in the night they scent the balsam and rob him. 2 R. Jose lectured the same in Ciporias. And the night after that three hundred burglaries were committed through the smell of balsam, the town-men troubled him, saying: "You have shown a way to the thief." And he answered them: How could I know that all of you are thieves?

The following was enacted in Sodom. He who possessed one ox had to pasture all the cattle of the city one day, but he who possessed none at all had to pasture them two days. There was an orphan, the son of a widow, to whom they gave their oxen to pasture, and he killed them, saying: Who has one ox shall take one skin, and he who has none at all shall take two skins. And to the question: What is this? he said to them: The final trial must be at the beginning of it. You enacted that he who has one ox shall pasture them one day, and he who has none at all shall pasture them two days. The same is the case with the skins.

He who passed the river on a boat had to pay one zuz. And he who passed the river on foot had to pay two. If one had a row of bricks, every one of them came and took one, saying: I am not causing you any damage by taking one. The same they used to do when one scattered garlic or onions to dry. There were four judges in Sodom. Every one of them had a name which meant false, lie, etc. If it happened that one struck a woman and she miscarried, they used to decide that the woman should be given to the striker, and he shall return her when she will be pregnant again. If it happened that one cut off the ear of his neighbor's ass, they used to decide that the ass should be delivered to the striker, till it shall be cured. If one wounds his neighbor, they decided that the striker shall be paid for bleeding him. He who passed the river on a bridge had to pay four zuz. And he who passed it with one foot had to pay eight zuz. It happened once that a washer came there and they required of him four zuz. And to his claim that he had passed the water on foot, they required eight. And because he didn't pay they wounded him, and when he came to the judge, he decided that he shall pay for bleeding and eight zuz for passing the water.

Eliezar, the servant of Abraham, happened to be there, and was wounded, and when he came to the judge to complain he said: "You must pay for bleeding." And he took a stone and wounded the judge, saying: The payment for bleeding which you owe to me pay them, and my money shall remain with me. They made a condition that he who invites one to a wedding shall be stripped of his garments. There was a wedding at the same time Eliezar happened to be in the city, and none of them wanted to sell him any bread for a meal. He then went to the wedding and took a place at the very end of the table. And when he was asked who had invited him, he said to him who was sitting near by, Thou hast invited me. And for fear that they will believe that he has invited him and that he will be stripped of his garment, he hurried to take his mantle and run away.

And so he did to the remainder, and they all ran away, and he ate the whole meal. They had a bed for strangers. If he was too long for this bed they made him shorter, and if too short they stretched him. When Eliezar was there they told him to sleep in the bed, to which he answered: Since my mother is dead I vowed not to sleep in a bed. When a poor man happened to be there every one used to give him a dinar, on which his name was engraved, but they did not sell him any bread until he died. And then each one took his dinar back. There was a girl who used to supply a poor man with bread, which she used to hide in a pitcher while going for water.

And when this was found out they smeared her body with honey, put her on the roof of the surrounding wall, and bees came and killed her, and this is what it reads [Gen. xviii. 20]: "Because the sin against Sodom and Gomorrah is great," etc. "Spies . . . and the congregation of Korah," etc. The rabbis taught: The congregation of Korah has no share in the world to come, as it reads: "And the earth covered them "in this world, and "they disappeared from the midst of the congregation"—in the world to come. So R. Aqiba. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said: They are as a lost thing for which the loser inquires, as it reads [Ps. cxix. 176]: "I have gone erringly astray, like a lost sheep; seek thy servant, for thy commandments have I not forgotten." It reads [Num. xvi. 1]: "And Korah took (vayikah)." Said Resh Lakish: He purchased for himself a very bad undertaking.

"Korah" means, he has made Israel bald-headed. "Ben Yizhar," he who made the world hot as in the middle of the day. "Ben Kehath," he who made blunt the teeth of his parents. "Ben Levi," he who became a companion to the Gehenna. But why is not also written "ben Jacob"? Said R. Samuel b. Itz'hak: Jacob prayed [Gen. xlix. 6]: Unto their secret shall my soul not come," means the spies. Unto their assembly my glory shall not be united," means the congregation of Korah. Rabh said: "The wife of On ben Peleth" saved him from being among the congregation of Korah. She said to him: What is the difference to you? If Moses will be master, you are only a disciple, and the same will be for you if Korah will be the master.

And to his answer: What shall I do, I was with them in consultation, and swore to take part with them? she said: I know that the whole congregation is holy, as it reads [Num. xvi. 3]: "For the whole of the congregation are all of them holy;" remain in your house and I will save you. She made him drink wine to intoxication, and she made him sleepy in the house, and she herself sat outside at the entrance of the house, uncovered her head and dishevelled her hair. And every one coming to his house, to call upon On, when he saw the uncovered head of the woman, he returned. She, however, continued to sit there, till the congregation was swallowed. On the other hand, the wife of Korah said to him: See what Moses did. He proclaimed himself as a king, his brother he made high-priest, the sons of his brother for adjuncts of the high-priests.

Heave-offering he commanded to give to the priests, and even from tithes, which are for the Levites, he commands to give again one-tenth to the priest. And not only this, he made of you fools by commanding all the Levites to shave off all their hair. And to his answer: He himself also did so, she said: As all the glory belongs to him, he does not care, etc. And this is what it reads [Prov. xiv. 1]: "The wise among women buildeth her house"—the wife of On ben Peleth. But the foolish pulleth it down with her own hands—the wife of Korah.

It reads farther on [Num. xvi. 2]: "So that they rose up before Moses, with certain men of the children of Israel, in number two hundred and fifty"—the distinguished of the congregation. "Called to the assembly"—who were able through their wisdom to intercalate months and establish leap years. "Men of renown"—whose name was renowned through all the world. "And Moses heard it, and fell upon his face." What had he heard? Said Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Jonathan: That they suspect him of adultery, as it reads [Ps. cvi. 16]: "Moreover, they envied Moses." "And Moses went to Dathan and Abiram." Said Resh Lakish: Infer from this that one must do all that he can not to strengthen a quarrel (as he himself who was a king went to Dathan and Abiram [Num. xvi. 25]). As Rabh said: He who strengthens a quarrel transgresses a negative commandment. [Ibid. xvii. 5]: "That he become not as Korah and as his company." R. Ashi said: Such is worthy to be punished with leprosy, as here it reads "by the hand of Moses," and [Ex. iv. 6]: "And he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, white as snow."

R. Jose said: He who fights against the kingdom of David deserves to be bitten by a snake, as [I Kings, i. 9]: "By the stone Zoheleth," and [Deut. xxxii. 24]: "With the poison of Zochle aphar (serpents)."

R. Hisda said: He who quarrels with his master is considered as if he would quarrel with the Shekhina, as it reads [Num. xxvi. 9]: "At the time they quarrelled against the Lord." R. Hama b. Hanina said: He who has a controversy with his master is considered as if he would do so against the Shekhina, as it reads [ibid. xx. 13]: "These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel quarrelled with the Lord." And R. Hanina b. Papa said: He who murmurs against his master is considered as if he would do so against the Shekhina, as it reads [Ex. xvi. 8]: "Not against us are your murmurings, but against the Lord." And R. Abuhu said: Even one whose thoughts are against his master is considered as if his thoughts would be against the Shekhina, as it reads [Num. xxi. 5]: "And the people spoke against God and against Moses."

