Joshua Kulp

Joshua Kulp

 משנה ברכות

Chapter 1

From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter [their houses] in order to eat their terumah until the end of the first watch, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: until midnight. Rabban Gamaliel says: until dawn. Once it happened that his sons came home [late] from a wedding feast and they said to him: we have not yet recited the [evening] Shema. He said to them: if it is not yet dawn you are still obligated to recite. And not in respect to this alone did they so decide, but wherever the sages say “until midnight,” the mitzvah may be performed until dawn. The burning of the fat and the pieces may be performed till dawn. Similarly, all [the offerings] that are to be eaten within one day may be eaten till dawn. Why then did the sages say “until midnight”? In order to keep a man far from transgression.

From what time may one recite the Shema in the morning? From the time that one can distinguish between blue and white. Rabbi Eliezer says: between blue and green. And he must finish it by sunrise. Rabbi Joshua says: until the third hour of the day, for such is the custom of the children of kings, to rise at the third hour. If one recites the Shema later he loses nothing, like one who reads in the Torah.

Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite [the Shema], and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel.

In the morning he recites two blessings before it and one after it; in the evening two before it and two after it, one long and one short. Where they [the sages] said that a long one should be said, he may not say a short one; where they said a short one he may not say a long one [Where they said] to conclude [with a blessing] he is not permitted to not conclude; where they said to not conclude [with a blessing], he may not conclude.

They mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: "Behold, I am almost a seventy-year old man and I have not succeeded in [understanding why] the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma explained it from a verse (Deuteronomy 16:3): ‘In order that you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ refers to the days. ‘All the days of your life’ refers to the nights. And the sages say: ‘the days of your life’ refers to this world. ‘All the days of your life’ includes the days of the Messiah.

Chapter 2

If one was reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema] and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart [to fulfill the mitzvah] he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks [between sections] one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle [of a section] one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.

These are the breaks between the sections: between the first blessing and the second, between the second and “Shema,” between “Shema” and “And it shall come to pass if you listen” between “And it shall come to pass if you listen” and “And the Lord said” and between “And the Lord said” and “Emet veYatziv” (true and firm). Rabbi Judah says: between “And the Lord said” and “Emet veYatziv” one should not interrupt. Rabbi Joshua ben Korhah said: Why was the section of “Shema” placed before that of “And it shall come to pass if you listen”? So that one should first accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and then take upon himself the yoke of the commandments. Why does the section of “And it shall come to pass if you listen” come before that of “And the Lord said”? Because “And it shall come to pass if you listen” is customary during both day and night, whereas [the section] “And the Lord said” is customary only during the day.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

Workers may recite [the Shema] on the top of a tree or the top of a scaffolding, that which they are not allowed to do in the case of the Tefillah.

A bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema on the first night until the end of the Shabbat, if he has not performed the act. It happened with Rabban Gamaliel who recited the Shema on the first night after he had married. His students said to him: Our master, have you not taught us that a bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema. He replied to them: I will not listen to you to remove from myself the Kingship of Heaven even for a moment.

[Rabban Gamaliel] bathed on the first night after the death of his wife. His disciples said to him: Master, have you not taught us, that a mourner is forbidden to bathe. He replied to them: I am not like other men, I am very delicate.

When Tabi his [Rabban Gamaliel’s] slave died he accepted condolences for him. His disciples said to him: Master, have you not taught us that one does not accept condolences for slaves? He replied to them: My slave Tabi was not like other slaves: he was a fit man.

If a bridegroom wants to recite the Shema on the first night [of his marriage], he may do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not everyone who desires to take up the name of God may do so.

Chapter 3

One whose dead [relative] lies before him is exempt from the recital of the Shema and from the tefillah and from tefillin. The bearers of the bier and their replacements, and their replacements’ replacement, both those in front of the bier and those behind the bier those needed to carry the bier, are exempt; but those not needed to carry the bier are obligated. Both, however, are exempt from [saying] the tefillah.

When they have buried the dead and returned [from the grave], if they have time to begin and finish [the Shema] before they get to the row, they should begin, but if not they should not begin. Those who stand in the row, those on the inside are exempt, but those on the outside are obligated.

Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and putting on tefillin, but are obligated for tefillah, mezuzah, and Birkat Hamazon (the blessing after meals).

One who has had a seminal emission utters the words [of the Shema] in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them.

If a man was standing saying the tefillah and he remembers that he is one who has had a seminal emission, he should not stop but he should abbreviate [the blessings]. If he went down to immerse, if he is able to come up and cover himself and recite the Shema before the rising of the sun, he should go up and cover himself and recite, but if not he should cover himself with the water and recite. He should not cover himself either with foul water or with steeping water until he pours fresh water into it. How far should he remove himself from it and from excrement? Four cubits.

A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.

Chapter 4

The morning Tefillah (Shacharit) is until midday. Rabbi Judah says until the fourth hour. The afternoon Tefillah (Minhah) until evening. Rabbi Judah says: until the middle of the afternoon. The evening prayer has no fixed time. The time for the additional prayers (musaf) is the whole day. Rabbi Judah says: until the seventh hour.

Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakaneh used to pray as he entered the Bet Hamidrash and as he left it a short prayer. They said to him: what is the reason for this prayer? He replied: When I enter I pray that that no mishap should occur through me, and when I leave I express thanks for my portion.

Rabban Gamaliel says: every day a man should pray the eighteen [blessings]. Rabbi Joshua says: an abstract of the eighteen. Rabbi Akiva says: if he knows it fluently he prays the eighteen, and if not an abstract of the eighteen.

Rabbi Eliezer says: if a man makes his prayers fixed, it is not [true] supplication. Rabbi Joshua says: if one is traveling in a dangerous place, he says a short prayer, saying: Save, O Lord, Your people the remnant of Israel. In every time of crisis may their needs be before You. Blessed are You, O Lord, who hears prayer.

If he is riding on a donkey, he gets down [and prays.] If he is unable to get down he should turn his face [towards Jerusalem], and if he cannot turn his face, he should direct his heart to the Holy of Holies.

If he is traveling in a ship, on a wagon or on a raft, he should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: The musaf prayer is said only with the local congregation. The sages say: whether with or with out the congregation. Rabbi Judah said in his name: wherever there is a congregation, an individual is exempt from saying the musaf prayer.

Chapter 5

One should not stand up to say Tefillah except in a reverent state of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour before praying in order that they might direct their thoughts to God. Even if a king greets him [while praying] he should not answer him: even if a snake is wound round his heel he should not stop.

They mention [God’s] power to bring rain in the blessing for the resurrection of the dead. And they ask for rain in the blessing for [fruitful] years. And havdalah in “Who grant knowledge.” Rabbi Akiva says: he says it as a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says: in the thanksgiving blessing.

The one who says, “On a bird’s nest may Your mercy be extended,” [or] “For good may Your name be blessed” or “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who was passing before the ark and made a mistake, another should pass in his place, and he should not be as one who refuses at that moment. Where does he begin? At the beginning of the blessing in which the other made a mistake.

The one who passes before the ark should not respond Amen after [the blessings of] the priests because this might confuse him. If there is no priest there except himself, he should not raise his hands [to recite the priestly blessing], but if he is confident that he can raise his hands and go back to his place in his prayer, he is permitted to do so.

One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”

Chapter 6

How do they bless over produce? Over fruit of the tree one says, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” except for wine, over which one says, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” Over produce from the ground one says: “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” except over bread, over which one says, “Who brings forth bread from the earth.” Over vegetables one says, “Who creates the fruit of the ground.” Rabbi Judah says: “Who creates diverse species of herbs.”

If one blessed over fruit of the tree the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he said over produce from the ground, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he has not fulfilled his obligation. If over anything he says “By Whose word all things exist”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Over anything which does not grow from the earth one says: “By Whose word all things exist.” Over vinegar, fallen unripe fruit and locusts one says, “By Whose word all things exist.” Over milk and cheese and eggs one says, “By Whose word all things exist.” R. Judah says: over anything which is cursed they do not bless at all.

There were several kinds of food before him: Rabbi Judah says that if there is among them one of the seven species, he blesses over that. But the sages say: he may bless over which ever one he wants.

If he blessed over the wine before the meal he has exempted the wine after the meal. If he blessed over the appetizer (parperet) before the meal, he has exempted the dessert (parperet) after the meal. If he blessed over the bread he has exempted the appetizer/dessert (parperet), but if he blessed over the appetizer/dessert (parperet) he has not exempted the bread. Bet Shammai say: [he has not even exempted] a cooked [grain] dish.

If [those at the table] are sitting upright, each one blesses for himself. If they are reclining, one blesses for them all. If wine came during the meal, each one says a blessing for himself. If after the meal, one blesses for them all. The same one says [the blessing] over the incense, even though the incense is not brought until after the meal.

If they brought in front of him salted food at the beginning of the meal and bread with it, he blesses over the salted food and thereby exempts the bread, since the bread is ancillary to it. This is the general principle: whenever there is one kind of food that is the main [food] and another that is ancillary, he blesses over the main food and thereby exempts the ancillary.

If one has eaten grapes, figs or pomegranates he blesses after them three blessings, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. The sages say: one blessing which includes three. Rabbi Akiva says: even if one ate only boiled vegetables and that is his meal, he says after it the three blessings. If one drinks water to quench his thirst, he says “By Whose word all things exist.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who creates many living things and their requirements.”

Chapter 7

Three that have eaten together, it is their duty to invite [one another to say Birkat Hamazon]. One who ate demai, or first tithe whose terumah has been separated, or second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed, or an attendant who has eaten as much as an olive’s worth of food, or a Samaritan may be included [in the three]. But one who ate untithed produce, or first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, or second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed, or an attendant who has eaten less than the quantity of an olive or a Gentile may not be counted.

Women, children and slaves they do not recite an invitation over them. How much [must one have eaten] in order for them to recite an invitation? As much as an olive. Rabbi Judah says: as much as an egg.

How do they invite [one another to recite the Birkat Hamazon]? If there are three, he [the one saying Birkat Hamazon] says, “Let us bless [Him of whose food we have eaten].” If there are three and him he says, “Bless [Him of whose food we have eaten]” If there are ten, he says, “Let us bless our God [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are ten and he says, “Bless.” It is the same whether there are ten or ten myriads (ten ten thousands). If there are a hundred he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God [of whose food we have eaten]. If there are a hundred and him he says, “Bless.” If there are a thousand he says “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are a thousand and him he says “Bless.” If there are ten thousand he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” If there are ten thousand and him he says, “Bless.” Corresponding to his blessing the others answer after him, “Blessed be the Lord our God the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: According to the number of the congregation, they bless, as it says, “In assemblies bless God, the Lord, O you who are from the fountain of Israel.” Rabbi Akiba said: What do we find in the synagogue? Whether there are many or few the he says, “Bless the Lord your God.” Rabbi Ishmael says: “Bless the Lord your God who is blessed.”

Three persons who have eaten together may not separate [to recite Birkat Hamazon]. Similarly four and similarly five. Six may separate, up until ten. And ten may not separate until there are twenty.

Two eating companies that were eating in the same room: When some of them can see some of the other they combine [for a zimun], but if not each group makes a zimun for itself. They do not bless over the wine until they put water into it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say they bless.

Chapter 8

These are the points [of difference] between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in regard to a meal. Bet Shammai says: first he blesses over the day and then over the wine. Bet Hillel says: first he blesses over the wine and then over the day.

Bet Shammai says: they wash their hands and then they pour the cup [of wine]. Bet Hillel says: they pour the cup [of wine] and then they wash their hands.

Bet Shammai says: he wipes his hand with a towel and then places it on the table. Bet Hillel says: on the cushion.

Bet Shammai says: [after the meal] they sweep the floor and then they wash their hands. But Bet Hillel says: they wash their hands and then they sweep the floor.

Bet Shammai says: [the proper order is] candle, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, spices, and Havdalah. But Bet Hillel says: candle, spices, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, and Havdalah. Bet Shammai says [the blessing over the candle concludes with the words], “Who created the light of the fire.” But Bet Hillel says: “Who creates the lights of the fire.”

They do not bless over the candles or the spices of non-Jews; Or over the candles or the spices of the dead; Or over the candles or the spices of idolatry; And a blessing is not said over the light until they benefit from its light.

One who has eaten and forgotten to bless [Birkat Hamazon]: Bet Shammai says: he must return to the place where he ate and bless. But Bet Hillel says: he should say it in the place where he remembered. Until when can he bless? Until sufficient time has passed for the food in his stomach to be digested.

If wine comes to them after the food, and there is only that cup: Bet Shammai says: he blesses over the wine and then he blesses over the food; But Bet Hillel says: he blesses over the food and then he blesses over the wine. They answer amen after a blessing said by an Israelite but they do not answer amen after a blessing said by a Samaritan, until he hears the whole blessing.

Chapter 9

If one sees a place where miracles have been done for Israel, he says, “Blessed be the One who made miracles for our ancestors in this place.” [If one sees] a place from which idolatry has been uprooted, he should say, “Blessed be the One who removed idolatry from our land.”

[On witnessing] comets, earthquakes, thunder, or windy storms one says, “Blessed be He whose strength and might fill the world.” [On seeing] mountains, hills, seas, rivers or deserts one says, “Blessed be He who made creation.” Rabbi Judah says: one who sees the Great Sea should say, “Blessed be He who made the Great Sea,” if he sees it at intervals. For rain and for good news one says, “Blessed be He that is good and grants good.” For bad news one says, “Blessed be the true judge.”

One who has built a new house or bought new vessels says, “Blessed be He who has kept us alive [and preserved us and brought us to this season.]” One who blesses over the evil as he blesses over the good or over the good as he blesses over evil; one who cries over the past, behold this is a vain prayer. How so? If his wife was pregnant and he says, “May it be his will that my wife bear a male child,” this is a vain prayer. If he is coming home from a journey and he hears a cry of distress in the town and says, “May it be his will that this is not be those of my house,” this is a vain prayer.

One who enters into a large city should say two prayers, one on entering and one on leaving. Ben Azzai says: four two on entering and two on leaving, he gives thanks for the past and cries out for the future.

One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with you, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”

משנה פאה

Chapter 1

These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.

They should not leave peah of less than one-sixtieth [of the field]. But even though they said, “there is no measure for peah,” everything depends upon the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the extent of the yield.

They may give peah at either at the beginning of the [reaping of the] field or at the middle of it. Rabbi Shimon says: as long as he gives at the end according to the set amount. Rabbi Judah says: if he leave, one stalk, he can rely on this as [fulfilling the law of] peah; and if he did not, then he only gives as ownerless property.

They said a general principle concerning peah: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, and is harvested all at the same time, and is brought in for storage, is subject to the law of pe'ah. Grain and beans are in this category.

Among trees: the sumac, the carob, the nut, the almond, the grapevine, the pomegranate, the olive and the palm are subject to peah.

He may always give peah and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. One who gives [to the poor] as ownerless [produce] and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. He may feed cattle, wild animals and birds and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. He may take from the threshing floor and use it as seed and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack, the words of Rabbi Akiva. A priest or Levite who purchase [grain of] a threshing floor, the tithes are theirs unless [the owner] has already made a stack. One who dedicated [his crop] and redeems it [afterwards] is obligated to give tithes until the Temple treasurer has made a stack.

Chapter 2

The following divide a field for peah: a stream, a pool, a private road, a public road, a public path, a private path in constant use in summer and the rainy season, fallow land, a plowed field and a different seed. One who harvested for animal fodder, [the plot] serves divides, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: it does not stop for peah unless it is plowed.

A water channel that makes harvesting [on one side] impossible [while standing on the other side], Rabbi Judah says: it divides. But all of the hills that can be tilled with a hoe, even though cattle cannot pass over it in with their equipment, [is regarded as part of the field] he gives one peah from it all.

All of these divide in the case of a field [planted] with seeds, but in the case of trees nothing divides except a fence. Should the branches intertwine [on top of the fence], then it does not divide and he gives one peah for the whole field.

As for carob trees, [they are not divided] as long as they see one another. Rabban Gamaliel said: we had this custom in the house of my father. We would give separate peah from the olive trees in each direction and [one peah] for all the carob trees that saw one another. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok said in his name: also for the carob trees they had in the whole city [they only gave one peah].

He who plants his field with one kind of seed, even though he makes up of it two threshing-floors, he gives only one peah [for the lot]. If he plants it of two kinds, even though he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he must give two peahs. One who plants his field with two species of wheat: If he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah; But if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.

It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sages], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.

Chapter 3

Plots of grain between olive trees: Bet Shammai say: peah from each and every plot. But Bet Hillel says: one peah for them all. And they agree that if the ends of the rows enter one into the other, he gives one peah for them all.

One who gives his field a striped appearance and leaves behind moist stalks: Rabbi Akiva says: he gives peah from each and every stripe. But the sages say: from one stripe for the whole field. The sages agree with Rabbi Akiba that one who sows dill or mustard in three places must give peah from each place.

One who clears [his field] of fresh onions for the market and leaves the dry ones [in the ground] for the [time of the] threshing floor, must give peah from these on their own and these on their own. The same applies to beans and to a vineyard. If he, however, he only thins it out, then he gives [peah] from the remainder according to the quantity of that which he left. But if he clears [three from one place] at one time, he gives from the remainder according to the entire quantity.

Onions grown for their seed are liable for peah. But Rabbi Yose exempts them. Plots of onions [growing] between vegetables: Rabbi Yose says: peah must be given from each [plot]. But the sages say: from one [plot] for all.

[Two] brothers who divided [an inheritance] must give [two] peahs. If they afterwards again become partners they give one peah. Two who purchase a tree, they give one peah. If one buys the northern section [of the tree] and the other the southern section, each must give peah separately. One who sells young saplings in his field, [the one who purchases] must give peah from each sapling. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the owner of the field left nothing [for himself]. But if he did leave something [for himself], he gives one peah for the whole.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a piece of ground [large enough to plant] one fourth of a kav is liable for peah. Rabbi Joshua says: it must [be large enough] to grow two seahs. Rabbi Tarfon says: it must be six by six handbreadths. R. Judah ben Batera says: [it must be large enough] for a sickle to cut at least two handfuls and the halakhah is according to his words. Rabbi Akiva says: any size of land is liable for peah and for first-fruits, and [is sufficient] for the writing of the prozbul, and also to acquire through it movable property by money, by deed, or by a claim based on undisturbed possession.

One who is about to die who assigns his property in writing [to another]: If he retains any land [for himself] however small, he renders his gift valid. But if he retains no land whatsoever, his gift is not valid. One who assigns in writing his property to his children, and he assigns to his wife in writing any plot of land, however small, she lost her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: if she accepted [such an assignment] even though he did not assign it to her in writing she lost her ketubah.

One who assigns in writing his possessions to his slave, [the slave] thereby goes free. If he reserved for himself any land, however small, he does not become free. Rabbi Shimon says: he always becomes free, unless [the master] says: “Behold, all my goods are given to so-and-so my slave, with the exception of one ten-thousandth part of them.”

Chapter 4

Peah is given from [the crop] while it is still connected with the soil. But in the case of hanging vine-branches and the date-palm, the owner brings down [the fruit] and distributes it among the poor. Rabbi Shimon says: the same applies to smooth nut trees. Even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to distribute it and one says to leave it in the field, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah.

With hanging vine-branches and date-palm trees it is not so; even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to leave it in the field and one says to distribute it, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah.

If [a poor man] took some of the peah [already collected] and threw it onto the remainder [not yet collected], he gets none of it. If he fell down upon it, or spread his cloak over it, they take the peah away from him. The same applies to gleanings and the forgotten sheaf.

[The poor] may not harvest peah with scythes or tear it out [of the ground] with spades, so that they might not strike one another [with these implements].

There are three times a day [the poor] make a search [in the field for peah]: morning, noon, and sunset. Rabban Gamaliel says: these [times] were only set lest they reduce them. Rabbi Akiva says: these were set lest they add to them. [The men] of Bet Namer used to have the poor harvest [the peah] with the aid of a rope, and they left peah at the end of each furrow.

A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding.

One who dedicated standing grain [to the Temple] and then redeemed it while it was still standing grain, he is liable [to give the agricultural gifts to the poor]. [If he dedicated] sheaves and redeemed them while they were still sheaves, he is liable. [If he dedicated] standing grain and redeemed it [when it was already in] sheaves, he is exempt, since at the time when it became liable it was exempt.

Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.

One who collected peah and said, “This is for so-and-so a poor man:” Rabbi Eliezer says: he has thus acquired it for him. The sages say: he must give it to the first poor man he finds. Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the peah of non-Jews are subject to tithes, unless he [the non-Jew] had declared them ownerless.

What are gleanings? That which falls down at the time of harvesting. If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner. [That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner. [That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor; But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner.

[Grain found in] ant holes where the stalks are still standing, behold it still belongs to the owner. After the harvesters [had passed over them], those found in the top parts [of the ant holes belong] to the poor, but [those found] on the bottom parts [belong] to the owner. Rabbi Meir says: it all belongs to the poor, for gleanings about which there is any doubt are regarded as gleanings.

Chapter 5

If a pile of grain was stacked [on part of a field] from which gleanings had not yet been collected, whatever touches the ground belongs to the poor. If the wind scattered the sheaves, they estimate the amount of gleanings the field would have yielded and they give that to the poor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he must give to the poor the amount that would fall.

The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor. If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his? Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.

They should not [irrigate a field] with a water wheel, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages permit it, because it is still possible [for the poor to get their gleanings].

A property owner who was passing from place to place and need to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe, he may take them, and when he returns home, he must pay [for the amount gathere], the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: he was a poor man at that time [and so he need not make restitution].

One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes]. Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe. One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop]. But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe.

One who sells, the seller is permitted [to take the agricultural gifts] and the purchaser is forbidden. One may not hire a worker on the condition that the son [of the worker] should gather the gleanings after him. One who does not allow the poor to gather, or one who allows one but not another, or one who helps one of them [to gather] behold he is a robber of the poor. Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (olim)” (Proverbs 22:28).

A sheaf which the workers forgot but not the land owner, or which the land owner forgot but not the workers; or [a sheaf] which the poor stood in front of [and blocked its view], or they covered it up with stubble, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf.

One who binds sheaves into stack covers, stack bases, round stacks or regular stacks, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf [while binding]. [When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. One who piles up the sheaves to make a stack, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. [When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. This is the general rule: whoever makes the sheaves at the place which is the end of the work is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. However, [one who piles up the sheaves] at a place which is not the end of the work, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf; [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.

Chapter 6

Bet Shammai says: [That which is] made ownerless only in regard to the poor is indeed ownerless. But Bet Hillel says: it is not ownerless unless ownership is renounced even for the rich, as in the case of the sabbatical year. [If] all of the sheaves in a field are a kav each, and one is four kavs and that one is forgotten: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered forgotten. But Bet Hillel says: it is considered forgotten.

A sheaf left near a stone fence, or near a stack [of grain] or near oxen, or near equipment: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered “forgotten”; Bet Hillel says: it is considered “forgotten.”

[With regard to sheaves forgotten] at the end of the row, the sheaf lying across from it proves [that the first sheaf has not been forgotten.] [As for] a sheaf that [the owner] took to bring it to the city and forgot it, all agree that it is not considered a “forgotten sheaf.”

These are to be considered ends of the rows:If two men begin [to gather] from the middle of the row, one facing north and the other south and they forget [some sheaves] in front of them and behind them, those left in front of them are “forgotten,” but those left behind them are not “forgotten.” If an individual begins from the end of the row and he forgets [some sheaves] in front of him and behind him, those in front of him are not “forgotten”, whereas those behind him are “forgotten,” for this comes under the category of “you shall not go back [to retrieve it].” This is the general rule: anything that can be said to fall under the law “you shall not go back” is considered “forgotten,” but that to which the principle of “you shall not go back” cannot be applied is not considered “forgotten.”

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.” Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.” Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”. Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.” Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.” All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.

A sheaf that has two seahs and he forgot it it is not considered “forgotten.” Two sheaves that together comprise two seahs: Rabban Gamaliel says: they belong to the owner; But the sages say: they belong to the poor. Rabban Gamaliel said: “Are the rights of the owner strengthened or weakened according to the greater number of the sheaves?” They replied, “His rights are strengthened.” He said to them: “If in a case of one sheaf of two seahs it is not deemed “forgotten,” then how much more should be the case of two sheaves that together contain two seahs?” They replied: “No. If you argue in the case of one sheaf it is because it is large enough to be considered a stack. Are you going to argue likewise in the case of two sheaves which are like bundles?”

A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.” If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains].

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A seah of plucked grain and a seah of unplucked grain, and also trees; and garlic and to onions do not combine to count as two seahs, but rather they must be left to the poor. Rabbi Yose says: if anything that belongs to the poor comes in between them, the two are not combined together; otherwise, they do combine.

Grain used for fodder or [stalks] used for binding sheaves, and also garlic-stalks used for tying other bunches, or tied bunches of garlic and onions they [all are not subject to the laws of] forgotten. Anything stored in the ground like arum, garlic and onions: Rabbi Judah says: they do not subject to the laws of “forgotten”; But the sages say: they are subject to the laws of “forgotten.”

One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies.

Chapter 7

An olive tree that has a name in the field, such as the olive tree of Netofah in its time, and he forgot it, it is not deemed “forgotten.” To what does this apply? [Only to a tree distinguished] by its name, produce, or position. “By its name:” if it were a shifkhoni or beshani. “By its produce:” if it yields large quantities. “By its position:” if it stands at the side of the winepress or near the gap in the fence. Other kinds of olive trees: two are deemed “forgotten”, but three are not deemed “forgotten.” Rabbi Yose says: there is no law of “forgotten” for olive trees.

An olive tree found standing between three rows [of olive trees] which have two plots separating them, and he forgot it, it is not deemed, “forgotten.” An olive tree containing two seahs and he forgot it, it is not deemed forgotten. To what does this apply? Only when he [the owner] had not yet begun [to harvest the tree], but if he had begun, even if it were like the olive tree of Netofah in its time, and he forgot it, it is deemed forgotten. As long as the owner has some of the olives belonging to him at the foot of the tree, he has [possession] of those on top of the tree. Rabbi Meir says: [forgotten applies only] after [those with] the beating-rod have gone.

What is peret? [Grapes] which fall down during the harvesting. If while he was harvesting [the grapes], he cut off an entire cluster by its stalk, and it got tangled up in the [grape] leaves, and then it fell from his hand to the ground and the single berries were separated, it belongs to the owner. One who places a basket under the vine when he is harvesting [the grapes], behold he is a robber of the poor. Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (olim)” (Proverbs 22:28).

What constitutes a defective cluster (olelet) of grapes? Any [cluster] which has neither a shoulder [a wide upper part] nor a pendant [a cone-shaped lower part]. If it has a shoulder or a pendant, it belongs to the owner. If there is a doubt, it belongs to the poor. A defective cluster on the joint of a vine [where a normal cluster hangs from the vine], if it can be cut off with the cluster, it belongs to the owner; but if it can not, it belongs to the poor. A single grape: Rabbi Judah says: It is deemed a whole cluster, But the sages say: It is deemed a defective cluster.

One who is thinning out vines, just as he may thin out in that which belongs to him, so too he may thin out in that which belongs to the poor, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: in that which belongs to him, he is permitted, but he is not permitted in that which belongs to the poor.

[The grapes of] a vineyard in its fourth year:Bet Shammai says: the laws of the added fifth and removal do not apply to them; But Bet Hillel says: they do. Bet Shammai says: the laws of peret and the defective clusters apply to them, and the poor can redeem the grapes for themselves. But Bet Hillel says: all [of them] go to the wine-press.

A vineyard which consists entirely of defective clusters: Rabbi Eliezer says: it belongs to the owner. Rabbi Akiva says: to the poor. Rabbi Eliezer: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters” (Deuteronomy 24:21). If there is no grape harvesting, how can there be “defective clusters”? Rabbi Akiva said to him: “And from your vineyard do not take the defective clusters” (Leviticus 19:10) even if it consists entirely of defective clusters. If that is so, why is it said: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters”? [This teaches that] the poor have no right to claim the defective clusters before the harvest.

One who dedicates his entire vineyard [to the Temple] before the “defective clusters” were recognizable, the “defective clusters” do not belong to the poor. After the defective clusters were recognizable, then they do belong to the poor. Rabbi Yose says: [the poor] must give the value of their improved growth to the Temple. What is deemed “forgotten” in the case of a trellis [a lattice for supporting plants]? Anything that one can no longer stretch his hand and take it. And in the case of ground-trained vines? From the time [the gatherers] pass by it.

Chapter 8

From when are all people permitted to take gleanings, [forgotten sheaves and peah]? After the old ones of the poor have gone. And in the case of peret and defective clusters? After the poor have gone into the vineyard and come back again. And in the case of the olive trees? After the descent of the second rainfall. Rabbi Judah said: But aren’t there those who do not harvest their olives until after the second rainfall?” Rather, once the poor man has gone out [to gather the agricultural gifts taken from olive trees] and cannot bring back with him [more than the value of] four issars.

They [amei haaretz] are to be believed concerning gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah during their [harvest] season, and concerning the poor man’s tithe during its whole year. A Levite is always to be trusted. They are only believed in those things which men are accustomed to give them.

They are trusted concerning wheat, but they are not trusted when it is flour or bread. They are trusted concerning rice in its husk, but they are not trusted when it is either raw or cooked. They are trusted concerning beans but they are not trusted when they have been pounded, neither raw nor cooked. They are trusted when concerning oil, to declare that it is from the poor person’s tithe, but they are not trusted over [oil] when they claim that it is from the olives [left on the] top [of the tree.]

They are trusted concerning raw vegetables, but they are not trusted concerning are cooked ones, unless he has only a little bit, for so it was the custom of a householder to take out of his stew-pot [and give a little to the poor].

They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.

This measure was stated for the priest, Levite and Israelite alike. If he was saving some [to give to his poor relatives], he can retain half and give the other half away. If he has only a small amount, then he must place it before them and they then divide it among themselves.

They may not give a poor person wandering from place to place less than a loaf worth a pundion at a time when four seahs [of wheat cost] one sela. If he spends the night [at a place], they must give him the cost of what he needs for the night. If he stays over Shabbat they must give him enough food for three meals. He who has the money for two meals, he may not take anything from the charity dish. And if he has enough money for fourteen meals, he may not take any support from the communal fund. The communal fund is collected by two and distributed by three people.

One who possesses two hundred zuz, may not take gleanings” the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. If he possesses two hundred minus one denar, then even if a thousand [men] each give him at the same time, he may accept. If he had [two hundred zuz] mortgaged to a creditor or to his wife’s ketubah, he may take. They do not force him to sell his house or his tools.

One who has fifty zuz and he is using them for his business, he must not take. And anyone who does not need to take [charity] and yet takes, will not depart from this world before he actually needs [charity] from others. And anyone who needs to take and does not take, will not die of old age until he supports others with his own money. Concerning him the verse says: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:7). And so too a judge who judges in truth according to its truth. And anyone who is not lame or blind but pretends to be as one of these, he will not die of old age before he actually becomes one of these, as it is said, “He who searches for evil, it shall come upon him” (Proverbs 11:27) and it is also said: “Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). And any judge who accepts a bribe or who perverts justice will not die in old age before his eyes have become dim, as it is said: “And you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of those who have sight. (Exodus 23:8)”

משנה דמאי

Chapter 1

The [following] are treated leniently in regard to [the rules of] demai: unripe figs, wild jujuba, azarolus, wild white figs, young sycamore figs, fallen dates, fennel and capers. In Judea also sumac, Judean vinegar, and coriander. Rabbi Judah says: all unripe figs are exempt, except for those from a tree that bears fruit twice a year. All wild jujuba are exempt, except the wild jujuba of Shikmonah. All young sycamore figs are exempt, except those that have been scarified.

The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth. It has no mandated time of removal. It may be eaten by an onen. It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road. One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem. [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

If a man bought [grain from an am haaretz] to be used for seed or for animal [feed], flour for hides, oil for a lamp, or oil for greasing utensils, it is exempt from [the rules of] demai. [Produce grown] beyond Cheziv and north is exempt from [the rules of] demai. The hallah of an am haaretz, produce mixed with terumah, produce bought with second tithe money, and the leftovers of minhah offerings are exempt from [the rules of] demai. Oil spiced [with spices from an am haaretz]: Bet Shammai makes it liable [to the rules of demai]. But Bet Hillel exempts it.

Demai may be used to make an eruv, and to make an [alley] partnership, and they recite a blessing over it, and they make an invitation [to recite Birkat Hamazon] over it, and one may separate [tithes] from it even when one is naked, or when it is twilight [on the eve of Shabbat]. And if he took out second tithe from it before the first tithe, it doesn’t matter. The oil with which the weaver greases his fingers is liable to [the rules of] demai, but [the oil] which the wool-comber puts on the wool is exempt from [the rules of] demai.

Chapter 2

The following things must be tithed as demai in all places: pressed figs, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin. As to rice from outside the land [of Israel], whoever uses it is exempt from tithing it.

One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?

One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead. Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study. They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver].

Bakers the sages did not obligate them to separate [from demai produce] any more than suffices for terumat maaser and for hallah. Grocers may not sell demai [produce]. All [merchants] who supply in large quantities may sell demai. Who are those who supply in large quantities? Those such as wholesalers and grain-sellers.

Rabbi Meir says: [if produce] which is usually measured out [for sale] in a large [quantity] was measured out in a small [quantity], the small quantity is treated as if it was a large [quantity]. If [produce] which is usually measured out for sale in a small [quantity] was measured out in a large [quantity], the large [quantity] is treated as if it was a small [quantity]. What is considered a large quantity? For dry [produce] three kavs, and for liquids, the value of one dinar. Rabbi Yose says: baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and bushels of vegetables when he sells them in lumps, they are exempt [from the rules of demai].

Chapter 3

They may feed demai to the poor and to guests (alt. passing troops). Rabban Gamaliel used to feed demai to his workmen. [As for] charity collectors: Bet Shammai says: they should give tithed [produce] to one who doesn’t tithe, and untithed [produce] to one who does tithe. In this way it will turn out that every one will eat [produce] that has been fixed (tithed). But the sages say: they may collect indiscriminately and distribute indiscriminately. And one who wishes to fix [his produce by tithing it], let him fix it.

One who wants to cut off leaves of vegetables in order to lighten his burden, he may not throw them down until he has [first] tithed them. One who takes vegetables from the market [with the intention of buying them], and then decides to put them back, he should not put them back until he has [first] tithed them, for nothing is missing [after they are tithed] except for their quantity. But if he was standing [there and deciding what to] buy and then saw another load of better quality, he may put them back [untithed], since he had not yet drawn them into his possession.

If one finds produce on the road and picks it up in order to eat it, and then decides to hide it, he may not hide it unless he has [first] tithed it. But if from the outset he picked it up only in order to guard it against being destroyed, he is exempt [from tithing it]. Any produce which one may not sell [in the condition of] demai, he may not send it [as a gift] to his friend [in the condition of] demai. Rabbi Yose permits [one to send as a gift produce] that is certainly untithed, on condition that he makes the matter known to the recipient.

One who takes his wheat to a Samaritan miller or to an am haaretz miller, [the wheat when ground] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he carried it] to a Gentile miller, [the wheat when ground has the status of] demai. One who deposited his produce with a Samaritan or am haaretz, [the produce] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he left it] with a Gentile, it is like the produce of the Gentile. Rabbi Shimon says: [it becomes] demai.

One who gives [produce] to an innkeeper [to prepare it for food], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of exchanging it [with her own produce]. Rabbi Yose said: we are not responsible for deceivers. Rather, he must tithe only that which he takes from her.

One who gives [produce] to his mother-in-law [to prepare it], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing any [food] which has spoiled. Rabbi Judah said: she desires the welfare of her daughter and is ashamed [of serving spoiled food] to her son-in-law. Rabbi Judah agrees [with the other sages] that if one gives his mother-in-law seventh year produce, she is not suspected of changing it and giving her daughter to eat of seventh year produce.

Chapter 4

One who buys produce from someone who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes, and he forgot to tithe it, and he asked [the seller] on Shabbat [if they were tithed], he may eat based on his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. If he could not find the seller, and another person who was not trustworthy in respect of tithes said to him “they are tithed,” he may eat of it at his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. Terumat maaser of demai which had become mixed up again [with the produce] from which it had been taken: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even on a week day he may ask the seller and eat based on his word.

One who vowed [that his friend could not benefit from him] unless he eats with him, and the friend does not trust him in respect of tithes, he may eat with him on the first Shabbat even though he does not trust him in respect of tithes, provided that his friend said to him that the food had been tithed. But on the second week, even though he had vowed that he would not benefit from him, he may not eat with him unless he first tithed [the produce].

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man need not designate the poor man’s tithe of demai. But the sages say: he must designate it, but he need not separate.

One who had designated the terumat maaser of demai, or the poor man’s tithe of produce that had certainly not been tithed, he should not separate them on Shabbat. But if the priest or the poor man regularly ate with him, they may come and eat provided that he informs them.

One who says to another who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes: “Buy [produce] for me from one who is trustworthy or from one who gives tithes,” [the messenger] may not be trusted. “Buy it for me from so-and-so,” he is to be trusted. If he went to buy it from him [and then came back] and said: “I did not find him, so I bought for you from another man who is trustworthy,” he may not be trusted.

One enters a city and doesn’t know anyone. He says: “Who here is trustworthy? Who gives tithes here?” One person one responds: “I am.” He may not be trusted. [But if] he replied: “So-and-so is trustworthy,” he may be trusted. He went to buy from so-and-so, and he asked him: “Who here sells aged produce?” and so-and-so replied: “He sent you to me,” though they appear to be repaying each other, they may be trusted.

If donkey-drivers entered a city and one of them declared: “My produce is new but my friend’s produce is old,” or, “My produce has not been tithed but my friend’s produce has been tithed,” they may not be trusted. Rabbi Judah says: they may be trusted.

Chapter 5

One who buys bread from a baker how should he tithe? He should take sufficient for the terumat maaser and for hallah and say: “A hundredth part of what is here shall be tithe on this side, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the rest, the remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.”

One who wishes to separate terumah and the terumat maaser together:He should take one thirty third and say: One hundredth part of what is here, on this side is non-sacred produce (hullin), and the rest shall be terumah for the whole. And the one hundred parts of non-sacred produce which is here on this side shall be tithe, and the rest that is next to it is tithe. That which I made tithe shall become the terumat maaser for it. The remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.”

One who bought [bread] from a baker, he may give tithe from hot bread for cold bread or from cold bread for hot bread, even when they are of various moulds, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah prohibits it, because I say that yesterday’s wheat was bought from one man and today’s wheat from another man. Rabbi Shimon prohibits it in the case of terumat maaser, but permits it in the case of hallah.

If one bought from a bread seller he must tithe every mould [separately], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he may give tithes from one mould for all the others. But Rabbi Judah agrees that one who bought from a monopolist he must tithe every mould [separately].

One who buys from a poor man, and similarly a poor man to whom they given slices of bread or pieces of fig-cake, he must tithe every piece. But in the case of dates and dried figs he may mix them together and take [the tithes from the mixture]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the amount [of dates or dried figs] given to the poor man was large; but when the amount was small, he must tithe each separately.

One who buys from a wholesaler, and then buys from him again, he may not give tithes from the one [purchase] for the other, even when both came from the same basket and even from the same kind. But the wholesale merchant may be trusted if he says that both came from the same one.

One who buys from a field owner, and then buys from him again, he may give tithes from the one [purchase] for the other, even when [the purchases come] from two baskets and even from two towns. A field owner who was selling vegetables in the market: when he brings them from his garden, he may tithe from one for all; But [if he brings them] from other gardens, he must tithe each lot separately.

One who buys untithed produce from two places, he may tithe from one lot for the other. Although they have said one may not sell untithed produce except in the case of necessity.

They may give tithes from produce from a Jew for produce [bought] from a Gentile, from produce [bought] from a Gentile for produce from a Jew, from produce [bought] from a Jew for produce [bought] from Samaritans, and from produce [bought] from Samaritans for produce [bought] from [other] Samaritans. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits [tithing] from produce [bought] from Samaritans for produce [bought] from [other] Samaritans.

A perforated pot is considered like land. If one gave terumah from [produce grown in] the soil for [produce grown in] a perforated pot, or from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] the soil, his terumah is terumah. [If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a pot that was not perforated for [produce grown in] a pot that was perforated, [it is] terumah, but he must go back and give terumah again. [If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] a pot which was not perforated, [it is] terumah, but it may not be eaten until he first gives terumah and tithes for it.

If one gave terumah from [produce of] demai for [other produce of] demai, or from [produce of] demai for [produce] which was certainly untithed, [this becomes] terumah, but he must give terumah over again. [If he gave terumah] from [produce] which was certainly untithed for [produce of] demai, [this becomes] terumah, but it may not be eaten until he first gives terumah and tithes for it.

Chapter 6

One who has received a field from a Jew, or from a Gentile, or from a Samaritan [for a share in the produce], he divvies up the produce in front of them [without first separating tithes]. One who has hired a field from a Jew [for a fixed amount from the produce], he first gives terumah [from the rental] and then gives it to him (the field owner). Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he pays him [the rental with produce] of the same field and of the same kind; but when he pays him with the produce of another field or of another kind, he must [also] tithe [the rental first] and then give it to him.

One who has hired a field from a Gentile [for a fixed amount from the produce], he first gives tithes [from the rental] and then gives it to him (the field owner). Rabbi Judah says: even if one rented from a Gentile a field which had formerly belonged to his fathers [for a share in the produce], he first gives tithes and then gives it to him.

A priest or a Levite who rented a field from an Israelite [for a share in the produce], just as they divide the non-sacred produce, so they divide the terumah. Rabbi Eliezer says: the tithes belong to them (the tenants), for they entered the field with this expectation.

If an Israelite rented a field from a priest or from a Levite [for a share in the produce] the tithes belong to the owners [of the field]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if a city dweller [from outside of Jerusalem] rented a field from a Jerusalemite, the second tithe belongs to the inhabitant of Jerusalem. But the sages say: the city dweller may go up and eat the second tithe in Jerusalem.

[An Israelite] who rents olive trees [from a priest or a Levite] for [a share in the] oil: just as they divide the non-sacred produce, so they divide the terumah. Rabbi Judah says: an Israelite who rented [olive trees] from a priest or a levite for the oil for a share of half the profit, the tithes belong to the owner.

Bet Shammai says: a man may sell his olives only to a “chaver (an ‘associate’).” But Bet Hillel says: [one may sell them] even to one who only] tithes. And the pious among Bet Hillel used to act in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai.

Two gathered [the fruit of] their vineyards into one winepress, one of whom tithes and the other does not tithe the one who tithes may tithe his own share and his share wherever it may be.

Two men who rented a field [for a share in the produce], or inherited [a field], or became partners in it: the one [who tithes] may say to the other [who does not tithe], “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil.”

A chaver (rabbinic associate) and an am haaretz who inherited [the property of] their father who was an am haaretz, he (the chaver) may say to him (the am haaretz): “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil,” or: “You take the moist produce and I will take the dry produce.”

A convert and a gentile who inherited [the property of] their father, a gentile: he (the convert) can say [to his brother the gentile]: “You take the idols and I will take the money,” or: “You take the wine and I will take the produce.” But from the time [that any part of the inheritance] came into the possession of the convert, he is forbidden [to say so].

One who sells produce in Syria and declared “It was grown in the land of Israel,” the purchaser must tithe it. [But if he also said], “It has been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. [If he said: The produce is] from my own field,” the purchaser must tithe it. [But if he added:] “It has already been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. If it was known that he had a field in Syria, the purchaser must tithe it.

If an am haaretz said to a chaver, “Buy me a bundle of vegetables,” or: “Buy me a loaf of bread,” the chaver may buy it without checking [whether it had been tithed], and he is exempt [from tithing it]. But if the chaver said: “This one I am buying for myself and this one for my friend,” and they got mixed up, he must tithe [them both], even if there were one hundred [for the am haaretz.]

Chapter 7

One who invites his friend [before Shabbat] to eat with him [on Shabbat], and [his friend] does not trust him in respect of tithes, [the friend] may say on the eve of Shabbat, “What I will set apart tomorrow, behold it shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become the terumah of the tithe for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.”

They pour him a cup [of wine on the sabbath], he says: “What I will leave at the bottom of the cup shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe shall become terumat maaser for the whole, and second tithe is at the mouth of the cup, and it is exchanged for money.

A worker who does not trust his employer [in respect of tithes], may take one dried fig and say: “This one and the nine which come after it shall become tithe for the ninety which I shall eat. This one shall become the terumat maaser for them, and the last ones shall be second tithe which shall be exchanged for money.” And he must put aside one dried fig. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he does not put one aside, because this reduce the work for his employer. Rabbi Yose says: he does not put one aside, because this is a court stipulation [imposed upon the employer].

One who buys wine among Samaritans, he may say: “Two logs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten logs tithe, and nine logs second tithe.” He may then pour the wine and drink it.

He had figs of tevel in his house, and he is in the house of study or in the field: he may say: “The two figs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten figs shall be first tithe, and nine figs second tithe.” If the figs were demai, he may say: “Whatever I shall separate tomorrow will be tithe, and the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.”

There were before him two baskets full of tevel, and he said: “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket],” the first [basket] is tithed. [If he said:] “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket], and the tithes of that [basket] in this [basket],” the first basket is tithed [whereas the second is not]. [If he said:] “Let the tithes be so that the tithes of each basket be in the other,” he has designated [the tithes of either basket].

One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of] common produce, one must take out a hundred and one [parts]. One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of first] tithe, one must take out a hundred and one [parts]. One hundred [parts of] common produce from which tithes had been separated [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of] tithe, one must take out a hundred and ten [parts]. One hundred [parts of] tevel [were mixed with] ninety [parts of] tithe, or ninety [parts of] tevel [were mixed with] eighty [parts of] tithe, he has not lost anything. This is the general rule: whenever the tevel is the greater [portion of the mixture] he has not lost anything.

One who had ten rows each containing ten jugs of wine, and said: “One exterior row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which row [he meant], he must take two jugs [each from the ends of] a diagonal line. [If he had said:] “One half of one exterior row shall be tithe” and it is not known which half row [he meant], he must take four jugs from the four corners. [If he had said:] “One row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which row [he meant], he must take one [whole] row in a diagonal line. [If he had said:] “Half of one row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which half row [he meant], he must take two rows in a diagonal line. [If he had said:] “One jug shall be tithe,” and it is not known which jug [he meant],he must take from every jug.

משנה כלאים

Chapter 1

Wheat and zunin do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Barley and oats, spelt and rye, or beans and sapir (a type of bean), or purkdan and tofah (two similar types of beans), or white beans and kidney beans, do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

Cucumbers and melons do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Rabbi Judah said they do constitute kilayim. Lettuce and wild lettuce, endives and wild endives, leek and wild leek, coriander and wild coriander, or mustard and Egyptian mustard, Egyptian gourd and the bitter gourd, or Egyptian beans and carob shaped beans do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

Turnips and the cabbage turnip, cabbage and cauliflower, beet and rumex do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Rabbi Akiva added: garlic and small wild garlic, onion and small wild onion, lupine and wild lupine do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

As for trees: the pear and the crustumenian pear, the medlar and azarolus, do not constitute kilayim one with the other. The apple and the crab-apple, or the peach and almond, or the jujube and rimin, even though they are similar one to the other, they nevertheless constitute kilayim one with the other.

The radish and the cabbage turnip, mustard and charlock mustard, Greek gourd with Egyptian gourd or [Greek gourd] with bitter gourd, even though they are similar one to the other, are nevertheless kilayim one with the other.

A wolf and a dog, a wild dog and a fox, a goat and a deer, a gazelle and a ewe-lamb, a horse and a mule, or a mule and a donkey, a donkey and a wild donkey, even though they are similar one to the other, constitute nevertheless, kilayim one with the other.

They may not graft from one tree to another, or from one vegetable to another, or from a tree to a vegetable, or from a vegetable to a tree. Rabbi Judah permits it from a vegetable to a tree.

They may not plant vegetables in a trunk of a sycamore tree. They may not graft rue on white cassia, since that is [grafting] a vegetable on a tree. They may not plant a young fig-shoot in sea squill so that it might provide shade for it. They may not insert a vine branch into a melon, in order that the latter might shoot its moisture to the former, since that is [grafting] a tree on a vegetable. They may not place gourd seed into anchusa for the purpose of preserving it (the gourd seed), since that is [grafting] a vegetable on another vegetable.

One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt.

Chapter 2

Any seah which contains a quarter [of a kav] of a different species, one should reduce [its proportion of the latter] Rabbi Yose says: one should pick [it all out]. Whether it consists of one species or of two species. Rabbi Shimon says: they said this only if it consists of one species. But the sages say: anything which is kilayim, in a seah [it adds up] in making up the quarter.

To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.

If one’s field was sown with wheat, and he changed his mind and decided to sow it with barley, he must wait until it [the wheat] rots. He turns [the soil] and then he may sow [the barley], if it [the wheat] had already grown. He should not say: “I shall [first] sow [the barley] and, then turn [the soil]” rather he must first turn [the soil] and then sow. How much must he plow [when overturning the soil]? Like the furrows [that are plowed after the [first] rainy season. Abba Shaul says: [one should plow] so that one does not leave [unplowed] as much [ground] as holds a quarter [kav] to a bet seah.

[His field was] sown [with grain, or pulse, or garden-seed], and he changed his mind and decided to plant it [with vines], he may not say: “First I shall plant [the vines] and then turn [the soil],” but he must [first] turn [the soil] and then he may plant [the vines]. [If it was] ‘planted’ [with vines] and he changed his mind and decided to seed [with grain, pulse or garden-seed], he may not say: “First I shall sow [the grain etc.] and then I uproot [the vines],” but he must [first] uproot [the vines] and then he may sow [the grain etc.] If he wants, he may cut down [the vines] to less than a handbreadth [above ground], and then he may sow [the grain] and later, he uproots [the vines].

His field was sown cumin or with arum, he must not sow on top of them, since they produce crops only after three years. [A field of] grain among which sprang up some aftergrowth woad, alternatively an area of threshing-floors in which many species sprang up, alternatively [a field of] clover among which grew up a number of species of herbs, he is not obliged to weed them out. But if he weeded or cut down the weeds, they say to him: “Uproot it all, except for one species.”

One who wants to lay out his field in long straight rows each sown with a different species:Bet Shammai says: three furrows of newly broken land. But Bet Hillel says: the width of a Sharon yoke. And the words of these are close to the words of these.

If the point of an angle of a wheat [field] overlaps into a barley [field], it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field. If his [field] is of wheat, and his neighbor’s is of another species, he may sow [next to the border] some of the same species [as that of his neighbor]. If his field was of wheat and that of his neighbor’s was of wheat, he may sow next to him a row of flax, but not a row of any other species. Rabbi Shimon says: it is all the same whether he sows flax or any other species. Rabbi Yose said: even in the middle of one's field it is permitted to check one’s field with a row of flax.

They may not sow mustard or safflower close to a field of grain, but they may sow mustard or safflower close to a vegetable field. And they may sow close to fallow land or to plowed land, or to a wall made with loose stones, or to a path, or to a fence ten handbreadths high, or to a trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, or to a tree forming a tent over the ground, or to a rock ten [handbreadths] high and four wide.

One who wishes to make his field into square plots [each sown] with a different species, he should divide it into twenty-four square plots for a bet seah, a square plot per bet rova, and he may then sow in each whatever species he wants. If there is one square plot or two [inside his field], he may sow them with mustard, but if there are three he may not sow them with mustard, since it looks like a field of mustard, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: nine square plots are permitted, ten are forbidden. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even though the whole of his field is a bet-kor, he may not make within it more than one square plot.

Whatever there is within a bet rova [which separates different species] is included in the area of a bet rova: the space which vine roots consume, a grave, a rock, [all] count in the measure of a bet rova. [One who wants to sow one type of] grain [in a field of another type] of grain the measure is a bet rova. Vegetables within [a field of other] vegetables the measure is six handbreadths. Vegetables within [a field of] grain, or grain within [a field of] vegetables the measure is a bet rova. Rabbi Eliezer says: vegetables in [a field of] grain the measure is six handbreadths.

Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine.

Chapter 3

A furrow of vegetables measuring six handbreadths by six handbreadths: it is permitted to sow in it five [different] types of seeds--four [species], one on [each of] the four sides of the bed, and one in the middle. If it had a border one handbreadth high, one may sow in it thirteen [different species] three on every border, and one in the middle. It is prohibited to plant a turnip head in the border since that would fill it [completely]. Rabbi Judah said: [it is permitted to sow] six [species] in the middle.

They may not sow different species of seeds in one bed, but they may sow different species of vegetables in one bed. Mustard and small polished peas are a species of seed; large peas are a species of vegetable. If a border was originally a handbreadth high and then it fell in height, it remains valid, since it was valid at the beginning. A furrow or water channel which are a handbreadth deep, it is permitted to sow three different species of vegetables, one on one side, one on the other side, and one in the middle.

If the point of an angle of a vegetable field overlaps into a field of another vegetable, it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field. His field was sown with a certain vegetable and he wants to plant in it a row of another vegetable: Rabbi Ishmael says: [he may do so] as long as a furrow runs through from one end of the field to the other. Rabbi Akiva says: [as long as] it is six handbreadths long and fully as wide. Rabbi Judah says: [as long as] the width is the full width of a footstep.

Planting two rows of cucumbers, two rows of gourds, and two rows of Egyptian beans is permitted. [But planting] one row of cucumbers, one row of gourds and one row of egyptian beans is prohibited. [Planting] one row of cucumbers, one row of gourds, one row of Egyptian beans and [again] one row of cucumbers: Rabbi Eliezer permits, But the sages forbid.

One may plant a cucumber and a gourd in one hole, as long as this [species] inclines in one direction, and the other [species] in the opposite direction. And he should tip the leaves of one [species] one way, and the other the opposite way, since all that the sages prohibited [in matters of kilayim] they only decreed because of appearance.

His field was sown with onions, and he wishes to plant in it rows of gourds:Rabbi Ishmael says: he pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds, and so on]. Rabbi Akiva says: he pulls up two rows [of onions], plants [in the cleared space] two rows [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions], and plants two rows [of gourds; and so on]. The sages say: if between one row [of gourds] and the next there are not twelve cubits, one may not allow that which is sown in the intervening space to remain.

A gourd [sown] among a [different] vegetable [must be separated by as much] as any other vegetable. [A gourd sown] among grain he must give it [a separating space of] a bet rova. If his field was sown with grain, and he wishes to plant within it a row of gourds, he must give [the gourds] six handbreadths for them to be worked. And if [the row of gourds] overgrows [into the border] he must pull up that which is within it. Rabbi Yose says: he must give [the gourds] four cubits for them to be worked. They said to him: Do you rule more stringently with regard to this than with regard to a vine? He said to them: We find that [the gourd] is treated more stringently than a vine, since for a single vine he must give six handbreadths for it to be worked, but for a single gourd a bet rova. Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: if there are as many as three gourds in a bet seah, he may not bring [another] seed into the bet seah. Rabbi Yose ben Hahotef Ephrati said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: if there are as many as three gourds in a bet kor, one may not bring [another] seed into the bet kor.

Chapter 4

A karahat [a bare patch] within a vineyard: Bet Shammai says: [it must measure] twenty-four cubits [by twenty-four cubits]. But Bet Hillel says: sixteen cubits. A mehol [an unsown belt of ground between a planted area and a fence] of a vineyard: Bet Shammai says: [it must measure] sixteen cubits. But Bet Hillel says: twelve cubits. What is a karahat of a vineyard? A vineyard which has been cleared [of vines] in its middle. If there are less than sixteen cubits, then one may not bring seed into it. If it is sixteen cubits, they leave a space in which to work [the vineyard] and they may sow the rest.

What is a mehol in a vineyard? [The space] between the vineyard and a fence. If there are less than twelve cubits, then one may not bring seed into it. If there are twelve cubits, they leave a space in which to work [the vineyard] and they may sow the rest.

Rabbi Judah says: this is nothing but the fence of the vineyard fence. What then is a mehol of a vineyard? [A space] between two vineyards. What is considered a fence? One that is ten handbreadths high. And what is considered a trench? One ten handbreadths deep and four wide.

A partition of reeds: if between one reed and another there are less than three handbreadths, [the space] through which a kid (young goat) could enter, it counts as a [legally effective] partition. A [stone] fence which has been broken through up to [the length of] ten cubits, [the breach] is [regarded] as a doorway; more than that, opposite the breach it is prohibited [to sow seeds]. If there were many breaches in the fence, if that which remains standing exceeds that which is broken through, it is permitted [to sow there]. But if the breached sections exceed those which remain standing, it is forbidden [to sow opposite the breaches.]

One who has planted a row of [at least] five vines: Bet Shammai says: these constitute a vineyard. But Bet Hillel says: they do not constitute a vineyard unless there are two rows. Consequently, one who sows four cubits within the vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has sanctified one row [of the vineyard, and created kilayim]. But Bet Hillel says: he has sanctified two rows.

One who plants two [vines] opposite two [other vines], and one [other vine] forming a “tail” behold this is a vineyard. Two [vines] opposite two [other vines], and one [other vine] in between, or two opposite two, and one in the middle, these are not a vineyard until there are two opposite two with one [other] forming a tail.

One who has planted one row [of vines] on his own [land] and another row on his neighbor's [land], and there is a private road or a public road in the middle, or a fence lower than ten handbreadths, these [two rows] combine. If there is a fence higher than ten handbreadths they do not combine. Rabbi Judah says: If he intertwines them [the rows of vines] above [the fence] they do combine.

One who has planted two rows [of vines] if there are not eight cubits between them, he may not bring seed there [in the space between the two rows]. If there are three [rows] if there are not between one row and its companion sixteen cubits he may not bring seed there. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said in the name of Hananya ben Hakinai: even if the middle row was laid waste and there is not between one row and its companion row sixteen cubits, he may not bring seed there, but if he had planted them [two rows] at the outset, it is permitted [to sow between them] if they are eight cubits [apart].

One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row], he may bring seed there. Rabbi Judah said: It happened at Tsalmon that a man planted his vineyard on [a plan of] sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row]. [One year] he would turn the tips of the vine branches of two [adjacent rows] towards one place, and sow the furrow [in between], and the following year he would turn the tips of the vine branches in the opposite direction, and sow the land which had been left untilled [the preceding year]. The matter came before the sages, and they declared it permitted. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: even one who has planted his vineyard with eight cubits [between every two rows], this is permitted.

Chapter 5

A vineyard that has been [partly] ruined: if it is still possible to harvest ten vines within a bet seah, and they are planted according to halakhah, behold this is called a “poor vineyard.” A vineyard planted in a mixed-up manner, if there remains an alignment of [one line of] two parallel [vines] opposite [a line of] three [vines], it constitutes a vineyard, but if not it is not a vineyard. Rabbi Meir says: since it is in appearance like a vineyard [in general], it is a vineyard.

A vineyard that has been planted with less than four cubits [in between rows of vines]: Rabbi Shimon says: this is not a vineyard. But the sages say: it is a vineyard, and we look at the middle [rows] as if they were not there.

A trench passing through a vineyard, ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if it runs right through from the beginning of the vineyard to the end, it looks like it is in between two [separately owned] vineyards, and it is permitted to sow in it. But if it is not, it is [regarded] as [if it were part of] a winepress. And as for a winepress in a vineyard, and [the winepress] is ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is permitted to sow in it. But the sages prohibit. A watchman’s mound in a vineyard, ten handbreadths high and four wide: it is permitted to sow in it. But if the ends of the vine-branches become intertwined over it, it is forbidden.

A vine planted in a winepress or in a depression [in the ground], they leave it room to work on it, and one may sow on the rest. Rabbi Yose says: if there are not four cubits there, one may not bring seed there. As for a house that is within a vineyard, it is permitted to sow there.

One who plants a vegetable or leaves it to remain in a vineyard, he renders prohibited [as kilayim] forty-five vines. When is this so? When they were planted with either four or five [cubits between rows]. If they were planted with either six or seven [cubits between rows] he renders prohibited as kilayim [the vines within an area of] sixteen cubits in every direction, in the form of a circle, not of a square.

One who sees a vegetable in a vineyard, and said: “When I reach it I will pluck it,” it is permitted. [But if he says:] “When I come back I will pluck it,” if [the vegetable] has [in the meantime] increased by a two-hundredth, it is forbidden.

If he was passing through a vineyard, and seeds fell from him, or [seeds] went [into the field] with manure, or with [irrigation] water, or if he was [in a grain field] scattering seed and the wind blew some behind him [into a vineyard], everything is permitted. If the wind blew the seed in front of him [into a vineyard], Rabbi Akiba says: If it has produced small shoots, he must turn the soil. If it has reached the stage of green ears, he must beat them out. If it has grown into grain, it must be burnt.

One who allows thorns to remain growing in a vineyard: Rabbi Eliezer says: he [thereby] prohibits [the vineyard]. But the sages say: he does not prohibit except if it something that is generally allowed to grow. Iris, ivy, and the king’s lily, and all manner of seeds are not kilayim in a vineyard. [As for] hemp: Rabbi Tarfon said: it is not kilayim, But the sages say it is kilayim. Artichokes are kilayim in a vineyard.

Chapter 6

What is an aris (an espalier) [which is regarded as a vineyard]? One who has planted a [single] row consisting of five vines beside a fence ten handbreadths high, or beside a trench ten handbreadths deep and four wide, they leave a space of four cubits in which to work it. Bet Shammai says: they measure the four cubits from the body of the vine to the field; But Bet Hillel says: from the fence to the field. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: all who say so are mistaken! Rather, if there are four cubits from the body of the vines to the fence, they leave a space in which to work it and they may sow the rest. And how much is the space in which work to work a vine? Six handbreadths in every direction. Rabbi Akiva says: three.

An aris which projects from a terrace: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a person standing on [level] ground is able to harvest all of it, [such an aris] prohibits [sowing seed in] four cubits of the field, but if [he is] not [able to do so], it prohibits [sowing seed] only [in] the [soil] which is directly below it. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who has planted one [row of vines] on the ground, and one on a terrace, then if it is ten handbreadths above the [level] ground, one does not combine with the other; if it is not [ten handbreadths high] then one does combine with the other.

One who suspends vines over papyrus-ropes [of a trellis], he may not bring seed beneath the remainder [of the trellis]. However, if he did so, he has not caused them to be prohibited. If new [tendrils] spread [over the remainder], that [which was sown under the remainder] is forbidden. Similarly, when one hangs vines over some part of a non-fruit-bearing tree.

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

What is a serak (non-fruit bearing) tree?Any tree which does not yield fruit. Rabbi Meir says: all trees are serak, except the olive and the fig tree. Rabbi Yose says: all trees that are not planted in whole fields, are serak trees.

Gaps in an aris must be eight cubits and somewhat more [in order to be able to sow seeds in the gaps]. [In the case of] all measurements that the sages said in connection with a vineyard, there is no ‘and somewhat more’, except in the case of gaps in an aris. The following count as gaps in an aris: if an aris was razed in its middle and five vines remained on one side and five vines on the other side. Then if the gap is [only] eight cubits, one may not bring seed there. [But if the gap is] eight cubits and somewhat more, they give [the vines] space to work them, and he may sow the rest.

An aris which turns away from a wall where it forms an angle, and comes to an end, they give it space to work it and they may sow the rest. Rabbi Yose says: if there are not four cubits there, one may not bring seed there.

Canes which protrude from the aris and one is too concerned for them to cut them short, it is permitted to sow directly beneath them. If he made them [long] so that the new [growth] might spread along them, it is forbidden [two sow underneath].

A blossom which protruded from the aris, it is regarded as if a plumb line were suspended from it, directly beneath it, it is prohibited [to sow]. Similarly, in the case of [a blossom protruding from] a hanging branch [of a single vine.] One who has stretched a vine-shoot from tree to tree, it is forbidden to sow beneath it. If he made an extension [to the vine] by means of rope or reed, it is permitted under the extension. If he made the extension so that the new [growth] might spread along it, it is forbidden.

Chapter 7

If one has bent a vine into the ground [and then brought it back up elsewhere], then if there is not soil over it to the height of three handbreadths, he may not sow seed above it, even if he bent [and conducted it underground] through a gourd or through a pipe. If he bent it [and conducted] it through rocky soil, then even if there is not soil over it to the height of three handbreadths, it is permitted to sow seed above it. As for a knee-like vine [formed by burying and conducting it underground], they don’t measure [for how much space to work it] except from its second root.

One who has bent [and conducted underground] three vines, and their [original] stems are visible, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: if there is between them from four to eight cubits, they combine, if not, they do not combine. A vine which has dried up, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim]. Rabbi Meir said: the same applies to a cotton plant, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim]. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said in his name: above the vine too, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim].

The following are forbidden, but they do not prohibit [the seed sown there]:The remainder of a [legally inadequate] empty patch (karahat) of a vineyard. The remainder of a [legally inadequate] mehol of a vineyard. The remainder of a [legally inadequate] aris-gap. The [ground under the] remainder of papyrus-ropes [of a trellis]. But [the ground] beneath a vine, and within the place left to work a vine, and the [ground within] four cubits of a vineyard, these do prohibit the [seed sown there].

One who causes his vine to overhang his fellow’s grain, behold he has caused the grain to be prohibited and he is responsible for it. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own.

Rabbi Yose said: It happened that a man sowed [seed in] his vineyard in the sabbatical year, and the matter came before Rabbi Akiva, who said: a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own.

If a forceful occupier (anas) has sown seed in a vineyard, and it went out of his possession [and reverted to the rightful owner], he (the original owner) should cut it down, even during hol hamoed. Up to what amount should he pay the workers? Up to a third. If [they demand] more than this, he should cut it in his usual way even if he has to keep cutting after the festival. At what point is he considered a forceful occupier (anas)? From the [the name of the original owner] has sunk [into oblivion].

If wind has blown vines [so that they hang over] grain, one should immediately fence them apart. If an unforeseeable event occurred to him, it [the grain] is permitted. If grain is bent [and the ears reach] beneath a vine, similarly in the case of vegetables, one should turn them back, and it does not prohibit [as kilayim]. From what stage does grain prohibit kilayim? From the time it has struck root. And grapes? From the time they become as large as white beans. Grain which has become completely dried out, and grapes which have fully ripened no longer prohibit as kilayim.

[Seed sown in a] perforated flowerpot, prohibits [as kilayim] in a vineyard. [In] one not perforated, does not prohibit [as kilayim]. Rabbi Shimon says: both are forbidden but neither prohibits. One who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard, if [that which is sown in it] grows a two-hundredth part, it is forbidden.

Chapter 8

Kilayim of the vineyard: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of seeds: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, but it is permitted to eat them, and all the more so to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of clothing: is permitted in all respects, except that it is forbidden to wear them. Kilayim of beasts: it is permitted to raise and to keep, and it is only prohibited to cross-breed them. Kilayim of beasts: these one are prohibited with these.

A beast (behemah) with a beast [of another species]; a wild animal (hayyah) with a wild animal [of another species]; a behemah with a hayyah; a hayyah with a behemah; an unclean beast with an unclean beast [of another species]; a clean beast with a clean beast [of another species]; or an unclean beast with a clean beast; or a clean beast with an unclean beast; they are forbidden for plowing, and [it is forbidden] to pull them or lead them [tied together].

The person driving [the two different animals yoked together] receives the forty [lashes]. And the person sitting in the wagon receives the forty [lashes]. But Rabbi Meir exempts [the latter]. [The tying of] a third [animal different from the two already harnessed to a wagon] to the straps [of those animals] is prohibited.

They may not tie a horse neither to the sides of a wagon [drawn by oxen] nor behind the wagon, nor [may they tie] a Libyan donkey to [a wagon drawn by] camels. Rabbi Judah says: all [mules] born from horses, even though their father is a donkey, are permitted one with another. Likewise [mules] born from donkey, even though their father is a horse, are permitted one with another. But [mules] born from a horse with [mules] born from donkeys are prohibited one with another.

Mules of uncertain parentage are forbidden [one with another,] And a ramakh is permitted. Wild man-like creatures are [in the category of] hayyah. Rabbi Yose says: they cause impurity in a tent like a human being. The hedgehog and the bush-mole are [in the category of] hayyah. The bush-mole: Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Shammai: an olive's size [of its carcass] renders a person carrying it unclean, and a lentil’s size [of its carcass] renders a person touching it unclean.

The wild ox [it is in the category of] behemah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of hayyah. The dog [it is in the category of] hayyah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of behemah. The pig [it is in the category of] behemah. The wild donkey [it is in the category of] hayyah. The elephant and the monkey [they are in the category of] hayyah. A human being is permitted to draw, plow, or lead with any of them.

Chapter 9

Nothing is forbidden on account of kilayim except [a mixture of] wool and linen. No [clothing material] is subject to uncleanness by scale disease except wool or linen. Priests do not wear any materials to serve in the Temple except for wool and linen. Camel’s wool with sheep’s wool, that have been mixed together: if the greater part is camel’s wool, it is permitted [to mix it with linen], but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden; if it is half and half, it is forbidden. The same applies to hemp and linen mixed together.

Silk and floss-silk do not come under the prohibition of kilayim, but are prohibited on account of appearance. Mattresses and pillows do not come under the prohibition of kilayim, as long as his flesh does not come into [immediate] contact with them. There is no [permissibility for the] temporary [wearing] of kilayim. Neither may one wear kilayim even on top of ten [garments], even for the purpose of evading taxes.

Hand towels, scroll covers, and bath towels do not come under the prohibition of kilayim. Rabbi Elazar prohibits. Barbers’ covers are subject to the prohibition of kilayim.

Shrouds for the dead, and the packsaddle of a donkey are not subject to the law of kilayim. One may not [however] place a packsaddle [made of kilayim] on one’s shoulder even for the purpose of carrying dung out on it.

Sellers of clothes may sell [clothes made of kilayim] in accordance with their custom, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. The scrupulous hang [such materials or garments] on a stick over their backs.

Tailors may sew [materials which are kilayim] in their usual way, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. The scrupulous sew [such materials as they are laid] on the ground.

The Birrus blanket or Brindisian blanket, or Dalmatian cloth, or felt shoes, may not be worn until one has examined them. Rabbi Yose says: ones that come from the coast or from lands beyond the sea, do not require examination, since the presumption with regard to them is [that they are sewn] with hemp. Felt-lined shoes are not subject to the laws of kilayim.

Only that which is spun or woven is forbidden under the law of kilayim, as it says, “You shall not wear shatnez” (Deuteronomy 22:1, that which is shua (combed) tavui (spun) and nuz (woven). Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: [the word shaatnez means that] he [the transgressor] is perverted (naloz) and causes his father in heaven to avert himself [from him].

Felted materials [can be] prohibited because of kilayim, since they are combed. It is prohibited to attach a string of wool to linen material, since this resembles weaving. Rabbi Yose says: it is forbidden to use cords of purple [wool to tie round a loose linen garment], since before he ties it, he stitches it on. One may not tie a strip of woolen material with one of linen material for the purpose of girdling one’s loins, even if there is a leather strap between the two.

Weaver’s mark’s or launderer’s marks [can be] prohibited because of kilayim. One who sticks one thread [through material], this does not constitute a connection, nor does [the prohibition of] kilayim apply and one who unties [such a connection] on Shabbat is exempt. If one made its two ends come out on the same side [of the material], this constitutes a connection, and it comes under the prohibition of kilayim, and one who unties such a connection on Shabbat is liable. Rabbi Judah said: [the prohibition does not apply] until one has made three stitches. A sack and a basket [one having a strip of woolen material attached to it, and the other a strip of linen] combine to form kilayim.

משנה שביעית

Chapter 1

Until when may they plow an orchard in the sixth year? Bet Shammai say: as long as such work will benefit the fruit. And Bet Hillel says: till Atzeret (Shavuot). The views of this [school] are close to those of the other.

What constitutes an orchard? Any field in which there are at least three trees for every bet seah. If each tree is capable of yielding a cake of pressed figs, the size of sixty in the Italian maneh, then the entire bet seah may be plowed for their sake. If less than this amount, they may only plow the area that is occupied by the gatherer when his basket is placed behind him.

Whether they are fruit-bearing trees or non-fruit-bearing trees, we treat them as if they were fig-trees. If they are capable of yielding a cake of pressed figs, the size of sixty in the Italian maneh, then the entire bet seah may be plowed for their sake. If less than this amount, they may plow them only for their own needs.

If one of the trees was capable of bearing a cake of dried figs [weighing sixty manehs], and the other two unable; or, if two could do so, but one cannot, then they may plow them only for their own needs. [This is the rule if the number of trees is] from three to nine, but if there were ten trees or more, whether they produce [the requisite amount of fruit or not] the whole bet seah may be plowed on their account. As it says: “In plowing and in harvesting, you shall rest” (Ex 34:21). It was unnecessary to state plowing and harvesting in the seventh year, rather [what it means is] the plowing of the year preceding which encroaches on the sabbatical year, and the harvest of the seventh year which extends into the year after. Rabbi Ishmael says: just as plowing is an optional act, so harvesting [referred to in the verse] is optional, thus excluding the harvesting of the omer [which is obligatory].

Three trees belonging to three persons, they join together and they may plow the entire bet seah on their account. What space should there be between them? Rabban Gamaliel says: sufficient for the driver of the herd to pass through with his implements.

If ten saplings are scattered over the entire area of a bet seah, they may plow the whole bet seah, even until Rosh Hashanah. But if they were arranged in a row or they were surrounded by a fence, they may plow them only for their own needs.

Saplings and gourds are counted together within space of a bet seah. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if there are ten gourds in the bet seah they may plow the whole bet seah until Rosh Hashanah.

Up until when are they called saplings? Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: until they are permitted for common use. But Rabbi Joshua says: until they are seven years old. Rabbi Akiba says: [the word] sapling, [it goes] according to its name. A tree which had been cut down and then produced fresh shoots: if one handbreadth or less, they are regarded as saplings, if more than a handbreadth they are regarded as trees, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Chapter 2

Until when may they plow a white field in the sixth year? Until the moisture has dried up in the soil, or as long as men still plow in order to plant cucumbers and gourds. Rabbi Shimon said: in that case you are placing the law in the hands of each man! Rather in the case of a white field until Pesah, and in the case of an orchard until Atzeret (Shavuot).

They may manure and hoe cucumbers and gourds until Rosh Hashanah. So too with regard to irrigated fields. They may remove flaws from trees, strip off leaves, cover roots with earth, and fumigate the plants until Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Shimon says: one may also remove leaves from a grape cluster even in the seventh year itself.

They may clear away stones until Rosh Hashanah. They may trim, prune and remove [excess parts of the tree] until Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Joshua says: just as one may trim and remove in the fifth year so too may one perform this work in the sixth year. Rabbi Shimon says: as long as I may legally tend the tree itself, I may remove [excess parts of it].

They may besmear saplings, wrap them around, and trim them, and they may make for them shelters and water them until Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: he may even water the foliage on the sabbatical year, but not the roots.

They may oil unripe figs and pierce them until Rosh Hashanah. Unripe figs of the sixth year which have [remained on the tree] until the seventh year, or of the seventh year which have remained on the tree until the eighth year, they may not oil them or pierce them. Rabbi Judah says: In a place where it was the custom to oil, one may not oil them, since that would be considered work; but in a place where it was not the custom to oil, they may oil them. Rabbi Shimon permitted in connection with the tree, because he is permitted to do all work for the tree.

They may not plant or sink [vine-shoots], or graft in the sixth year within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah. If he has planted or sank or grafted, he must uproot. Rabbi Judah says: any grafting that has not taken root within three days will never do so. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: two weeks.

Rice, millet, poppy and sesame that had taken root before Rosh Hashanah must be tithed according to the previous year, and are permissible in the seventh year. If they did not then they are forbidden in the seventh year, and are tithed according to the year following.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Egyptian beans which he sowed for seed only, are like them. Rabbi Shimon says: large beans, are [also] like them. But Rabbi Elazar says: large beans, if they began to form pods before Rosh Hashanah.

Seedless onions and Egyptian beans from which he withheld water for thirty days prior to Rosh Hashanah are tithed with the preceding year, and are permitted in the seventh year. And if not, they are forbidden in the seventh, and are tithed according to the following year. And [seedless onions and Egyptian beans grown in a] rain-irrigated field from which two periods of rain have been withheld, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: three.

Gourds which he had kept [in the ground] for seed: if they had hardened before Rosh Hashanah and had become unfit for human food, they may be kept during the seventh year; otherwise, they must not be kept in the seventh year. Their buds are forbidden in the seventh year. They may irrigate the soil of a white field (a grain field), the words of Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Elazar ben Jacob prohibits. They may soak the rice in the sabbatical year. Rabbi Shimon says: but they may not be trim [the rice].

Chapter 3

From when may they bring out manure to the dung-heaps?From when the workers have ceased to work, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Judah says: until the sweetness [of the manure] has dried up. Rabbi Yose says: until [the dung dries] into knots.