It reads [Eccl. v. 12]: "Riches reserved for their owner to his own hurt." Said Resh Lakish: This means the riches of Korah. It reads [Deut. xi. 6]: "And all . . . on their feet." 1 Said R. Elazar: It means the money which makes one stand on his feet. And R. Levi said: The keys of Korah's treasure were of such a weight that three hundred white mules had to carry them. R. Hama b. Hanina said: Three treasures were hidden by Joseph in Egypt, one was found by Korah, and the second by Antoninus ben Arsirus, and the third is still hidden for the upright in the future. R. Johanan said: Korah was not from those who were swallowed and not from those who were burned. Not those from who were swallowed, as [Num. xvi. 32]: "And all the men that appertained unto Korah," but not Korah himself. And not from the burned. [Ibid. xxvi. 10]: "The fire devoured the two hundred and fifty men, but not Korah." In a Boraitha, however, it is stated that Korah was both burned and swallowed. "Swallowed," as in the just-cited verse, "And swallowed them up together with Korah," and "burned," as [ibid. xvi. 35]: "And there came out a fire . . . and consumed two hundred and fifty," and Korah was among them.
Rabha said: It reads [Habakkuk, iii. 1]: "At the light of thy arrows they walked along." Infer from this that the sun and the moon ascended to Zebul (one of the seven heavens mentioned elsewhere), and said: Lord of the Universe, if thou wilst take revenge for Ben Amram we will go out to our work, and if not, we will not. And they were standing until he shot arrows at them, saying, When my own glory is affected (by that People are worshipping ye) ye did not protest; and for the honor of a being of blood and flesh ye do.

Rabha lectured [Num. xvi. 30]: "But if the Lord do create a new thing, and the earth open her mouth." Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: If such is already created, well and good, but if not, the Lord shall create. Shall create! Does it not read [Eccl. i. 9]: "And there is nothing new under the sun"? to bring the opening of the Gehenna near to them.
It reads [Num. xxvi. 11]: "But the sons of Korah did not die." In the name of Rabbi it was taught: A place was prepared for them in Gehenna, in which they sat and sung a song. (Here is repeated Rabba b. b. Hana's legend from Last Gate, p. 206, concerning the children of Korah.) "The generation of the desert has no share," etc. The rabbis taught (in addition to the verse cited in the Mishna) [Ps. xcv. 11]: "So that I swore in my wrath, that they should not enter into my rest." So R. Aqiba. R. Eliezar, however, said they have a share, as it reads, "Gather unto me my pious servants." And the verse "I swore in my wrath" is therefore to be explained: I retract from it because it was sworn while I was in anger. R. Jehoshua b. Karha said: The verse cited by R. Eliezar was said only for the future generations. "Gather together unto me my pious servants," means the righteous which are to be found in every generation. "Who make a covenant," means Hanania, Meshael and Asaryah, who delivered themselves to the caldron. "By sacrifice," means R. Aqiba and his colleagues, who had delivered themselves to be slain because of the words of the Torah. R. Simeon b. Menasia said: They will have a share in the world to come, as it reads [Isa. xxxv. 10]: "And come to Zion with song!" Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: R. Aqiba's saying is against his piety, as it reads [Jer. ii. 2]: "I remember unto thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thy espousals, thy going after me in the wilderness, through a land that is not sown." Hence we see that from their reward even their descendants will be benefited, so much more they themselves.
MISHNA III.: The ten tribes who were exiled will not be returned, as it reads [Deut. xxix. 27]: "And he cast them into another land, as this day." As that day will not return, so will they not return. So R. Aqiba. R. Eliezar said: As this day means as usually a day becomes clouded and thereafter lights up again, so the ten tribes, who are now in darkness, the future will lighten upon them.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The ten tribes have no share in the world to come, as it reads: "And the Lord plucked them out of their land of anger, and in wrath and in great indignation," means in this world, "and he cast them into another land," means in the world to come. So R. Aqiba. R. Simeon b. Jehudah, the head of the village of Aku, said in the name of R. Simeon: If their acts will be as on that day, they will not return, but if they will repent, they will. Rabbi, however, said: They will have a share in the world to come, and they will return, as it reads [Isa. xxvii. 13]: "And then shall come those who are lost in the land of Asshur," etc. Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: R. Aqiba's saying is against his piety, as [Jer. iii. 12]: reads: "Go and proclaim these words towards the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; I will not cause my anger to fall upon you, for I am full of kindness, saith the Lord, I will not bear grudge forever." What is the kindness? As in the following Boraitha: The minors of the wicked of Israel will not have a share in the world to come, as it reads [Malachi, iii. 19]: "For behold, the day is coming which shall burn as an oven; and all the presumptuous, yea, and all who practice wickedness shall be stubble; and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, saith the Lord of hosts, who will not leave them root or bough." "Root," in this world, and "bough," in the world to come. So Rabban Gamaliel.
R. Aqiba, however, said: They will have a share in the world to come, as it reads [Ps. cvi. i]: "The Lord preserveth pethayim (fool)." And in the countries of the sea (Arabia), a child is called pathia. And also [Dan. iv. ii and 12]: "Hew down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit; let the beasts flee away from under it, and the fowls from among its branches. Nevertheless leave the body of its root in the earth." But what is meant in the former verse, and "he shall not leave them a root or bough"? It means that he shall not leave one commandment or a part of it which they will observe unrewarded, however they will be rewarded for it in this world, but will have no share in the world to come. Another explanation, "root" means the soil, and "bough" the body. However, the minors, children of idolaters, all agree that they will not have a share in the world to come.

It was taught: From what age has a minor a share in the world to come? R. Hyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi differ. According to one, immediately after birth, and according to the other, from the time he commences to speak. The former infers it from [Ps. xxii. 32]: "Will tell his righteousness to a people just born," and the latter infers it from the previous, "Sera (children) shall serve him; there shall be related of the Lord unto future generations."

It was taught: Rabhina said: From the time he is formed; and R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said: From the time he was circumcised, as it reads [Ps. lxxxviii. 16]: "I am inflicted and perishing from my youth up." There is a Boraitha in the name of R. Mair: From the time he can answer "Amen," as it reads [Isa. xxvi. 2]: "Open ye the gates, that there may enter in the righteous nation which guardeth the truth (amunim). Do not read amunim, but amen. What is meant by "amen"? It is an abbreviation of El melech neman (literally, God, King of Truth).

It reads [Isa. v. 14]: "Therefore hath the deep enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure (chok)." Said Resh Lakish: It means him who failed to perform even one (chok) law of the Torah. Said R. Johanan to him: Your saying is not satisfactory to their creator. Say the reverse, even he who has studied but one law does not belong to the Gehenna.
[Zech. xiii. 8]: "And it shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts (of those) therein shall perish, but the third part shall be left therein." Said Resh Lakish: It means a third of Shem's descendants. And R. Johanan said to him: Your saying is not satisfactory for their Lord. And even if you should say: A third of Noah's children will remain and two-thirds will be destroyed, it would also not satisfy Him, but it means one-third of the wicked will remain. 1 [Jer. iii. 14]: "I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and bring you to Zion." Said Resh Lakish: It means literally. And R. Johanan said again to him: Their Lord is not pleased with such an interpretation, but it means one righteous in a city saves the whole city, and two from a family save the whole family. And the very same said Rabh to R. Kahana when he was sitting before him interpreting the just-cited verses literally.

Rabh saw R. Kahana washing his head and improving his complexion, and thereafter came to study in Rabh's college. And he read to him [Job, xxviii. 13]: "And she is not to be found in the land of the living." And to the questions of R. Kahana: Do you caution me? he replied: I only tell you the interpretation of this Passage. The Torah cannot be found with him who adorns himself before studying.

There is a Boraitha: R. Simai said: It reads [Ex. vi. 7]: "I will take you to me as a people," and (ibid. 8): "I will bring you in unto the land." The Scripture compares their exodus from Egypt to the coming in their land. As in entering the land only two from six hundred thousand who made their exodus from Egypt, viz., Joshua and Kaleb, had entered, but all others from the age of twenty to sixty died in the desert, so also from those who made their exodus from Egypt were only two from every six hundred thousand, notwithstanding that they numbered six hundred thousand.