How much manure may they take out and make into dung-heaps? Three dung-heaps for every bet seah, [each consisting of] ten baskets [of foliage] of a letekh each. They may add to the number of baskets, but not to the number of heaps. Rabbi Shimon says: also to the number of heaps.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or trhee handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or trhee handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or trhee handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

One who uses his field as a pen for cattle, he [first] makes an enclosure for every two bet se'ahs. He then uproots three sides, and leaves the middle side. It turns out that he has made a pen of four seahs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: one of eight seahs. If his entire field is only four seahs in area, he must allow a portion of it to remain [unenclosed] for appearance's sake. And he may take the dung out from the enclosure, and spread across his field in the manner of those who fertilize their fields.

A man may not open a stone quarry within his field for the first time, unless there are in it three layers, each three [cubits long], three wide and three high, for a total of twenty-seven stones.

A wall that consists of ten stones, each a load for two men, may be removed, [if] the measurement of this wall is [at least] ten handbreadths high. Less than that he quarries it and he may lower it to within one handbreadth of the ground. When is this so? From his own field, but from that of another, he may remove whatever he wishes. When is this so? When he did not begin [to remove the stones] in the sixth year, but if he began in the sixth year, he may remove whatever he wishes.

Stones which the plow has turned up, or which had been covered and became uncovered, if there are among them at least two, [each] the load of two men, they may be removed. One who removes stones from his field, he removes the top layers, but he leave those touching the ground. And likewise a heap of pebbles, or a pile of stones; he may remove the top layers but must leave those touching the ground. If, however, there is beneath them rocky soil or stubble, they may be removed.

They may not build steps leading to ravines in the sixth year after the rains have stopped, for this would be improving the fields for the seventh year. But he may build in the seventh year itself, after the rains have stopped, for this would be a improving the fields for the eighth year. He may not block them [the steps] with earth, but he may make an embankment. Any stone which he can stick out his hand and pick up, may be removed.

Shoulder-stones may be removed from any place. And the contractor may bring them from anywhere. Which are shoulder-stones? Any one that cannot be picked up with one hand, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose says: the name is to be taken literally; those that are carried on a man’s shoulder, either two or three at a time.

One who makes a fence between his own property and the public domain, he is allowed to dig down to rock level. What should he do with the soil? He piles it up in the public domain, and then restores it, the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Akiva says: just as no damage may be done to a public domain, so one may not repair it. Then what should he do with the soil? He heaps it up in his own field in the manner of those who bring out dung [for manure]. Similarly when one digs a cistern, a trench or a cave.

Chapter 4

At first they said: a man may gather wood, stones and grasses from his field, just as he was allowed to do from the field of his fellow, the large ones. When the transgressors increased, they decreed that this one may gather from this one’s field and this one may gather from this one’s field, but not as a [mutual] favor. It doesn’t need to be said that no stipulation can be made for food.

A field from which thorns had been removed may be sown in the eighth year. But if it had been improved upon, or cattle had been allowed to live upon it, it may not be sown in the eighth year. A field which had been improved upon in the seventh year: Bet Shammai says: they may not eat its produce in the seventh year, But Bet Hillel says: they may eat. Bet Shammai says: they may not eat produce of the sabbatical year with an expression of thanks. But Bet Hillel says: they may eat [sabbatical year produce] with an expression for thanks and without an expression of thanks. Rabbi Judah says: the statements must be reversed, for this is one of the instances where Bet Shammai is lenient and Bet Hillel is stringent.

They may rent newly plowed land from a Gentile in the seventh year, but not from an Israelite. And they may encourage Gentiles during the seventh year, but not Israelites. They may exchange greetings with them because of the ways of peace.

One who thins out his olive-trees [in the seventh year]: Bet Shammai says: he cuts them down to the ground. Bet Hillel says: he may completely uproot them. They agree that if one levels his field, he can only cut them down to the ground. What is considered “thinning out”? One or two plants. And what is considered “leveling”? Three plants next to each other. This applies to his own property only, but from the property of another, even he that levels may uproot.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

One who trims grape vines, or cuts reeds: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: he must leave [uncut at least] one handbreadth. But Rabbi Akiba says: he may cut them in the usual manner, with the axe, sickle or saw, or with whatever he pleases. A tree that had split may be tied up in the seventh year, not that it may heal, but only that it should not widen.

From when may one begin to eat of the fruit of the trees in the seventh year? With unripe figs as soon as they assume a rosy appearance, one may eat them in the field with his bread. Once they have begun to ripen, he may take them home. And similarly in the other years of the sabbatical cycle [when this latter stage has been reached] they are subject to tithes.

Unripe grapes: as soon as they contain juice he may eat them with bread in the field. When they have begun to ripen, he may take them home. And similarly in the other years of the sabbatical cycle [when they have reached this latter stage] they are subject to tithes.

Olives, as soon as they can produce a quarter log [of oil] for each se'ah, they may be split and eaten in a field. When they produce a half-log, then he may crush them in a field and use their oil. When they have reached a third [of their overall potential], they may be crushed in the field and brought home. And similarly in the other years of the sabbatical cycle [when they have reached this latter stage] they are subject to tithes. With all other fruit of trees [the season when they become due to be tithed] is the season when they are permitted in the seventh year.

From when may they no longer cut down trees in the seventh year? Bet Shammai says: every tree, after it has produced [fruit]. Bet Hillel says: carob trees after [the carobs] begin to droop, vines after the berries begin to be moist, olive-trees after they had blossomed, any other tree after it has produced [fruit]. And any tree as soon as it reaches the season for tithes it may be cut down. How much should be on an olive tree such that it may not be cut down? A quarter [kav]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: all depends on the olive-tree.

Chapter 5

White figs: their “sheviit” is in the second year [of the sabbatical year], since they ripen once in three years. Rabbi Judah says: Persian figs, their “sheviit” is in the year following the seventh year, since they ripen once in two years. Thereupon they said to him: this was said only of the species of white figs.

One who buries luf (a type of onion) in the soil during the sabbatical year: Rabbi Meir says: it must be not less than two seahs in quantity, three handbreadths in height, and covered with earth one handbreadth deep. The sages say: it must be not less than four kabs in quantity, one handbreadth high, and covered with earth one handbreadth deep. And he should bury it in a place where people walk.

Luf which has remained [in the ground until] after the passing of the seventh year: Rabbi Eliezer says: if the poor had gathered its leaves, then they have gathered. If not, then an account must be made with the poor. Rabbi Joshua says: if the poor had gathered its leaves, then they have gathered. If not, the poor have no account with him (the field owner).

Luf of the sixth year that has entered the seventh year, similarly summer onions and puah (madder) grown in good soil: Bet Shammai says: they must be uprooted with wooden rakes. Bet Hillel says: [even] with metal rakes. They agree in the case of puah with strong roots, that they may be uprooted with metal spades.

From when may one buy luf after the seventh year? Rabbi Judah says: immediately. But the sages say: [only] after the new crop has appeared.

These are the implements which a craftsman may not sell in the seventh year:A plow and all its [accompanying] implements, a yoke, a winnowing-fan, and a pickax. But he may sell a sickle used by hand, a scythe, and a cart with all its implements. This is the general principle: any tools designed for work involving a transgression [in the seventh year] is prohibited; but if for a forbidden and a permissible purpose, it may be [sold].

The potter may sell five oil-jars and fifteen wine-jars, for this is the usual amount one collects from ownerless produce. But if he brought more, it is still permitted. He may also sell [more jars] to Gentiles in the land of Israel and to Jews outside of the land.

Bet Shammai says: one must not sell him a plowing cow in the seventh year. But Bet Hillel permits, since he may slaughter it. One may sell him produce even at sowing time. And one may lend him a seah measure, even though he knows that he has a threshing-floor. One may exchange coins for him, even though he knows that he has workers. But all these things, if he expresses [that they will be used for unlawful purposes], then they are forbidden.

A woman may lend to her neighbor who is suspect of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year, a sifter, a sieve, a hand-mill, or an oven. But she may not sift or grind with her. The wife of a haver may lend to the wife of an am haaretz a sifter and a sieve and may even sift, grind, or sift flour with her. But once she poured water [over the flour], she may not touch [it] with her, for one may not aid those who commit a transgression. And all these things were only allowed in the interests of peace. They may offer encouragement to Gentiles during the sabbatical year, but not to Jews. In the interests of peace, one may also offer greetings to Gentiles.

Chapter 6

[The land of Israel is divided into] three territories with regard to the sabbatical law.[Any produce grown in land] that was occupied by those who came up from Babylon, namely from Eretz Israel as far as Chezib, may not be eaten, nor [may its soil] be cultivated. [Any produce grown in land] that was occupied by those who came up from Egypt, namely from Chezib to the river, and until Amonah, may be eaten, but [its soil] may not be cultivated. From the river till Amonah and inwards, [produce] may be eaten and [the soil] cultivated.

In Syria, one may perform work on produce that has been detached, but not on produced attached [to the soil]. They may thresh, winnow, and tread [the grapes], or make [the grain] into sheaves, but they may not harvest [the crops], nor cut the grapes, nor harvest the olives. Rabbi Akiva said this principle: the kind of work that is permitted in Eretz Israel may also be done in Syria.

Onions on which rain fell and which had sprouted, if their leaves had turned black, they are forbidden; if they had become green they are permitted. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if they can be plucked out by their leaves, they are forbidden. In the year after the sabbatical year, the like of these are permitted.

When may one buy vegetables at the outgoing of the sabbatical year [without fear that they are sabbatical produce]?When enough time has passed for similar [vegetables] to grow. Where produce ripens quickly, even that which is late in ripening is also permissible. Rabbi used to allow the buying of vegetables immediately after the sabbatical year was over.

One may not take oil [of terumah] that had to be burned, nor produce of the seventh year, from the land [of Israel] to other countries. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be exported to Syria, but not to any other country outside the land.

They may not import terumah from outside the land of Israel into Israel. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be bring from Syria, but not from any other country outside the land.

Chapter 7

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: anything that is food for man or beast, or a species [of plants] used for dyeing, and cannot be left growing in the soil, the law of the sabbatical year is applied both to it and to its money substitute and the law of removal applies both to it and to its money substitute. Which are they? The leaves of the wild luf, the leaf of ceterach, endives, leeks, portulaca, and netz hahalav. What is the food for cattle? Thorns and thistles. What is species of dyeing matter? Aftergrowths of woad and madder. The law of the seventh year applies both to them and to their money-substitutes and the law of removal applies both to them and to their money substitute.

And they said yet another general principle: Anything that is food for man or beast, or is used for dyeing, but can be left in the soil, the law of the sabbatical year applies both to it and to its money substitute but the law of removal does not apply to it or to its money substitute. Which are these? The root of wild luf, the root of ceterach, scolopendrium, the root of netz hahalav and buchreyah. What is the species of dyeing matter? Puah (madder) and reseda. The law of the sabbatical year applies both to them and to their money substitute but the law of removal does not apply to them or to their money substitute. Rabbi Meir says: their money substitutes must be removed by Rosh Hashanah. They said to him: since this law does not apply to the plants themselves, all the more so it does not apply to their money-substitute.

The peels and the blossom of the pomegranate, the nutshells, and fruit seeds the laws of sabbatical produce apply to them and to their money substitutes. The dyer may use them for himself, but he may not dye with them for a wage, since one may not engage in business with seventh year produce, or with first-born animals, or with terumah, or with nevelah, or with trefah, or with reptiles or with creeping things. One should not buy field-vegetables and sell them in the market. But he may gather them and have his son sell them on his behalf. If he gathered them for his own use, and some remains over, he may sell them.

If one buys a first-born animal for his son’s [wedding] feast, or for a festival, and then decides that he has no need for it, he may sell it. Trappers of wild animals, birds and fishes, who chanced upon unclean species, may sell them. Rabbi Judah says: also a man who happened to chance one upon by accident may buy or sell, provided that he does not make this into his regular profession. But the sages prohibit.

The lulavim of hawthorn trees and carobs the laws of sheviit apply to them and to their money substitutes, the law of removal applies to them and to their money substitutes. The lulavim of the terebinth, the pistachio tree and the white thorn, the laws of sheviit apply to them and to their money substitutes, but the law of removal does not apply to them and to their money substitutes. But as for the leaves the law of removal applies, since they fall from their stem.

The rose, henna, balsam, the lotus tree the laws of sheviit apply to them and to their money substitutes. Rabbi Shimon says: sheviit does not apply to the balsam, since it is not a fruit.

If a new rose has been preserved in old oil, the rose may be taken out. But if an old rose was preserved in new oil, it is subject to the law of removal. New carobs preserved in old wine, or old carobs in new wine, are subject to the law of removal. This is the general principle: Any thing that imparts taste, he must remove it if it is one kind mixed with a different kind. But if it is mixed with the identical kind, then [the whole is subject to removal] even if only the smallest quantity exists. Sabbatical year produce renders similar kinds prohibited even [if it exists] in the smallest quantity. But if of different species only when it imparts taste.

Chapter 8

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

Sabbatical year produce may be used for food, drink and for anointing. That which is usually eaten can be used for food only; that which is usually used for anointing can be used only for anointing, and that which is usually used for drinking can be used for drink only. One may not anoint with wine and vinegar, but he may anoint with oil. So too with terumah and second tithe. Greater leniency was applied to [oil of] the seventh year, since it can be used for lamp-kindling.

Produce of the seventh year may not be sold by measure, weight or number. Neither may figs [be sold] by number, nor vegetables by weight. Bet Shammai says: they may not be sold, even in bundles. But Bet Hillel says: that which is usually tied in bundles [to bring] to the house may even be tied into bundles for the market, such as leeks and netz hahalav.

If one says to a worker: “Take this issar and gather vegetables for me today,” his payment is permitted. [But if he said:] “In return for this [issar], gather vegetables for me today,” then his payment is forbidden. If one bought a loaf from a baker worth a pondion [and said:] “When I have gathered vegetables from the field, I will bring them to you,” this is permitted. If he bought it from him without any explanation, he may not pay him his debt with the value of seventh year produce, for no debt can be paid with the value of seventh year produce.

They may not pay [sheviit proceeds to] a well-digger, an attendant at a public bath, a barber, or a sailor. But he may give them to well-digger so that the well-digger will provide him with drink. To all of them he may give it as a gift.

Sabbatical figs may not be cut in the muktzeh, but he may cut them in an open place. Grapes may not be trodden in the wine-press, but they may be trodden in a kneading-trough. Olives may not be prepared in an olive-press or in a small olive-press, but he may crush them and bring them into a small olive-press in the field. Rabbi Shimon says: they may even be crushed in the [larger] olive-press, and then he brings them into the smaller press.

One may not cook sheviit vegetables in oil of terumah lest they become invalidated. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. The last thing exchanged is always subject to the sabbatical law, and the produce itself remains forbidden.

One might not buy slaves, land, or an unclean beast with sheviit money. If he did buy he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not bring the bird-offerings of a zav or a zavah, or of a woman after childbirth with sheviit money. If he did bring he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not anoint vessels with oil of seventh year produce. If he did annoint he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent.

A hide which they oiled with seventh year oil: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be burnt; But the sages say: he must [buy and] eat [food] for its equivalent. They said in front of Rabbi Akiba: Rabbi Eliezer used to say, A hide which they smeared with seventh year oil must be burnt. He replied: Silence! I won’t tell you what Rabbi Eliezer actually said in this connection.

They also said in front of him: Rabbi Eliezer use to say: “Whoever eats bread [baked] by Samaritans is like one who eats the flesh of a pig.” He replied: Silence! I won’t tell you what Rabbi Eliezer actually said in this connection.

A bath heated with straw or stubble of the seventh year, it is permitted to wash in it. But if he is an important man, he should not wash in it.

Chapter 9

Rue, goosefoot, purslane, hill coriander, celery, and meadow-berries, are exempt from tithes. And they may be purchased from anyone during the sabbatical year, since such produce is not usually stored. Rabbi Judah says: aftergrowths of mustard are permitted, since transgressors are not suspected concerning them. Rabbi Shimon says: all aftergrowths are permitted, with the exception of the aftergrowths of cabbage, since such cannot be placed within the category of field-vegetables. But the sages say: all aftergrowths are forbidden.

There are three territories in respect to the law of removal [of sheviit produce]: [these are]: Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee, and there are three territories in each one. Upper Galilee, lower Galilee, and the valley. From Kefar Hananiah upwards, the region where sycamores do not grow, is Upper Galilee. From Kefar Hananiah downwards, where the sycamores do grow, is Lower Galilee. The borders of Tiberias are the valley. Those of Judea are: the mountain region, the plains [of the south], and the valley. The plains of Lod are like the plains of the south, and its mountain region is like the king's hill-country. From Bet Horon to the sea is considered as one land.

Why did they speak of three territories? So that they may eat in each country until the last of the seventh year produce in that country is ended. Rabbi Shimon says: they have spoken of three countries only in the case of Judea, but all other territories are to be regarded as King’s mountain (Har Hamelekh). And all other territories are the same with regard to the olive and date.

One may eat by virtue of similar produce regarded as ownerless [still found in the fields], but not when it was stored [and declared ownerless]. Rabbi Yose permits even when it was stored [and then declared ownerless]. One may continue to eat by virtue of the poor grains [that grow between the grass], or by virtue of the trees that yield bi-annually, but one must not eat by virtue of winter-grapes. Rabbi Judah permits provided they began to ripen before the summer [of the seventh year] had ended.

One who preserved three kinds of vegetables in one jar: Rabbi Eliezer says they may be eaten only so long as the first still remains [in the field]. But Rabbi Joshua says: even so long as the last remains. Rabban Gamaliel says: when the like kind is no longer to be found in the field, the same kind in the jar must be removed, [and the halachah agrees with him.] Rabbi Shimon says: all vegetables are regarded as one [kind] in respect of the law of removal. Purslane may be eaten until there is no more wild purslane in the valley of Bet Netopha.

If one gathered moist herbs, he may eat them until the sweet [herbs in the field] have dried up. And if he gathered dry [herbs], [he may eat them] until the second rainfall. Leaves of reeds and of leaves of the vine [may be eaten] until they fall from the stems. But if he gathered them dry, they may be eaten until the second rainfall. Rabbi Akiba says: in all these cases, [they may be eaten] until the second rainfall.

Similarly, if one rents a house to someone “until the rains,” he means until the second rainfall. Or if one had vowed not to derive any benefit from his friend “until the rains” [he is prohibited] until the second rainfall. Until when may the poor enter the orchards? Until the second rainfall. And when may one begin to enjoy or burn the straw and stubble of sabbatical produce? After the second rainfall.

If one had sabbatical produce [at home] and the time of removal had come, he may give out food for three meals to every one. Rabbi Judah says: the poor may eat from it even after the removal, but not the rich. But Rabbi Yose says: both the poor and the rich may eat after the removal.

If one had inherited seventh year produce or had received them as a gift: Rabbi Eliezer says: they must be given to anyone who eats them. But the sages say: the sinner must not benefit, rather it should be sold to anyone who eats it, and its price divided among everyone. If one eats dough of seventh year [produce] before the hallah was taken from it, he has incurred thereby the death penalty [at the hands of heaven].

Chapter 10

The sabbatical year cancels a debt written in a document or one not written in a document. A debt to a shop is not cancelled, but if it had been converted into the form of a loan, then it is cancelled. Rabbi Judah says: the former debt is always cancelled. A wage-debt to a worker is not cancelled, but if it had been converted into a loan it is cancelled. Rabbi Yose says: the [payment for] any work that must cease with the seventh year, is cancelled, but if it need not cease with the seventh year, then it is not cancelled.

One who slaughters a cow and divides it up on Rosh Hashanah [at the end of the seventh year]: If the month had been intercalated, [the debt] is remitted. But if it had not been intercalated, it is not remitted. [Fines for] rape, for seduction, for defamation, and all other obligations arising from legal procedure, are not remitted. One who loans and takes a pledge, and one who hands over his debt documents to a court, [these debts] are not remitted.

[A loan secured by] a prozbul is not cancelled. This was one of the things enacted by Hillel the elder; for when he observed people refraining from lending to one another, and thus transgressing what is written in the Torah, “Beware, lest you harbor the base thought, [‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,’ so that you are mean to your needy kinsman and give him nothing.” Hillel enacted the prozbul.

This is the formula of the prozbul: “I turn over to you, so-and-so, judges of such and such a place, that any debt that I may have outstanding, I shall collect it whenever I desire.” And the judges sign below, or the witnesses.

A pre-dated prozbul is valid, but a post-dated one, is invalid. Pre-dated loan documents [of loans] are invalid, but post-dated one valid. If one borrows from five persons, then he writes a separate prozbul for each [creditor]. But if five borrow from the same person, then he writes only one prozbul for them all.

A prozbul is written only for [a debt secured by] land. But if [the debtor] has none, then [the creditor] can give him title to a share, however small, of his own field. If he had land in pledge in a city, a prozbul can be written on it. Rabbi Hutzpit says: a prozbul may be written for a man on the security of his wife's property, or for an orphan on the security of property belonging to his guardian.

A bee-hive:Rabbi Eliezer says: Behold, it is like land and a prozbul may be written [using it as security] and it is not susceptible to uncleanness while it remains in its place, and one who takes honey from it on Shabbat is liable. But the sages say: it is not like land, a prozbul may not be written [using it as security], it is susceptible to uncleanness while in its place, and one who takes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt.

One who returns a debt [after] the seventh year, the [creditor] must say to [the debtor]: “I remit it.” But [the debtor] should say: “Even so [I will repay it].” [The creditor] may then accept it from him, because it says: “And this is the word of the release” (Deuteronomy 15:2). Similarly, when [an accidental] killer has been exiled to a city of refuge, and the citizens want to honor him, he must say to them: “I am a murderer.” If they say: “Even so, [we want to honor you], then he may accept [the honor] from them, because it says: “And this is the word of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4).

One who repays his debts after the seventh year, the sages are pleased with him. One who borrows from a convert whose sons had converted with him, the debt need not be repaid to his sons, but if he returns it the sages are pleased with him. All movable property can be acquired [only] by the act of drawing, but whoever fulfills his word, the sages are well pleased with him.

משנה תרומות

Chapter 1

Five may not give terumah, and if they do so, their terumah is not considered terumah:A heresh (deaf-mute); an imbecile, a minor, And the one who gives terumah from that which is not his own. If a non-Jew gave terumah from that which belongs to an Israelite, even if it was with his permission, his terumah is not terumah.

A “heresh”, who speaks but cannot hear, may not give terumah, but if he does so, his terumah is terumah. The “heresh” of whom the sages generally speak is one who neither hears nor speaks.

A minor who has not yet produced two [pubic] hairs: Rabbi Judah says: his terumah is terumah. Rabbi Yose says: if he has not arrived at the age when his vows are valid, his terumah is not terumah, but if he has arrived at an age where his vows are valid, his terumah is terumah.

They should not take terumah from olives for oil, or from grapes for wine. If one did: Bet Shammai says: there is terumah in [the olives or grapes] themselves. But Bet Hillel says: the terumah is not terumah.

They do not take terumah from ‘gleanings’, from ‘the forgotten sheaf’, from peah or from ownerless produce. [Neither is it taken] from first tithe from which terumah had already been taken, nor from second tithe and dedicated produce that had been redeemed. [Nor is it taken] from that which is subject [to terumah] for that which is exempt [from terumah], nor from that which is exempt for that which is subject. Nor from produce already plucked [from the soil] for that attached to it, nor from that attached [to the soil] for that already plucked. Nor from new produce for old, nor from old for new. Nor from produce from the land of Israel for produce grown outside the land, nor from that grown out of the land for that grown in the land. [In all these cases] if they did take terumah, their terumah is not terumah.

Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.A mute person; A drunken person; One who is naked; A blind person; Or one who has had a seminal emission. They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid.

They may not give terumah according to measure, or weight, or number, but one may give it from that which has already been measured, weighed or counted. They may not give terumah in a basket or a hamper of a measured capacity, but one may give in it when it is a half or a third filled. He may not give a half of seah in a seah measuring vessel, for this half constitutes a known measure.

They may not give terumah from oil for crushed olives nor may [they give terumah from] wine for trodden grapes. If he did so, his terumah is terumah, but he must give terumah again. The first terumah renders on its own [produce into which it falls] “doubtful terumah” and is subject to the added fifth, but not the second.

They may give terumah from oil for pickled olives, or from wine for grapes made into raisins. Behold, he gave terumah from oil for olives intended for eating, or from [other] olives for olives intended for eating, or for wine for grapes intended for eating, of from [other] grapes for grapes intended for eating, and he decided afterwards to press them, he need not give terumah again.

They may not take terumah from produce whose processing has been completed for produce whose processing has not been completed, or from produce whose processing has not been completed for produce whose processing has been completed or from produce whose processing has not been completed for other produce whose processing has not been completed. If they did take terumah, their terumah is terumah.

Chapter 2

They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure.

They may not give terumah from impure [produce] for that which is pure. If he did give: If unwittingly, the terumah is valid; If intentionally he has done nothing. So too, if a Levite had [unclean] tithe [from which terumah] had not been given, and he gave terumah from this, if unwittingly, the terumah is valid, if intentionally he has done nothing. Rabbi Judah says: if he knew of it at the outset, even if done in error, he has done nothing.

One who immerses [unclean] vessels on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may use them. But if intentionally, he may not use them. One who separates tithes, or cooks on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may eat it. But if intentionally, he may not eat it. One who plants on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may keep the tree. But if intentionally, he must uproot it. But if during the sabbatical year, whether [it was planted] unwittingly or intentionally he must uproot it.

They may not give terumah from one kind for another kind, and if he did give, the terumah is not terumah. All kinds of wheat count as one. All kinds of fresh figs, dried figs and fig cakes count as one, and he may take terumah from one for the other. Wherever there is a priest, one must give terumah from the very best, and where there is no priest, one must give terumah from that which lasts longest. Rabbi Judah says: he should always give only from the very best.

They should give terumah of a whole small onion, and not of half of a large onion. Rabbi Judah says: not so, rather half of a large onion. So too, Rabbi Judah says: they give terumah from town onions for those from the village, but not from village onions for those from the town, since these are the food of its principal citizens.

They may give terumah from olives [to be used] for oil for those to be preserved, but not from olives due to be preserved for olives [to be used] for oil. [They may give] from unboiled wine for boiled wine, but not from boiled wine for unboiled wine. This is the general rule: any two things which together are kilayim (mixed species) he should not give terumah from one for the other, even if one is superior and the other inferior. But if they are not kilayim, then one may give terumah from the superior for that which is inferior, but not from the inferior for that which is superior. If one does give terumah from the inferior for that which is superior, his terumah is terumah, except for zunin given for wheat, since these (zunin) are not food. Cucumbers and melon count are one kind. Rabbi Judah says: two kinds.

Chapter 3

If one gave a cucumber as terumah and it was found to be bitter, a melon and it was found to be rotten, it is considered terumah, but he must again give terumah. If one gave a jar of wine as terumah and it was found to be vinegar: If prior to his act he knew that it was vinegar, the terumah is not valid; But if it had turned sour after he had given it as terumah, behold it is terumah. In case of doubt, it is terumah but he must again give terumah. The first terumah does not render on its own [produce into which it falls] “doubtful terumah” and it is not subject to the added fifth, and so the second.

If one of them falls into non-sacred produce, it does not make [the mixture] medumma [a mixture into which terumah has fallen]. If the second of them falls [then] into another place, it also does not make it medumma. But if both fall into one place, they do make it medumma, according to the size of the smaller of the two.

[Two] partners who took terumah, the one after the other:Rabbi Akiva says: the terumah of them both is terumah. But the sages say: the terumah of the first is terumah. Rabbi Yose says: if the first gave the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is not terumah, but if the first did not give the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is terumah.

To what does this apply? Only if one did not confer with the other, but if one allows a member of his household, or his slave or female slave to give terumah for him, this terumah is terumah. If he annulled [this permission]: If he annulled it before the taking of the terumah, the terumah is not terumah; But if he annulled it after the terumah had been taken, the terumah is terumah. Workers have no permission to give terumah, except for those who tread [grapes] for they defile the winepress immediately.

If one says: “The terumah of this pile is within it,” or, “its tithes are within it,” or, “the terumah of tithe [terumat maaser] is within it:” Rabbi Shimon says: he has thereby designated it. But the sages say: not unless he said, “It is in the north or south of it.” Rabbi Elazar Hisma says: one who says, “The terumah of this pile is taken from it for it,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one who says, “The tenth part of this tithe is terumah of tithe for that pile,” he has thereby designated it.

He who gives terumah before first-fruits, or first tithe before terumah, or second tithe before first tithe, although he transgresses a negative commandment, that which he has done is done, for it is said: “You shall not delaying the skimming of the first yield of your vats” (Exodus 22:28).

From where do we derive that first-fruits must precede terumah, seeing that this one is called “terumah” and “the first” and the other is [also] called “terumah” and “the first”? Rather first-fruits take precedence since they are the first fruits of all produce. And terumah comes before the first tithe also because it is called “first.” And first tithe [precedes second tithe,] because it includes that which is called “first.”

He who intends saying ‘terumah’ and says ‘tithe’, or ‘tithe’ and says ‘terumah’; ‘Burnt-offering’ and he says ‘peace-offering’, or ‘peace-offering’ and he says ‘burnt-offering’; ‘[I vow] that I will not enter this house,’ and says ‘that house’, ‘That I will not derive any benefit from this [man],’ and says ‘from that [man],’ he has said nothing until his heart and mind are at one.

Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it.

Chapter 4

One who sets aside only part of terumah and tithes, may take terumah from that [heap], but he may not take terumah from it for other produce. Rabbi Meir says: he can also take terumah and tithes for produce elsewhere.

If one had his produce in a storehouse, and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, he may set aside another eight seahs and eat them, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: he may only set aside according to proportion.

The amount of terumah: A generous amount: one fortieth. Beth Shammai say: one thirtieth. The average amount: one fiftieth. A stingy amount: one sixtieth. If he gave terumah and discovered that it was only one sixtieth, his terumah is valid and he need not give again. If he does go back and add to it, [the extra amount] is liable to tithes. If he found that it was only one sixty-first it is valid, but he must give terumah again according to his established practice, in measure, weight or number. Rabbi Judah says: even if it be not from produce close by.

One who says to his messenger: “Go and give terumah [for me],” he should give terumah in accordance with the mind of the owner. If he does not know the mind of the owner, he gives according to the average amount one fiftieth. If he gave ten parts less or more, the terumah is terumah. If, however, his intention was to add even one part more, his terumah is not terumah.

One who wishes to give more terumah:Rabbi Eliezer says: he may give up to a tenth part, as in the case of heave-offering of tithe. [If he gave] more than this [measure] he must make it terumah of tithe for other produce. Rabbi Ishmael says: half non-sacred produce and half terumah. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: as long as he retains a part as non-sacred produce.

On three occasions they measure the contents of the basket: At the full time of the first ripe fruits, and of the late summer fruits, and in the middle of the summer. He who counts [the fruit] is praiseworthy, he who measures it is more praiseworthy, and he who weighs them is most praiseworthy of all.

Rabbi Eliezer says: terumah can be taken out [if it falls into] a hundred and one parts. Rabbi Joshua says: in a hundred and more, and this “more” has no definite measure. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: this ‘more’ must be a kav to a hundred seahs, a sixth [of the seah] which renders the whole as medumma.

Rabbi Joshua says: black figs can bring up white ones, and white ones can bring up black ones. In the case of cakes of figs, the large can bring up the small, and the small can bring up the large. Round cakes of figs can bring up square cakes, and square cakes can bring up round ones. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits this. Rabbi Akiba says: if the kind which fell in is known, then the one kind cannot bring up the other kind, but if the kind is not known, the one kind can bring up the other.

How so? If there were fifty black figs and fifty white fig, and a black fig fell in, the black figs are forbidden, but the white figs are permitted; and if a white fig fell in them, the white figs are forbidden and the black figs are permitted. If it is unknown which kind fell in, then each kind helps to bring up the other. In this case, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent and Rabbi Joshua is lenient.

But in this, Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient and Rabbi Joshua more stringent. One was pressing a litra of dried figs [of terumah] into a jar and he didn’t know which: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are to be regarded as if they were separated, so that those below can bring up those above. Rabbi Joshua says: it cannot be brought up unless there are a hundred jars.

A seah of terumah which fell on top of a pile and he skimmed it off: Rabbi Eliezer says: if in that which he skimmed off there are hundred seahs, it can be taken out [through a ratio of] one hundred to one. But Rabbi Joshua says: it cannot be brought up. A seah of terumah which fell on top of a pile, he must skim it off. If so, why did they say that terumah can be taken up in one hundred and one parts? [Only] if it is not known whether it has become mixed up or where it has fallen.

Two baskets or two piles and a seah of terumah fell on top of one of them and it is not known into which it had fallen, they bring up the terumah in the other. Rabbi Shimon says: even if they are in two cities, they bring up the terumah in the other.

Rabbi Yose said: A case once came before Rabbi Akiva concerning fifty bundles of vegetables into which a bundle of the same size had fallen, half of which was terumah. And I said in front of him, that it can be brought up, not because terumah can be brought up in fifty-one, but because there were one hundred and two halves there.

Chapter 5

If a seah of unclean terumah fell into less than a hundred seahs of hullin, or first tithe, or second tithe, or dedicated property, whether these were unclean or clean, they must all be left to rot. If the seah [of terumah] was clean, [the mixture] must be sold to priests at the price of terumah, excluding the value of that seah itself. If it fell into first tithe, he should declare terumah of tithe. And if it fell into second tithe or dedicated property, they must be redeemed. If the hullin was unclean, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.

A seah of unclean terumah which fell into a hundred of clean hullin:Rabbi Eliezer says: [a seah] must be taken out and burnt, for I say that the seah taken out is the one that fell in. But the sages say: it may be taken out and eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.

A seah of clean terumah fell into a hundred of unclean hullin, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.

A seah of unclean terumah that falls into one hundred seahs of clean terumah: Bet Shammai prohibits, But Bet Hillel permits. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: since clean [terumah] is forbidden to non-priests and unclean [terumah is forbidden] to priests, then just as clean [terumah] is brought up, so too unclean [terumah] can be brought up. Bet Shammai answered them: No! If hullin which is treated more leniently [in that it is permitted to non-priests] allows us to bring up clean [terumah that falls into it], does terumah [which is more stringent in that it is forbidden to non-priests] also allow us to bring up that which is unclean? After [Bet Shammai] had agreed [with Bet Hillel], Rabbi Eliezer said: it should be taken out and burned. But the sages say: it is gone, on account of its being a tiny [portion of the whole mixture].

A seah of terumah that fell into a hundred [of hullin], and he lifted it out and fell into [hullin] elsewhere:Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders medumma as though it were certainly terumah. But the sages say: it is rendered medumma only according to proportion.

A seah of terumah which fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and rendered the whole medumma, and part of this mixture fell afterwards into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders again medumma as if certain terumah [had fallen in]. But the sages say: the [first] mixture renders medumma only according to the proportion. [Similarly], that which is leavened [with terumah] renders other dough leavened [as with terumah] only according to the proportion. And drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath also only according to the proportion.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin] and he lifted [a seah] out, and then another fell in, and he lifted another out and another fell in, the pile is permissible as long as the amount of terumah does not exceed that of the hullin.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and before he could take it out, another fell in, the whole becomes forbidden. Rabbi Shimon permits it.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and they were ground together and reduced in bulk, just as the hullin was reduced so too the terumah was reduced, and it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin] and they were ground together and increased in bulk, just as the hullin became more, so too the terumah became more, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the kernels of hullin were better than the terumah, it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and more hullin fell in afterwards, if it was accidental it is permissible, but if intentional it is forbidden.

Chapter 6

One who eats terumah unwittingly must repay its value plus a fifth, whether he eats it or drinks it, or anoints himself with it, or whether the terumah is clean or unclean. [If he eats the added fifth] he must pay its fifth, and a fifth of that fifth. He may not repay with terumah, but rather with tithed hullin, which becomes terumah. And whatever may be repaid in its place also becomes terumah and if the priest wishes to forego [the fine], he cannot do so.

A daughter of an Israelite ate terumah and afterwards married a priest:If the terumah she ate had not yet been acquired by another priest she can repay to herself the value and the fifth. But if a priest had already acquired the terumah she had eaten, she must repay the value to the owners, but [she can repay] the fifth to herself, because they said that he who eats terumah unwittingly, pays the value to the owners and the fifth to whoever he wants.

If one gives his workmen or his guests terumah to eat he must repay the principal and they must pay the fifth, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they must pay both the value and the fifth, and he must pay them for the price of their meal.

If one stole terumah but did not eat it, he must return double-payment at the price of terumah. If he ate it, he must pay twice the value plus a fifth, one principal value and a fifth at the price of hullin, and the other principal at the price of terumah. If one stole terumah of dedicated property and ate it, he must repay two fifths and the principal value, for the laws of double-payment do not apply to dedicated property.

They may not make repayment from gleanings, from forgotten sheaf, from peah or ownerless property. Nor from first tithe from which terumah has been taken, nor from second tithe or dedicated produce which have been redeemed, because one dedicated thing (kadosh) cannot be used to redeem another dedicated thing (kadosh), the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages permit [payment] with these.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (hakadesh)” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (kodesh),” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate.

Chapter 7

One who eats terumah intentionally must repay its value, but not the fifth. And the repayment remains hullin, therefore, if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he may.

If the daughter of a priest married an Israelite and afterwards ate terumah, she must repay the value but not the fifth, and her death-penalty [for adultery] is by burning. If she married any of those disqualified [from marrying her], she must pay back both the value and the fifth, and her death-penalty [for adultery] is by strangling, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: in either case, she repays the value but not the fifth, and the death penalty is by burning.

One who feeds [terumah] to his small children, or to his slaves whether they are of majority age or minors, or one who eats terumah from outside the land, or less than an olive’s bulk of terumah, must repay the value, but not the fifth; and the repayment remains hullin. Therefore, if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he may.

This is the general principle: whenever one has to repay both the value and the fifth, the repayment becomes terumah, and if the priest desires to forgive the repayment, he cannot forgive. But whenever one has to repay the value only and not the fifth, the repayment remains hullin (non-sacred produce), and if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he can.

If there were two baskets, one of terumah and one of hullin, and a seah of terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known into which, behold I can assume that it had fallen into that of the terumah. [Two baskets] and it is not known which was of terumah and which of hullin, and he eats from one of them, he is exempt, and the second basket is treated as terumah and subject to the laws of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. If another person eats from the second basket he is exempt. If one man ate of both, he must repay the value of the smaller of the two.

If one of these [baskets] fell into hullin, it does not render it medumma (doubtful terumah), but the second is treated as terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose exempts it. If the second falls elsewhere [into hullin] it does not render it medumma. If both of them fall into one place, they render it medumma according to [the proportion] of the smaller of the two.

If he used one of these [baskets] as seed, he is exempt, and the second is treated as if it were terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. If another person uses the second as seed, then he is exempt. If one man uses both as seed, if it is of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the ground] it is permissible, but if it is of the kind whose seed does not disintegrate it is prohibited.

Chapter 8

If a woman was eating terumah, and they came and said to her, “Your husband is dead”, or “He divorced you.” Or, if a slave was eating terumah, and they came and said to him: “Your master is dead”, or “He sold you to an Israelite”, or “He gave you away as a gift”, or “He emancipated you.” So too, if a priest was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah (a woman released from levirate marriage): Rabbi Eliezer says: they must repay both the value and the fifth. But Rabbi Joshua exempts them [from the added fifth]. If [a priest] was standing and sacrificing on the altar and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah: Rabbi Eliezer says: all the sacrifices he had offered on the altar are disqualified. But Rabbi Joshua pronounces them valid. If it, however, it became known that he possessed a blemish, his service is disqualified.

In all the above cases, if terumah was still in their mouth: Rabbi Eliezer says: they may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: they must spit it out. [If it was said to him], “Your have become unclean”, or “the terumah has become unclean”, Rabbi Eliezer says: he may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: he must spit it out. [If it was said to him], “You were unclean” or “the terumah was unclean”, or it became known that [the food he was eating] was untithed, or that it was first tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken, or second tithe or dedicated produce that had not been redeemed, or if he tasted the taste of a bug in his mouth, he must spit it out.

If he was eating a bunch of grapes, and he entered from the garden into the courtyard: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish. If dusk set in at the eve of Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish.

If wine of terumah was left uncovered, it must be poured out, and there is no need to say this in the case of hullin. Three kinds of liquids are forbidden if they were left uncovered: water, wine and milk, but all other drinks are permitted. How long do they remain uncovered for them to become prohibited? The time it takes the snake to creep out from a place near by and drink.

The amount of water that is uncovered: enough to negate the poison. Rabbi Yose says: in vessels [it is forbidden] whatever the quantity, but for water on the ground, it must be forty se'ahs.

Figs, grapes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons or watermelons that have bite marks, even if they are in a jar, both large or small, both plucked or still attached to the soil, they are forbidden as long as there is juice in them. [An animal] bitten by a snake is forbidden on account of the danger to life.

A wine-filter [used as a cover] does not prevent [the wine from becoming] forbidden by being uncovered. But Rabbi Nehemiah permits it.

A jar of terumah which may have become impure:Rabbi Eliezer says: if it had been deposited in an exposed place, he must now place it in a hidden place; and if it had formerly been uncovered, it must now be covered. But Rabbi Joshua says: if it had been in a hidden place, he must now place it in an exposed place; and if it had formerly been covered up, he must now uncover it. Rabban Gamaliel says: let him not do anything new to it.

A jar [of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the wine-press, and the lower part was unclean: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save at least a reviit of it in cleanness he should save it. But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and become unclean of its own accord, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands.

Similarly a jar of [terumah] oil which spilled: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if he can save at least a reviit in purity he should save it; But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and be swallowed up by the ground, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands.

Concerning both cases Rabbi Joshua said: This is not the kind of terumah over which I am cautioned lest I defile it, but rather to eat of it and not to defile it. If one was passing from place to place with loaves of terumah in his hand and a Gentile said to him: “Give me one of these and I will make it unclean; for if not, I will defile them all,” let him defile them all, and not give him deliberately one to defile, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: he should place one of them on a rock.

Similarly, if gentiles say to women, “Give us one of you that we may defile her, and if not, we will defile you all”, then let them all be defiled rather than hand over to them one soul from Israel.

Chapter 9

He who plants terumah, if unwittingly, may overturn it, but if intentionally, he must allow it to remain. If it had already grown a third of its full size, whether he had planted it unwittingly or intentionally, he must allow it to remain. But in the case of flax, even when planted intentionally he must overturn it.

And it is subject to gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Poor Israelites and poor priests may glean them, but the poor Israelites must sell theirs to priests for the price of terumah and the money becomes theirs. Rabbi Tarfon says: only poor priests may glean them, lest [the others] forget and put it into their mouths. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if that be so, then only those who are clean should be allowed to glean.

And it is also subject to tithes and poor man’s tithe. Both Israelites and priests that are poor may accept them, but the poor Israelites must sell that which is theirs to the priest for the price of terumah and the money belongs to them. He who beats the grain with sticks [instead of threashing with an animal] is to be praised. But he who threshes it [by having an animal walk on it] what should he do? He must suspend baskets from the neck of the animal and place in them from the same kind, with the result that he will neither muzzle the animal nor feed it terumah.

What grows from terumah is terumah, but that which grows from growths [of terumah] is hullin. As for untithed produce, first tithe, after-growths from the sabbatical year, terumah grown outside the land, mixtures of hullin with terumah (medumma) and first-fruits what grows from them is hullin. What grows from dedicated produce and second tithe is hullin and it is to be redeemed [at its value] at the time when it was sown.

If a hundred rows were planted with terumah seeds and one with hullin, they all are permitted, if they are of a kind whose seed disintegrates in the soil. But if they are of a kind whose seed does not disintegrate in the soil, then even if there be a hundred [rows] of hullin and one of terumah, they all are prohibited.

As for untithed produce, what grows from it is permissible if of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the soil]. But if of a kind whose seed does not disintegrate, then even what grows from plants which grew out of it are forbidden. Which is the kind whose seed does not disintegrate? Like luf, garlic and onions. Rabbi Judah says: garlic is like barley.

He who weeds allium plants (whose seeds do not disintegrate) for a Gentile, even though the produce is untithed he eat from them in a casual fashion. Saplings of terumah which had become unclean and were re-planted, become clean from their uncleanness. But they must not be eaten until the edible part [of the stalk] has been lopped off. Rabbi Judah says: he must [before eating] lop off a second time that which grew on the edible part.

Chapter 10

An onion [of terumah] was placed into lentils:If the onion was whole, it is permissible; But if [the onion] had been cut up, [it is forbidden if it] imparts a flavor. In the case of other dishes, whether the onion is whole or cut up [it is forbidden] if it imparts a flavor. Rabbi Judah permits it in the case of mashed fish, because it is used only to remove the unpleasant flavor.

If an apple [of terumah] was chopped and placed into dough [of hullin] so that it leavened it, [the dough] is forbidden. If barley [of terumah] fell into a cistern of water, though [the barley] stinks up the water, the water is permissible.

One who removes warm bread from an oven and places it over an open barrel of terumah wine:Rabbi Meir says: it is forbidden. Rabbi Judah permits it. Rabbi Yose permits the bread of wheat but not of barley, because barley absorbs.

If an oven was heated with cumin of terumah and bread was baked in it, the bread is permitted, for there is no taste of cumin, just the smell of cumin.

Fenugreek which fell into a vat of wine:If it was terumah or second tithe and there is in the seed alone without the stalk sufficient to impart a flavor [it is forbidden]. But if it was seventh year produce or mixed seeds in vineyards, or dedicated produce, [it is forbidden] if in both seed and stalk there is sufficient to impart a flavor.

If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed.

Olives of hullin which were pickled together with olives of terumah, whether it was a case where crushed [olives] of hullin [which were pickled together] with crushed [olives] of terumah, or crushed [olives] of hullin with whole [olives] of terumah, or with juice of terumah, they are forbidden. But if whole [olives] of hullin were pickled with crushed [olives] of terumah, they are permitted.

Unclean fish which was pickled with clean fish:If the jug contains two seahs and the unclean fish weighs ten zuz in Judean measure, which is five selas in Galilean measure, the brine is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says: it needs be a quarter [of a log] in two seahs. Rabbi Yose says: one-sixteenth of it.

If unclean locusts were pickled together with clean ones, they do not make the brine forbidden. Rabbi Zadok testified that the brine of unclean locusts is clean.

[Vegetables] pickled together are permitted, except [when pickled] with allium (onions, garlic, leeks). Allim of hullin [pickled] with allium of terumah, or other vegetables of hullin with leeks of terumah are forbidden. But allium of hullin with vegetables of terumah are permitted.

Rabbi Yose says: Anything stewed with [terumah] beets becomes forbidden, because they impart a flavor. Rabbi Shimon says: cabbage from a field artificially irrigated [that is stewed] with [terumah] cabbage from a field watered by rain, is forbidden because it absorbs. Rabbi Akiba says: all things cooked together are permitted, except those with meat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: liver renders other things forbidden, but does not become forbidden, because it gives off [flavor] but does not absorb.

If an egg is boiled with forbidden spices even its yolk is forbidden, because it absorbs. The water in which terumah has been stewed or pickled is forbidden to non-priests.

Chapter 11

One must not put a cake of pressed [terumah] figs or dried [terumah] figs into fish-brine, since it spoils them. But one may place [terumah] wine into fish brine. One must not perfume the oil, But one may put honey and pepper into wine. One may not boil terumah wine, because it decreases it. Rabbi Judah permits this, because it improves it.

[A non-priest drank] honey of dates, wine of apples, vinegar from winter grapes, and all other kinds of fruit juice of terumah: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to repay their value and the fifth; But Rabbi Joshua exempts from the fifth. Rabbi Eliezer declares [these] susceptible to uncleanness as liquids. Rabbi Joshua says: the sages have not enumerated seven liquids as those that count spices, but rather they stated: seven liquids make things susceptible to uncleaness, whereas all other liquids do not make susceptible.

One must not make dates into honey, apples into wine, winter-grapes into vinegar, or change any other kind of fruit that is terumah or second tithe from their natural state, except olives and grapes. One does not receive forty lashes on account of orlah except with that which comes from olives and grapes. Liquids cannot be brought as first fruits, except with that which comes from olives and grapes. And no fruit juice is susceptible to uncleanness as liquids except with that which comes from olives and grapes. And nothing [that is derived from fruit] can be offered on the altar except with that which comes from olives and grapes.

The stems of fresh figs and dried figs, klisim and carobs of terumah are forbidden to non-priests.

Seeds of terumah [fruit]: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Similarly, the bones of holy things: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted. Fine bran of new wheat is forbidden, and old wheat permitted. One may act with regard to terumah as one does with hullin. One who sifts a kav or two [of fine flour] from a seah of wheat, must not leave the rest to ruin, but rather he should put it in a hidden place.

If a store-chamber was cleared of terumah wheat, they do not need to force him to sit down and collect each grain, but rather he may sweep it all up in his usual manner and then deposit hullin in it.

Similarly, if a jar of oil is upset, they do not need to force him to sit down and scoop it up [with his fingers], but he may deal with it as he would in a case of hullin.

One who pours from jar to jar and three drops drip, he may place in it hullin. But if he inclined the jar [on its side] in order to drain it, it is terumah. How much terumat maaser of demai must there be for him to take it to the priest? One eighth of an eighth [of a log].

Vetches of terumah may be given to cattle, to wild beasts or fowls. If an Israelite hired a cow from a priest, he may give it vetches of terumah to eat. But if a priest hired a cow from an Israelite, even though the responsibility of feeding it is his, he must not feed it with vetches of terumah. If an Israelite undertakes the care of a cow from a priest, he must not feed it with vetches of terumah. But if a priest undertakes the care of a cow from an Israelite, he may feed it on vetches of terumah.

One may burn terumah oil that has to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, dark alleys, and for sick people with permission of the priest. If the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest regularly goes to her father's house, her father may burn [such oil] with her permission. One may also burn [such oil] in a house of celebration but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: in the house of mourning, but not in a house of celebration. Rabbi Meir forbids it in both places. But Rabbi Shimon permits it in both places.

משנה מעשרות

Chapter 1

They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes. And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages. But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.

When do fruits become liable for tithes?Figs from the time they begin to ripe. Grapes and wild grapes in the early stages of ripening. Sumac and mulberries after they become red; [similarly] all red fruits, after they become red. Pomegranates, when the insides become soft. Dates when they begin to swell. Peaches when [red] veins begin to show. Walnuts when the nuts are separate from the shell. Rabbi Judah says: walnuts and almonds, after their inner skins have been formed.

Carobs [are liable to] tithes after they form dark spots; similarly all black fruits after they form dark spots. Pears and crustumenian pears, quinces, and medlars [are liable to tithes] after their surface begins to grow smooth; similarly all white fruits, after their surface begins to grow smooth. Fenugreek [is liable to tithe] when the seeds [can be planted and] will grow. Grain and olives after they are one-third ripe.

With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]:Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening. Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages. The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.

What is considered a “threshing floor” for tithes [i.e. when does produce become liable for tithes]?Cucumbers and gourds [are liable for tithes] once he removes their fuzz. And if he doesn’t remove it, once he makes a pile. Melons once he removes the fuzz with hot water. And if they he does not remove the fuzz, once he stores them in the muktzeh. Vegetables which are tied in bundles, from the time he ties them up in bundles. If he does not tie them up in bundles, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather. [Produce which is packed in] a basket [is liable for tithes] after he has covered it. If he is not going to cover it, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather. When does this apply? When one brings [the produce] to the market. But when he brings it to his own house, he may make a chance meal of it, until he reaches his house.

Dried pomegranate seeds, raisins and carobs, [are liable for tithes] after he has made a pile. Onions, once he removes the onion seeds. If he does not remove the onion seeds, after he makes a pile. Grain, once he smoothes out the pile. If he does not smooth the pile, after he makes a pile. Pulse, after he has sifted it. If he does not sift, after he smoothes out a pile. Even after he has smoothed out the pile, he may [without tithing] take from the broken ears, from the sides of the piles, and from that which is mixed in with the chaff, and eat.

Wine [is liable for tithes] after it has been skimmed [in the lower part of the winepress]. Even though it has been skimmed, he may take from the upper winepress, or from the duct, and drink [without taking out tithe]. Oil [is liable for tithes] after it has gone down into the trough. But even after it has gone down into the trough he may still take oil from the pressing bale, or from the press beam, or from the boards between the press [without tithing,] And he may put such oil on a cake, or large plate. But he should not put the oil in a dish or stewpot, while they are boiling. Rabbi Judah says: he may put it into anything except that which contains vinegar or brine.

A cake of pressed figs [is liable for tithes] from the moment it has been smoothed out [with fruit juice]. They may smooth them out with [the juice of] untithed figs or grapes. Rabbi Judah forbids this. If one smoothed with grapes, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says it is susceptible. Dried figs [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed [into a jar]. And [figs] stored in a bin [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed. If one was pressing [the figs] into a jar, or pressing them in a storage bin, and the jar was broken or the storage bin opened, he may not make a chance meal of them. Rabbi Yose permits this.

Chapter 2

If one was passing through the street, and said “Take for yourself from my figs,” one may eat them and be exempt from tithes. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they must separate [tithes and terumah] as if they were certainly untithed. [If he said], “Take and bring it into your houses,” they may not make a chance meal of them. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they need tithe them only as demai.

If they were sitting at the gate or a shop, and one said [to them], “Take for yourselves figs,” they may eat and be exempt from tithes, but the owner of the gate, or the owner of the shop, is liable [to give tithe]. Rabbi Judah exempts him unless he turns his face or changes the place where he was sitting [and selling].

One who brings produce from the Galilee to Judea, or if he goes up to Jerusalem, he may eat of them until he arrives at the place to which he intends to go, and the same is true when he returns. Rabbi Meir says: [he may eat] until he reaches the place where he intends to rest [on Shabbat]. But peddlers who travel from town to town may eat until they reach the place where they intend to stay over night. Rabbi Judah says: the first house [he reaches] is his house.

Produce from which he separated terumah before its work was finished: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is forbidden to make a chance meal of it, But the sages permit it except when it is a basket of figs. A basket of figs from which one separated terumah: Rabbi Shimon permits it. But the sages forbid it.

One who says to his friend: “Here is this issar, give me five figs for it”, he may not eat of [them] until he has tithed them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if he ate them one by one, he is exempt, but if he gathered them [to eat them] together, he is liable [to tithe.] Rabbi Judah said: it happened in a rose-garden in Jerusalem that there were figs being sold three or four for an issar, and neither terumah nor tithe was ever given from it.

One who says to his friend: “Here is an issar for ten figs which I choose for myself,” he may choose them and eat [one at a time without tithing]. [If he said] “For a cluster of grapes which I choose for myself,” he may pick grapes from the cluster and eat. [If he said], “For a pomegranate which I choose for myself,” he may take apart [the pomegranate] and eat [it one piece at a time]. [If he said] “For a watermelon, which I choose for myself,” he may slice and eat [it one piece at a time]. But if he said “For these twenty figs,” or “For these two clusters,” or “For these two water-melons,” he may eat them in his usual way and be exempt [from tithe], because he bought them while they were still attached to the ground.

One who has hired a worker to help him harvest figs, and he [the worker] said to him “On condition that I may eat the figs,” he may eat them and he is exempt [from tithing]. [If he said,] “On condition that I and my son may eat,” or “that my son may eat of them in lieu of my receiving a wage,” he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but his son may eat but he is liable [for tithes]. [If he said,] “On condition that I may eat of them during the time of the fig harvest, and after the fig harvest,” during the time of the fig harvest he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but if he eats after the fig harvest he is liable, since he does not eat of them in the manner mandated by the Torah. This is the general rule: one who eats in a manner mandated by the Torah is exempt [from tithes], and one who does not eat in the manner mandated by the Torah is liable.

If a man is working [as a hired worker] among cooking figs, he may not eat of white figs, and if among white figs, he may not eat of cooking figs, but he may restrain himself until he reaches the place where there are the better figs, and then he may eat. If a man exchanges with his friend either [figs] for eating for [figs] for eating, or [figs] to be dried for figs [to be dried], of figs [for eating] for figs [to be dried], then he is liable to give tithes. Rabbi Judah says: one who exchanges [figs] for [other figs for eating] is liable, but [if for figs] for drying he is exempt.

Chapter 3

One who was taking figs through his courtyard to be dried, his children and the other members of his household may eat [of them] and they are exempt [from tithes]. The workers [who work] with him may eat and be exempt so long as he is not obliged to provide for them. If however, he is obligated to provide for them they may not eat.

One who brought his workers into the field, when he is not obligated to provide for them, they may eat and be exempt from tithes. If, however, he is obligated to provide for them they may eat of the figs one at a time, but not from the basket, nor from the large basket, nor from the storage yard.

One who hired a worker to work with olives and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the olives,” he may eat of them one at a time and be exempt [from tithes]. If, however, he gathered several together he is liable [for tithes]. [If he had been hired] to weed out onions, and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the vegetables,” he may pluck leaf by leaf, and eat [without tithing]. If, however, he gathered several together, he is liable [for tithes].

If one found cut figs on the road, or even beside a field [where cut figs] have been spread [to dry], and similarly, if a fig tree overhangs the road, and he found figs beneath it, they are allowed [with regard to the laws] of robbery, and they are exempt from tithe. But if they were olives and carobs, they are liable. If one found dried figs, then if the majority of people had already trodden [their figs], he must tithe [them], but if not he is exempt. If one found slices of fig-cake he is liable [to tithe] since it is obvious they come from something whose processing had been fully completed. With carobs, if they had not yet been on the top of the roof, he may take some down for his animals and be exempt [from tithe] since he returns that which is left over.

Which courtyard is it which makes [the produce] liable to tithe? Rabbi Ishmael says: the Tyrian yard for the vessels are protected therein. Rabbi Akiva says: any courtyard which one person may open and another may shut is exempt. Rabbi Nehemiah says: any courtyard in which a man is not ashamed to eat is liable. Rabbi Yose says: any courtyard into which a person may enter and no one says to him, “what are you looking for” is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: if there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one makes liable and the outer one is exempt.

Roofs do not render [produce] liable, even though they belong to a courtyard which renders it liable. A gate house, portico, or balcony, are like the courtyard [to which it belongs]; if [the courtyard] makes the [produce] liable [for tithes] so do they, and if it does not, they do not.

Cone-shaped huts, watchtowers, and sheds in the field do not render [produce] liable. A sukkah-hut like those used in Ginnosar, even though it contains millstones and poultry, does not render [produce] liable. As for the potter’s sukkah-hut, the inner part renders [produce] liable and the outer part does not. Rabbi Yose says: anything which is not both a sunny season and rainy season dwelling does not render [produce] liable [to tithes]. A sukkah used on the Festival [of Sukkot]: Rabbi Judah says: this renders [produce] liable [for tithes] But the sages exempt.

A fig tree which stands in a courtyard: one may eat the figs from it one at a time and be exempt [from tithes], but if he gathered some together he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: if he has [one in his right hand and one in his left hand and one in his mouth, he is exempt. If he ascended to the top [of it], he may fill his bosom and eat.

A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing]. Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes]. Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.

A fig tree which stands in a courtyard, and hangs over into a garden: one may eat in his customary fashion and be exempt [from tithes]. If it stands in the garden and hangs over into the courtyard, one may eat [the figs] one at a time and be exempt, but if he gathers them together, he is liable [for tithes]. If it stands in the land [of Israel] and hangs over [into the territory] outside the land, or if it stands outside the land, and hangs over into the land, [in all these cases the law is] decided according to the position of the root. And as regards houses in walled cities, everything is decided according to the position of the root. But as regards cities of refuge, everything is decided [also] according to the location of the branches. And in what concerns Jerusalem, everything is decided by the location of the branches.

Chapter 4

If he pickled, stewed, or salted [produce], he is liable [to give tithes]. If he stored [produce] in the ground [in order to warm it up] he is exempt. If he dipped it [while yet] in the field, he is exempt. If he split olives so that the bitter taste may come out of them, he is exempt. If he squeezed olives against his skin, he is exempt. If he squeezed them and put [the oil] into his hand, he is liable. One who makes a viscous liquid [from grapes or olives] in order to put it in a dish is exempt. But if to put it in an [empty] pot, he is liable for it is like a small vat.

Children who have hidden figs [in the field] for Shabbat and they forgot to tithe them, they must not be eaten after Shabbat until they have been tithed. In the case of a basket of fruits for Shabbat: Bet Shammai exempt it from tithes; But Bet Hillel makes it liable. Rabbi Judah says: even one who has gathered a basket of fruit to send as a present to his friend, must not eat of them, until they have been tithed.

One who took olives from a vat may dip them one at a time in salt, and eat them. But if he salted them, and put them in front of him, he is liable [for tithes]. Rabbi Eliezer said: from a pure vat he is liable but from an impure [vat] he is exempt because can put back the leftovers.

One may drink [wine] out of the winepress, whether [it is mixed] with hot or cold water, and be exempt [from tithes], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says he is liable. But the sages say: with hot water he is liable [to tithe] but with cold water, he is exempt.

One who husks barley may husk one at a time and eat [without tithing], but if he husked and put them into his hand, he is liable [to tithe]. One who rubs [ears of] wheat may blow out [the chaff of the wheat] from hand to hand and eat, but if he blows and puts the grain in his lap he is liable. Coriander which was sown for the sake of the seed, the plant is exempt [from tithes]. If he sowed it for the sake of the plant then both the seed and the plant must be tithed. Rabbi Eliezer said: as for dill, tithe must be given from the seed and the plant, and the pods. But the sages say: only in the case of cress and eruca are both the seeds and plant tithed.

Rabban Gamaliel says: shoots of fenugreek, of mustard, and of white beans are liable [to tithe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: as for the caper bush, tithes must be given from the shoots, the berries and the blossoms. Rabbi Akiba says: only the berries are tithed since they [alone] count as fruit.

Chapter 5

One who uproots saplings from of his own [property] and plants them [elsewhere] within his own [property] is exempt [from tithes]. If he bought [saplings] attached to the ground, he is exempt. If he gathered them in order to send them to his fellow, he is exempt. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: if similar ones were being sold in the market, behold they are liable [for tithes].

One who uproots turnips and radishes from within his own [property] and plants [them elsewhere] within his own [property] for the purpose of seed, he is liable to tithe, since this is [equivalent to] their threshing floor. If onions take root in an upper story they become clean from any impurity. If some debris fell upon them and they are uncovered, they are regarded as though they were planted in the field.

One may not sell produce after the season for tithing has arrived to one who is not trusted concerning tithes. Nor in the sabbatical year [may one sell sabbatical year produce] to one suspected of [transgressing] the sabbatical year. If only [some] produce ripened, he takes the ripe ones and may sell the remainder.

One may not sell his straw, nor his olive peat, or his grape pulp to one who is not to be trusted in [with respect to] tithes, for him to extract the juice from them. If he did extract the juice he is liable for tithes, but is exempt from terumah, because when one separates terumah he has in mind the fragments which [is] by the sides, and that which is inside the straw.

One who buys a field of vegetables in Syria: If before the season for tithing arrived, then he is liable to tithe. If after the season for tithing he is exempt, and he may go on gathering in his usual manner. Rabbi Judah says: he may even hire workers and gather. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: When does this apply? If he has bought the land. But if, he has not bought the land, even before the season for tithing arrived he is exempt. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says: he must also tithe according to calculation.

One who makes grape-skin wine, and he put water on by measure, and he finds [afterwards] the same quantity, he is exempt from tithe. Rabbi Judah makes him liable. If he found more than the measure, he must give [tithe] for it from another place, in proportion.

Anthills which have remained the whole night near a pile of grain which was liable to tithe, [the grain found in them] is liable, since it is obvious that they [the ants] have been dragging away the whole night from something [of which the work] had been completed.

Garlic from Balbeck, onions from Rikpa, Cicilician beans and Egyptians lentils, and Rabbi Meir says qirqas, and Rabbi Yose says qotnym are exempt from tithes and may be brought from any man in the seventh year. The seeds of upper arum pods, the seeds of leeks, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and other seeds of garden produce which are not eaten, are exempt from tithes, and may be bought from any man in the seventh year; and even though the plants from they grew were terumah, they may still be eaten [by non-priests].

משנה מעשר שני

Chapter 1

Second tithe: one may not sell it, use it as a pledge, exchange it, or use it as a weight. One may not say to his friend [even] in Jerusalem: “Here is [second tithe] wine, give me [in exchange] oil, and the same with all other produce. But people may give it to one another as a free gift.

Tithe of cattle: one may not sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when it is blemished [one may not sell it] neither alive nor slaughtered, nor may one betroth a woman with it. A first-born animal: one may sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when blemished [one may sell it] both alive and slaughtered, and one may betroth a wife with it. One may not redeem second tithe with unstamped coins, nor with coins which are not current, nor for money which is not in one's possession.

One who bought a domesticated animal for a shelamim offering or a wild animal for non-sacrificial eating, the hide becomes hullin [non-sacred], even though the value of the hide exceeds the value of the flesh. Sealed jars of wine [which were bought] in a place where they were usually sold sealed, the jars are hullin. Walnuts and almonds, their shells become hullin. Grape-skin wine: before it has fermented it cannot be bought with second tithe money, but after it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money.

One who bought a wild animal for a shelamim offering or a domesticated beast for non-sacrificial eating, the hide does not become hullin. Open or sealed jars of wine [which were bought] in a place where they are usually sold open, the jars do not become hullin. Baskets of olives or baskets of grapes [bought] together with the vessel, the value of the vessel does not become hullin.

One who bought water or salt, or produce still joined to the soil, or produce which cannot reach Jerusalem, he has not purchased maaser [sheni]. One who bought produce unwittingly, the money must be restored to its former place. But if intentionally, the produce must be taken up and be consumed in the [holy] place, and when there is no Temple, it must be left to rot.

One who bought a domesticated animal unwittingly, the money must be restored to its former place. Intentionally, it must be taken up and eaten in the [holy] place. And when there is no Temple, it must be buried together with its hide.

One may not buy male slaves or female slaves, land, or unclean animals with maaser sheni money. And if he did buy [one of these], its value must be consumed [as maaser sheni in Jerusalem]. One may not bring bird-offerings of a zav or zavah, or bird-offerings of women after child-birth, or sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings, from maaser sheni money. And if he did buy [one of these], their value must be consumed [as maaser sheni in Jerusalem]. This is the general rule: whatever [is bought] out of maaser sheni money which cannot be used for eating or drinking or anointing, its value must be consumed [as maaser sheni in Jerusalem].

Chapter 2

Second tithe is set apart for eating, for drinking and for anointing; for eating what is usually eaten, for drinking what is usually drunk, and for anointing what is usually used for anointing. One may not anoint oneself with wine or with vinegar, but one may anoint oneself with oil. One may not spice oil of second tithe, nor may one buy spiced oil with second tithe money. But one may spice wine. If honey or spices fell into wine and improved its value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If fish was cooked with leek of second tithe and it improved in value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If dough of second tithe was baked and it improved in value, the whole improved value is second [tithe]. This is the general rule: whenever the improvement is recognizable the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion, but whenever the improved value is not recognizable the improved value belongs to the second [tithe].

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Fenugreek of second tithe may be eaten when it is still tender. Fenugreek of terumah: Bet Shammai says: whatever is done with it must be done in a state of purity, except when it is used for cleansing the head. But Bet Hillel says: whatever is done with it may be done in a state of impurity, except soaking it in water.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

Hullin coins and second tithe coins which were scattered together: whatever is picked up [one at a time] belongs to second tithe until the sum is completed, and the remainder is hullin. If they were so mixed up as to be taken up by the handful, [they are divided] according to the proportion. This is the general rule: what is picked up [one at a time] must be first given to second tithe, but [what is picked up] mixed [quantity is divided] according to the proportion.

A sela of maaser sheni which was mixed up with a sela of hullin, one may bring copper coins for the sela and say: “Let the sela of maaser sheni wherever it may be, be exchanged for these coins.” Then he must select the better of the two selas, and change [again] the copper coins for it. For they have said: one may change silver for copper [only] in case of necessity, and not to leave it so but to change it again for silver.

Bet Shammai says: one may not turn his selas into gold dinars. But Bet Hillel permits it. Rabbi Akiva said: For Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua I turned silver into gold dinars.

One who changes copper coins of second tithe for a sela: Bet Shammai says: he may change copper coins for a whole sela. But Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Rabbi Meir says: one may not exchange silver and produce for silver. But the sages allow it.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem:Bet Shammai says: he may exchange the whole sela for copper coins. Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Those discussing before the sages say: silver for three dinars and copper coins for one denar. Rabbi Akiva says: silver for three denars and copper coins for a fourth [of the fourth denar]. Rabbi Tarfon says: four aspers in silver. Shammai says: he must leave it in a shop and eat as much as it is worth.

If one had some of his sons pure and some impure, he may put down a sela and say: “What the pure drink, this sela will be redeemed for it.” In this way the pure and the impure may drink from one jar.

Chapter 3

One should not say to his friend: “Carry up this [second tithe] produce to Jerusalem that in order to divide it.” Rather he should say to him, “Carry it up that so that we may eat and drink of it in Jerusalem.” But people may give it to one another as a free gift.

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests?

One who has [second tithe] money in Jerusalem and he needs [to spend] it, and his friend had [non-sacred] produce, he may say to his friend: “Let this money be exchanged for your produce.” It turns out that the one [must] eat his produce in purity and the other may do what he needs with his money. But he may not say thus to an am haaretz except when [the money was] from [second tithe of] demai.

If [one had hullin] produce in Jerusalem and [second tithe money] in the provinces, he may say: “Let that money be exchanged for this produce.” If [he had second tithe] money in Jerusalem and [hullin] produce in the provinces, he may say: “Let this money be exchanged for that produce,” as long as he will carry that produce and eat it in Jerusalem.

[Second tithe] money may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again, but [second tithe] produce may only be brought in, but not taken out again. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: produce also may be brought in and be taken out again.

Produce whose processing was completed and it passed through Jerusalem, its second tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If its processing had not been completed, [such as] baskets of grapes [that were going] to the wine-press or baskets of figs [that were going] to the drying-place: Bet Shammai says: its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. But Bet Hillel says: it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning produce whose processing had not been completed that its second tithe may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. What did they disagree about? About produce whose processing was completed. Bet Shammai says that its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. And Bet Hillel says that it may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. [The second tithe of] demai may [always] be brought in and taken out again and be redeemed.

A tree which stood within [Jerusalem] and was bending outwards, or if it stood outside [Jerusalem] and was bending inwards, what is opposite the wall and inwards is deemed as being within, and what is opposite the wall and outwards is deemed as being outside. Olive-presses which have their entrance within and their inner space outside, or which have their entrance outside and their inner space within: Bet Shammai says: the whole is deemed as being within. But Bet Hillel says: what is opposite the wall and inwards is deemed as being within, and what is opposite the wall and outwards is deemed as being outside.

The chambers [of the Temple] which were built on holy ground but were open towards common ground: their interior was deemed common and their roofs were deemed holy. Those which were built on common ground but were open towards holy ground: their interior was deemed holy and their roofs were deemed common. Those which were built both on holy and on common ground and were open both towards holy and common ground: the interior and the roofs that were on holy ground and inwards were deemed holy, but [the interior and roofs] on common ground and outwards were deemed common.

Second tithe which was brought into Jerusalem and became unclean, whether it became unclean by a principal defilement or by a secondary defilement, whether it became unclean within [Jerusalem] or outside:Bet Shammai says: it must all be redeemed and be eaten within except that which became unclean by a principal defilement outside. But Bet Hillel says: it must all be redeemed and may be eaten outside except that which became unclean by a secondary defilement within.

If that which was bought with maaser sheni money became unclean, it should be redeemed. R. Judah says: it must be buried. They said to Rabbi Judah: if maaser sheni itself when it became unclean may be redeemed, should not also that which is bought with maaser sheni money be redeemed when it became unclean? He said to them: No! If you say this of maaser sheni itself, it is because it may be redeemed also when pure at a distance from the [holy] place. But how can you say this of that which is bought with maaser sheni money, seeing that it cannot be redeemed when clean at a distance from the [holy] place.

If a deer which had been bought with maaser sheni money died, it must be buried together with its hide. Rabbi Shimon says: it may be redeemed. If it was bought alive and slaughtered and it then became unclean, it may be redeemed. Rabbi Yose says: it must be buried. If it was bought slaughtered and it became unclean, behold it is like produce.

One who lends jars for maaser sheni [wine], even if they were corked, they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. If wine was poured into them without specifying [that it was for sale] they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni before they are corked, but after they are corked they acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. Before they are corked they are neutralized in a hundred and one, but after they are corked they sanctify any quantity. Before they are corked terumah may be taken from one jar for all the others, but after they are corked terumah must be taken from each jar separately.

Bet Shammai says: the jars must be opened and emptied into the wine-press. Bet Hillel says: they must be opened but need not be emptied. When does this apply? In a place where they are usually sold closed, but in a place where they are usually sold open, the jar does not revert to hullin. If, however, he wishes to be stringent upon himself and to sell [only] by measure, the jar reverts hullin. Rabbi Shimon says: also when one says to his friend, “This jar [of wine] I am selling to you from its jar, the jar reverts to hullin.

Chapter 4

One who carries produce of maaser sheni from a place where it is expensive to a place where it is cheap, or from a place where it is cheap to a place where it is expensive, he redeems it according to the market price of the place [where he redeems it]. One who brings produce from the threshing-floor into the city, or jars of wine from the wine-press into the city, the increase in the price belongs to maaser sheni and the expenses [must be covered] from his household.

Maaser sheni may be redeemed at the lower market price: At the price at which the shopkeeper buys and not at which he sells. At the price at which the money-changer takes small change and not at the price at which he gives small change. Maaser sheni may not be redeemed in an estimated lump. If its value is known, it may be redeemed according to the evaluation of one. But if its value is not known, it must be redeemed according to the evaluation of three, as for instance in the case of wine which has formed a film, or produce which has begun to rot, or coins which have become rusty.

If the owner says, “With a sela [I will redeem this maaser sheni] and another person says “With a sela,” the owner has the first right, because he must add a fifth. If the owner says “With a sela” and another person says “With a sela and an issar,” the one who offered a sela and an issar has the first right, because he added to the principal. When one redeems his maaser sheni he must add a fifth, whether it is his own or it was given him as a gift.

One may act in a deceptive manner when it comes to maaser sheni. How so? A man may say to his grown-up son or daughter, or to his Hebrew slave or female slave, “Take this money and redeem this maaser sheni for yourself.” But he may not say so to his son or daughter who are minors or to his Canaanite slave or female slave, because their hand is as his own hand.

One who was standing at the threshing-floor and didn’t have any coins may say to his friend: “Behold, this produce is given to you as a gift,” and then he may say again, “Behold, let this produce be exchanged for money which I have in the house.”

If one took possession from the owner of maaser sheni for a sela, but before he had time to redeem it, it stood at the price of two selas, he may give him one sela and make a profit of one sela and the maaser sheni remains his. If he took possession from the owner of maaser sheni for two selas, but before he had time to redeem it, it stood at the price of one sela, he may give him one sela out of hullin [money] and one sela of his maaser sheni money. If the owner was an am haaretz, he should give him out of [maaser sheni of] demai.

If one redeemed maaser sheni but did not call it by its name: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must name it explicitly. If a man was speaking to a woman concerning her divorce or her betrothal, and gave her a get or betrothal money but did not state explicitly [what he was doing]: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must say it explicitly.

One who sets aside an issar [for the redemption of maaser sheni] and on its account he ate [the value of] half [an issar of maaser sheni] and then went to another place where [the issar] was worth a pondion, he may eat of [maaser sheni the value of] another issar. One who sets aside a pundion [for the redemption of maaser sheni] and on its account he ate [the value of] half [a pundion of maaser sheni] and then went to another place where [the pundion] was worth an issar, he may eat [maaser sheni the value of] another half [an issar]. One who sets aside an issar of maaser sheni [money] he should eat on its account eleven parts of the value of an issar, or [he should eat an additional] one hundredth of an issar. Bet Shammai say: in both cases one tenth part [of an issar]. But Bet Hillel says: in the case of certain [maaser sheni] an eleventh part, in the case of demai a tenth part.

Any money found is considered hullin, even gold dinars with silver and with copper coins. If a potsherd was found with the money on which was written “tithe” this is considered maaser sheni [money].

One who finds a vessel one which was written “korban:” Rabbi Judah says: if it was of clay, it is itself hullin and what is in it is a korban (holy). But if it was of metal it is itself korban and what is in it is hullin. They said to him: it is not the custom of people to put what is common into what is korban.

One who finds a vessel on which was written a kof, it is korban. If a mem, it is maaser. If a dalet, it is demai. If a tet, it is tevel (untithed produced). If a tav, it is terumah. For in the time of danger people would write a tav for terumah. Rabbi Yose says: they may all stand for the names of people. Rabbi Yose said: even if he finds a jar which was full of produce and on it was written ‘terumah’ it may yet be considered hullin, because I can say that last year it was full of produce of terumah and was afterwards emptied.

One who says to his son, “There is maaser sheni [produce] in this corner,” but the son found [produce] in another corner, this may be considered hullin. [If the father said] there was there a hundred [of maaser sheni] and the son found two hundred, the remainder is hullin. [If the father said there were there] two hundred and the son found one hundred, it is all maaser sheni.

Chapter 5

A vineyard in its fourth year, they mark it with clods of earth, and of orlah with potter's clay, and graves with lime which is dissolved and poured on. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: When does this apply? In the seventh year. The conscientious used to put down money and say: any fruit gathered from this vineyard may be exchanged for this money.

[The produce of] a vineyard in its fourth year was brought up to Jerusalem within a distance of one day’s journey on each side. And what is the border [of a day’s journey on each side]? Eilat to the south, Akrabat on the north, Lod to the west, and the Jordan [river] to the east. When produce increased, it was decreed that it can be redeemed even if the vineyard was close to the wall. And there was a stipulation on this matter, that whenever it was so desired, the arrangement would be restored as it had been before. Rabbi Yose says: this was the stipulation after the Temple was destroyed, and the stipulation was that when the Temple should be rebuilt the arrangement would be restored as it had been before.

[The grapes of] a vineyard in its fourth year:Bet Shammai says: the laws of the added fifth and removal do not apply to them; But Bet Hillel says: they do. Bet Shammai says: the laws of peret and the defective clusters apply to them, and the poor can redeem the grapes for themselves. But Bet Hillel says: all [of them] go to the wine-press.

How does one redeem the fruit of a plant in its fourth year? The owner puts down a basket in the presence of three [people] and says: “How many such baskets would a man wish to redeem for himself for a sela on condition that the costs [to produce the fruit] shall be on his house? And then he puts down the money and says: “Whatever shall be picked from this plant may it be exchanged for this money at the price of so many baskets for a sela.”

But in the seventh year he must redeem it for its full value. If [in other years] it had all been made ownerless property, the person [who redeems it] can only claim the cost of picking it. One who redeems his own plant in its fourth year, he must add a fifth of its value, whether the fruit was his own or was given him as a gift.

On the eve of the first [others read “last”] festival-day of Pesah in the fourth and in the seventh [years of the sabbatical cycle] the removal was performed. Terumah and the terumah of tithe were given to their owners, the first tithe was given to its owner, the tithe of the poor to its owner, and maaser sheni and first-fruits were removed in every place. Rabbi Shimon says: first-fruits were given to the priests like terumah. As for a cooked dish [with maaser sheni in it]: Bet Shammai says: it must be removed. But Bet Hillel say: lo, it may be considered as already removed.

One who had produce at this time and the time of removal arrived:Bet Shammai says: he must exchange it for money. But Bet Hillel says: it is all the same whether it becomes money or it remains fruit.

Rabbi Judah said: in early times they used to send to householders in the provinces [saying:] “Hasten to set right your produce before the time of removal arrives,” until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that all produce which has not reached the time of tithing is exempt from the removal.

One whose produce was far away from him, he must call it by name. Once it happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling by ship, and Rabban Gamaliel said: “The tithe which I shall measure out in the future is given to Joshua, and the place which it is in is leased to him. The other tithe which I shall measure out in the future is given to Akiva ben Joseph that he may hold it for the poor, and the place which it is in is leased to him.” Rabbi Joshua said: “The tithe [taken from terumah] which I shall measure out is given to Elazar ben Azariah, and the place which it is in is leased to him,” and they each received rent one from another.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

“According to all Your commandments which You have commanded me,” thus, if he took out maaser sheni before the first tithe he cannot make the confession. “I have not transgressed any of Your commandments” I have not set apart [tithes] from one kind for a different kind, nor from plucked [produce] for [produce still] joined [to the soil], nor from new [produce] for old [produce], nor from old [produce] for new. “Neither have I forgotten” I have not forgotten to bless You, nor to make mention of Your name over it.

“I have not eaten from it in my mourning” thus, if he had eaten it in his mourning (aninut), he cannot make the confession. “Neither have I removed any of it when unclean” thus, if he had removed it in uncleanness he cannot make the confession. “And I have not given any of it to the dead” I have not used any of it for a coffin or shrouds for the dead, and I have not given any of it to other mourners. “I have listened to the voice of the Lord my God” I have brought it to the chosen house. “I have done just as you commanded me I have rejoiced and made others rejoice.

“Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven” We have done what You decreed upon us, You too do what You have promised us. “Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters. “And the land which You have given us” with dew and rain and with offspring of cattle. “As You swore to our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey” that You may give a good taste to the produce.

From here they said that Israelites and mamzerim may make the confession, but not converts, nor freed slaves, since they have no inheritance in the land. Rabbi Meir says: neither do priests and Levites since they did not take a share of the land. Rabbi Yose says: they have the Levitical cities.

Yohanan the high priest stopped [the recitation] of the confession of the tithes. He also abolished the “wakers” and the “strikers.” Until his days the hammer used to beat in Jerusalem. And in his days one did not have to ask about demai.

משנה חלה

Chapter 1

Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity]. And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer. If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.

If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet. If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah. If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (produce), he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only. They are subject to hallah and tithes.

The following are subject to hallah, but exempt from tithes: gleanings, from the forgotten sheaf, from peah or from ownerless produce and the first tithe from which terumah has been removed, second tithe and consecrated [produce] which has been redeemed, and that which remains over from the omer, and grain which has not grown one-third [ripe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: grain which has not grown one-third [ripe] is exempt [also] from hallah.

The following are liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah: rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse, and less than five-fourths [of a kab] of [the five kinds of] grain, sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan and medumma are exempt from hallah.

Dough which was originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, and in the end is [cooked as] sponge-cake, is exempt from hallah. [If it was] originally [ordinary] dough, but in the end [cooked as] sponge-cakes, [or if it was] originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, but finally [cooked as ordinary] dough, it is subject to hallah. Similarly, bread crumbs (kenuvkaot) are subject [to hallah].

Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah]. Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts. The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].

A baker who made dough to divide it up into pieces, it is subject to hallah. Women who gave [flour] to a baker to make for them dough, if there is not in any one of them a [minimum] measure, it is exempt from hallah.

Dough for dogs:If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah. But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.

In the case of hallah and terumah:One is liable for death on account of [having eaten] them death [intentionally], or to [repay] an added fifth [if unwittingly]; They are forbidden to non-priests; They are the property of the priest; They are nullified [in a mixture of] one-hundred-and-one [parts, the rest being non-sacred dough or produce]; They require washing of one’s hands; And [waiting until] the setting of the sun [prior to eating them]; They may not be separated from pure [stuff] for impure; But rather from that which is close, And from that [in a] finished [state]. If one said: “All my threshing-floor is terumah, or all my dough is hallah,” he has not said anything, unless he has left some over.

Chapter 2

Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah. [If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.

Earth from outside the land has come to the land [of Israel] in a boat, [the produce grown in it] is subject to tithes and to the [law relating to] the seventh year. Rabbi Judah: when does this apply? When the boat touches [the ground]. Dough which has been kneaded with fruit-juice is subject to hallah, and may be eaten with unclean hands.

A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself but a man may not. If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs, rather than make it in uncleanness. But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he cals hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.

One who makes his dough [in separate] kavs, and they touch one another, they are exempt from hallah unless they stick together. Rabbi Eliezer says: also if one takes out [loaves from an oven] and puts [them] into a basket, the basket joins them together for [the purposes of] hallah.

If one separates his hallah [while it is still] flour, it is not hallah, and in the hand of a priest it is considered stolen property. The dough is still subject to hallah; And the flour, if there is the minimum quantity, it [also is] subject to hallah. And it is prohibited to non-priests, the words of Rabbi Joshua. They said to him: It happened that a non-priest sage seized it [for himself]. He said to them: He did something damaging to himself, but he benefited others.

Five-fourths [of a kav] of flour are subject to hallah. If their leaven, their light bran and their coarse bran [make up the] five-fourths, they are subject. If their coarse bran had been removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt.

The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough]. If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth. If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth. If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth. If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Hallah may be taken from [dough] that is clean, [in order to exempt] that which is unclean. How [may this be done]? [If one has] clean dough and unclean dough, he takes sufficient hallah out of the [clean] dough whose hallah has not yet been taken, and puts [dough] less than the size of an egg in the middle, in order that he may take off [the hallah] from what is close together. But the sages prohibit.

Chapter 3

One may snack from dough, until it is rolled, in [the case of] wheat [flour], or before it is made into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour]. [Once] one has rolled it [in the case of] wheat [flour], or made it into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour], one who eats it is liable for death [at the hands of heaven]. As soon as she puts in the water she should lift out the hallah, provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.

Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah]. If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness.

[If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. [If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. [But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt.

Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.

If a Gentile gave [flour] to an Israelite to make for him dough, it is exempt from hallah. If the Gentile gave it to him as a gift, before rolling it, he is liable. If after rolling it, he is exempt. If one makes dough together with a Gentile, then if there is not in [the portion] of the Israelite the minimum measure subject to hallah, it is exempt from hallah.

A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable. And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth. Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.

One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah. But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.

One who takes leaven out of dough from which hallah had not been taken and puts it into dough from which hallah had been taken:If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [hallah] in accordance with the precise amount. But if does not, he takes out one [portion of] hallah for the whole [dough].

Similarly, if olives of [regular] picking became mixed with olives [left over] for striking-off [by the poor], or grapes of [regular] picking, with grapes [left over] for gleaning [by the poor]:If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [terumah and tithes] in accordance with the precise amount. But if does not, he takes out one terumah and terumat maaser for all of the grapes. And as for the rest, [he takes out] tithe and the second tithe in accordance with the precise amount.

One who takes leaven from a dough of wheat [flour] and puts [it] into dough of rice [flour], [then] if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, [but] if not, it is exempt. If so, why did they say: “Untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited”? That is [with regard to a mixture of] a species with its own species, but [with regard to a mixture of a species] not with its own species, only when it imparts taste.

Chapter 4

Two women who made [separate doughs] from two [separate] kavs, and these [doughs] touched one another, even if they are of the same species, they are exempt [from hallah]. When they belong to one woman: If one species [comes into contact] with the same species, they are subject [to hallah]. If different species, they are exempt.

What counts as a species with its same species?Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt; Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.

[If there are two doughs from] two [separate] kavs, and a kav of rice [dough] or a kav of terumah dough [lying] between, they are not reckoned together. [If there was] dough from which hallah had already been taken [lying] between, they are reckoned together, since it had once been subject to hallah.

A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit. One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah.

Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable. It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.

A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity.

An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.

Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table; And it may be given to any priest.

These may be given to any priest:Devoted things (haramim); Firstlings; The redemption of the first born; The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey; The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw; The first of the fleece; Oil [fit only] for burning; Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple; And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim. Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit.

Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them. The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (Shavuot), but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).

Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.

משנה ערלה

Chapter 1

One who plants [a fruit tree] as a fence or to provide wood beams, it is exempt from [the law of] orlah. Rabbi Yose says: even if he said “The inward [facing part of the tree] is for food, and the outward [facing part] is for a fence,” the inward [facing part] is subject [to orlah], and the outward [facing part] is exempt.

If at the time when our ancestors came into the land and they found [a tree already] planted it was exempt [from the laws of orlah]. If they planted [a tree], even though they had not yet conquered [the land], it was subject [to orlah]. If one planted a tree for [the use of] the many, it is subject. But Rabbi Judah makes it exempt. If one has planted [a tree] in the public domain, or if a non-Jew has planted, or if a robber has planted, or one who plants on a boat, or [a tree] that has grown of itself, it is subject to orlah.

If a tree was uprooted and the hard soil together with it, or if a stream swept it away and the hard soil together with it, [then] if it could have lived it is exempt, But if [it could] not, it is subject. If the hard soil has been detached from its side, or if a ploughshare shook it, or if someone shook it, and one reset it with earth, [then] if it could have lived, it is exempt, But if not, it is subject.

If a tree was uprooted and one root was left [in the ground], it is exempt. How much must the [thickness of the] root be? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said in the name of Rabb Eliezer ben Judah a man of Bartota: as [thick as] a pin [used for] stretching.

A tree which was uprooted and it has a bent-down [and rooted] shoot, and it [the tree] derives sustenance from it [the shoot], the old [tree] is [considered] like the shoot. If one bends [and roots] from it year after year, and it became detached, one counts from the time it became detached. A grafted shoot of vines, and a grafted shoot [growing] on another grafted shoot, even if he rooted them in the soil, they are permitted. Rabbi Meir said: in an instance where it is strongly [grafted], it is permitted, but in an instance where it is poorly [grafted], it is prohibited. A bent-down [and rooted] shoot that has become detached and is full of fruit, [then] if it increased one two hundredth, it is prohibited.

If a shoot of orlah or a vineyard in which seeds had been planted (kilayim), became mixed up with [other] shoots, behold one may not gather [the fruit]. But if one has gathered [it], it is neutralized in two hundred-and-one, provided that he did not act deliberately. Rabbi Yose says: even if he acted deliberately, it becomes neutralized in two hundred-and-one.

Leaves, sprouts, sap of vines, and vine-buds are permitted in respect of orlah and the laws of the fourth year, and to a nazirite, but are prohibited if they come from an Asherah [tree]. Rabbi Yose says: vine-buds are prohibited because they are fruit. Rabbi Eliezer said: if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substances of [a tree liable to] orlah, it is prohibited. Rabbi Joshua said: I have received an explicit tradition that if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substance of the leaves, or with the resinous substance of the roots, it is permitted, but with the resinous substance of the unripe berries, it is prohibited, because these are fruit.

Defective grapes, grape kernels, grape husks, and the temed drink made from them, the peel of a pomegranate and its sprout, nutshells, and fruit-seeds, are all subject to the laws of orlah, asherah and a nazirite, but permitted in respect of a fourth year vineyard. Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of them.

Rabbi Yose says: one may plant a shoot of orlah; But one may not plant a nut of orlah, because it is fruit. And one may not graft early date berries of orlah.

Chapter 2

Terumah, terumat maaser of demai, hallah and bikkurim, are neutralized in a hundred-and-one mixture. And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum]. And it is necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it]. Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard are neutralized in a two-hundred-and-one mixture. And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum]. But it is not necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it]. Rabbi Shimon says: they are not reckoned together. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are reckoned together when they impart flavor, but not to prohibit.

Terumah can void orlah, and orlah can void terumah. How so? [For instance] a seah of terumah fell into one hundred, and afterwards three kavs of orlah or three kavs of mixed-seeds of the vineyard [fell in]. This is [an instance] where terumah goes towards neutralizing orlah, and orlah terumah.

Orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah. How so? A seah of orlah falls into two hundred [seahs] and afterwards there falls in a seah and a little bit more of orlah, or a seah and a little bit more of kilayim of the vineyard--this is [a case] where orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.

Whatever causes something to ferment, or seasons, or makes medumma with terumah, with orlah or with ‘mixed-seeds’ of the vineyard, is prohibited. Bet Shammai says: it also renders unclean. But Bet Hillel says: it never renders unclean unless it has the volume of an egg.

Dostai of Kefar Yitmah was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai, and he said, “I received a tradition from Shammai the elder who said: “It never renders unclean unless it contains the volume of an egg.”

Concerning what did they say: “Anything that causes fermentation or seasons or which renders medumma we rule stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with its [like] species. [When did they say] “we rule [sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so? If leaven of wheat fell into dough of wheat and there is enough to cause fermentation, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. If there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [then] whether there is enough to cause fermentation, or there is not enough to cause fermentation, it is prohibited.

[We rule sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently, [in the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so? If crushed beans were boiled together with lentils, and there is enough of them [the crushed beans] to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. [But] if there is not enough to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [the mixture] is permitted.

If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough, and there was enough of it to cause fermentation, and after that leaven of terumah fell in or leaven of kilayim of the vineyard, and there is enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.

If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough and caused it to ferment, and after that there fell in leaven of terumah or of kilayim of the vineyard, and there was enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited. But Rabbi Shimon permits it.

Seasonings [consisting] of two or three categories of one species, or [consisting] of three species [of one category], are forbidden and combine. Rabbi Shimon said: Two or three categories of one species, or two species of one category, do not combine.

Leaven of hullin and of terumah fell into dough, and neither this was sufficient to cause fermentation nor was that sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they caused [the dough] to ferment:Rabbi Eliezer says: I go after the last. But the sages say: whether the prohibited fell in first or last, it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.

Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.

Vessels which were oiled with unclean oil, and [later] he returned and oiled them with clean oil; Or he [first] oiled them with clean oil, and [later] he returned [to them] and oiled them with unclean oil: Rabbi Eliezer says: “I go after the first.” And the sages say: after the last.

Leaven of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard which fell into dough, this one is not sufficient to cause fermentation, nor is that one sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation:It [the dough] is prohibited to non-priests and permitted to priests. Rabbi Shimon permits it to both to non-priests and to priests.

Seasonings of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard that fell into a dish, and there is not enough of one to season, nor is there of the other to season, but together they seasoned:It [the dish] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests. Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.

A piece of [meat from] one of the most holy [sacrifices] and [a piece] of [meat which is] piggul, or remnant, which were cooked with other pieces, it [the non-sacred meat] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests. Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.

Meat of most holy [sacrifices] and meat of less holy [sacrifices] were cooked together with ordinary meat: [the dish] is prohibited to the unclean, but permitted to the clean.

Chapter 3

A garment dyed with peels of orlah [fruit] must be burned. If it became mixed up with other [garments], all of them shall be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

If one dyed a thread the whole [length] of a sit with orlah peels, and wove it into a garment, and it is not known which [thread] it is:Rabbi Meir says: the garment must be burned; But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

If one wove thread the whole [length] of a sit from [the wool of a] first-born animal into a garment, the garment must be burned. [If from] the hair of a nazirite or of the first-born of a donkey into sack-cloth, the sack-cloth must be burned. And if even the smallest amount [from wool or hair of] consecrated [animals], that which it is woven into] is consecrated.

A dish which one cooked with shells of orlah must be burned. If [the dish] became mixed up with other [dishes], it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

An oven that was lit with shells of orlah, and then one baked bread in it, the bread must be burned. If it became mixed up with other [loaves] it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

If one has bundles of fenugreek of kilayim of the vineyard, they must be burned. If they became mixed up with others, all of them must be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount]. But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things]. And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder. To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.

How so? If the nuts cracked, or if the pomegranates burst open, or the casks became unstopped, or the pumpkins were cut, or the loaves were broken up, they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.

Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand. New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.

משנה ביכורים

Chapter 1

There are some who bring bikkurim and recite [the declaration]; others who only bring, but do not recite; and there are some who neither bring nor recite.The following are those that do not bring: one who plants [a vine] on his own property, but buries [a shoot in the ground] so that [it] grows on property belonging to [another] individual or to the public. And similarly if one buries [a shoot in the ground] of another person’s private property or in public property, so that it grows on his own property; Or, if one plants [a vine] on his own [property] and [buries it in the ground] so that it still grows on his own property, but there is a private or public road between, such a one does not bring [bikkurim.] Rabbi Judah says: such a one has to bring bikkurim.

For what reason may he not bring them? Because it is said, “The first-fruits of your land” (Exodus 23:19) until all of their growth is on your land. Sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (sikarikon), or a robber does not bring them for the same reason, because it says, “The first-fruits of your land.”

Bikkurim are brought only from the seven species. Not from dates grown on hills, nor from [the other species] grown in the valley, nor from olives that are not choice. Bikkurim are not to be brought before Shavuot. The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (Shavuot), but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).

These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite. [This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).

One who buys two trees [that had grown] in property belonging to his fellow brings bikkurim but does not recite the declaration. Rabbi Meir says: he brings and recites. If the well dried up, or the tree was cut down, he brings but does not recite. Rabbi Judah says: he brings and recites. From Atzeret (Shavuot) until the Festival (of Sukkot) he brings and recites. From the Festival (of Sukkot) and until Hannukah he brings, but does not recite. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: he brings and recites.

If one set aside his bikkurim and [afterwards] sold his field, he brings but does not recite. The second one [who bought the field] does not bring [bikkurim] of the same species, but of another species he brings and recites. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring of the same kind and recite.

If one set aside his bikkurim and they were robbed, or rotted, were stolen or lost, or became unclean, he must bring others in their place, but does not recite [the declaration]. These others are not subject to the law of the [added] fifth. If they become unclean while in the Temple court, he must scatter them and he does not recite.

From where do we know that one is responsible [for his bikkurim] until he brings them to the temple Mount? Because it says: “The first of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19) this teaches that he is responsible until he brings them to the Temple Mount. If he brought [bikkurim] of one kind and made the recital and then brought of another kind, he does not make a [second] recital.

These bring and recite:[One who brings bikkurim] from Atzeret until the Festival [of Sukkot], from the seven species, from fruit grown on the mountains, or dates grown in the valleys, from oil-olives, and from [produce] from the other side of the Jordan. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: one does not bring [bikkurim] from transjordania, since that is not a land flowing with milk and honey.

One who bought three trees in another’s field, he brings [bikkurim] and recites. Rabbi Meir says: even [if he bought] only two. If he bought one tree with its land, he brings [bikkurim] and recites. Rabbi Judah says: even sharecroppers and leasers bring and recite.

Chapter 2

Regarding terumah and bikkurim:One is liable to death And the [additional] fifth; And they are forbidden to non-priests; And they are the property of the priest; And they are neutralized in a hundred and one parts; And they require the washing of hands; And the setting of the sun. These [laws] apply only to terumah and bikkurim, but not to tithe.

There are [laws] which apply to [second tithe] and bikkurim but not to terumah:That [second] tithe and bikkurim must to be brought to [the appointed] place; They require confession; They are forbidden to an onen. But Rabbi Shimon permits [bikkurim to an onen]; They are subject to [the law of] removal. But Rabbi Shimon exempts [bikkurim from removal]. And in Jerusalem the slightest mixture of them [with hullin of the same species] renders it forbidden to be consumed [as common food outside of Jerusalem.] And what grows from them in Jerusalem is forbidden to be consumed [outside of Jerusalem], Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits. These are [the laws] which apply to [second] tithe and bikkurim, but not to terumah.

There are [laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni] but not to bikkurim:Terumah and the [second] tithe render forbidden [the contents of] the threshing-floor; They have a set amount. They apply to all produce; Both during and after Temple times; [And they apply to to produce grown] by sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (sikarikon), or a robber. These are [the laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni], but not to bikkurim.

And there are [laws] which apply to bikkurim which do not [apply] to terumah or maaser sheni:For bikkurim can become acquired while still attached [to the soil]. And a man may make his entire field bikkurim; He is responsible for them; And they require a sacrifice, a song, waving and spending the night in Jerusalem.

The terumah of tithe is like bikkurim in two ways, and like terumah in two other ways:It may be taken from pure produce for impure produce; And from such produce that is not in close proximity, like bikkurim. And it renders the contents of the threshing-floor forbidden, And it has a prescribed amount like terumah.

An etrog is similar in three ways to [the fruit of an ordinary] tree, and in one way to a vegetable. It is similar to a tree in respect of orlah, fourth year plantings, and [the law of] the seventh year; And it is similar to a vegetable in one thing: that its tithing goes according to the time it is harvested, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is similar to a tree in all ways.

The blood of those who walk on two [legs] is like the blood of beasts in that it renders seeds susceptible [to impurity]. And it is like the blood of a sheretz, in that one is not liable for eating it.

A koy is in some ways like a wild animal (hayyah); in some ways it is like a domesticated animal (behemah); in some ways it is like both a behemah and a hayyah, and in some ways it is like neither a behemah nor a hayyah.

How is it like a wild animal?Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal. It may not be slaughtered on a festival. If he slaughtered it, he should not cover its blood. Its fat is impure like that of a wild animal, but its impurity is of doubtful status. One does not redeem with it the first-born of a donkey.

And how is [the koy] similar to a behemah (a domesticated beast)?Its fat (helev) is prohibited like the fat of a behemah, but one [who eats it] is not liable for karet. It may not be bought with the money from second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem. It is subject to [the priest’s share of] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. Rabbi Eliezer exempts it because the burden of proof is upon the one who extracts from his neighbor.

And how is [a koy] neither like a behemah nor like a hayyah?It is forbidden because of kilayim [to yoke it] with either a behemah or a hayyah. One who deeds his son his behemah and his hayyah he has not [thereby] given him the koy. If one says, “I will become a nazirite if this is [not] a hayyah or a behemah”, he is a nazirite. In all other ways it is like a behemah and a hayyah: It requires slaughtering (shehitah) like them both; It carries carrion impurity; And to it applies the law relating to a limb of a living being like them both.

Chapter 3

How does one set aside bikkurim? A man goes down into his field, he sees a fig that ripened, or a cluster of grapes that ripened, or a pomegranate that ripened, he ties a reed-rope around it and says: “Let these be bikkurim.” Rabbi Shimon says: even so, he must again designate them as bikkurim after they have been plucked from the soil.

How were the bikkurim taken up [to Jerusalem]? All [the inhabitants of] the cities of the maamad would assemble in the city of the maamad, and they would spend the night in the open street and they would not entering any of the houses. Early in the morning the officer would say: “Let us arise and go up to Zion, into the house of the Lord our God” (Jeremiah 31:5).

Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins. An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head. The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem. When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim. The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth. All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”

The flute would play before them, until they reached the Temple Mount. When they reached the Temple Mount even King Agrippas would take the basket and place it on his shoulder and walk as far as the Temple Court. When he got to the Temple Court, the Levites would sing the song: “I will extol You, O Lord, for You have raised me up, and You have not let my enemies rejoice over me” (Psalms 30:2).

The birds [tied to] the basket were [offered] as whole burnt-offerings, and those which they held in their hands they gave to the priests.

While the basket was still on his shoulder he recites from: "I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us” (Deuteronomy 26:3) until he completes the passage. Rabbi Judah said: until [he reaches] “My father was a fugitive Aramean” (v.. When he reaches, “My father was a fugitive Aramean”, he takes the basket off his shoulder and holds it by its edges, and the priest places his hand beneath it and waves it. He then recites from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until he completes the entire passage. He then deposits the basket by the side of the altar, bow and depart.

Originally all who knew how to recite would recite while those who did not know how to recite, others would read it for them [and they would repeat the words]. But when they refrained from bringing, they decreed that they should read the words to both those who could and those who could not [recite so that they could repeat after them].

The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets overlaid with silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and the baskets and the bikkurim were given to the priest.

Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says: they would decorate the bikkurim [with produce] other than the seven species. But Rabbi Akiva says: they may decorate only with produce of the seven kinds.

Rabbi Shimon says: there are three elements in bikkurim: the bikkurim, the additions to the bikkurim, and the ornamentations of the bikkurim. The additions to the bikkurim must be of a like kind; But the ornamentations can be of a different kind. The additions to the bikkurim can only be eaten in purity, and are exempt from demai. But the ornamentations of the bikkurim are subject to demai.

When did they say that the additions to the bikkurim are like bikkurim [themselves]? When they come from the land [of Israel]; but if they do not come from the land, they were not regarded as bikkurim [themselves].

In what respect did they say that bikkurim are the property of the priest? In that he can purchase with bikkurim slaves and land and unclean beasts, and a creditor [of his] may take them for his debt, and his wife for her ketubah. As may be done with a Torah scroll. Rabbi Judah says: bikkurim may be given only to [a priest that is] a haver (an associate) and as a favor. But the sages say: they are given to the men of the mishmar, and they divide them among themselves as [they do] with all other consecrated objects.

Chapter 4

The hermaphrodite is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.

In what ways is he like men? He causes impurity with white discharge, like men; He dresses like men; He can take a wife but not be taken as a wife, like men. [When he is born] his mother counts the blood of purification, like men; He may not be secluded with women, like men. He is not maintained with the daughters, like men; He transgresses the law of: “You shall not round” (Leviticus 19:2 and “You shall not defile for the dead,” (Leviticus 21:1) like men; And he must perform all the commandments of the Torah, like men.

And in what ways is he like women? He causes impurity with red discharge, like women; And he must not be secluded with men, like women; And he doesn’t make his brother’s wife liable for yibbum (levirate marriage); And he does not share [in the inheritance] with the sons, like women; And he cannot eat most holy sacrifices, like women. At his birth his mother counts the blood of her impurity like [they do when they give birth to a] girl; And he is disqualified from being a witness, like women. If he had illicit intercourse, he is disqualified from eating terumah, like women.

In what ways is he like both men and women? One who strikes him or curses him is liable, as in the case of men and women; One who unwittingly kills him must go into exile, and if on purpose, then [the slayer] receives the death penalty, as in the case of men and women. His mother must [at his birth] bring an offering, as in the case of men and women. He may eat holy things that are eaten outside of the Temple; And he may inherit any inheritance, as in the case of men and women.

And in what is he different from both men and women? One does not burn terumah if it came into contact with his discharge, Neither is he liable for entering the temple while impure, unlike men or women. He must not be sold as a Hebrew slave, unlike men or women. He cannot be evaluated, unlike men or women. If one says: “I will be a nazirite, if he is neither a man nor a woman,” then he becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: the hermaphrodite is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him. But this is not so with a tumtum (one of doubtful), for sometimes he is a man and sometimes he is a woman.

משנה שבת

Chapter 1

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside:If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

One may not sit down before a barber near Minhah until he has prayed. One may not enter the baths or a tannery, or [sit down] to eat or [begin] a court case. But if they began, they need not break off. One must break off for the reading of the Shema, but not for prayer.

A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin.

And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures.

Beth Shammai says: ink, dyes and vetch may not be soaked [on Friday afternoon] unless they can be fully soaked while it is yet day; And Bet Hillel permits it.

Beth Shammai says: bundles of wet flax may not be placed in an oven unless they can begin to steam while it is still day, nor wool in the dyer’s kettle unless it can [absorb the color] such that [the color] is visible. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai says: traps for wild beasts, fowl, and fish may not be spread unless they can be caught while it is still day; But Bet Hillel permits it.

Bet Shammai says: one must not sell [something] to a non-Jew, or help him to load [a donkey], or lift up [an article] upon him unless he can reach a near place [before Shabbat]. But Bet Hillel permits it.

Bet Shammai says: hides must not be given to a [non-Jewish] tanner, nor clothing to a non-Jewish launderer, unless they can be done while it is yet day; But in all these [cases] Bet Hillel, permits as long as the sun is still shining.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: My father’s house was accustomed to giving white clothing to a non-Jewish launderer three days before Shabbat. And these and these agree that they lay down an olive press beams and wine press rollers.

Meat, onion[s], and egg[s] may not be roasted unless they can be [fully] roasted while it is still day. Bread may not be put into an oven just before nightfall, nor a cake upon coals, unless its surface can form a crust while it is still day. Rabbi Eliezer says: there must be time for the bottom to form a crust.

The passover sacrifice may be lowered into the oven just before nightfall; And the fire may be lighted in the fireplace of the Chamber of the Hearth. But in the provinces there must be time for the fire to take hold of its greater part. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of charcoal, just a little [is sufficient].

Chapter 2

With what may they kindle [the Shabbat light] and with what may they not kindle them?They may not kindle with cedar fiber, uncarded flax, a raw silk, willow strands, a desert wick, or seaweed, And not with pitch, wax, castor oil, [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt, tail fat, or tallow. Nahum the Mede says: they may kindle with melted tallow. And the sages say: whether melted or not, they may not kindle with it.

They may not kindle [the Shabbat light] with [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt on festivals. Rabbi Ishmael says: they may not light with tar, because of the honor of the Shabbat. But the sages permit with all oils: with sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, gourd oil, tar and naphtha. Rabbi Tarfon says: they don’t light with anything but olive oil.

Whatever comes from a tree they may not light [the Shabbat light] except for flax. And whatever comes from a tree cannot be defiled with tent-uncleanness except linen. A wick made of cloth which was twisted but not singed: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is unclean, and one may not light with it; Rabbi Akiva says: it is clean and one may light with it.

One may not pierce an egg shell, fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp, in order that it should drip, and even if it is of clay. And Rabbi Judah permits it. But if the potter connects it beforehand it is permitted, because it is one utensil. One may not fill a dish of oil, place it at the side of a lamp, and put the wick end in it in order that it should draw. And Rabbi Judah permits it.

One who extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of non-Jews, robbers, or an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep, he is exempt. If [he does so because] he wants to spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yose exempts in all cases, except for the wick, because he makes charcoal.

For three sins women die in childbirth: because they are not observant of [the laws of] niddah, hallah, and the kindling of the [Shabbat] lights.

A person must say three things in his house on the eve of Shabbat just before night: Have you separated tithes? Have you prepared the ‘eruv? Kindle the [Shabbat] lamp. If it is doubtful, whether it is night or not, they do not tithe that which is certainly [untithed], they do not immerse utensils, and they do not kindle the lights. But they can tithe doubtfully tithed produce, and they can set up an eruv, and they can store hot food.

Chapter 3

If a double stove was heated with stubble or straw, they may put a cooked dish on it. If it was heated with peat or wood, one may not place [a dish on it] until he sweeps it out or covers it with ashes. Bet Shammai says: hot water, but not a dish; And Bet Hillel says: both hot water and a dish. Bet Shammai says: one may remove it, but not put it back; But Bet Hillel says: one may even put it back.

If an oven was heated with stubble or straw, one may not place [a dish] either inside or on top. If a single stove was heated with stubble or straws, it is like a double stove; With peat or wood, it is like an oven.

They may not place an egg at the side of a boiler for it to be lightly roasted and one must not break it into a [hot] cloth. And Rabbi Yose permits it. And one may not put it away in hot sand or road dust for it to be roasted.

It once happened that the people of Tiberias conducted a pipe of cold water through an arm of the hot springs. The sages said to them: if this happened on the Shabbat, it is like hot water heated on the Shabbat, and is forbidden both for washing and for drinking; If on a festival, it is like water heated on a festival, which is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. A miliarum which is cleared of its ashes--they may drink from it on Shabbat. An antiki even if its ashes have been cleared--they may not drink from it.

A kettle which was removed [from the fire]: one may not pour cold water into it so that it should warm up, but one may pour it [water] into or into a cup in order to temper it. The pan or pot which was removed [from the fire] while it is boiling, one must not put spices into it, but one may put [spices] into a dish or a tureen. Rabbi Judah says: he may put [spices] into anything except what contains vinegar or brine.

They may not place a vessel under a lamp to catch the oil. But if it was placed there before sunset it is permitted. Yet one may not benefit from it because it is not prepared (mukhan). They may handle a new lamp but not an old one. Rabbi Shimon says: all lamps may be handled, except a lamp [actually] burning on Shabbat. A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks, but one must not pour water into it, because he extinguishes [them].

Chapter 4

In what things may they cover up [food], and in what things may they not cover it up?They may not cover up [food] in peat, compost, salt, lime, or sand, whether moist or dry; Nor in straw, grape-skins, rags or grasses, when they are moist; but they may cover up [food] in them when they are dry. They may cover up [food] in garments, produce, doves’ wings, carpenters’ sawdust and thoroughly beaten flax. Rabbi Judah forbids [storing] in fine [flax], but permits [it] in coarse [flax].

They may cover up [food] with hides, and they may be handled; [They may cover up food] with wool shearings, but they may not be handled. What then is done? The lid [of the pot] is lifted, and they [the shearings] fall off of their own accord. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: the basket [holding the pot] he turns on its side and [the food] is removed, lest one lift [the lid of the pot] and is unable to replace it. But the Sages say: one may take [out the pot] and replace [it]. If he did not cover it [a pot] while it was yet day, it may not be covered after nightfall. If it was covered but became uncovered, it may be recovered. One may fill a jug with [cold water] and place it under a pillow or blanket [to keep it cool].

Chapter 5

With what may an animal go out [on Shabbat], and with what may it not go out? A camel may go out with a bit, a female camel with its nose-ring, a Libyan donkey with an iron bridle, a horse with its chain, and all chain-wearing animals may go out with their chains and be led by their chains. And they may sprinkle upon them [with purifying waters], and they may be immersed in their place.

A donkey may go out with its saddle-cloth if it is tied to it. Rams may go out with hides tied to them. Ewes may go out with their tails tied up, tied down, or covered. Goats may go out [with their udders] tied up. Rabbi Yose forbids in all these cases, save ewes that are covered. Rabbi Judah says: goats may go out [with their udders] tied in order to dry them up, but not to save their milk.

And with what may it not go out?A camel may not go out with a pad Or with forelegs bound together or with hind legs bound together; And the same is true for other animals. One should not tie camels together and pull [one of them]. But one may take the cords in his hand and pull [them] providing he does not twist them together.

A donkey may not go out with a saddle-cloth, when it is not tied to it, or with a bell, even if it is plugged, or with a ladder[-shaped yoke] around its neck, or with a strap around its foot. Fowls may not go out with ribbons, or with straps on their legs. Rams may not go out with a wagon under their tails. Ewes may not go out with a hanun. A calf may not go out with a small yoke. Or a cow with the skin of a hedgehog, or with the strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s cow used to go out with a strap between its horns, not with the approval of the rabbis.

Chapter 6

With what may a woman go out and with what may she not go out?A woman may not go out with wool ribbons, linen ribbons, or straps around her head; Nor may she immerse while wearing them, until she loosens them. [She may not go out] with frontlets or head-bangles if they are not sewn, Or with a hair-net into the public domain, Or with a golden city, or with a necklace or with ear-rings, or with a finger-ring [even if it has] no signet, or with a needle [even if it] is unpierced. But if she goes out with these, she is not liable to a sin-offering.

A man may not go out with a nail-studded sandal, Nor with a single [sandal] if he has no wound on his foot; Nor with tefillin, Nor with an amulet, if it is not from an expert; Nor with a breastplate, Nor with a helmet; Nor with iron boots. Yet if he goes out with these, he is not liable for a sin-offering.

A woman may not go out with a needle that is pierced, Nor with a ring bearing a signet, Nor with a cochlea brooch, Nor with a spice tie, Nor with a perfume vial; And if she does go out, she is liable to a sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that she is not liable in the case of a spice tie and a perfume vial.

A man may not go out with a sword, bow, shield, club, or spear, and if he does go out, he incurs a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are ornaments for him. But the sages say, they are nothing but a disgrace, as it is said, “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). A garter is clean, and they go out [wearing] it on Shabbat. Knee-bands are unclean, and they may not go out with them on Shabbat.

A woman may go out with ribbons made of hair, whether they are of her own hair or her friend’s, or an animal’s; And with frontlets or head-bangles if they are sewn, And with a hair-net and with a wig into a courtyard; And with wool in her ear, with wool in her sandals, and with wool which she prepared for her menstruation; With a peppercorn, with a lump of salt and anything that is placed in her mouth, providing that she does not put it in her mouth in the first place on Shabbat, And if it falls out, she may not put it back. A false tooth or a gold tooth: Rabbi permits but the sages forbid it.

She may go out with the sela on a callus. Young girls may go out with threads, and even with chips in their ears. Arabian women may go out veiled. Medean women may go out with their cloaks thrown over their shoulders. Indeed, all people [may do likewise] but that the sages spoke of prevailing custom.

A woman may weight [her cloak] with a stone, nut, or coin, providing that she does not attach the weight in the first place on Shabbat.

A crippled person [lacking a leg] may go out with his wooden stump, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose forbids it. And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. His supports are unclean through midras, and one may go out with them on Shabbat, and enter the Temple court while wearing them. His chair and its supports are unclean through midras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple court with them. An artificial arm is clean, but one may not go out with it [on Shabbat].

Boys may go out with garlands and children of royalty children may go out with bells, and all people [may do likewise], but the sages spoke of the usual practice.

One may go out with a locust’s egg, a fox’s tooth, and a nail from [the cross of] a crucified convict for purposes of healing, the words of Rabbi Meir’s view. But the sages say: even on weekdays this is forbidden on account of “the ways of the Amorite” [which Israelites are forbidden from adopting].

Chapter 7

A great principle they stated in respect to Shabbat: anyone who forgets the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for only one sin-offering. One who knows the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot is liable for a sin-offering for each and every Shabbat. One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for every primary labor. One who performs many labors belonging to the same category is obligated for only one sin-offering.

The primary labors are forty less one: sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, [and] carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one.

They also stated another general principle: whatever is fit to store and people generally store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable for a sin-offering on its account. But whatever is not fit to store and people do not [generally] store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, only he that stores it is liable.

He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.

Chapter 8

One who carries out: [unmixed] wine, [is liable if it is] enough for the mixing of a cup; milk, as much as is swallowed at a time; honey, as much as is placed on a scab; oil, as much as is required to rub on a small limb; water, enough to rub with it collyrium; and all other liquids, a revi’it; and all waste water, a revi’it. Rabbi Shimon says: all of them are a revi’it, they stated all of these measures only in respect of those who put them away.

One who carries out rope, as much as is required for making a handle for a basket; A reed cord: as much as is required for making a hanger for a sifter or a sieve. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for taking the measure of a child's shoe. Paper, in order to write a tax-collector’s receipt on it. And one who carries out a tax-collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper, as much as is required to wrap round a small vial of perfume.

[One who carries] animal hide: as much as is required for making an amulet; Parchment, for writing on it the shortest passage of the tefillin, which is “Sh’ma Yisrael”: Ink, for writing two letters; Eye shadow, for painting one eye.

Paste, for putting on the top of a lime twig. Pitch and sulfur, for making a small hole. Wax, for putting over a small hole. Clay, for making a hole in a gold refiner’s pot. Rabbi Judah says: for making a [tripod’s] leg. Bran, for putting on the mouth of a gold refiner’s pot. Lime, for smearing the smallest of girls. Rabbi Judah says: enough to take off the hair on the temples. Rabbi Nehemiah says: enough to take the hair of the forehead.

Red earth, as much as is required for a seal on merchandise bags, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: as much as is required for the seal on letters. Manure, or thin sand, as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: for fertilizing one leek plant. Thick sand, as much as is required for putting on a full plaster trowel. Reed, as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot.

Bone, is as much as is required for making a spoon. Rabbi Judah says: enough for making a tooth [of a key] with it; Glass, enough for scraping the end of a shuttle. A pebble or a stone, large enough to throw at a bird; Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says: large enough to throw at an animal.

A shard, as much as is needed for placing between one board and another, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: enough to scoop out the coals with it. Rabbi Yose says: large enough to contain a revi’it. Rabbi Meir said: even though there is no proof of the matter, there is a hint: “So that no shard is left in its breakage to scoop coals from a brazier” (Isaiah 30:1. Rabbi Yose said to him: proof [of my view] is from there [as well]: “Or to take ladle water from a puddle” (ibid).

Chapter 9

Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried.

How do we know that a ship is clean? Because it is said, “The way of a ship is in the midst of the sea” (Proverbs 30:19). How do we know that if a furrow is six handbreadths by six handbreadths, they may sow in it five kinds of seeds, four on the four sides, and one in the middle? Because it is said, “For as the earth brings forth her growth, and as the garden causes its seeds to spring forth” (Isaiah 61:11) not its seed, but its seeds is stated.

How do we know that if one [a woman] discharges semen on the third day she is unclean? Because it is said, “Be ready for the third day” (Exodus 19:15). How do we know that one who has been circumcised may be bathed on the third day [after circumcision] which falls on Shabbat? Because it is said, “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25). How do we know that a crimson-colored strap is tied to the head of the goat that is sent [to Azazel]? Because it is said, “If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).

How do we know that anointing is the same as drinking on Yom Kippur? Though there is no proof of this, yet there is a suggestion of it, for it is said, “And it came into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18).

If one carries out wood, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; Spices, as much as is required for seasoning a light egg, and they combine with each other. Nutshells, pomegranate peel, woad and madder, as much as is required for dyeing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Urine, baking soda, lye, cimolian earth, and lion’s leaf, as much as is required for washing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for removing the stain.

[If one carries out] pepper, in whatever quantity. Olive-refuse, in whatever quantity. Various kinds of spices and various kinds of metal, in whatever quantity. [Pieces] of the stones of the altar or the earth from the altar, worn-out pieces of scrolls or their worn-out covers, in whatever quantity, because they are stored away in order to hide them. Rabbi Judah says: also he who carries out the service vessels of idols, in whatever quantity, [is liable], for it is said, “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).

If one carries out a peddler’s basket, even though it contains many types of things, he is liable for only one sin-offering. Garden seeds, less than the size of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Batera ruled: five. Cucumber seed, two. Gourd seed, two. Egyptian bean seed, two. A live clean locust, whatever its size. Dead, the size of a dried fig. The bird of the vineyards, whether live or dead, whatever its size, because they store it for a medicine. Rabbi Judah says: even one who carries out a live unclean locust, whatever its size, [is liable], because they store it away for a child to play with.

Chapter 10

If one stores something for planting, for a sample, or for medicine, and [then] carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable no matter the size. But all others are not liable except for its standard measure. If he carries it back again, he is liable only for its standard measure.

If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. [If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket.

If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat (Numbers 7:9). In a backhanded manner, with his foot, in his mouth, with his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, in his belt with its opening downwards, between his belt and his shirt, in the hem of his shirt, in his shoes or sandals, he is not liable, because he has not carried [it] out as people [generally] carry out.

If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one pares his nails with each other or with his teeth, likewise [if one plucks] his hair, likewise his mustache, likewise his beard; And likewise if [a woman] braids [her hair], likewise if she paints [her eyelids] likewise if she puts rouge on [her face]: Rabbi Eliezer makes them liable, But the rabbis forbid [these actions] because of “shevuth.” If one picks [something] from a perforated pot, he is liable. If it is unperforated, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon exempts in both cases.

Chapter 11

If one throws from the private domain into the public domain [or] from the public domain into the private domain, he is liable. From one private domain to another private domain, and the public domain lies between: Rabbi Akiva makes him liable, But the sages exempt him.

How so? If there are two balconies facing each other in the public domain, he who reaches over or throws [an article] from one to the other is exempt. If both are on the same row, he who reaches over is liable, while he who throws is exempt, for thus was the service of the Levites. Two wagons, this one behind this one in the public domain, [and] they reached over the boards from one to another, but they did not throw. [As for] the borders of a cistern, and a rock, which are ten [handbreadths] high and four in breath, if one removes [something] from them or places [something] upon them, his is liable; If less than this, he is exempt.

One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable.

If one throws in the sea four cubits, he is exempt. If there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. And how deep is a pool of water? Less than ten handbreadths. [For] if there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable.

If one throws [something] from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, from the sea to a ship or from a ship to the sea or from one ship to another, he is exempt. If ships are tied together, one may carry from one to another. If they are not tied together, even though they lie close [to each other], one may not carry from one to another.

If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional.

Chapter 12

One who builds: how much must he build to be liable? He who builds any amount, and he who chisels, and he who strikes with a hammer or with an axe, and he who bores [a hole] of any size, is liable. This is the general principle: whoever does work and his work endures on Shabbat, he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even one who strikes with a hammer on the anvil at the completion of his work is liable, because he is as one who improves his work.

He who plows any amount, or who weeds, or who prunes [trees], or who cuts off young shoots, no matter the amount, is liable. He who gathers wood: if in order to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for lighting a fire, as much as is required for boiling a light egg. He who collects grasses: if to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for an animal, as much as fits in a kid’s mouth.

He who writes two letters, whether with his right hand or with his left hand, whether the same letter or two different letters or in two pigments, in any language, is liable. Rabbi Jose said: they made one liable for writing two letters only because [he makes] a mark, since this is how they would write on each board of the tabernacle, to know which its companion was. Rabbi Judah said: we find a short name [forming part] of a long name: “Shem” as part of “Shimon” or “Shmuel”, “Noah” as part of “Nahor”, “Dan” as part of “Daniel”, “Gad” as part of “Gaddiel”.

He who writes two letters in one state of unawareness is liable. He who writes with ink, arsenic, red chalk, gum, sulphate of copper or with anything that leaves a mark, on the angle of two walls, or on the two leaves of a ledger, and they [the two letters] are read together, is liable. He who writes on his flesh, he is liable. He who scratches a mark on his flesh: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering; But the sages exempt him.

If he wrote with liquids, or with fruit juice, on the dust of the road, or on writer’s powder, or with anything that cannot endure, he is exempt. [If he wrote] with the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, or with his elbow; If he wrote one letter near [other] writing, If he wrote on top of other writing; If he intended to write a cheth but wrote two zayyinin; [If he wrote] one [letter] on the ground and another on a beam; If he wrote on two walls of the house, or on two leaves of a ledger which are not read together, he is exempt. If he wrote one letter as an abbreviation: Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares him liable, But the sages exempt him.

He who writes two letters in two states of unawareness, one in the morning and one in the evening: Rabban Gamaliel declares him liable; But the sages exempt him.

Chapter 13

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who weaves three threads at the beginning or one [thread] added to woven stuff is liable; But the sages say: whether at the beginning or at the end, the standard [for liability] is two threads.

He who makes two loops, on either the cross-pieces [nirim] or one the slips [keros], or in a sifter, sieve, or basket, is liable. And he who sews two stitches, and he who tears in order to sew two stitches [is liable].

He who tears in his anger or [in mourning] for his dead, and all who damage are exempt. But he who damages in order to repair, his measure [for liability] is as for repairing.

The minimum measure for bleaching, hackling, dyeing or spinning is a full double sit. And he who weaves two threads together, the minimum meausure is a full sit.

Rabbi Judah says: he who hunts a bird into a tower trap, or a deer into a house, is liable; But the sages say: [he who hunts] a bird into a tower trap, and a deer into a house, courtyard or corral. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all corrals are the same. This is the general principle: if it lacks further work of hunting, he is exempt. If it does not lack further work of hunting, he is liable.

If a deer enters a house and one person shuts [the door] before it, he is liable. If two shut it, they are exempt. If one could not shut it, and both shut it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them.

If one sat down in the doorway but did not fill it, and a second sat down and filled it, the second is liable. If the first sat down in the doorway and fills it, and a second came and sat down at his side, even if the first [then] rises and goes away, the first is liable and the second is exempt. To what is this similar? To one who shuts his house to guard it, and a deer is found to be guarded in it.

Chapter 14

The eight creeping things which are mentioned in the Torah: he who hunts them or wounds them [on Shabbat] is liable; But [as for] other abominations and creeping things, he who wounds them is exempt. He who hunts them for need is liable; Not for need, he is exempt. A beast or a chicken in one’s own domain, he who hunts them is exempt. He who wounds them is liable.

They do not prepare [pickling] brine on Shabbat, but he may prepare salt water and dip his bread into it or put it into a cooked dish. Rabbi Yose said: but that is brine, whether [one prepares] much or little? Rather what is the salt water that is permitted? Oil is first put into the water or into the salt.

They do not eat Greek hyssop on Shabbat, because it is not the food of healthy people. But he may eat yo’ezer and drink abuv ro’eh. A man may eat any kind of food as medicine, and drink any liquid, except water of palm trees and a potion of roots, because they are for jaundice. But he may drink water of palm trees for his thirst and rub himself with oil of roots for a non-medical purpose.

He who feels pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them, but he may dip [his bread in vinegar] in the usual manner, and if he is cured, he is cured. He who feels pain in his hips may not rub them with wine or vinegar, but he may anoint them with oil but not rose oil. The children of royalty may anoint their wounds with rose oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. Rabbi Shimon said: all Israel are royal children.

Chapter 15

These are the knots for which a person is liable? Camel-drivers’ knots and sailors’ knots. And just as one is guilty for tying them, so one is guilty for untying them. Rabbi Meir says: any knot which one can untie with one hand they are not liable for it.

You have some knots for which one is not liable like [one is] for camel-drivers’ knots and sailors’ knots. A woman may tie up the opening of her chemise, the strings of her hair-net and of her belt, the laces of her shoes or sandals, leather-bottles of wine and oil, and a meat dish. Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov says: one may tie [a rope] in front of an animal, that it should not go out. One may tie a bucket [over a well] with a belt but not with a rope; Rabbi Judah permits it. Rabbi Judah stated a general rule: any knot that is not permanent one is not liable for it.

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

Chapter 16

All sacred writings may be saved from a fire, whether we read from them or not [on Shabbat]. And even if they are written in any language, they must be stored. And why do we not read them? Because of the neglect of the study house. One may save the container of a scroll together with the scroll, and the container of tefillin together with the tefillin, even if it [also] contains money. And to where may one rescue them? Into a closed alley. Ben Batera says: even into an open one.

Food for three meals may be saved, that which is fit for a person, for a person, that which is fit for a beast, for a beast. How is this so? If a fire breaks out on the eve of Shabbat, food for three meals may be saved. If in the morning, food for two meals may be saved. If at [the time of] minhah, food for one meal. Rabbi Yose says: at all times we may save food for three meals.

One may save a basket full of loaves, even if it contains [enough for] a hundred meals, and a round cake of pressed figs, and a barrel of wine. And he [the owner] may say to others, “Come and save for yourselves.” And if they are clever, they make an account with him after Shabbat. To where may they be saved? Into a courtyard which has an eruv. Ben Batera says: even into a courtyard which does not have an eruv.

And to there he may carry out all his utensils; And he may wear all that he can wear and wrap himself in all that he can wrap himself. Rabbi Yose says: [only] eighteen pieces of clothing. Then he may go back in and put on [more clothes] and carry them out. And he may say to others, “Come and save with me.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: one may spread a goat skin over a box, chest, or trunk which has caught fire, because he singes. And one may make a barrier with all vessels, whether full [of water] or empty, that the fire should not travel onward. Rabbi Yose forbids in the case of new earthen vessels filled with water, because since they cannot stand the heat, they will burst and extinguish the fire.

If a non-Jew comes to extinguish, they do not say to him, “extinguish it” or “do not extinguish,” because his resting is not their obligation. But if a minor comes to extinguish, they must not listen to him, because his resting is their obligation.

One may turn a dish over a lamp so that the beams should not catch [fire], and over an infant’s excrement, and over a scorpion so that it should not bite. Rabbi Judah said: an incident came before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in Arabia and he said, “I fear that he may be liable for a sin-offering.”

If a Gentile lights a lamp, an Israelite may make use of its light. But if [he does it] for the sake of the Israelite, it is forbidden. If he draws water to give his own animal to drink, an Israelite may water his [animal] after him. But if [he draws it] for the Israelite’s sake, it is forbidden. If a Gentile makes a plank to descend [off a ship by] it, an Israelite may descend after him; But if on the Israelite’s account, it is forbidden. It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling in a ship, when a Gentile made a plank for getting off, and Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders descended by it.

Chapter 17

All utensils may be carried on Shabbat and their doors with them, even if they became detached on Shabbat, for they are not like the doors of a house, which are not set aside for use.

A man may take a hammer to split nuts, an axe to cut a cake of pressed figs, a saw for sawing cheese, a rake to scoop up dried figs, a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork to place [food] upon it for a child, a reed or a shuttle to stick [food], a small needle to remove a thorn, and a sack [needle] to open a door.

A reed for olives, if it has a knot on its top, is susceptible to impurity; if not, it is not susceptible to impurity. In both cases it may be handled on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yose says: all vessels may be carried, except a large saw and the pin of a plough. All vessels may be carried whether required or not required. Rabbi Nehemiah says: they may be handled only for what is required.

All vessels which may be carried on Shabbat, their broken pieces may be carried with them, as long as they can perform something in the nature of work. [Thus]: the fragments of a kneading trough [can be used] to cover the mouth of a barrel, [and] the fragments of glass [can be used] to cover the mouth of a flask. Rabbi Judah says: as long as they can perform something in the nature of their own work; [Thus:] the fragments of a kneading trough, to pour into them a thick mixture; and [the fragments] of a glass, to pour into them oil.

A stone in a dried-out pumpkin: If one can draw [water] in it and it [the stone] does not fall out, one may draw [water] in it; if not, one may not draw water in it. A vine-branch tied to a pitcher: one may draw [water] with it on Shabbat.

A window-shutter: Rabbi Eliezer says: when it is connected and suspended, one may close [the window] with it; if not, one may not close [the window] with it. But the sages say: in both cases one may close [the window] with it.

All lids of utensils which have a handle may be carried on Shabbat. Rabbi Yose said: in reference to what is that said? In the case of lids which cover the ground, but lids of vessels may in any case be carried on Shabbat.

Chapter 18

One may clear away even four or five baskets of straw or produce to make room for guests or on account of the neglect of the study hall, but not the storehouse. One may clear away pure terumah, doubtfully tithed produce, the first tithe whose terumah has been separated, redeemed second tithe and sanctified things, and dry lupinus, because it is food for goats. But [one may] not [clear away] untithed produce, first tithe whose terumah has not been taken, unredeemed second tithe and sanctified things, luf or mustard. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel permits [it] in the case of luf, because it is food for ravens.

Bundles of straw, bundles of twigs, or bundles of young shoots, if they were prepared as animal food, they may be carried; if not, they may not be carried. One may overturn a basket before young birds, so that they will get up and then get down. A chicken which has run away, they may push her until she re-enters. One may make calves and foals walk in the public domain. And a woman may make her son walk. Rabbi Judah says: when is this so? If he lifts one [foot] and places [another] down; but if he drags them it is forbidden.

One may not deliver an animal [in giving birth] on a festival, but one may assist it. One may deliver a woman [in giving birth] on Shabbat, summon a midwife for her from place to place, desecrate Shabbat on her account, and tie up the umbilical cord. Rabbi Yose says: one may cut it too. And all the requirements of circumcision may be done on Shabbat.

Chapter 19

Rabbi Eliezer says: if one did not bring an instrument [with which to circumcise] on the eve of Shabbat, he must bring it on Shabbat uncovered; but in [times of] danger he hides it on the testimony of witnesses. Rabbi Eliezer said further: one may cut wood to make charcoal to make an iron instrument. Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle: any [manner of] work which could be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not supersede Shabbat; but that which could not be performed on the eve of Shabbat does supersede Shabbat.

They may perform all the necessities of circumcision on Shabbat: circumcising, uncovering [the corona], sucking [the wound], and placing a compress and cumin upon [the wound]. If one did not grind [the cumin] on the eve of Shabbat, he may chew [it] with his teeth and apply [it to the wound]. If he did not beat up wine and oil on the eve of Shabbat, he should apply each separately. They may not make a cloak for it in the first place, but he may wrap a rag about it. If this was not prepared from the eve of Shabbat, he may wind it about his finger and bring it, and even from another courtyard.

They bathe the infant both before and after the circumcision, and sprinkle [warm water] over him by hand but not with a vessel. R. Elazar ben Azaryah says: they may bathe an infant on the third day [of circumcision] which falls on the Shabbat, as it is said, “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore” (Genesis 34:25). For one who about whom it is doubtful, and a hermaphrodite, they may not desecrate Shabbat But Rabbi Judah permits [it] in the case of a hermaphrodite.

If a man has two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and the other to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised after Shabbat on the Shabbat, he is liable. [If he has] one to circumcise on the eve of Shabbat and another to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised on the eve of Shabbat on Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer holds [him] liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Joshua exempts [him].

An infant is circumcised on the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth [days], neither before nor later. How so?In the normal situation, on the eighth. If he is born at twilight, on the ninth; At twilight on the eve of Shabbat, on the tenth. If a festival follows Shabbat, on the eleventh. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [follow Shabbat], on the twelfth. An infant who is sick is not circumcised until he recovers.

These are the shreds which invalidate circumcision: flesh that covers the greater part of the corona; and he may not eat terumah. And if he is chubby, he must repair it for appearance sake. If one circumcises but does not uncover the circumcision, it is as though he has not circumcised.

Chapter 20

R. Eliezer says: one may suspend a strainer on festivals, and pour [wine] through a suspended [strainer] on Shabbat. But the sages say: one may not suspend a strainer on festivals, nor pour [wine] through a suspended [strainer] on Shabbat, but one may pour [it] through a suspended [strainer] on festivals.

One may pour water over lees in order to clarify them; and one may strain wine through cloths and through a basket made of palm twigs; and one may place an egg in a mustard strainer; and one may make anumlin on Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat [it may only be made] in a cup; on festivals, in a jug; and on the intermediate days of festivals in a barrel. Rabbi Zadok says: it all depends on the [number of] guests.

One may not soak hiltith in warm water, but he may put it into vinegar. And one may not soak leeks, nor rub them, but he may put them into a sieve or a basket. One may not sift straw through a sieve, nor put it on a high place, for the chaff to drop down, but one may take it up in a sieve and put it into the trough.

One may rake out [the trough] for a stall ox, and move [the remnants] aside for the sake of a grazing [ox], the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the sages prohibit it. One may take [food] from one animal and place it before another animal on Shabbat.

The straw [lying] upon a bed one may not move it with his hand, but he may move it with his body. But if it is animal feed, or a pillow or a sheet was upon it [on the eve of Shabbat], he may move it with his hand. A householder’s clothes press one may undo it, but not force it down. But a launderer’s [press] one may not touch it. Rabbi Judah says: if it was undone before Shabbat, one may unfasten the whole and remove it.

Chapter 21

A man may pick up his son while he has a stone in his hand or a basket with a stone in it. And one may carry impure terumah together with pure [terumah] or with non-sacred produce. Rabbi Judah said: one may also remove the mixture [of terumah in non-sacred produce] when one [part is neutralized] in a hundred [parts].

If a stone is on the mouth of a cask [of wine], one tilts it to its side and it falls off. If it [the cask] is [standing] among [other] casks, he lifts it up, tilts it on its side, and it falls off. If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. If snot is on it, one wipes it off with a rag; If it is on leather, one pours water over it until it disappears.

Bet Shammai says: one may remove bones and nutshells from the table; But Beth Hillel says: one must remove the whole board and shake it off. One may remove from the table crumbs less than the size of an olive and the husks of beans and lentils, because they are food for animals. A sponge, if it has a handle, one may wipe [the board] with it; If not, one may not wipe [the board] with it. The sages say: in either case it may be handled on Shabbat and it is not susceptible to defilement.

Chapter 22

A cask [of wine] which was broken, one may save from it the requirements for three meals. And he [the owner] may say to others, “come and save for yourselves”, provided that it is not sponged up. One may not squeeze fruit in order to get out their juices, and if they exude of their own accord they are prohibited. Rabbi Judah says: if [the fruit is meant] to be food, that which exudes from it is permitted, but if [is meant to be] juice, that which exudes from it is prohibited. Honeycombs which crushed on the eve of Shabbat and it [the honey] exudes on its own, it is forbidden; But Rabbi Eleazar permits it.

Whatever was put into hot water before Shabbat, may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat; But whatever was not put into hot water before Shabbat may [only] be rinsed with hot water on Shabbat, except old salted fish, small salted fish, and Spanish colius, because their rinsing completes their preparation.

A man may break open a cask in order to eat dried figs from it, provided that he does not intend to make the cask into a vessel. And one may not perforate the stopper of a cask, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages permit it. And one may not pierce it at its side; And if it is already perforated one may not place wax upon it, because he smoothes it out. Rabbi Judah said: a case came before Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai in Arav and he said, “I fear [that he may be liable] to a sin-offering.”

One may place a cooked dish in a pit for it to be guarded; And good water into foul water for it to be cooled; or cold water in the sun for it to be heated. One whose clothes fell into water on the road may walk in them without concern. When he reaches the outer courtyard he may spread them out in the sun, but not in sight of the people.

One who bathes in the water of a pit or in the waters of Tiberias and dries himself even with ten towels, he must not bring them [back] in his hand. But ten men may dry their faces, hands, and feet on one towel and they may bring it [back] in their hands.

One may oil and [lightly] massage [the body] but not step on [the body] or scrape [the skin]. One may not go down to a piloma, And one may not drink an epiktvizin [to induce vomiting]; And one may not straighten an infant[‘s limbs]. And one may not set a broken bone. If one's hand or foot is dislocated, he must not agitate it violently in cold water but he may bathe it in the usual way, and if it heals, it heals.

Chapter 23

A man may borrow pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil from his neighbor, provided he does not say to him, “lend [them] to me”; And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her neighbor. If he does not trust him he may leave his cloak with him [as a pledge] and squares up with him after Shabbat. Similarly, if the eve of Passover in Jerusalem falls on Shabbat, he may leave his cloak with him [the vendor] and take his paschal lamb and squares up with him after the festival.

A man may count his guests and his appetizers/desserts by word, but not from writing. A man may cast lots with his sons and the members of his household on the table, provided that he does not make a large portion against a small one, because of gambling. And [priests] may cast lots for sacrifices on festivals, but not for the portions.

One may not hire laborers on Shabbat, nor say to his fellow to hire laborers for him. One may not go to the Shabbat border to await nightfall in order to hire laborers or bring in produce; but one may do so in order to watch [his field] and [then] he can bring produce [back] with him. Abba Shaul stated a general principle: whatever I have a right to say [that it be done], I am permitted to go to await nightfall, for it [at the border].

One may go to the Shabbat border before nightfall in order to attend to the affairs of a bride or of a corpse to bring him a coffin and shrouds. If a non-Jew brings reed-pipes on Shabbat, one must not bewail an Israelite with them, unless they came from a near place. If he made a coffin for himself or dug a grave for himself, an israelite may be buried in it. But if [he made it] for the sake of an Israelite, [the Israelite] may never be buried in it.

One may perform all the needs of the dead:One may anoint him with oil and wash him, provided that no limb of his is moved. One may remove the pillow from under him, and [thereby] place him on sand, in order that he should be better preserved. One may tie up the jaw, not in order that it should close but that it should not further [open]. And likewise, if a beam is broken, one may support it with a bench or bed posts, not in order that it [the break] should close up, but that it should go [open] no further. One may not close [the eyes of] a corpse on Shabbat, nor on weekdays when he is about to die, and he who closes the eyes [of a dying person] at the point of death is a murderer.

Chapter 24

One for whom it becomes dark while on the road, he may give his purse to a non-Jew; And if there is no non-Jew with him, he places it on a donkey. When he reaches the outermost courtyard, he removes the objects which may be handled on Shabbat. As for those which may not be handled on Shabbat, he unties the cords and the sacks fall off automatically.

One may untie bundles of hay in front of cattle and one may spread out large sheaves, but not small hardened twigs. One may not chop up unripe grain or carobs before cattle, whether small or large. Rabbi Judah permits it in the case of carobs for small beasts.

One may not stuff a camel [with food] nor cram [food into its mouth], but one may put food into its mouth. And one may not force feed calves, but one may put food into their mouth. And one may put food into one’s hands for chickens and one may put water into bran, but not mix it [into a mass]. And one may not put water in front of bees or in front of doves in a dove-cote, but one may put [water] in front of geese, chickens and Rhodesian doves.

One may cut up gourds in front of beasts, and a carcass in front of dogs. Rabbi Judah says: if it was not carcass by the eve of Shabbat it is forbidden, because it was not prepared.

They may annul vows on Shabbat, and they may be asked [to release vows] when these are necessary for Shabbat. One may close up a skylight, and measure a rag and a ritual bath. And it once happened in the days of Rabbi Zadok’s father and the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit that they closed up the window with a small clay vessel and tied a [clay] pot to a string to ascertain whether there was the opening of a handbreadth or not in the barrel. And from their words we learn that we may close [a skylight] and measure and tie on Shabbat.

משנה עירובין

Chapter 1

[The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary. And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width]. But if it has the shape of a doorway there is no need to reduce it even though it is wider than ten cubits.

The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases.

The cross-beam of which they spoke must be wide enough to hold a small brick (ariah), a small brick which is half of a regular brick, the size of three handbreadths. It is enough for the cross-beam to be one handbreadth wide in order to hold the width of a small brick.

Wide enough to hold a half-brick but also strong enough to support such a half-brick. Rabbi Judah says: wide enough, even though it is not strong enough.

If [the cross-beam] was made of straw or reeds, we look at it as if it was of metal. [If it was] curved we look at it as if it were straight. [If it was] round we look at it as if it were square. Whatever has a circumference of three handbreadths has a diameter of one handbreadth.

The side-posts of which they spoke [must be no less than] ten hand-breadths in height, but their width and thickness may be of any size whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: their width [must be no less than] three handbreadths.

One may make the side-posts out of anything, even something that is alive. But Rabbi Yose prohibits this. It also causes defilement as the covering of a tomb, But Rabbi Meir makes pure. One may write on them gittin, But Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares it unfit.

If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by the instruments used for the cattle it is permissible to move objects within it, provided [the instruments] form a fence ten handbreadths high and the gaps do not exceed the built-up parts. Any gap which is approximately ten cubits it is permitted [to carry within], because it is like an entrance. If it is greater, it is forbidden [to carry within].

They may surround [the caravan] by three ropes, this one above this one, and this one above this one, provided that [the space] between the one rope and the other is less than three handbreadths. The size of the ropes [must be such] that their [total] thickness is more than a handbreadth, so that the total height is ten handbreadths.

They may also surround [the camp] with reeds, provided there is no [gap of] three handbreadths between one reed and the next. [The rabbis] spoke only of a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say that they only spoke of a caravan because it is a usual occurrence. Any partition that is not [made up of] both vertical and horizontal [pieces] is not a valid partition, the words of Rabbi Yose bar Judah. But the sages say: one of the two [is sufficient]. They exempted four obligations [to soldiers] in an encampment: They may bring wood from anywhere; they are exempt from the washing of the hands, and from [separating tithes from] doubtfully tithed produce (demai) and from the setting up an eruv.

Chapter 2

They may make posts for wells, [by setting up] four corner-pieces that have the appearance of eight [single posts], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: eight that have the appearance of twelve, four corner-pieces and four single [posts]. Their height must be ten handbreadths, their width six, and their thickness [may be] of any size whatsoever. Between them [there may be] as much [space as to admit] two teams of three oxen each, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [two teams] of four [oxen each]. [These teams being] tied together and not untied, [enough for] one to enter while the other goes out.

It is permitted to bring [the posts] close to the well, provided that a cow’s head and the greater part of its body can be within [the enclosure] when drinking. It is permitted to remove [the posts] to any [distance] provided one increases the posts.

Rabbi Judah says: [the enclosure may be only] as large as two bet se'ah. They said to him: they only prescribed [the limit of] two beth se’ah for a garden or a karpaf only, but if [the enclosure] was a pen, or sahar, a backyard or courtyard even if it is five or ten bet kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to remove [the posts] to any [distance] provided one increases the posts.

Rabbi Judah says: if a public road cuts through them it should be diverted to one side; But the sages say: this is not necessary. Both for a public cistern, a public well as well as a private well, they may make [an enclosure] of posts, but for a private cistern, they must make a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says: they make [an enclosure] of posts for a public well only while for the others they must make a belt ten handbreadths high.

Rabbi Judah ben Bava further said: a garden or a karpaf whose [area does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction, which is surrounded by a fence ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to carry within it, provided there is in it a watchman’s hut or a dwelling place or it is near to a town. Rabbi Judah says: even if it contained only a cistern, a ditch or a cave it is permitted to carry within it. Rabbi Akiva says: even if it contained none of these it is permitted to carry within it, provided its area [does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction. Rabbi Eliezer says: if its length exceeded its breadth even by a single cubit it is not permitted to carry within it. Rabbi Yose says: even if its length is twice its breadth it is permitted to carry within it.

Rabbi Ilai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer, even if it is as large as a bet kor. I also heard from him that if one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden to him for taking in or taking out any object but it is permitted to them. I also heard from him that people may fulfill their duty [for bitter herbs] at Pesach by eating hart’s tongue (akrevanim). I went round among all his disciples seeking a fellowstudent but I found none.

Chapter 3

With all [kinds of food] they may make an ‘eruv and a shittuf, except water and salt. And all [kinds of food] may be purchased with money of the second tithe, except water and salt. One who vowed to abstain from food is allowed [to consume] both water and salt. An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah, But Symmachus says: with unconsecrated produce only. [An eruv may be prepared] for a priest in a bet hapras. Rabbi Judah says: even in a cemetary, because he can put up a partition and thus enter [the area] and eat [his eruv].

They may make an eruv with demai (doubtfully tithed produce), or with first tithe from which terumah had been taken, or with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have been redeemed; and priests [may make their eruv] with hallah and terumah. [It may] not [be prepared], with untithed produce, nor with first tithe from which terumah has not been taken, nor with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have not been redeemed. One who sends his eruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, imbecile or a minor, or with one who does not admit [the principle of] eruv, the eruv is not valid. If, however, he instructed another person to receive it from him, the eruv is valid.

If he put [the eruv] in a tree above [a height] of ten handbreadths, his eruv is not valid; below ten handbreadths, his eruv is valid. If he put it in a cistern, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. If he put it on the top of a reed or on the top of a pole, if it had been uprooted and then inserted in the ground, even though it was a hundred cubits high, the eruv is valid. If it he put it in a chest and the key was lost, the eruv is [nevertheless] valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he does not know that the key is in its place, the eruv is invalid.

[An eruv] which rolled away beyond the [Shabbat] limit, or a heap of stones fell on it, or was burnt, [or was] terumah and became impure: [If one of these occurred] while it was yet day, it is invalid, [But if it occurred] after it became dark the eruv is valid. If it is doubtful [when it occurred]: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say: this is a donkey-driver/camel driver. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a doubtful eruv is valid. Rabbi Yose says: Avtulmos testified on the authority of five elders that a doubtful eruv is valid.

A man may make a stipulation concerning his eruv and say, “If foreigners came from the east, let my eruv be that of the west; [if they came] from the west let my eruv be that of the east; if they came from both directions, I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if they came from neither direction I will be like the people of my town.” [Likewise say,] “If a sage came from the east let my eruv be that of the east; if from the west let my eruv be that of the west; If he came from either direction I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if no one came from either direction I will be like the people of my town.” Rabbi Judah says: if one of them was his teacher he may go only to his teacher, but if both were his teachers he may go in whatever direction he prefers.

Rabbi Eliezer says: if a festival day immediately precedes or follows Shabbat a man may prepare two eruvs and make the following declaration: “my eruv for the first day is that of the east and for the second day is that of the west”; “the one for the first day is that of the west and the one for the second day is that of the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second day I will be as the people of my town”; or “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first day I will be as the people of my town”. But the sages say: he either prepares an eruv for one direction or none at all; he either prepares one eruv for the two days or none at all. How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away. On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it. He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv. If the eruv was eaten up on the first day it remains effective for the first day but not for the second. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: you do then agree with me that they are two distinct holinesses.

Rabbi Judah says: [if on the eve of the] New Year a man was afraid that [the preceding month of Elul] might be intercalated, he may prepare two eruvs and make this declaration: “My eruv for the first day is that to the east and the one for the second day is that to the west”; “the one for the first day is that to the west and the one for the second day is that to the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second I shall be as the people of my town”; “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first I shall be as the people of my town.” But the sages did not agree with him.

Rabbi Judah further said: a man may stipulate concerning a basket [of produce] on the first festival day [of Rosh Hashanah] and may then eat it on the second day, And so also if an egg was laid on the first [festival] day it may be eaten on the second. But the sages did not agree with him.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the person who goes in front of the ark on [the first day of] of Rosh Hashanah says: “Strengthen us, o Lord our God, on this first day of the month, whether it be today or tomorrow”; and on the following day he says: ‘[Strengthen us...] whether it be today or yesterday.” But the sages did not agree with him.

Chapter 4

One whom Gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken out [beyond the Shabbat border] has no more than four cubits [in which to move]. If they brought him back, it is as if he had never gone out. If they took him to another town, or if they put him in a pen or a sahar: Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say he may move throughout the entire area; But Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva says: he has only four cubits [in which to move]. It once happened that they were coming from Brindisi and their ship sailed out to sea [on Shabbat]. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah walked about throughout its area, but Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba did not move beyond four cubits because they wanted to be stringent upon themselves.

Once they did not enter the harbor until dusk [on Shabbat eve]. They asked Rabban Gamaliel, “Can we disembark?” He said to them, “You may for I was already observing and we were already within the Shabbat limit before it grew dark.”

One who went beyond the Shabbat limit with permission and was then told that the act had already been performed, [he is allowed to move] within two thousand cubits in any direction. If he was within the Shabbat limit, it is as if he had not gone out. All who go out to save life may return to their original places.

One who sat down on the road [at dusk on Friday eve] and then got up and saw that he was near a town he may not enter it, since it had not been his intention to do so, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he may enter it. Rabbi Judah said: it once actually happened and Rabbi Tarfon entered the town, even though this was not his intention [when Shabbat had begun].

If one slept on the road and was unaware that night had fallen, he may move two thousand cubits in any direction, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. But the sages say: he has only four cubits within which to move. Rabbi Eliezer says: and the man is deemed to be in the middle of them. Rabbi Judah says: he may move in any direction he desires. And Rabbi Judah agrees that once chosen his direction he may not go back on it.