Said Rabha: And so it will be in the time of the Messiah, as it reads [Hosea, ii. 17]: "She shall be inflicted there, as in the days of her youth and as on the day of her coming up out of the land of Egypt."
There is a Boraitha: R. Elazar b. Jose said: It happened once that I was in Alexandria of Egypt, and I found a certain old Gentile who said to me: Come, and I will show you what my great-grandfathers have done to yours. A part of them they threw in the sea, a part they slew with the sword and a part they have crushed in the buildings. Says the Gemara: And for this evil Moses, our master, was punished, as it reads [Ex. v. 23]: "He hath done more evil to this people." To which the Holy One, blessed be He, answered: Woe for those who are lost, as such are not to be found now. Several times I have revealed myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name Almighty God, and they have never thought against my retribution, and did not question me for my proper name. I said to Abraham [Gen. xiii. 17]: "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for unto thee will I give it." And thereafter when he was searching for a grave for his wife Sarah, he could not get it until he bought one for four hundred silver shekels, and, nevertheless, his thoughts were not against my retribution. I said to Isaac [ibid. xxvi. 3]: "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and bless thee," and thereafter when his bondmen wanted to drink water they could not get it without quarrel, as [ibid., ibid. 20]: "And the herdsmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herdsmen, saying, The water is ours," and he also had no thought against my retribution. I said to Jacob [ibid. xxviii. 13]: "The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it," and thereafter when he wanted to spread a tent for himself, he could not get it until he paid a hundred kessitah, and his thoughts were not against my retribution and he did not ask for my proper name. Thou, however, first hast asked for my proper name, and now thou sayest to me [Ex. v. 23]: "Thou hast in nowise saved thy people." And therefore [ibid. vi. 1]: "Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh," but thou wilst not live to see the war with the thirty-one kings in the time of Joshua.

It reads [ibid. xxxiv. 8]: "And Moses made haste, and bowed his head." What had he seen that he bowed himself? R. Hanina b. Gamla. said: He saw the words "long-suffering." And the rabbis say: He saw the word "truth." There is a Boraitha in accordance with him, who said he had seen long-suffering, viz., When Moses ascended to heaven, he found the Holy One, blessed be He, writing the words "long-suffering." And he said before Him: Lord of the Universe, does this mean long-suffering for the righteous ones? And he was answered: Even for the wicked. And to Moses' exclamation: May the wicked be lost! he answered: In the future thou wilst see that my previous words will be necessary for thee. Thereafter when Israel sinned, the Lord said to Moses: Didst thou not say long-suffering for the righteous? And Moses said before Him: Lord of the Universe, but hast Thou not said to me also to the wicked"? And to this it is written [Num. xiv. 17]: "And now, I beseech thee, let the greatness of the power of the Lord be made manifest as Thou hast spoken."
R. Hagga, ascending the steps of the school of Rabba b. Shila, heard a child saying [Ps. xciii. 5]: "Thy testimonies are exceedingly steadfast. In thy house abideth holiness, O Lord, to the utmost length of days." And immediately he began [ibid. xc. 1]: "A prayer of Moses." And he then said: I infer from this that Moses has seen the words "long-suffering."

R. Elazar, in the name of R. Hanina, said, etc. (Here is repeated from Tract Megilla, p. 38, line 23 to p. 39, line 3: However, here is some change at the end of the paragraph which is unimportant.)
1It reads [Isa. viii. 12]: "Call ye not a conspiracy all that this people may call a conspiracy." What conspiracy does it mean? The conspiracy of Shebna, as his college had thirteen great men, and Hiskia's college had only eleven. When Sanherib came to attack Jerusalem, Shebna wrote a note that he and his society are willing to make peace, however Hiskia and his society are not. And this note he put in an arrow and shot it into the camp of Sanherib, as it reads [Ps. xi. 2]: "For lo, the wicked bend their bow, they arrange their arrow upon the string." And Hiskia was afraid, that perhaps the inclination of Heaven will be towards the majority, whose desire was to deliver themselves to the enemy. The prophet then came to him, saying: "Call ye not a conspiracy," etc., i.e., this conspiracy is wicked, and a conspiracy of the wicked is not counted. The same Shebna wanted also to hew out a cave for a grave for himself among the kings of David's house, and this is what the prophet said to him [ibid., ibid. 16 and 17]: "What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn out for thyself here a sepulchre? . . . Behold, the Lord will thrust thee about with a mighty throw. Oh, man!" Said Rabh: From this is to be inferred that travelling is harder for a man than for a woman, as, from the expression of the last word of this verse, R. Jose b. Hanina infers that Shebna was punished with leprosy, as the same expression is to be found concerning leprosy [Lev. xiii. 45]. "He will roll thee up as a bundle, and (toss thee) like a ball into a country of ample space." There is a Boraitha: His (Shebna's) desire was to disgrace the house of his master, and therefore his own honor was turned over to disgrace, for when he came out to Sanherib with his society, Gabriel shut the door in the face of his society. And when Sanherib questioned him: Where is thy society? he answered: They have retracted. Exclaimed Sanherib: I see thou hast ridiculed us. And they bored holes in his heels, tied them to the tails of their horses, and dragged his body over thorns.

In the interpretation of [Ps. xi. 3]: "For (if) the foundations be torn down, what would the upright do?" R. Jehudah and R. Eina differ. According to one it means, if his kin and his association would be destroyed, how would the promise of the Lord be? And according to the other, should the Temple be destroyed by Sanherib, in accordance with the advice of Shebna, what would become of the wonderful miracles of the Lord? And according to Ula, this passage is to be explained negatively. If the thoughts of that wicked (Shebna) would not have been destroyed, what would have become of the upright, Hiskia? It is correct, the explanation of Ula, and of him who explains the word "foundation" to mean the Temple, as according to the former, it means the previous verse (2) which was the basis of his thoughts. And also concerning the Temple we found in Mishna, which states that a stone was placed in the Temple from the time of the first prophets, with the name shethiha (foundation). But he who explains the passage to mean Hiskia and his society, where is to be found that by the word foundation the upright are meant? [I Sam. ii. 8]: "For the Lord's are the pillars of the earth, on which he hath set the world." "Pillars" are the upright, "on which he hath set"—the foundation.
1The rabbis taught: Man was created on the eve of Sabbath. And why? The Minnim shall not say that he was a partner to the Lord, in the creation of the world. Another explanation is, if a man becomes haughty it may be said to him: At the time of creation even a fly was created before thou wert. Still another explanation is that his first act should be meritorious, in keeping the Sabbath, and also he shall partake of the Sabbath meal immediately. This is similar to a human king who built a palace, accomplished it, prepared a banquet and thereafter invited guests, as it reads [Prov. ix. 1-4]: "Wisdom hath built her house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars. She hath killed her cattle; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also set in order her table. She hath sent forth her maidens; she invited (her guests) upon the top of the highest places of the town." "Wisdom hath built her house"—it is one of the divine affairs of the Holy One, blessed be He, who has created the whole world with wisdom. "Seven pillars"—"the seven days of the creation." Killed her cattle," etc.— means the seas, the rivers, and all what was necessary for the world. "She sent forth her maidens"—Adam and Eve upon the top of the highest places.

Rabba b. b. Hana propounded a contradiction from ibid. 3, which reads, "on the top of the height," to ibid. (14), on the chair in the high places. And he himself answered: First they were placed on the top, and thereafter on a chair. "Void of sense," the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Who made a fool of Adam the first? The woman who told him, etc., as it reads [ibid. vi. 32]: "Whoso committed adultery with a woman lacketh sense." There is a Boraitha: R. Mair used to say: From the whole world was gathered the earth, from which Adam the first was created, as it reads [Ps. cxxxix. 16]: "My undeveloped substance did thy eyes see." R. Oshia said in the name of Rabh: The body of Adam the first was taken from Babylon, his head from Palestine, and all other members, hands, feet, etc., from all other countries, and the earth for his rump, said R. Aha, was taken from Akra of Agma. R. Johanan b. Hanina said: A day consisted of twelve hours, the first hour the earth for his creation was gathered, the second hour it became an unformed body, and in the third his limbs were shaped; in the fourth the soul entered the body, in the fifth he arose on his feet, in the sixth he named all his beasts and animals, in the seventh Eve was brought to him, in the eighth they went to bed, two persons, and four persons came out of it; in the ninth he was commanded not to eat of the tree, in the tenth he sinned, in the eleventh he was tried, and in the twelfth he was driven out of the Garden of Eden, as it reads [Ps. xlix. 13]: "And Adam though in his splendor endureth not."
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to create a man, He created a coetus of angels, and said to them: Would ye advise me to create a man? And they asked Him: What will be his deeds? And He related before them such and such. They explained before Him: Lord of the Universe, what is the mortal, that Thou rememberest him, and the son of men, that Thou thinkest of him? [Ps. vii. 5]. He then put His little finger among them and they were all burnt. And the same was with the second coetus. The third one, however, said before Him: O Creator of the world! the first angels who protested, did they effect? The whole world is Thine, and all what it is pleased before Thee Thou mayest do. Thereafter at the time of the generation of the flood and the generation of dispersion whose deeds were criminal, the same angels said before Him: Creator of the Universe, were not the first angels right with their protest? And He answered: "And even unto old age I am the same, and even unto the time of hoary hairs will I hear" [Isa. xlvi. 4].

R. Jehudah said again in the name of the same authority: Adam the first was from one end of the world to the other, as it reads [Deut. iv. 32]: "Since the day that God created Adam upon the earth, and from the one end of the heavens unto the other end." After he had sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, laid His hand upon him and reduced him [Ps. cxxxix. 5]. "Behind and before hast Thou hedged me in, and Thou placest upon me Thy hand." R. Elazar said: Adam the first was tall from the earth to the sky, as the above cited verse: "The day Adam was created upon the earth and to one end of the heaven." And when he sinned He laid His hand upon him, and diminished him, as the cited verse [Ps. cxxxix.] reads.

R. Jehudah said again in the name of Rabh: Adam the first spoke with the Aramaic language, as [ibid., ibid. 17]: "And how precious are unto me thy thoughts," and the terms in the original Psalm are Aramaic. And this is what Resh Lakish said: It reads [Gen. v. 1]: "This is the book of the generation of Adam." Infer from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed to Adam every generation with its scholars, every generation with its lecturers. And when Adam saw the generation of R. Aqiba, he was pleased with his wisdom, but was dejected seeing his death, and said: "How precious are unto me thy thoughts."

The same said again in the name of the same authority: The Minnim 1 of this generation say that Adam the first was also of their sect. And they infer it from [Gen. iii. 9]: "And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him: Where art thou?" i.e., to what is thy heart inclined?
Said R. Johanan: Every place where the Minnim gave their wrong interpretation, the answer of annulling it is to be found in the same place—e.g., they claim from [Gen. i. 26]: "Let us make man." Hence it is in plural. However, in [ibid. 271 it reads: "And God created man in his image" (singular). [Ibid. xi. 7]: "Let us go down" (plural); however, [ibid., ibid. 5]: "And the Lord came down" (singular). [Ibid. xxxv. 7]: "And there God appeared" (the term in Hebrew is plural); however [ibid., ibid. 3]: "Unto the Lord who answered me" (singular). [Deut. iv. 7]: "For what great nation is there that hath gods so nigh unto it?" However, it reads farther on, "as is the Lord our God every time we call upon him." [II Lam. vii. 23]: "Which God went?" (the term in Hebrew is plural). However [Dan. vii. 9]: "I was looking down until chairs were set down, and the Ancient of days seated himself" (singular). But why are all the above-mentioned written in plural? This is in accordance with R. Johanan, who said elsewhere that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not do anything until he consults the heavenly household, as it reads [ibid. iv. 14]: "Through the resolve of the angels is this decree, and by the order of the holy ones is this decision." However, this answer is for all the plurals mentioned, except the last one, "the chairs." Why are they in plural? One for Him and one for David. So R. Aqiba in a Boraitha. Said R. Elazar b. Azaryah to him: Aqiba, how do you dare to make the Shekhina common? It means one chair for judgment and one for mercy. Did Aqiba accept this, or not? Come and hear the following Boraitha: One for judgment and one for mercy. So R. Aqiba. Said R. Elazar b. Azaryah to him: Aqiba, what hast thou to do with Haggada? Give thy attention to Negain and Ohaloth. It means one for a chair to sit upon and one for a footstool.

Said R. Na'hman. He who knows to give a right answer to the Minnim like R. Aidith may discuss with them, but he who is not able to do so, it is better for him that he discuss not with them at all. There was a Min who said to R. Aidith: It reads [Ex. xxiv. 1]: "Come up unto the Lord." It ought to be, "Come up to me." (And when God said to him: Come up to the Lord, there must be one lord more?) And he answered: That is the angel Mattatron (name of the chief of the angels) about whom ibid. xxiii. 20 speaks, as he bears the name of his master [ibid., ibid. 21]: "Because my name is in him." If so, rejoined the Min, let us worship him. It reads, ibid., ibid., ibid., al tamer be, and this term means also "exchange." Hence it means thou shalt not exchange him for Me.

Said the Min again: But does it not read "he will not pardon your transgression"? And Aidith answered: Believe me, that even as a guide we refused to accept him, as it reads [ibid. xxxiii. 15]: "If thy presence go not (with us), carry us not up from here."

A Min asked Ismael b. R. Jose: It reads [Gen. xix. 24]: "And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire. From the Lord," etc. From the Lord! It ought to be from Him (hence there was one more lord). And a certain washer said to Rabban Gamaliel, Let me answer him. It reads [Gen. iv. 23]: "And Lemech said unto his wives, Adah and Zellah, Hear my voice, ye wives of Lemech," etc. Wives of Lemech! "My wives," it ought to be? You must then say that so is it customary in the language of the verse, the same is the case here. And to question of R. Ismael to the washer: Whence do we know this? he answered: From the lectures of R. Mair. As R. Johanan used to say, R. Mair's lectures consisted always of a third Halakha, a third Haggadah, and the last third parables. And he said also: From R. Mair's three hundred fox fables we have only three: (a) [Ezek. xviii. 2]: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children have become blunt;" (b) [Lev. xix. 36]: "just balances, just weights," and (c) [Prov. xi. 8]: "The righteous is delivered out of distress, and the wicked cometh in his stead." 1 There was an atheist who said to Rabban Gamaliel: Your God is a thief, as it reads [Gen. ii. 21]: "Lord God caused a deep sleep . . . and he slept; and he took one of his ribs." Said R. Gamaliel's daughter to him: Let me answer him. And she said to him: Would you assist me to take revenge on a thief who robbed me this night, by stealing a silver pitcher, however he left a golden one instead? And he said to her: I would like that such thief would come to me every day. Then she said: Was it not better for Adam that one bone was taken from him, and in its stead was given a woman to him, who shall serve him? Rejoined the atheist: I mean why stealing; could He not take it from Adam when he was awake? She then took a piece of meat, put it in glowing ashes, and when roasted took it out and gave it to him to eat. To which he said: It is repulsive to me. Rejoined she: Eve would also have been repulsive to Adam if he could have seen how she was formed.

The same atheist said to Rabban Gamaliel: I am aware of what your God is doing now. R. Gamaliel sighed deeply. And to the question: Why are you sighing? he said: I lost every information of my son who is now in the sea countries. Can you perhaps assist me by informing me where he is? And he rejoined: Where shall I know this from? Rejoined Rabban Gamaliel: You don't know what is in this world, and you claim to know what is in heaven?