Two men, some of whose cubits enter into the cubits of the other, may bring their meals and eat them in the middle, provided that this one does not carry out anything from his limit into that of the other. If there were three men and the prescribed limit of the middle one overlapped with the limits of the others, he is permitted to eat with either of them and either of them is permitted to eat with him, but the two outer persons are forbidden to eat with one another. Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this similar? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain: If they made an eruv for the outer ones with the middle one, the middle one is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, but the two outer ones are forbidden access to one another.

One who was on a journey and it became dark, and he recognized a tree or a fence and said, “Let my Shabbat place be under it”, he has said nothing. If he said, “Let my Shabbat place be at its root”, he may walk from the place where he stands to its root a distance of two thousand cubits, and from its root to his house another two thousand cubits. Thus he can walk four thousand cubits after dusk.

If he does not recognize [any tree or fence], or if he is not familiar with the halakhah, and said, “Let my present position be my Shabbat place”, his position acquires for him the right of movement two thousand cubits in any direction. In a circle, the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus. But the sages say: the distances are square, in the shape of a square tablet, so that he may gain the area of the corners.

This is what [the rabbis] have said: “a poor man makes his eruv with his feet.” Rabbi Meir said: we can apply this law to a poor man only. Rabbi Judah says: it applies to both rich and poor; they only said that an eruv is prepared with bread in order to make it easier for the rich man, so that he does not have to go out and make the eruv with his feet.

One who left to go to a town with which [his home town is wished to be] connected by an eruv, but a friend of his returned him home, he himself is allowed to go to the other town but all the other townspeople are forbidden, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: whoever is able to prepare an eruv and neglected to do so is like one who is both a donkey-driver and a camel-driver.

One who went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even one cubit may not re-enter. Rabbi Eliezer says: [if he went] two cubits [beyond his Shabbat limit] he may re-enter, three cubits he may not re-enter. One who was overtaken by dusk when only one cubit [outside the Shabbat limit] may not enter [the Shabbat border]. Rabbi Shimon says: even if he was fifteen cubits away he may enter since the surveyors do not measure exactly on account of those who err.

Chapter 5

How do they make extensions for cities [for the purpose of defining the Shabbat limit]?If one house recedes and another projects, Or if one turret [of the wall] recedes and another projects, If there were ruins ten handbreadths high, or bridges, or sepulchral monuments that contained dwelling places, they extend the boundary of the town is to include them. And they make it [the Shabbat limit] like a square tablet in order that the use of the corners might be gained.

They give a karpaf [as an extension] for every town, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they said [the of a] karpaf only in regard to two towns that if there was to this one [a piece] of land of seventy cubits and a fraction and to the other one [a piece of land] seventy cubits and a fraction, they can consider the karpaf as combining the two into one.

So also three villages arranged in the shape of a triangle, if between the two outer ones there is a distance of a hundred and forty-one and a third cubits, the middle one causes all the three of them to be regarded as one.

They measure the Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, neither less nor more. And one should measure only while holding the end of the rope on a level with his heart. If he was measuring and he reached a valley or a wall he spans it and resumes his measuring. If he reached a hill he spans it and resumes his measuring, provided he does not go beyond the Shabbat limit. If he is unable to span it in connection with this Rabbi Dostai ben Yannai stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: “I have heard that they pierce the hills.”

They measure [the Shabbat limit] only through an expert. If he extended the limit at one point and limited it at another, they observe the place where he extended it. If there was one who made it a greater distance and one who made it a lesser distance, the greater distance is observed. Even a slave and even a female slave are believed when they say, “Thus far is the Shabbat limit”, since the sages did not enact the law in order to be strict but in order to be lenient.

If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to the many, they may make an eruv for the entire town. But if a town belonged to the many and was converted into one belonging to an individual, they may not make an eruv for the entire town unless they excluded from it a section the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: three courtyards each of which contains two houses.

If one was in the east and said to his son, “Prepare for me an eruv in the west”, or if he was in the west and he said to his son, “Prepare for me an eruv in the east”, if the distance between him and his house was no more than two thousand cubits and that between him and his eruv was more than this, he is permitted to go to his house but forbidden to go to his eruv. If the distance to his eruv was no more than two thousand cubits and that to his house more than this, he is forbidden to go to his house but permitted to go to his eruv. One who puts his eruv within the extension of a town, he has done nothing. If he put it even one cubit only beyond the limit he loses what he gains.

The people of a large town may walk through the whole of a small town, but the people of a small town may not walk through the whole of a large town. How is this so? If a man was in a large town and deposited his eruv in a small town or if he stayed in a small town and deposited his eruv in a large town, he may walk through all the town and two thousand cubits beyond it. Rabbi Akiva says: he only has the place of his eruv and another two thousand cubits.

Rabbi Akiva said to them: Do you not agree with me that one who puts his eruv in a cave may walk no further than two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv? They replied: when is this true? Only where no people dwell in it, but where people dwell in it one may walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond it. Thus [where an eruv is put] within [the cave] the law is more lenient than [where one is put] on top of it. And to the measurer, of whom they spoke, they give him a distance of two thousand cubits even if the end of his measure terminates within a cave.

Chapter 6

One who lives in a courtyard with a non-Jew or with one who does not acknowledge the [principle of] eruv, behold this one restricts him [from making use of the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one can never restrict another [from making use of the eruv] unless there are two Jews who restrict each other.

Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.

If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden both to him and to them for the taking in or for the taking out of any object. But their houses are permitted both to him and to them. If they gave their part [of the courtyard] to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden. If there were two [who forgot to join in the eruv], they restrict each other, because one may give his part and also acquire the part [of others] but two may give their parts but may not acquire the parts [of others].

When must they give away their share [courtyard or alley]? Bet Shammai says: while it is yet day, And Bet Hillel says: after dusk. One who gave away his share and then carried out an object, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he restricts [the others from carrying in the courtyard or alley], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if he acted with intention he restricts [the others], but if unwittingly he does not restrict.

A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors: with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv. But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv.

Five companies [of men] who spent Shabbat in one hall:: Bet Shammai says: an eruv for each and every company; But Bet Hillel says: one eruv for them all. They agree that where some of them occupy rooms or upper chambers, that they must make an eruv for each and every company.

Brothers who are partners who were eating at their father’s table but slept in their own homes must each have an eruv. Hence, if any one of them forgot and did not [contribute] to the eruv, he must annul his right to his share in the courtyard. When does this apply? When they bring their eruv into some other place but if their eruv is deposited with them or if there are no other tenants with them in the courtyard they need not prepare any eruv.

Five courtyards which were each opened into the other and into an alley, and they made an eruv for the courtyards but they did not share in a shittuf for the alley, they are permitted [the use of the] courtyards but forbidden that of the alley. If they shared in a shittuf for the alley [but not in the eruv for the courtyards], they are permitted the use of both. If they made an eruv for the courtyards and they made a shittuf for the alley, and one of the tenants of a courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, they are permitted the use of both. If one of the residents of the alley forgot to share in the shittuf, they are permitted the use of the courtyards but forbidden that of the alley, Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses.

Two courtyards, this one inside the other:If the [residents] of the inner one prepared an eruv but those of the outer one did not prepare an eruv, the inner one is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If the [residents] of the outer one prepared an eruv but not those of the inner one, they both are forbidden. If the [residents] of each [courtyard] prepared an eruv for themselves, each is permitted on its own. Rabbi Akiva forbids the outer one because the right to walk in it prohibits it. The sages say that the right of way does not prohibit it.

If one of the [residents] of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, the inner courtyard is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If one of the [residents] of the inner courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. If they gave their eruv in the same place and one [resident], whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. If the courtyards belonged to individuals, they need not prepare any eruv.

Chapter 7

If a window between two courtyards was four handbreadths by four handbreadths, and was within ten handbreadths [from the ground], the tenants prepare two eruvin or, if they want, they may prepare one. If [the size of the window was] less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths or higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, they may prepare two eruvin but not one.

If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths thick, two eruvin must be prepared, but not one. If there was produce on top of it, the [residents] from this side may climb up and eat and those from this side may climb up and eat, provided they do not bring it down. If the wall was breached a breach of ten cubits, the residents prepare two eruvin or, if they prefer, they prepare one eruv, because it is like a doorway. If the breach was bigger, only one eruv and not two may be prepared.

If a ditch between two courtyards was ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, they may make two eruvin but not one, even if it was full of stubble or straw. If it was full of earth or gravel, only one eruv may be prepared, but not two.

If he placed over it a board four handbreadths wide, and so also where two balconies are opposite one another, the residents may prepare two eruvin or, if they prefer, only one. [If the board] was less wide two eruvs may be prepared, but not one.

If a heap of straw between two courtyards yards was ten handbreadths high, they make two eruvin but not one. These may feed [their cattle] from this side and these may feed from the other side. If the height of the straw heap was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, one eruv may be prepared but not two.

How does one make an “alley partnership”? One [of the residents] places a jar and declares, “Behold, this belongs to all the residents of the alley”, and he confers possession upon [the other residents] through his adult son or daughter, through his Hebrew servant or maidservant or through his wife. But he may not confer possession through his minor son or daughter or through his Canaanite slave or female slave, because their hand is as his hand.

If the food was reduced, he must add to it and confer possession [upon the other residents] but he need not inform them. If the number of residents has increased, he must add food and confer possession [upon them], and he must inform them.

What is the quantity required?When the residents are many there should be food sufficient for two meals for all of them; And when they are few there should be food of the size of a dried fig for each one.

Rabbi Yose says: When does this apply? To the beginnings of the eruv but in the case of the remnants of an eruv even the smallest quantity of food is sufficient, They said that one should set up an eruv for courtyards only so that the law should not be forgotten by the children.

They may set up an eruv or a shittuf with all kinds [of food] except for water or salt, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a whole loaf of bread is a valid eruv. Even a baking of one se’ah, if it is a broken loaf, may not be used for eruv while a loaf of the size of an issar, provided it is whole, may be used for eruv.

A man may give a ma’ah to a shopkeeper or a baker in order to acquire a share in the eruv, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: his money acquires no share for him They agree that in the case of all other men his money may acquire [an eruv for him], Since they do not prepare an eruv except with one’s consent. Rabbi Judah says: To what does this apply? To Shabbat border eruvin, but in the case of courtyard eruvin they prepare an eruv with his consent and without his consent, since they confer a benefit on a person in his absence but they do not confer a disability on a person except in his presence.

Chapter 8

How does one effect participation in connection with Shabbat limits? One sets down a jar and says, “Behold this is for all the inhabitants of my town, for anyone who may desire to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting”. Any one who accepted [the eruv] while it was still day is permitted [to enjoy its benefits] but if one did it after dusk he is forbidden, since they do not set up an eruv after dusk.

What is the minimum measure [for Shabbat border eruvin]?Food for two meals for each person, for weekdays and not for Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: for Shabbat and not for weekdays. And both intended to give a leniency. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pondium when the price of wheat is four se’ah for a sela. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made from a kav [of wheat]. Half of this loaf is the size prescribed for a leprous house, and half of its half is the size that disqualifies one’s body [from eating terumah].

If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard. The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard. To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths.

If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. [If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit.

One who leaves his house and goes to spend Shabbat in another town, whether he was a Gentile or an Israelite, he prohibits [the other residents from using the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he does not prohibit. Rabbi Yose says: a Gentile prohibits but an Israelite does not prohibit because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon says: even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter in the same town he does not prohibit, since he turned his attention away.

A cistern between two courtyards they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above. Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.

A water channel that passes through a courtyard they do not draw water from there on Shabbat unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high at its entrance and exit. Rabbi Judah says: the wall above it may be regarded as a partition. Rabbi Judah said: it happened with the water-channel of Avel that they would draw water was from it on Shabbat on the authority of the elders. They said to him: because it was not of the prescribed size.

A balcony that was situated above the water, they do not draw water from there on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high either above or below [the water]. So also two balconies, one on top of the other. If they made [a partition] for the upper one but not for the lower one, they are both prohibited until they make an eruv.

A courtyard which is less than four cubits: they may not pour out water in it on Shabbat unless they made a trough holding two se’ah from its drainage point downwards, regardless of whether [the trough] was outside or inside, except that if it was outside it is necessary to cover it and if it inside it is not necessary to cover it.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a sewage drain which is covered over four cubits in the public domain, it is permitted to pour water into it on Shabbat. But the Sages say: even where a roof or a courtyard was a hundred cubits in area, he may not pour water over the mouth of the drain, but he may pour upon the roof, and the water will flow into the drain. The courtyard and the portico combined to make up the four cubits.

So too in the case of two two-storied buildings this one opposite that one: if some of the tenants made a trough and others did not, those who made the trough are permitted to pour down their water, but those who did not make any trough are forbidden.

Chapter 9

All the roofs of a town are a single domain, provided no roof is ten handbreadths higher or lower [than the neighboring roof], the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: each one is its own domain. Rabbi Shimon says: roofs, courtyards and karpafs are all one domain with regard to objects that were within them when Shabbat began, but not with regard to objects that were in the house when Shabbat began.

A large roof close to a small roof: the large one is permitted but that of the small one is forbidden. If [the wall of a] large courtyard which shared a wall with a small courtyard was broken down, the use of the large one is permitted, but that of the smaller one is forbidden, because the gap is like a doorway to the large one. If [the wall of a] courtyard which shared a wall with the public domain was broken down, one who brings from it into a private domain or from a private domain into it is liable, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: from it into the public domain or from the public domain into it he is exempt because it is like a karmelit.

A courtyard [whose walls] were breached from two sides, and so also a house [whose walls] were breached from two of its sides, or an alley from which the cross-beam or side-post was removed:They are permitted for that Shabbat but prohibited for the future, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: if they are permitted on that Shabbat they are also permitted for the future and if they are prohibited in the future, they are also prohibited for that Shabbat.

One who builds an upper room on the top of two houses, and so too in the case of viaducts, they may carry underneath them on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages prohibit this. Rabbi Judah moreover said: an eruv may be prepared for an alley that is a thoroughfare; But the sages forbid this.

Chapter 10

One who finds tefillin should bring them in one pair at a time. Rabban Gamaliel says: two pairs at a time. To what does this apply? To old ones but in the case of new ones he is exempt. If he found them arranged in a set or in bundles he shall wait by them until it is dark and then bring them in. In a time of danger, he should cover them and walk away.

Rabbi Shimon says: he should pass them [the tefillin] to his fellow and his fellow should pass them to his fellow, and so on, until they reach the outermost courtyard. The same is true in the case of his child: he passes him to his fellow and his fellow passes him to his fellow, and so on, even if there are a hundred. Rabbi Judah says: one may pass a jar to his fellow and his fellow may pass it to his fellow even beyond the Shabbat limit. They said to him: this must not go further than the feet of its owner.

If one was reading a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself. If he was reading on the top of a roof and the scroll rolled out of his hand: Before it reached ten handbreadths from the ground, he may roll it back to himself; But after it had reached ten handbreadths from the ground he must turn it over with its writing downwards. Rabbi Judah says: even if it was removed from the ground by no more than a thread's thickness he may roll it back to himself. Rabbi Shimon says: even if it touched the actual ground he may roll it back to himself, since no prohibition that is due to “Shabbat rest” stands before the Holy Writings.

If there was a ledge in front of a window it is permitted to put objects on it or to remove objects from it on Shabbat. A man may stand in a private domain and move objects in a public domain or he may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided he does not take them beyond four cubits.

A man may not stand in a private domain and urinate in a public domain or in a public domain and urinate in a private domain, and similarly he may not spit. Rabbi Judah says: even when a person’s spit accumulated in his mouth, he must not walk four cubits before he spat out.

A man may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain or stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks. And similarly concerning a winepress. A man may intercept water from a gutter at a level below ten handbreadths, And from a water-spout he may drink in any manner.

If a cistern in a public domain had an embankment ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to draw water from it on the sabbath through a window above it. If a garbage heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to pour water on it on Shabbat from a window above it.

If a tree overshadows the ground: if its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it. If its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground, one may not sit on them. With the door in the “muktzeh”, and the thorns in the breach [of a wall] and reed mats, one may not close an opening, unless they are high off the ground.

A man may not stand in a private domain and open a door in the public domain, or in the public domain and open a door in a private domain, unless he has made a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: it happened at the [oxen and chicken] fatteners’ market in Jerusalem that they would lock their shops and leave the key in a window above a shop door. Rabbi Yose says: it was the wool-dealers’ market.

A bolt which has a knob at one end: Rabbi Eliezer forbids it [to be moved]; But Rabbi Yose permits it. Rabbi Eliezer said: It happened in a synagogue in Tiberias that they were customary to permit it, until Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and forbade it to them. Rabbi Yose said: they treated it as forbidden, Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and permitted it to them.

A bolt that drags along the ground: it is permitted to lock [a door] with it in the Temple but not in the country; But one that rests on the ground is forbidden both here and there. Rabbi Judah says: one that rests on the ground is permitted in the Temple but one that drags on the ground is permitted [even] in the country.

A lower hinge [of a door] may be reinserted in the Temple but not in the country. The upper one is forbidden in both. Rabbi Judah says: the upper one may be re-inserted in the Temple and the lower one in the country.

One may replace a plaster bandage on a wound in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both. A harp string may be tied up in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both. One may remove a wart in the Temple but not in the country. If [the operation must be performed] with an instrument it is forbidden in both.

A priest who was wounded in his finger may wrap some reed-grass round it in the Temple but not in the country. But if he intended to draw out blood it is forbidden in both cases. They scatter salt on the altar’s ramp so that the priests shall not slip. They draw water by means of a wheel on Shabbat from the cistern of the exiles and from the great cistern, and on a festival day from the Hakar cistern.

If a [dead] creeping thing was found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out in his girdle in order not to keep the impurity there any longer than is necessary, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Judah says: [it should be removed] with wooden tongs in order that uncleanness shall not increase. From where must it be removed? From the sanctuary, from the hall, and from between the hall and the altar, the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas. Rabbi Akiva says: from any place where karet is incurred for entering intentionally and a sin-offering for entering in error from there it must be removed, and from any other place they cover it with a large pot. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever the sages have permitted you anything they have only given you what is really yours, since they have only permitted you that which is forbidden as shevut.

משנה פסחים

Chapter 1

On the evening of the fourteenth [of Nissan] they search they house for chametz by the light of a lamp. Every place into which chametz is not brought does not require searching, So why did they rule: two rows of the wine cellar [must be searched]? [This is actually] a place into which chametz might be taken. Bet Shammai say: two rows over the front of the whole cellar; But Bet Hillel say: the two outer rows, which are the uppermost.

They need not fear that a weasel may have dragged [chametz] from one room to another or from one place to another, for if so, [they must also fear] from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town, and there would be no end to the matter.

Rabbi Judah says: they search on the evening of the fourteenth and in the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of destroying. But the sages say: if he did not search in the evening of the fourteenth he must search on the fourteenth; if he did not search in [the morning of] the fourteenth, he must search during the festival; if he did not search during the festival, he must search after the festival. And what he leaves over he must put away in a hidden place, so that he should not need searching after it.

Rabbi Meir says: one may eat [chametz] the whole of the five [hours] and must burn [it] at the beginning of the sixth. Rabbi Judah says: one may eat the whole of the four [hours], suspend it the whole of the fifth, and must burn it at the beginning of the sixth.

Rabbi Judah further said: two unfit loaves of thanksgiving used to lie on the roof of the [Temple] portico: as long as they lay [there] all the people would eat [chametz]. When one was removed, they would keep it in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]. When both were removed, all the people began to burn [their chametz]. Rabban Gamaliel says: non-sacred chametz may be eaten the whole of the four [hours] and terumah the whole of the five [hours] and they burn [them] at the beginning of the sixth [hour].

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests says: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness.

Rabbi Meir said: from their words we learn that we may burn clean terumah together with unclean terumah on Pesah. Rabbi Yose said: that is not a [proper] analogy. And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that each is burnt separately. Concerning what do they disagree? In respect of doubtful [terumah] and unclean [terumah]: Rabbi Eliezer says: each is burnt separately But Rabbi Joshua rules: both together.

Chapter 2

Any hour in which one is permitted to eat [chametz], one may feed it to cattle, beasts and birds, and one may sell it to a gentile, and benefit from it is permitted. When its time has passed benefit from it is forbidden, and he may not [even] fire an oven or a stove with it. Rabbi Judah says: there is no removal of chametz except by burning; But the sages say: he may also crumble it and throw it to the wind or cast it into the sea.

Chametz which belongs to a gentile over which Pesach has passed is permitted for benefit; But that of an Israelite is forbidden for benefit, as it is said, “No leavened bread shall be found with you.”

If a gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his chametz, after Pesah it is permitted for use. But if an Israelite lent [money] to a gentile on his chametz, after Pesah it is prohibited for use. If ruins fell on chametz it is as if it is has been removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: provided that a dog cannot search it out.

One who unwittingly eats terumah chametz on Pesah must repay [to a priest] the principal plus a fifth. Intentionally, he is exempt from payment and from [liability for] its value as fuel.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. And they combine to the size of an olive. And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed.

One may not soak bran for fowls, but one may scald it. A woman may not soak bran to take with her to the bathhouse, but she may rub dry [bran] on her skin. And a man may not chew wheat and place it on his wound, because it turns into chametz.

One may not put flour into haroset or into mustard; And if he did put [it], it must be eaten immediately; But Rabbi Meir forbids [it]. One may not boil the Pesah sacrifice, neither in liquids nor in fruit juice but one may baste and dip it in them. The water used by a baker must be poured out, because it causes leavening.

Chapter 3

These must be removed on Pesah:Babylonian kutah, Medean beer, Idumean vinegar, Egyptian zitom, The dyer’s pulp, cook’s dough, and the scribes’ paste. Rabbi Eliezer says: women’s ornaments too. This is the general rule: whatever is of a species of grain must be removed on Pesah. These are subject to a warning but they do not involve karet.

[With regard to] the dough in the cracks of the kneading trough: if there is as much as an olive in one place, he must remove [it]; but if not, it is nullified through the smallness of its quantity. And it is likewise in the matter of uncleanness: if he objects to it, it makes a break; but if he desires its preservation, it is like the kneading-trough. [With regard to] “deaf” dough, if there is [a dough] similar to it which has become chametz, it is forbidden.

How do they separate hallah on the festival [from dough which is] in [a state of] uncleanness?Rabbi Eliezer says: she should not call it [hallah] until it is baked. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: she should put [the dough] into cold water. Rabbi Joshua said: this is not the chametz concerning which we are warned with, “It shall not be seen”, and “It shall not be found”. Rather she separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it ferments it ferments.

Rabban Gamaliel says: three women may knead at the same time and bake in one oven, one after the other. But the sages say: three women may be engaged with the dough at the same time: one kneads, one shapes and one bakes. Rabbi Akiba says: not all women and not all kinds of wood and not all ovens are alike. This is the general principle: if it [the dough] rises, she should slap it with [hands dipped in] cold water.

Si’ur must be burnt, while he who eats it is exempt; sidduk must be burnt, while he who eats it is liable to kareth. What is si'ur? [When there are lines on the surface] like locusts’ horns. Sidduk is when the cracks have intermingled with each other, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: regarding the one and the other, he who eats it is liable for karet. And what is si'ur? When its surface is blanched, like [the face of] a man whose hair is standing [on end].

If the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on Shabbat, they remove everything before Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: at its [usual] time. Rabbi Eleazar bar Zadok says: terumah before Shabbat, and non-sacred [chametz] at its [usual] time.

He who is on his way to slaughter his Pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son or to dine at a betrothal feast at the house of his father-in-law, and remembers that he has chametz at home: if he is able to go back, remove [it], and [then] return to his religious duty, he must go back and remove [it]; but if not, he annuls it in his heart. [If he is on his way] to save from an invasion or from a river or from brigands or from a fire or from a collapse [of a building], he annuls it in his heart. [But if] to rest for pleasure, he must return immediately.

Similarly, he who went out of Jerusalem and remembered that he had holy meat with him: If he has passed Scopus, he burns it where he is; but if not, he returns and burns it in front of the Temple with the wood of the [altar] pile. And for what [quantity] must they return? Rabbi Meir says: for both when there is as much as an egg; Rabbi Judah says: for both, when there is as much as an olive; But the sages say: holy meat, when there is as much as an olive and chametz, when there is as much as an egg.

Chapter 4

In a place where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday one may do work; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do work. He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, they place upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place to where he has gone. And a man must not act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue].

Similarly, he who transports sabbatical year produce from a place where it has ceased [to exist in the field] to a place where it has not ceased or from a place where it has not ceased to a place where it has ceased, he is bound to remove it. Rabbi Judah says: he can say to them “You can go out too and bring [produce] for yourself.”

In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse.

In a place where it is the custom to eat roasted [meat] on the night of Pesah, they may eat [it]; where it is the custom not to eat [it], they may not eat [it]. In a place where it is the practice to light a lamp [at home] on the night of Yom Kippur, they may light; where it is the practice not to light, they may not light. And they light [lamps] in synagogues, study-houses, and dark alleys, and for the sake of invalids.

In a place where it is the custom to do work on the ninth of Av, one may do it; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do it. And in all places students of sages desist [from work on that day]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: a man should always make himself a student of sages. But the sages say: In Judea they used to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday, while in Galilee they did not work at all. [With regard to] the night: Beth Shammai forbid [work], but Bet Hillel permit it until sunrise.

Rabbi Meir says: any work which he began before the fourteenth, he may finish it on the fourteenth; but he may not begin [new work] on the fourteenth, even if he can finish it [on the same day]. The sages say: three craftsmen may work on the eve of Pesah until midday, and these are they: tailors, hairdressers, and laundrymen. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: shoemakers too.

They may set up chicken-houses for fowls on the fourteenth; and if a fowl ran away, one may return her to her place; and if she died, one may set another in her place. They may sweep away [the manure] from under an animal’s feet on the fourteenth, but on the festival one may only move it to the side. They may take vessels to and bring them back from a craftsman’s house, even if they are not required for the festival.

Six things the inhabitants of Jericho did: against three they [the sages] protested, and against three [they] did not protest.And these are those against which they did not protest: They grafted palm trees all day [on the eve of Pesah]; They ‘wrapped up’ the Shema; And they harvested and stacked [their produce] before [the bringing of] the ‘omer. And [for these] they did not protest. And these are those against which they did protest: They permitted [for use] the small branches [of sycamore trees] belonging to sacred property, And they ate the fallen fruit from beneath [trees] on Shabbat, and they gave pe’ah from vegetables; And [for these] they did protest.

Six things King Hezekiah did, concerning three they [the sages] agreed with him, and concerning three they did not agree with him: He dragged his father's bones [corpse] on a rope bier, and they agreed with him; He crushed the bronze serpent, and they agreed with him; He hid the book of remedies, and they agreed with him. And concerning three they did not agree with him: He cut down the doors of the Temple and sent them to the king of Assyria, and they did not agree with him; He closed up the waters of the Upper Gihon, and they did not agree with him; He intercalated [the month of] Nisan in Nisan, and they did not agree with him.

Chapter 5

The [afternoon] tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours and is offered at nine and a half hours. On the eve of Pesah it is slaughtered at seven and a half hours and offered at eight and a half hours, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat. If the eve of Pesah fell on the eve of Shabbat it is slaughtered at six and a half hours and offered at seven and a half hours, and the pesah offering after it.

A pesah sacrifice which a person slaughtered another purpose, or caught [the blood] or brought it or sprinkled its [blood] for another purpose; Or for its own purpose and for another purpose; or for another purpose and for its own purpose, it is disqualified. How is it “for its own purpose” and [then] “for another purpose”? For the purpose of being a pesah sacrifice [first] and [then] for the purpose of being a well-being offering. [How is it] “for another purpose” and [then] “for its own purpose”? For the purpose of being a well-being offering [first] and [then] for the purpose of being a pesah sacrifice.

If he slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it or for those who are not registered for it, for uncircumcised persons or for unclean persons, it is unfit. [If he slaughtered it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, for those who are registered for it and for those who are not registered for it, for circumcised and for uncircumcised persons, for unclean and for clean persons, it is fit. If he slaughtered it before midday, it is disqualified, because it is said, “[and all of the assembled congregation of Israelites shall slaughter it] at twilight” (Exodus 12:6). If he slaughtered it before the [evening] tamid, it is fit, providing that a person stirs its blood until [that of] the tamid is sprinkled. [Nevertheless] if it was sprinkled [before the tamid], it is fit.

One who slaughters the pesah with chametz [in his possession] violates a negative commandment. Rabbi Judah says: also the [evening] tamid. Rabbi Shimon says: [If he slaughters] the pesah [with chametz] on the fourteenth for its own purpose, he is liable; [if] for a different purpose, he is exempt. But [for] all other sacrifices, whether slaughtered for their own purpose or for a different purpose, he is exempt. [If he slaughters the pesah with chametz] on the festival for its own purpose, he is exempt; if for a different purpose, he is liable; But [for] all other sacrifices [slaughtered on the festival with chametz], whether for their own purpose or for another purpose, he is liable, except [in the case or] a sin-offering which he slaughtered for a different purpose.

The pesah is slaughtered in three divisions, as it is said, “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it” (Exodus 12:6): “assembly,” “congregation,” and “Israel.” The first division entered, the Temple court was filled, and they closed the doors of the Temple court. They sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah, and a teki'ah. The priests stood in rows, and in their hands were basins of silver and basins of gold, a row which was entirely of silver was of silver, and a row which was entirely of gold was of gold, they were not mixed. And the basins did not have flat bottoms, lest they put them down and the blood becomes congealed.

The Israelite killed [the lamb]; And the priest caught [the blood]. He would hand it to his colleague and his colleague [would hand it] to his colleague. And he would receive the full [basin] and give back the empty one. The priest nearest the altar would sprinkle it once over against the base [or the altar].

The first division [then] went out and the second entered; the second went out and the third entered. As did the first, so did the second and the third. They recited the Hallel. If they finished it, they repeated, and if they repeated [and were not finished yet], they recited it a third time, though they never did recite it a third time. Rabbi Judah says: the third division never reached, “I love Lord for he hears” (Psalms 116:1), because the people for it were few.

As it was done on weekdays so it was done on Shabbat, except that the priests would mop up the Temple court, against the will of the sages. Rabbi Judah says: he [a priest] would fill a goblet with the mixed blood [and] he sprinkled it once on the altar, but the sages did not agree with him.

How did they hang up [the sacrifices] and flay [them]?There were iron hooks fixed in the walls and in the pillars, on which they hung up [the sacrifices] and flayed [them]. If any one had no place to suspend and flay [their sacrifice], there were there thin smooth staves which he placed on his shoulder and on his fellow’s shoulder, and so hung up [the animal] and flayed [it]. Rabbi Eliezer says: when the fourteenth fell on Shabbat, he placed his hand on his fellow’s shoulder and his fellow’s hand on his shoulder, and he hung up [the sacrifice] and flayed [it].

Then he tore it and took out its inner fats, placed them in a tray and burnt them on the altar. The first division went out and sat down on the Temple mount, the second [sat] in the hel, while the third remained in its place. When it grew dark they went out and roasted their pesah lambs.

Chapter 6

These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. R. Eliezer says they do override [Shabbat].

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

When does he bring a hagigah with it [the pesah sacrifice]? When it comes during the week, in purity, and in small [amounts]. But when it comes on Shabbat, in large [amounts], and in impurity, one does not bring the hagigah with it.

The hagigah was brought of flocks, herds, lambs or goats, of the males or the females. And it is eaten two days and one night.

If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable.

If he slaughtered it for those who are not its eaters, or for those who were not registered for it, for uncircumcised or for unclean [persons], he is liable. [If he slaughtered it] for its eaters and for those who are not its eaters, for those who are registered for it and for those who are not registered for it, for circumcised and for uncircumcised, for unclean and for clean [persons], he is exempt. If he slaughtered it, and it was found to possess a blemish, he is liable. If he slaughtered it and it was found to be an internal terefah, he is exempt. If he slaughtered it, and [then] it became known that its owners had withdrawn their hands from it, or that they had died, or that they had become unclean, he is not culpable, because he slaughtered it with permission.

Chapter 7

How is the pesah roasted?They bring a spit of pomegranate wood and thrust it into its mouth [right down] as far as its buttocks, and place its legs and its entrails inside it, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: this is like boiling, rather they are hung outside it.

One may not roast the pesah either on a [metal] spit or on a grill. Rabbi Zadok said: it once happened that Rabban Gamaliel said to his servant Tabi, “Go out and roast us the pesah on the grill.” If it [the pesah] touched the clay of the oven, he should pare its place. If some of its juice dripped on to the clay [of the oven] and dripped back on to it, he must remove its place. If some of its juice fell on the flour, he must take a handful away from its place.

If he basted it [the pesah] with oil of terumah: If they who registered for it are a company of priests, they may eat [it]. But if Israelites, if it is [still] raw, they may wash it off; if it is roasted, he must pare the outer part. If he anointed it with oil of second tithe, he must not charge its value for the members of the company, because second tithe must not be redeemed in Jerusalem.

Five things [sacrifices] may come in uncleanness, but may not be eaten in uncleanness:the omer, the two loaves, the showbread, the sacrifices of the public peace-offerings, and the goats of new months. The pesah which comes in uncleanness is [also] eaten in uncleanness, for from the very beginning it came for no other purpose but to be eaten.

If the flesh was defiled while the fat remained [clean], he may not sprinkle the blood but if the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he must sprinkle the blood. But in the case of [other] dedicated sacrifices it is not so, rather even if the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained clean, he must sprinkle the blood.

If the community or the majority thereof was unclean, or if the priests were unclean and the community clean, they make [the pesah sacrifice] in uncleanness. If a minority of the community were unclean: those who are clean observe the first [Pesah], while those who are unclean observe the second.

A pesah whose blood has been sprinkled and then it became known that it was unclean, the frontlet propitiates. If the body of [the owner] became unclean, the frontlet does not propitiate, because they [the sages] said: [in the case of] a nazirite, and he who sacrifices the pesah-offering, the frontlet propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the frontlet does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the body [of the owner]. If he was defiled with the uncleanness of the deep, the frontlet propitiates.

If all or most of [the pesah] became unclean they burn it in front of the Birah with the wood of the pile. If a lesser part of it became unclean, and also “remainder”, they [the people] burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs with their own wood. Misers burn it in front of the Birah, in order to benefit from the wood of the pile.

A pesah which went out [beyond the walls of Jerusalem] or was defiled must be burned immediately. If its owners were defiled or they died, its form must change and [then] it is burned on the sixteenth [of Nisan]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah says: this too must be burned immediately, because there are none to eat it.

The bones, and the sinews, and the “remainder” [of the pesah] are burned on the sixteenth. If the sixteenth falls on Shabbat, they are burned on the seventeenth, because they do not override either Shabbat or the festival.

Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of a tender goat, as well as the tops of the forelegs and the cartilages. He who breaks a bone of a clean pesah receives forty [lashes] but he who leaves over [flesh] of a clean [pesah] or breaks [a bone] of an unclean [one] does not receive the forty [lashes.]

If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and cuts it away. But in the case of [other] sanctified meat he cuts it off with a large knife, because they are not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. From the door-stop and within it is as the inside; From the door-stop and without is as outside. The windows and the thickness of the wall are as the inside.

Two companies which are eating in one room, these turn their faces in one direction and eat and they turn their faces in another direction and eat, and the boiler is in the middle. When the servant rises to mix [the wine], he must shut his mouth and turn his face away [from the other company] until he reaches his own company and [there] he eats. But a bride may turn her face away and eat.

Chapter 8

A wife, when she is in her husband’s home, and her husband slaughtered on her behalf and her father slaughtered on her behalf, she must eat of her husband's. If she went to spend the first festival in her father's home, and her father slaughtered on her behalf and her husband slaughtered on her behalf, she may eat wherever she pleases. An orphan on whose behalf his guardians slaughtered may eat wherever he pleases. A slave of two partners may not eat of either. He who is half slave and half free may not eat of his master's.

One who says to his slave, “Go out and slaughter the pesah on my behalf”, if he slaughtered a kid, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a kid and a lamb, he eats the first. If he forgot what his master told him, how should he act? He should slaughter a lamb and a kid and declare, “If my master told me [to slaughter] a kid, the kid is his and the lamb is mine; and if my master told me [to slaughter] a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid is mine.” If his master [also] forgot what he told him, both animals go to the place of burning, but they [the master and the slave] are exempt from sacrificing the second pesah.

If a man says to his children, “Behold, I am going to slaughter the pesah on behalf of whichever of you goes up first to Jerusalem,” as soon as the first has put his head and the greater part of his body [into Jerusalem] he has acquired his portion, and he acquires it on behalf of his brothers with him. One may always register for it as long as there is as much as an olive’s worth for each one [registered]. They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it has been slaughtered; Rabbi Shimon says: until the blood is sprinkled.

If one registers others with him [to share] in his portion, the members of the company are permitted to give him his [portion], and he eats his and they eat theirs.

If a zav saw two instances [of discharge], they slaughter [the pesah] on his behalf on his seventh [day]. If he saw three [instances of discharge], they slaughter on his behalf on his eighth [day]. If a woman observes a “day for a day”, they slaughter on her behalf on her second day. If she saw [a discharge] on two days, they slaughter on her behalf on the third [day]. And as for a zavah, they slaughter on her behalf on the eighth [day].

[As to] an onen, and one who is removing a heap [of stones], and likewise one whom they promised to take out of prison, and a sick or an old person who can eat as much as an olive, they slaughter on their behalf. [Yet in the case of] all these, they may not slaughter for them alone, lest they bring the pesah to disqualification. Therefore if a disqualification occurs to them, they are exempt from keeping the second pesah, except for one who was removing the heap, because he was unclean from the beginning.

They may not slaughter the pesah for a single person, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Yose permits it. And even a company of a hundred who cannot eat as much as an olive, one may not slaughter [a pesah] for them. And one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors.

An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Chapter 9

He who was unclean or on a far-off journey and did not keep the first [Pesah] must keep the second. If he unwittingly erred or was prevented and did not keep the first, he must keep the second. If so, why does it say “an unclean person” and “one who was one a long journey” specified? That these are not liable to karet, whereas these are liable to karet.

What is “a far-off journey”?From Modi’im and beyond, and the same distance on all sides [of Jerusalem], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond. Rabbi Yose said to him: for that reason the heh has a dot on it in order to say, not because it is really far-off, but [even when one is] from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond.

What is the difference between the first Pesah and the second?The first is subject to the prohibition of [chametz] shall not be seen and [chametz] shall not be found, while at the second matzah and chametz are in the house with him. The first requires [the reciting of] Hallel when it is eaten, while the second does not require Hallel when it is eaten. But both require [the reciting of] Hallel when they are sacrificed, and they are eaten roasted with matzah and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat.

The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not eat from it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary.

What is the difference between the pesah [which was offered] in Egypt and the pesah of [subsequent] generations?The pesah in Egypt was taken on the tenth [of Nisan], And it required sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and on the two door-posts, And it was eaten in haste on one night, whereas the pesah of [subsequent] generations is kept the whole seven [days].

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that the substitute of a pesah is sacrificed, and that the substitute of a pesah is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: The pesah which was found before the slaughtering of the pesah must be left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it may be sold, and one brings a peace-offering with the money; and the same applies to its substitute. [If found] after the slaughtering of the pesah, it is offered as a wellbeing offering, and the same applies to it substitute.

If a man sets aside a female for his pesah or a two-year old male, it should be left to graze until it becomes unfit, then it should be sold, and its money is spent on a voluntary sacrifice. If a man separates his pesah and dies, his son after him should not bring it as a pesah but rather as a wellbeing offering.

If a pesah became mixed up with other sacrifices, they all graze until they become unfit [through a blemish], then they are sold, and then he must bring [a replacement] for the price of the best of this type, and bring for the price of the best of this type and he loses the remainder from his own pocket. If it became mixed up with first-borns: Rabbi Shimon says: if [the pesah belonged to] a company of priests, they eat [all of the animals that night].

A company lost their pesah and they said to one [who was registered with them], “Go and seek it, and slaughter it on our behalf”; and he went, found, and slaughtered it, and they [also] took an animal and slaughtered [it]: If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat with him. And if theirs was first slaughtered, they eat of theirs, while he eats of his. And if it is unknown which of them was first slaughtered, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, he eats of his, but they may not eat with him; while theirs goes forth to the place of burning, and they are exempt from keeping the second Pesah. He said to them, “If I delay, go forth and slaughter on my behalf,’, [and] then he went and found it and slaughtered [it], while they took [another] and slaughtered [it]: If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs while he eats with them; And if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. And if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, they eat of theirs, but he may not eat with them, while his goes forth to the place of burning, and he is exempt from keeping the second Pesah. He said to them, and they said to him: they all eat of the first [to be slaughtered], and if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, both go forth to the place of burning. If he did not say to them and they did not say to him, they are not responsible for each other.

Two companies whose pesah sacrifices became mixed up: these take possession of one [animal] and these take possession of one. One member of these joins those, and one member of those joins these, and thus they declare: if this pesah is ours, your hands are withdrawn from your own and you are registered for ours; while if this pesah is yours, our hands are withdrawn from ours and we are registered for yours. Similarly, if there are five companies consisting of five members each or of ten each, they draw one from each company and say thusly.

If the pesah sacrifices belonging to two [individuals] became mixed up, each takes possession of one [animal]; This one registers someone from the marketplace with him and that one registers someone from the marketplace with him. This one goes over to that one and that one goes over to this one, and thus they declare: “If this pesah is mine, your hands are withdrawn from yours and you are registered for mine; while if this pesah is yours, my hands are withdrawn from mine and I am registered for yours.”

Chapter 10

On the eve of Pesah close to minhah one may not eat until nightfall. Even the poorest person in Israel must not eat [on the night of Pesah] until he reclines. And they should give him not less than four cups [of wine], and even from the charity plate.

They mixed him the first cup: Bet Shammai says: first he blesses over the day and then over the wine. Bet Hillel says: first he blesses over the wine and then over the day.

They bring [it] in front of him. He dips lettuce before until he reaches the appetizer that precedes the bread. They bring before him matzah, lettuce, and haroset (and two dishes) though the haroset is not mandatory. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: it is mandatory. And in the Temple they bring the body of the pesah before him.

They mixed him a second cup, and here the son questions his father. If the son lacks the intelligence to ask, his father instructs him: How different this night is from all other nights! On all other nights we eat hametz and matzah, tonight only matzah. On all other nights we eat other vegetables, tonight only bitter herbs. On all other nights, we eat meat roasted, boiled or cooked, tonight only roasted. On all other nights we dip once, tonight twice. And according to the intellect of the son, the father instructs him. He begins with shame and concludes with praise; and expounds from “A wandering Aramean was my father” (Deuteronomy 6:20-25) until he completes the whole section.

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: whoever does not make mention of these three things on Pesah does not fulfill his duty. And these are they: the pesah, matzah, and bitter herbs. The pesah because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt. The matzah because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt. The bitter herb because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt. In every generation a man is obligated to regard himself as though he personally had gone forth from Egypt, because it is said, “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: ‘It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). Therefore it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, raise up, beautify, bless, extol, and adore Him who made all these miracles for our fathers and ourselves; He brought us forth from slavery into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption. Let us say before him, Hallelujah!

How far does one recite it? Bet Shammai say: Until “As a joyous mother of children” (Psalms 113:9). But Bet Hillel say: Until “The flinty rock into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And he concludes with [a formula of] redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt”, but he did not conclude [with a blessing]. Rabbi Akiva says: “So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers bring us to other appointed times and festivals which come towards us for peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city and glad in Your service, and there we will eat of the sacrifices and the pesahim” etc. until “Blessed are You who has redeemed Israel.”

They poured him a third cup, blesses over his meal. A fourth [cup], he concludes the Hallel, and recites over it the blessing of song. Between these cups if he wants he may drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink.

One may not conclude the pesah meal with an afikoman. If some of them fell asleep, they may eat [the pesah when they wake up]. If all of them fell asleep they may not eat. Rabbi Jose says: if they napped, they may eat, but if they fell asleep, they may not eat.

The pesah defiles one’s hands after midnight. Piggul and remnant defile one’s hands. If he recited the blessing for the pesah, he thereby exempts the sacrifice [the hagigah]; [but] if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice [the hagigah], he does not exempt the pesah, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: this does not exempt that nor does that exempt this.

משנה שקלים

Chapter 1

On the first of Adar they make a public announcement about the shekels and concerning kilayim. On the fifteenth: they read the Megillah [Esther] in walled cities, and they fix the roads and the streets and the ritual water baths, and they perform all public duties, and they mark the graves, and [messengers] go forth also concerning kilayim.

Rabbi Judah said: at first they used to uproot [the kilayim], and throw them down before them. [But] when transgressors increased in number, they used to uproot them and throw them on the roads. [Finally], they decreed that they should make the whole field ownerless.

On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the provinces. On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. When [the tables] were set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. From whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves, but not women or slaves or minors. Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. But they did not exact pledges from the priests, because of the ways of peace.

Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten?

Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3).

The following are liable [to pay] the kalbon (surcharge): Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not priests or women or slaves or minors. If a man paid the shekel on behalf of a priest, or on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave, or on behalf of a minor, he is exempt. If a man paid the shekel on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow he is liable for one kalbon. Rabbi Meir says: two kalbons. If one gave a sela and received a shekel, he is liable to pay two kalbons.

If one paid the shekel on behalf of a poor man or on behalf of his neighbor or on behalf of his fellow-townsman, he is exempt [from the kalbon]. But if he loaned [it] to them he is liable. Brothers who are partners who are obligated for the kalbon are exempt from the tithe of beasts. But when they are liable to the tithe of beasts they are exempt from the surcharge. And how much is the kalbon? A silver ma'ah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: half a ma'ah.

Chapter 2

They may change shekels into darics because of the load of the journey. Just as there were shofar-shaped chests in the Temple so there were shofar-shaped chests in the provinces. The townspeople who had sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost: If the appropriation had already been made [the messengers] swear an oath to the treasurers; But if the appropriation had not yet been made they swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople must pay [new] shekels in the place of the [lost] shekels. [If the lost shekels] were found, or if the thieves restored them, then both [the first shekels and their substitutes] are [sacred] shekels and they cannot be credited [to the account] of the coming year.

One who gave his shekel to his fellow to pay it on his behalf, but [his fellow] paid it on behalf of himself: if the appropriation had already been made [his fellow] is guilty of sacrilege. One who paid his shekel out of money belonging to the sanctuary: If the appropriation had already been made and an animal [bought out of the appropriation] had already been offered, he is guilty of sacrilege. [If he paid his shekel with] money that had been used to redeem the second tithe or the value of seventh year produce, he must eat food equal to its value.

One who gathered some coins and said: “Behold, these are for my shekel.” Bet Shammai say: the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. But Bet Hillel say: the surplus is non-sacral property. [If he said:] “From them I shall bring my shekel,” they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. [If he said]: “These [coins] are for a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus [goes to the chests of] freewill-offerings. [If he said]: “From these I shall bring a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property.

Rabbi Shimon says: what is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Shekels have a fixed value, but a sin-offering has no fixed value. Rabbi Judah says: shekels also have no fixed value. For when the Israelites came up out of the diaspora they used to pay the shekel in darics, then they paid the shekel in selas, then they paid it in tibs, and finally they wanted to pay it in dinars. But Rabbi Shimon said: nevertheless they are all of the same value for everyone, whereas [in the case of] a sin-offering one man may bring it of the value of one sela, another may bring it of the value of two selas, and another in the value of three selas.

The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is non-sacred property. The surplus of [money set aside for the] tenth of the ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] bird-offerings of zavim, for bird-offerings of zavot, for bird-offerings of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, their surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: all [money set aside] for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money set aside for] a burnt-offering [must be used] for a burnt-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a meal-offering [must be used] for a meal-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a peace-offering [must be used] for a peace-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a pesach [must be used] for a wellbeing offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of nazirites [must be used] for the offerings of other nazirites. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of a [particular] nazirite [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money raised for] the poor [must be used] for other poor. The surplus of [money raised for] a [particular] poor person [must be given] to that [poor person]. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] captives [must be used] for [the ransom of other] captives. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] a [particular] captive [must be given] to that captive. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] the dead [must be used] for [the burial of other] dead. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be given] to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person must be laid aside until Elijah comes. Rabbi Natan says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be used] for building a monument for him over his grave.

Chapter 3

At three periods of the year the appropriation is made [from the shekels] in the chamber: Half a month before Pesah, half a month before Shavuot, and half a month before Sukkot, and these are also the threshing floors [the seasons] for the tithe of beasts, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, and on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. Why did they say, “On the twenty-ninth of Elul and not on the first of Tishre? Because the first of Tishre is a holy day, and it is not permitted to tithe on a festival, therefore they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul.

In three baskets each of [the capacity of] three seahs they make the appropriation [of shekels] from the chamber. And on them was inscribed: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel. Rabbi Ishmael says: Greek was inscribed on them, alpha, beta, gamla. The one who made the appropriation did not enter the chamber wearing either a bordered cloak or shoes or sandals or tefillin or an amulet, lest if he became poor people might say that he became poor because of a sin committed in the chamber, or if he became rich people might say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For it is one’s duty to be free of blame before others as before God, as it is said: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22), and it says: “And you will find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man” (Proverbs 3:4).

[The members] of Rabban Gamaliel’s household used to enter [the chamber] with their shekel between their fingers, and throw it in front of him who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation purposely pressed it into the basket. He who made the appropriation did not make it until he first said to them: “Should I make the appropriation?” And they say to him three times: “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!”

[After] he made the first appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [After he made the] second appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [But after] the third appropriation he would not cover [what was left]. [And why would he cover?] Lest he should forget and make a [fresh] appropriation from shekels from which had already been appropriated. He would make the first appropriation on behalf of the Land of Israel, and the second on behalf of the surrounding cities, and the third on behalf of Babylon and on behalf of Medea and on behalf of [other] distant countries.

Chapter 4

What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings (tamidim) and the additional burnt-offerings (musafim) and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds.

The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintenance of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means].

What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber?They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor.

What was done with the surplus of the appropriation?[They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.

What was done with the surplus of the incense? They would separate from it the wages of the craftsmen, and they would exchange it for the wages of the craftsmen, and they would give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they would buy it back again out of a new appropriation. If the new month had arrived in time they would bring it with the new appropriation, but if not, they from the old one.

If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation.

One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females,Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua.

One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were among them things fit for the altar, [such as] wines, oils, and birds: Rabbi Elazar says: they should be sold for the use of [offerings of] each particular kind, and they should bring with the proceeds burnt offerings, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the Temple.

Once in thirty days prices were fixed [on behalf of] the chamber. Anyone who had accepted upon himself to supply fine flours at four [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at three [se'ahs for a sela] he must [still] supply four. [If he had accepted to supply fine flours] at three [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at four, he must [also] supply at four, for the sanctified property has the upper hand. If the fine flour became worm-eaten the loss is his; if the wine became sour the loss is his. For he is not entitled to his money until the altar has accepted [the offering].

Chapter 5

These were the officers in the Temple: Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals. Ahiyah over the libations. Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots. Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues). The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels. Nehuniah, the digger of ditches. Gevini, the crier. The son of Gever over the locking of the gates. The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah]. The son of Arza over the cymbal. Hugras the son of Levi over the song. The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread. The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense. Elazar over the curtains. And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.

They did not have less than three treasurers. Or less than seven superintendents. Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public.

There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.

If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.

If one lost his seal his case they wait [to deal] with him until the evening. If they found [money left over] to the value of his lost seal, they give [it] to him and if not he gets nothing. On the seals was inscribed the name of the day because of the defrauders.

There were two chambers in the Temple, one the chamber of secret gifts and the other the chamber of the vessels. The chamber of secret gifts: sin-fearing persons used to put their gifts there in secret, and the poor who were descended of the virtuous were secretly supported from them. The chamber of the vessels: whoever offered a vessel as a gift would throw it in, and once in thirty days the treasurers opened it; and any vessel they found in it that was of use for the repair of the temple they left there, but the others were sold and their price went to the chamber of the repair of the temple.

Chapter 6

There were in the Temple thirteen chests, thirteen tables and thirteen prostrations. [Members] of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests used would prostrate fourteen [times. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the wood storage yard, for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the Ark was hidden there.

It once happened that a priest who was busy [there] noticed that the floor [of the wood storage area] was different from the others. He went and told it to his friend but before he had time to finish his words his soul departed. Then they knew for certain that there the Ark was hidden.

And where did they make the prostrations? Four [times] in the north, four [times] in the south, three [times] in the east, and twice in the west, in front of the thirteen gates. The southern gates close to the west [side were]: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Gate of the Firstborn [Animals], and the Water Gate. Why was it called the Water Gate? Because through it was brought in the flask of water for the libation on Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: through it the waters trickle forth and in the time to come “they will come forth from under the threshold of the Temple” (Ezekiel 47:1). On the opposite side in the north close to the west were: Jechoniah’ Gate, the Gate of the Offerings, the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Song. And why was it called the Jechoniah’ Gate? Because through it Jechoniah went out into his captivity. In the east was the Nicanor’s Gate, and it had two small gates, one to the right and one to the left. There were also two gates in the west which had no name.

There were thirteen tables in the Temple:Eight of marble in the place of slaughtering and on them they would rinse the entrails. And two to the west of the ramp [which ascends the altar], one of marble and one of silver; on that of marble they would place the limbs [of the offerings], and on that of silver the ministering vessels. And there were two tables in the Porch on the inside of the entrance to the Temple, one of marble and the other of gold; on that of marble they would place the showbread placed when it was brought in, and on that of gold [they would place the showbread] when it was taken out, because things sacred may be raised [in honor] but not lowered. And there was one [table] of gold on the inside of the Sanctuary on which the showbread lay continually.

There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.

One who says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring wood”, he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] frankincense”, he may not bring less than a handful of it. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] gold”, he may not bring less than a gold denar. “On six [was inscribed] “for freewill-offerings”: What was done with the freewill-offerings? They would buy with them burnt-offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. The following is the midrash which was expounded by Yehoyada the high priest: “It is a guilt-offering; it is a guilt offering, it goes to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This is the general rule: anything which is brought because of a sin or because of guilt, they should purchase with it burnt offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. Thus the two verses are fulfilled: a guilt offering for the Lord and a guilt offering for the priests, and it says: “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests” (II Kings 12:17).

Chapter 7

Coins which were found between the [chest inscribed] “shekels” and the [chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “shekels”, they go to the shekels; [Nearer to the chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings”, they go to freewill-offerings; Half way in between, they go to freewill-offerings. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “wood” and [the chest inscribed] “frankincense”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “wood”, they go to the wood; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “frankincense”, they go to frankincense; Half way in between, they go to frankincense. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” and [the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” they go to bird-offerings; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings; Half way in between, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings. [Coins which were found] between non-sacred [money] and [second] tithes [money]: Nearer to the non-sacred [money], they go to common [money]; Nearer to the [second] tithes [money], they go to [second] tithes; Half way in between, they are considered [second] tithes. This is the general rule: the go to that which is nearer [even if this] is lenient; but if half way in between, [they must go] to that which is the more stringent.

Money which was found in front of animal dealers [in Jerusalem], it is always [second] tithes [money]; [If it was found] on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred [money]. [If it was found] in Jerusalem during the time of a festival, it is [second] tithes [money]. But all the rest of the year it is non-sacred [money].

Meat which was found in the Temple courtyard: Limbs: [they must be treated as belonging to] whole burnt-offerings; Pieces: [they must be treated as belonging to] sin-offerings. [Meat which was found] in Jerusalem, [must be treated as belonging to] wellbeing-offerings. In both cases it must be left to become disqualified and must then go out to the place of burning. [Meat which was] found within the borders [of Israel but outside of Jerusalem]: Limbs: [they must be treated as] carrion; Pieces: they are permitted. But [if found] during the time of a festival, when meat is abundant, it is permitted [to eat it] even when cut up in limbs.

Beasts which were found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder and within the same distance in any direction: Males are [considered as] burnt-offerings; Females are [considered as] peace-offerings. Rabbi Judah says: that which is fit for a pesach offering, is [considered as] a pesach-offerings [when found] within thirty days before the pilgrimage [of Pesach].

In olden times they used to take a pledge from any one who had found such a [stray] animal, until he brought its libation-offerings. Then people would leave the animal and run away. So the court decreed that its libation-offerings should come from public funds.

Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth].

[They further decreed] concerning the salt and the wood that the priests may benefit from them. And concerning the [red] heifer that using its ashes is not considered sacrilege. And concerning bird-offerings which had become unfit [for sacrifice], that [others] should be offered [in their place] out of public funds. Rabbi Yose says: the one who supplied the bird-offerings was bound to supply [those which had to be offered in the place of] those which had become unfit.

Chapter 8

Any spit found in Jerusalem is clean except that which is [found] in the upper market, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: at other times of the year [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is unclean but [spit found] at the sides [of the road] is clean; but at festivals time [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is clean, while [that which is found] at the sides [of the road] is unclean, since they are few in number, they remove themselves to the sides of the road.

All vessels found in Jerusalem on the way going down to the place of immersion are unclean, [but those found] on the way going up [from the place of immersion] are clean; for the way down is not the same as the way up, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all clean, except the basket and the shovel or pick which are specially connected with [work in] cemeteries.

A [slaughtering] knife which was found on the fourteenth [of Nisan] he may slaughter with it immediately. [If it was found] on the thirteenth [of Nisan] he must immerse it again. But a chopping knife whether [found] on the fourteenth or on the thirteenth, he must immerse it again. If the fourteenth fell on Shabbat, he may slaughter with it immediately. [If found] on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately. If [the chopping knife] was found tied to a [slaughtering] knife it may be treated as the knife.

If the curtain [separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple] was defiled by a derived uncleanness, they immerse it within [the precincts of the Temple] and they bring it back in again. But if it was defiled by a principal uncleanness, they immerse it outside and spread out in the Hel. If it was new it was spread out on the roof of the colonnade, so that the people might behold its workmanship which is beautiful.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the chief [of the priests]: the curtain was a handbreadth in thickness and was woven on seventy-two cords, and on each cord there were twenty-four threads. It was forty cubits long and twenty cubits broad, and was made by eighty-two young girls. Two curtains were made every year, and three hundred priests were needed to immerse it.

Meat of most holy things which was defiled, whether by a principal uncleanness or by a derived uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the precincts of the temple]:Bet Shammai say: it must all be burnt within, except when defiled outside by a principal uncleanness. But Bet Hillel say: it must all be burnt outside, except that which was defiled by a derived uncleanness within.

Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned.

The limbs of the daily burnt-offering were placed on the half of the ramp [to the altar] downwards on the west side. Those of the additional offering (musaf) were placed on the half of the ramp downwards on the east side. While those of the new moon offerings were placed on top of the rim of the altar. [The laws of] the shekels and of the first-fruit are in force only when the Temple stands, but [the laws of] the tithe of grain and of the tithe of cattle and of the firstborn are in force both when the Temple exists and when the Temple does not exist. One who dedicates shekels or first-fruits [when the Temple does not exist], they are holy. Rabbi Shimon says: one who says “the first-fruit be holy,” they are not holy.

משנה יומא

Chapter 1

Seven days before Yom HaKippurim they remove the high priest from his house to the chamber of the counselors and they set up another priest to take his place lest something should occur to him to disqualify him [from being able to worship]. Rabbi Judah said: they even prepare another wife for him in case his wife should die, as it says “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6): “his house” this refers to his wife. They said to him: if so there would be no end to the matter.

All seven days he sprinkles the blood and burns the incense and cleans lamps and offers the head and the leg; And on all other days if he wants he offers, for the high priest is first in offering a portion and has first place in taking a portion.

They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him [throughout the seven days] from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service.

All seven days they did not withhold food or drink from him. On the eve of Yom HaKippurim near nightfall they would not let him eat much because food brings about sleep.

The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept.

If he was a sage he would expound, and if not, the disciples of the sages would expound before him. If he was familiar with reading [the Scriptures] he would read, if not they would read before him. From what would they read before him? From Job, Ezra and Chronicles. Zechariah ben Kv’utal says: I have often read before him from Daniel.

If he wished to sleep, young priests would snap their middle finger before him and say: “Sir high priest, stand up and drive the sleep away by standing once on this [cold] floor. They would keep him busy until the time for the slaughtering [of the daily morning offering] would arrive.

Every day they would remove [the ashes from] the altar at the cock’s crow or close to that time, either before or after. But on Yom HaKippurim from midnight, and on the festivals at the [end of the] first watch; And the cock’s crow would not arrive before the Temple court was full of Israelites.

Chapter 2

Originally anyone who wished to remove [the ashes from] the altar did so. When they were many, they would run up the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits won the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put out? One or two but one does not put out a thumb in the Temple.

Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count.

The second count:who slaughters [the daily regular offering], who sprinkles [the blood], who removes the ashes from the inner altar, who removes the ashes from the candlestick, 5-10) Who takes the limbs [of the offering up to the ramp], the head and the [right] hind-leg, the two forelegs, the tail and the [left] hind-leg, the breast and the throat, the two flanks, the innards, the fine flour, the cakes and the wine. Altogether thirteen priests merited a task. Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiba in the name of Rabbi Joshua: [the daily offering] was offered up in the way it walks.

The third count: “New [priests] come up and submit to the count for the incense.” The fourth count: “New and old priests, who will take up the limbs from the ramp to the altar.”

The tamid was offered up by nine, ten, eleven or twelve [priests], neither by more, nor by less. How so? [The offering] itself by nine; At the festival [of Sukkot] in the hand of one a flask of water, behold there were ten. In the evening by eleven: [The offering] itself by nine and in the hands of two men were two logs of wood. On Shabbat by eleven: [The offering] itself by nine, in the hands of two men two handfuls of incense for the showbread. And on Shabbat which fell during the festival of Sukkot one man carried in his hand a flask of water.

A ram was offered by eleven: the flesh by five, the innards, the fine flour, and the wine by two each.

A bull was offered by twenty-four: The head and [right] hind-leg: the head by one and the [right] hind-leg by two. The tail and [left] hind-leg: the tail by two and the [left] hind-leg by two. The breast and neck: the breast by one and the neck by three. The two fore-legs by two, The two flanks by two. The innards, the fine flour, and the wine by three each. To what does this refer? To communal offerings. But individual offerings, if a single priest wants to offer [all], he may do so. But as to the flaying and dismembering [of both communal and individual sacrifices] the same regulations apply.

Chapter 3

The officer said to them: “Go out and see whether the time for slaughtering [the morning sacrifice] has arrived.” If it had arrived then he who saw it said: “It is daylight!” Matitya ben Shmuel says: “The whole east is light.” Even unto Hebron? And he answered “Yes.”

And why was all that necessary? Because once the light of the moon rose and they thought that the east was lit up and slaughtered the continual offering, [and afterwards] they had to take it out to the place of burning. They led the high priest down to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: whoever covers his feet required an immersion, and whoever passed water required sanctification [by washing] his hands and feet.

A man may not enter the Temple courtyard or to worship even if he was clean until he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest perform on that day. And all in sanctity in the Bet Haparvah with the exception of this one alone.

They spread out a linen sheet between him and the people. He stripped off [his clothes], went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him the golden garments, he put them on and sanctified his hands and feet. They brought him the tamid. He made the required cut and some one else finished it for him. He received the blood and sprinkled it. He went inside to smoke the morning incense and to trim the lamps; And to offer up the head and the limbs and the griddle cakes and the wine.

The morning incense was offered up between the blood and the limbs, The dusk [incense was offered] between the limbs and the drink-offerings. If the high priest was either old or of delicate health warm water they would heat some water for him and pour into the cold [water], to temper its coldness.

They brought him to the Bet Haparvah, which was on holy ground. They spread a sheet of linen between him and the people. He sanctified his hands and his feet and stripped. Rabbi Meir says: he stripped [and then] sanctified his hands and his feet. He went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. Afterwards they brought him white garments. He put them on and sanctified his hands and his feet.

In the morning he would wear Pelusian linen worth twelve minas (1200 dinar/zuz); at dusk Indian linen worth eight hundred zuz, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: in the morning he would wear [garments] worth eighteen minas and at dusk [garments] worth twelve minas, altogether thirty minas. These [costs] were at the charge of the community and if he wanted to add, he adds more out of his own pocket.

He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”

He then went to the east of the Temple court, to the north of the altar, the deputy high priest at his right and the head of the [priestly] family [ministering that week] at his left. There were two goats and an urn was there, and in it were two lots. They were of box-wood and Ben Gamala made them of gold and they would mention his name in praise.

Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver, for there had been before only two. He also made a mechanism for the laver, in order that its water should not become unfit by remaining overnight. King Monbaz had all the handles of all the vessels used on Yom HaKippurim made of gold. His mother Helena made a golden candelabrum over the opening of the Hekhal. She also made a golden tablet, on which the portion concerning the suspected adulteress was inscribed. For Nicanor miracles happened to his doors. And they were all mentioned for praise.

And these they mentioned to their shame:Those of the House of Garmu did not want to teach anything about the preparation of the showbread. Those of the House of Avtinas did not teach to anything about the preparation of the incense. Hugros, a Levite knew a chapter [concerning] the song but did not want to teach it. Ben Kamtzar did not want teach anyone his art of writing. Concerning the former it is said: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); concerning the others it is said: “But the name of the wicked shall rot.”

Chapter 4

He shook the urn and brought up the two lots. On one was inscribed: “For the Name”, and on the other: “For Azazel.” The deputy high priest was at his right hand, the head of the [ministering] family at his left. If the lot “For the Name” came up in his right hand, the deputy high priest would say to him: “Sir, high priest, raise your right hand!” And if the lot “For the Name” came up in his left hand, the head of the family would say: “Sir high priest, raise your left hand!” Then he placed them on the two goats and said: “A sin-offering for the Lord!” Rabbi Ishmael said: he did not need to say, “a sin-offering”, but just “for the Lord.” And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”

He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”

He killed it [the bull] and received its blood in a bowl, and he gave it to the one who stirs it up on the fourth terrace within the sanctuary so that it should not congeal. He took the coal-pan and went up to the top of the altar, and cleared the coals to both sides, and took a panful of the inner glowing cinders, and he came down and placed the coal-pan on the fourth terrace in the Temple Court.

On other days he would take out [the cinders] with a silver coal-pan, and empty it into one of gold, but this day he took them out with a golden coal-pan and in it he brought them [into the Hekhal]. On other days he would take them up with a coal-pan containing four kabs, and empty it into one containing three kabs, but this day he took them out with one containing three kabs, and in it he brought them in. Rabbi Yose says: on other days he would take them out with a coal-pan containing one se’ah, and empty it into one containing three kabs, this day he took them out with one containing three kabs, and in it he brought them in. On other days the pan was heavy, today it was light. On other days its handle was short, today it was long. On other days it was of yellowish gold, today of reddish gold, the words of Rabbi Menahem. On other days he would offer half a mina in the morning and half a mina in the afternoon, today he adds also his two hands full. On other days [the incense] was finely ground, but today it was the most finely ground possible.

On other days the priests would go up on the east side of the ramp and come down on the west side, but this day the high priest goes up in the middle and comes down in the middle. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest always goes up in the middle and comes down in the middle. On other days the high priest sanctified his hands and feet from the laver, but this day from a golden ladle. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest always sanctifies his hands and feet from a golden ladle.

On other days there were four wood-piles there, but on this day five, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: on other days three, but on this day four. Rabbi Judah says: on other days two, but on this day three.

Chapter 5

They brought out to him the ladle and the pan and he took two hands full [of incense] and put it into the ladle, a large [high priest] according to his size, a small one according to his size and thus was its measure. He took the pan in his right hand and the ladle in his left hand. He walked through the Hechal until he came to the place between the two curtains which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies; between them was [a space of] one cubit. Rabbi Yose says: there was but one curtain, as it is said: “And the curtain shall serve you as a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33). The outer curtain was looped on the south side and the inner curtain on the north side. He walked along between them until he reached the north side. When he reached the north side he turned round to the south and went on along the curtain, to his left, until he reached the Ark. When he reached the Ark he put the pan of burning coals between the two poles. He heaped up the incense upon the coals and the whole house became full with smoke. He came out by the way he entered and in the outer house he uttered a short prayer. He did not make the prayer long so as not to frighten Israel.

After the Ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the days of the earlier prophets, called “shtiyah”, three fingers above the ground, on which he would place [the pan of burning coals].

He would take the blood from the one who was stirring it, and enter [again] into the place where he had entered, and stand [again] on the place on which he had stood, and sprinkle once upwards and seven times downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards nor downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. And thus would he count: one, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. Then he would go out and put it on the golden stand in the sanctuary.

They would bring him the goat. He would slay it and receive its blood in a bowl. He entered [again] into the place where he had entered, and stood [again] on the place on which he had stood, and sprinkled once upwards and seven times downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards or downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. And thus would he count: one, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. Then he would go out and place it on the second [golden] stand in the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah said: there was only one golden stand there. He would take the blood of the bull and put down the blood of the goat, and sprinkle from it upon the curtains facing the Ark outside, once upwards, seven times downward, aiming to sprinkle neither upwards nor downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards or downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. Thus would he count [as above]. Then he would take the blood of the goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkle from it upon the curtain facing the ark outside once upwards, seven times downwards [as above]. Then he would pour the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat emptying the full vessel into the empty one.

“And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:18): that is the golden altar. He then began to purify [the altar by sprinkling] in downward motion. From where does he begin? From the northeast horn [of the altar], then the northwest, then the southwest, then the southeast. From the place where he begins [sprinkling when offering] a sin-offering on the outer altar, there he completes [sprinkling] on the inner altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: he remained in his place and sprinkled. And on every horn he would sprinkle from below upwards, with the exception of the horn at which he was standing, which he would sprinkle from above downwards.

Then he sprinkled the top of the altar seven times. And he would pour out the remainder of the blood at the western base of the outer altar. And [the remainder of the blood sprinkled] on the outer altar he poured out at the southern base. Both mingled in the aqueduct and flowed into Nahal Kidron, and they were sold to gardeners as manure and by using them one transgresses the law of trespass (meilah).

Concerning every act of Yom Hakippurim mentioned in the prescribed order [in the mishnah]: if he performed one [later] act before an [earlier] one, it is as if it had not been done at all. If he dealt with the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull, he must start over again, and sprinkle the blood of the goat after the blood of the bull. If before he had finished the sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] the blood was poured away, he must bring other blood, and start over again and sprinkle again within [the Holy of Holies]. Similarly, in the Hekhal and the golden altar, since they are each a separate act of atonement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: wherever he stopped, there he may begin again.

Chapter 6

The two goats of Yom Hakkippurim: it is a requirement that they be alike in appearance, in size, in value, and that they be bought at the same time. But if they are not alike they are still valid. If he bought one today and the other tomorrow, they are valid. If one of them died before the lot was cast another one is bought for the second one. But [if one of them died] after the lot was cast another pair must be bought and he must cast lots for them over again. If the one that ‘For Hashem’ died, he [the high priest] should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Hashem’ has fallen stands in its stead.” And if the one that was ‘For Azazel’ died he should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Azazel’ has fallen stands in its stead.” The other one is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is to be sold and its value goes to the [chest for] voluntary offerings, for the sin-offering of the congregation is not be left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. Furthermore Rabbi Judah said: if the blood was poured away, the goat which is to be sent away is left to die. If the goat to be sent away died the blood is poured.

He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (Bashem)! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”

They handed it over to him who was to lead it away. All were fit to lead it away, but the priests made a fixed rule not to permit an Israelite to lead it away. Rabbi Yose said: it once happened that Arsela led it away, although he was an Israelite.

And they made a ramp for him because of the Babylonians, who would pull its hair, shouting to it: “Take it and go out, take it and go out.” Some of the important people of Jerusalem used to go with him up to the first booth. There were ten booths from Jerusalem to Tzuk [a distance of] ninety ris, seven and a half of which make a mil.

At every booth they would say to him: here is food and here is water. And they went with him from booth to booth, except the last one, who would not go with him up to Zuk, but rather stand from afar, and see what he was doing.

What did he do? He divided the thread of crimson wool, and tied one half to the rock, the other half between its horns, and pushed it from behind, and it went rolling down and before it had reached half its way down hill it had broken into limbs. He came back and sat down under the last booth until it grew dark. And from when are his clothes unclean? From the moment he has gone outside the walls of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says: from the moment he pushes it into Zuk.

He [the high priest] came to the bull and the goat that were to be burnt. He cut them open and took out the sacrificial portions and put them on a tray, and them burned them on the altar. He twisted them around carrying poles and took them out to the place of burning. And from when are his clothes unclean? After they have gone outside the walls of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: from the moment the fire has taken hold of most of them.

They said to the high priest: the goat has reached the wilderness. And how did they know that the goat had reached the wilderness?They used to set up scouts and they would wave scarves, and they would know that the goat had reached the wilderness. Rabbi Judah said: but did they not have a great sign? From Jerusalem to Bet Hidudo was three mils. They could walk a mil, return the mil, then wait the time it takes to walk a mil, and thus know that the goat had reached the wilderness. Rabbi Ishmael said: but did they not have another sign! A thread of crimson wool was tied to the door of the Temple, and when the goat reached the wilderness the thread turned white, as it is written, “Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).

Chapter 7

The high priest [then] came to read. If he wished to read in linen garments, he reads, and if not he reads in his own white cloak. The synagogue attendant would take a Torah scroll and give it to the head of the synagogue, and the head of the synagogue gives it to deputy high priest, and the deputy high priest gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands and receives it, and reads, [section] beginning] “After the death …” (Leviticus 16:1-34) and “But on the tenth…” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he would roll up the Torah scroll and put it in his bosom and say, “More than what I have read out before you is written here.” And “On the tenth …” (Numbers 29:7-11) which is in the Book of Numbers he recites by heart. And he recites on it eight benedictions: “For the law”, “For the Temple service,” “For thanksgiving,” “For the forgiveness of sins” and “For the Temple” on its own, and “For Israel” on its own and “For Jerusalem” on its own, “For the priests” on their own and “For the rest of the prayer.”

He who sees the high priest when he reads does not see the bull and the goat that are being burned, and he that sees the bull and the goat that are being burned does not see the high priest when he reads, not because he was not permitted but because the distance apart was great and both rites were performed at the same time.

If he read in the garments of linen, he would then sanctify his hands and feet, strip off his clothes, go down and immerse himself, come up and dry himself. They brought him the golden clothes, he put them on, sanctified his hands and feet, went out, offered up his own ram and the ram of the people, and the seven unblemished, one-year-old-lambs, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiba said: these were offered up together with the morning tamid of the morning, The bull for the whole burnt offering and the goat which is offered up outside were offered up together with the dusk tamid.

He then sanctified his hands and feet, stripped off his clothes, went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him the white clothes, he put them on and sanctified his hands and his feet. Then he went in to bring out the ladle and the fire-pan. He then sanctified his hands and feet, stripped off his clothes, went down and immersed himself, came up and dry himself. They brought him the golden clothes, he put them on, sanctified his hands and feet, and went in to burn up the dusk incense, and takes care of the lamp. He sanctified his hands and feet and stripped, went down, immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him his own clothes and he put them on. And they would accompany him to his house. And he would make a day of festivity for his friends whenever he came out of the Holy [of Holies] in peace.

The high priest performs the service in eight pieces of clothing, and the common priest in four: in tunic, breeches, a headdress, and a sash. The high priest adds the breastpiece, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet. In these were the Urim and Tummim inquired of. But they were not inquired of except by the king, by the head of the court or by one whom the community needs.

Chapter 8

[On] Yom HaKippurim it is forbidden to eat, to drink, to wash, to anoint oneself, to put on sandals, or to have intercourse. A king or bride may wash their face, and a woman after childbirth may put on sandals, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages forbid it.

If one eats [an amount] the size of a large date, like it and its seed, or if he drank [an amount equivalent to a] mouthful, he is liable. All foods add up to make an amount equivalent to a date, and all the liquids add up to make a mouthful. Food and drink do not add up.

If he ate and drank in one state of unawareness, he is not obligated to bring more than one sin-offering. But if he ate and performed labor while in one state of unawareness he is obligated for two sin-offerings. If he ate foods unfit for eating, or drank liquids unfit for drinking, or drank fish-brine or fish pickling liquid, he is not liable.

[With regard to] children: they do not “afflict” them at all on Yom HaKippurim. But they train them a year or two before in order that they become accustomed to the commandments.

If a pregnant woman smelled [food on Yom Kippur], they feed her until she feels restored. A sick person is fed at the word of experts. And if no experts are there, they feed him upon his own request until he says: enough.

If one is seized by a ravenous hunger, they feed him even unclean things until his eyes light up [and he returns to health]. If one was bit by a mad dog, they do not feed him the lobe of its liver. But Rabbi Matia ben Harash permits it. Moreover Rabbi Matia ben Harash said: if one has pain in his throat, they may drop medicine into his mouth on Shabbat, because it is a possibility of danger to human life and every potential danger to human life overrides Shabbat.