At another time the same said to Rabban Gamaliel: It reads [Ps. cxlvii. 4]: "Who counted the number of the stars," etc. What prerogative is this? I also can do this. R. Gamaliel took some grain, put it in a sieve, and while straining told him to count the grain. And he rejoined: Let the sieve stand and I will count it. Rejoined R. Gamaliel: The stars are also always moving. According to others R. Gamaliel answered him: Can you tell me how many teeth are in your mouth? And he put his hand in his mouth and began to count them. Rejoined R. Gamaliel: You are not aware of the number of teeth in your mouth, and you claim to know how many stars there are in heaven?
A Min said to R. Gamaliel: He who created the mountains has not created the wind, as it reads [Amos, iv. 13]: "He that formed the mountains and created the wind." And he answered: If so, then concerning a man, of whom it reads [Gen. i. 27]: "And God created," and [ibid. ii. 7]: "And the Lord God formed," should also mean that he who has formed has not created, and vice versa. There is in the body of man one span square, in which two holes are to be found—one in the nose and one in the ear. It must be also that he who created one of them did not create the other, as it reads [Ps. xciv. 9]: "He that hath planted the ear, shall he not hear? Or he that hath formed the eye, shall he not see?" And the Min said: Yea, I am of this opinion. Rejoined Gamaliel: How is it, then, when death comes? Are both creators reconciled, to kill their creation together?

A magician said to Rabban Gamaliel: The lower half of your body is created by ahermes (God), but the upper half by Hermes (Mercury). And he answered: If it is so, why does then ahernes leave the dirty water coming from the upper half to pass the lower half?

The Cæsar said to R. Tanhum: Let us unite and be a people of one and the same creed. And he answered: Very well; but we who are circumcised cannot be like your people. However, ye are able to be like us if ye will circumcise yourself. And the Cæsar answered: Your answer is right. However, it is a rule that he who conquers the king must be thrown in the vivarius to be devoured by the beasts. He was thrown in the vivarius and was not touched. And there was a Min who said to the king: They did not devour him, because they were not hungry. And they then threw him in the vivarius and he was devoured.

Another atheist said to R. Gamaliel: You say that upon every ten Israelites the Shekhina rests. How many Shekhina have you then? Gamaliel then called the servant of the atheist, struck him with a whip, saying: Why didst thou leave the sun enter the house of your master? His master, however, answered: Every one is pleased with the sun. Rejoined Gamaliel: The sun, which is only one of the hundredth millions servants of the Lord, is pleasant to every one, so much the more the Shekhina of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself.
A Min said to R. Abuhu: Your God is a jester. He commands Ezekiel to lie on his left side and then on his right side [Ezek. iv. 4-6]: "At the same time a disciple came and questioned him: What is the reason of the Sabbatic year?" And Abuhu answered: I will now say something which will be an answer to both of you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: Work up the earth for six years and release the seventh for the purpose that you shall be aware that the earth is mine. However, they did not do so, but sinned, and were exiled. It is custom of a human king if a country has rebelled against him to kill all of them if he is a tyrant, and to kill half of them if he is merciful. But if he is full of mercy he chastises the leaders only; so was it with Ezekiel, the Holy One, blessed be He, chastised him for the sin of Israel.

There was a Min who said to R. Abuhu: Your God is a priest, as it reads [Ex. xxv. 2]: "Bring Me a therumah." Now when He buried Moses where did He dip Himself? (Took the legal bath prescribed for him who touches a corpse.) You cannot say that He did so in the water, as it reads [Isa. xl. 12]: "Who hath measured in the hollow of his hand the waters." And he answered (a joke to a joke): He dipped Himself in fire, as it reads [ibid. lxvi. 15]: "For behold, the Lord will come in fire." And to the question of the Min: Is it legal to dip in fire? he answered: On the contrary, the principal dipping is in fire, as it reads [Num. xxxi. 23]: "And whatsoever doth not come into the fire shall ye cause to go through water."

There was a Min who said to R. Abina: It reads [II Sam. vii. 23]: "And who is like thy people, like Israel, the only nation on the earth?" What is your proudness about? Are you not mingled among other nations, of whom it reads [Isa. xl. 17]: "All the nations are as naught before him"? And he answered: A prophet of nations themselves has testified concerning us [Num. xxiii. 9]: "And among the nations it shall not be reckoned."

R. Elazar propounded a contradiction from [Sam. iii. 25]: The Lord is good unto those that hope in him" to [Ps. cxlv. 9]: "The Lord is good to all"? This question may be answered with the following parable to one who possesses a fruit garden. When he waters it, he waters all of them. And when he hoes to cover tip the roots, he does so only to the best of them, i.e., when He feeds, He feeds the whole world with discriminating, but to save from trouble He helps only those who hope in Him.
It reads [I Kings, xxii. 36]: "And there went a rinah (song) throughout the camp." Said R. Aha b. Hanina: This is what is written [Prov. xi. 10]: "And when the wicked perish there is rinah," means when Achab, the son of Omri, perished, there was rinah. Is this so? Is it then pleasant for the Holy One, blessed be He, the ruin of the wicked? Is it not written [II Chron. xx. 21]: "As they went out before the armed array and said: Give thanks unto the Lord; for unto everlasting endureth His kindness"? And R. Johanan said: Why is it not written here: "He is good," as [Ps. cxviii. 1]: Because the Holy One, blessed be He, is not rejoicing over the ruin of the wicked, as R. Samuel b. Na'hman said in the name of R. Jonathan: It reads [Ex. Xiv. 20]: "And the one came not near unto the other all the night." At that time the angels wanted to sing their song before the Holy One, blessed be He, but He said to them: "My creatures are sinking in the sea, and ye want to sing." 1 It reads [I Kings, xviii. 3]: "And Rehab called Obadiah, who was the superintendent of the house;—now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly." To what purpose does the passage relate that Obadiah feared the Lord? Said R. Itz'hak: Achab said to him, concerning Jacob, it reads [Gen. xxx. 27]: "The Lord hath blessed me for thy sake." And concerning Joseph it reads [ibid. xxxix. 5]: "The Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for the sake of Joseph." I, however, keep thee and my house is not blessed. Perhaps thou art not fearing God? To this a heavenly voice was heard, saying: Obadiah fears the Lord greatly, but the house of Achab is not fit for blessings. Said R. Abah: It is more conspicuous What is said of Obadiah than of Abraham, as about Abraham it reads, "he feared God," and about Obadiah it adds "greatly." Said R. Itz'hak: For what deeds was Obadiah rewarded with prophecy? Because he hid one hundred prophets in a cave, as it reads [I Kings, viii. 4]: "And it happened when Isabel cut off the prophets of the Lord that Obadiah took a hundred prophets, and hid them fifty in one cave, and provided them with bread and water." Why fifty? Said R. Elazar: He learned this from Jacob, who divided his camp into two parts, for the reason that if it should happen that one would be lost the other would be saved. And R. Abuhu said: Because the cave could not hold more than fifty.

It reads [Ob. i. 1]: "The vision of the Lord . . . concerning Edom." And why? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Obadiah, who lived among two wicked (Achab and his wife) and did not learn from them, shall prophesy to Esau who lived among two upright (Isaac and Rebecca) and did not learn from them. And Ephraim of Kashaha, a disciple of R. Mair, said in the name of his master: Obadiah was an Edomite proselyte. And this is what people say that the handle of the hatchet to cut the forest is taken from the wood of the same forest. And this also applies to David, who was a descendant of Moab (according to R. Johanan, in the name of Simeon b. Jo'hai), who smote them [II Sam. viii. 2].
It reads [II Kings, iii. 27]: "Then took he his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel." Rabh and Samuel. According to one, he sacrificed him to Heaven, and according to the other, to an idol. But if to an idol, why was there great indignation against Israel? It is in accordance with R. Jehoshua b. Levi, who propounded a contradiction from [Ez. v. 7]: "According to the ordinances of the nations have ye not acted," to [ibid. xi. 12]: "But according to the ordinances of the nations ye have acted." And he himself answered: Ye have not acted according to their good deeds, but ye have acted according to their crimes.