If an avalanche fell on someone, and it is doubtful whether or not he is there, or whether he is alive or dead, or whether he is an Israelite or a non-Jew, they remove the debris from above him [even on Shabbat]. If they find him alive they remove the debris, but if dead they should leave him there [until Shabbat is over].

The sin-offering and the certain guilt-offering effect atonement. Death and Yom HaKippurim effect atonement together with repentance. Repentance effects atonement for light transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments. And for severer transgressions [repentance] suspends [the divine punishment], until Yom HaKippurim arrives and effects atonement.

One who says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, they do not afford him the opportunity to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and Yom HaKippurim will atone for me, Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement. For transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded by Rabbi Elazar b. Azariah: “From all your sins before the Lord you shall be clean” (Leviticus 16:30) for transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. Rabbi Akiva said: Happy are you, Israel! Who is it before whom you become pure? And who is it that purifies you? Your Father who is in heaven, as it is said: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean” (Ezekiel 36:25). And it further says: “O hope (mikveh) of Israel, O Lord” (Jeremiah 17:1--just as a mikveh purifies the unclean, so too does he Holy One, blessed be He, purify Israel.

משנה סוכה

Chapter 1

A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it. One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid. An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house. One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.

If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves]; Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid. But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.

They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.

A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid. Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice]. If he distances the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

If [the roof of] a house is opened, and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid. Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Chapter 2

He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabban Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid. A disorderly sukkah (and whose shade is more than its sun is valid. One whose [skhakh] is thick like [the roof] of a house is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival. If the tree [formed] two [walls] and one was made by the hands of man, or if two were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival. If three walls were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. This is the general rule: in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.

If one makes his sukkah between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid. Those who are agents to perform a mitzvah are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah. People who are sick and their attendants are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah. One may eat and drink casually outside the sukkah.

It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.” And when they gave Rabbi Zadok food less than the bulk of an egg, he took it in a napkin, ate it outside the sukkah and did not say a blessing after it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night. But the sages say: there is no fixed number, except on the first night of the festival alone. Furthermore Rabbi Eliezer said: if one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night of the festival, he may make up for it on the last night of the festival. But the sages say: there is no compensation for this, and of this was it said: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

All seven days [of the festival] a man must make the sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, when may one be permitted to leave it? When the porridge becomes spoiled. They made a parable. To what can this be compared? To a slave who comes to fill the cup for his master, and he poured a pitcher over his face.

Chapter 3

A stolen or a dried up lulav is invalid. One [that came] from an asherah tree or from a condemned city is invalid. If its top was broken off or its leaves were detached, it is invalid. If its leaves are spread apart it is valid. Rabbi Judah says he should tie it at the top. The thorny palms of the iron mountain are valid. A lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid.

A stolen or withered hadas is invalid. One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. But if he diminished them it is valid. But he may not diminish them on the festival.

A stolen or withered aravah is invalid. One [take from an] asherah or from a condemned city is invalid. One whose tip was broken off or whose leaves were detached, or a tzatzefah is invalid. One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in a rain-watered soil, is valid.

Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. Of orlah or of unclean terumah it is invalid. Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): Bet Shammai says it invalid, And Bet Hillel says it valid. Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.

The minimum size of an etrog: Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: it may be bound even with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: it happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: but they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118:1), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

One who has a slave, a woman, or a minor read [the Hallel] to him, he must repeat after them what they say, and a curse be upon him. If an adult recited to him, he repeats after him [only] Halleluyah.

In a place where the custom is to repeat [verses], he should repeat; [Where the custom is] to say them only once, he should say them once. [Where the custom is] to recite a blessing afterwards, he should recite the blessing afterwards. Everything is dependent on local custom. One who purchases a lulav from his fellow in the sabbatical year, [the latter] should give him the etrog as a gift, since one is not permitted to purchase it in the sabbatical year.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].

If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.

Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

A woman may receive [a lulav] from her son or from her husband and put it back in water on Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat they may be put it back [into the water in which they were previously kept], on a festival day [water] may be added, and on the intermediate days [of the festival the water] may also be changed. A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.

Chapter 4

[The rituals of] the lulav and the aravah are for six or seven [days]; The Hallel and the rejoicing are for eight [days]; The sukkah and the water libation are for seven [days]; The flute is for five or six [days].

“The lulav for seven.” How so? If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, the lulav [is taken for] seven days; on any other day, [it is taken] for six.

“The aravah seven days.” How is this? If the seventh day of [the ritual of] the aravah fell on Shabbat, [it lasts] seven days; if it fell on any other day, [it lasts only] six.

The mitzvah of the lulav how was it carried out? If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico, and the elders laid theirs in the chamber. And they would teach the people to say, “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.” The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another. When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.

The mitzvah of the aravah how was it [performed]?There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza. They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah. Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118:. Rabbi Judah says: “Ani vaho, save us.” On that day they went round the altar seven times. When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”

As was its performance on a weekday, so was its performance on Shabbat, except that they would gather them on the eve of Shabbat and place them in golden basins so that they would not become wilted. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: they used to bring palm branches and they would beat them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that day was called “[the day of] the beating of the palm branches.”

Immediately after beating the willows (or palm branches) the children undo their lulavs and eat their etrogim.

The Hallel and rejoicing are on all eight days: How is this so? This teaches that one is obligated for the Hallel, for rejoicing and for honoring the festival on the last day, just as he is on all the other days of the festival. The sukkah is for seven days. How so? Once he finished eating [his meal on the seventh day], he should not untie his sukkah, but he removes its contents from the time of minhah and onwards in honor of the last day of the festival.

How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki'ah [long blast], a teru'ah [a staccato note] and again a teki'ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.

As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber. If it was poured away or uncovered, he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.

Chapter 5

The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day. They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life.

At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat Nashim) and they would make there a great enactment. And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls.

From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps. And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.

Men of piety and good deeds used to dance before them with lighted torches in their hands, and they would sing songs and praises. And Levites with innumerable harps, lyres, cymbals and trumpets and other musical instruments stood upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the fifteen songs of ascents in the Psalms, and it was on these [steps] that the Levites stood with their musical instruments and sang their songs. Two priests stood by the upper gate which leads down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the cock crowed they sounded a teki'ah [drawn-out blast], a teru'ah [staccato note] and again a teki'ah. When they reached the tenth step they sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah and again a teki'ah. When they reached the Court [of the Women] they sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah and again a teki'ah. They would sound their trumpets and proceed until they reached the gate which leads out to the east. When they reached the gate which leads out to the east, they turned their faces from east to west and said, “Our fathers who were in this place ‘their backs were toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east’, but as for us, our eyes are turned to the Lord.” Rabbi Judah said: they used to repeat [the last words] and say “We are the Lord’s and our eyes are turned to the Lord.”

They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight. Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine. And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane. On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.

On the first festival day of Sukkot there were thirteen bulls, two rams and one goat. Fourteen lambs remained for the other eight priestly watches.On the first day, six [watches] offered two each and the remaining [two] one each. On the second day five offered two each and the remaining [four] one each. On the third day four offered two each and the remaining [six] one each. On the fourth day three offered two each and the remaining [eight] one each. On the fifth day two offered two each and the remaining [ten] one each. On the sixth day one offered two and the remaining [twelve] one each. On the seventh day all were equal. On the eighth day they again cast lots as on the other festivals. They said: the [watch] that offered bulls on one day should not offer them on the next, but that they should take their turns in rotation.

At three periods in the year all the priestly watches shared equally in the festival sacrifices and in the division of the showbread. On Shavuot they used to say to the priest, “Here is matzah for you, here is chametz for you.” A watch whose period of service was fixed [for that festival week] offered the tamid, vow-offerings and freewill-offerings and all other public offerings; and it offered them all. A festival which fell next to Shabbat, either before or after it, all the watches shared equally in the distribution of the showbread.

If one day intervened between them [Shabbat and Yom Tov], the watch whose time of service was fixed [for that week] took ten [of the] loaves, while they that were detained took two. On all other days of the year the incoming watch took six loaves and the outgoing watch six. Rabbi Judah said, the incoming watch took seven and the outgoing five. The incoming watch divided it in the north, and the outgoing in the south. [The watch of] Bilgah always divided it in the south; their ring was fixed and their alcove was blocked up.

משנה ביצה

Chapter 1

An egg laid on Yom Tov: Bet Shammai say: it may be eaten [on the same day]; But Bet Hillel say: it may not be eaten [until the day is over]. Bet Shammai say: [the quantity of] leaven is of the size of an olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date; But Bet Hillel say: both are of the size of an olive.

He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Bet Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood], but Bet Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.

Bet Shammai says: one may not carry a ladder [on Yom Tov] from one dovecote to another, but he may incline it from one pigeon-hole to another. But Bet Hillel permits [this]. Bet Shammai says: one may not take [doves] unless he has shaken [them] the day before [Yom Tov]: But Bet Hillel says: he stands and declares: this one or that one I am taking.

If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden. [If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted. [If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.

Bet Shammai says: one may not remove shutters on Yom Tov. But Bet Hillel permits even to return them to their place. Bet Shammai says: one may not take a pestle even to cut up meat on it. But Bet Hillel permits [it]. Bet Shammai says: one may not place a hide in front of one who treads upon it nor may he even lift it up unless there is an olive’s worth of flesh on it. But Bet hillel permit it. Bet Shammai says: one may not carry out an infant or a lulav or a Torah scroll into the public domain. But Bet Hillel permit [it].

Bet Shammai says: one may not take hallah or priestly gifts to a priest on Yom Tov, whether they were separated on the day before or on that day. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai said to them: An analogy [supports our view]: hallah and priestly gifts go to the priest and terumah [likewise] goes to the priest; just as one may not take [to the priest] terumah so one may not take [to him] priestly gifts. Bet Hillel said to them: No! If you say in the case of terumah which he has not the right to separate, will you say [the same] with respect to priestly gifts which he is permitted to separate?

Bet Shammai says: spices may be crushed with a wooden pestle and salt in a small cruse or with a wooden ladle. But Bet Hillel says: spices may be crushed in the usual way with a stone pestle and salt with a wooden pestle.

One who sorts beans on Yom Tov:Bet Shammai says: he must sort the edible parts and eat [them immediately]. But Bet Hillel says: he may sort as usual in his lap or in a basket or in a dish; but not with a board or in a sifter or in a sieve. Rabban Gamaliel says: he may even rinse them [in water] and skim off [the refuse].

Bet Shammai says: one may not send [gifts to a neighbor] on Yom Tov except portions [of food, ready to be eaten]. But Bet Hillel says: one may send cattle, game and poultry whether alive or slaughtered. One may [also] send wine, oil, flour or pulse but not grain. And Rabbi Shimon permits [even] grain.

One may send clothes, whether they are sewn up or not sewn up, and even though there is kil'ayim (mixed wool and linen) in them, provided they are necessary for the festival. But [one may] not [send] nailed sandals nor unfinished shoes. Rabbi Judah says: not even white shoes because they [still] require an artisan [to blacken them]. This is the general rule: whatever may be used on Yom Tov may [also] be sent [on Yom Tov].

Chapter 2

Yom Tov which fell on the eve of Shabbat, one should not begin to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat. But he may cook for Yom Tov, and if any is left over it is left over for Shabbat. And he may prepare a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and rely upon it [to prepare food] for Shabbat. Bet Shammai says: two dishes. But Bet Hillel says: one dish. Yet they [both] agree that a fish and an egg upon it are [considered as] two dishes. [If] he ate it or it was lost, he may not begin to cook [relying] on it. But if he left over any [small] portion of it, he may rely on it [to cook] for Shabbat.

If [Yom Tov] fell on the day after Shabbat:Bet Shammai says: one must immerse everything [unclean] before Shabbat. But Bet Hillel says: vessels [must be immersed] before Shabbat but people [may immerse] on Shabbat.

They agree that one may effect surface contact for [unclean] water in a stone vessel in order to purify it, but one may not immerse [it]; And one may immerse [to change] from one intention to another or from one company to another.

Bet Shammai says: one may bring peace-offerings [on Yom Tov] but may not lay [hands] upon them, but one may not bring burnt-offerings [on Yom Tov]. Bet Hillel says: one may bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and also lay hands upon them.

Bet Shammai says: a man may not heat water for his feet unless it is also fit for drinking. But Bet Hillel permits it. A man may make a fire and warm himself at it.

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”

Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns; One may curry cattle on a festival; And one may grind pepper in its own mill. Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them. But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.

A pepper-mill is susceptible to impurity on account of [it consisting of] three [separate] utensils; on account of a receptacle, on account of a metal utensil and on account of a sifting utensil.

A child’s cart is susceptible to the impurity of midras, and it may be handled on Shabbat, and it is dragged along only on matting. Rabbi Judah says: no vessels may be dragged along [the ground] except a wagon because it [only] presses [the earth] down.

Chapter 3

One may not catch fish from a fishpond on Yom Tov nor give them food, But one may catch game or fowl from animal enclosures and one may put food before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all enclosures are alike. This is the general rule: anything that still needs to be trapped is forbidden but anything that need not be trapped is permitted.

Traps for wild animals, birds or fish which were set on the eve of Yom Tov, one may not take from them on Yom Tov unless he knows that they were [already] caught on the eve of Yom Tov. It once happened that a certain non-Jew brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel [on Yom Tov] and he said: they are permitted, but I have no wish to accept [them] from him.

One may not slaughter [on Yom Tov] an animal which is about to die unless there is time enough on that day to eat from it as much as an olive of roasted flesh. Rabbi Akiva says: even [if there is only time to eat] as much as an olive of raw flesh [taken] from the place of slaughter. If he slaughtered it in the field, he may not bring it in on a pole or a barrow, but he may bring it in piece by piece in his hand.

A first-born beast that fell into a pit:Rabbi Judah says: let an expert go down and inspect [it]. If it had a blemish he may bring it up and slaughter it, but if not, he may not slaughter it. Rabbi Shimon says: any animals whose blemish was not observed on the day before the Yom Tov, it is not prepared (mukhan).

If a beast died [on Yom Tov] it may not be moved from its place. And it happened that they once asked Rabbi Tarfon concerning this and concerning hallah that had become defiled. He went into the bet midrash and inquired, and they answered him: they may not be moved from their place.

They may not be counted as having a share in an animal at the outset on Yom Tov, but they may be counted [as having a share in an animal] on the eve of Yom Tov, and they may then slaughter it and divide it between them [on Yom Tov]. Rabbi Judah says: a man may weigh meat [on Yom Tov] against a utensil or against a butcher's chopper. But the sages say: one may not pay attention to the scales at all.

One may not sharpen a knife on a festival, but one may draw it over another knife. A man may not say to a butcher, “Weigh me a dinar’s worth of meat” but he may slaughter [the animal] and shares it among them.

A man may say [on Yom Tov] to his fellow, “Fill me this vessel,” but not in a specific measure. Rabbi Judah says: if it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it. It happened that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill up his measures on the eve of Yom Tov and give them to his customers on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says: he used to do so even during hol hamoed (the intermediate days of the festival), on account of clarifying the measures. But the sages say: he used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures. A man may go to a shopkeeper to whom he generally goes and say to him, “Give me [so many] eggs and nuts” since this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home.

Chapter 4

One who carries jars of wine from place to place, he may not carry them in a basket or in a large basket, but he may carry [them] on his shoulder or in front of him. Similarly, one who brings straw, he may not drape a large basket over his back, rather he must carry it in his hand. And one may start [using] a heap of straw, but [one may] not [start using wood] from the back-yard.

One may not take wood from a sukkah but only from [what is] next to it. One may bring in from the field wood that is gathered together, and from a karpef [an enclosure] even though it is scattered about. What is a karpef? Any [enclosure] next to the town, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: Any [enclosure] which one enters with a key, even if it is [only just] within the Shabbat border.

One may not chop up wood, neither from beams nor from a beam which was broken on Yom Tov. And one may not chop with an axe or with a saw or with a sickle but only with a [butcher's] chopper. A [closed] room full of produce which was burst open [on Yom Tov] he may take [produce] out through the breach. Rabbi Meir says: he may make a hole at the outset and bring out [the produce].

One may not make a hole in a [lump of clay for use as a] lamp because that is making a vessel. One may not make charcoal on Yom Tov. And one may not cut a wick into two. Rabbi Judah says: he may cut it into two lamps using a fire.

One may not break up a potsherd or cut paper in order to roast on it a salty fish. And one may not rake out an oven or a range, but one may press [the ashes] down. And one may not place two jars side by side in order to balance upon them saucepan. And one may not prop up a pot with a wooden wedge and the same applies to a door. And one may not drive cattle with a staff on a festival. But Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon permits it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man may take a chip from that which is lying before him to pick his teeth with it, and he may collect [chips] from the court yard and make a fire, for everything in a court is prepared [for use on Yom Tov]. But the sages say: he may collect only from that which is before him and make a fire.

One may not produce fire either from wood, or from stones, or from dirt, or from water. Nor may one make tiles red-hot in order to roast on them. Rabbi Eliezer further said: A man may stand near his “muktzeh” on the eve of Shabbat in the sabbatical year and say: “From here I will eat tomorrow.” But the sages say: [This doesn’t work] unless he marks it out and says, “From here to there.”

Chapter 5

One may let down fruit through a trap-door on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat. And one may cover up fruit with vessels on account of the rain, and likewise jars of wine and jars of oil. And one may place a vessel beneath the drops of rain [even] on Shabbat.

Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov.For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance. For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consumate a levirate marriage]. And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes. All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.

A beast and utensils are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owners. One who gives his cow over to his son or to a cowherd [to tend], they are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owner. Vessels which have been set apart for [the use of] one of the brothers in a house, are [restricted to the same limits] as his feet, but [those utensils] which have not been so set apart, can be taken [only] to a place where [all the brothers] may go.

One who borrows a vessel from his neighbor on the eve of Yom Tov, [it is restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the borrower. [But if he borrowed it] on Yom Tov, it is as the feet of the lender. A woman who borrowed from her neighbor spices, water or salt for her dough, these are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of both them. Rabbi Judah exempts in the case of water, because it is not substantial.

A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere. In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed. If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt. [The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].

If one has his produce in another town, and the inhabitants of that city made an eruv in order to bring to him some of his produce, they may not bring it to him. But if he himself made an eruv, his produce is like himself.

If one invited guests to his home, they may not take away with them [any] portions unless he [the host] had assigned for them their portions on the eve of Yom Tov. One may not give drink and then slaughter wilderness animals, but one may give drink and slaughter household animals. The following are household animals: they that spend the night in town. Pasture animals are they that spend the night in pasture ground.

משנה ראש השנה

Chapter 1

There are four new years:The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals. The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: the first of Tishri. The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables. The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: on the fifteenth of that month.

At four set times the world is judged:On Pesah in respect to the produce. On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree. On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15). And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain.

There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.On Nisan because of Pesah; On Av because of the fast. On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah. On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals. On Kislev because of Hanukah. And on Adar because of Purim. When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah Sheni).

On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed. When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.

Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says: if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it.

It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.

If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness. Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon. Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.

And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.

If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat]. If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves]. If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says: “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4).

Chapter 2

If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability]. Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].

Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.

How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.

At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.

There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come. Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.

How do they test the witnesses?The pair which arrives first, they test them first. They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].

The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.

Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.

Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

Chapter 3

If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty days). If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself.

All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren. Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).

The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold. There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar.

On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them. A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.

The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings. Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex.

A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid. If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid. If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1. Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell. Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole. And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away. A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.

Chapter 4

If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court. Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.

There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].

Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day. On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn. They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice]. If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day. After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day. Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly.

The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.

They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.

The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar. On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel.

[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.

The order of the blasts: three sets of three each. The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot. If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one. One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times. Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says: the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer leader) causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.

משנה תענית

Chapter 1

From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why should he mention it? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season. He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it.

They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season. Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first mentions, the last does not. Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesah is over. Rabbi Meir says: Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).

On the third of Marheshvan they [begin to] ask for rain. Rabban Gamaliel says: on the seventh, fifteen days after the Festival [of Sukkot] so that the last of the Jews reaches the river Euphrates.

If the seventeenth of Marheshvan came and no rain fell, individuals begin to fast three fasts. They eat and drink after it gets dark and they are permitted to do work, to bathe, to anoint themselves with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.

If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.

If these passed and there was no answer, the court decrees three more fasts on the community. They may eat and drink [only] while it is still day; they may not work, bathe, anoint themselves with oil, wear shoes, or have marital, relations. And the bathhouses are closed. If these passed and there was no answer the court decrees upon the community a further seven, making a total of thirteen. These are greater than the first, for on these they blast the shofar and they lock the shops. On Mondays the shutters [of the shops] are opened a little when it gets dark, but on Thursdays they are permitted [the whole day] because of the Shabbat.

If these passed and there was [still] no answer then they restrict engaging in business, and in building, planting, betrothal and marriage, and in greeting one another, as if they were people undesirable to God. The individuals go back to fasting anew until the end of Nisan. If Nisan passes and then rain falls this is a sign of a curse, as it is written, “It is the season of the wheat harvest. [I will pray to the Lord and He will send thunder and rain; then you will take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the Lord when you asked for a king” (I Samuel 12:17).

Chapter 2

What is the order [of service] for fast days?They take the ark out to the open space of the city. And they put ashes on the ark and on the head of the Nasi and on the head of the head of the court (av bet. And everyone [else] puts ashes on his own head. The elder among them says in front of them words of admonition, “Brothers, it does not say of the people of Nineveh, ‘And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting,’ but, ‘And God saw their deeds, for they turned from their evil way. (Jonah 3:10)’ And in the prophets it says, ‘And rend your heart and not your garments” (Joel 2:13).

[When] they stand up to pray they bring down before the ark an old man conversant [with the prayers], one who has children and whose house is empty [of food], so that his heart is complete prayer. He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, the eighteen recited daily, to which he adds six.

These are they [the six additional benedictions]: Zikhronot, Shofarot, “In my distress I called to the Lord and He answered me” (Psalm 120), “I turn my eyes to the mountains” (Psalm 121).“Out of the depths I call you, O Lord” (Psalm 130), “A prayer of lowly man when he is faint” (Psalm 102). Rabbi Judah says: he need not recite the zikhronot and shofarot, but instead he should recite [the following]: “If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence” (I Kings 8:37), “The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts” (Jeremiah 14). And he ends each [of the additional six] sections with its appropriate concluding benediction.

For the first he says: He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who redeems Israel. For the second he says: He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who remembers all forgotten things. For the third he says: He who answered Joshua in Gilgal, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears a blast. For the fourth he says: He who answered Shmuel in Mitzpah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who listens to cries. For the fifth he says: He who answered Elijah on Mt. Carmel, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears prayer. For the sixth he says: He who answered Jonah in the belly of the fish, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who answers in time of trouble. For the seventh he says: He who answered David and Shlomo his son in Jerusalem, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord Who has mercy upon the land.

It happened in the days of Rabbi Halafta and Rabbi Hanina ben Tradyon that a man passed before the ark [as shaliah tzibbur] and completed the entire benediction and they did not respond, “amen.” [The hazzan called out]: Sound a tekiah, priests, sound a tekiah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]: He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Then [the hazzan called out]: Sound a teru'ah, sons of Aaron, sound a teru'ah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]: He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. And when the matter came up before the sages, they said: they only practiced in this way at the eastern gates on the Temple Mount.

On the first three fasts the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the second three fasts the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast. On the last seven both fast and complete their fast, the words of Rabbi Joshua. The sages say: on the first three fasts neither fast at all. On the second three, the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the last seven, the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast.

The men of the guard are permitted to drink wine in the evenings but not during the day, but the men of the father’s house may not [drink wine] either on the day or on the preceding evening. Both the men of the guard and the men of the ma'amad may not cut their hair nor wash their clothes, but on Thursday they may [do so] in honor of Shabbat.

[With regard to every day] about which it is written in the Scroll of Fasts (Megillat Taanit) “One may not eulogize” on the preceding day it is prohibited but on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: it is forbidden [to mourn] both on the preceding day and on the following day. [On days about which it is written], “One may not fast” on the preceding day and on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: on the preceding day it is forbidden but on the following day it is permitted.

They do not decree upon the community a fast to begin on a Thursday in order not to cause a rise in the market prices. Rather the first three fasts are held [in this order], Monday, Thursday, and Monday; the second three, Thursday, Monday, and Thursday. Rabbi Yose says: just as the first three [fasts] should not begin on a Thursday so too neither the second [three] nor the last [seven].

They do not ordain upon the community a fast on Rosh Hodesh, on Hanukkah, or on Purim, but if they had already begun [a series of fasts and one of these days intervened] they do not interrupt [their fasts], the words of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Meir said: even though Rabban Gamaliel said that the [fasts] should not be interrupted he agrees that they should not complete their fasts. And the same applies to the Ninth of Av should it fall on Friday.

Chapter 3

The order of public fasts mentioned above is enacted because of [lack of] the first rain, but if the crops have undergone [an unusual] change they sound a blast immediately. Similarly, if the rain has stopped for forty days between one rainfall and the next, they sound a blast immediately, because it is a plague of drought.

If [rain] falls for crops but not for the trees, for the trees but not for crops, for both of these but not for cisterns, ditches and caves they sound a blast immediately.

And so too a city, upon which no rain has fallen as it is written, “And I caused it to rain upon one city, and I caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon…” (Amos 4:7) that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.

And so too a city which has a plague or [its buildings] collapse that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast. What constitutes a plague? If in a city that can supply five hundred foot-soldiers and three deaths occurred on three consecutive days, behold this constitutes a plague, less than this is not a plague.

For these they sound a blast in all places: for the drying up of crops (shidafon), for plant disease, for locusts, and for the hasil (a type of locust), for wild beasts and for the sword they sound a blast for these are plagues likely to spread.

It once happened that elders went down from Jerusalem to their own cities and ordered a fast because there was seen in Ashkelon a shidafon which affected as much grain as would fill an oven [with loaves]. They also decreed a fast because wolves devoured two children on the other side of the Jordan. Rabbi Yose says: not because they devoured [the children] but [merely] because they were seen.

For these matters they sound a blast even on Shabbat: if a city is besieged by Gentile [troops] or a river, or if a ship is foundering on the sea. Rabbi Yose says: [they sound a blast] for help but not for an outcry (for the sake of prayer). Shimon the Yemenite says: also for a plague, but the sages did not agree with him.

For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him: “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied: “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request. Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).

If while they are fasting rain falls: If before sunrise they do not complete the fast, If after sunrise, they do complete the fast. Rabbi Eliezer says: if before noon they do not complete the fast, if after noon they do complete it. It happened that the rabbis decreed a fast in Lod and rain fell before noon. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: go, eat and drink and make a holiday. They went and ate and drank and observed the day as a holiday and at evening time they came and recited the Hallel Hagadol.

Chapter 4

On three occasions during the year, on fast days, on ma’amadot, and on Yom Kippur the priests lift up their hands to bless [the people] four times during the day--at Shaharit, at Mussaf, at Minhah and at Neilah.

What are the ma’amadot? Since it is said, “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food” (Numbers 28:2). Now how can a man’s offering be offered and he is not present? [Therefore] the former prophets instituted twenty-four mishmarot (guards). For each mishmar there was a ma’amad [at the Temple] in Jerusalem consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites. When the time came for the mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] the priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that mishmar assembled in their cities and read the story of creation.

The men of the maamad fasted on four days of that week, from Monday to Thursday; they did not fast on Friday out of respect for Shabbat or on Sunday in order not to switch from the rest and delight [of Shabbat] to weariness and fasting and [thereby] die. On Sunday [they read], “In the beginning,” and, “Let there be a firmament;” On Monday, “Let there be a firmament,” and, “Let the waters be gathered together;” On Tuesday, “Let the waters be gathered together,” and, “Let there be lights;” On Wednesday, “Let there be lights,” and, “Let the waters swarm;” On Thursday, “Let the waters swarm,” and, “Let the earth bring forth;” On Friday, “Let the earth bring forth,” and, “And the heavens [and the earth] were completed.” For a long section two people read and for a short section one person. [This is how they would read] at Shacharit and Mussaf. And at minhah they assemble and read the section by heart, as they recite the Shema. On Friday at minhah they did not assemble out of respect for Shabbat.

On any day when there is Hallel there was no maamad at Shaharit; [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne'ilah. [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: Thus did Rabbi Joshua learn: [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah; [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne’ilah. Rabbi Akiva retracted and learned like Ben Azzai.

The times of the wood of the priests and the people was nine:On the first of Nisan the family Arah of Yehudah. On the twentieth of Tammuz the family of David of Yehudah. On the fifth of Av the family of Parosh of Yehudah. On the seventh of the same month, the family of Yonadav of Rechav. On the tenth of the same month, the family of Snaah of Benjamin. On the fifteenth of the same month, the family of Zattu of Yehudah, and with them were the priests and Levites and all those who were not certain of their tribe and the family of Gonve Eli and the family of Kotze Ketizot. On the twentieth of the same month the family of Pahat Moav of Yehudah. On the twentieth of Elul the family of Adin of Yehudah. On the first of Tevet the family of Parosh of Yehudah [offered] a second time. On the first of Tevet there was no maamad for there was Hallel, Musaf and the wood-festival.

There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av.On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid (daily) offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up. When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing.

During the week in which the ninth of Av falls it is forbidden to cut the hair and to wash clothes but on Thursday it is permitted in honor of Shabbat. On the eve of the ninth of Av one should not eat a meal of two cooked dishes, nor should he eat meat or drink wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: one should make change [his diet.] Rabbi Judah obligated turning over the bed, but the sages did not agree with him.

Section one: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Section two: On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion. The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Section three: Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On his wedding day”: this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

משנה מגילה

Chapter 1

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

How so? If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day. If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day. If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.

What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village. In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed. But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up. Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.

There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Tov except the preparation of food. There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom HaKippurim except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.

There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food. There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.

There is no difference between a zav who sees [genital discharge] twice and one who sees three, except the sacrifice. There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes. There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzorah except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.

There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.

There is no difference between a priest anointed with the oil of anointment and one who [only] wears the additional garments except for the bull which is offered for the [unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah.

There is no difference between a great altar and a small altar except for the pesach offering. This is the general principle: any animal which can be brought as a vow-offering or a freewill offering may be brought on a [small] altar, any animal which is not the object of a vow or a freewill-offering may not be brought on a [small] altar.

There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls. In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains. After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.

Chapter 2

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.

A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them. From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (Esther 3:1).

All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

The whole day is a valid time for reading the Megillah; reciting Hallel; for the blowing of the shofar; for taking up the lulav; for the Musaf prayer; for Musaf sacrifices; for confession over the oxen; for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands; for slaughtering [the sacrifices]; for waving [them]; for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar]; for taking a handful; for placing it on the fire; for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]; for receiving the blood [in a vessel]; for sprinkling [the blood on the altar]; for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters]; for breaking the neck of the heifer; and for purifying the metzora.

The whole night is valid for reaping the Omer and for burning fat and limbs [on the altar]. This is the general principle: any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day and any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night.

Chapter 3

Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls]. [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh]. [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah. But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark. If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square. The same applies to any money left over. They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.

They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things: a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.

Rabbi Judah said further: a synagogue that has fallen into ruins, they may not eulogize in it, nor twist ropes, nor to spread nets [to trap animals], nor to lay out produce on its roof [to dry], nor to use it as a short cut, as it says, “And I will desolate your holy places” (Leviticus 26:3 their holiness remains even when they are desolate. If grass comes up in it, it should not be plucked, [in order to elicit] melancholy.

If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat the portion of shekalim is read [on that day]. If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before, and on the next Shabbat there is a break. On the second [of the special Shabbatot] they read “Zakhor;” On the third the portion of the red heifer; On the fourth “This month shall be for you;” On the fifth the regular order is resumed. They interrupt [the regular order] for anything: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for Ma’amadot, and for Yom HaKippurim.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:2. On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus. On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Hanukkah they read the section of the princes (Numbers. On Purim, “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8). On Rosh Hodesh, “And on the first of your months” (Numbers 28:11). On Maamadot, the account of the creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3). On fast days, the blessings and curses (Leviticus 26:3 ff and Deuteronomy. They do not interrupt while reading the curses, but rather one reads them all. On Monday and Thursday and on Shabbat at minhah they read according to the regular order and this does not count as part of the reading [for the succeeding Shabbat]. As it says, “And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44) it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.

Chapter 4

He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit. Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation. In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing. On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it. This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read. On a festival five. On Yom Hakippurim six. On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

They do not recite the Shema responsively, And they do not pass before the ark; And they [the priests] do not lift up their hands; And they do not read the Torah [publicly]; And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets; And they do not make stops [at funeral] processions; And they do not say the blessing for mourners, or the comfort of mourners, or the blessing of bridegrooms; And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon]; Except in the presence of ten. [For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient], and similarly with human beings.

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

The one who concludes with the haftarah also leads the responsive reading of the Shema and he passes before the ark and he lifts up his hands. If he is a child, his father or his teacher passes before the ark in his place.

A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

A priest whose hands are deformed should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly blessing]. Rabbi Judah says: also one whose hands are colored with woad or madder should not lift up his hands, because [this makes] the congregation look at him.

If one says, “I will not pass before the ark in colored clothes,” even in white clothes he may not pass before it. [If one says], “I will not pass before it in shoes,” even barefoot he may not pass before it. One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. If he put them on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, behold this is the way of heresy. If he overlaid them with gold or put [the one for the hand] on his sleeve, behold this is the manner of the outsiders.

If one says “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy. [If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced. If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.

The incident of Reuven is read but not translated. The story of Tamar is read and translated. The first part of the incident of the golden calf is both read and translated, but the second is read but not translated. The blessing of the priests, the stories of David and Amnon are not read or translated. They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. R. Eliezar says: they do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel as a haftarah.

משנה מועד קטן

Chapter 1

They may water an irrigated field during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year, both from a newly-emerging spring and from a spring that is not just emerged. But they may not water the field with water from stored rain, and not with a swipe and bucket. And they may not make small ditches around the vines.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: they may not make a new water channel may not during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year. But the sages say: they may make a new water channel during the sabbatical year, and they may repair broken ones during the festival. And they may repair impaired water works in the public domain, and clean them out. And they may repair roads, town squares and [ritual] pools, and they may do all public needs may be performed, and mark graves, and [inspectors] may go out to inspect kilayim (mixed seeds).

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: they may draw water from [one] tree to [another] tree, as long as they don’t water the whole field. Seeds that have not had [any] drink before the festival, he may not water them during the festival. The sages however allow it in both cases.

They may trap moles and mice in a tree-field or a white field in an unusual way during the festival and in the sabbatical year. But the sages say: in the tree-field in the usual way and in the white field in an unusual way. And they may block up a breach in a wall during the festival, and in the sabbatical year they may build it in the usual way.

Rabbi Meir says: [Priests] may inspect leprous symptoms at the outset [during the festival] for [the priest to make] a lenient assessment, but not to make a strict one. But the sages say: neither for a lenient nor for a severe assessment. Furthermore Rabbi Meir said: a man may gather his father’s and mother’s bones, since this is a joy for him. Rabbi Yose says: it is mourning for him. A man should not stir up wailing for his dead, nor hold a lamentation for him thirty days before the festival.

They may not dig burial niches and graves during the festival. But they may adapt burial niches [to the size of the dead body] during the festival. And they may make a temporary grave during the festival, and a coffin, if a dead [body] is close by in the courtyard. Rabbi Judah forbids, unless there are sawn boards at hand.

One may not marry a woman during the festival, whether a virgin or a widow, nor may one perform levirate marriage, because this is a joy for him. But one may remarry his divorced wife. And a woman may make the adornments [for her wedding] during the festival. Rabbi Judah says: she may not put on lime, as that is a [temporary] disfigurement to her.

An ordinary person may sew in the usual way, but a craftsman may sew [only using] uneven stitches. And they may weave the ropes of a bed. Rabbi Yose says: they may even be tightened.

They may set up an oven, stove or a millstone during the festival. Rabbi Judah says: they may not roughen millstones for the first time.

They may put up a railing around a roof or a gallery porch, in the style of an ordinary person but not in the style of a professional. They may put plaster on crevices [on the roof] and flatten them down with a roller, by hand or foot, but not using professional tools. A hinge, a socket, a beam, a lock, a key which broke they may repair them during the festival, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival. And all the pickled food that he may eat during the festival, he may pickle.

Chapter 2

If one had turned his olives, and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may [during the festival] put on the beam for the first time and leave it until after the festival, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: he may pour off [the oil] and complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way.

Similarly, if one had his wine [already] in a cistern and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may draw off [the wine], complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way, the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Judah says: he [may only] cover [the cistern] with boards to prevent it from turning into vinegar.

A man may bring his produce indoors for fear of thieves and withdraw his flax from a soaking pool to prevent it spoiling, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival. And all those who deliberately intended to do their work on the festival, they must leave it to spoil.

They may not purchase houses, slaves or cattle unless it is for the needs of the festival, or the need of the seller who does not have enough to eat. They may not move [belongings] from one house to another house, but he may move [his belongings] within his courtyard. They may not bring back vessels from the house of the craftsman, but if one is anxious about them, he may remove them to another courtyard.

They may cover [drying] figs with straw. Rabbi Judah says: they may even be pile [the figs] up [in heaps]. Sellers of produce, clothing and [other] vessels may sell privately for the requirements of the festival. Trappers [of fish and birds], groats-makers and grist-millers may engage in their work privately for the requirements of the festival. Rabbi Yose says: they were strict upon themselves.

Chapter 3

And these may shave during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released. And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released, and a nazirite or a leper on emerging from his state of impurity to his state of purification.

These may launder [their clothes] during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released. And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released. Hand-towels, barber’s towels and bath-towels [may be laundered]. Zavim and zavot, menstruants, and women who have given birth, and anyone going from a state of impurity to purity, are permitted [to launder their clothes]. But everyone else is prohibited.

They may write the following documents during the festival: Betrothal of women [documents], divorce documents and receipts, wills of a dying person, bequests and prosbols; evaluation certificates and orders for support, documents of halitzah and of repudiation [of marriage] and arbitration records; decrees of the court and correspondence.

They may not write loan documents during the festival; but if he [the creditor] does not trust him or he does not have food to eat, he may write. They may not write [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot during the festival, nor may they correct [even] a single letter, even in the [ancient] Temple-scroll. Rabbi Judah says: a man may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself. And one may spin on his thigh the blue-wool for his fringe.

One who buries his dead three days before a festival, the decrees of shiva are annulled from him; [One he buries his dead] eight days before a festival, the decrees of the shloshim [thirty days] are annulled from him. Because they [the sages] said that Shabbat counts but does not interrupt, while festivals interrupt and do not count.

Rabbi Eliezer says: From the time the Temple was destroyed, Atzeret (Shavuot) is like Shabbat. Rabban Gamaliel says: Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals. The sages say: [the rule is] not according to the words of this one nor that one, rather Atzeret is like the festivals and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like Shabbat.

They do not rend [their clothes] or bare [their shoulders], or provide a meal [for the mourners] except for the relatives of the dead. And they do not provide a meal except on an upright couch. They do not bring [food] to the house of mourning on an [ornamental] tray, platter, or flat basket, but in plain baskets. And they do not say the mourners’ blessing during the festival. But they may stand in a row and comfort [the mourners] and [the mourners] may formally dismiss the community.

They do not place the bier on the thruway [during the festival] so as not to encourage eulogizing. And the bier of women is never [set down on the thruway] for the sake of propriety. Women may raise a wail during the festival, but not clap [their hands in grief]. Rabbi Ishmael says: those that are close to the bier clap [their hands in grief].

On Rosh Hodesh, on Hannukah and on Purim they may wail and clap [their hands in grief]. Neither on the former nor on the latter occasions may they offer a lamentation. After the dead has been buried they neither wail nor clap [their hands in grief]. What is meant by wailing? When all wail in unison. What is meant by a lament? When one speaks and all respond after her, as it is said: “And teach your daughters wailing and one another [each] lamentation” (Jeremiah 9:19). But as to the future, it says: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:9).

משנה חגיגה

Chapter 1

All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot. Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).

Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver.

Burnt-offerings during the festival [week] are to be brought from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money, and thanksgiving offerings, from [animals bought with] tithe money. On the first festival day of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: [they must be brought] from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. And Bet Hillel say: [they can be brought also] from [animals bought with] tithe money.

Israelites fulfill their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and cattle tithe. And priests with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, firstlings, the breast and the shoulder, but not with bird-offerings, and not with meal-offerings.

He that has many people to eat [with him] and little money, brings many thanksgiving-offerings and few burnt-offerings. [He that has] a lot of money and few to eat [with him] brings many burnt-offerings and few thanksgiving-offerings. [He that has] little of either, for him is it is said: “One ma'ah of silver’, ‘two pieces of silver.” He that has a lot of both, of him it is said: “Every man as he is able, according to the blessing that the Lord your God has bestowed upon you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).

He who did not bring his hagigah on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, may bring it during the whole of the festival, even on the last festival day of Sukkot. If the festival, passed and he did not bring the festival offering, he is no longer liable for it. Of such a person it is said: “A twisted thing cannot be made straight, a lack cannot be made good” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is “a twisted thing that cannot be made straight?” He who has intercourse with a forbidden relation and bears by her a mamzer. Should you say that it applies to a thief or robber, he is able to restore [the stolen object] and make straight. Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: They only call something “twisted” if it was straight at first and then became twisted. And who is this? A disciple of the sages who forsakes the Torah.

[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on. The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot. [The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.

Chapter 2

They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three. Nor the work of creation in the presence of two. Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: what is above, what is beneath, what came before, and what came after. And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world.

Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Johanan says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.

Bet Shammai say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings [on Yom Tov] but they may not lay their hands on them, and [they may not bring] wholly burnt-offerings. And Bet Hillel say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings and wholly burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them.

Atzeret (Shavuot) which fell on a Friday: Bet Shammai say: the day of the slaughter [of the wholly burnt offerings] is after Shabbat. And Bet Hillel say: the day of the slaughter is not after Shabbat. They agree, however, that if it falls on Shabbat, the day of the slaughter is after Shabbat. The high priest does not [in that case] put on his [special] garments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, in order not to confirm the view of those who say that Atzeret is after Shabbat.

They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering]. But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh]. With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure.

If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe. If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah. If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things. If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness]. If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed.

The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yohanan ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.

Chapter 3

Greater stringency applies to sacred things than to terumah, that they may immerse vessels within vessels [together] for terumah, but not for sacred things. The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for terumah, but not for sacred things. One that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not sacred things. The garments of those who eat terumah posses midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] sacred things. The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [those who would eat terumah is not the same as the rule for [those who would eat] sacred things: for in the case of sacred things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.

Vessels that have been finished in purity require immersion [before they are used] for sacred things, but not [before they are used] for terumah. A vessel unites all its contents [for impurity] in the case of sacred things, but not in the case of terumah. Sacred things become invalid [by impurity] of a fourth degree, but terumah [only by impurity] of a third degree. In the case of terumah, if one hand of his hands became impure, the other remains clean, but in the case of sacred things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for sacred things but not for terumah.

They may eat dry foods with impure hands when it comes to terumah, but not when it comes to sacred things. The one who has not yet buried his dead (an onen) and one who lacks atonement require immersion for sacred things but not for terumah.

Greater stringency applies to terumah [than to sacred things], for in Judah [the people of the land (amei haaretz)] are trusted in regard to the purity of [sacred] wine and oil throughout the year; and at the season of the wine-presses and olive-presses even in regard to terumah. If [the season of] the wine-presses and olive-presses passed, and they brought to him a jar of wine of terumah, he [the priest] should not accept it from him, but [the am ha-aretz] may leave it for the coming [season] of the wine-press. But if he said to him, “I have set apart a quarter log [of wine] as a sacred thing,” he is believed [in regard to the purity of the whole jug]. [When it comes to] jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are meant for terumah, they are believed during the season of the wine-presses and the olive-presses and prior to [the season of] the wine-presses seventy days.

From Modi’im inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to [the purity of] earthenware vessels; from Modi'im outwards they are not trusted. How so? A potter who sells the pots entered inwards of Modi'im, then the same potter, the same pots and the same buyers are trusted [to be pure]. But if he went out [from Modi’im outwards] he is not trusted.

Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].” And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah.

One who opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] on account of the festival [and an am haaretz touched the wine or dough]: Rabbi Judah says: he may finish [selling them after the festival]; But the sages say: he may not finish. When the festival was over, they undertook the purification of the Temple court. If the festival ended on Friday, they did not undertake [the purification of the Temple court] because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah said: even not on Thursday, for the priests are not free.

How did they undertake the purification of the Temple court? They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple, and they say to them: “Be cautious lest you touch the table or menorah and defile them.” All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first was defiled, they might bring a second set in its place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they are like the ground, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: because they were overlaid [with metal].

משנה יבמות

Chapter 1

Fifteen [categories of] women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives and so on ad infinitum from halitzah and from yibbum. And these are they: his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son, and the daughter of his wife, and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter; (7) His mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother; (10) His maternal sister and his mother’s sister and his wife’s sister (13) And his maternal brother’s wife; and the wife of his brother who died before he was born, (15) And his daughter-in-law. All these exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives, and so on, ad infinitum, from halitzah and from yibbum. If any of them died, or made a declaration of refusal, or were divorced, or were found incapable of procreation, their rivals are permitted. And you cannot say of a man’s mother-in-law, or the mother of his mother-in-law and of the mother of his father-in-law that they were found incapable of procreation or that they made a declaration of refusal.

How do they exempt their rival wives? If his daughter or any other of these forbidden relatives was married to his brother who also had another wife, and he died, then just as his daughter is exempt so is her rival exempt. If his daughter’s rival went and married a second brother of his, who also had another wife, and he died, then just as the rival of his daughter is exempt so is his daughter’s rival’s rival exempt, even if there were a hundred [brothers]. How is it that if they had died, their rivals are permitted? If a man’s daughter or any other of these forbidden relatives was married to his brother who also had another wife, and his daughter died or was divorced, and afterwards his brother died, her rival is permitted. The rival of any one who can make a declaration of refusal but did not make a declaration of refusal, must perform halitzah and may not have yibbum.

There are six relatives that are more restricted than these, in that they may be married only to strangers, marriage with their rivals is permitted: his mother and his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his paternal sister, his father’s brother’s wife and his paternal brother’s wife.

Beth Shammai permits the rival wives to the surviving brothers, and Beth Hillel prohibits them. If they perform the halitzah, Beth Shammai disqualifies them from marrying a priest, and Beth Hillel makes the eligible. If they performed yibbum, Beth Shammai makes them eligible [to marry a priest], and Beth Hillel disqualifies them. Though these forbid and these permit, and these disqualify and these make eligible, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel [refrain from marrying women] from [the families of] Beth Shammai. [With regard to] purity and impurity, which these declare pure and the others declare impure, neither of them refrained from using the utensils of the others for the preparation of food that was ritually clean.

Chapter 2

What is the case of “the wife of his brother who died before he was born”? If there were two brothers, and one of them died, and then a third brother was born, and then the second brother had yibbum with his dead brother’s wife and then died himself, the first woman is exempt as the wife of his brother who died before he was born, and the second wife [is exempt] because she is her rival wife. If he had ma’amar with her and died, the second wife, must perform halitzah but may not have yibbum.

If there were two brothers and one of them died, and the second had yibbum with his dead brother’s wife, and after a [third] brother was born the second died, the first wife is exempt on account of her being the wife of his brother who died before he was born, while the second is exempt as her rival. If he had ma’amar with her, the second wife must perform the halitzah but she may not have yibbum. Rabbi Shimon says: he may have yibbum with either of them or perform halitzah for either of them.

A general rule has been said about the yavamah: Wherever she is prohibited as a forbidden relation, she may neither perform halitzah nor have yibbum. If her prohibition is due to a commandment or a prohibition due to holiness, she must perform halitzah but she may not have yibbum. If her sister is also her sister-in-law, she may perform halitzah or have yibbum.

A “prohibition due to a commandment” [refers to] the secondary incest prohibitions forbidden by the scribes. “A prohibition due to holiness” [refers to the following forbidden relationships]: a widow to a high priest; a divorced woman, or one that had performed halitzah to a regular priest; a mamzereth or a netinah to an Israelite; and an Israelite woman to a natin or a mamzer.

If one has any kind of brother, [that brother] requires his brother’s wife to have yibbum, and he is his brother in every respect, except for a brother born from a female slave or a non-Jewish woman. If one has any kind of son, [that son] exempts his father’s wife from yibbum, and he is liable for striking or cursing [his father], and he is his son in every respect, except for the son of a female slave or a non-Jewish woman.

If a man betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he has betrothed, he must give a get (a bill of divorce) to this one and a get to this one. If he died, and he had a brother, the brother must perform halitzah for both of them. If he had two brothers, one is to perform halitzah and the other may have yibbum. If they both preempted and married them they do not take [the women] away from them.

If two men betrothed two sisters and one does not know whom he betrothed and the other does not know whom he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce and the other gives two bills of divorce. If they died and this one has a brother and this one has a brother, this brother performs halitzah for both widows and this brother performs halitzah for both widows. If one has one brother and the other has two brothers, one brother performs halitzah for both widows and [as regards] the two, one performs halitzah and the other may perform yibbum. If they both preempted and married they do not take [the women] away from them. If this one had two brothers and the other had two brothers, one brother of one performs halitzah for one widow and one brother of the other performs halitzah with the other widow, [and then the other] brother of the first may have yibbum with the halutzah of the second and [the other] brother of the second may have yibbum with the halutzah of the first. If both preempted and performed halitzah, the [other] two must not perform yibbum, rather one must perform halitzah and the other may then have yibbum. If they both preempted and married they do not take [the women] away from them.

The commandment to perform yibbum is upon the oldest brother. If a younger brother preempted him [by performing yibbum], he has acquired [a wife]. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a slave and then she was freed, or with a non-Jewish woman who then converted, he must not marry her. If, however, he did marry her they do not take her away from him. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a married woman, and then [in consequence] she was taken away from her husband, even though he married her, he must divorce her.

A man who brings a bill of divorce from a country beyond the sea and states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”, must not marry the [divorcer’s] wife. [Similarly, if one states] “he died”, “I killed him”, or “We killed him”, he must not marry his wife. Rabbi Judah said: [If he says], “ I killed him”, the woman may not marry [any one]; [If, he states], “We killed him”, the woman may marry.

A sage who has pronounced a woman forbidden to her husband because of a vow must not marry her himself. If, however, a woman made a declaration of refusal or performed halitzah in his presence, he may marry her, since he [is part of a] court. If any of these had wives who [subsequently] died, [the other women] are permitted to marry them. If [the women] were married to others and were [subsequently] divorced, or widowed, they may be married to these. They are permitted to their sons or brothers.

Chapter 3

Four brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters, if those who were married to the sisters died, behold these must perform halitzah but may not have yibbum. If they preemptively married them, they must divorce them. Rabbi Eliezer said: Beth Shammai holds that they may retain them, and Beth Hillel holds that they must divorce them.

If one of the sisters was forbidden to one [of the brothers] under the prohibition of incest, he is forbidden to marry her but may marry her sister, while the second brother is forbidden to marry either of them. [If one sister] was forbidden due to a commandment or due to holiness they both perform halitzah and may not be taken in yibbum.

If one of the sisters was forbidden to one brother under the prohibition of incest and the other sister was forbidden to the other under the prohibition of incest, she who is forbidden to the one is permitted to the other and she who is forbidden to the other is permitted to the first. This is what they said: when her sister is her sister-in-law she may either perform halizah or be taken in yibbum.

Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter’s daughter, or to a woman and her son’s daughter, behold, these must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. Rabbi Shimon exempts them. If one of them was forbidden to him by a prohibition of incest, he is forbidden to marry her but is permitted to marry her sister. If the prohibition is due to a commandment or to holiness, they must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum.

Three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was unmarried: When one of the sisters’ husbands died, the unmarried brother performed for her ma’amar, and then his second brother died: Beth Shammai says: his wife [remains] with him while the other is exempt because she is his wife’s sister. Beth Hillel however says that he must divorce his wife with a get and by halitzah, and his brother’s wife by halitzah. This is the case in regard to which they said: “woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife.”

Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was married to a stranger: If one of the sisters’ husbands died and the brother who was married to the stranger married his wife and then died himself, the first is exempt [from yibbum or halitzah] because she is his wife’s sister, and the second is exempt as her rival. If he had only had ma’amar with her and died, the stranger is to perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was married to a stranger: If the brother who was married to the stranger died, and one of the sisters’ husbands married his wife and then died himself, the first is exempt [from yibbum or halitzah] because she is his wife’s sister, and the second is exempt as her rival. If he had only had ma’amar with her and died, the stranger is to perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum.

Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was married to a stranger: If one of the sisters’ husband died and the brother who was married to the stranger married his wife, and then the wife of the second brother died, and afterwards the brother who was married to the stranger died, behold she is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him for one moment. Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was married to a stranger. If one of the sisters’ husbands divorced his wife, and then the brother who was married to the stranger died, and he who had divorced his wife married her and then died,- this is a case concerning which they said: If any of them died or were divorced, their rivals are permitted.

[If in any of these cases] the betrothal or divorce was in doubt, behold, these rivals must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. What is a case of doubtful betrothal? If when he threw to her betrothal money it was uncertain whether it fell nearer to him or nearer to her – this is a case of doubtful betrothal. [What is a case of] doubtful divorce? If he wrote a get in his own handwriting and it bore no signatures of witnesses, or if it bore signatures of witnesses but was note dated, or if it was dated but had the signature of only one witness this is a case of doubtful divorce.

Three brothers were married to three women who were strangers [to one another] and one of them died and the second brother did ma’amar with her and then he died, behold, these must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum; for it is said “And one of them died…her husband’s brother shall unite with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5) only she who is bound due to one yavam but not she who is bound to due to two yavamim. R. Shimon says: he may have yibbum with whichever of these he wishes and then perform halitzah for the other. If two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of the brothers died, and afterwards the wife of the second brother died, behold, she is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him for one moment.

If two men betrothed two women, and as they were entering into the bridal chamber, they exchanged the one for the other, behold, they are guilty of having relations with a married woman. If they were brothers they are guilty of having relations with a brother’s wife. If they were sisters, they are guilty of having relations with a wife’s sister. If they were menstruants [they are guilty] of having relations with a menstruant. They must be kept apart for three months, lest they are pregnant. If they were minors incapable of bearing children, they may be returned [to their rightful husband] at once. If the women were of priestly families they are disqualified from eating terumah.

Chapter 4

A yavam performs halitzah for his yevamah, and she is subsequently found to be pregnant and she gives birth:If the child is viable, he is permitted to marry her relatives and she is permitted to marry his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from marrying a priest. If the child is not viable, he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives, and he disqualifies her from marrying a priest.

A yavam marries his yevamah and she is subsequently found to be pregnant, and she gives birth:If the child is viable, he must divorce her and both are obligated to bring a sacrifice; If the child is not viable, he may retain her [as a wife]. If it is doubtful whether it is a nine-months child of the first [husband] or a seven-months child of the second [husband] he must divorce her, and the child is legitimate, and they must bring an asham talui.

If a shomeret yavam came into possession of money: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away, and that her act is legally valid. If she dies, what shall be done with her ketubah and with property that comes in and goes out with her? Beth Shammai says: the heirs of her husband are to share it with the heirs of her father; Beth Hillel says: the property is to remain with those in whose possession it is, the ketubah is to remain in the possession of the heirs of the husband and the property which comes in and goes out with her remains in the possession of the heirs of her father.

If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

The commandment of yibbum is upon the eldest [of the surviving brothers]. If he declines, they pass in turn to all the other brothers. If they decline, they return to the eldest and say to him, “the commandment is upon you; either perform halitzah or yibbum.”

If he wished to suspend [his decision] until a minor becomes of age, or until the eldest returns from a country beyond the sea or [until a brother who was] a deaf-mute or an imbecile [should recover], he is not to be listened to, but is told, “the commandment is upon you; either perform halitzah or yibbum.”

He who performs halitzah with his yevamah, behold he is regarded as one of the other brothers in respect of inheritance. If the father was living, the estate belongs to the father.The other brothers are permitted. He who marries his yevamah acquires his brother’s estate. R. Judah said: in either case, if the father was living the estate belongs to the father. He who performs halitzah with his yevamah, he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives: He is forbidden to marry her mother, her mother’s mother and her father’s mother; her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter; and also her sister while she is alive. She is forbidden to marry his father and his father’s father; his son and his son’s son; his brother and his brother’s son. A man is permitted to marry the relative of the rival of his halutzah but is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his halutzah.

If he performed halitzah for his yevamah, and his brother married her sister and died, she must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. Similarly if a man divorces his wife and his brother marries her sister and dies behold she is exempt from halitzah and from yibbum.

If the brother of the yavam had betrothed the sister of the shomeret yavam, in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Batera they said: they say to him “Wait until your older brother has done something”. If his brother performed halitzah for her or married her, he may marry his [betrothed] wife. If the yevamah died he may marry his [betrothed] wife. If the yavam died, he must divorce his wife with a get and [release] his brother’s wife by halitzah.

The yevamah shall neither perform halitzah nor be taken in yibbum before three months have passed [since her husband’s death]. Similarly all other women shall be neither be betrothed nor married before three months have passed. Whether they were virgins or non-virgins, whether divorcees or widows, whether married or betrothed. Rabbi Judah said: those who were married may be betrothed [immediately], and those who were betrothed may be married [immediately], with the exception of the betrothed women in Judea, because there the bridegroom was intimate with [his bride]. Rabbi Yose said: all [married] women may be betrothed [immediately] with the exception of the widow because of her mourning.

If four brothers were married to four women, and they died, if the eldest [surviving brother] desires he may contract yibbum with all of them. If a man was married to two women and died, sexual relations or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. If one of them was eligible [to marry a priest] and one ineligible [to marry a priest], then if he performs halitzah it should be to her who is ineligible, and if he contracts yibbum it may be with her who is eligible.

A man who remarried his divorced wife, or married his halutzah, or married the relative of his halutzah must divorce her, and the child is a mamzer; the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: the child is not a mamzer. They agree that where a man married the relative of his divorcee the child is a mamzer.

Who is a mamzer? [The offspring of a union with] any relative with whom cohabitation is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon the Yemenite says: [The offspring of any union] for which one is obligated kareth at the hands of heaven; and the halachah is like his words. Rabbi Joshua says: [The offspring of any union] for which one is obligated death at the hands of a court.Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll of genealogical records in Jerusalem, and it was written on it, “So-and-so is a mamzer [having been born] from an adulterous woman”, which confirms the view of Rabbi Joshua. If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If he divorced her and then she died he is permitted to marry her sister. If she was married to another man and died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If a man’s sister-in-law died, he may marry her sister. If he performed for her halitzah and then she died, he is permitted to marry her sister.

Chapter 5

Rabban Gamaliel says: There is no [validity] to a get given after a get, nor to a ma’amar after a ma’amar, nor to an act of sexual intercourse after another act of sexual intercourse, nor to a halitzah after another halitzah. However, the Sages say: There is [validity] to a get given after a get, and to a ma’amar after a ma’amar but not to an act of sexual intercourse after another act of sexual intercourse, or to a halitzah after another halitzah.

How [is the release from yibbum effected]?If he performed ma'amar for his yevamah and gave her a get, she requires halitzah. If he performed ma'amar and and did halizah, she requires a get. If he performed ma’amar and then had intercourse with her, behold this is in accordance with the commandment.

If the yavam gave her a get and then ma’amar, she needs [another] get and halitzah. If he gave her a get and then had intercourse with her, she needs [another] get and halitzah. If he gave her a get and then did halitzah, there is nothing after halitzah. If the yavam did halitzah and then he did ma’amar or gave her a get, or had intercourse with her; Or if he had intercourse with her and then did ma’amar, or gave her a get, or did halitzah, there is nothing after halitzah. [And the law is the same] whether there is one yevamah to one yavam or two yevamoth to one yavam.

How is this so?If the yavam did ma'amar with this one and ma'amar with the other one, they need two letters of divorce and [one of them must have] halizah. If he did ma'amar with one and gave a get to the other, the [first one] needs a get and [one of them must have] halitzah. If he did ma'amar with one and had intercourse with the other, they need two gets and [one of them must have] halitzah. If he had ma'amar with one and gave halitzah to the other, the first needs a get. If he gave a get to one and a get to the other, [one of them] requires halitzah. If he gave a get to one and had intercourse with the other, [the second one] requires a get and [one of them must have] halitzah. [If he gave] a get to one and had ma'amar with the other, [the second] requires a get and [one of them must have] halitzah. [If he gave] a get to one and halizah to the other, there is nothing after halitzah.

If he performed halitzah [for one] and then performed halitzah [for the other], Or performed halitzah [for one] and did ma'amar [with the other], or gave her get, or had intercourse with her; Or if he had intercourse [with one] and then with the other, Or had intercourse [with one] and then ma'amar with the other, or gave her a get, or performed halitzah there is nothing after halitzah. [There is no difference in the law] whether there was one yavam to two yevamoth or two yavamim to yevamah.

[If the yavam] performed halitzah and then did ma’amar, gave her a get, or had intercourse with her; Or if he had intercourse with her and then did ma'amar, gave her a get, or performed halitzah, there is no valid act after halitzah,Whether [it was performed] in the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. Concerning intercourse, if it took place first there is no valid act after it; If it occurred in the middle or at the end there can be a valid act after it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: with both intercourse and halizah, whether it took place in the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, there is no validity in any act that follows it.

Chapter 6

One who has intercourse with his yevamah, whether in error or with presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will, even if he acted in error and she in presumption, or he in presumption and she in error, or he under compulsion and she not under compulsion, or she under compulsion and he not under compulsion, whether he only began to have intercourse or he completed having intercourse, he has acquired her as a wife. The laws do not make a distinction between different types of intercourse.

Similarly, one who has intercourse with any of the forbidden relatives listed in the Torah, or with any of those who are disqualified to marry him as, for instance, a widow to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah to a common priest, a mamzeret or a netinah to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite to a mamzer or a nathin, he has disqualifed [her from marrying a priest], and the laws do not make a distinction between different types of intercourse.

A widow to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah to an ordinary priest they do not eat terumah from the point of betrothal. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon declare them eligible. If they became widows or were divorced after full marriage they are ineligible; If after betrothal they are eligible.

A high priest shall not marry a widow whether she became a widow after a betrothal or after a marriage. He shall not marry one who has reached puberty. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon permit him to marry one who has reached puberty, but he may not marry one who lost her virginity through a stick. [A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed high priest, may bring her into marriage. It once happened with Joshua ben Gamla that he betrothed Marta the daughter of Boethus, and the king appointed him high priest, and he brought her into marriage. If a shomeret yavam became liable to have yibbum with an ordinary priest and then he was appointed high priest, even though he already did ma’amar, he may not bring her into marriage. A high priest whose brother died must perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.

An ordinary priest shall not marry a woman incapable of procreation, unless he already has a wife or children. Rabbi Judah said: even though he has a wife and children he shall not marry a woman incapable of procreation, since she is a zonah, as mentioned in the Torah. But the Sages said: the term zonah implies only a female convert, freed slavewoman and one who has been subjected to illicit intercourse.

A man shall not abstain from procreation unless he already has children. Beth Shammai says: two males, And Beth Hillel says: male and a female, for it says, “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 5:2). If a man married a woman and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he may not abstain [any longer from the duty of propagation]. If he divorced her she is permitted to marry another, and the second husband may also live with her for ten years. If she miscarried [the period of ten years] is counted from the time of her miscarriage. A man is commanded concerning the duty of propagation but not a woman. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: Concerning both of them it is said, “And God blessed them; and said to them… “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

Chapter 7

If a widow [who married] a high priest, or if a divorced woman or a halutzah [who married] an ordinary priest brought in to her husband melog slaves and tzon barzel slaves, the melog slaves may not eat terumah but the tzon barzel slaves may eat of it. The following are melog slaves: those who, if they die, are the wife’s loss and, if their value increases, are her profit. Even though it is the husband's duty to maintain them, they may not eat terumah. The following are tzon barzel slaves: if they die, they are the loss of the husband and, if their value increases, they are a profit to him. Since he is responsible for them, they are permitted to eat terumah.

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and she brought him in slaves, they are permitted to eat terumah whether they are melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves. If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite and she brought him in slaves, they may not eat terumah whether they are melog slaves or tzon barzel slaves.

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus, since a fetus prevents [its mother] from eating [terumah] but does not cause her to be able to eat [terumah], the words of Rabbi Yose. They said to him: since you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, even concerning the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus!

A fetus, a yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a boy who is nine years and one day old, disqualify [a woman] from [terumah], but do not allow her to eat terumah, If it is doubtful whether the boy is nine years and one day old or not, or whether he has produced two hairs or not, If a house collapsed upon a man and upon his brother’s daughter, and it is not known which of them died first, her rival must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum.

The rapist, the seducer and the insane man neither disqualify [a woman from eating terumah] nor do they allow her to eat [terumah].If they are unfit to enter into the assembly of Israel they do disqualify [a woman from eating terumah]. How is this so? If an Israelite had intercourse with the daughter of a priest she continues to eat terumah.If she becomes pregnant she may no longer eat terumah.[Even if] she becomes pregnant she may not eat.And if his father’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, she may not eat terumah;And if his mother’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, she may eat terumah; If the embryo was miscarried in her womb she may eat. If a priest had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, she may not eat terumah.If she gave birth may eat.A slave disqualifies a woman from eating terumah through intercourse but not as her offspring.If she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she may eat terumah.If she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she may not eat terumah. It is found that the power of the son is greater than that of the father. How is this so? If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore a son by him, and the son went and had intercourse with a slave-woman who bore a son by him, such a son is a slave;A mamzer disqualifies a woman from eating terumah and can allow her to eat terumah. How is this so? If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore a daughter by him, and the daughter went and married a slave or a Gentile who bore a son by him, such a son is a mamzer;

A high priest sometimes disqualifies [his mother’s mother] from being able to eat terumah. How is this so? If a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite and she bore a daughter by him, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore a son by him, such a son is fit to be a high priest, to stand and serve at the altar. He allows his mother to eat terumah but disqualifies his mother’s mother. And she can say, “[May there] not be like my grandson the high priest who disqualified me from eating terumah.”

Chapter 8

An uncircumcised [priest] and all impure persons may not eat terumah. Their wives and slaves may eat terumah. [A priest] whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off, as well as their slaves, may eat terumah, but their wives may not. If, however, he did not know her after the his testes were crushed or his member was cut off, the wives may eat [terumah].

Who is considered a “petzua dakkah”? Anyone whose testes are wounded even one of them. And a “kerut shofkhah”? A man whose member is cut off. If [any part] of the corona remained, even so much as a hair’s breadth, the man is regarded as fit [to serve as a priest]. A man who testes are wounded, and one whose member is cut off, are permitted to marry a convert or a freed slave. They are only forbidden to enter into the congregation, as it is said “No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2).

An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden [to enter into the congregation of the Lord] and their prohibition is for ever. However, their women are permitted at once. An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden only until the third generation, whether they are males or females. Rabbi Shimon permits their women immediately. Said Rabbi Shimon: This is a kal vehomer: if where the males are forbidden for all time the females are permitted immediately, where the males are forbidden only until the third generation how much more should the females be permitted immediately. They said to him: If this is a halakhah, we shall accept it; but if it is only a logical reference, there is a refutation. He replied: This is not so, I am in fact saying a halakhah. Mamzerim and nethinim are forbidden, and their prohibition is forever, whether they be males or females.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that a eunuch performs halitzah and that halitzah is performed by others for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not perform halitzah and that no halitzah is performed for his wife, and I am unable to explain this. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain it: a man-made eunuch performs halitzah and halitzah is also performed for his wife, because there was a time when he was fit [to have children]. A eunuch by nature neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit. Rabbi Elazar said: Not so! Rather a eunuch by nature performs halitzah and halitzah is performed for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since he cannot be cured. Rabbi Joshua ben Baterra testified concerning Ben Megusat, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem and they performed yibbum for his wife, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

The eunuch neither performs halitzah nor contracts yibbum. So too a woman who is incapable of procreation neither performs halizah nor is taken in yibbum. If a eunuch performed halitzah for his yevamah, he does not disqualify her [from subsequently marrying a priest]. If he has intercourse with her he disqualifies her, since this is an act of fornication. Similarly where brothers performed halitzah for a woman incapable of procreation, they do not disqualify her [from marrying a priest]. If they have intercourse with her they do disqualify her, since this is an act of fornication.

If a priest who was eunuch by nature married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon stated: if a priest who was an hermaphrodite married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah stated: if a tumtum was opened up and found to be a male, he may not perform halitzah, because he has the same status as a eunuch. The hermaphrodite may marry [a wife] but may not be married [by a man]. Rabbi Eliezer stated: concerning the hermaphrodite, [the one who has relations with him] is liable to be stoned like one [who has relations with] a male.

Chapter 9

Some women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim, Others are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands, Others are permitted to both, Others are forbidden to both.[In all these cases the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim. These are the women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim: An ordinary priest married a widow and had a brother who was a high priest; A halal married a woman who was fit and had a brother of legitimate status; An Israelite married the daughter of an Israelite and had a brother who was a mamzer, A mamzer married a mamzeret and had a brother who was an Israelite.

The following are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands:A high priest who betrothed a widow and has a brother who is an ordinary priest; A fit [priest] who married a halalah and has a brother who is a halal; An Israelite who married a mamzeret and has a brother who is a mamzeret; A mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a brother who is an Israelite. [In these cases the women] are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands. The following are forbidden to both; A high priest who married a widow has a brother who is a high priest, or who is an ordinary priest; A fir [priest] who married a halalah and has a brother who was a fit [priest]; An Israelite who married a mamzeret and has a brother who is Israelite; A mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a brother who is a mamzer, [In these cases the women] are forbidden to both [the husband and the yavam]. All other women are permitted to both their husbands and their yevamim.

[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes:[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah.

The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest, or who was pregnant from a priest, or was a shomeret yavam to a priest; And similarly, the daughter of a priest [who was in such relationship] with an Israelite, may not eat terumah. The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a Levite, or who was pregnant from a Levite, or was a shomeret yavam to a Levite; And similarly, the daughter of a Levite [who was in such a relationship] with an Israelite may not eat tithe. The daughter of a Levite who was betrothed to a priest, or who was pregnant from a priest, or was a shomeret yavam to a priest; And similarly, the daughter of a priest [who was in such relationship] with a levite, may eat neither terumah nor tithe.

The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest may eat terumah. If he died and she has a son by him she may continue to eat terumah. If she was [subsequently] married to a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died and she had a son by him, she may continue to eat tithe. If she was [subsequently] married to an Israelite she may eat neither terumah nor tithe. If he died and she has a son by him, she may eat neither terumah nor tithe. If her son by the Israelite died, she may again eat tithe. If her son by the Levite died she may again eat terumah. If her son by the priest died, she may eat neither terumah nor tithe.

The daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite may not eat terumah. If he died and she had a son by him she may not eat terumah. If she was [subsequently] married to a Levite she may eat tithe. If he died and she had a son by him she may eat tithe. If she was [subsequently] married to a priest she may eat terumah. If he died and she had a son by him she may eat terumah. If her son by the priest died she may not eat terumah. If her son by the levite died she may not eat tithe. If her son by the Israelite died she returns to the house of her father; And it is concerning such a woman that it is said, “And she returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13).

Chapter 10

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

If she married with the authorization of the court, she must leave, but is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. If she married without the authorization of the court, she must leave and is liable to bring a sacrifice. The authority of the court is thus more greater in that it exempts her from the sacrifice. If the court ruled that she may be married and she went and disgraced herself, she must bring a sacrifice, because the court permitted her only to marry.

If a woman whose husband and son went to a country beyond the sea was told, “Your husband died and your son died afterwards”, and she married again, and later she was told, “the [deaths] happened in the opposite order” she must leave, and any child born before or after is a mamzer. If she was told “Your son died and your husband died afterwards”, and she had yibbum, and afterwards she was told, “the [deaths] happened in the opposite order” she must leave, and any child born before or after is a mamzer. If she was told, “Your husband died”, and she married, and afterwards she was told, “He was alive but is now dead”, she must leave, and any child born before [the death of her first husband] is a mamzer, but one born after it is not a mamzer. If she was told, “Your husband died”, and she was betrothed, and afterwards her husband appeared, she is permitted to return to him. Although the second one gave her a get he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest. This Rabbi Elazar ben Mathia expounded: “A woman divorced from her husband” (Leviticus 21:7) not from a man who is not her husband.

If a man’s wife had gone to a country beyond the sea and he was told, “Your wife is dead”, and he married her sister, and afterwards his wife came back, [the latter] is permitted to return to him. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second woman, and the second woman is permitted to marry his relatives. If the first wife died he is permitted to marry the second. If he was told that his wife was dead, and he married her sister, and then he was told that she was then alive but had since died, any child born before [his first wife’s death] is a mamzer, but anyone born after [her death] is not a mamzer. Rabbi Yose says: whoever disqualifies for others disqualifies for himself and whoever does not disqualify for others does not disqualify for himself.

If a man was told “Your wife is dead” and he married her paternal sister; [and when he was told] “She is dead’, he married her maternal sister; [and when he was told] “She is dead”, and he married her paternal sister; [and when he was told] “She is dead, he married her maternal sister; and later it was found that they were all alive, he is permitted to the first, third and fifth, and they exempt their rivals; But he is forbidden to the second and the fourth, and intercourse with one of these does not exempt her rival. If he had intercourse with the second after the death of the first, he is permitted to the second and fourth, and they exempt their rivals; But he is forbidden to the third and the fifth, and intercourse with one of these does not exempt her rival.

A boy of the age of nine years and one day disqualifies [his sister-in-law for marriage] with his brothers, and his brothers disqualify her for him, but while he disqualifies her from the outset only, the brothers disqualify her from the outset and at the end. How is this so? A boy of the age of nine years and one day who had intercourse with his sister-in-law disqualifies her [for marriage] with his brothers; The brothers disqualify her [for marriage with him] whether they had intercourse with her, did ma’amar, gave her a get or submitted to her halitzah.

If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had intercourse with his yevamah and then his brother who was of the age of nine years and one day had intercourse with her, [the latter] disqualifies her for [the former]. Rabbi Shimon says: he does not render her unfit.

If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had intercourse with his yevamah and afterwards had intercourse with her rival wife, he has disqualified [both women for marriage] with himself. Rabbi Shimon says: he does not disqualify them. If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had intercourse with his yevamah and then died, she must undergo halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. If he had married [any other] woman and she subsequently died, she is exempt [from both halitzah and yibbum].

If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had intercourse with his sister-in-law, and after he had come of age he married another woman and then died, if he had not known the first woman after he had become of age, the first one must have halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum, while the second may either have halitzah or yibbum. Rabbi Shimon says: [the yavam] may perform yibbum with whichever one he wants, and he must perform halitzah for the other [woman]. [The same law applies] whether he is of the age of nine years and one day, or whether he is of the age of twenty years but had not produced two pubic hairs.

Chapter 11

A man is permitted to marry [the relative] of a woman [whom he has] raped or seduced. He who rapes or seduces [a relative] of his married wife, is guilty. A man may marry a woman whom his father has raped or seduced or a woman whom his son has raped or seduced. Rabbi Yehudah forbids [marriage] with a woman whom one’s father has raped or seduced.

The sons of a female convert who converted with her do not perform halitzah or yibbum, even if the one was not conceived in holiness but was born in holiness, and the other was both conceived and born in holiness. So also [is the law] where the sons of a female slave were freed together with her.

If the children of five women were mixed up and, when these mixed up children grew up, they took wives and then died, four perform halitzah for one [of the widows] and one contracts with her yibbum. [Then] he and three [brothers] perform halitzah to [another one of the widows] and one has with her yibbum. Thus every one [of the widows] has halitzah four times and yibbum once.

If the child of a woman was mixed up with the child of her daughter-in-law and the mixed-up children grew up and married women and then died, the [other] sons of the daughter-in-law perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum, for it is uncertain whether she is the wife of his brother or the wife of his father’s brother. The [other] sons of the older woman either perform halitzah or yibbum, since the only doubt is whether she is the wife of his brother or the wife of his brother’s son. If the not-mixed-up sons died then [with respect to the widows of the sons of the older woman] the mixed-up sons perform halitzah and may not have yibbum, since it is uncertain whether she is the wife of his brother or the wife of his father’s brother; [With respect to the widows] of the sons of the daughter-in-law one performs halitzah and the other [may] have yibbum.