It reads [I Kings, i. 4]: "The maiden was ad meod exceedingly." Said R. Hanina b. Papa: She did reach even half the beauty of Sarah, of whom it reads [Gen. xii. 14]: "Behold the woman that she was very fair (meod).

1It reads [Gen. xxii. 1]: "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham," After what? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Jose b. Senira: After the words of the Satan to those of [ibid. xxi. 8]: "And the child grew, and was weaned," etc. The Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He, thus: Lord of the Universe, Thou hast favored this old man with an offspring at his hundredth birthday, and from all the great meals which he prepared for the people he did not sacrifice for Thee even one dove or pigeon. And he was answered: Does he not prepare all this only for the sake of his son? If I would tell him to sacrifice his son to me, he will do it immediately. Hence God tempted Abraham.
And He said: "Take na thy son," etc. Said. R. Simeon b. Aba: The expression "na" means request. This is similar to the fable of a human king who had to fight many wars, and who had one hero who was victorious in all of them. Finally a war was declared to the same king by a king with a very strong army, and he said to his hero: I pray thee be victorious also in this war; people shall not say that the former wars were not worthy of consideration. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: I proved thee with many temptations, and thou withstood all of them. I request thee withstand also this temptation, in order people shall not say that the former were not worthy of consideration. "Thy son." But Abraham said: I have two sons. "Thy only one." But Abraham said: Both of them are the only ones to their mothers, "whom thou lovest," but I love both of them, even Isaac. And why so many words? For the purpose that he shall not become insane from such a sudden command.

The Satan preceded him on the way, saying [Job, iv. 2-6]: "If we essay to address a few words to thee, wilt thou be wearied? . . . Behold, thou hast (ere this) corrected many, and weak hands thou was wont to strengthen. Him that stumbled thy words used to uphold, and to sinking knees thou gavest vigor. Yet now, when it cometh to thee, thou art wearied; it toucheth even thee, and thou art terrified." And Abraham answered him [Ps. xxvi. 11]: "But as for me, I will walk in my integrity." And the Satan said again: "Is not then thy fear of God a stupidity?" 1 And Abraham answered: Remember . . . whoever perished being innocent. When the Satan saw that Abraham did not listen to him, he said to him [ibid. 12]: "But to me a word came by stealth." I have heard from behind the paraganda (the heavenly curtains) that the ram will be for a burnt-offering, but not Isaac. Rejoined Abraham: This is the punishment of liars, that even when they tell the truth, nobody believes them.

R. Levi, however, said: The above cited verse "after these things" means after the exchange of words between Ismael and Isaac. Ismael said to Isaac: I am greater than thee in performing the commandments of the Lord, as I was circumcised when I was thirteen years of age, and thou when thou wert only eight days. To which Isaac answered: Thou art proud against me because of only one member of thy body; if the Holy One, blessed be He, should command me to sacrifice my whole body to Him I would do it immediately, hence, "and God has tempted Abraham."
MISHNA IV.: The men of a misled town have no share in the world to come, as it reads [Deut. xiii. 14]: "There have gone forth men, Belial, from the midst of thee, and have misled the inhabitants of their city." However, they are not killed, unless the misleaders are from the same city and from the same tribe And also not unless the majority are misled. And the misleaders also must be men; if, however, they were misled by women or minors, or a majority of the city were misled, or the misleaders were outsiders, they are to be considered as individuals, and each of them must have two witnesses and be forewarned.

There is more rigorousness with individuals than with the majority in that respect, that individuals are to be stoned, therefore their property is saved for their heirs. And the majority are to be decapitated, therefore their property is also lost, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 16]: "Then shalt thou smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword." A caravan with asses or camels, who are travelling from one place to another, who took their rest in a city which was guilty of idolatry, and the caravan while being there was persuaded and worshipped idols, and counting them to those people of the city who were misled, it will be a majority they save the money of the innocent inhabitants of the city, for the guilty ones are still considered individuals, as the caravan is not counted to complete a majority, as it reads, "Devoting it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, to the edge of the sword" (but not of strangers passing by). From this it was also said that the properties which are found in the city belonging to the innocent individuals are also lost in case the majority were misled, but their properties which are placed outside of the city are saved, while by the property of guilty there is no difference wheresoever it is found it must be destroyed, as it reads [17]: "And all its spoils shalt thou gather into the midst of its main street," etc.
If it happened that the city had no main street, such must be established. If there was one outside of the city, it must be taken in, as it reads, "Thou shalt burn with fire the city, and all its spoil entirely." "Its spoil," but not the spoil belonging to Heaven. From this it was said that if there were some goods belonging to the sanctuary, they are to be redeemed. If there was heave-offering, it must remain till it becomes rotten. Second tithe and books of the Holy Writ must be hidden. "Entirely unto the Lord thy God." Said R. Simeon: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If ye will take judgment on a misled town, I will consider it as if ye would bring to me a burnt-offering. "A ruinous heap forever" means that from that place gardens and vineyards should not be made. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Aqiba, however, maintains: It reads: "It shall not be built again," means it shall not be built as it was, but gardens and vineyards may be made from it. "There shall not cleave to thy hand aught of the devoted things," for as long as the wicked exist the heavenly anger lasts. And when the wicked perish the heavenly anger ceases.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: There have gone forth men, but not their messengers. "Men" (plural) no less than two. And according to others "men" and not "women," "men" and not "minors," "sons of Belial," sons who took off the yoke of Heaven from their necks. "From the midst of thee," but not if they were from the boundary. "The inhabitants of their city," but not of another one. "Saying"—infer from this that (if not a majority) witnesses and warning are needed for every one of them. It was taught: When the land was divided among Israel, it was allowed to divide one city for two tribes, according to R. Johanan. Resh Lakish, however, said: It was not. And R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish from our Mishna: However, they are not guilty unless the misleaders are from the same city and from the same tribe. It is not to be assumed that even if the misleaders were from the same city they are guilty when they were men of their own tribe; hence we see that one city can be divided for two tribes? Nay, it may be said that his share in this city fell to him from an inheritance, or some one had made him a present of it. He objected to him again from [Joshua xxi. 16]: "Nine cities from those two tribes." Does it not mean four and a half for one tribe and four and a half for the other? Hence, one city was divided for two tribes. Nay, it means four from one and five from the other. But if so, let the Scripture say from which tribe five and from which tribe four. This difficulty remains.
The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if they were misled by themselves without any seducer? Shall we say it reads "and they misled," but not if they were misled by themselves, or there is no difference? Come and hear. Our Mishna states: "If they were misled by women and minors," etc., they are to be judged as individuals. And why? If misled by themselves is the same as by leaders, let the misleading by women and minors be considered as if they were misled by themselves? Nay, these cannot be equalized, for when they were misled by themselves they acted according to their own deliberations, but if they were misled by women and minors, they acted according to the seducer's mind, which was not worthy of consideration. "Unless the majority was misled." How is it to be done?

According to R. Jehudah, when they saw two, three, or more guilty of idolatry, they were tried, sentenced, and kept in prison. And so the others, until they formed a majority of the city, and then they are decapitated and their property destroyed. Said Ula to him: By such an act the prisoners are tortured. And therefore said he in such a case those who are sentenced are also stoned, but their property is not to be destroyed until they number a greater part of the city. And only then if more cases happen they are slain, and the property of all who were executed till now is destroyed.