If the child of a priest’s wife was mixed-up with the child of her female slave, behold both may eat terumah and [together] they receive one share at the threshing-floor. They may not defile themselves for the dead nor may they marry any women whether these are eligible [for marriage with a priest] or ineligible. If when they grew up, the mixed-up children freed one another they may marry women who are eligible for marriage with a priest and they may not defile themselves for the dead. If they defiled themselves, they do not receive the penalty of forty lashes. They may not eat terumah, but if they did eat they need not pay compensation either for the principal or [the additional] fifth. They are not to receive a share at the threshing-floor, but they may sell [their own] terumah and the proceeds are theirs. They receive no share in the holy things of the temple, and no holy things are given to them but others do not take their holy things from them. They are exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while the firstling of either of them should remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are both imposed upon them.

If a woman did not wait three months after [separation from] her husband, and married again and gave birth [to a son], and it is unknown whether it is a nine-months child by the first husband or a seven-months child by the second, if she had other sons by the first husband and other sons by the second, these must perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum. So too he, with their widows performs halitzah but may not contract yibbum. If he had brothers by the first and also brothers by the second, but not by the same mother, he may either perform halitzah or contract yibbum, But as for them, one performs halitzah and the other may [then] contract yibbum.

If one of [the two husbands] was an Israelite and the other a priest: He may only marry a woman who is eligible to marry a priest. He may not defile himself for the dead, but if he did defile himself he does not suffer the penalty of forty stripes. He may not eat terumah, but if he did eat he need not pay compensation either for the principal or [for the additional] fifth. He does not receive a share at the threshing-floor, but he may sell [his own] terumah and the profits are his. He receives no share in the holy things of the temple, no holy things are given to him, but he is not deprived of his own. He is exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while his firstling must remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are imposed upon him. If the two [husbands] were priests: He must be an onen mourner for them and they must be onenim mourners for him, but he may not defile himself for them, nor may they defile themselves for him. He may not inherit from them, but they may inherit from him. He is exempt if he strikes or curses the one or the other. He goes up [to serve] in the Temple watch of the one as well as of the other, but he does not receive a share [in the offerings]. If both served in the same watch, he receives a single portion.

Chapter 12

The commandment of halitzah must be performed in the presence of three judges, even though all the three are laymen. If the woman performed the halitzah with a shoe, her halitzah is valid, [but if] with a felt sock it is invalid. If with a sandal to which a heel is attached it is valid, but [if with one] that has no heel it is invalid. [If the sandal was tied] below the knee the halitzah is valid, but if above the knee it is invalid.

If the woman performed the halitzah with a sandal that did not belong to him, or with a wooden sandal, or with the one of the left foot [which he was wearing] on his right foot, the halitzah is valid. If she performed the halizah with a sandal too large [for him], in which, however, he is able to walk, or with one too small which, however, covers the greater part of his foot, her halizah is valid. If she performed the halitzah at night, her halitzah is valid. Rabbi Elazar disqualifies [halitzah at night]. [If she performed it] with [the yavam’s] left shoe, her halitzah is invalid, Rabbi Elazar validates it.

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

If a deaf yavam submitted to halitzah or if a deaf yevamah performed halitzah, or if a halitzah was performed on a minor, the halizah is invalid. If a minor yevamah performed halitzah she must again perform halitzah when she becomes of age; if she does not again perform it, the halitzah is invalid.

If she performed halitzah in the presence of two men or in the presence of three men and one of them was discovered to be a relative or in any other way unfit [to act as judge], her halitzah is invalid. R. Shimon and R. Yohanan Ha-Sandelar declare it valid. And it once happened that a man submitted to halitzah between himself and herself in a prison, and when the case came before R. Akiva he declared the halitzah valid.

[This is the procedure in the performance of] the commandment of halitzah:He and his deceased brother’s wife come to the court, and they offer him appropriate advice, for it is said, “Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him” (Deut. 25:8). She then says: “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a levir (yavam)” (verse. Then he says: “I do not wish to marry her” (verse. [These sayings] were spoken in the holy tongue (Hebrew). “Then his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot and spit in his face” (verse spit that the judges can see. “And make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house”. Thus far they used to dictate. When Rabbi Hyrkanus was under the terebinth at Kefar Etam he dictated the reading and completed the entire section, the practice was established to complete the entire section. “And he shall go in Israel by the name of ‘the family of the unsandaled one’” (verse. [The recitation of this verse] is a commandment [to be performed] by the judges and not by the disciples. Rabbi Judah says: it is a commandment incumbent upon all present to cry “[the man] that had his shoe pulled off, [the man] that had his shoe pulled off, [the man] that had his shoe pulled off.”

Chapter 13

Beth Shammai says: Only those who are betrothed may exercise the right of refusal; But Beth hillel says: Both those who are betrothed and those who are married. Beth Shammai says: [A declaration of refusal may be made] against a husband but not against a yavam; But Beth Hillel says: Either against a husband or against a yavam. Beth Shammai says: [The declaration] must be made in his presence, But Beth Hillel says: Either in his presence or not in his presence. Beth Shammai says: [The declaration must be made] before the court, But Beth Hillel says: Either before the court or not before the court. Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: [A girl] may exercise the right of refusal while she is a minor even four or five times. Beth Shammai said to them: “The daughters of Israel are not ownerless property! Rather, either she makes a declaration of refusal and then waits until she is of age, or she makes a declaration of refusal and marries again [immediately]. Section one: According to Beth Shammai only those who are betrothed are allowed to make a declaration of refusal and thereby leave their husbands without a get. Beth Hillel says even if she was married she may do so. According to the Talmud, Beth Shammai allows only the betrothed woman to refuse because if the married woman also was able to refuse, men would not want to spend the money involved in marrying a minor, lest she later refuse the marriage. Section two: If the minor girl was married off by her mother or brother and then her husband died, according to Beth Shammai she cannot make a declaration against her yavam. Rather she must wait until she reaches majority age and then request halitzah. However, according to Beth Hillel she may make such a declaration against the yavam as well. However, even though she has annulled her marriage to the yavam’s brother, she cannot at a later point marry the yavam, since she was at one point his brother’s wife. Section three: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of him. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section four: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of a court. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section five: According to Beth Hillel, as long as she is still a minor, she may be married off as many times as her brothers and mother wish and she may later refuse as many marriages as they offer. Beth Shammai offers a moral objection to this possibility, for through it a girl could be betrothed (but according to Beth Shammai not married) to several men without ever having received a get. Rather she either waits until she is an adult or makes a declaration of refusal and then marries immediately, at which point she could no longer refuse, according to Beth Shammai. Note that this last section is phrased differently than the previous sections. According to some mishnaic commentators, since Beth Shammai explains their position the halakhah is according to them in this section. In all of the other sections, the halakhah follows Beth Hillel, as it usually does.

Which minor must make the declaration of refusal?Any whose mother or brothers have given her in marriage with her consent. If they gave her in marriage without her consent she need not make any declaration of refusal. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Any child who is unable to take care of her token of betrothal need not make any declaration of refusal. Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor has no validity at all, rather [she is to be regarded] as one seduced. The daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest may not eat terumah, and the daughter of a priest [who was married] to an Israelite may eat terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: In the case of any hindrance that was due to the husband, she is considered to be his wife; But in the case of any hindrance that was not due to the husband she is not considered to be his wife.

If a minor made a declaration of refusal against a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted to [marry] his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from[marrying] a priest. If he gave her a get, he is forbidden to [marry] her relatives and she is forbidden to [marry] his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from [marrying] a priest. If he gave her a get and remarried her and then she a made a declaration of refusal against him, and then she was married to another man and became a widow or was divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she made a declaration of refusal against him and then he remarried her, and then he gave her a get and then she was married to another man and became a widow or was divorced, she is forbidden to return to him. This is the general rule: if divorce followed meun she is forbidden to return to him, and if meun followed divorce she is permitted to return to him.

If a minor made a declaration of refusal against a man, and then she was married to another man who divorced her, and afterwards to another man against whom she made a declaration of refusal, and then to another man who divorced her: she is forbidden to return to any man from whom she was separated by a get, but is permitted to return to any man from whom she was separated by her declaration of refusal.

If a man divorced his wife and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. Similarly, if a man divorced an orphan and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. If a minor was given in marriage by her father and was divorced she is like an orphan in her father’s lifetime and then her husband remarried her, all agree that she is forbidden to marry the yavam.

If two brothers were married to two sisters who were minors and orphans, and the husband of one of them died, [the widow] is free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife’s sister. Similarly in the case of two deaf-mute [sisters]. [If the two brothers were married to two sisters one of whom was] of age and [the other] a minor, if the husband of the minor died, the minor is free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife’s sister. If the husband of the elder sister died: Rabbi Eliezer says the minor is to be instructed to make a declaration of refusal against him. Rabban Gamaliel says: If she made a declaration of refusal, then she did so; but if [she did] not, let her wait until she is of age and then she will be free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife's sister. Rabbi Joshua says: Woe to him because of his wife and woe to him because of his brother’s wife! He must allow his wife to go by [giving her] a get, and [he must let go] his brother’s wife through halitzah.

If a man who was married to two minors orphans died, intercourse or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. [If a man was married to] a minor and to a deaf woman [and then died], intercourse with one of them does not exempt her rival. If one was of sound senses and one was deaf, intercourse with the woman of sound senses exempts the deaf woman, but intercourse with the deaf woman does not exempt the woman of sound senses. If one was of age and the other a minor, intercourse with the one of age exempts the minor, but intercourse with the minor does not exempt the one of age.

If a man who was married to two orphans who were minors died, and the yavam had intercourse with one, and then he also had intercourse with the other, or his [the yavam’s] brother had intercourse with the other, he has not thereby disqualified the first [for him]; And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. [If one was] a minor and the other deaf, and the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then he had intercourse with the deaf widow, or a brother of his had intercourse with the deaf widow, he has not disqualified the minor [for him]. If the yavam had intercourse with the deaf widow and then he also had intercourse with the minor, or a brother of his had intercourse with the minor, he has disqualified the deaf widow [for him].

[If one was] of sound senses and the other deaf, and the yavam had intercourse with the woman of sound senses and then he also had intercourse with the deaf woman, or a brother of his had intercourse with the deaf woman, he does not disqualify the former [for him]. If the yavam had intercourse with the deaf woman, and then he also had intercourse with the woman of sound senses, or a brother of his had intercourse with the woman of sound senses, he disqualifies the deaf woman [for him].

[If one was] of age and the other a minor, and the yavam had intercourse with the one who was of age, and then he had intercourse with the minor, or a brother of his had intercourse with the minor, he does not disqualify the elder for him. If the yavam had intercourse with the minor, and then he also had intercourse with the one who was of age, or a brother of his had intercourse with the one who was of age, he disqualifies the minor [for him]. Rabbi Elazar says: the minor is to be instructed to make a declaration of refusal.

If a yavam who was a minor had intercourse with a yevamah who was a minor, they should be brought up together. If he had intercourse with a yevamah who was of age, she should bring him up until he is of age. If a yevamah declared within thirty days [after yibbum], “he has not had intercourse with me”, they force him to perform halitzah; [If her declaration was made] after thirty days, they request that he perform halitzah. If he admits [that he did not have intercourse with her], they force him to perform halitzah.

If a woman vowed to have no benefit from her yavam:If the vow was made during the husband’s lifetime they force him to perform halitzah, [If her vow was made] after the death of her husband, they request of him to perform halitzah. If this was her intention, [even if her vow was made] during the lifetime of her husband, they request of him to perform halitzah.

Chapter 14

If a deaf man married a woman of sound senses or a man of sound senses married a deaf woman he may, if he wishes, divorce her, and he may, if he wishes retain her; just as he marries by gestures so he divorces her by gestures. If a man of sound senses married a woman of sound senses and she became deaf, he may, if he wishes, divorce her; and he may, if he wishes, retain her. If she became insane he may not divorce her. If he became deaf or insane, he may never divorce her. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Why may a woman who became deaf be divorced while a man who became deaf may not divorce [his wife]? They answered him: a man who divorces is not like a woman who is divorced, for while a woman may be divorced with her consent and without her consent, a man can divorce only with his consent.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; They said to him: the other also is similar to her.

If two deaf brothers were married to two deaf sisters, or to two sisters who were of sound senses, or to two sisters one of whom was deaf and the other was of sound senses; And so also if two deaf sisters were married to two brothers who were of sound senses, or to two deaf brothers, or to two brothers one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses: Behold these [women] are exempt from halitzah and from yibbum. If [the women] were strangers they must marry them, and if they wish to divorce them, they may do so.

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two sisters who were of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she] is exempt, because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, do? He must release his wife with a get, while his brother’s wife is forbidden forever [to marry again].

If two brothers of sound senses were married to two sisters one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, and the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf sister, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she is] exempt because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf sister, do? He must release his wife with a get and his brother’s wife by halitzah.

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two sisters, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, died, what should the brother who was of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she is] exempt because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, do? He must release his wife with a get, while his brother’s wife is forever forbidden [to marry again].

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two strangers who were of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the woman who was of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman of sound senses, do? He either performs halitzah or yibbum. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman who was of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the woman who was of sound senses, do? He must marry her and he may never divorce her.

If two brothers of sound senses were married to two strangers, one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf, and the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf woman died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman of sound senses, do? He must marries her and if he wishes to divorce her he may do so. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf woman, do? He may either perform halitzah or yibbum.

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two strangers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf woman, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman of sound senses do? He must marry her, but if he wishes to divorce her he may do so. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the woman of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf woman, do? He must marry her and he may never divorce her.

Chapter 15

If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea [at a time when there was] peace between him and her and [when there was also] peace in the world, and she came back and said, “My husband is dead”, she may marry again; and if she said, “My husband is dead [and he had no children]” she may contract yibbum. If there was peace between him and her, but war in the world, [or if there was] discord between him and her, but peace in the world, and she came back and said, ‘My husband is dead”, she is not believed. Rabbi Judah says: she is never believed unless she comes weeping and her garments are rent. They said to him: she may marry in either case.

Bet Hillel says: we heard [such a tradition] only in respect of a woman who came from the harvest and [whose husband died] in the same country, and in a case similar to the one that happened. Bet Shammai said to them: [the law is] the same whether the woman came from the harvest or from olive picking, or from grape picking, or from one country to another--the Sages spoke of the harvest only [because the incident to which they referred] occurred then. Bet Hillel changed their view to rule in accordance with Bet Shammai.

Bet Shammai says: she may marry and she receives her ketubah. Bet Hillel says: she may marry but she does not receive her ketubah. Bet Shammai said to them: you have permitted [what might be] the serious consequence of illicit intercourse, why should you not permit [the taking of her husband’s] money which is of less consequence! Bet Hillel said to them: we find that based on her testimony, the brothers may not receive their inheritance. Bet Shammai said to them: do we not learn this from her ketubah scroll wherein [her husband] writes to her “if you are married to another man, you will receive what is prescribed for you”! Bet Hillel changed their view to rule in accordance with Bet Shammai.

All are believed to testify for her [concerning her husband’s death] except for her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law and her husband’s daughter. Why is [the bringing of] a letter of divorce different [from testifying regarding] death?The written document provides the proof. If one witness stated, “he is dead”, and his wife married again, and another came and stated “he is not dead”, she need not leave [her new husband]. If one witness said “he is dead” and two witnesses said “he is not dead”, even if she married again, she must leave him. If two witnesses stated, “he is dead”, and one witness stated, “he is not dead”, even if she had not married, she may do so.

If one wife said “he is dead’ and the other wife said, “he is not dead”, the one who said, “he is dead” may marry again and she also receives her ketubah, while the one who said, “he is not dead”, may neither marry again nor does she receive her ketubah. If one wife said, “he is dead” and the other stated “he was killed”: Rabbi Meir says: since they contradict one another they may not marry again. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: since both admit that he is not alive, both may marry again. If one witness says, “he is dead”, and another witness says “he is not dead’, Or if one woman says “he is dead”, and another woman says, “he is not dead’, she may not marry again.

If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she returned and stated, “my husband is dead”, she may be married again and she also receives her ketubah. However, her rival wife is forbidden to remarry.If [her rival wife] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah.

If she stated, “my husband died first and my father-in-law died after him”, she may marry again and she also receives her ketubah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden [to remarry]. If [her mother-in-law] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah. If a man betrothed one of five women and he does not know which of them he has betrothed, and each states, “he has betrothed me”, he gives a letter of divorce to every one of them, and he leaves one ketubah [sum] for them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead him away from transgression, unless he gives to each of them both a get and a ketubah. If a man robbed one of five persons and does not know which of them he has robbed, and each one states, “he has robbed me”, he leaves the [amount of] the robbery among them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead them away from transgression, unless one pays [the full amount of the robbery] to every one [of the persons involved].

A woman who went with her husband to a country beyond the sea, and her son was with her, and who came back and stated, “my husband died and afterwards my son died”, is believed. [If she stated] “my son died and afterwards my husband died”, she is not believed, but we are concerned that her words [might be true] and she must, therefore, perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.

[If a woman states], “A son was given to me [while I was] in a country beyond the sea” and she also states, “my son died and afterwards my husband died”, she is believed. [If she states], “my husband died and afterwards my son died”, she is not believed, but we are concerned that her words [might be true] and she must, therefore, perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.

[If a woman states] “a brother-in-law was given to me [while I was] in a country beyond the sea”, and afterwards she states, “my husband died and afterwards my brother-in-law died” or “my brother-in-law died and afterwards my husband died”, she is believed. If a woman and her husband and her brother-in-law went to a country beyond the sea, and she [on returning home] stated, “my husband died and afterwards my brother-in-law [died]” or “my brother-in-law [died] and afterwards my husband [died]” she is not believed; For a woman is not to be believed when she asserts “my brother-in-law is dead”, in order that she may marry again; Nor [is she believed when she states that] her sister is dead, in order that she may enter his house. A man also is not believed when he states “my brother is dead”, so that he may have yibbum with his wife, nor [when he states that] his wife is dead, in order that he may marry her sister.

Chapter 16

A woman whose husband and rival wife went to a country beyond the sea, and to whom people came and said, “your husband is dead”, must neither marry nor contract yibbum until she has ascertained whether her rival wife is pregnant. If she had a mother-in-law she need not be concerned [she had another son]. But if [the mother-in-law] departed while pregnant she must be concerned [that another son was born]. Rabbi Joshua says: she need not be concerned.

Two sisters-in-law, one says, “My husband is dead”, and the other also says, “My husband is dead”, this one is forbidden on account of the husband of this one, and this one is forbidden on account of the husband of this one. If one had witnesses and the other had no witnesses, she who has the witnesses is forbidden, while she who has no witnesses is permitted. If the one has children and the other has no children, she who has children is permitted and she who has no children is forbidden. If they contracted yibbum, and the yevamim died, they are forbidden [to marry again]. Rabbi Elazar says: since they were permitted to marry the yevamim, they are subsequently permitted to marry any man.

They are allowed to testify only about the face with the nose, even though there were also marks on the man’s body or clothing. They are allowed to testify only when his soul has departed, even though they have seen him cut up or crucified or being devoured by a wild beast. They are allowed to testify only [if they saw the body] within three days [of death]. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says: not all men, all places, or all times are alike.

If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. Rabbi Meir said: it once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and came out after three days. Rabbi Yose: it once happened that a blind man descended into a cave to immerse and his guide went down after him; and after waiting long enough for their souls to depart, permission was given to their wives to marry again. Another incident occurred at Asia where a man was lowered into the sea, and only his leg was brought up, and the Sages ruled: [if the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man’s wife] may marry again, [but if it contained only the part] below the knee, she may not marry again.

Even if he only heard from women saying, “so-and-so is dead”, this is enough. Rabbi Judah says: even if he only heard children saying, “behold we are going to mourn for a man named so-and-so and to bury him” [it is enough]. Whether [such statement was made] with the intention [of providing evidence] or was made with no such intention [it is valid]. Rabbi Judah ben Bava says: with an Israelite [the evidence is valid] only if the man had the intention [of acting as witness]. In the case of a non-Jew the evidence is invalid if his intention was [to act as witness].

They may testify [even if the body was seen] in candle light or in moonlight. And a woman may be given permission to marry again on the evidence of a mere voice. It once happened that a man was standing on the top of a hill and cried, “so-and-so son of so-and-so from such-and-such a place is dead”, but when they went [to the top of the hill] they didn’t find anyone there. [Nevertheless], they allowed his wife to remarry. In another instance, at Zalmon a person declared, “I am so-and-so son of so-and-so; a snake has bitten me, and I am dying”; and when they went [to examine the corpse] they did not recognize him, they [nevertheless] allowed his wife to remarry.

Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him.

משנה כתובות

Chapter 1

A virgin is married on the fourth day [of the week] and a widow on the fifth day, for twice in the week the courts sit in the towns, on the second day [of the week] and on the fifth day, so that if he [the husband] had a claim as to the virginity [of the bride] he could go early [on the morning of the fifth day of the week] to the court.

A virgin her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and a widow a maneh (100. A virgin, who is a widow, [or] divorced, or a halutzah from betrothal her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and there is upon her a claim of non-virginity. A female proselyte, a woman captive, and a woman slave, who have been redeemed, converted, or freed [when they were] less than three years and one day old their kethubah is two hundred [zuz] there is upon them a claim of non-virginity.

When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood her kethubah is a maneh.

A virgin, who was a widow, a divorcee, or a halutzah from marriage her kethubah is a maneh, and there is no claim of non-virginity upon her. A female proselyte, a woman captive and a woman slave, who have been redeemed, converted, or freed [when they were] more than three years and one day old their kethubah is a maneh, and there is no claim of non-virginity upon her.

He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without the presence of witnesses cannot raise a claim of non-virginity against his wife because he has been alone with her. It is the same whether [the woman is] an Israelite widow or a priestly widow her kethubah is a maneh. The court of the priests collected for a virgin four hundred zuz, and the sages did not protest.

If a man marries a woman and does not find her to be a virgin: She says, “After you betrothed me I was raped, and so your field has been washed away” And he says, “No, rather [it occurred] before I betrothed you and my acquisition was a mistaken acquisition” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed. Rabbi Joshua says: We do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had intercourse before she was betrothed and having deceived him, until she brings proof for her statement.

She says, “I was struck by a piece of wood”, And he says, “No, you, rather you have been trampled by a man” Rabban gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: We do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having been trampled by a man, until she brings proof for her statement.

They saw her talking with someone in the marketplace, and they said to her, “What sort of a man is he?” [And she answered, “He is] the so-and-so and he is a priest” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: we do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement.

She was pregnant and they said to her, “What is the nature of this fetus?’ [And she answered, “It is] from so-and-so and he is a priest.” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: we do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement.

Rabbi Yose said: it happened that a young girl went down to draw water from a spring and she was raped. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if most of the inhabitants of the town marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, this [girl] may [also] marry into the priesthood.

Chapter 2

A woman became a widow or was divorced. She says, “I was a virgin when you married me” and he says, “Not so, rather you were a widow when I married you”, If there are witnesses that she went out with a hinuma, and with her head uncovered, her ketubah is two hundred [zuz.] Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: the distribution of roasted ears of corn is also evidence.

And Rabbi Joshua admits that, if one says to his fellow, “This field belonged to your father and I bought it from him”, he is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that it belonged to his father and he says, “I bought it from him”, he is not believed.

If witnesses said, “This is our handwriting, but we were forced, [or] we were minors, [or] we were disqualified witnesses” they are believed. But if there are witnesses that it is their handwriting, or their handwriting comes out from another place, they are not believed.

[If] one witness says, “This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow”, and the other [witness] says, “This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow”, they are believed. [If] one says, “This is my handwriting” and the other says, “This is my handwriting” they must join to themselves another [person], the words of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi]. But the Sages say: they need not join to themselves another [person], rather a person is believed to say, “this is my handwriting.

If a woman says, “I was married and I am divorced”, she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was married, and she says, “I am divorced”, she is not believed. If she says, “I was taken captive but I have remained clean”, she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive and she says, “I have remained clean” she is not believed. But if the witnesses came after she had married, she shall not go out.

Two women were taken captive: one says, “I was taken captive and I am pure”, and the other one says, “I was taken captive and I am pure”-- they are not believed. But when they testify regarding one another, they are believed.

And likewise two men, [if] one says, “I am a priest”, and the other says, “I am a priest”, they are not believed. But when they testify about one another, they are believed.

Rabbi Judah says: one does not raise [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Elazar says: When is this true? When there are people who object; but when there are no people who object, one raises [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the assistant chief of priests: one raises [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness.

A woman was imprisoned by non-Jews: if for the sake of money, she is permitted to her husband, and if in order to take her life, she is forbidden to her husband. A town that has been conquered by siege-troops: all the priests’ wives who are in it are prohibited [from their husbands]. If they have witnesses, even a slave, even a female slave, they are believed. However, no one is believed as to himself. Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-katzav said: “By this temple! Her hand did not move out of my hand from the time that the non-Jews entered Jerusalem until they departed.” They said to him: “No one may testify concerning himself.”

The following are believed to testifying when they are grown-up about what they saw when they were minors:A person is believed to say “This is the handwriting of my father”, “This is the handwriting of my teacher”, “This is the handwriting of my brother”; “I remember that that woman went out with a hinuma and an uncovered head”; “That that man used to go out from school to immerse in order to eat terumah”; “That he used to take a share with us at the threshing floor”; “That this place was a bet ha-peras”; “That up to here we used to go on Shabbat”; But a man is not believed when he says: “So-and-so had a path in this place”; “That man had a place of standing up and eulogy in this place”.

Chapter 3

These are girls to whom the fine is due:If one had intercourse with a mamzeret, a netinah, a Samaritan; Or with a convert, a captive, or a slave-woman, who was redeemed, converted, or freed [when she was] under the age of three years and one day. If one had intercourse with his sister, with the sister of his father, with the sister of his mother, with the sister of his wife, with the wife of his brother, with the wife of the brother of his father, or with a woman during menstruation, he has to pay the fine, [for] although these are punishable through kareth, there is not, with regard to them, a death [penalty inflicted] by the court.

And in the following cases there is no fine:If a man had intercourse with a female convert, a female captive or a slave-woman, who was redeemed, converted or freed after the age of three years and a day. Rabbi Judah says: a female captive who was redeemed is considered to be in her state of holiness (a virgin) even if she is of majority age. A man who had intercourse with his daughter, his daughter's daughter, his son's daughter, his wife's daughter, her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter does not pay the fine, because he forfeits his life, for his death is in the hands of the court, and he who forfeits his life pays no monetary fine for it is said, “And yet no other damage ensues he shall be fined” (Exodus 21:2.

A girl who was betrothed and then divorced Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: she does not receive a fine. Rabbi Akiva says: she receives the fine and the fine belongs to her.

The seducer pays three forms [of compensation] and the rapist four. The seducer pays compensation for embarrassment and blemish and the fine; The rapist pays an additional [form of compensation] in that he pays for the pain. What [is the difference] between [the penalties of] a seducer and those of a rapist? The rapist pays compensation for the pain but the seducer does not pay compensation for the pain. The rapist pays immediately but the seducer [pays only] if he dismisses her. The rapist must “drink out of his pot” but the seducer may dismiss [the girl] if he wishes.

What is meant by “he must drink out of his pot”?Even if she is lame, even if she is blind and even if she is afflicted with boils [he may not dismiss her]. If she was found to have committed a licentious act or was unfit to marry an Israelite he may not continue to live with her, for it is said, “And she shall be for him a wife”(Deut. 22:29) a wife that is fit for him.

An orphan who was betrothed and then divorced Rabbi Elazar says that one who seduces her is exempt but one who rapes her is liable [to pay the fine].

How is [the compensation that is paid for] embarrassment [reckoned]? It all depends on the status of the offender and the offended. How is [the compensation that is paid for] blemish [reckoned]? She is regarded as if she were a slave to be sold in the market place [and it is estimated] how much she was worth then and how much she is worth now. The fine is the same for all. And any sum that is fixed in the Torah remains the same for all.

Wherever there is the right of sale there is a fine and wherever there is a fine there is no right of sale. In the case of a minor there is the right of sale and there is no fine; In the case of a young woman there is a fine but no right of sale. In the case of a girl who has reached majority age there is no right of sale and there is no fine.

He who declares, “I seduced the daughter of so-and-so” must pay compensation for embarrassment and blemish on his own admission but need not pay the fine. He who declares, “I have stolen” must make restitution for the principal on his own evidence but need not repay double, fourfold or fivefold. [He who declares,] “My ox has killed so-and-so” or “the ox of so-and-so” must make restitution on his own evidence. [If he said] “My ox has killed the slave of so-and-so” he need not make restitution on his own evidence. This is the general rule: whoever pays more than the actual cost of the damage he has done need not pay it on his own evidence.

Chapter 4

If a young girl was seduced [the compensation for] her embarrassment and blemish and the fine belong to her father; [and the compensation for] pain in the case of one who was raped. If the girl’s case was tried before her father died [all the forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If her father died before her case was tried they are hers. If her case was tried before she became of majority age [all forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If she became of majority age before her case was tried they are hers. Rabbi Shimon says if her father died before she could collect [the payments] they belong to her. Her handiwork and anything she finds, even if she had not collected [the proceeds] belong to her brothers if her father died.

If a man gave his daughter in betrothal and she was divorced, [and then] he gave her [again] in betrothal and she was widowed, her ketubah belongs to him. If he gave her in marriage and she was divorced [and then] he gave her [again] in marriage and she was left a widow, her ketubah belongs to her. Rabbi Judah said: the first belongs to her father. They said to him: as soon as he gives her in marriage, her father loses all control over her.

The daughter of a convert who converted together with her mother and then committed an act of fornication is subject to the penalty of strangulation. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was conceived in unholiness but her birth was in holiness she is subject to the penalty of stoning. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was both conceived and born in holiness she is regarded as a daughter of Israel in all respects. A girl who has a father but no door of her father’s house; or a door of her father’s house but no father, is subject to the penalty of stoning [the verse did not state] “the opening of her father’s house” (Deut. 22:21) except as a precept.

A father has authority over his daughter in her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, document or intercourse. He is entitled to anything she finds, to her handiwork and to annul her vows. He receives her get but he has no usufruct [from her property] during her lifetime. When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime. And he is obligated to feed her, to pay a ransom for her and to provide for her burial. Rabbi Judah says: even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman.

She remains in the domain of her father until she enters the domain of her husband [by going into the bridal chamber] at marriage. If her father delivered her to the agents of the husband she passes into the domain of her husband. If her father went with the husband’s agents or if the father’s agents went with the husband’s agents she remains in the domain of her father. If her father’s agents delivered her to the husband’s agents she passes into the domain of her husband.

A father is not obligated to maintain his daughter. This exposition was made by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in front of the sages in the vineyard of Yavneh: “The sons shall inherit [their mother’s kethubah] and the daughters shall be maintained [out of their father’s estate” just as the sons do not inherit except after the death of their father, so the daughters are not maintained except after the death of their father.

If he did not write a kethubah for her, a virgin still collects two hundred zuz and a widow one mane, because it is a condition laid down by court. If he assigned to her in writing a field that was worth one mane instead of the two hundred zuz and did not write for her, “All property that I possess is a lien for your ketubah”, he is liable [for the full amount] because it is a condition laid down by the court.

If he did not write for her, “if you are taken captive I will ransom you and take you again as my wife”, or in the case of a priest’s wife, “I will restore you to your people”, he is liable [to carry out these obligations], because it is a condition laid down by court.

If she was taken captive he is obligated to ransom her; And if he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her ransom herself”, he is not allowed [to act accordingly]. If she was injured it is his duty to provide for her medical treatment; And if he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her heal herself”, he is allowed [to act accordingly].

If he did not write for her, “The male children that will be born from our marriage shall inherit the money of your ketubah over and above their shares with their brothers”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.

If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.

If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her.

Chapter 5

Although [the Sages] have said: a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one maneh, if he wishes to add, even a hundred maneh, he may do so.After betrothal [but before marriage], a virgin collects two hundred zuz and a widow only one maneh, for the man wrote her [the additional amount] in order to marry her. If she was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, she is entitled to collect the entire amount. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: [a woman widowed or divorced] after marriage receives the entire amount; Rabbi Judah says: if he wishes he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred zuz and she writes “I have received from you a maneh”, or for a widow [he may write a document for] a maneh and she writes, “I have received from you fifty zuz”. Rabbi Meir says: Any man who gives a virgin less than two hundred zuz or a widow less than a maneh is engaging in licentious sex.

A virgin is given twelve months from the [time her intended] husband claimed her, [in which] to prepare herself for marriage. Just as [such a period] is given to the woman, so is it given to the man to prepare himself. A widow is given thirty days. If the time has come and they were not married they are entitled to receive maintenance from the man’s estate and [if he is a priest] they may eat terumah. Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her [all of her food] in terumah. Rabbi Akiva says: One half unconsecrated food and one half terumah.

A yavam [who is a priest] does not allow [his sister-in-law] to eat terumah. If she had spent six months waiting for her husband and six months waiting for the yavam, or even [if she spent] all of them waiting for her husband less one day waiting for the yavam, or all of them waiting for the yavam less one day waiting for her husband, she may not eat terumah. This [was the ruling according to] the first mishnah. The court that followed afterwards ruled: a woman may not eat terumah until she has entered the bridal chamber.

If a man consecrated his wife’s handiwork, she continues to work and to consume [that which she makes]. [Concerning the] surplus: Rabbi Meir says: it is consecrated. Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar says: it is unconsecrated.

The following are the kinds of work which a woman must perform for her husband: Grinding, Baking, If she brought one slave-woman into the marriage she need not grind or bake or wash. Washing, Rabbi Eliezer says: even if she brought him a hundred slave-women he may compel her to work in wool; for idleness leads to unchastity. Cooking, Nursing her child, Preparing his bed, And working in wool. [If she brought] two slave-women, she need not cook or nurse her child. If three, she need not prepare his bed or work in wool. If four, she may lounge in an easy chair. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if a man forbade his wife under a vow to do any work he must divorce her and give her kethubah to her for idleness leads to insanity.

A man forbade himself by vow from having intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: two weeks; Beth Hillel says: one week. Students may go away to study Torah, without the permission [of their wives for a period of] thirty days; workers for one week. The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the torah are: For independent men, every day; For workers, twice a week; For donkey-drivers, once a week; For camel-drivers, once in thirty days; For sailors, once in six months. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

If a wife rebels against her husband her ketubah is reduced by seven denarii a week. Rabbi Judah says: seven tropaics. How long does he continue to reduce? Until the amount of her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: he may continue to reduce, and if she receives an inheritance he may collect from it. Similarly, if a husband rebels against his wife, an addition of three denarii a week is made to her ketubah. Rabbi Judah said: three tropaics.

If a man provides for his wife through an agent, he must give her [every week] not less than two kavs of wheat or four kavs of barley. Rabbi Yose said: only Rabbi Ishmael, who lived near Edom, granted her a supply of barley. He must also give her half a kav of pulse and half a log of oil; and a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs, and if he has no [such fruit] he must supply her with a corresponding quantity of other fruit. He must also provide her with a bed, a mattress and a mat. He must also give her a hat for her head and a girdle for her loins; shoes, from festival to festival; and clothing worth fifty zuz every year. She is not to be given new [clothes] in the summer or worn-out clothes in the winter, but must be given clothes worth fifty zuz during the winter, and she wears them when they are worn-out during the summer; and the worn-out clothes remain her property.

He must also give her [every week] a silver ma'ah for her [other] needs and she is to eat with him every Friday eve. If he does not give her a silver ma'ah for her other needs, her handiwork belongs to her. And what [is the quantity of work that] she must do for him? The weight of five sela’s of warp in Judea, which amounts to ten sela's in Galilee, or the weight of ten sela's of woof in Judea, which amounts to twenty sela's in Galilee. If she was nursing, her handiwork is reduced and her maintenance is increased. All this applies to a poor person in Israel, but in the case of a more respectable [husband] all is fixed according to his dignity.

Chapter 6

A wife’s find and her handiwork belong to her husband. And [concerning] her inheritance: He has the usufruct during her lifetime. [Any compensation for] an embarrassment or blemish [that may have been inflicted upon] her belongs to her. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: [if the embarrassment or blemish was inflicted upon her] on a hidden place [on her body] she receives two-thirds while he receives one-third; if on an open place [on her body] he receives two-thirds and she receives one-third. His share is to be given to him immediately, but with hers land is to be bought and he enjoys the usufruct.

If a man agreed to give a fixed sum of money to his son-in-law and his son-in-law died: the Sages say that he may say “I was willing to give to your brother but I am unwilling to give to you.”

If a woman agreed to bring her husband one thousand denarii he must agree to give her a corresponding sum of fifteen maneh. As a corresponding sum for appraised goods, he agrees to give one-fifth less. [If a husband is requested to enter in his wife's ketubah] “goods assessed at one maneh”, and these are in fact worth a maneh, he only [must agree to] a maneh. [Otherwise, if he is requested to enter in the ketubah:] “goods assessed at a maneh”, his wife must give him thirty-one sela and a denar, and if “at four hundred”, she must give [him goods valued at] five hundred. Whatever a bridegroom agrees to give [his wife in her ketubah] he writes one fifth less [than the appraised value].

If a woman agreed to bring him cash, every sela’ counts as six denarii. The bridegroom must accept upon himself [to give his wife] ten denarii for her [perfume] basket for call maneh [which she brings as dowry]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: in all matters the local usage shall be followed.

If a man gives his daughter in marriage without specifying any conditions, he must give her not less than fifty zuz. If [the father] cut a deal [with the husband] that he would take her naked [i.e. without a dowry], the husband may not say “When I have taken her into my house I shall clothe her with clothes of my own”, rather he must provide her with clothing while she is still in her father’s house. Similarly if an orphan is given in marriage she must be given not less than fifty zuz. If [charity] funds are available she is to be provided in accordance with the dignity of her position.

If an orphan was given in marriage by her mother or her brothers with her consent and they gave her a dowry of a hundred, or fifty zuz, she may, when she reaches majority age, legally claim from them the amount that was due to her. Rabbi Judah says: if the father had given his first daughter in marriage, the second must receive as much as the first. The Sages say: sometimes a man is poor and becomes rich or rich and becomes poor. Rather the estate should evaluated and [the appropriate amount] given to her.

If a man deposited a sum of money with an agent for his daugher, and [after she was betrothed] she says, “I trust my husband”, the trustee must act in accordance with the condition of his trust, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: were [the trust] a field and she wished to sell it, it would be as if it was sold immediately! To whom does this apply? To [a daughter] who has reached majority age, but in the case of a minor, there is no validity at all to the act of a minor.

Chapter 7

If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him, for thirty days, he may appoint a provider, but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Judah ruled: if he was an Israelite he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for one month, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] two months. If he was a priest he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for two months, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] three.

If a man forbade his wife by vow from tasting any kind of produce he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Judah ruled: if he was an Israelite he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for one day, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] two days. If he was a priest he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for two days, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] three.

If a man forbade his wife by vow that she should not adorn herself with any type of adornment he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: [this refers] to poor women if no time limit is given, and to rich women [if the time limit is] thirty days.

If a man forbade his wife by vow that she may not go to her father’s house: --When the father lives with her in the same town, the husband may retain [her as his wife, if the prohibition was for] one month; but if for two months he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. --When the father lives in another town, the husband may retain [her as his wife, if the prohibition was for] one festival, but if for three festivals, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah.

If a man forbade his wife by vow from visiting a house of mourning or a house of feasting, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, because he has closed [peoples doors] against her. If he claims [that his vow] was due to some other cause he is permitted [to forbid her]. If he said to her: “[There shall be no prohibition] provided you tell so-and-so what you have told me” or “what I have told you” or “that you will fill and pour out in the garbage”, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah.

These leave [their marriage] without their ketubah: A wife who transgresses the law of Moses or Jewish law. And what is the law of Moses? Feeding her husband with untithed food, having intercourse with him while in the period of her menstruation, not separating dough offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. And what is Jewish practice? Going out with her head uncovered, spinning wool in the marketplace or conversing with every man. Abba Shaul says: also one who curses her husband’s parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: also one who has a loud voice. And who is regarded as one who has a loud voice? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she speaks inside her house.

If a man betrothed a woman on condition that she was under no vows and she was found to be under vows, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to be under vows, she leaves without her ketubah. [If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah. All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women.

If she had bodily defects while she was still in her father’s house, her father must produce proof that these defects arose after she had been betrothed and that [consequently] it was the husband’s field that was flooded. If she was brought into her husband’s domain, [and the defects were discovered there] the husband must produce proof that these defects existed before she had been betrothed and [that consequently] his bargain was made in error the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: To what does this apply? Only to concealed defects; but with regard to defects that are exposed he cannot make any claim. And if there was a bath-house in the town he cannot make any claim even about concealed defects, because he [is assumed to have had her] examined by his female relatives.

A man in whom defects have arisen [after marriage] cannot be forced to divorce [his wife]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: To what does this apply: to minor defects, but with regard to major defects he can be forced to divorce her.

These are the ones who are forced to divorce [their wives]: one who is afflicted with boils, one who has a polypus, a gatherer [of dog feces for the treatment of hides], a coppersmith or a tanner whether they were [in such a condition] before they married or whether they arose after they had married. And concerning all these Rabbi Meir said: although the man made a condition with her [that she accept him despite these defects] she may nevertheless say, “I thought I could accept him, but now I cannot accept him.” The Sages say: she must accept [such a person] against her will, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she [by her intercourse] will enervate him. It once happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages said: she may say, “I was able to accept your brother but I cannot accept you.”

Chapter 8

If a woman came into the possession of property before she was betrothed, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away and her act is legally valid. If she came into the possession of property after she was betrothed, Bet Shammai says: she may sell it, and Beth Hillel says: she may not sell it. Both agree that if she had sold it or given it away her act is legally valid. Rabbi Judah said: they argued before Rabban Gamaliel, “Since the man acquires the woman does he not also acquire her property?” If she came into the possession of property after she was married, both agree that, even if she had sold it or given it away, the husband may seize it from the buyers. [If she came into possession] before she married and then she married, Rabban Gamaliel says: if she sold it or gave it away her act is legally valid. Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya said: they argued before Rabban Gamaliel, “Since the man acquires the woman does he not also gain acquires her property?” He replied, “We are embarrassed with regard to her new possessions and you wish to roll over on us her old ones as well?”

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between one kind of property and another: Property that is known to the husband [the wife] may not sell, and if she has sold it or given it away her act is void; [Property] which is unknown to the husband she may not sell, but if she has sold it or given it away her act is legally valid.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

Rabbi Shimon says: In respect to that in which the husband is at an advantage when he marries his wife he is at a disadvantage when he divorces her and in respect to that in which he is at a disadvantage when he marries her he is at an advantage when he divorces her. Produce which is attached to the ground is the husband’s when he marries his wife and hers when he divorces her, Produce that is detached from the ground is hers when she marries but the husband’s when she is divorced.

If she inherited old slaves or female slaves, they are to be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her father’s house. If she inherited old olive-trees or vines they must be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabbi Judah says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her paternal house. He who spent money in connection with his wife’s property, whether he spent much and consumed little, [or spent] little and consumed much, what he has spent he has spent, and what he has consumed he has consumed. If he spent but did not consume he may take an oath as to how much he has spent and receive compensation.

If a woman awaiting yibbum came into possession of money: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away, and that her act is legally valid. If she dies, what shall be done with her ketubah and with property that comes in and goes out with her? Beth Shammai says: the heirs of her husband are to share it with the heirs of her father; Beth Hillel says: the property is to remain with those in whose possession it is, the ketubah is to remain in the possession of the heirs of the husband and the property which comes in and goes out with her remains in the possession of the heirs of her father.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct.Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct.The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

He cannot say to her, “Behold your ketubah lies on the table’, rather all of his property has on it a lien from her kethubah. So too, a man may not say to his wife, behold your ketubah lies on the table, but all of his property has on it a lien from her ketubah. If he divorced her she is entitled only to her ketubah. If he remarried her she is like all other wives, and is entitled only to her ketubah.

Chapter 9

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”?That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

A man died and left a wife, a creditor, and heirs and he also had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others: Rabbi Tarfon says: It shall be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: We do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath.

If he left produce that was detached from the ground, whoever seizes it first acquires possession. If the wife took possession of more than the amount of her ketubah, or a creditor of more than the value of his debt, the balance: Rabbi Tarfon says: it should be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: we do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath.

If a husband set up his wife as a shopkeeper or appointed her guardian he may impose upon her an oath whenever he wants. Rabbi Eliezer said: even in respect of her spindle and her dough.

If he (the husband) wrote to her (his wife), “I have no claim upon you for either a vow or an oath”, he cannot make her swear an oath. However, he may make her heirs and upon those who have done business with her swear an oath. [If he wrote,] “I have no claim upon you for either a vow or an oath nor upon your heirs nor upon those who have done business with you”, he may not impose an oath either upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with you. However his heirs may impose an oath upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with her. [If he wrote] “Neither I nor my heirs nor those who have done business with me shall have any claim upon you or upon your heirs or upon those who have done business with you for either a vow or an oath”, neither he nor his heirs nor those who have done business with him may impose an oath either upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with her.

If she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house, or returned to her father-in-law’s house but was not made a guardian, the heirs may not make her swear an oath. But if she was made a guardian the heirs may make her swear an oath in respect of [her administration] during the subsequent period but not in respect of the past.

A woman who impairs her kethubah is not paid except by an oath. If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid, she is not be paid except by an oath. From the property of orphans, from property with a lien on it and [from the property of] an husband who is not present she is not paid except by an oath.

“A woman who impairs her kethubah”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your kethubah”, and she says, “I received only a maneh”, she is not paid [the balance] except by an oath. “If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your ketubah”, and she says, “I have not received it” and one witness testifies against her that [the ketubah] has been paid, she is not paid except by an oath. “From property with a lien on it”: How is this so? He had sold his property to others and she seeks to recover payment from the buyers, she is not paid except by an oath. “From the property of orphans”: How is this so? He died and left his estate to his orphans and she seeks to recover payment from the orphans, she is not paid except by an oath. “An husband who is not present” How is this so? If her husband went to a country beyond the sea and she seeks to recover payment in his absence, she is not paid except by an oath. Rabbi Shimon says: whenever she claims her ketubah the heirs may impose an oath upon her but whenever she does not claim her ketubah the heirs can not impose an oath upon her.

If she produced a get without a ketubah, she collects her kethubah. [If she produced her] ketubah without a get, and she says, “My get was lost”, and he says, “My receipt was lost”, and also a creditor who produced a debt document that was unaccompanied by a prosbul, these are not paid back. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: from the time of danger a woman collects her ketubah with out a get and a creditor collects [his debt] without a prosbul. [A woman who produced] two letters of divorce and two ketuboth collects two kethuboth. Two kethuboth and one get or one kethubah and two gittin, or a kethubah, a get and [evidence of her husband’s] death, she collects one kethubah only, for a man who divorces his wife and then remarries her contracts his second marriage on the condition of the first kethubah. A minor whose his father had given him in marriage, the ketubah of his wife is valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife. A convert who converted with his wife, the kethubah remains valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife.

Chapter 10

If a man was married to two wives and died, the first wife takes precedence over the second, and the heirs of the first wife take precedence over the heirs of the second. If he married a first wife and she died and then he married a second wife and he died, the second wife and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife.

If a man was married to two wives and they died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans [of one of the wives] claim their mother’s kethubah and there is only enough for the two kethuboth,[all the orphans] they divide it equally. If there was a surplus of [at least] one dinar, these take their mother’s ketubah and these take their mothers ketubah. If the orphans [of one of the wives] says, “We are raising the estate of our father by a denar [more than the total amount of the kethuboth]”, in order that they can take their mother's kethubah, they are not listened to, rather the estate is evaluated by the court.

If there was property that would soon belong to the estate, it is not [regarded] as [property held] in possession. Rabbi Shimon says: even if there was movable property it is not regarded unless there was real estate worth one denar more than [the total amount of] the two kethuboth.

If a man who was married to three wives died, and the kethubah of one was a maneh, and of the other two hundred zuz, and of the third three hundred zuz and the estate [was worth] only one maneh they divide it equally. If the estate [was worth] two hundred zuz [the woman whose ketubah] is a maneh receives fifty zuz [and the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred and [the woman whose ketubah] was three hundred [receive each] three gold denarii (=seventy-five. If the estate [was worth] three hundred zuz, [the woman whose ketubah] was a maneh receives fifty zuz and [the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred [receives] a maneh and [the woman whose ketubah] was worth three hundred [receives] six gold denarii (=one hundred and fifty. Similarly, if three persons contributed to a joint fund and the fund lost or gained they share in the same manner.

If a man who was married to four wives died, his first wife takes precedence over the second, the second over the third and the third over the fourth. The first must take an oath to the second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth, and the fourth recovers payment without an oath. Ben Nannus says: Should she be rewarded because she is the last? She too may not exact payment except by an oath. If all were issued on the same day then the woman [whose kethubah] preceded that of the other, even if only by one hour, gets [her ketubah first]. And so it was the custom in Jerusalem to write the hours. If all kethuboth were issued at the same hour and the estate is worth no more than a maneh, they divide it equally.

If a man who was married to two wives sold his field, and the first wife wrote to the buyer, “I have no claim whatsoever upon you”, the second wife may take [the field] away from the buyer, and the first wife from the second, and the buyer from the first wife; and so they go on in turn until they arrange a compromise between them. The same law applies also to a creditor and to a woman creditor.

Chapter 11

A widow is to be maintained out of the estate of [her husband's] orphans [and], her handiwork belongs to them but it is not their obligation to bury her. Her heirs, who inherit her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.

A widow, whether [her husband died] after betrothal or after marriage may sell [her husband's estate] without [permission from] a court. Rabbi Shimon says: [If her husband died] after marriage she may sell without [permission from] a court, but if after betrothal, she may not sell except with [permission from] a court, since she is not entitled to maintenance, and anyone who is not entitled to maintenance may not sell except with [permission from] a court.

[A widow who] sold her ketubah or part of it; or pledged her ketubah or part of it; or gave it away to someone else or part of it, may not sell [her husband’s property] in order to receive the remainder of her ketubah except with [the permission of] a court. But the Sages say: she may sell [the land pledged for her kethubah] even in four or five installments. And [meanwhile] she may sell [of her husband’s estate to provide] for her maintenance without [the permission of] the court, and she writes, “I sold [the land to provide] for my maintenance”. A divorced woman must not sell [her husband’s property] except with [the permission of] the court.

If a widow whose ketubah was two hundred zuz sold [land] worth a maneh for two hundred zuz or [land] worth two hundred zuz for one maneh, she has received her ketubah. If her kethubah was one maneh, and she sold [land] worth a maneh and a denar’ for one maneh, her sale is void. Even if she says, “I will return the denar to the heirs”, her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: her sale is always valid unless there was so much land there as to allow her to leave a field of nine kab, and from a garden an area of half a kab, or, according to Rabbi Akiba, a quarter of a kab. If her ketubah was four hundred zuz and she sold [land] to [three] persons, to each for one maneh, and to a fourth [she sold] what was worth a maneh and a denar for one maneh, [the sale] to the last person is void but [the sale] to all the others are valid.

If an assessment of the judges was one sixth less, or one sixth more [than the actual value of the property] their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: their sale is valid for, otherwise, of what advantage is the power of a court? But if they made a bill for inspection, their sale is valid even if they sold for two hundred zuz what was worth one maneh or for one maneh what was worth two hundred zuz.

[A minor] who refused her husband, a secondary incest prohibition, or an aylonit is not entitled to a ketubah or to the usufruct [of her dowry] or to maintenance, or to the worn-out articles [of her dowry]. If from the outset he had married on the understanding that she is an aylonit she is entitled to a ketubah. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who was married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Natin or a mamzer is entitled to a ketubah.

Chapter 12

If a man married a woman and she cut a deal with him that he should maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. If she was [subsequently] married to another man and cut a deal with him [as well] that he should maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. The first husband may not plead, “If she will come to me I will maintain her”, rather he must send her maintenance to her at the place where her mother [lives]. Similarly, the two husbands cannot plead, “We will maintain her jointly”, but one must maintain her and the other give her the cost of her maintenance.

If she married, her husband must supply her with maintenance and they give her the cost of her maintenance. If they die, their daughters are maintained out of their free assets only but she must be maintained even out of assigned property, because she is like a creditor. Clever men used to write, “On condition that I shall maintain your daughter for five years while you are with me”.

A widow who says, “I do not want to move from my husband’s house”, the heirs cannot tell her, “Go to your father’s house and we will maintain you”, rather they must maintain her in her husband’s house and they give her a residence according to her honor. If she said, “I have no desire to move from my father’s house”, the heirs can say to her, “If you stay with us you will have your maintenance, but if you do not stay with us you will receive no maintenance”. If she claimed [that she didn’t want to live there] because she is young and they are young, they must maintain her while she lives in the house of her father.

As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her kethubah at any time. As long as she lives in her husband’s house she may recover her ketubah, only within twenty-five years, because in the course of twenty-five years she has sufficient opportunities to give favors equal [in value to the amount of] her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir who spoke in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The Sages say: as long as she lives in her husband’s house she may collect her ketubah at any time. As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her ketubah only within twenty-five years. If [the widow] died, her heirs must mention her ketubah within twenty-five years.

Chapter 13

There were two judges of fines in Jerusalem, Admon and Hanan ben Avishalom. Hanan stated two rulings and Admon stated seven. If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance: Hanan says: she must take an oath at the end but not at the beginning. The sons of the high priests differed from him and ruled that she must take an oath both at the beginning and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with their ruling. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well; she need take an oath only at the end.

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and someone came forward and financially supported his wife, Hanan says: he lost his money. The sons of the high priests differed from him and said: let him take an oath as to how much he spent and recover it. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with their ruling. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well [the man] put his money on the horn of a deer.

Admon said seven [rulings]:If a man dies and leaves sons and daughters, if the estate is large, the sons inherit it and the daughters are maintained [from it]. And if the estate is small, the daughters are maintained from it, and the sons can go begging. Admon said, “Just because I’m a male I lose out!” Rabban Gamaliel said; I agree with the words of Admon.

If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the claim, he must swear. But the Sages say: the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said: I agree with the words of Admon.

If a man promised a money to his [prospective] son-in-law and then defaulted, [his daughter] shall sit until her hair turns white. Admon says: She may say, “Had I myself promised the sum I would sit until my hair turns white, but now that my father has promised it, what can I do? Either marry me or set me free.” Rabban Gamaliel said: I agree with the words of Admon.

If a man contests [the ownership of] a field and he has signed as a witness on [its deed of sale], Admon says: He can say, “[Litigation with] the second is easier for me, since the first is a more difficult person than he”. But the Sages say: He lost his right. If [the protester] made it a boundary mark [when selling an adjacent piece of land to] another person he has lost his right [to protest].

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and [in his absence] the path to his field was lost, Admon ruled: let him walk [to his field] by the shortest way. But the Sages say: let him purchase a path for himself even if it costs him a hundred maneh or let him fly through the air.

If a man produced a debt document against another, and the latter produced [a deed of sale showing] that the former had sold him a field, Admon ruled: [The other] can say, had I owed you [anything] you should have been paid pack when you sold me the field”. But the Sages say: This [seller] was clever, since he may have sold him the land in order to be able to take it from him as a pledge.

If two men produced debt documents against one another, Admon says; [the holder of the later document can say to the other,] “Had I owed you [any money] how is it that you borrowed from me?” But the Sages say: This one collects his debt and this one collects his debt.

[The following regions are regarded as] three countries in respect of marriage: Judaea, Transjordan and Galilee. [A husband] may not take out [his wife with him] from one town to another or from one city to an other. But within the same country he may take her out with him from one town into another town or from one city into an other city, but not from a town to a city nor from a city to a town. [A man] may take out [his wife with him] from an inferior to a superior dwelling, but not from a superior to an inferior dwelling. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not even from an inferior dwelling to a superior dwelling, because the [change to a] superior dwelling tests.

Everyone may compel [their spouse] to go up to the land of Israel, but none may compel [their spouse] to leave. Everyone may compel [their spouse] to go up to Jerusalem, but none may compel [their spouse] to leave. The same is true for both men and women and [slaves]. If a man married a woman in the land of Israel and divorced her in the land of Israel, he must pay her [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. If he married a woman in the land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia he must pay her [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the land of Israel, he must a gain pay [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he must pay her [her ketubah] in the Cappadocian currency.

משנה נדרים

Chapter 1

All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. Those for haramim have the validity of haramim, And those for oaths have the validity of oaths, And those for nazirite [vows] have the validity of nazirite [vows]. If one says to his fellow, “I am forbidden from you by a vow”; “I am separated from you”; “I am distanced from you”, “that I should eat from yours”, “that I should taste from yours”, he is prohibited. If he says: “I am banned to you”, Rabbi Akiba was inclined to rule stringently. [If one says] “As the vows of the wicked”, he has vowed in respect of being a nazirite, or a sacrifice, or an oath. [If he says] “As the vows of the fit”, he has said nothing. [But if he said] “As their freewill-offerings” he has vowed in respect of being nazirite and a sacrifice.

One who says, “konam” “qonah” or “qonas”: these are the substitutes for korban. “Herek” “herech” or “heref,” these are substitutes for herem. “Nazik” “naziah” “paziah” these are substitutes for nazirite vows. “Shevuthah” “shekukah” or one who vows with the word “mota” these are substitutes for shevuah (an oath).

If one says “Not-unconsecrated food shall I not eat from you”, “Not fit”, or “Not pure”, “Clean” or “Unclean”, “Remnant” or “Piggul he is bound [by his vow]. [If one says, “May it be to me], as the lamb”, “As the Temple pens”, “As the wood [on the altar]”, “As the fire [on the altar]”, “As the altar”, “As the Temple” or “As Jerusalem”; [or] if one vowed by reference to the altar utensils, even though he did not mention “korban”, behold this one was vowed by a korban. Rabbi Judah said: He who says “Jerusalem” has said nothing.

If one says “A korban”, “A wholly burnt-offering”, “A meal-offering”, “A sin-offering”, “A thanksgiving-offering”, “A peace-offering, should be that which I eat from you” he is bound [by his vow]. Rabbi Judah permitted [him]. [If he says] “The korban”, “like a korban”, “korban”, should be that which I eat from you he is bound [by his vow]. If he says, “That which I shall not eat of yours should be a korban”, Rabbi Meir forbids [him]. If one says to his fellow, “Konam be my mouth which speaks with you”, “My hands which work for you” [or] “My feet which walk with you,’ he is forbidden.

Chapter 2

And these [vows] are not binding: [One who says] “What I eat of yours shall be unconsecrated”; “As the flesh of the swine”; “As an object of idolatrous worship”; “As hides pierced at the heart”; “As carrion”; “As terefoth”; “As abominations”; “As creeping things”; “As Aaron’s dough”; “As his terumah”--[in all these cases the vow is] not binding. If one says to his wife, “Behold! You are like my mother to me”, he must be given an opening on other grounds, in order that he should not act lightly in such matters. [If one says,] “Konam if I sleep”; “If I speak”; or “If I walk”; or if one says to his wife, “Konam if I cohabit with you,” he is liable to [the biblical prohibition] “he shall not break his word” (Numbers 30:. [If he says,] “I swear] an oath not to sleep”, or, “talk,” or, “walk,” he is forbidden [to do so].

[If he says,] “A korban should be what I do not eat of yours”; “By a korban! If I eat of yours”; “What I do not eat of yours should not be a korban to me” the vow is not binding. [If he says], “An oath [that] I will not eat of yours”; “An oath that I eat of yours”; “No oath [that] I will not eat of yours” his oath is valid. In these instances oaths are more stringent than vows. There is [also] greater stringency in vows than in oaths. How so? If one says, “Konam be the sukkah that I make,”; “The lulav that I take”; “The tefillin that I put on”; as vows they are binding, but as oaths they are not, because one cannot swear to transgress the commandments.

There is a vow within a vow, but not an oath within an oath. How is this so? If one declares, “Behold, I will be a nazir if I eat [this thing]”; “Behold, I will be a nazir if I eat [this thing]” and then he eats [it], he is liable for each and every one. “I swear that I will not eat [this thing]”, “I swear that I will not eat [this thing]” and then he eats [it], he is only liable for one oath.

Unspecified vows are interpreted strictly, but if specified [they are interpreted] leniently. How so? If one says, “Behold! This is to me as salted meat”; or “As wine of libation” If he vowed by that which is to Heaven, his vow is valid. If by that which is idolatrous, his vow is invalid. And if it was unspecified, his vow is valid. [If he says], “Behold! This is to me as herem” If as a herem to Heaven, his vow is valid; If as a herem to the priests, his vow is invalid. If it was unspecified, his vow is valid. “Behold! This is to me as a tithe” If he vowed, as tithes of beasts, his vow is valid. If as grain tithes, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. “Behold! This is to me as terumah” If he vowed, as the terumah of the Temple-chamber, his vow is valid. If as the terumah of the threshing-floor, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. The words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: An unspecified reference to terumah in Judea is a valid vow, but not in Galilee, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with the terumah of the Temple-chamber. Unspecified references to haramim in Judea are not binding but in Galilee they are, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with priestly haramim.

If one vows by herem, and says, “I vowed only by a herem (a of the sea”; [If he says] “By a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by korbanot (gifts) of kings”; [If he says] “Behold! I myself (atzmi) am a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by the etzem (bone) which I keep for the purpose of vowing”; [If he says,] “Konam be any benefit my wife has from me”, and then says, “I spoke only of my first wife, whom I have divorced” Regarding none of these [vows] should they inquire [of a sage in order to break them], but if they inquire about them, they are punished and treated strictly, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: they are given an opening on other grounds, in order that they should not act lightly with vows.

Chapter 3

Four types of vows the Sages have invalidated: Vows of incentive, vows of exaggeration, vows in error, and vows [broken] under pressure. Vows of incentive how so? If one was selling an article and said, “Konam that I will not reduce below a sela”; and the other replied, “Konam that I will not add above a shekel” both of them want [a price] of three denarii. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: Also one who wishes to subject his friend to a vow to eat with him, may say: “Every vow which I may make in the future shall be void”, providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow.

Vows of exaggeration: If one says, “Konam if I did not see on this road as many as departed from Egypt”; “If I did not see a snake [as thick as the] the beam of an olive press. Vows in error: [If one says, “Konam,] if I ate or drank”, and then remembered that he had; “If I eat or drink” and then forgot [his vow] and ate or drank; “Konam be any benefit which my wife has from me, because she stole my purse or beat my child, and it was subsequently learnt that she had not beaten him nor stolen”; If one saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, “Let the figs be a korban to you,” and then discovered the people to be his father or his brothers. If others were with them: Beth Shammai says: his father and brothers are permitted, but the rest are forbidden. Beth Hillel says: all are permitted.

Vows [broken] under pressure: if one subjected his neighbor to a vow to eat with him, and then he or his son fell sick, or a river prevented him [from coming] such is a vow [broken] under pressure.

One may vow to murderers, robbers, or tax collectors that it [the produce which they demand] is terumah, even if it is not; [or] that it belongs to the royal house, even if it does not. Beth Shammai says: one may make any form of vow, except an oath; But Beth Hillel says: even an oath. Beth Shammai says: he must not volunteer to vow; Beth Hillel says: he may do so. Beth Shammai says: [he may vow] only as far as he makes him vow; Beth Hillel says: even in respect of what he does not make him vow. How so? If they said to him, say: “Konam be any benefit my wife has of me”, and he said, “Konam be any benefit my wife and children have of me,” Beth Shammai says: his wife is permitted, but his children are forbidden; Beth Hillel says: both are permitted.

[If one says,] “Behold these saplings are a korban if they are not cut down”; or, “This garment is a korban if it is not burnt”, they can be redeemed. [If he says,] “Behold these saplings are a korban until they are cut down”; or, “This garment is a korban until it is burnt”, they cannot be redeemed.

He who vows [not to benefit] from seafarers, may benefit from land-dwellers; [But he who vows not to benefit] from land-dwellers, is forbidden [to benefit] even from seafarers, because seafarers are included in land-dwellers; not those who merely travel from Acco to Jaffa, but even those who sail away great distances [from land].

He who vows [not to benefit] from those who see the sun, is forbidden [to benefit] even from the blind, because he meant those whom the sun sees.

He who vows [not to benefit] from the black-haired may not [benefit] from the bald or the gray-haired, but may [benefit] from women and children, because only men are called black-haired.

One who vows [not to benefit] from those born may [benefit] from those to be born; from those to be born, he may not [benefit] from those born. Rabbi Meir permits [him to benefit] even from those to be born; But the Sages say: he meant all whose nature it is to be born.

He who vows [not to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, is forbidden [to benefit] both from Israelites and Samaritans (Cutheans). If he vows [not to benefit] from garlic eaters, he may not benefit from Israelites and Samaritans (Cutheans). From those who go up to Jerusalem, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites but from Samaritans (Cutheans) he is permitted.

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the Children of Noah,” he may benefit from Israelites, and he is forbidden to benefit from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the seed of Abraham,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites, but permitted [to benefit] from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from Israelites”, he may buy things from them for more [than their worth] and sell them for less. [If he says, “Konam] if Israelites benefit from me, he must buy from them for less and sell for more [than their worth], if they will listen to him. [If he says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from them, nor they from me”, he may benefit only from non-Jews. [If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised”, he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised heathens”; [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the circumcised,” he is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised non-Jews, because “uncircumcised” is a term applicable only to non-Jews, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25). And it says, “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be [as one of them]” (I Samuel 17:6). And it says, “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome, since it is a term of disgrace for the wicked, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised”. Rabbi Ishmael says: Great is circumcision, since thirteen covenants were made upon it. Rabbi Yose says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Great is circumcision for Moses’s punishment for neglecting it was not suspended even for one hour. Rabbi Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision, since it overrides the laws of leprosy. Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all of the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not designated complete until he circumcised himself, as it says, “Walk before me, and be complete” (Genesis 17:1). Another explanation: “Great is circumcision, for were it not for it, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, would not have created the world, as it says, “Were it not for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

Chapter 4

The only difference between one who is under a vow not to benefit at all from his neighbor, and one who is under a vow prohibiting food benefit, is in respect of walking [on his property] and [the use of] utensils not employed in the preparation of food. If a man is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor, he may not lend him a sifter, sieve, mill-stone or oven, but he may lend him a cloak, ring, garment, and earrings, and whatever is not employed in the preparation of food. In a place where things such as these are rented out, it is forbidden.

If one is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbor, [his neighbor] may pay his shekel, pay off his debts, and return a lost article to him. Where payment is taken for this, the benefit should become sacred property.

He may donate his terumah and his tithes with his consent. He may offer up for him the bird sacrifices of zavim and zavoth and the bird sacrifices of women after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. He may teach him midrash, halakhoth and aggadoth, but not Scripture, yet he may teach his sons and daughters Scripture And he may support his wife and children, even though he is liable for their maintenance. But he may not feed his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may feed an unclean beast of his, but not a clean one. They said to him: what is the difference between an unclean and a clean beast? He replied to them, a clean beast, its life belongs to heaven, but its body is his own; but an unclean animal its body and life belongs to heaven. They said to him: The life of an unclean beast too belongs to heaven and the body is his own for if he wishes, he can sell it to a non-Jew or feed dogs with it.

If one is forbidden to benefit from his neighbor, and he pays him a visit [in sickness] he must stand, but not sit. He may afford him a cure of life, but not a cure of money. He may bathe together with him in a large bath, but not in a small one. He may sleep in a bed with him. Rabbi Judah said: in summer, but not in winter, because he thereby benefits him. He may [nevertheless] recline with him on a couch. [He may] eat at the same table with him but not out of the same bowl; but he may eat with him out of a bowl which returns. He may not eat with him out of the food trough put before laborers. He may not work with him on the same furrow, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: he may work at a distance from him.

He who is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor, [if the vow was imposed] before the seventh year, may not enter his field, nor eat produce that hangs over [from the other’s property]. If [the vow was imposed] in the seventh year, he may not enter his field, but may eat of the produce that hangs over [from the other’s property]. If he was forbidden [merely] in respect of food, [and the vow was imposed] before the seventh year, he may enter his field, but may not eat of its fruits. But [if it was imposed] in the seventh year, he may enter [his field] and eat [of its fruits].

He who is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor may not lend [objects] to him or borrow from him, lend [money] to him or receive from him a loan, sell to him or purchase from him. One says to another, “Lend me your cow.” [The other] says, “It is not available.” [The first one] says, “Konam, if I ever plow my field with it’. If he generally plowed himself, he is forbidden, but others are permitted. But if he did not generally plow himself, he and others are forbidden.

If one is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor, and he has nothing to eat, he [the neighbor] can go to the shopkeeper and say, “So-and-so is forbidden by vow to benefit from me, and I do not know what to do.” The shopkeeper may then provide for him, and come and receive payment from him [the neighbor]. If he had to build his house, or his fence to set up, or his field to harvest, he [the neighbor] may go to laborers, and say, “So-and-so is forbidden by vow to benefit from me, and I do not know what to do.’ They may then work for him and come and receive wages from him [the neighbor].

If they are walking together on the road, and he has nothing to eat, he can make a gift to a third person, and he is permitted [to eat] it. If there is no one else with them, he may put it on a stone or a wall and say, “This is free to whomever desires it”, and the other takes and eats it. Rabbi Yose prohibits this.

Chapter 5

If joint owners [of a courtyard] made a vow not to benefit from one another, they may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: This one enters his own property and this one enters his own property. And both are forbidden to set up a mill-stone or an oven or raise chickens. If [only] one was forbidden by vow to benefit from the other, he may not enter the court. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: He can say to the other, “I am entering into my own, and I am not entering into yours.’ They force the one who vowed to sell his share [of the courtyard].

If a man from the street was forbidden by vow to benefit from one of them, he may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: He can say to him, “I am entering into your friend’s and not into yours.”

If one is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor, and he owns a bath-house or an olive press which is leased to someone in the town, and he has an interest in them, he is forbidden [to make use of them]; If [he does] not [have an interest in them], he is permitted. If a man says to his neighbor, “Konam, if I enter your house”, or “[Konam] if I purchase your field”, and then [the owner] dies or sells it to another, he is permitted [to enter or buy it]; [But if he says] “Konam, if I enter this house”, or “[Konam] if I purchase this field”, and [the owner] dies or sells it to another, he is forbidden.

[If a man says to his neighbor] “Behold, I am herem to you” the opposite party is forbidden [to derive benefit from the one who swore]. “Behold, you are herem to me” the one who swore is forbidden. “Behold, I am [herem] to you, and you are [herem] to me”, both are forbidden. Both are permitted [to enjoy the use of] those things which belong to those who came up from Babylonia [to Jerusalem], but are forbidden [the use of] things that belong to that town.

What are the things that belong to those that came up from Babylonia [to Jerusalem]? For example the Temple Mount and the Temple courtyards and the well in the middle of the road. What are the things that belong to that town? For example the public square, the bath-house, the synagogue, the ark, and the [sacred] scrolls. And he should assign his portion to the Patriarch. Rabbi Judah says: it is the same whether he assigns it to the Patriarch or to a private individual. But what is the difference between one who assigns it to the Patriarch and one who assigns it to a private individual? If he assigns it to the Patriarch, he need not [formally] confer title. But the Sages say: both this and this require formal conferring of title, they mentioned the Patriarch in particular as this is usual. Rabbi Judah said: The Galileans need not assign [their portion], because their ancestors have already done so for them.

If one is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor and has nothing to eat, he may give it [the food] to a third party, and he is permitted to use it. It happened to one in Beth Horon that his father was forbidden to benefit from him. Now he [the son] was giving his son in marriage and he said to his neighbor, “The courtyard and the banquet are give to you as a gift, but they are yours only that my father may come and feast with us at the banquet.” He said to him, “If they are mine, let them be dedicated to heaven!” [The son] responded, “But I did not give you my property to dedicate it to heaven.” [The other] responded, “You gave me yours so that you and your father might eat and drink together and become reconciled to one another, while the sin [of a broken vow] should devolve upon his (i.e. head.” When the matter came before the Sages, they ruled: every gift which is not [so given] that if he [the recipient] dedicates it, it is dedicated, is no gift [at all].

Chapter 6

He who vows [not to eat] what is “cooked [mebushal] is permitted what is roasted or seethed. If he says, “Konam if I taste any cooked dish [tabshil]” he is forbidden [to eat] food loosely cooked in a pot, but is permitted [to eat] food solidly-cooked. He may also eat a lightly boiled egg and gourds put in ashes.

He who vows abstinence from food prepared in a pot, is forbidden only from food boiled in a pot; But if he says, “Konam that I taste whatever goes down into a pot”, he is forbidden everything prepared in a pot.

[He who vows abstinence] from what is pickled is forbidden only pickled vegetables; [If he says, “Konam,] if I taste anything pickled”, he is forbidden all pickled. [He who vows abstinence] from what is seethed is forbidden only seethed meat; [If he says, “Konam,] if I taste anything seethed” he is forbidden every thing seethed. [He who vows abstinence] from what is roasted is forbidden only roasted meat, the words of Rabbi Judah. [If he says, “Konam,] if I taste anything roasted” he is forbidden anything roasted. [He who vows abstinence] from what is salted is forbidden only salted fish; [If he says, “Konam,] if I taste anything salted” he is forbidden anything salted.

‘[Konam,] if I taste fish or fishes,” he is forbidden [to eat] them, whether large or small, salted or unsalted, raw or cooked. But he may eat chopped terith and brine. He who vows [abstinence] from zahanah is forbidden chopped terith, but may eat brine and pickled fish brine. He who vows [abstinence] from chopped terith may not eat of brine and pickled fish brine.

He who vows [abstinence] from milk is permitted to eat curds. But Rabbi Yose forbids it. [He who vows abstinence] “from curds,” is permitted milk. Abba Shaul says: he who vows abstinence from cheese, is prohibited to eat [cheese], whether salted or unsalted.

He who vows [abstinence] from meat may eat broth and meat sediment. But Rabbi Judah prohibits. Rabbi Judah said: it once happened that Rabbi Tarfon prohibited me from eating [even the] eggs boiled [with the meat]. They replied: That is so. When is this true? When he says “This meat is prohibited to me.” For if one vows [to abstain] from something, and it is mixed up with another thing, if there is a sufficient [amount of the prohibited food] to impart its taste [to the other] it is forbidden.

He who vows [abstinence] from wine, may eat food which contains the taste of wine. If he says, “Konam if I taste this wine”, and it falls into food, if it is sufficient to impart its taste [to the food] it is forbidden. He who vows [abstinence] from grapes is permitted wine; from olives, is permitted oil. If he says, “Konam if I taste these olives and grapes”, he is forbidden to eat them and [the liquids] that come out of them.

He who vows abstinence from dates is permitted date honey; from winter grapes, is permitted winter-grape vinegar. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said: if it bears the name of its origin, and he vows to abstain from it, he is forbidden [to benefit] from what comes from it. But the Sages permit it.

He who vows abstinence from wine is permitted apple-wine; from oil, is permitted sesame oil; from honey, is permitted date honey; from vinegar, is permitted winter grape vinegar; from leeks, is permitted porrets; from vegetables, he is permitted field-vegetables, because it is an accompanying name.

[He who vows abstinence] from cabbage is forbidden asparagus; from asparagus, is permitted cabbage; From grits, is forbidden grits pottage; Rabbi Yose permits it; from grits pottage is permitted grits. From grits pottage, is forbidden garlic; Rabbi Yose permits it; from garlic, he is permitted grits pottage. From lentils, is forbidden lentil cakes; Rabbi Yose permits them; from lentil cakes, is permitted. [If one says] “Konam, if I eat wheat [or] wheats,” he is forbidden both flour and bread. “If I eat grit [or], grits,” he is forbidden both raw and cooked. Rabbi Judah says: [If one says], “Konam, if I eat grits or wheat,” he may chew them raw.

Chapter 7

He who vows abstinence from vegetables is permitted gourds. Rabbi Akiba prohibits. They said to him: And does not a man say to his messenger “Bring me vegetables,” and he replies, “I could find only gourds.” He said to them: That is so! But would he say, “I could find only pulse?” For gourds are included in vegetables, while pulse is not. He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans but permitted the dry species.

He who vows abstinence from grain is forbidden dry Egyptian beans, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: only the five species of grain are forbidden him. Rabbi Meir says: He who vows abstinence from produce (tevuah) is forbidden only the five species; but one who vows abstinence from grain (dagan), is forbidden all; yet he is permitted the fruits of the tree and vegetables.

He who vows not to wear garments is permitted sack-cloth, curtain, and blanket wrapping. If he says, “Konam, if wool comes upon me,” he may cover himself with wool shearings; [Konam] if flax comes upon me”, he may cover himself with stalks of flax. Rabbi Judah says: It all depends upon the person who vows, [thus:] if he was bearing a burden [with wool or flax] and perspires and had bad odor, and he said “Konam if wool or flax come upon me,” he may wear them, but not throw them [as a bundle] over his back.

One who vows not to benefit from a house is permitted the upper story, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: the upper story is included in “house”. He who vows not to benefit from the upper story is permitted the use of the house.

One who vows abstinence from a bed is permitted a couch, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: A couch is included in “bed”. If he vows abstinence from a couch, he is permitted the use of a bed. One who vows not to benefit from a town, may enter the town’s [Shabbat] border but may not enter its outskirts. But one who vows not to benefit from a house, is forbidden [only] from the door-stop and inwards.

[If one says] “Konam be these fruits to me”, “Konam they are for my mouth,” or “Konam they are to my mouth,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. [If one says “Konam] if I eat or taste of them,” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

If one says to his wife, “Konam be the work of your hands to me,” or ”Konam be they for my mouth, or “Konam be they to my mouth”, he is forbidden that which is exchanged for them or grown from them. [If he says “Konam] if I eat or taste [of what they produce],” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

[If he says to his wife, “Konam that] what you will produce I will not eat from it until Pesach” or “That what you will produce, I will not wear until Pesach”, he may eat or wear after Pesach that which she produces before Pesach. [If he says to his wife “Konam that] what you produce until Pesach I will not eat”, or “That what you produce until Pesach I will not wear”, what she produces before Pesach he may not eat after Pesach.

[If he says, “Konam] be any benefit you have from me until Pesach, if you go to your father’s house until the festival [of Sukkot],” if she goes before Pesach she may not benefit from him until Pesach; if she goes after Pesach she is subject to, “he shall not break his word” (Numbers 30:3). [If he says, “Konam] be any benefit you have from me until the festival [of Sukkot] if you go to your father’s house before Pesach”, if she goes before Pesach, she may not benefit from him until the festival [of Sukkot], but she is permitted to go after Pesach.

Chapter 8

[If one vows,] “Konam, if I taste wine today,” he is forbidden only until it gets dark. “This Sabbath,” he is forbidden the whole week and the Sabbath belongs to the past [week]; “This month,” he is forbidden the whole of that month, and the beginning of the [following] month belongs to the next month. “This year,” he is forbidden the whole year, and the beginning of the [following] year belongs to the next year. “This week of years,” he is forbidden the whole of that week of years, and the [following] sabbatical year belongs to the past. But if he says, “One day,” “One Sabbath,” “One month,” “One year,” [or] “One week of years,” he is forbidden from day to day.

[If one vows,] “Until Pesach,” he is forbidden until it arrives; “Until it is [Pesach],” he is forbidden until it is completed. “Until before Pesach,”: Rabbi Meir says: he is forbidden until it arrives; Rabbi Yose says: he is forbidden until it is completed.

[If he vows,] “Until the grain harvest, “Until the grape harvest”, or, “Until the olive harvest,” he is forbidden only until it arrives. This is a general rule: Whatever has a fixed time and one vows, “Until it arrives,” he is forbidden until it arrives; if he says, “Until it be”, he is forbidden until it is over. But whatever has no fixed time, whether he says, “Until it be,” or “Until it arrives,” he is forbidden only until it arrives.

[If he says,] “Until the summer,” or, “Until the summer shall be,” [he is forbidden] until people begin to bring [the figs] home in baskets. “Until the summer [harvest] is past,” [he is forbidden] until the knives are folded up [and put away]. [If he vows,] “Until the harvest,” [he is forbidden] until the people begin reaping the wheat harvest, but not the barley harvest. It all depends on the place where he vowed: if in hill-country, the hill-country [harvest]; if in the valley, the valley harvest.

[If one vows,] “Until the rains,” [or], “Until the rains shall be”, [he is forbidden] until the second rainfall descends. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: until the [normal] time for the [second] rainfall is reached. [If one vows,] “Until the rains cease,” [he is forbidden] until all of Nisan is completed, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesach is over. [If one vows,] “Konam that I taste not wine for a year”, if the year is intercalated, he is forbidden during the year and its extension. [If one says,] “Until the beginning of Adar,” [he is forbidden] until the beginning of the first Adar; “Until the end of Adar,” until the end of the first Adar. Rabbi Judah says: [If one vows, “Konam that I taste no wine until Pesach shall be,” he is forbidden only until Pesach night, for he meant until the hour when people usually drink wine.

If he vows, “Konam that I taste no meat until the fast [i.e., Yom Kippur] shall be,” he is forbidden only until the eve of the fast, for he merely meant until people usually eat meat. Rabbi Yose, his son, says: “Konam, that I not taste garlic until the Sabbath,” he is forbidden only until Sabbath eve [i.e., Friday night], for he meant, until it is customary for people to eat garlic.

If one says to his neighbor “Konam, what I benefit from you, if you do not come and take for your sons a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine,” the latter may annul his vow without the release of a sage, by declaring, “Did you vow for any other purpose but to honor me? This [refusal] is my honor.” Similarly, if one says to his neighbor, “Konam, what you benefit from me, if you do not give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine”: Rabbi Meir says: he is forbidden until he gives; But the Sages say: he too can annul his vow without the release of a sage, by saying to him, “I regard it as though I have received it.” If they were urging him to marry his sister’s daughter, and he said, “Konam, what she benefits from me forever”; Likewise, if he is divorcing his wife and he said, “Konam, what my wife benefits from me forever,” they are permitted to benefit from him, because he meant only marriage. If he was urging his neighbor to eat at his house, and he replied, “Konam be your house which I do not enter,” or, “The drop of water that I do not drink,” he may enter his house and drink cold water because he only meant eating and drinking in general.

Chapter 9

Rabbi Eliezer says: They release a vow [by reference] to the honor of his father and mother but the Sages forbid. Rabbi Zadok said: Instead of releasing through the honor of his father and mother, they should release [by reference] to the honor of God. If so, there would be no vows! But the Sages admit to Rabbi Eliezer that in a matter concerning himself and his father and mother one may release a vow [by reference] to the honor of his father and mother.

Rabbi Eliezer also said: They release a vow by reference to a new fact; but the Sages forbid it. How is this so? If one said, “Konam that I will not benefit from so and so,” and he [the latter] then became a scribe, or was about to give his son in marriage, and he said, “Had I known that he would become a scribe or was about to give his son in marriage, I would not have vowed;” [Or if he said,] “Konam, is this house that I will not enter,” and it became a synagogue, and he declared, “Had I known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed,” Rabbi Eliezer permits [the vow to be released],but the Sages forbid it.

Rabbi Meir says: Some things are similar to a new fact, and yet are not [treated] as new; but the Sages do not agree with him. How so? If one says, “Konam that I do not marry so and so, because her father is wicked,” and [then] they say to him “He is dead,” or, “He has repented,”; “Konam is this house which I will not enter, because it contains a wild dog,” or, “because there is a snake in it,” and [then] they say to him, “The dog is dead,” or, “The serpent has been killed,” behold these are like new facts, yet actually not [treated] as new facts. But the sages do not agree with him.

Rabbi Meir also said: They release [the vow] by using what is written in the Torah, and they say to him, “Had you known that you were violating [the prohibitions]:“You shall not avenge” (Leviticus 19:18), “You shall not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart (ibid., v., “Love your neighbor as yourself” (ibid., v., “Let him live by your side” (ibid. 25:37), for he might become poor and you would not be able to provide for him, [would you have vowed]?”. And should he reply, “Had I known that this is so, I would not have vowed,” he is permitted [the vow is absolved].

They release a vow by reference to a wife’s kethubah. And it once happened that a man vowed not to benefit from his wife and her ketubah amounted to four hundred denarii. He went before Rabbi Akiva, who ordered him to pay her the ketubah [in full]. He said to him, “Rabbi! My father left eight hundred denarii, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isn’t it enough that she should receive two hundred and I two hundred?” Rabbi Akiva replied: even if you have to sell the hair of your head you must pay her her ketubah. He said to him, “Had I known that it is so, I would not have vowed.” And Rabbi Akiva released his vow.

They release vows by reference to the sabbaths and festivals. The earlier ruling was that for these days the vow is cancelled, but for others it is binding, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: a vow which is partially released is entirely released.

How is this so?If one says, “Konam that which I benefit from any of you,” if one [of those subject to the vow] was [subsequently] released, they are all released. [If he said, “Konam] that which I benefit from this one or this one”: if the first was released, all are released; if the last one was released, he is released, but the rest are forbidden. if the middle person was released, those [mentioned] after him are [also] released, but those [mentioned] before him are forbidden. [If one says,] “Korban that which I benefit from this one, and from this one Korban,” they each require a separate release.

“Konam is the one that I taste, because wine is damaging to the stomach.” They said to him, “But mature wine is beneficial to the stomach.” He is released in respect of mature wine, and not only in respect of mature wine, but of all wine. “Konam the onions that I taste, because they are damaging to the heart.” They said to him, “But village onions are good for the heart,” He is released in respect of village onions, and not only of village onions, but of all onions. Such a case happened before Rabbi Meir, and he permitted all onions.

They release one’s vows [by reference] to his own honor and the honor of his children. They say to him, “Had you known that tomorrow they will say of you, ‘It is the regular habit of so-and-so to divorce his wife’; and concerning your daughters they will say, ‘They are the daughters of a divorced woman. What fault did he find in their mother to divorce her?’ If he replies, “Had I known that it is so, I would not have vowed,” he is released from his vow.

“Konam if I marry that ugly woman,” and she turns out to be beautiful; “That black-skinned woman,” and she turns out to be light-skinned; “That short woman,” and she turns out to be tall, he is permitted to marry her, not because she was ugly, and became beautiful, or black and became light-skinned, short and grew tall, but because the vow was made in error. And thus it happened with one who vowed not to benefit from his sister’s daughter, and she was taken into Rabbi Ishmael’s house and they made her beautiful. Rabbi Ishmael said to him, “My son! Did you vow not to benefit from this one!” He said, “No,” and Rabbi Ishmael permitted her [to him]. In that hour Rabbi Ishmael wept and said, “The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty disfigures them.” And when Rabbi Ishmael died, the daughters of Israel raised a lament, saying, “Daughters of Israel weep for Rabbi Ishmael.” And thus it is said too of Saul, “Daughters of Israel, weep for Saul” (II Samuel 1:24).

Chapter 10

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it].

If the father dies, his authority does not pass over to the husband. If the husband dies, his authority passes over to the father. In this respect, the father’s power is greater than the husband’s. But in another respect, the husband’s power is greater than that of the father, for the husband can annul [her vows] when she is of majority age but the father cannot annul her vows when she is of majority age.

If one vowed as a betrothed woman, and then was divorced on that day and betrothed [again] on the same day, even a hundred times, her father and last betrothed husband can annul her vows. This is the general rule: as long as she has not passed out into her own control for even one hour, her father and last husband can annul her vows.

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them.

[In the case of] a girl who has reached majority age who waited twelve months, or a widow [who waited] thirty days, Rabbi Eliezer says: since her [betrothed] husband is responsible for her maintenance, he may annul [her vows]. But the Sages say: the husband cannot annul [her vows] until she enters into his domain.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi Akiva) said to him (Rabbi Joshua): the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband.

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. [If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment.

The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it.

Chapter 11

And these are the vows which he can annul: vows which involve self-denial. [For instance:] “If I bathe” or “If I do not bathe;” “If I adorn myself,” or, “If I do not adorn myself.” Rabbi Yose says: these are not vows of self-denial.

But these are vows of self-denial:If she says, “Konam be the produce of the [whole] world to me”, he can annul. “Konam be the produce of this region to me,” he should bring her that of a different region. “[Konam be] the produce of this shopkeeper to me”, he cannot annul. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, he can annul, the words of Rabbi Yose.

[If she vows], “Konam, that which I benefit from mankind,” he cannot annul, and she can benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field. [If one says], “Konam be the benefit which priests and Levites have from me”, they can take [from him] against his will. [But if he vows,] “Konam be the benefit these priests and Levites have from me,” other [priests and Levites] should take.

[If she vows,] “Konam that which I do for my father,” [or] “your father,” [or] “my brother,” [or] “your brother,” [the husband] cannot annul it. [“Konam] “that which I do for you,” he need not annul it. Rabbi Akiva says: he should annul it, lest she make more than is fitting for him. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: he should annul it, lest he divorce her and she thereby be forbidden to him.

If his wife vowed, and he thought that his daughter had vowed, or if his daughter vowed and he thought that his wife had vowed; If she took the vow of a nazirite, and he thought that she had vowed by a korban, or if she vowed by a korban, and he thought that she vowed a nazirite vow; If she vowed [to abstain] from figs, and he thought that she vowed [to abstain] from grapes, or if she vowed [to abstain] from grapes and he thought that she vowed from figs, he must annul [the vow] again.

If she vows, “Konam these figs and grapes which I taste”, and he [the husband] confirms [the vow] in respect of figs, the whole [vow] is confirmed; If he annuls it in respect of figs, it is not annulled, unless he annuls in respect of grapes too. If she vows, “Konam the figs that I taste and these grapes that I taste”, they are two distinct vows.

[If the husband declares,] “I knew that there were vows, but I did not know that they could be annulled”, he may annul them [now]. [But if he says:] “I knew that I could annul them, but I did not know that this was a vow,” Rabbi Meir says: he cannot annul it, But the Sages say: he can annul.

If a man is under a vow that his son-in-law shall not benefit from him, and he wants to give money to his daughter, he must say to her, “This money is given to you as a gift, providing that your husband has no rights with it, [and it is only given to you] so that may put to your personal use.”

“But every vow of a widow and of a divorcee… shall be binding upon her” (Numbers 30:9).How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days”, even if she married within the thirty days, he cannot annul it. If she vows while in her husband’s domain, he can annul [the vow] for her. How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days,” [and her husband annulled it], even though she was widowed or divorced within the thirty days, it is annulled. If she vowed on one day, and he divorced her on the same day and took her back on the same day, he cannot annul it. This is the general rule: once she has gone into her own domain [even] for a single hour, he cannot annul.

There are nine young girls whose vows stand: [1a] a girl who reached majority age who is [like] an orphan; [1b] a young girl [who vowed] and [then] reached majority age who is [like] an orphan; [1c] a young girl who has not yet reached majority age, who is [like] an orphan; [2a] a girl who reached majority age and whose father died; [2b] a young girl [who vowed] and [then] reached majority age and whose father died; [2c] a young girl who has not yet reached majority age and whose father died; [3a] a young girl whose father died, and after her father died she became of majority age; [3b] a girl who has reached majority age whose father is alive; [3c] a young girl who has reached majority age and whose father is alive. Rabbi Judah says: also one who married off his daughter while a minor, and she was widowed or divorced and returned to him [her father] and is still a young girl.

[If she vows,] “Konam the benefit that I derive from my father or from your father if I make anything for you,” Or, “Konam the benefit that I derive from you, if I make anything for my father or your father,” he can annul.

At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they [shall appease them] by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he [the husband] must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews.

משנה נזיר

Chapter 1

All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. If one says, “I shall be [one]” he is a nazirite. “I shall be comely”, he is a nazirite. “A nazik”, “a naziah”, “a paziah”, he is a nazirite. [If one says,] “Behold I shall be like this one,” or “Behold I shall curl [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall tend [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall grow my hair long,” he is a nazirite. [If one says] “Behold, I shall [bring] birds [as offerings]” Rabbi Meir says he is a nazirite, but the sages say he is not a nazirite.

[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazir [to abstain] from grape seeds, or from grape skins, or from shaving, or from [contracting] ritual defilement,” he is a nazirite and all the regulations of naziriteship apply to him. [If one says,] “Behold, I shall be like Samson”, “like the son of Manoah”, “like the husband of Delilah, or “like the one who uprooted the doors of Gaza,” or “like the one whose eyes the Philistines put out,” he is a nazirite like Samson. What difference is there between a nazirite like Samson and a life-nazirite? A life-nazirite if his hair becomes burdensome, he may thin it with a razor and then offer three animal sacrifices. If he should he be ritually defiled, he must offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement. The nazirite like Samson if his hair becomes burdensome, he may not thin it. And if he becomes ritually defiled, he does not offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement.

A nazirite vow of unspecified duration is for thirty days. If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite for one long [period”], or “Behold, I am a nazirite for one short [period]”, or even [if he says, “[Behold, I am a nazirite for as long as it takes to go] from here to the end of the earth,” he is a nazirite for thirty days. [If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, plus one day,” or “Behold, I am a nazirite, plus one hour,” or “Behold, I am a nazirite, once and a half,” he becomes a nazirite for two [periods of naziriteship]. [If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days plus an hour,” he becomes a nazirite for thirty-one days, since there is no naziriteship for hours.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite as the hairs of my head”, or “As the dust of the earth”, or “As the sands of the sea,” he becomes a life-nazirite, and shaves his head every thirty days. Rabbi says: this one does not shave his head every thirty days. The one who shave his head every thirty days is the one who says, “Behold, upon me are naziriteships as the hair on my head”, or “As the dust of the earth”, or “As the sands of the sea.”

[If he says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite as the capacity of this house”, or “as the capacity of this basket,” we check him. If he says “I vowed one long period of naziriteship”, he becomes a nazirite for thirty days. But if he says “I vowed without specification”, we regard the basket as though it were full of mustard seed, and he becomes a nazirite for life.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, as [long as it takes to get] from here to such and such a place,” we estimate the number of days [journey] from here to the place mentioned. If this is less than thirty days, he becomes a nazirite for thirty days; Otherwise he becomes a nazirite for that number of days.

[If one says], “Behold I am a nazirite, as the number of days in a solar year” he must count as many naziriteships as there are days in the solar year. Rabbi Judah said: such a case once occurred, and when the man had completed [his naziriteships], he died.

Chapter 2

[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs”: Beth Shammai says: he is an [ordinary] nazirite. Beth Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “They are [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice.”

If one says, “This cow is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up,” or “This door is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open”: Bet Shammai says: he is a nazirite, But Bet Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “This cow is [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice if it gets up.”

If they mixed for him a cup of wine, and he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it,” he becomes a nazirite. It once happened that a woman was intoxicated and they mixed for her a cup of wine and she said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it.” The sages ruled that she only meant to forbid it to herself as a sacrifice.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, on condition that I can drink wine, or can have contact with the dead”, he becomes a nazirite, and all these things are forbidden him. [If he says,] “I knew that there is such a thing as naziriteship but I did not know that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine”, he is bound [to his vow]. Rabbi Shimon releases him. [If he says,] “I knew that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, but I imagined that the sages would give me permission, since I cannot do without wine”, or “since [my profession] is to bury the dead”, he is released. Rabbi Shimon binds him [to his vow].

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”, and his friend heard and said “I too, and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”, then, if they are clever they will bring the other’s hair offering; otherwise they must bring hair offerings on behalf of other nazirites.

[If one says,] “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” and his friend heard and said, “I too take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” –, this one brings a full hair offering and this one brings a full hair offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: each brings half a hair offering.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son,” and son is born to him, he becomes a nazirite. If the child is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he does not become a nazirite. If he said, “When I shall have a child,” then even if it is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he becomes a nazirite.

If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.” If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.”

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite [now] and a nazirite when I shall have a son”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he completes his own [naziriteship] and then counts the one on account of his son. [If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and a nazirite [on my own account]”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he interrupts his own [naziriteship], counts the one on account of his son, and then complete his own.

[If one says] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and I will be a nazirite for one hundred days [on my own account],”: if a son was born to him before the expiration of seventy days, he loses none of this period; but if after seventy days, it voids [anything over the] seventy days, since there can be no shaving for a period of less than thirty days.

Chapter 3

If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” he shaves on the thirty-first day. If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If, however, he says] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days,” and shaves on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

If a man vows two naziriteships, he shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day, and for the second on the sixty-first day. If he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he can shave for the second on the sixtieth day. If he shaved on the day before the sixtieth, he has fulfilled his obligation. For this was the testimony that Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who vows two naziriteships, that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he is to shave for the second on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved on the day before the sixtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation, the thirtieth day counting towards the required number.

If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” and becomes impure on the thirtieth day, he renders void the whole period. Rabbi Eliezer says: only seven days are void. [If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days”, and becomes impure on the thirtieth day, then he renders void the whole period.

[If he says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for one hundred days,” and becomes impure on the hundredth day, he renders void the whole period. Rabbi Eliezer says: only thirty days are void. If he becomes impure on the hundred and first day, thirty days are void. Rabbi Eliezer says: only seven days are void.

If one takes a nazirite vow while in a graveyard, then even if he remains there for thirty days, these do not count, and he does not have to bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. If he leaves it and re-enters, [the period] counts, and he must bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says: not [if he re-enters] on the same day, for it says, “But the former days shall be void,” (Numbers 6:12) until there are former days.

If one vows a long naziriteship of and completes his naziriteship and afterwards comes to the land [of Israel]: Beth Shammai says that he is a nazirite for thirty days, But Beth Hillel says that his naziriteship begins again. It happened that Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said: “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a nazirite for seven years.” Her son returned from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. At the end of the seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel] and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for a further seven years. Towards the end of this seven years, she contracted ritual defilement, and so altogether she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Judah said: she was a nazirite only for fourteen years.

One who has two sets of witnesses testifying about him: one says that he vowed two [naziriteships] and the other that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: the evidence is conflicting, and there is no naziriteship at all. But Beth Hillel says: “five” includes “two”, so that he becomes a nazirite for two [naziriteships].

Chapter 4

One who said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his friend overheard and said “I too,” [and another one said] “I too”, all are nazirites. If the first one is released [from his vow], all are released. If the last one is released, he alone is released, and the others remain bound [by their vows]. If he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his companion overheard and said, “My mouth shall be as his mouth and my hair as his hair”, he becomes a nazirite. [If he said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite,” and his wife overheard and said, “I too,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding. [If a woman says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and her husband overhears and adds, “I too,” he cannot annul her vow.

[If he says in conversation with his wife,] “Behold, I am a nazirite. What about you?” and she answers “Amen,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding. [But if she should say,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, what about you?” and he answers, “Amen,” he cannot annul her vow.

If a woman takes a nazirite vow and then drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she receives forty [lashes]. If her husband annuls [her vow] and she did not know that he annulled it, and she drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she does not receive the forty [lashes]. Rabbi Judah says: even though she does not receive the forty [lashes] she should receive lashes for disobedience.

A woman takes a nazirite vow and sets aside the requisite animal [for the sacrifice] and then her husband subsequently annuls [her vow]: If the animal belonged to him, it can be put to pasture with the herd; If it belonged to her: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread. If she has a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings; If she has specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.

If one of the kinds of blood has been sprinkled on her behalf, [the husband] can no longer annul [the vow]. Rabbi Akiba says: even if one of the animals has been slaughtered on her behalf, he can no longer annul [the vow]. When is this true? If she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, but if she is shaving after ritual defilement, he can [still] annul [the vow], because he can say, “I do not want a disgraced woman.” Rabbi says that he can annul [her vow] even if she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, since he can say: “I do not want a woman who is shaved.

A man may impose a nazirite vow on his son, but a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son. How so? [If the boy] shaves himself or is shaved by his relatives, or if he protests or his relatives protest on his behalf, Then if [the father] had set aside an animal [for the sacrifice]: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread. If he had a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings; If he had specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.

A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. How so? If a man’s father had been a nazirite, and had set apart a lump sum of money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died and [the son] said, “Behold, I am a nazirite on condition that I may shave with my father’s money.” Rabbi Yose said: this money is to be used for freewill-offerings, this man cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship. Who is the one who can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship? He who was a nazirite together with his father, and whose father had set apart a lump sum of money for his nazirite [sacrifices] and died. This one can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship.

Chapter 5

Beth Shammai says: something consecrated in error is consecrated; But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. How is this so? If someone says, “The black bull that leaves my house first shall be consecrated,” and a white one comes out, Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.

[If he says,] “The gold denar that comes into my hand first shall be consecrated”, and a silver denar came to his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. [If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.

If a man vowed to be a nazirite and then asked a sage [to be released from his vow] but [the sage] bound him [to his vow] he counts [the naziriteship] from the time that the vow was made. If he asked a sage [to be released from his vow] and he released him, if he had an animal set aside [for a sacrifice], it goes forth to pasture with [the rest of] the herd. Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: do you not admit that here where the consecration is in error, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd? Beth Shammai said to them: do you not admit that if a man in error calls the ninth [animal], the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, each is consecrated? Beth Hillel said to them: it is not the staff that makes these consecrated. For suppose that by mistake he placed the staff upon the eighth or upon the twelfth, would this have any effect? Rather Scripture which has consecrated the tenth, has also declared consecrated the ninth and the eleventh.

If one vowed to be a nazirite and went to bring his animal [for the sacrifice] and found that it had been stolen: If he had taken the nazirite vow before his animal was stolen, he is [still] a nazirite. But if he had taken the nazirite vow after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite. It was this mistake that Nahum the Mede made. When nazirites arrived [in Jerusalem] from the Diaspora and found the Temple destroyed, Nahum the Mede said to them, “Had you known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have become nazirites?” They answered, no, and Nahum the Mede released them [from their vow]. When the matter came before the sages they said to him: whoever vowed a nazirite vow before the destruction of the Temple is a nazirite, but if after the destruction of the temple, he is not a nazirite.

If [people] were walking along the road and [saw] someone coming towards them, and one said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is so-and-so,” and the other said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is not so-and-so,” [and a third said,] “Behold I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and a fourth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if neither of you is a nazirite,” [and a fifth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if both of you are nazirites,” [and a sixth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if all of you are nazirites”: Beth Shammai says: all of them are nazirites. Beth Hillel says only those whose words were [not] fulfilled are nazirites. Rabbi Tarfon says: not one of them is a nazirite.

If [the person approaching] turned around suddenly [without being identified], he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If it was as I said, behold I am a nazirite by obligation; and if not, behold I am a voluntary nazirite.”

If he saw a koy and said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if this is a wild beast”, [and another] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a wild beast,” [a third said] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is a domesticated beast,” [and a fourth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a domesticated beast,” [a fifth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if that is both a wild beast and a domesticated beast,” [and a sixth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is neither a wild beast nor a domesticated beast” [and a seventh said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and an eighth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is not a nazirite,” [and a ninth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if you are all nazirites”, then all of them are nazirites.

Chapter 6

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine. All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.

He is liable for wine on its own, for grapes on their own, for grape-skins (hartzanim) on their own and for seeds (zagim) on their own. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: there is no penalty unless he eats two grape-skins and one seed. What are harzanim and what are zagim? Harzanim: those are the outer part, and the zagim are the inner part, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: that you may not err, [think of] the zug [bell] of an animal, the outer part is called the zug [hood] and the inner part the inbal [clapper].

A nazirite vow of unspecified duration is for thirty days. If [the nazirite] shaved himself or bandits shaved him, it overturns thirty days. A nazirite who shaves himself, whether with scissors or a razor, or who singes [the ends of his hair], even a minimal amount, is liable. A nazirite may shampoo [his hair] and part it [with his fingers] but may not comb it. Rabbi Ishmael says: he is not to cleanse it with dirt because it causes the hair to fall out.

A nazirite who drank wine all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not drink,” “do not drink” and he drank, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him]. [A nazirite who was] shaving all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not shave,” “do not shave” and he shaved, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him]. [A nazirite who was] defiling himself with the dead all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not be defiled,” “do not be defiled” and he was defiled, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him].

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine. Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so. Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse. And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.

Shaving on account of defilement: How was it done? He would sprinkle [with purification water] on the third and seventh days, shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day. If he shaved on the eighth day, he would bring his sacrifices on that same day, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: what difference is there between this one and a person with scale disease? He said to him: the purification of this one depends on his days, whereas the purification of one with scale disease depends on his shaving, and he cannot bring a sacrifice unless the sun has set upon him [after his purification].

Shaving in a case of purity: How was it done?He would bring three animals, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a well-being offering, slaughter the peace-offering and shave thereafter, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Elazar says: he shaves after the sin-offering, for in all cases [the sacrifice of] the sin-offering takes precedence. But if he shaved after [the slaughter] of any one of the three he has fulfilled his obligation.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if he brought three animals without specifying [what they were for], the one suitable for a sin offering is sacrificed as a sin offering, for a burnt offering as a burnt offering, and for a well-being offering as a well-being offering. He would then take the hair of his nazirite head and threw it under the cauldron. If he shaved in the province he [also] would throw it under the cauldron. With regard to what was this said? With regard to shaving in ritual purity, whereas in shaving [after] ritual defilement he does not throw it under the cauldron. Rabbi Meir says: all [nazirites] throw it under the cauldron, except for the defiled nazirite [who shaved] in the provinces.

He would then boil or completely boil the peace-offering. The priest then took the boiled shoulder of the ram, an unleavened cake from the basket, and an unleavened wafer, placed them on the nazirite’s hands and waved them. After this, the nazirite was allowed to drink wine and defile himself for the dead. Rabbi Shimon says: as soon as one kind of blood had been sprinkled on his behalf the nazirite could drink wine and defile himself for the dead.

If he shaves after one of the sacrifices and the sacrifice is found to be invalid, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices do not count: If he shaves after the sin-offering, which was not offered for its correct designation and then he brought the other sacrifices under their correct designations, his shaving is invalid and [none of] his sacrifices counts for him. [Similarly], if he shaves after the burnt-offering or the wellbeing offering, which have not been offered for their correct designation, and then he brought the other sacrifices under their correct designation, his shaving is invalid and [none of] his sacrifices counts for him. Rabbi Shimon says: that particular sacrifice does not count, but his other sacrifices do count. If he shaved after all three sacrifices and one of them was found to valid, his shaving is valid and he has [only] to bring the other sacrifices.

If [a nazirite] on whose behalf one kind of blood has been sprinkled becomes unclean, Rabbi Eliezer says: everything is annulled. But the Sages say: he should bring his remaining sacrifices after purification. They said to him: it happened that Miriam the Tadmorite had one kind of blood sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was dangerously ill. She went and found her dead and the sages told her to offer her remaining sacrifices after purification.

Chapter 7

A high priest and a nazirite may not defile themselves with their [dead] relatives, but they may defile themselves with a neglected corpse. If they were walking on the path and found a neglected corpse: Rabbi Eliezer says: the high priest should defile himself but not the nazirite. But the Sages say: the nazirite should defile himself but not the high priest. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: the priest should defile himself, for he does not offer a sacrifice for his defilement, and the nazirite should not defile himself, for he does offer a sacrifice on defilement. They said to him: the nazirite should defile himself, for his holiness is not permanent, and the priest should not defile himself, for his holiness is permanent.

For which types of defilement must the nazirite shave?For [defilement contracted from] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of corpse ooze, or a ladleful of corpse-mould; Or the spinal column, or the skull, or any limb [severed] from a corpse, or any limb [severed] from a living body that is still properly covered with flesh, or a half-kav of bones, or a half-log of blood. Whether [the defilement was contracted] from contact with them, from carrying them, or from overshadowing them. For [defilement contracted from] a barley-grain’s bulk of bone, whether by contact or carrying. On account of these, a nazirite must shave and be sprinkled on the third and seventh days, and such [defilement] annuls the previously served period, and he does not begin to count a new [naziriteship] until he has become clean and brought his sacrifices.

But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal vehomer) argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”

Chapter 8

Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,” [Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.” If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.” Ben Zoma said to him: Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.” Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben zoma.

A nazirite who was in doubt whether he had been defiled and in doubt whether he had been a confirmed leper, may eat consecrated food after sixty days, and drink wine and come into contact with the dead after one hundred and twenty days, since shaving on account of leprosy overrides [the prohibition against] the shaving of the nazirite only when [the leprosy] is certain, but when it is doubtful it does not override it.

Chapter 9

Gentiles are not subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. Women and slaves are subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. The nazirite vow is more stringent in the case of women than in the case of slaves, for a man can compel his slave [to break his vow] but he cannot compel his wife [to do so]. [The nazirite vow] is more stringent in the case of slaves than in the case of women, for he can void the vows of his wife, but he cannot void the vows of his slaves. If he voids his wife’s [vow], it is void for ever, but if he voids his slave’s vow, [if] the slave becomes free he must complete his naziriteship. When [the slave] passes from [his master's] presence: Rabbi Meir says: he may not drink [wine]. Rabbi Yose says: he may drink [wine].

A nazirite shaves and then discovers that he was defiled: If the defilement was certain, it voids [the naziriteship], But if it is a defilement of the depth, it is not rendered void. [If he discovers that he was defiled] before shaving, in either case it voids [the naziriteship]. How is [the law regarding ‘defilement of the depth’]? If he goes down into a cavern to bathe, and a corpse is found floating at the mouth of the cavern, he is [definitely] unclean. If it is found embedded in the floor of the cavern, Then if he went in merely to cool himself off he remains clean, But if he went to purify himself after defilement through contact with the dead he remains unclean, Because the assumption concerning an unclean person is that he is unclean and the assumption concerning a clean person is that he is clean,.

If a man finds a corpse for the first time lying in a typical position, he may remove it together with the soil that it occupies. [If he finds] two, he may remove them together with the ground they occupy. If he finds three, then if the distance between the first and the last is from four to eight cubits, this is a graveyard site. He [must] check from that point twenty cubits in all directions. If he finds one twenty cubits away, he must check from it another twenty cubits, for there are grounds [that it is a graveyard]. For if he had found it at the outset he would have removed it and the soil that it occupies.

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.

Samuel was a nazirite, according to the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it says, “And no razor [morah] shall come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11). It says with reference to Samson, “And [no] razor [morah]” (Judges 13:5) and it says with reference to Samuel, “And [no] razor [morah]”, just as “razor [morah]” in the case of Samson [teaches that he was] a nazirite, so “razor [morah]” in the case of Samuel [teaches that he was] a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: but does not “morah” refer to [fear] of flesh and blood? Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But does it not also say, “And Samuel said; ‘How can I go? If Saul will hear it he will kill me’” (I Samuel 16:2) [which shows] that he was afraid of flesh and blood?

משנה סוטה

Chapter 1

One who warns his wife [not to associate with a certain man]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he warns her on the testimony of two witnesses, and makes her drink [the bitter waters] on the testimony of one witness or on his own testimony. Rabbi Joshua says: he warns her on the testimony of two and makes her drink on the testimony of two.

How does he warn her? If he says to her in front of two [witnesses], “Do not speak with that man”, and she spoke with him, she is still permitted to her husband and permitted to eat terumah. If she entered a private place with him and stayed with him a time sufficient for her to be defiled [by having sexual intercourse with him], she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah. If [her husband] died, she performs halitzah but cannot contract yibbum.

The following are prohibited to eat terumah:She who says [to her husband], “I am unclean to you”, and witnesses came [and testified] that she was unclean; She who says, “I refuse to drink [the water]”. She whose husband does not want to make her drink [the water]: And she whose husband had intercourse with her on the journey. How does [the husband] deal with her? He brings her to the court in the place where he resides, and they assign to him two disciples of the sages lest he have intercourse with her on the journey. Rabbi Judah says, her husband is trusted with her.

They bring her up to the great court which is in Jerusalem, and [the judges] solemnly admonish her in the same way that they admonish witnesses in capital cases. And they say to her, “My daughter, much is done by wine does much, much is done by frivolity, much is done by youth, much is done by bad neighbors. For the sake of His great name which is written in holiness do it so that it may not be rubbed out on the water.” And they say to her matters which neither she nor all the family of her father's house is worthy to hear.

If she said, “I am defiled to you”, she gives him a receipt for her ketubah and goes out [with a get]. But if she says, “I am pure”, they bring her up to the east gate, Nicanor’s gate, where they give women suspected of adultery the water to drink, purify women after childbirth and purify lepers. A priest seizes her clothing if they are torn, then they are torn, and if they become unstitched, then they are unstitched, until he uncovers her bosom, and he undoes [the braids of] her hair. Rabbi Judah says: if her bosom was beautiful he does not uncover it, and if her hair was beautiful he does not undo it.

If she was clothed in white, he clothes her in black. If she wore gold jewelry or necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, they remove them from her in order to make her repulsive. After that [the priest] takes a rope made of twigs and binds it over her breasts. Whoever wishes to look upon her comes to look with the exception of her male and female slaves, since she has no shame in front of them. All of the women are permitted to look upon her, as it is said, “That all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).

In the measure with which a person metes out to others, they mete out to him. She adorned herself for a sin; the Omnipresent made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a sin; the Omnipresent exposed her. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.

Samson went after [the desire of] his eyes; therefore the Philistines put out his eyes, as it is said, “And the Philistines laid hold of him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:2. Absalom was proud of his hair, therefore he was hanged by his hair. And because he had relations with the ten of his father’s concubines, therefore [they thrust] ten spears in him, as it is said, “And ten of Joab’s young arms-bearers closed in [and struck Absalom until he died]” (II Samuel 18:15). And because he stole three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court, and the heart of Israel, as it is said, “So Absalom stole the hearts of the people of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6), therefore three darts were driven into him, as it is said, “And he took three darts in his hand, and drove them through the heart of Absalom” (II Samuel 18:1.

The same is true for good.Miriam waited one hour for Moses, as it is said, “And his sister stood afar off”, (Exodus 2:4), therefore Israel was delayed for her seven days in the wilderness, as it is said, “And the people did not journey until Miriam was brought in again” (Numbers 12:15). Joseph had the merit of burying his father and there was none among his brothers greater than he, as it is said, “And Joseph went up to bury his father…and there both chariots and horsemen went up with him” (Exodus 50:7,9). Whom do we have who is greater than Joseph since none other than Moses occupied himself [with his burial]? Moses had the merit [to bury] the bones of Joseph and there was none in Israel greater than he, as it is said, “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19). Whom do have greater than Moses since none other than the Omnipresent was occupied [with his burial], as it is said, “And He buried him in the valley” (Deuteronomy 34:6)? Not only concerning Moses did they say this, but concerning all the righteous, as it is said, “And your righteousness shall go before your, the presence of God shall gather you [in death]” (Isaiah 58:8).

Chapter 2

[The husband] brings her meal-offering in a basket of palm-twigs and places it upon her hands in order to weary her. With all other meal-offerings, their beginning and their end are in ministering vessels; but with this, its beginning is in a basket of palm-twigs and its end in a ministering vessel. All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, but this requires neither oil nor frankincense. All other meal-offerings come from wheat, but this comes from barley. The meal-offering of the Omer, although it comes from barley, was in the form of sifted flour; but this comes from unsifted flour. Rabban Gamaliel says: just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so her offering [consisted of] animal's fodder.

[The priest] takes an earthenware bowl and pours half a log of water into it from the laver. Rabbi Judah says: a quarter [of a log]. Just as [Rabbi Judah] reduces the amount of writing, so he reduces the quantity of water. [Then the priest] enters the temple and turns to his right and there was a place there [on the floor] that was a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet, to which a ring was attached. When he would lift this up, he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

He now comes to write the scroll.From what place [in Scripture] does he write? From “If no man has lain with you … but if you have gone astray while married to your husband” (Numbers 5:19-20). He does not write, “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear” (v., but continues, “May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-22) He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs.. Rabbi Yose says: he makes no omissions. Rabbi Judah says: he writes nothing except, ““May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-2 He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs..

He writes neither on a [wooden] tablet nor on papyrus nor on rough parchment but on a [parchment] scroll, as it is said, “In a scroll” (Numbers 5:23). Nor does he write with a [preparation of] gum or sulphate of copper or with anything which makes an impression [on the parchment] but with ink, as it is said, “And he will blot it out” (ibid.) writing which is capable of being blotted out.

To what does she respond “Amen, amen”?“Amen” over the curse and “amen” over the oath; “Amen” with respect to this man and “amen” with respect to any other man. “Amen” that I did not go astray as a betrothed girl or married woman or a shomeret yavam or a woman taken into [her yavam’s] house. “Amen” that I have not been defiled and if I have, may [these curses] come upon me. Rabbi Meir says: “Amen” that I have not been defiled and the “amen” that I will not become defiled in the future.

All agree that he cannot make a stipulation with her with regard to the time before she was betrothed or after she is divorced. If she secludes herself [with the man about whom she was warned, but after being divorced] and was defiled and subsequently [her husband] took her back, he cannot make a stipulation with her [in regard to this]. This is the general rule: any with whom she has intercourse and was not prohibited to him [at that time] the husband cannot make a stipulation on this.

Chapter 3

He takes her meal-offering out of the basket of palm-twigs and places it in a ministering vessel and sets it upon her hand. And the priest places his hand under hers and waves it.

He waves it, he brings it near [the altar], he takes a handful and he turns it into smoke, and then the remainder is eaten by the priests. He [first] gives [her the water] to drink, and then sacrifices her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, as it is said, “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), but if he gave her to drink and then sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid.

If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.

She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world.

Rabbi Shimon says: merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters, and if you say that merit does suspend the effect of the bitter waters, you discredit the water in the case of all the women who drink it and defame the pure woman who drank it, since people will say, “They were defiled”, but their merit caused suspended the effect. Rabbi says: merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters, but she never bears a child or thrives, rather she gradually becomes disfigured and finally dies through that death.

If her meal-offering became defiled before it was sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and can be redeemed. But if [it became defiled] after it had been sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and it is burned. These are the ones whose meal-offerings are burned: She who says, “I am defiled to you”; And when witnesses came [and testified] that she had been defiled; She who says “I refuse to drink”, She whose husband refuses to let her drink; And she whose husband had relations with her on the journey [to Jerusalem]. And the meal-offerings of all women married to priests are burned.

The meal-offering of the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is burned. But the meal-offering of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite is eaten. What [differences are there in law] between a priest and a priest's daughter? The meal-offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. A priest’s daughter may become deconsecrated, but a priest does not become deconsecrated. A priest’s daughter may defile herself by contact with the dead, but a priest may not defile himself by contact with the dead. A priest eats of the most holy things, but a priest’s daughter may not eat of the most holy things.

What [differences are there in law] between a man and a woman?A man [who has leprosy] rends his clothes and loosens his hair, but a woman does not rend her clothes and loosen her hair. A man may vow that his son will become a nazirite, but a woman may not vow that her son will become a nazirite. A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. A man may give his daughter in betrothal, but a woman may not give her daughter in betrothal. A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. A man is hanged [after being put to death], but a woman is not hanged. A man is sold for [to make restitution for] his theft, but a woman is not sold [to make restitution] for her theft.

Chapter 4

A betrothed woman and a shomeret yavam do not drink [the bitter waters] and do not receive their ketubah, as it is said, “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray” (Numbers 5:29), this excludes a betrothed woman and a shomeret yavam. A widow who had married a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who had married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or a netinah who had married an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite who had married a mamzer or a natin do not drink [the bitter waters] and do not receive their ketubah.

And these are the [women] who do not drink and do not receive their ketubah: She who says “I am defiled”; When witnesses came [and testified] that she was defiled; And she who says “I refuse to drink.” When her husband says “I am not letting her drink”, And when her husband has sexual relations with her on the journey [to Jerusalem] she receives her ketubah but does not drink. If the husbands died before [the women] drank: Beth Shammai says: they receive their ketubah but do not drink, And Beth Hillel says: they do not drink and they do not receive their ketubah.

[A wife] who was pregnant by a former husband or was nursing a child by a former husband does not drink and does not receive the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages says: he may separate her [from himself] and take her back after the period [of two years]. An aylonit [who is incapable of giving birth], an old woman, and one who is unfit to bear children do not drink and do not receive the ketubah. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may marry another wife and be fruitful and multiply with her. All other women either drink or do not receive the ketubah.

The wife of a priest drinks and [if she is found to be innocent] is permitted to her husband. The wife of a eunuch drinks. Through [seclusion with] all persons forbidden to her in marriage wives are subjected to warning with the exception of a minor and one not a human.

In the following cases a court can give the warning [on behalf of the husband]: When the husband became a deaf-mute or an idiot, or was imprisoned. Not in order to make her drink did they say this, but to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: also to make her drink; when her husband is released from prison he makes her drink.

Chapter 5

Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22,. Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27,, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring [to her being prohibited] to the husband and the other to the paramour.

On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is unclean) but yitma’, (shall make unclean). This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.”

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town on the east side” (Numbers 35:5). But another verse states, “from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around” (vs. It is impossible to say that it was a thousand cubits since it has been already stated two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say that it was two thousand cubits since it has been already stated a thousand cubits! How then is this so? A thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for the Sabbath-limits. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: a thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for fields and vineyards.

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord and said saying” (Exodus 15:. For the Torah did not need to say “saying”, so why did the Torah say “saying”? It teaches that the Israelites responded to every sentence after Moses, in the manner of reading Hallel; that is why it says “saying”. Rabbi Nehemiah says: as is the reading the Shema and not Hallel.

On that day Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcanus expounded: Job only served the Holy One, blessed be He, from love: as it is said, “Though he slay me, yet I will wait for him” (Job 13:15). And it is still evenly balanced whether to read “I will wait for him” or “I will not wait for him”? Scripture states, “Until I die I will maintain my integrity” (Job 27:5), this teaches that what he did was from love. Rabbi Joshua [ben Hananiah] said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you had expounded all your life that Job only served the Omnipresent from fear, as it is said, “A blameless and upright man that fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8) did not Joshua, the student of your student, teach that what he did was from love?

Chapter 6

If a man warned his wife and she secluded herself [with another man], even if he heard [that she had done so] from a flying bird, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: until women who spin by moonlight discuss her.

If one witness said, “I saw that she was defiled”, she does not drink the water. Not only that, but even a slave, male or female, is believed even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her rival wife, her sister-in-law, and the daughter of her husband are believed, not to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah, but that she should not drink.

For it would have been logical: Now if the first evidence [that the woman had secluded herself with the man], which does not prohibit her [to her husband] for all time, is not established by fewer than two witnesses, is it not logical that the final evidence [that she had been defiled] which does prohibit her to him for all time, should not be established by fewer than two witnesses! Scripture states, “And there is no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13) whatever testimony there may be against her [is believed]. And now with respect to the first evidence [about her seclusion with the man] there is an a fortiori (kal vehomer) argument: Now if the final evidence [regarding her being defiled], which prohibits her to her husband for all time, is established by one witness, is it not logical that the first evidence, which does not prohibit her to him for all time, should be established by one witness! Scripture states, “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and elsewhere [Scripture] states, “By the mouth of two witnesses... shall the matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); just as the “matter” mentioned in this latter case must be based on the testimony of two witnesses, so also here [in the case of the suspected woman] the “matter” must be based on the testimony of two witnesses.

If one witness says that she was defiled and another witness says that she was not defiled; Or if a woman says [of her] that she was defiled and another woman says that she was not defiled, she drinks. If one witness says that she was defiled and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks. If two say that she was defiled and one says that she did not, she does not drink.

Chapter 7

The following may be recited in any language:the section concerning the sotah, the confession made at the presentation of tithes, the shema, the prayer (the amidah), the grace after meals, the oath concerning testimony, the oath concerning a deposit.

The following are recited in the holy tongue (Hebrew):The reading made at the offering of the firstfruits, The recitation at halitzah, The blessings and curses, The priestly blessing, The blessing of the high priest, The section of the king, The section of the calf whose neck is broken, And the priest anointed [to accompany the army] in battle when he speaks to the people.

How is it that the declaration made [at the bringing] of the first-fruits [must be in Hebrew]? [It is said], “And you shall answer and say before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:5), and elsewhere it is said, “And the Levites shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14); just as the “answer” made elsewhere must be in the holy tongue, so must the [declaration discussed here] be in the holy tongue.

How is it that the formula of halitzah [must be recited in Hebrew]? [It is said] “And she shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and elsewhere it says, “And the Levites shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14); just as the “answer” made elsewhere must be in the holy tongue, so must the [declaration discussed here] be in the holy tongue. Rabbi Judah says: “And she shall answer and say thus”, she must say it in this language.

How were the blessings and curses [pronounced]?When Israel crossed the Jordan and came to Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal which are by Samaria, in the vicinity of Shechem which is near the terebinths of Moreh, as it is said, “Are they not the other side of the Jordan, [beyond the west road that is in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the Arabah near Gilgal, by the terebinths of Moreh] (Deut. 11:30), and elsewhere it says, “And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the terebinth of Moreh” (Genesis 12:6) just as the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in this latter verse is Shechem, so the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in the former verse is Shechem. Six tribes went up Mt. Gerizim and six tribes went up Mt. Ebal, and the priests and Levites with the ark stood below in the middle, the priests surrounding the ark, the Levites [surrounding] the priests, and all Israel on this side and that side, as it is said, “And all Israel, with their elders, officials, and judges stood on both sides of the ark, facing the levitical priests” (Joshua 8:33). They turned their faces towards Mt. Gerizim and opened with the blessing: Blessed be anyone who does not make a graven or molten image”. And these and these respond amen. They then turned their faces towards Mt. Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be anyone who makes a graven or molten image” (Deut. 27:15). And these and these respond amen. [So they continue] until they complete the blessings and curses. After that they brought the stones, built the altar and plastered it with plaster, and inscribed upon it all the words of the Torah in seventy languages, as it is said, “most distinctly (be’er hetev). Then they took the stones and went and spent the night in their place.

How was the priestly blessing [pronounced]?In the province (outside of the Temple) it was said as three blessings, but in the Temple as one blessing. In the Temple the name was uttered as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name. In the province the priests raise their hands at the height of their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest who does not raise his hands higher than the frontlet (on his forehead). Rabbi Judah says: even the high priest raises his hands higher than the frontlet, as it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).

How were the benedictions of the high priest [performed]?The hazzan of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; and the president of the synagogue gives it to the vice-president of the synagogue; and the vice-president of the synagogue gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands, receives [the scroll] and reads [the following portions]: “After the death” (Leviticus 16:1-34), and “But on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he rolls the Torah (scroll), places it in his bosom and exclaims, “More than I have read before you is written here!” [The portion], “On the tenth day” (Numbers 29:7-11), which is in the book of Numbers, he reads by heart. And he blesses upon it eight benedictions: “For the Torah”, “For the Temple service”, “For thanksgiving”, “For the pardon of sin”, “For the Temple”, “For Israel”, “For the priests”, viii) and the rest of the prayer.

How was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the king?At the conclusion of the first day of the festival (Sukkot) in the eighth [year], at the end of the seventh year, they erect a wooden platform in the Temple court, and he sits upon it, as it is said, “At the end of seven years, in the set time” etc (Deuteronomy 31:10). The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!” [The king] reads from the beginning of “These are the words” (ibid 1:1) until the Shema ((ibid 6:4-9), and the Shema, and “It will come to pass if you hear” (ibid 11:13-21 the second part of the Shema), and “You shall surely tithe” (ibid 14:22-29), and “When you have finished tithing” (ibid 26:12-15) and the portion of the king (ibid 17:14-20) and the blessings and curses (ibid, until he finishes all the section. The blessings that the high priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes one for the festivals instead of one for the pardon of sin.

Chapter 8

When the anointed for battle addresses the people he speaks in the holy tongue, as it is said, “And it shall be, when you draw near the battle, that the priest shall approach” (Deuteronomy 20:2) this refers to the anointed for battle. “And speak to the people” (ibid) – in the holy tongue. “He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are about to join battle with your enemy” (vs. “with your enemy” but not against your brother, not Judah against Shimon nor Shimon against Benjamin, that if you fall into their hand they shall have mercy on you, as it is said, “Then the men named above proceeded to take the captives in hand, and with booty they clothed all the naked among them they clothed them and shod them and gave them to eat and drink and anointed them and provide donkeys for all who were failing and brought them to Jericho, the city of palms, back to their kinsmen. Then they returned to Samaria” (II Chronicles 28:15). Rather against your enemies do you march, so that if you fall into their hand they will have no mercy on you. “Let not your courage falter, fear not, and do not tremble or be in dread of them” (Deuteronomy 20: “Let not your courage falter”-- at the neighing of the horses and the brandishing of swords; “Fear not” --at the crash of shields and the tramp of the soldiers shoes; “Do not tremble” -- at the sound of trumpets; “Or be in dread of them” -- at the sound of battle cries. “For it is the Lord your God that goes with you”--they come [relying] upon the might of flesh and blood, but you come [relying] upon the might of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came [relying] upon the power of Goliath (I Samuel 17:4 ff.), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. The Ammonites came [relying] upon the power of Shobach (II Samuel 10:16-18), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But with you it is otherwise, “For it is the Lord your God is that goes with you” this refers to the camp of the ark.

“Then the officers shall address the people saying: ‘Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home’” (Deuteronomy 20:5). It is the same whether he built a house for straw, a house for cattle, a house for wood, or a storehouse; It is the same whether he built, purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?’” (vs.. It is the same whether he planted a vineyard or planted five fruit-trees and even of five different species; It is the same whether he planted, bent or grafted it, or whether he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has betrothed a woman [but who has not yet married her]?’” (vs. It is the same whether he had betrothed a virgin or a widow, or even a shomeret yavam, or even if a man heard that his brother had died in battle, he returns home. All these hear the priest’s words concerning the battles of war and return home, and they supply water and food and repair the roads.

The following do not return home:He who built a gatehouse, a portico or a porch; He who planted four fruit trees or five trees which are not fruit-bearing; He who took back his divorced wife. If a high priest married a widow, or an ordinary priest married a divorcee or a halutzah, or an Israelite married a mamzereth or a netinah, or the daughter of an Israelite married a mamzer or a natin, he does not return home. Rabbi Judah says: even he who builds a house upon its [original] foundations does not return home. Rabbi Eliezer says: even he who builds a brick-house in the Sharon does not return home.

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

“Then the officers shall go on addressing the troops and say, ‘Is there anyone afraid and disheartened’” (Deuteronomy 20:8).Rabbi Akiva says: “afraid and disheartened” is to be understood literally, that he cannot stand in the battle lines and see a drawn sword. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “afraid and disheartened” this is the one who is afraid because of the transgressions he has committed; therefore the Torah connected all these [other categories of those who return home] with him that he may return home on their account. Rabbi Yose says: a high priest who married a widow, an ordinary priest who married a divorcee or halutzah, an Israelite who married a mamzeret or netinah, and the daughter of an Israelite who married a mamzer or a natin behold this one is “afraid and disheartened.”

“And it shall be, when the officers have finished speaking to the people, they shall appoint captains of hosts at the head of the people” (Deuteronomy 20:9). And at the rear of the people they station guards in front of them and others behind them, with iron axes in their hands, and should anyone wish to flee, they have permission to strike his thighs, because the beginning of falling [in battle] is fleeing, as it is said, “Israel fled before the Philistines, and the people also suffered a great slaughter” (I Samuel 4:17) and elsewhere it states, “And the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell down slain” (ibid 31:1).

To what this apply? To a voluntary war, but in a war commanded [by the Torah] all go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy. Rabbi Judah says: to what does this apply? To a war commanded [commanded by the Torah], but in an obligatory war all go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy.

Chapter 9

[The declaration over] the heifer whose neck is to be broken must be in the holy tongue; as it is said, “If a corpse is found slain on the land … then your elders and judges shall go out” (Deuteronomy 21:1-2)--three used to go out from the high court in Jerusalem. Rabbi Judah says: five, as it is said, “Your elders” two, “and your judges” two, and there cannot be a court of an even number, they add one more.

If [the corpse] was found buried underneath a heap of stones, or hanging on a tree, or floating on the surface of the water, they would not break [the heifer’s neck], as it says: “In the earth” and not buried underneath a heap of stones, nor hanging on a tree; “In a field” and not floating on the surface of the water. If it was found near the border, or a city whose majority of inhabitants were Gentiles, or a city in which there is no court, they would not break [the heifer's neck]. They only measure the distance from a city in which there is a court. If [the corpse] was found exactly between two cities, both of them bring two heifers [between them], the words of Rabbi Eliezer; Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken.

If the head was found in one place and the body in another place, they bring the head to the body, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: [they bring] the body to the head.

From what part [of the body] do they measure? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the navel. Rabbi Akiva says: from the nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: from the place where he was made a slain person, from the neck.

The elders of Jerusalem departed and went away. The elders of that city bring “a heifer which has never been worked” (Deuteronomy 21:3). And a blemish does not disqualify it. They bring it down to a hard (etan) wadi “etan” is understood in its literal sense of “hard”. Even if it is not “hard”, it is valid [for the ceremony]. They break its neck with a hatchet from behind. The site may never be sown or tilled, but it is permitted to comb flax and chisel rocks.

The elders of that city then wash their hands with water in the place where the heifer's neck was broken and they say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it” (Deuteronomy 21:7). But did we really think that the elders of a court of justice are shedders of blood! Rather, [the intention of their statement is that the man found dead] did not come to us [for help] and we dismissed him without supplying him with food and we did not see him and let him go without escort. Then the priests exclaim, “Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel, whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among your people Israel” (vs.. They did not need to say, “And they will be absolved of bloodguilt” (ibid), rather the Holy Spirit announces to them, “When you act in this way, the blood is forgiven you.”

If the murderer was discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it goes free and grazes with the herd; But if after the heifer’s neck was broken, it is buried in that place because it came there from the outset in connection with a matter of doubt, and atoned for the doubt which is now gone. If the heifer’s neck was broken and afterwards the murderer is discovered, behold he is executed.

If one witness says “I saw the murderer” and one witness says “You did not see him”; or if a woman says “I saw him” and another woman says “You did not see him”, they break its neck. If one witness says “I saw him” and two say “You did not see him”, they break its neck. If two say “We saw him” and one says to them “You did not see him”, they do not break its neck.

When murderers multiplied, the [ceremony of] breaking a heifer’s neck ceased. That was from the time of Eliezer ben Dinai, and he was also called Tehinah ben Perisha and he was afterwards renamed “son of the murderer”. When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai who discontinued it, as it is said, “I will not punish their daughters for fornicating, nor their daughters-in-law for committing adultery, for they themselves [turn aside with whores and sacrifice with prostitutes]” (Hosea 4:14). When Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grape-clusters ceased, as it is said, “There is not a cluster [of grapes] to eat; not a ripe fig I could desire [The pious are vanished from the land, none upright are left among men” (Micah 7:1-2).

Yohanan the high priest brought to an end the confession made at the presentation of the tithe. He also discontinued the wakers and the knockers Up to his days the hammer used to strike in Jerusalem, And in his days there was no need to inquire about doubtfully tithed produce.

When the Sanhedrin ceased [to function], song ceased from the places of feasting, as it is said, “They drink their wine without song” (Isaiah 24:9).

When the former prophets died, the Urim and Thummim ceased. When Temple was destroyed, the shamir and nopheth zufim ceased. And people of faith ceased, as it says, “Help, O Lord, for the faithful are no more” (Psalms 12:2). Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in the name of Rabbi Joshua: from the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no day without a curse, the dew has not descended for a blessing, and the flavor has departed from produce. Rabbi Yose says: the fatness was also removed from produce.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: [the cessation of observation of the] purity laws has removed taste and fragrance, [the cessation of observation of] the tithes has removed the fatness of grain. But the Sages say: licentiousness and sorcery destroyed everything.

During the war with Vespasian they [the rabbis] decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by bridegrooms and against [the use of] the bell. During the war with Quietus they decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by brides and that nobody should teach their child Greek. During the final war they decreed that a bride should not go out in a palanquin inside the city, but our rabbis decreed that a bride may go out in a palanquin inside the city.

When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”

משנה גיטין

Chapter 1

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony.

Rabbi Judah says: From Rekem eastwards, Rekem being like the east; from Ashkelon southwards, Ashkelon being like the south; and from Acco northwards, Acco being like the north. Rabbi Meir says: Acco counts as the land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce.

One who brings a get within the land of Israel need not declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” If there are those who protest [its validity] it must be established through the signatures. If one who brings a get from abroad is not able to declare “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, if there are witnesses on it, its validity can be established through its signatures.

Both bills of divorce and writs of emancipation are similar [concerning a messenger] who takes them [abroad from the land of Israel] to one who brings them [from abroad to the land of Israel]. This is one of the ways in which bills of divorce are similar to writs of emancipation.

Any document which has upon it the signature of a Samaritan is invalid, except for bills of divorce or a writ of emancipation. It happened that a bill of divorce was once brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar Otnai and its witnesses were Samaritan, and he declared it valid. All documents which are accepted in the courts of non-Jew, even if those who signed on the documents are non-Jews, are valid except bills of divorce and of writs of emancipation. Rabbi Shimon says: these also are valid; they were only pronounced [to be invalid] when done by ordinary persons.

If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death.

Chapter 2

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

They write [a get] with any material, with ink, with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper or with anything which is lasting. It may not be written with liquids or with fruit juice or with anything that is not lasting. They write [a get] on anything: on an olive leaf, on the horn of an ox and he must give her the ox, or on the hand of a slave--and he must give her the slave. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: they do not write [a get] on anything living or on food.

They do not write [a get] on something still attached to the ground. If he wrote it on something still attached, and then detached and signed and given to the wife, it is valid. Rabbi Judah invalidates it until it is both written and signed on something detached from the ground. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: they do not write [a get] on a sheet from which writing has been erased nor on semi-finished parchment, for it can be faked. But the sages validate [such a get].

All are qualified to write a get, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor. A woman may write her own get and a man his own receipt [for the ketubah], since the document is upheld only by its signatures. All are qualified to bring a get except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person and a non-Jew.

If the minor had received the get [in order to deliver it] and then became of age; or the deaf-mute [received the get and then] his speech was restored; or the blind person [received the get and then] his sight was restored; or the imbecile [received the get and then] his reason returned; or the Gentile [received the get and then] converted, [the get] is invalid. But if a person of sound senses [received the get] and then became a deaf-mute and then recovered his speech; or one with sight [received the get and then] became blind and then recovered his sight; or one who was sane [received the get and then] went insane and then recovered his reason, [the get] is valid. The general principle is that anyone who begins and finishes [his mission] in full possession of his mental faculties is qualified.

Even the women who are not trusted to say “Her husband died,” are trusted to bring her get: her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law (husband’s brother’s wife) and the daughter of her husband. What is the difference between the get and death? The writing [on the get] proves [that she is divorced.] A woman may bring her own get but she must say, “In my presence it was signed and in my presence it was delivered.”

Chapter 3

Any get which is not written [expressly] for the woman [for whom it is intended] is invalid. How is this so? If a man was passing through the street and heard the voice of a scribe dictating “So-and-so divorces so-and-so from such and such a place” and he says “that is my name and that is the name of my wife”, it is not a valid [document] with which to divorce his wife. Moreover: if he wrote [a get] with which to divorce his wife and changed his mind and a person found him and said to him, “My name is the same as yours and my wife’s name the same as your wife’s”, it is not a valid [document with which the second] may divorce his wife. Moreover: if he had two wives with the same name and wrote a get with which to divorce the elder, he may not use it to divorce the younger. Moreover: if he said to the scribe, “Write [a get] and I will divorce whichever I choose,” it is not a valid [document] with which to divorce his wife.

[A scribe] who writes out formulas of bills of divorce must leave blank spaces for the name of the man and the name of the woman and the date. [A scribe who writes] loan documents must leave blank spaces for the name of the lender, the name of the borrower, the amount of money and the date. [A scribe who writes] sale documents must leave blank spaces for the name of the seller, the name of the purchaser, the amount of money, the property and the date; [These spaces must be left blank] because of the “takkanah” (enactment). Rabbi Judah disqualifies all of them. Rabbi Elazar validates all of them valid except divorce documents, as it says, “He writes for her” (Deut 24:1), expressly for her.

One who brings a get and loses it on the way: If he finds it immediately it is valid, and if not it is not valid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a folder if he recognizes it, it is valid. If one brings a get and left [the husband] when [the husband] was an old man or sick, he should deliver it to her on the presumption that he is still alive. If the daughter of an ordinary Israelite is married to a priest and her husband goes abroad, she continues eating terumah on the presumption that he is still alive. If a man sends a sin-offering from abroad they sacrifice it on the presumption that he is still alive.

Three statements were made by Rabbi Elazar ben Parta before the Sages, and they upheld his words. About [people in] a besieged town; And about [people on] a ship listing at sea; And a person who has been brought to court [in a capital case] that they are presumed to be alive. [However, concerning people] in a besieged town which has been captured; Or [people in] a ship which has been lost at sea; Or a person who has been led out to execution we put upon them all of the stringencies of their being alive and all of the stringencies of their being dead. The daughter of an Israelite who has married a priest or the daughter of a priest who has married an Israelite may not eat of the terumah.

If one bringing a get in the land of Israel becomes sick, he can send it with another. But if [the husband] said to him, “Take for me from her such-and-such an object”, he may not send it [the get] with another, since the husband may not want his deposit in the hand of another.

If one bringing a get from abroad becomes sick, he may arrange a court of law and send him [on with the get,] declaring before them, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” And the last agent is not required to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, rather he declares, “I am the messenger of a court.”

If a man lends money to a priest or a levite or a poor man on condition that he can may separate [terumah or tithes] from their portion, he may do so, in the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that the priest or the levite may have died or the poor man may have become rich. If they died, he must obtain the permission of the heirs. If he made the loan in the presence of the court, he need not obtain permission from the heirs.

If a man sets aside produce in order to count it as terumah and tithe, or money in order to count it as second tithe, he may continue to count it as such in the presumption that they still exist. If they are lost, he must be concerned from time period to time period, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rabbi Judah says: at three seasons they check the wine: when the east wind begins to blow at the end of Sukkot, when the buds first appear [on the vine], and when the juice begins to form in the grapes.

Chapter 4

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

Originally, a husband would bring together a court wherever he was and annul the get. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that this should not be done, because of tikkun olam. Originally the husband would change his name, or his wife’s name, or the name of his town or of his wife’s town. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that he should write, “The man so-and-so or any name that he has,”; “the woman so-and-so or any name that she has,” because of tikkun olam.

A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam.

A [non-Jewish] slave [of a Jew] was taken captive and then ransomed [by a third party]: If [he is ransomed] to be a slave he goes back to slavery. If [he is ransomed] as a free man he does not go back to slavery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in either case he goes back to slavery. If a man makes his slave a pledge [for a debt] to another man and then he emancipates him, according to the “letter of the law” the slave is not liable to do anything. But because of tikkun olam we force his [second] master to emancipate him and he [the slave] writes a document for his purchase price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the slave does not write the document but rather the one who emancipates him.

One who is half a slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: you have set things right for the master but you have not set things right for the slave. He cannot marry a female slave because he is already half free, and he cannot marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then decease [from having children]? But wasn’t the world only made to be populated, as it says, “He did not create it as a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather because of tikkun olam we compel his master to emancipate him and he writes a document for half his purchase price. Beth Hillel retracted [their opinion and] ruled like Beth Shammai.

If a man sells his slave to a Gentile or [to someone living] outside the land [of Israel] the slave goes free. Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, because of tikkun olam. Captives should not be helped to escape, because of tikkun olam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says [that the reason is] to prevent the ill-treatment of fellow captives. Torah scrolls of the law, tefillin and mezuzoth are not bought from Gentiles at more than their value, because of tikkun olam.

If a man divorces his wife because of ill-repute, he cannot remarry her. If because of a vow, he cannot remarry her. Rabbi Judah says: [if he divorces her] for vows which she made in front of many people, he may not remarry her, but if for vows which she did not make in front of many people, he may remarry her. Rabbi Meir says: [if he divorces her] for a vow which requires the investigation of a sage, he may not remarry her, but if for one which does not require the investigation of a sage, he may remarry her. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only forbid that one because of that one. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah said: a case happened in Sidon of a man who said to his wife, “Konam, if I do not divorce you”, and he did divorce her, and the Sages permitted him to remarry her because of tikkun olam.

A man divorces his wife because she is an aylonit: Rabbi Judah says he may not remarry her, But the sages say that he may remarry her. She marries someone else and has children from him and then demands her ketubah settlement [from her first husband]: Rabbi Judah said, they say to her, “Your silence is better than your speaking.”

If a man sells himself and his children to a Gentile, he is not to be redeemed but his children are to be redeemed after the death of their father. If a man sells his field to a Gentile, and an Israelite bought it back, he has to bring, the purchaser must bring first fruits from it, because of tikkun olam.

Chapter 5

Damages are paid out of [property of] the best quality; A creditor pays out of land of medium quality, And a ketubah is paid out of land of the poorest quality. Rabbi Meir says that a ketubah is also paid out of medium quality land.

Payment cannot be recovered from mortgaged property where there free property is available, even if it is only of the lowest quality. Payment can be recovered from orphans only from land of the lowest quality.

[Creditors] do not collect from mortgaged property for produce consumed, for the improvement of property, [and payment] for the maintenance of a widow and daughters, because of tikkun olam. The finder of a lost article is not required to take an oath, because of tikkun olam.

If orphans relied on a householder or if their father appointed a guardian for them, he must tithe their produce. A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath. [A guardian who was] appointed by the court does not need to take an oath. Abba Shaul says that the rule is the reverse. One who renders impure [someone else’s pure food] or mixes terumah [with someone else’s non-terumah produce] or makes a libation [with someone else’s wine], if he does so inadvertently, he is exempt, but if intentionally he is liable. Priests who intentionally made someone else’s sacrifice piggul in the Temple are liable.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value, because of the enactment to encourage repentance. And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.

There was no Sicaricon in Judea for those killed in war. After the war’s slaughter ended there is Sicaricon there. How so? If a man buys a field from the Sicaricon and then buys it again from the original owner, his purchase is void, but if he buys it first from the original owner and then from the Sicaricon it is valid. If a man buys [a piece of a married woman’s property] from the husband and then buys it from the wife, the purchase is void, but if he buys it first from the wife and then from the husband it is valid. This was [the ruling] of the first mishnah. The court that came after them said if a man buys property from the Sicaricon he had to give the original owner a quarter [of the value]. When is this so? When the original owners cannot buy it themselves, but if they can they have preemption over everyone else. Rabbi assembled a court and they decided by vote that if the property had been in the hands of the Sicaricon twelve months, whoever purchased it first acquired the title, but he had to give a quarter [of the price] to the original owner.

A deaf-mute can gesture and be gestured at [and thereby conduct transactions]. Ben Betera says that he may make lip-motions, if the transaction is of movable property. The purchase or sale done by young children in movable property is valid.

These were the rules they laid down because of the ways of peace: A priest is called up first to read the Torah and after him a Levite and then an Israelite, because of the ways of peace. An “eruv” is placed in the room where it has always been placed, because of the ways of peace. The cistern which is nearest to the channel is filled first, because of the ways of peace. [Taking of] beasts, birds and fishes from traps [set by others] is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. [Taking away] anything found by a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. If a poor man strikes [down olives] on top of an olive tree, [taking the fruit] that is beneath him is robbery. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. Poor Gentiles are not prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, because of the ways of peace.

A woman may lend to another woman who is suspected of not observing the sabbatical year a fan or a sieve or a handmill or a stove, but she should not sift or grind with her. The wife of a “haver” may lend to the wife of an “am ha-aretz” a fan or a sieve and may winnow and grind and sift with her, but once she has poured water over the flour she should not touch anything with her, because we do not assist those who commit a transgression. All these rules were only said because of the ways of peace. Gentiles may be wished luck in the Sabbatical year but not Israelites and greeting may be given to them, because of the ways of peace.

Chapter 6

If a man says, “Receive this get on behalf of my wife”, or, “Carry this get to my wife”, if he desires to retract [before the wife receives it] he may do so. If a woman says, “Receive the get on my behalf”, [and he does so], if [the husband] wants to retract he may not do so. Therefore if the husband said to him, “I do not want you to receive it on her behalf, but rather carry it and give it to her”, then if he wishes to retract he may do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if the wife says “Take for me”, [and he does so] the husband may not retract.

A woman who said [to an agent], “Receive my get for me” requires two sets of witnesses, two to say, “In our presence she told him”, and two to say, “In our presence he received [the get] and tore it”. Even if the first set are the same [witnesses] as the latter set or if there was one in the first set and one in the second, and one joined with them [for both testimonies]. If a young girl is betrothed, both she and her father may receive her get. Rabbi Judah said that two [different] hands cannot take possession as one. Rather her father alone may receive her get. One who is not able to keep her get is not capable of being divorced.

If a young girl says, “Receive my get for me”, it is not a get until the get reaches her hand. Therefore, if [the husband] wishes to retract, he may retract, since a minor cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to him, “Go and receive a get for my daughter”, the husband may not retract. If a man says, “Give this get to my wife in such-and-such a place” and he gives it to her in another place, [the get is] invalid. [If he says,] “She is in such-and-such a place”, and he gives it to her in another place, [it is] valid. If a woman says, “Receive my get in such-and-such a place” and he receives it for her in another place, [it is] invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says it valid. [If she says,] “Bring me my get from such-and-such a place” and he brings it from somewhere else, [it is] valid.

[If a woman says to an agent], “Bring me my get”, she may eat terumah until the get reaches her hand. [If she says,] “Receive for me my get”, she is forbidden to eat terumah immediately. [If she says,] “Receive for me my get in such-and-such a place”, she can eat terumah until the get reaches that place. Rabbi Eliezer says that she is forbidden immediately.

If a man says, “Write a get and give it to my wife”, [or] “Divorce her”, [or] “Write a letter and give it to her”, then they should write it and give it to her. If he said, “Release her”, [or] “Provide for her”, [or] “Do for her as the law dictates”, [or] “Do the proper thing for her”, he has not said anything. Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they said, even if he were leaving for a sea voyage or for a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill.

If a man had been thrown into a pit and cried out, “Whoever hears his voice should write a get for his wife”, those who hear should write a get and give it to her. If a healthy man says, “Write a get for my wife”, his intention is merely to play with her. It once happened that a man in good health said, “Write a get for my wife”, and then went up on to a roof and fell and died, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said that the Sages said: if he had thrown himself down this is a get, but if the wind had blown him over it was not a get.

If a man said to two people, “Give a get to my wife”, or to three people, “Write a get and give it to my wife”, they must write it and give it. If he said to three persons, “Give a get to my wife”, they may tell others to write the get because he has made them into a court, the words of Rabbi Meir. And this is the halakhah which Rabbi Hanina a man of Ono brought from prison: “I have received a tradition that if a man says to three persons, ‘Give a get to my wife’, they may tell others to write it, because he has made them into a court. Rabbi Yose said: We said to the messenger, we also have a tradition that even were he to say to the great court in Jerusalem, ‘Give a get to my wife’, they must learn [to write] and write the get and give it. If a man says to ten persons, “Write a get”, one writes, and two sign as witnesses. [If he said,] “All of you write”, one writes and all sign. Therefore, if one of them dies, the get is invalid.

Chapter 7

If a man is gripped by the kordiakos illness and says, “Write a get for my wife”, he has not said anything. If he says, “Write a get for my wife”, and is then gripped by kordiakos and then says, “Do not write it”, his latter words are of no effect. If he becomes mute, and they say to him, “Should we write a get for your wife”, and he nods his head, he is tested three times. If he answers ‘no’ and ‘yes’ properly each time, then they should write the get.

They said to him, “Shall we write a get for your wife”, and he said to them, “Write!”, and they then told a scribe and he wrote and witnesses and they signed even if they wrote it and signed it and gave it back to him and he gave it to her, the get is void until he himself says to the scribe “Write” and to the witnesses, “Sign”.

[If a husband says], “This is your get if I die”, [or] “This is your get if I die from this illness”, [or] “This is your get after my death”, he has not said anything. [If he says, “This is your get] from today if I die”, [or “This is your get] from now if I die”, the get is valid. [If he says, “This is your get] from today and after [my] death”, it is both a get and not a get. If he dies [without offspring] she must perform halizah but she cannot marry the husband’s brother. [If he said], “This is your get from today if I die from this illness”, and he then got up and went about and fell sick and died, we estimate [the probable cause of his death]; if he died from the first illness, the get is valid, but otherwise not.

She should not be alone with him except in the presence of witnesses, even a slave or a handmaid [any witness is sufficient] except for her own female slave, since she can take liberties in front of her own handmaid. What is her status during those days? Rabbi Judah says that she is regarded as a married woman in every respect. Rabbi Yose says that she is both divorced and not divorced.

[If a husband says], “This is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz”, she is divorced and she has to give [him the money]. [If he says], “On condition that you give [the money to] within thirty days from now, if she gives him within thirty days she is divorced, but if not she is not divorced. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It happened in Sidon that a man said to his wife, “This is your get on condition that you give me my robe”, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him its value in money.

[If a husband says], “This is your get on condition that you look after my father”, [or] “On condition that you nurse my child” How long must she nurse? Two years. Rabbi Judah says, eighteen months. If the child dies or the father dies, the get is valid. [If he says], “This is your get on condition that you look after my father for two years”, [or] “On condition that you nurse my child for two years”, if the child dies or if the father says, “I don’t want you to look after me”, even though she has not caused him to complain, the get is invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: something like this is a get. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said a general rule: wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side, the get is valid.

[If a husband says,] “This is your get if I do not return within thirty days”, and he was going from Judea to Galilee, if he got as far as Antipatras and then returned, his condition is broken. [If he says,] “This is your get if I do not return within thirty days”, and he was going from Galilee to Judea, if he got as far as Kefar Otnai and then returned, the condition is broken. [If he said,] “This is your get if I do not return within thirty days”, and he was going into foreign parts, if he got as far as Acco and then returned his condition is broken. [If he said,] “This is your get as long as I shall keep away from you for thirty days”, even though he came and went and came and went, since he was not secluded with her, the get is valid.