It was taught: R. Johanan was of the same opinion as Ula. Resh Lakish, however, said that if such a case happened courts who investigate all cases must be increased, and all of them turn it over to the supreme council, who sentences them, and they are then slain. "Then shalt thou smite the inhabitants of the city," etc. The rabbis taught: A caravan with asses or camels, etc. (Here is repeated from Last Gate, p. 19, second line to the seventeenth. See there.) "Devoting it utterly," etc. The rabbis taught: Devoting it and that is therein excludes the property of the innocent which is found out of town, and includes the property of them which is inside of the city. "All the spoils," etc. Includes the property of the guilty, which is outside of the town. Said R. Simeon: Why does the Torah say that the property of the innocent, which is inside of the city, is to be destroyed? Because the reason of their residence in this city was their property, and therefore it must be destroyed. The master said: To include the property of the guilty which is outside. Said R. Hisda: Provided they are near by, so that they can be gathered in on the same day. And he said again: The deposits of a misled town are to be saved. Let us see how was the case. If it was deposited by another city in this city, it is self-evident that they are to be saved, as such deposits do not belong to this city at all. And if the men of this city had deposited in another city, why are they to be saved if they are placed near by, so that they can be gathered together on the same day? And if he speaks of those which are far away and cannot be gathered, why then the repetition, he said it already once? It means deposits of another city which are found in this city, but the depositors took the responsibility for them. And lest one say that in such a case it is considered as if it would be their own property, he comes to teach us that it is not so.

R. Hisda said again: If there was an animal, a half of which belongs to one city and the other half to one of another city, it is invalid. However, if there was dough, half of which belongs to one of another city, it is valid; because it can be divided it is considered as already divided, which is not the case with a living animal. He (R. Hisda), however, was doubtful if the slaughtering of a cattle from a misled town effects to put it out of the category of a carcass. Shall we assume that "with the edge of a sword" there is no difference; if it was killed or legally slaughtered it is considered as any carcass, or the legal slaughtering effects that it is not so considered, and if one touches it he does not become unclean, while he does by touching other carcasses? This question was not decided. "In its main street," etc. The rabbis taught: If there was no main street, it does not become a misled town. So R. Ismael. R. Aqiba, however, said that if there was none, one must be established. And what is the point of difference? One holds that the Scriptures mean a main street which existed already when it became misled, and the other holds that there is no difference if one existed before or was established after. "Belonging to the sanctuary," etc. The rabbis taught: If there were cattle sanctified to the altar, they must be put to death. Sanctified things for improving the Temple must be redeemed. Heave-offering must be left till it becomes rotten. Second tithe and books of the Holy Writ must be hidden. R. Simeon said: "The cattle thereof," but not cattle of a first-born, and the tenth of cattle (cf. to Lev. xxvii. 30 and 32). "And all that is therein" excludes sanctified money, and money with which tithe is to be redeemed. But why should cattle sanctified to the altar be put to death? Said R. Johanan: Because it reads [Prov. xxi. 27]: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination." And Resh Lakish said: It speaks of when the owners where they were found responsible for it, and it is then considered as if they would be the property of the owners according to R. Simeon.

The text reads: R. Simeon said: "The cattle thereof," etc. Let us see how was the case. If they were without any blemish it is self-evident, as it belongs to the sanctuary, and if they had a blemish, why then should they be different? Said Rabhina:

It speaks of when they were blemished; but "cattle thereof" means those which are consumed in the usual manner of cattle, but not those which were the property of Heaven, and only because of their blemish become the property of men and may be consumed; hence they cannot be considered as property belonging to the city. And he differs with Samuel, who said. An animal which is to be sacrificed when it is without blemish, and redeemed when with a blemish, is excluded from "the cattle thereof." And if it is to be sacrificed while without a blemish, and is not to be redeemed when with a blemish—e.g., a first-born and the tenth of a cattle, it is included in "the cattle thereof." "Heave-offering . . . till it become rotten," etc. Said R. Hisda: Provided the heave-offering was in the hand of the priest already, but if it was still in the hand of an Israelite, it may be given to a priest of another city. "The books of Holy Writ," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Elazar of the Boraitha mentioned above (p. 2 11), that even if there was one mezuza it cannot be called a misled town. (See there.) "Garden and vineyards," etc. Shall we assume that the point of their difference is what was said by R. Abin in the name of R. Ilaa: Everywhere you find a general expression in a positive commandment, and the explicit specification to it in a negative commandment, it must not be judged, as in other cases, that there is nothing in the general expression but what is specified in the explicit specification. The one who does not allow to make gardens of it does not hold this theory. And he who allows it holds this theory? Nay, all hold the theory of R. Abin. And the difference of their opinion is the expression "again." According to one "again" means again as it was built, and according to the other "again" means it shall not build for whatsoever. The rabbis taught: If there were uprooted trees, they are invalid, and if they are still attached they are valid. From another city, however, they are invalid even if they were attached. What does "another city" mean? Said R. Hisda: It means Jericho, as it reads [Josh. vi. 26]: "And Joshua adjured (the people) at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord that will rise up and build this city of Jericho: with his first-born shall he lay its foundation, and with his youngest shall he set up its gates."

There is a Boraitha: Any other city must not be built under the name of Jericho, and also Jericho shall not be rebuilt under another name, as it reads [I Kings, xvi. 34]: "In his days did Chiel the Bethelite build Jericho; with Abiram, his first-born, laid he the foundation thereof, and with Segub, his youngest son, set he up the gates thereof." There is a Boraitha: From Abiram, his first-born, this wicked has to learn. What does it mean? Thus: To what purpose is it written that Abiram was his first-born and Segub his youngest son? To learn that he buried all his children, beginning from Abiram, the oldest, to Segub, his youngest son. And this wicked should have learned not to continue the building after burying Abiram. Achab was his friend, and both he and Elijah came to condole Chiel. Said the latter to Elijah: Perhaps Joshua's caution was to those who will rebuild Jericho even under another name, or any other city under the name of Jericho? And Elijah answered: Yea. Said Achab: How can it be supposed that Chiel's troubles were because of Joshua's caution, when even the caution of Moses his master does not effect, as it reads [Deut. xi. 16]: "Take heed to yourselves," etc., " . . . and serve other gods, . . that there be no rain," etc. And I am worshipping idols on every flower bed, and nevertheless rain did not cease to fall. Is it possible that the caution of Moses should not stand good while that of Joshua should? To this it is written [I Kings, xvii. 1]: "Then said Elijah the Tishbite, who was one of the inhabitants of Gilad, unto Achab, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I have stood, there shall not be in these years dew or rain, except according to my words." He prayed and the key of rain was transferred to him. It reads farther on (3) and (6): "Go away from here . . . and the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning." Where did they take it? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: From the kitchen of Achab. "And it came to pass . . . that the brook dried up," etc.

When he saw that the whole world is in trouble he went to Zarephath according to the Heavenly command, and it happened (17) "that the son . . . fell sick," etc. And Elijah prayed again that the key of resurrection shall be given to him. And he was answered: Thou knowest that there are three keys in heaven which are not entrusted to a messenger—the key of birth, of rain, and of resurrection. Now when the key of resurrection shall also be given to thee, thou wilst have two keys and heaven only one. Bring, therefore, the key of rain, and then thou wilt receive the key of resurrection. And this is what it reads [ibid. xviii. I]: "Go, show thyself to Achab, and I will give rain." A certain Galilean lectured in the presence of R. Hisda: The parable of Elijah, to what is it similar? To one who shut his door and lost the key from it. (So Elijah has shut the door of rain and had to depend upon Heaven.)

R. Jose lectured in Ciporias: Father Elijah is sensitive (hot-tempered), dealing with Achab too severely. Elijah, however, who used to visit R. Jose every day, disappeared for three days. And thereafter when he appeared and was questioned by R. Jose: Why have I not seen the master three days? he answered: Because you called me sensitive. Rejoined R. Jose: Is this not true? Hast not thou, master, become angry because of my expression? "As long as the wicked exist," etc. Whom does it mean? Said R. Joseph: The thieves (who steal from the things which are legally to be devoted). The rabbis taught: With the appearance of a wicked anger comes to the world, as it reads [Prov. xviii. 3]: "When the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt, and with dishonorable acts disgrace." And when the wicked perish good comes to the world, as it reads [Prov. xi. 10]: "And when the wicked perish there is joyful shouting." When an upright departs from this world evil comes to the world, as it reads [Isa. lvii. 1]: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and pious men are taken away without one considering that before the evil the righteous is taken away." And when an upright comes to the world goodness comes with him, as it reads [Gen. v. 29]: "This one shall comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands."

END OF TRACT SANHEDRIN, PART II. (HAGGADA),

AND OF VOLUME XVI.

Footnotes

265:1 The explanation of this term, with a difference, is found in the Gemara farther on. It is prohibited to mention the name of Jehovah as it is written, and we read it with the expression "Adonay." see a footnote in Chapter VII. We have to add thereto, that none of the Jews—not even the reformers of that time—dared to mention this Holy Name as it is written, and wherever it was mentioned they read it "Adonay."

267:1 The translation of this verse by the translator of the Bible according to the sense does not correspond. The reason, however, of the Talmud's opinion is because it should read, "Sleep with thy father, and the people will go astray." Hence the word "arise" is superfluous. Furthermore, as it reads, "and arise," it is therefore enumerated among the five verses of which the explanation was doubtful to the most famous Tanaim of the Talmud. These verses are: Gen. iv. 7: The word "sheath," which has two meanings, "atone" and "carry" (the sin)—whether it belongs to its preceding words and the former is the meaning, or to its succeeding words and the latter is the meaning; Ex. xxv. 34: the word "almond-shaped"—whether it belongs to the candlestick or to its succeeding words; ibid. xvii. 9: whether the word "to-morrow," mentioned in this verse, belongs to preceding or succeeding words; Gen. xlix. 7: whether the word "cursed" ends verse 6 (at that time the verses were not as yet marked) or it is the beginning of verse 7 (explained elsewhere); and the verse in question cited, whether the word "ve-qom" belongs to the preceding or succeeding words. This was said by Issi b. Jehudah, the greatest authority among the ancient Tanaim, to whom even the word Rabban was not added, as to Hillel and Shammai. (See Passover, 236, explaining who Issi b. Jehudah was.) And after him no lesser authorities than Rabban Gamaliel and R. Jehoshua b. Chananjah interpreted this verse on the assumption that the word "ve-qom" belongs to its preceding words. Hence, in accordance with our method, we could not omit this strange supposition.

269:1 It is explained elsewhere that the color of its body is like to that of the sea, the body itself like that of a fish, and that it comes out once in seventy years, and also that with its blood the Tkheles were dyed. See also the description of it in S'hönhack's Dictionary.

272:1 Conception in Hebrew is termed "pqiddha," and the term in the verse cited is "up-qudos'ha." Hence the analogy.

272:2 In Leeser's translation of the Bible, which we follow in our edition, there is an error, as the first verse of Jer. xxxi. is misplaced and ought to be the twenty-fifth of xxx., with which it ends, and chap. xxx. begins with: "Thus hath said the Lord." Hence the verse cited is 7, and not 8, as in Leeser.

274:1 The Hebrew term for "people" is "Leum," and for "corn" "bor," and he infers from the analogy of expression that the latter means the Torah and the former means embryos.

275:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond. It seems also that in the Bible which was before the sages of the Talmud "yorah" had an h at the end, as so it is cited, while in our Bibles it ends with an "a," and has another meaning.

276:1 Transferred from 37b of this tract.

283:1 The Hebrew term for this is "nabun dabhar"—literally, "understanding things." Leeser, however, took it as "dibur," meaning "talk."

283:2 This passage is not to be found in the Scripture (see footnote in the original, 93b).

284:1 In the text this is inferred from the term "sarissim," which has two meanings—"servants" and "eunuchs"; and [Is. xxxix. 7] in the prophecy to Hiskia it is said that his descendants will be sarissim in the palace of the Babylonian king. Here (lvi. 4) this prophecy was said to the sarissim who would keep the Sabbath; and Daniel was a descendant of Hiskia, and among the sarissim who were taken to Nebuchadnezzar's palace.

290:1 This answer is inferred from the end of the cited passage with a strange interpretation. However, it was impossible for us to translate it, as the Hebrew term "gebin" was translated by Leeser with "locusts," and according to the Talmud it means water-pipes, the source of which is unknown to us. We therefore gave the answer without the reason.

301:1 The Hebrew term for flocks, "eder," and concerning truth, the expression is, "neaderes."

304:1 We do not understand the connection of this passage. And also Rashi, after quoting many commentaries, ignores them, and says that all these legends are not from a Mishna, nor from a Boraitha.

305:1 This of the parenthesis is from the Palestinian Talmud.

306:1 See Samuel Eidles (Mahrsho) about the strange analogy of these two passages. It is remarkable in that the text quotes the verse xxix. 21 after that of xxxii. 14.

308:1 The explanation of this may be found in Samuel Eidles (Marsho).

310:1 Rashi explains this thus: When Israel sins, the power is given to the nations. And therefore when Israel repents, and has to be redeemed, it is hard for Heaven to destroy the enemies because of Israel. (See also Marsho.)

316:1 Translated according to the Talmud.

323:1 An explanation to this you will find in our "Amulets," Charms and Talismans, p. 28.

325:1 Leeser translates Ex. xxxii. 8 pokdi and pokadi with "will visit," and here he translates the same term with "charge" (by the way, both translations are wrong). The Talmud, however, has its way of saying that the pokdi of that verse had ceased at that time. It is important that it counts from Moses to Ezekiel twenty-four generations.

329:1 Such a word is not found. However, perhaps it was in the Bible of the author of this saying (see Marsho).

335:1 It is impossible to follow Leeser's translation of the Bible in the Chapter of Haggadah, as the Talmud translates literally.

349:1 See Samuel Eigdus Marsho, who tries to explain why all this is repeated here after it is narrated in the Bible. However, he did not succeed.

352:1 It is a kind of bird unknown to the commentators, as well as to us.

357:1 The translation does not correspond.

357:2 Here is also referred to some passages from the Scripture, but which have no direct bearing, and are therefore omitted.

361:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

364:1 Rashi tries to explain this at length, basing it on a Midrash of which we are not aware. And as it is very complicated, he also tries to give his own explanation, but it seems to us still more complicated, and therefore we have translated almost literally.

367:1 Transferred from 26a. See also footnote, p.  1.

368:1 Transferred from 38a. See footnote at the end of Chap. IV. (p.  1—jbh).

370:1 In accordance with the commentary of Hananel.

372:1 In the text nothing is mentioned of what the fables were. Rashi, however, explains it thus: The fox said to the wolf: If you would go in a Jewish yard on the eve of Sabbath to assist them in the preparation of meals for Sabbath, they would invite you for their best meal on Sabbath day. And when the wolf was severely beaten while doing so, he wanted to kill the fox. He, however, told him, this was because your father in assisting them to prepare their meal, consumed the best of it and ran away. And to his question: Should I be beaten because of my father? he answered: Yea, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, etc. However, if you will follow me I will show you a place where you can eat to satiation, and he led him to a well in which two pails were pulled up and down by means of a rope attached to a beam. And the fox entered in one pail, which dropped down to the bottom. And to the question of the wolf: For what purpose did you enter the pail? he answered: I see here meat and cheese which will be sufficient for both of us. And he showed him the reflection of the moon on the water, which he mistook for a round cheese, And asking the fox how he can get it, he was told to enter the other pail, which was on top. And as he was heavier than the fox, the pail with the wolf dropped down and that of the fox came on the top. And to the cry of the wolf: How can I come out? he answered: The righteous is delivered out of distress, etc.

376:1 The answer is united.

377:1 Transferred from 89b, footnote, p.  1.

378:1 According to the interpretation of the Talmud.

Colophon

Michael L. Rodkinson (translator), The Babylonian Talmud. Second edition. Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918. Ten books in twenty volumes. Public domain.

Compiled and formatted for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