[If a husband says,] “This is your get if I do not return within twelve months”, and he dies within twelve months, it is not a get. [If he says,] “This is your get from now if I do not return within twelve months”, and he dies within twelve months, it is a get.

[If a husband says,] “If I do not come back within twelve months, write a get and give it to my wife”, and they wrote a get before twelve months had passed and gave it to her after, it is not a get. [If he said,] “Write a get and give it to my wife if I do not come back within twelve months”, and they wrote it before the twelve months had passed and gave it after, it is no get. Rabbi Yose says: like this is a get. If they wrote it after twelve months and delivered it after twelve months and he died, if the delivery of the get preceded his death the get is valid, but if his death preceded the delivery of the get it is not valid. If it is not known which was first, this is the woman about whom they said, “[She is] divorced and not divorced.”

Chapter 8

If a husband throws a get to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard, she is divorced. If he throws it to her in his house or in his courtyard, even though it is with her on the same bed, she is not divorced. If he throws it into her lap or into her basket, she is divorced.

If he said to her, “Take in this debt document”, or if she found it behind him and read it and it turned out to be her get, it is not a get, until he says to her, “Here is your get.” If he put it into her hand while she was asleep and when she woke up she read it and found it was her get, it is not a get until he says to her, “Here is your get.” If she was standing in the public domain and he threw it to her, if it lands near her she is divorced, but if it lands near him she is not divorced. If it lands midway, she is divorced and not divorced.

Similarly with betrothals and similarly with a debt. If a man’s creditor said to him, “Throw me my debt”, and he threw it to him, if it lands nearer to the creditor, the borrower is credited [with paying back his debt]; if it lands nearer to the borrower, the borrower is still obligated [to repay the money]; if it lands midway, they divide. If she was standing on a roof and he threw it up to her, as soon as it reaches the airspace of the roof, she is divorced. If he was above and she below and he threw it to her, once it has left the space of the roof, [even were it to be immediately] erased or burnt, she is divorced.

Bet Shammai says: a man may divorce his wife with an old get, but Bet Hillel forbids this. What is meant by an old get? One where he was secluded with her after he wrote it.

If the get was dated by an unfit kingship, by the empire of Medea, by the empire of Greece, by the building of the Temple or by the destruction of the Temple, Or if being in the east he wrote “in the west”, or being in the west he wrote “in the east”, She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. If his name or her name or the name of his town or the name of her town was wrongly given, she must leave both husbands and all the above consequences apply to her.

With regard to all of the near relatives concerning whom they said “their rivals are permitted to marry [without halitzah]”: If the rival wives went and married and it was then found that this one (the near relative) was an aylonit, [the rival wife who married] must leave both husbands and all these consequences apply to her.

If a man marries his sister-in-law and her rival wife goes and marries another man and it was found that the first is an aylonit, the other must leave both husbands and all these consequences apply to her.

If a scribe wrote a get for the husband and a receipt for the wife and by mistake gave the get to the wife and the receipt to the husband and the two exchanged them and after some time the get came out of the hands of the man and the receipt out of the hands of the woman, she must leave both husbands and all these things apply to her. Rabbi Eliezer says: if [it comes out of her hands] immediately, it is not a get, but if [it comes out of her hands] after some time, it is a get; it is not in the power of the first to render void the right of the second. If a man wrote a get with which to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, Bet Shammai says that he has disqualified her from marrying a priest. Bet Hillel says that even if he gave it to her with a certain stipulation, if the condition was not fulfilled, he has not disqualified her for marrying a priest.

A man divorces his wife and then stays with her over night in an inn: Bet Shammai says: she does not require from him a second get, But Beth Hillel say she does require a second get from him. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage. And [Beth Hillel] agrees that if she is divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, because he would not [yet] take liberties with her. If a man marries a [divorced] woman through a “bald” get, she must leave both husbands and all the above-mentioned consequences apply to her.

A “bald” get anyone can complete its signatures, the words of Ben Nannas. But Rabbi Akiva says that it may be completed only by relatives who are qualified to testify elsewhere. What is a “bald” get? One which has more folds than signatures.

Chapter 9

If a man divorces his wife and said to her, “You are free to marry any man but so-and-so”, Rabbi Eliezer permits her [to marry on the strength of this get], but the rabbis forbid her. What should he do? He should take it back from her and give it to her again saying, “You are free to marry any man.” If he wrote [the restriction] in the get, even though he went back and erased it, it is invalid.

[If he said,] “You are permitted to any man but my father, your father, my brother, your brother, a slave, a Gentile, or anyone to whom she is incapable of being betrothed,” the get is valid. [If he said,] “You are permitted to anyone but (supposing she was a widow) a high priest, or, (supposing she was a divorcee or a halutzah) an ordinary priest, or, (supposing she was a mamzeret or a netinah) a regular Israelite, or (supposing she was an Israelite) a mamzer or a natin, or anyone who is capable of betrothing her even in transgression, the get is invalid.

The body of the get is: “Behold you are permitted to any man.” Rabbi Judah says: [he must add] “And this shall be to you from me a writ of divorce and a letter of release and a bill of dismissal, with which you may go and marry any man that you wish.” The body of a writ of emancipation is: “Behold you are a free woman”, “Behold you belong to yourself.”

There are three gittin which are invalid but if a woman marries [on the strength of one of them] the child is fit: If the husband wrote it with his own hand but there are no witnesses on it. If there are witnesses on it but no date. If it has a date but only one witness. These are three gittin which are invalid but if a woman marries [on the strength of one of them] the child is fit. Rabbi Elazar says even though there are no witnesses on it, as long as he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses it is valid, [and on the strength of it] she may collect her ketubah [even] from mortgaged property, since the witnesses only sign on the get because of tikkun olam.

Two men sent two identical gittin [to their wives] and they became mixed up they give both of them to this wife and both of them to this wife. Therefore, if one of them was lost the other is void. If five men wrote jointly in the same get, “So-and-so divorces so-and-so and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so and the witnesses [signed] below, all are valid and the get is to be given to each [of the women]. If the scribe wrote out the formula for each one and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the signatures are read is valid.

If two gittin are written [on the same sheet] side by side and the signatures of two witnesses in Hebrew [stretch] from under one to under the other and then signatures of two witnesses in Greek [stretch] from under one get to under the other, the one with which the two first signatures are read is valid. If there is one signature in Hebrew and one in Greek and then another signature in Hebrew and a signature in Greek [stretching] from under one [get] to under the other, both are invalid.

If he left over some of the get [from the first sheet] and he wrote the rest of the get on the next column and the witnesses [sign] below, [the get is] valid. If the witnesses have signed at the top of the sheet or at the side or on the back of a simple get, it is invalid. If he connected the top of one get to the top of another and the witnesses’ signatures are between the two, both of them are invalid. If the end of one is connected to the end of the other and the witnesses’ signatures are between, the one with which the witnesses’ signatures reads is valid. If the top of one is connected to the bottom of the other and the witnesses’ signatures are in the middle, the one with which the witnesses’ signatures reads is valid.

A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. [If a man signs], “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. [If he signs,] “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. [If he signs,] “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid).

If a report goes out in the town: “[A certain woman is] betrothed,” she is regarded as betrothed; [If a report goes out in the town: “A certain woman is] divorced,” she is regarded as divorced. [This is only the case] provided the report has no qualification. What is meant by a qualification? [If the report is,] “So-and-so divorced his wife with a stipulation” [or], “He threw her the betrothal money, but it is uncertain whether it landed nearer to her or nearer to him” this is a qualification.

Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes”.

משנה קידושין

Chapter 1

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

A Hebrew slave is acquired by money and by document; And acquires himself by years, by Jubilee, and by deduction from the purchase price. A Hebrew maidservant is greater in that she acquires herself by ‘signs [of physical maturity]’. He whose ear is bored is acquired by boring, and acquires himself by Jubilee or his master's death.

A Canaanite slave is acquired by money, deed, or by possession, And acquires himself by money through the agency of others, and by document through his own agency, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: by money, through his own agency, and by document, through the agency of others, providing that the money comes from others.

Large animals are acquired by being handed over and small animals by lifting, the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: small animals are acquired by being led.

Property which has security is acquired by money, by deed or by possession. [Property] which does not have security is acquired only by being drawn [to the purchaser]. Property which does not have security may be acquired in conjunction with property which does have security by money, deed, or possession; And it obligates the property which provides security, to take an oath concerning them.

Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as this one takes possession [of the object], the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as this one takes possession, the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. The sanctuary’s title to property [is acquired] by money; the title of an ordinary person to property by hazakah. Dedication to the sanctuary is equal to delivery to an ordinary person.

All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.

The [rites of] laying hands, waving, presenting [the meal-offering], taking the handful, burning [the fat], cutting [the neck of bird sacrifices], sprinkling and receiving [the blood] are performed by men but not by women, except the meal-offering of a sotah and a female nazirite, where they [themselves] wave the offering.

Every commandment which is dependent on the land is practiced only in the land [of Israel]; and every commandment which is not dependent on the land is practiced both in and outside the land, except orlah and kilayim. Rabbi Eliezer says: also [the prohibition of] new produce.

He who performs one commandment is rewarded, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land, But he who does not perform one commandment, is not rewarded, his days are not prolonged, and he does not inherit the land. He who is familiar with Bible, Mishnah, and the ways of the land will not easily sin, as it is said, “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12. But he who is not familiar with Bible, Mishnah and the ways of the land does not belong to civilization.

Chapter 2

A man can betroth [a woman] through himself or through his agent. A woman may be betrothed through herself or through her agent. A man may give his daughter in betrothal when a young girl [either] himself or through his agent. He who says to a woman, “Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this one” if any one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. [If he says,] “[Be betrothed to me] with this one and with this one and with this one” if together they are worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. If she eats them one by one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah.

[If a man says to a woman], “Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine,” and it is found to be of honey, or “of honey” and it is found to be of wine; “with this silver denar,” and it is found to be of gold, or “of gold” and it is found to be of silver; “on condition that I am wealthy,” and he is found to be poor, or “poor” and he is found to be rich, she is not betrothed. Rabbi Shimon says: if he deceives her to [her] advantage, she is betrothed.

“[Be betrothed to me] on condition that I am a priest,” and he is found to be a Levite, or “a Levite” and he is found to be a priest; “a natin,” and he is found to be a mamzer, or “a mamzer” and he is found to be a natin; “a townsman,” and he is found to be a villager, or “a villager” and he is found to be a townsman; “on condition that my house is near the bathhouse,” and it is found to be far, or “far” and it is found to be near; “on condition that I have a daughter or maidservant that braids hair” and he does not have, “or on condition that I do not have”, and he has; “on condition that I have no sons”, and he has, or “on condition that I have sons, and he does not have --in all these cases, even if she declares, “In my heart I would have agreed to be betrothed to him in any case,” she is not betrothed. Similarly if she deceives him.

If he says to his agent, “Go out and betroth to me so-and-so in such and such a place,” and he goes and betroths her elsewhere, she is not betrothed. “She is in such and such a place,” and he betroths her elsewhere, she is betrothed.

If a man betrothed a woman on condition that she was under no vows and she was found to be under vows, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to be under vows, she leaves without her ketubah. [If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah. All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women.

If he betroths two women with the value of a perutah, or one woman with less than the value of a perutah, even if he subsequently sends gifts, she is not betrothed, because he sent them on account of the first kiddushin. The same is true if a minor betroths.

If one betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister at one time, they are not betrothed. And it once happened that five women, among whom were two sisters, that a man gathered a basket of figs, which was theirs, and which was of the seventh year, and he said, “Behold, you are betrothed to me with this basket,” and one accepted it on behalf of them all and the sages said: the sisters are not betrothed.

If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed. [If one betroths] with second tithe, whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed [her]: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her]; if deliberately, he has betrothed [her]. [If] with sanctified property, if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not betrothed her.

If he betroths [a woman] with orlah, or kilayim of the vineyard, or an ox condemned to be stoned, or the heifer whose neck is to be broken, or a leper’s bird-offerings, or a nazirite’s hair, or the first-born of a donkey, or meat [boiled] in milk, or non-sacred meat slaughtered in the Temple court, she is not betrothed. If he sells them and betroths [her] with the proceeds, she is betrothed.

If he betroths with terumot, tithes, priestly gifts, the water of purification or the ashes of purification behold she is betrothed, even if he is an Israelite.

Chapter 3

If he says to his fellow, “Go out and betroth me such-and-such a woman,” and he goes and betroths her to himself, she is betrothed. Similarly, if he says to a woman, “Be betrothed to me after thirty days,” and another comes and betroths her within the thirty days, she is betrothed to the second, [and in such cases] an Israelite’s daughter [betrothed] to a priest may eat terumah. [But if he says, “Be betrothed to me] from now and after thirty days,” and another comes and betroths her within the thirty days, she is betrothed and not betrothed [to both]: [and in such cases] an Israelite’s daughter [betrothed] to a priest, or a priest’s daughter [betrothed] to an Israelite, may not eat terumah.

If one says to a woman. “Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I give you two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, and he must give it. “On condition that I give you [two hundred zuz] within thirty days from now”: if he gives her within thirty days, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. “On condition that I have two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, providing he has [two hundred zuz]. “On condition that I show you two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, and he must show her. But if he shows her [money lying] on the table, she is not betrothed.

[If he says to her “Be betrothed to me] on condition that I own a bet kor of land”, she is betrothed, providing he does own it. “On condition that I own it in such and such a place”, if he owns it there she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed. “On condition that I show you a bet kor of land,” she is betrothed, providing that he does show it to her. But if he shows it to her in a plain, she is not betrothed.

Rabbi Meir says: every stipulation which is not like that of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben is not a [valid] stipulation, as it say, “And Moses said to them, ‘If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass [with you over the Jordan, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession].” and it is also written, “But if they will not pass over with you armed, [then they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan]” (Numbers 32:29-30). Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: the matter had to be stated, for had it not been stated it would have implied that even in Canaan they should not inherit.

If he betroths a woman and then declares, “I thought that she was a priest’s daughter, and behold she is [the daughter of] a Levite” or “a Levite’s daughter whereas she is [the daughter of] a priest”; “Poor, whereas she is wealthy”, or “wealthy, whereas she is poor,” she is betrothed, since she did not deceive him. If he says to a woman, “Behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert,” or “after you convert,” “After I am freed from slavery,” or “after you are freed from slavery”; “After your husband dies” or, “after your sister dies”; “After your yavam performs halizah for you”; she is not betrothed. Similarly, if he says to his friend, “If your wife gives birth to a female, behold she is betrothed to me,” she is not betrothed. [If his wife is pregnant, and her fetus is discernible, his words are valid, and if she bears a female, she is betrothed.]

If he says to a woman, “Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that I speak to the government on your behalf”, or “That I work for you as a laborer”, if he speaks to the government on her behalf or works for her as a laborer, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. [If he says,] “[Behold you are betrothed to me] on condition that [my] father consents,” if his father consents, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. If his father dies, she is betrothed; if the son dies, the father is instructed to say that he does not consent.

[If a father declares,] “I have given my daughter in betrothal, but do not know to whom I have betrothed her,” and then a man comes and states, “I betrothed her,” he is believed. If one says, “I betrothed her,” and another [man] says, “I betrothed her,” both must give a get; but if they want, one may give a get and the other marry her.

[If a man declares] “I have given my daughter in betrothal,” [or] “I gave her in betrothal and divorced her while she was still a minor,” and she is [now] a minor, he is believed. “I gave her in betrothal and divorced her while she was still a minor,” and she is now of majority age, he is not believed. “She was taken captive and I redeemed her,” whether she is a minor or of majority age he is not believed. If a man declares at the time of his death “I have sons,” he is believed; “I have brothers,” he is not believed. If one betroths his daughter without specifying which, the daughters of majority age are not included.

If one has two groups of daughters by two wives, and he declares, “I have given in betrothal my eldest daughter, but I do not know whether the eldest of the seniors or the eldest of the juniors, or the youngest of the seniors who is older than the eldest of the juniors,” all are forbidden [to marry other men], except the youngest of the juniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the eldest of the seniors. “I have betrothed my youngest daughter, but I do not know whether the youngest of the juniors or the youngest of the seniors, or the eldest of the juniors who is younger than the youngest of the seniors,” they are all forbidden, except the eldest of the seniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the youngest of the juniors.

If he says to a woman, “I betrothed you,” and she says, “You did not betroth me”: he is prohibited to her relatives, but she is permitted to his relatives. If she says, “You betrothed me,” and he says, “I did not betroth you,” he is permitted to her relatives but she is prohibited to his relatives. “I betrothed you,” and she says, “You betrothed my daughter,” he is forbidden to the relatives of the senior [the mother], but the senior is permitted to his relatives; he is permitted to the junior’s [the daughter’s] relatives, and the junior is permitted to his relatives.

[If a man says to a woman], “I betrothed your daughter,” and she replies, “You betrothed me”; he is forbidden to the junior’s [the daughter’s] relatives, while the junior is permitted to his relatives; he is permitted to the senior’s [mother’s] relatives, while the senior is forbidden to his relatives.

Wherever there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, the child goes after the status of the male. And what case is this? When the daughter of a priest, a Levite or an Israelite is married to a priest, a Levite or an Israelite. And wherever there is kiddushin and there is transgression, the child goes after the status of the flawed parent. And what case is this? When a widow is married to a high priest, or a divorced woman or a halutzah to an ordinary priest, or a mamzeret or a netinah to an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite to a mamzer or a natin. And any [woman] who cannot contract kiddushin with that particular person but can contract kiddushin with another person, the child is a mamzer. And what case is this? One who has intercourse with any relation prohibited in the Torah. And any [woman] who can not contract kiddushin with that particular person or with others, the child follows her status. And what case is this? The child issue of a female slave or a gentile woman.

Rabbi Tarfon says: mamzerim can be purified. How is this so? If a mamzer marries a slave woman, her son is a slave; if he frees him, it is found that the son is a free man. Rabbi Eliezer says: behold, he is a slave mamzer.

Chapter 4

Ten genealogical classes went up from Babylonia [in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah]: Priests, Levites, Israelites, halalim, converts, freed slaves, mamzerim, netinim, hushlings and foundlings. Priests, Levites and Israelites may marry each other. Levites, Israelites, halalim, converts, and freed slaves may marry each other. Converts, freed slaves, mamzerim and netinim, hushlings and foundlings, may marry each other.

These are they: a hushling (shtuki): he who knows who his mother is but not his father; A foundling (asufi): he who was gathered in from the marketplace and knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Saul used to call the hushling (shtuki), “checked one” (b’duki).

All who are forbidden to enter into the assembly may intermarry with each other. Rabbi Judah forbids it. Rabbi Eliezer says: those who are certain [may marry] those who are certain, but those who are certain with those who are doubtful and those who are doubtful with those who are certain and those who are doubtful with others who are doubtful this is prohibited. Who are “those who are doubtful”? The shtuki, the asufi and the Samaritan.

He who marries a the daughter of a priest must investigate her lineage up to four mothers, which are eight: her mother and her mother’s mother, her mother’s father’s mother and her mother, her father’s mother and her mother, her father’s father’s mother and her mother. [In the case of] the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite, one more is added.

They do not check from the altar and upwards, nor from the duchan [dais] and upwards, nor from the Sanhedrin and upwards. And all those whose fathers were established to have been among the public officers or charity collectors may marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, and he doesn’t need to check after them. Rabbi Yose says: even one who was signed as a witness in the old court of Tzippori. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: even one who was recorded in the king’s list of officers.

The daughter of a male halal is unfit for the priesthood for all time. If an Israelite marries a halalah, his daughter is fit for the priesthood. If a halal marries the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood. Rabbi Judah says: the daughter of a male convert is as the daughter of a male halal.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if an Israelite marries a female convert, his daughter is fit for the priesthood, and if a male convert marries the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is fit for the priesthood. But if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood. [The same law applies to] a convert as to freed slaves, even for ten generations, [his daughter is unfit] unless his mother is of Israelite stock. Rabbi Yose says: even if a male convert marries a female convert, his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

If a man declares, “this son of mine is a mamzer,” he is not believed. And even if both [the husband and wife] say about the fetus inside her, “it’s a mamzer” they are not believed. Rabbi Judah says: they are believed.

If a man gives permission to his agent to give his daughter in betrothal, and then he himself goes and gives her in betrothal to another, if his [betrothal] was first, his betrothal is valid; if the agent’s was first, his betrothal is valid. And if it is unknown, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce, and the other marries her. Similarly, if a woman gives permission to her agent to give her in betrothal, and she goes and betroths herself [to another]: if her own preceded, her betrothal is valid; if her agent’s preceded, his betrothal is valid. And if they do not know, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce and the other marries her.

If a man went overseas together with his wife, and then he, his wife, and his children returned, and he said, “Behold, this is she [who went with me overseas,] and these are her children”, he need not bring proof with regard to the woman or the children. [If he declares,] “She died [abroad] and these are her children,” he must bring proof with regard to the children, but not with regard to the woman.

[If he says,] “I married a woman overseas, and behold, this is she, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman, but not about the children. [If he says,] “She died, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman and about the children.

A man may not be alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men. Rabbi Shimon says: even one man may be alone with two women, if his wife is with him, and he may sleep with them in an inn, because his wife watches him. A man may be alone with his mother and his daughter, and he may sleep with them in immediate bodily contact; but when they grow up, she must sleep in her garment and he in his.

An unmarried man must not learn to be a scribe, nor may a woman learn to be a scribe. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who has no wife should not learn to be a scribe.

Rabbi Judah said: an unmarried man must not tend cattle, nor may two unmarried men sleep together under the same cover. But the sages permit it. One whose business is with women must not be alone with women. And one should not teach his son a woman’s trade. Rabbi Meir says: one should always teach his son a clean and easy profession, and pray to Him to whom wealth and property belong. For a profession does not contain [the potential for] poverty and wealth, for poverty is not due to one’s profession nor is wealth due to the profession, but all depends on merit. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird with a profession? Yet they are sustained without trouble. Now, were they not created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my master: surely then I should make a living without trouble! But my evil acts have done me in and withheld my livelihood. Abba Gurion a man of Sidon says in the name of Abba Guria: one should not teach his son [to be] a donkey-driver, camel-driver, wagon-driver, sailor, shepherd, or shopkeeper, because their profession is the profession of robbers. Rabbi Judah says in his name: most donkey-drivers are wicked, while most camel-drivers are worthy men; and most sailors are pious. The best of doctors are destined for Gehenna, and the worthiest of butchers is Amalek’s partner. Rabbi Nehorai says: I will abandon every profession in the world and I will not teach my son anything but Torah, for a person enjoys its reward in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come. But all other professions are not so; for when a man comes to sickness or old age or suffering and cannot engage in his profession, he must die of starvation, whereas the Torah is not so, for it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. Of his youth what is said? “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). Of his old age what is said? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psalms 92:15). And it is also said of our father Abraham, “And Abraham was old … And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). We find that Abraham our father observed the whole Torah before it was given, for it is said, “Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5).

משנה בבא קמא

Chapter 1

There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land.

Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land.

Assessment [of injury] in money or things worth money must be made before a court of law and by witnesses that are free and Children of the Covenant (Jews). Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. The injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation.

Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger. What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and guardian).

Chapter 2

How is the leg [of a beast] an attested danger to break [what it tramples upon] as it walks along? A beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and breaks [an object]. If it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke other vessels, one pays half damages. If it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this [broken vessel] fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages and for the other half damages. Fowls (chickens and roosters) are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and break [objects]. But if the fowl had its feet entangled, or if it was jumping and it thereby broke any vessel one pays half damages.

How is the tooth [of a beast] an attested danger to eat that which it is fit to consume? A beast is an attested danger to eat fruit and vegetables. [If however] it ate clothing or utensils [the owner] pays only half damages. When does this apply? [This applies] in the domain of the damaged party But if it was within the public domain, the owner is not liable. If [the beast] benefited, [the owner] pays what it benefited. How does [the owner] pay what [the animal] benefited? [If it ate] from the middle of the marketplace, [the owner] pays what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from the sides of the marketplace, [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did. [If it ate] from in front of the store [the owner] pays for what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from inside the store [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did.

If a dog or a goat jumped from a roof and broke vessels, [the owner] must pay full damages, since they are attested dangers. A dog that took a cake [while there was a cinder attached] and went to a stack of grain and ate the cake and burned the stack of grain, For the cake [the owner] pays full damages And for the stack of grain [the owner] pays half damages.

Which kind of animal is accounted harmless and which is an attested danger (muad)? An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about [that it damaged] for three days. A harmless one is one that has refrained from damage for three days. This is according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about three times. A harmless one is one that children can touch and it will not gore.

“An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages. But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.” Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed]. He said to them: “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn. Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot. Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].

Human beings are always an attested danger, whether the damage is caused inadvertently or deliberately, whether the person who caused the damage is awake or asleep. If a man blinded his fellow’s eye or broke his utensils he must pay full damages.

Chapter 3

If a man left a jug in the public domain and another came and stumbled over it and broke it, he is exempt. And if he was injured by it, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.”

1. If a man poured out water in the public domain, and another was injured thereby, he is liable for his injury. 2. If a man hid thorns or glass [in the public domain] or made his fence out of thorns, or if his fence fell into the public domain and others were thereby injured, he is obligated for their injury.

If a man put out his chopped straw and stubble into the public domain to make them into fertilizer, and another was injured thereby, he is liable for his injury, and whoever comes first may take possession of them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Whoever leaves things that are disruptive in the public domain, and these cause damage, must make restitution, and whoever comes first may take possession of them. If a man turned over a piece of cattle dung in the public domain and another was injured thereby, he is liable for injury.

Two pot-sellers were walking one behind the other and the first stumbled and fell, and the second fell on the first, the first one is liable for the injury caused to the second.

This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said} “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable.

[If] two were walking along in the public domain, the one running and the other walking, or both running and they injured one another, neither is liable.

[If] a man was splitting wood in the private domain and injured anyone in the public domain, or if he was in the public domain and injured anyone in the private domain, or if he was in a private domain and injured anyone in another private domain, he is liable.

If two oxen which were accounted harmless hurt one another, the owner pays half-damages for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If both were attested dangers full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If one was accounted harmless and the other was an attested danger, that which was an attested danger as against that which was accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while that which was accounted harmless, as against that which was an attested danger, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered. So, too, if two men hurt one another, full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If a man and an ox which was accounted harmless hurt one another, the man as against the ox accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while the ox accounted harmless, as against the man, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other suffered. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even if an ox accounted harmless hurt a man, full damages must be paid for that one which suffered the greater hurt.

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated. If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox and one was an attested danger (muad) the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.

Chapter 4

[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.

An ox which is an attested danger for [injuring] its own kind, and is not an attested danger for [injuring] that which is not its own kind; or an attested danger for [injuring] human beings and not an attested danger for [injuring] beasts; or an attested danger for [injuring] children and not an attested danger for [injuring] adults that for which it is an attested danger [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not an attested danger [its owner] pays half damages. They said in front of Rabbi Judah: “What if it is an attested danger on the Sabbath, and it is not an attested danger during the week?” He said to them: “For [injuries done on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [injuries done] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When will this ox be considered harmless? After it refrains from doing injury for three Sabbath days.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty. So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter. If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.

If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite; or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death by stoning].

The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.”

If an ox goes out to be stoned, and its owners dedicated it to the Temple, it is not considered dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden. But if before its sentence was complete its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.

If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.”

Chapter 5

If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If an ox intended [to gore] another ox and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], its owner is not liable for the value of the offspring. But if a man intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], he must pay the value of the offspring. How does he pay the value of the offspring? They assess the value of the woman before she gave birth and the value after she gave birth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If so, once a woman gives birth she is more valuable. Rather, they assess how much the offspring would be worth, and he pays it to the husband, or if she has no husband to his heirs.” If she was a freed bondwoman or a proselyte no penalty is incurred.

If a man dug a pit in a private domain and opened it into the public domain, or if he dug it in the public domain and opened it into a private domain, or if he dug it in a private domain and opened it into another private domain, he is liable [if any is injured by the pit]. If he dug a pit in the public domain and an ox or ass fell into and died, he is liable. No matter whether he digs a pit, trench, or cavern, or ditches or channels he is liable. If so, why does it say “a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? Just as a pit which is deep enough to cause death is ten handbreadths deep, so anything is deep enough to cause death if it is ten handbreadths deep. If they were less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or an ass fell in and died, the owner is not liable; but if it was damaged he is liable.

If a pit belonged to two partners and one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If he covered it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable.

An ox and all other beasts are alike under the laws concerning falling into a pit, keeping apart from Mount Sinai, two-fold restitution, the restoring of lost property, unloading, muzzling, diverse kinds, and the Sabbath. So to wild animals and birds. If so, why is it written “an ox or an ass”? But Scripture spoke of prevailing conditions.

Chapter 6

If a man brought his flock into a pen and shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt. If he had not shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is liable. If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable.  Section one teaches that if a person were to properly enclose his flock and nevertheless the flock were to escape, the person is exempt. Since he fulfilled his responsibility he is not liable for damages. However, if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he will be liable.  Section two can be explained as an exception to the rule in section one that if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he is liable. Section two teaches that if the flock broke out at night (i.e. they broke the enclosed part of the fence) or bandits broke the fence, the owner is exempt, even though he did not properly lock the fence. The owner is not liable since the animals broke out against his control, even though they could have gone out through the main gate, thereby making him liable. If, on the other hand, they were to have broken the fence during the day, and he didn’t lock it properly, he is liable. (There are other explanations to this section). The final clause of the mishnah says that if the bandits physically let out the flock, they are liable if it causes damage.

If he left the flock in the sun, or he delivered it to the care of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor, and it came out and caused damage, he is liable. If he delivered it to a shepherd, the shepherd takes the place of the owner. If the flock fell into a garden and derived any benefit, he pays for the benefit. If the flock went down [into the garden] in its usual way and caused damage, he must pay for the damage it caused. How does he pay for the damage it caused? They assess what a seah’s space of ground in that field was worth before and what it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they consumed fully grown produce he must repay with fully grown produce; if they destroyed on seah he must repay one seah, if two seah, two seahs.

If a man stacked his sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s beast ate the sheaves, he is exempt. If [the beast] was injured by them, the owner of the stack is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable.

If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable. If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt. If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt. If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”

If a man set fire to a stack and in it there were utensils and these caught fire: Rabbi Judah says: “He must make restitution for what was therein.” But the Sages say: “He need only pay for a stack of wheat or barley.” If a kid was fastened to it [to the stack] and a slave stood near by, and they were burnt with it, he is liable. If there was a slave fastened to it [to the stack] and a kid stood near by and they were burnt with it, he is not liable. The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if a man set fire to a large building, he must make restitution for everything therein; for such is the custom among men to leave [their goods] in their houses.

If a spark flew out from under the hammer and caused damage, he is liable. If a camel laden with flax passed by in the public domain and its load of flax entered into a shop and caught fire, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the shopkeeper left his light outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was a Hannukah light, he is not liable.”

Chapter 7

More encompassing in use is the rule of twofold restitution than the rule of fourfold or fivefold restitution; For the rule of twofold restitution applies both to what has life and what does not have life, while the rule of fourfold and fivefold restitution applies only to an ox or a sheep, for it is written, “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 21:37). One who steals from a thief does not pay twofold restitution; And the one who slaughters or sells what is [already] stolen does not make fourfold or fivefold restitution.

If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts.

If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed or sold it according to their evidence, and they are found to be false witnesses, they must pay the whole penalty. If he stole it according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first pay twofold restitution and the last pay threefold restitution. If the second [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they threefold restitution. If one of the second set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the evidence of the other is void. If one of the first set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the entire evidence is void, since if there is no evidence for stealing there is no evidence for slaughtering or selling.

If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he makes twofold restitution, but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.” 1. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use 3. or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; 4. if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; 5. if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple 6. he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. 1. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, 4. or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, 5. or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, 6. he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. In the cases mentioned in mishnah two the person is liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution and in mishnah four he is not. Using the line by line comparison we should be able to see why the law is different in each individual case. In case 1, if the person slaughtered the ox or sheep on the Sabbath he is obligated for the death penalty. Since one can only receive one punishment per crime, he is not fined additionally for having slaughtered the animal. If, however, he had only sold the animal, he would not be obligated for the death penalty and therefore he would owe the fine. The same is true for case 3. Selling an animal for idolatrous use is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty, and therefore he is obligated for the fine. On the other hand, slaughtering for idolatrous use is a capital crime and therefore he receives a death penaly and not a fine. We learn in case 4 that if he stole his father’s animal and did not slaughter or sell it until after he dies he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. Since at the time of the slaughtering or selling part of the animal was his as an inheritance he is not obligated. (We will see a similar law in the next mishnah). If, however, he had sold or slaughtered the animal before the death of his father, he would be obligated. Similarly in case 5 if he sold and slaughtered the animal after having dedicated it, he is selling or slaughtering an animal that is no longer really belongs to him. He is therefore not obligated for the fine. If, however, he slaughtered or sold the animal and then dedicated it, he will be obligated for the fine. Rabbi Shimon makes a clarification on this last law. The “Holy Things” to which he refers are animals dedicated to the Temple. There are two types of such dedications. If the owner says that “this animal is dedicated”, then he must bring this animal. If the animal gets lost or dies the owner is not obligated to bring another animal in its place. In such a case, if a thief should steal and slaughter or sell the animal he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the owner dedicated the animal by saying “I dedicate an animal”, then he if the original animal is lost he must bring another. In such a case if the thief should slaughter or sell the animal he will be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. (This last law is difficult and is explained in other ways as well).

If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had [already] a share in it, or if slaughtered it and it became unfit [to eat] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it in the owner’s domain, but slaughtered it or sold it outside the owner’s domain, or if he stole it outside the owner’s domain and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it outside the owner’s domain, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain, he is exempt.

If while he was dragging [a sheep or ox] out it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. But if he had lifted it or taken it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable. If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable.

It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.

Chapter 8

He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a sleeping man inflicted indignity, he is exempt. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity].

The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox: for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young.

If a man struck his father or his mother and inflicted no wound, or if he wounded his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all five counts. If he wounded a Hebrew slave, he is liable on all five counts, except loss of income if it was his slave. If he wounded a Canaanite slave (non-Jewish slave) he is liable on all five counts. Rabbi Judah says: “Slaves do not receive compensation for indignity.”

It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.

If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life. If a man wounded his Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity], he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.

Chapter 9

If a man stole wood and made it into utensils, or wood and made it into garments, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft. If he stole a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or a sheep ready to be sheared, and he then sheared it, he repays the value of a cow about to bear young, or a sheep ready to be sheared. If he stole a cow, and while it was with him it was impregnated and bore young, or [if he stole a sheep] and while it was with him it grew wool and he sheared it, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft. This is the general rule: all robbers make restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.

If he stole a beast and it grew old, or slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to [their value at] the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says: “As for slaves the thief may say to the owner, ‘Here is what is yours before you.’” If he stole a coin and it cracked, fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned into vinegar, he must make restitution according to [the value] at the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use, or “Heave offering” (terumah) and it became ritually unclean, or leaven and the time of Passover arrived, or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered or it was condemned to be stoned, he may say to the other, “Here is what is yours before you.”

If he gave [something] to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution. If he gave a carpenter a box, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution. If a builder undertook to pull down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was pulling down at the one end and it fell down on the other, he is exempt; However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable.

If a man gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he must repay him the value of the wool. If he dyed it badly: if the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement. If he told him to dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says: “[The dyer] must pay the cost of the wool.” Rabbi Judah says: “If the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.

If a man robbed his fellow of the value of a perutah and swore [falsely] to him, he must take it to him even as far as Medea. He may not give it to his son or to his agent, but he may give it to the agent of the court. If his fellow had died he must return it to his heirs.

1. If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, he need not go after him. 2. If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, he must go after him.

If he had paid him the value and had sworn [falsely] to him concerning the [added] fifth, he must pay a fifth on the fifth [and so on] until the value [of the added fifth] becomes less than a perutah’s worth. So too with a deposit, as it says: “In a matter of deposit or a pledge or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying about it” (Leviticus 5:21-2, such a one must pay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. [If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is lost,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he need pay [only] the value. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering.

[If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is stolen,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he must make twofold restitution. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering.

If a man stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and the father died, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth to the father’s sons or brothers. If he will not repay or if has does not have [with which to repay] he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid.

If a man said to his son, “Qonam, you will not derive any benefit from that which is mine”, and he died, the son may inherit him. [But if he moreover said], “Both during my life and at my death”, when he dies the son may not inherit from him and he must restore [what he received from his father’s inheritance] to the [father’s] sons or brothers. If he has nothing, he takes out a loan, and the creditors come and exact payment.

If a man stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the value and the added fifth to the priests, and the Guilt-offering to the altar, as it says: “If the man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount which is repaid shall go to the priest in addition to the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury.

If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].

Chapter 10

If a man stole [something] and fed it to his children, or if he left it in front of them, they are exempt from making restitution. But if it was something which is subject to mortgage (that is, real estate), they are liable to make restitution. One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of tax collectors, or take any charity from them. But it may be taken from them at their own house or in the market.

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

If a man recognized his utensils or books in another’s hands and a report of theft had gone out in the town, the purchaser swears how much he paid and takes this price [from the owner and restores the goods]. But if [such a report had] not [gone out], he [the original owner] does not have the power, for I might say that he had first sold them to another and this one bought it from him.

If one came with his jar of wine and the other came with his jug of honey and the jug of honey cracked, and the other poured out his wine and saved the honey [by receiving it] into his jar, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” [the owner of the honey] is liable to pay him back. If a flood swept away a man’s donkey and his fellow’s donkey, and his own was worth 100 [zuz] and his fellow’s was worth 200 [zuz], and he left his own and saved that of his fellow, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” he is liable to pay him back.

If a man stole a field from his fellow and tyrants came and took it from him, if the whole district suffered, he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” But if it was on account of the robber [that the tyrants took the field], he must provide him with another field. If a flood swept away [the field], he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.”

If a man stole something from his friend in an inhabited region or borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness. But if he [had borrowed it or received it] with the understanding that he was going out to the wilderness, he may return it to him in the wilderness.

If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay. But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.

If a man stole a lamb from the flock and restored it, but it died or was stolen again, he is responsible for it. If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return and counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is exempt.

One is not to buy wool or milk or kids from herdsmen, not fruit from those that watch over fruit-trees. However, one may buy garments of wool from women in Judea and garments of flax from women in the Galilee or calves in the Sharon. And in all cases in which [the seller] says to hide them away, it is forbidden [to purchase the item]. One may buy eggs and fowls in any case.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

משנה בבא מציעא

Chapter 1

If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the cloak and they split the cloak. one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.

If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it. If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.

If a man was riding on a beast and saw lost property and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he (the other) has acquired it. But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing.

If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing.

That which is found by a man’s minor son or daughter, and that which is found by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife belongs to him. That which is found by his son or daughter that are of age, and that which is found by his Hebrew slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife whom he has divorced, even though he has not yet paid her ketubah, belongs to them.

If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.”

If a man found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and the writer might have changed his mind and decided not to give them.”

If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of sustenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document drawn out by the court he should return them. If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents he should return them. How many count as a bundle of documents? Three tied up together. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [If one found three documents in which] one borrowed from three others, they should be returned to the borrower. But if [one found three documents in which] one loaned to three, they should be returned to the lender. If a man found a document among his documents and he does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes. If there were postscripts amongst them, he should do what is stated in the postscript.

Chapter 2

Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”

And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed.

If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him.

If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them.

A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed.

For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.”

If he (the claimant) named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not. Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him. What shall be with the money [from the sale]? Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.” Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”

If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. [If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it.

What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return it to your brother”. If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of money), he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first.

If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure.

If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority. If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority. If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father. If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.

Chapter 3

If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited. If his fellow (the unpaid guardian) takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.

If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter. Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow? Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”

If a man said to two others, “I have robbed one of you 100 zuz and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you left me 100 zuz and I do not know whose father it was”, he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he himself admitted liability.

Two men deposited money with a third, the one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that he deposited 200 and the other claimed that he deposited 200. He gives this one 100 zuz and this one 100 zuz and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”

So too, [two men deposited] vessels with a third, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 1000 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that the valuable one was his and the other claimed that the valuable one was his. He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”

If a man deposited produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.”

When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor. Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”

With wine he may exact [a reduction] of one-sixth. Rabbi Judah says: “One-fifth.” He may exact of him three logs in every one hundred logs of oil one log and a half for sediment and one log and a half for absorption. If the oil was refined he may not exact for sediment. If the jars were old he may not exact for absorption. Rabbi Judah says: “Also if a man sells to his fellow through the year, the buyer must undertake to accept a reduction of one and a half logs because of sediment.

If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: If for his own sake he is liable. If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; If for his own sake he is liable, if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.

If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt.

If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

Chapter 4

Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold. Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper. Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins. An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin. Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property. This is the general rule: movable property acquires other movable property.

How is this so? If [the buyer] drew the produce away from [the seller] but did not give over the money, he cannot retract. If [the buyer] gave the money but did not draw the produce away from [the seller], he can retract. But they said: “He that exacted punishment from the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion (at the time of the Tower of Babel) will exact punishment from one who does not keep by his word. Rabbi Shimon says: “He that has the money has the upper hand.”

Fraud is an overcharge of 4 pieces of silver out of 24 pieces of silver, which make up a sela, one-sixth of the purchase price. Until what time may [he that is defrauded] retract [the sale]? Until he [has time] to show [his purchase] to a merchant or to his kinsman. Rabbi Tarfon gave instruction in Lud: “Fraud is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, a third of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated. He said to them: “He may retract any time within a whole day.” They said to him: “Leave us as we were, Rabbi Tarfon”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages.

Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the law of fraud. Just as the ordinary person is subject to the law of fraud so too is the merchant. Rabbi Judah said: “The law of fraud does not apply to the merchant.” He who has been subjected to [fraud] has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to him, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you defrauded me.”

How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says: “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says: “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.”

Until when may he [that is defrauded] return the coin? In large towns until he has had time to show it to a money-changer. In villages until the Sabbath eve. If he [that had given the coin] recognized it, even after twelve months he should accept it [in return], but [if he does not accept it the one who received it] only has a cause for complaint [against him]. And it is permitted to use it for redeeming the Second Tithe without concern, for [he who would not receive it] is but only a cheapskate.

Fraud is four pieces of silver. A claim is [a minimum] of two pieces of silver. An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. There are five [rules involving] that which is worth a perutah: An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. A woman can be betrothed with that which is worth a perutah. Someone who benefits a perutah’s worth from that which belongs to the sanctuary has committed sacrilege. One who finds that which is worth a perutah must proclaim it [as a lost object]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow and swears [falsely] to him [that he did not steal it], must go after him [to return it] even as far as Medea.

There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution].

These are the things to which the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply: The sale of slaves, debt documents, land and what belongs to the Temple. They are not subject to twofold restitution, nor fourfold or fivefold restitution. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath [on their account, that he did not damage them] nor does a paid guardian make compensation [if they are lost on his watch]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Holy Things for which he is responsible, are subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging, and Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” Rabbi Judah says: “Also one who sells a Torah scroll, and an animal or a pearl they are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” They (the Sages) said to him: “They only said these.”

Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”. For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”

Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.

A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. Rabbi Judah says: “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says: “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils.

Chapter 5

What is usury (neshech) and what is increase (tarbit)? It is usury (neshech) when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites (noshech) [off too much]. And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine.

One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden.

If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages.

One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden.

One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury.

One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite.

One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says: “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says: “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.”

[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself.

One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.”

One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.”

These are the one who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” They transgress the commandment, “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14).

Chapter 6

If one hired craftsmen and they deceived each other, they have no legally valid complaint against each other, but only cause for complaint. If one hired a donkey-driver or a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers or pipers for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the steep, or any matter that would be lost if delayed, and they retracted, if it was a place where there were no others [who could be hired for the same wage] he may hire others at their (the original workers) expense or he may deceive them.

If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If the householder (the employer) retracted he is at a disadvantage. Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage.

If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it through the hill country, even though the distance of each was ten miles, if the donkey died the hirer is liable. If a man hired a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted into the king’s service, the owner may say to the hirer, “Here is yours before you” [and he need not replace the donkey]. [But] if it died or was broken, he must give him a new donkey. If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, if it slipped he is not liable, but if it overheated he is liable. [If one hires a donkey] to drive it through a valley and he drove it through hill country, if it slipped he is liable, but if it overheated he is not liable. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent he is liable.

If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. [If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable.

If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. [If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.”

All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian.

If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.”

If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.”

Chapter 7

If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.”

These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground. These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.

If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.”

If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress. And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.”

A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself.

One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding.

If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat.

Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.

If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident.

If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.

If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid.

Chapter 8

If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cow died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13).

If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, they share in the loss.

If one borrowed a cow and the owner sent it by the hand of his son or his slave or his agent, or by the hand of the borrower’s son or slave or agent and it died [on the way], the borrower is not liable. But if the borrower said, “Send it to me by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent, or by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, or if the lender said, “I am sending it to you by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent”, or “by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, and the borrower said, “Send it”, and he sent it and it died [on the way], the borrower is liable. So, too, when the cow is returned.

If one swapped a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, So too if one sold his slave and she gave birth, [And] one (the seller) says, “It was born before I sold her”, and the other (the buyer) says, “It was born after I bought her”, they shall divide [the value of what was born]. If one had two slaves, one large and the other small, or two fields, one large and the other small,[And he sold one of them], If the buyer says, “I bought the large one” and the other says, “I don’t know”, the buyer can rightly claim the large one. If the seller said, “I sold the small one” and the buyer said, “I do not know”, he may only take the small one. If one said, “It was the large one” and the other said, “It was the small one”, the seller must take an oath that it was the small one that he sold [and the buyer can only take the small one]. If one said, “I do not know”, and the other said, “I do not know”, they shall divide the value [of both slaves or fields].

If one sold his olive trees as firewood and they bore fruit that gave less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, this belongs to the [new] owner of the olive trees. If they bore fruit that gave a quarter-log of oil [or more] per seah, and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce. If a flood washed away a man’s olive trees and set them in the midst of his fellow’s field [where they bore fruit], and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.

If one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot make him leave it [during the time] from Sukkot to Pesach. In the summer, [he must give him] thirty days [warning]. And in large cities, whether it is during the rainy season or the summer [he must give] twelve months [warning]. [If one leased] a shop [to his fellow], whether in large cities or small towns, [he must give] twelve months [warning]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it is a shop occupied by bakers or dyers [he must give] three years [warning].

If one rented a house to his fellow, he is obligated to provide it with a door, a bolt a lock and anything which is the work of a craftsman. However, that which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make himself. The manure [which collects in the courtyard] belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant can only claim the refuse from the oven and the stove.

If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.”

If one rented a house to his fellow and it fell down, the owner must build him a new house. If it was small he may not make it larger, and if it was large he may not make it smaller. If it was one house, he may not make it two; if it was two houses he may not make it one. He may not reduce or increase the number of windows, unless it is with both of their consent.

Chapter 9

If one leased a field from his fellow and the custom of the place was to cut the crops, he must cut them; If the custom was to uproot them, he must uproot them; If the custom was to plough after reaping, he must plough. Everything should follow local custom. Just as they share the grain, so too they share the chopped straw and the stubble. Just as they share the wine, so too they share the [dead] branches and the reeds [used to prop the vines]. And both parties must [at the outset] provide [their share of] the reeds.

If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental. But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.

If one leased a field from his fellow and he let it lie fallow, they assess how much it was likely to have yielded and he must pay the owner accordingly, since he wrote [in the leasing agreement]: “If I suffer the land to lie fallow and do not till it, I will pay thee at the rate of its highest yield.”

If one leased a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed it, and he said to the owner, “What do you care, as long as I pay you the agreed rental?”, they do not listen to him, for the owner can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave the field and it won’t bring forth anything but weeds.”

If one leased a field from his fellow and it was not fruitful, if there was enough produce to make a heap, he must still tend to it. Rabbi Judah says: “What type of measure is a ‘heap’? Rather, [he must tend to it] only if it yields as much grain as was sown there.”

If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.”

If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field.

If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this. If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this.

If one leased a field from his fellow for but a few years he may not sow flax and he has no right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. If he leased it for seven years he may sow flax the first year and he has a right to cut beams from the sycamore tree.

If one leased a field from his fellow for “a week of years” (seven years) for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is included in the number. If he leased it for “seven years” for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is not included in the number.

One that is hired during the day collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night. One that is hired during the night collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. One that is hired by the hour collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day or [the ensuing] night. If one was hired by the week, or by the month, or by the year, or by the week of years, if his time of hire expired during the day, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. If his time of hire expired during the night, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night and day.

The laws “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13) apply both to the hire of a man or of a beast or of utensils. When is this so? When the employee has laid claim to it, but if he had not laid claim to it the employer does not commit a transgression. If he gave him a draft on a shopkeeper or moneychanger [the employer] does not commit a transgression [even though the employee has not yet collected]. If an employee [claimed his wages] within the set time he may take an oath and take his wages. [But] if the set time had passed he may not take an oath and take his wages. If witnesses testified that he had claimed his wages at the set time [and was not paid], he may take an oath and receive his wages. The law “You must pay him his wages on the same day” applies also to the resident alien, but not the law, “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning”.

If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.).

Chapter 10

If a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two persons (each owning) fell down, the two share in the wood and the stones and the earth. And they consider which stones were the more likely to have been broken. If one of them recognizes that some of the stones were his, he may take them and they count as part of his share.

If there was a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two people, and the [floor of the] upper room broke and the owner of the house (the bottom story) did not want to fix it, the owner of the upper room may come down and dwell below, until the owner [of the bottom story] fixes [the floor of the] upper room. Rabbi Yose says: “He that dwells below should provide the beams and he that dwells above the plastering.

If a house (the bottom story) and an upper room belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, and the owner of the upper room told the owner of the house (the bottom story) to rebuild it, and he did not want to rebuild it, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the house below and live in it until the other repays him what he has spent. Rabbi Judah says: “He would then [after being reimbursed] have been dwelling on his fellow’s property and he should [therefore] pay him rent. Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild both the house below and the upper room and put a roof on the upper room, and live in the house below until the other repays him what he has spent.”

So, too, if an olive press was built in a rock and another had a garden on top of it, and [the olive press] was in part broken down, the owner of the garden may come down and sow below until the other rebuilds the ceiling of his olive press. If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is not liable to make restitution. If a set time had been given to him to cut down the tree or pull down the wall, and they fell down within the time, he is not liable. If after that time, he is liable.

If one’s wall was near his fellow’s garden and it fell down and his fellow said to him, “Clear away your stones”, and he answered, “They have become yours”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the owner of the garden) had accepted he (the owner of the wall) said to him, “Here is your expenditures and I will take back what is mine”, they do not listen to him. If one hired a laborer to help him in his work with chopped straw and stubble, and the laborer said to him, “Give me my wages”, and he said to him, “Take as your wages that with which you have labored”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the employee) had accepted he (the employer) said to him, “Here are your wages and I will take what is mine”, they do not listen to him. One who removes his manure into the public domain: from the time he removes it another may take it to manure [his fields]. One may not soak clay or make bricks in the public domain, but clay may be kneaded in the public domain but not bricks. One who builds in the public domain: one brings the stones and another builds (immediately). And if he causes damage, he pays what he has damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may, indeed, make preparation for his work for thirty days [in the public domain].

If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden.

משנה בבא בתרא

Chapter 1

If two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle. In a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it everything is according to local custom. [If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.

The same is true with a garden: in a place where the custom is to build a fence, they can obligate him to do so. However, in a valley, where it is not customary to build a fence, they cannot obligate him to do so. But if he wants to [build a fence] he must gather into his own portion and build, and he puts a finishing on the outside of the wall. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to him. If they acted with each other’s consent, they should build the wall in the middle and put a finishing on both sides. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to them both.

If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose and built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.”

If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid. [If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.

They compel [a partner in a courtyard to contribute to] the building of a gate-house and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not all courtyards are fit for a gate-house.” They compel [a resident of the town to contribute to] the building of a wall for the town and double doors and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not every town is fit for a wall.” How long must a man dwell in a town to count as one of the men of the town? Twelve months. If he has purchased a dwelling place he immediately counts as one of the men of the town.

They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says: “A quarter-kav.” Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner]. This is the general rule: whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide. When is this so? When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing.

Chapter 2

One may not dig a cistern near his fellow’s cistern; Nor may he dig a ditch, cave, water-channel, or laundry pool unless it is three handbreadths away from his fellow’s wall, and he must plaster it with lime. They distance piles of olive refuse, manure, salt, lime or stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall, and he plasters it with lime. They distance seeds, and a plow and urine three handbreadths from the wall. And they distance the mill [from the wall]: three [handbreadths] from the lower millstone and four [handbreadths] from the upper millstone. And [they distance] the oven [from the wall]: three from the belly of the oven and four from the rim of the oven.

One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says: “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.”

One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”

If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits.

A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats doves) should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote.

If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to who finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes: if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it.

A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says: “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.

A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage.

Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town].

A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant.

A tree may not be grown within twenty five cubits of a cistern, or within fifty cubits if it is a carob or a sycamore, whether it is higher or on the same level. If the cistern was there first the tree shall be cut down and compensation given. If the tree was there first it shall not be cut down. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall not be cut down. Rabbi Yose says: “Even if the cistern was there before the tree it should not be cut down, since this one dug within his own domain and the other planted within his own domain.”

A person may not plant a tree near another’s field unless it is four cubits away, no matter whether it be a vine or any other kind of tree. If there was a wall between, each may plant up to the wall on either side. If its roots entered within the other’s property, the other may cut them away to a depth of three handbreadths so that they shall not hinder the plough. If he dug a cistern, trench or cave, he may cut them away as far down as he digs, and the wood shall belong to him.

If a tree stretches into another’s field, he may cut it away as far as is reached by an ox-goad held over the plough, or, if it is a carob or sycamore, [he may cut it away] according to the plumb line’s measure. All trees that stretch over irrigated fields may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure. Abba Shaul says: “All trees that bear no fruit may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.”

If a tree stretches into the public domain enough must be cut away to allow a camel and its rider pass by. Rabbi Judah says: “A camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Every tree [must be cut away] according to the plumb line’s measure, because of impurity.

Chapter 3

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

There are three regions with regards to possession: Judea, beyond the Jordan and the Galilee. If the owner was in Judea and another took possession [of his property] in the Galilee; Or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession [of his property] in Judea, such possession does not demonstrate ownership, until he is in the same region. Rabbi Judah said: “They have specified a period of three years so that if the owner was in Spain and another took possession [of his property] during one year, they could make it known to the owner during the next year and he could return in the third year.”

An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession.

If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner. If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them. If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.

What are usages which are effective in establishing title through possession and what are usages which are not effecting in establishing title through possession? If a man put a beast in a courtyard, or an oven or stoves or mill-stones, or reared fowl [in a courtyard] or put his manure in a courtyard, this is not effective in establishing title through possession. But if he built for his beast a partition ten hand-breadths high, so too for an oven, so too for a stove, so too for a mill-stone, [or] he brought fowl inside the house, or prepared for his manure a place three hand-breadths deep or three hand-breadths high, this is effective in establishing title through possession.

A gutter spout cannot cause title through possession [so that the spout may still be moved] but title through possession may be claimed to its place [so that the place must be left for its present purpose]. A gutter can give title through possession. An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. An Egyptian window cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian window can. What is an Egyptian window? Any through which a man’s head may not enter. Rabbi Judah says: “If it has a frame, even though a man’s head cannot enter through it, it can give title through possession.” A projection, if it extends a handbreadth or more can give title through possession, and the other [into whose premises it projects] can protest against it. But if it is less than a handbreadth it cannot give title through possession and the other cannot protest against it.

One may not make a window to open into a jointly held courtyard. If he bought a house in another [and adjoining] courtyard he may not open it into a jointly held courtyard. If he built an upper room over his house he may not make it open into the jointly held courtyard; But, if he wishes, he may build another room within his house or build an upper room over his house and make it open into his own house. In a jointly held courtyard a man may not build a door directly opposite another’s door, or a window directly opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may not make it larger; if it was a single window he may not make it into two. But in the public domain he may open a door opposite another’s door, or a window opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may make it larger; if it was a single window he may make it into two.

One may not hollow out a space underneath the public domain [such as] cisterns, trenches or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits it if it is such that a wagon loaded with stones can [safely] go over it. Projections and balconies may not be built into the public domain; but if a man wishes to build a [projection or balcony] he may withdraw [his wall] within his own domain and build out from it. If he bought a courtyard in which were already projections and balconies, his right to maintain them may not be disputed.

Chapter 4

If a man sold a house, he has not sold its side chambers, even though they open into the house, nor the room that is behind [the house], nor the roof, if it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. Rabbi Judah says: “If the roof as entrance shaped like a door, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, it is not sold.”

Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”

If a man sold a house he has sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold a permanent mortar but not a movable one. He has sold the convex millstone (the lower, usually fixed stone) but not the concave one. Nor [has he sold] the oven or the stove. But if he had said: “[I am selling to you] the house and all that is in it, these are also sold.”

If a man sold a courtyard, he has also sold its houses, cisterns, trenches and caves, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it” all of these are also sold. But in neither case has he sold the bath-house, or the olive press that are in it. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If a man sold a courtyard, he has sold only the air (the open spaces) of the courtyard.

If a man sold an olive press he has sold also the vat, the grindstone, and the posts, but he has not sold the pressing-boards, the wheel or the beam. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If a man sold an olive press he has sold the beam also.”

If a man sold a bath house, he has not sold the planks or the benches or the curtains. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. In neither case has he sold the water containers or the stores of wood.

If a man sold a town, he has also sold the houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, bath houses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, even if cattle and slaves were in it, all of these are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If a man sold a town he has also sold the town watchman.”

If a man sold a field he has also sold the stones that are necessary to it, and the canes in a vineyard that are necessary to it, and its unreaped crop, and a partition of reed which covers less than a quarter-kav’s space of ground, and the watchman’s hut if it was fastened down with mortar, and ungrafted carob trees and young sycamores.

But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”

Chapter 5

If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says: “The price tells all. How is this so? If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say: “The price is not proof.”

If a man sold a donkey he has not sold its trappings. Nahuma of Madi says: “He has sold its trappings.” Rabbi Judah says: “Sometimes they are sold and sometimes they are not sold. How is this so? If the donkey was before him with its trappings on it and he said, ‘Sell me this donkey of yours’, the trappings are sold (with the donkey). If he said, ‘Sell me that donkey of yours’, the trappings are not sold.”

If a man sold a donkey he has sold its foal. If a man sold a cow he has not sold its calf. If he sold a dungheap, he has sold the dung on it. If he sold a cistern, he has sold the water in it. If he sold a bee-hive he has sold the bees. If he sold a dovecote he has sold the pigeons. If a man bought the fruit of a dovecote from his fellow he must let go the first pair that are hatched. [If he bought], the fruit of a beehive he may take three swarms and then [the seller] may make the rest sterile. [If he bought] honeycombs he must leave two honeycombs. [If he bought] olive trees to cut down the branches, he must leave two shoots.

If a man bought two trees in his fellow’s field, he has not bought the ground [in which they grow]. Rabbi Meir says: “He has bought the ground”. When they grow (branches), he (the seller) may not trim them. What comes up from the stem belongs to him (the buyer) but what comes up from the roots belongs to the seller. And if they die, the ground is not his [to replant new trees]. If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the buyer). And if they die the ground is his.

He who has sold the head of a large animal, has not sold the feet. If he sold the feet, he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has not sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs. But in the case of a small animal: If he sold the head he has sold the feet. If he sold the feet he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.

There are four rules with regards to those who sell:If one has sold good wheat and it turns out to be bad, the buyer can retract. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can retract. [But if one sold] bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither may retract. [If one has sold] dark wheat and it turned out to be white; Or white and it turned out to be dark; Or [if he sold] olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood; Or sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood; Or [if he sold] wine and it turned out to be vinegar; Or vinegar and it turned out to be wine; Either of them may retract.

If a man sold produce to his fellow and the buyer drew it towards him but did not measure it, [the buyer] has acquired [the produce]. If [the seller] had measured it but [the buyer] did not draw it towards him, he has not acquired [the produce]. If [the buyer] is clever he will rent the place [in which the produce is located]. If a man bought flax from his fellow he has not acquired it until he has moved it from one place to another. If it was still attached to the ground, and he plucked any small quantity of it, he has acquired possession.

If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. [After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says: “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.”

If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a coin) in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a pondion) worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt.

The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The rule is just the opposite.” The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out measures)? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary. [And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures. Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures. Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.

Chapter 6

If a man sold grain to his fellow [and after it was sown] it did not sprout, even if it was flax-seed he is not liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it was garden-seeds, which are not used for food, he is liable.”

If a man sold grain to his fellow, the buyer must agree to accept a quarter-kab of refuse with every seah. [If he bought] figs he must agree to accept ten that are eaten by worms for every one hundred. [If he bought] a cellar of wine, he must agree to accept ten jars gone sour in every one hundred. [If he bought] jars in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten which are not fully dry (and therefore are more easily broken) in one hundred.

If a man sold wine to his fellow and it turned sour he is not responsible. But if it was known [to the seller] that his wine would [soon] turn sour, this is a mistaken purchase. If he had said to him, “I am selling you spiced wine”, he is responsible for its remaining [good] until Shavuoth. [If he said] it is old wine, it must be from last year’s. [If he said] it is vintage old wine, it must be from the year before last.

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

If he had a cistern behind his fellow’s house, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in his cattle and let them drink from his cistern, rather he must draw water and let them drink outside. He and the owner of the house should each make themselves a lock.

If he had a garden behind his fellow’s garden, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in merchants, or enter through it into another field. [The owner of] the outer garden may plant seeds on the path. But, if with the other’s consent, he has been given a path at the side [of the other’s garden] he may go in and out when he wishes. And he may bring in merchants, but he may not enter through it into another field. And neither of them has the right to plant seeds on the path.

If a public path passed through a man’s field and he took it and gave them [another path] by the side of the field, what he has given he has given and what he has taken for himself does not become his. A private path is four cubits. A public path is sixteen cubits. The king’s path has no prescribed measure. The path to a grave has no prescribed measure. The halting places, according to the judges of Tzippori, should be four kab’s space of ground.

If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide. Rabbi Shimon says: “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left. He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says: “Four, one on each of its sides.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “All depends on the nature of the rock.”

Chapter 7

If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you a kor’s space of soil”, and it contained crevices ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, these are not included in the measurement. But if they were less than this they are included. If he said to him, “About a kor’s space of soil”, even if it contained crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are included in the measurement.

[If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. What does he (the buyer) give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus.

[If he said], “I will sell you [a piece of land] as measured by the rope, whether it is less or more” the condition “whether it is less or more” makes void the condition “as measured by the rope”. [And if he said], “Be it less or more, as measured by the rope”, the condition “as measured by the rope” makes void the condition “be it less or more”, according to Ben Nanas. [If he said, I will sell you a piece of land] by its marks and its boundaries”, and the difference was less than a sixth, the sale stands. If it was as much a sixth the buyer may reduce the price.

If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you half of the field”, it must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes half of the field [which the other allots to him]. [If he said, “I will sell you] the southern half”, the field must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes the southern half. He accepts responsibility for [providing the ground] for the dividing wall and the large and small ditches. How large is the large ditch? Six handbreadths. And the small ditch? Three handbreadths.

Chapter 8

There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.These inherit and bequeath: a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath. A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath. A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit. And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.

This is the order of inheritance: “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter. The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’ Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers. This is the general rule: whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence. The father has precedence over all his offspring.

The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of Israel): The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s father); And, in that he (Zelophehad) was the first-born, he took a double portion.

The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property.

If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.”

If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid.

If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.

If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike. If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance]. If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].

Chapter 9

If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says: “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says: “I approve of Admon’s opinion.”

If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful gender) onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males. If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives. If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.

If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit. So, too, if a woman (a widow) improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.

If brothers were partners and one of them fell into a public office, it falls to the common benefit. If one [of them] got sick and needed healing, his healing is at his own expense. If certain of the brothers in their father’s lifetime had made a present as groomsmen [at their father’s expense] and [after his death] the present was restored to them, it is restored to the common benefit, for the groomsmen’s gift [counts as a loan] and can be recovered in a court of law. But if [one of the brothers in his father’s lifetime] sent his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, they cannot be recovered through a court of law, since they count [not as a loan but] as a charitable deed.

If a man sent betrothal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, and he sent there 100 maneh (10,000 dinar) and he ate a betrothal meal of but one dinar, [and he afterward divorced his wife] they (the betrothal gifts) are not recoverable. But if he did not eat the betrothal meal, they are recoverable. If he sent many betrothal gifts in order for them to return with her to her his house [when he marries her], they are recoverable. If he sent few betrothal gifts which were to be used in her father’s house, they are not recoverable.

If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the gift) said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.”

If a man divided his property orally, Rabbi Eliezer says: “Whether he was healthy or at the point of death, property for which there is security (land) can be acquired only by money, by a document or by possession; property for which there is no security (movable objects) can be acquired only by being drawn [into the possession of the one acquiring]. They (the Sages) said to him: “It once happened that the mother of the sons of Rokhel was sick and said, ‘Give my veil to my daughter’, and it was worth twelve hundred maneh (1,200 dinars) and she died and they fulfilled her words. He said to them: “May their mother bury the sons of Rokhel.” The Sages say: “On a Sabbath his words remain valid, since he cannot write, but not on a weekday.” Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule on the Sabbath, how much more so on a weekday.” Similarly, others may acquire possession on behalf of a minor, but not on behalf of an adult. Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule with regards to a minor, how much more so does the rule apply to an adult.

If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].”

If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.”

If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and Hillel) agree that the they split the property. Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”

Chapter 10

A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”

A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.

They may write out a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, or a receipt (stating that the husband has paid the ketubah debt) for the wife even if her husband is not with her, provided that he (the scribe) knows them. And the husband pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a document for the debtor even though the creditor is not with him, but they may not write out a document for the creditor unless the debtor is with him. And the debtor pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a deed of sale for the seller although the buyer is not with him, but they may not write it out for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the (scribe’s) fee.

They may not write documents of betrothal or marriage except with the consent of both parties. And the bridegroom pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of tenancy and sharecropping except with the consent of both parties. And the tenant pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of arbitration or any document drawn up before a court except with the consent of both parties. And both parties pay the (scribe’s) fee. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Two documents are written for the two parties, one copy for each.”

If a man had paid part of his debt and gave the debt document to a third party, and the debtor said to him, “If I have not paid you back by such and such a day, give him (the creditor) back the debt document” and the time came and he had not paid, Rabbi Yose says: “He should give it to him.” Rabbi Judah says: “He should not give it to him.”

If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the debtor) will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the creditor) have not been damaged.

If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”

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

משנה סנהדרין

Chapter 1

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three. Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case.

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

The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck [are decided upon] by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.” The rites of halitzah and “refusal” [are performed] before three. The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known [are redeemed] before three. Things dedicated to the Temple [are redeemed] before three. Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, [are evaluated] before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” [Vows of evaluation], [to be redeemed] with land [are evaluated] before nine and a priest. And similarly [for the evaluation] of a man.

Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three, as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three.

A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.

The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten.

Chapter 2

The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool.

The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8).

If any of his near kin die he may not go out of the door of his palace. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wishes to follow the bier he may, since we have found that David followed the bier of Avner, as it says, “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31) They answered, “That was only to appease the people.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit on the floor and he sits on a couch.

He may send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice by the decision of the court of seventy one. He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest him. The king’s road has no limit. Whatsoever the people take in plunder they must place before him, and he may take first. “And he shall not have many wives” (Deut. 17:17) eighteen only. Rabbi Judah says: “He may take many wives provided they don’t turn his heart away [from worshipping God]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Even one that might turn his heart away, he should not marry. Why then does it say, “He shall not have many wives”, even if they are like Avigayil. “He shall not keep many horses” (Deut. 17:16) enough for his chariot only. “Nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess” (Deut. 17:17) enough to pay his soldier’s wages. He must write a Torah scroll for himself; when he goes forth to battle he shall take it with him, and when he returns he shall bring it back with him; when he sits in judgement it shall be with him, and when he sits to eat it shall be with him, as it says, “Let it remain with him and let him read it all his life” (Deut. 17:19)

None may ride his horse and none may sit on his throne and none may make use of his scepter. No one may see him when his hair is being cut or when he is naked or when he is in the bath house, for it says, “You shall set a king upon yourself” (Deut. 17:15) that his awe should be over you.

Chapter 3

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.

If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.”

And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”

These are the relatives [that are not qualified to be witnesses or judges]: A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. Moreover all that were kinsmen at the time [are disqualified]; but kinsmen that have ceased to be kinsmen become qualified.” Rabbi Judah says: “If a man’s daughter died and left children, her husband still counts as a kinsman.”

A friend or an enemy [is disqualified]. “A friend”: this is one’s groomsman. “An enemy”: anyone whom he has not spoken to in three days because of anger. They replied: “Israelites are not suspected of such.”

How do they check the witnesses? They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses]. And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.” Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him. If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter. If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.

When the judges reached their decision they would bring in the litigants. The chief among the judges says: “You, so-and-so are not obligated”, or “You, so-and-so are obligated”. And from where do we know that after one of the judges has gone out that he may not say, “I declared him not obligated and my colleagues declared him obligated, so what can I do since they outvoted me?” Of such a one it says, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people” (Lev. 19:16) and it also says, “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” (Proverbs 11:13).

So long as a litigant can produce proof he may overturn the verdict. If they had said to him, “Bring all of the proofs that you have within thirty days” and he brought them within thirty days, the court may overturn the verdict. But if he brought any proof after thirty days, the court cannot reverse the verdict. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not find [the proof] within thirty days but found it after thirty days?” If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, and he later found proof or witnesses, then they are totally invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not know that he had witnesses, then found witnesses, or that he did not know that he had proof, then found proof? If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, but when he saw that he was about to be found obligated, he said, “Come near, so-and-so and so-and-so and testify for me!”, or if he brought forth some proof from his wallet, then they are totally invalid.

Chapter 4

Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.

In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.

The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.

And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.

How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?,” was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]

Chapter 5

They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: In what week of years? In what year? In what month? On what date in the month? On what day? In what hour? In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place? [Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him? If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it?

The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.

If one said, “On the second of the month”, and the other said, “On the third”, their evidence remains valid, since one may have known that the month was intercalated and the other may not have known that the month was intercalated. If one said, “On the third” and the other said, “On the fifth”, their evidence is invalid. If one said, “At the second hour”, and the other said, “At the third”, their evidence remains valid. If one said, “At the third hour”, and the other said, “At the fifth”, their evidence becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: “It remains valid. [But] if one said, ‘At the fifth hour’ and one said ‘At the seventh’, their evidence becomes invalid, since at the fifth hour the sun is in the east and at the seventh it is in the west.”

They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.

If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night. Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them. If they find him not guilty, they discharge him. If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges. Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal.

Chapter 6

When the trial is completed he [the condemned] is led forth to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside of the court, as it is says, “Bring out him that has cursed” (Lev. 24:14). A man was stationed at the door of the court with the handkerchiefs in his hand, and a man on a horse was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him. If one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favor’, he [the signaler] waves the handkerchief, and the man on the horse runs and stops them. And even if he [the convict] himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favor’, he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion. If then they find him innocent, they discharge him. But if not, he goes forth to be stoned, and a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it.”

When he is about ten cubits away from the place of stoning, they say to him, ‘confess’, for such is the practice of all who are executed, that they [first] confess, for he who confesses has a portion in the world to come. For so we find in the case of Achan, that Joshua said to him, “My son, pay honor to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession to him. [Tell me what you have done, do not hold anything back from me.]” And Achan answered Joshua and said, “It is true, I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and this is what I have done” (Josh. 7:19-20). And how do we know that his confessions made atonement for him? As it says, “And Joshua said, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day” (Josh. 7:35), [meaning] this day you are a calamity, but you are not to be a calamity in the next world. And if he does not know how to confess, they say to him, “Say, may my death be an expiation for all my sins.” Rabbi Judah said: “If he knows that he is a victim of false evidence, he can say: may my death be an expiation for all my sins but this.” They [the sages] said to him: “If so, everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself.”

When he is about four cubits distant from the place of stoning, he is stripped of his clothing. A man is covered in front and a woman both in front and behind, according to Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: “A man is to be stoned naked and a woman is not to be stoned naked.

The place of stoning was twice a man’s height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned.

R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s presence) use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned.

When the flesh was completely decomposed, the bones were gathered and buried in their proper place. The relatives then came and greeted the judges and witnesses, as if to say, we have no [ill feelings] against you, for you gave a true judgment. And they observed no mourning rites but grieved [for him], for grief is in the heart alone.

Chapter 7

Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation. R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.” That (the previous chapter) is the manner of stoning.

The manner in which burning is executed is as follows: They would lower him into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. R. Judah says: “Should he have died at their hands [being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth], they would not have fulfilled the requirements of execution by fire. Rather his mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok said: “It once happened that a priest’s daughter committed adultery, whereupon bundles of sticks were placed around her and she was burnt. The Sages said to him: “That was because the court at that time was not well learned in law.

Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.

The following are stoned:He who has sexual relations with his mother, with his father’s wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male; with a beast; a woman who commits bestiality with a beast; a blasphemer; an idolater; one who gives of his seed to molech; a necromancer or a wizard; one who desecrates the Sabbath; he who curses his father or mother; he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman; one who incites [individuals to idolatry]; one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]; a sorcerer; and a wayward and rebellious son. He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father’s wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” He who has sexual relations with his father’s wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father’s wife, and as a married woman, both during his father’s lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son’s lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned.

The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name: ‘may Yose smite Yose.’” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”

He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one who serves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.

He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. A Ba’al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde’oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition.

He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt.

He who has sexual relations with a betrothed young woman is not punished until she is a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father’s house. If two men had sexual relations with her, the first is stoned, but the second is strangled.

One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.

A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”

Chapter 8

A wayward and rebellious son: at what age does he become liable [to be stoned]? From the time that he produces two hairs until the beard is full by which is meant the hair of the genitals, not that of the face, but the Sages used euphemisms, for it says, “If a man has a son” (Deut. 21:18) a son, but not a daughter; ‘a son’, but not an adult man. The minor is exempt, since he does not come within the scope of the commandments.

When does he become liable [to be stoned]? Once he has eaten a tartemar of meat and drunk half a log of wine. Rabbi Yose said: “A maneh of meat and a log of wine. If he ate it in a company [celebrating] a religious act; or at a gathering for the purpose of intercalating the month; if he ate the second tithe in Jerusalem; if he ate the carrion or terefoth (meat that was not slaughtered in a kosher fashion), abominable and creeping things, or untithed produce, or the first tithe from which terumah had not been separated, or unredeemed second tithe, or unredeemed sacred food; if his eating involved a religious act or a transgression; if he ate any food but did not eat meat or drank any drink but did not drink wine, he does not become a ‘stubborn and rebellious son’, unless he eats meat and drinks wine, for it is written, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice;] he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20). Although there is no clear proof for this, there is at least a hint, as it is says, “Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous meat eaters of flesh” (Proverbs 23:20).

If he stole from his father and ate it on his father’s property, or of strangers and ate it on the property of the strangers, or of strangers and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a “wayward and rebellious son,” until he steals from his father and eats on other’s property. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said: “Until he steals from his father and mother.”

If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.

A “wayward and rebellious son” is judged on account of his outcome: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty. For the death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; [and the death] of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. Wine and sleep of the wicked benefit themselves and the world; of the righteous, injure themselves and the world The scattering of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. The assembling of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The tranquillity of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world.

[The thief] who burrows his way in [to someone’s home] is judged on account of his outcome. If he burrowed his way in and broke a jug, should there be blood-guiltiness for him, he must pay [for the jug], but if there is no blood-guiltiness for him, he is not liable.

The following can be saved [from sinning] even at the cost of their lives: he who pursues after his neighbor to slay him, [or] after a male [to rape him], [or] after a betrothed maiden [to rape her]. But he who pursues after an animal [to have relations with it], or one who would violate the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, must not be saved [from sinning] at the cost of his life.

Chapter 9

The following are burnt: he who has sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, and a priest’s adulterous daughter. There is included in [the prohibition of having relations with] a woman and her daughter his own daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and the daughter of her daughter or son, his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a city subverted into worshipping idols. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not get out of there, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but he could get out of there, yet he died, he is not liable [for the death penalty]. If he set a dog or a snake against him [and they killed him], he is free from death. If he caused a snake to bite him, Rabbi Judah ruled that he is liable [for the death penalty] and the Sages, that he is not. If a man struck his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they [the experts] declared that he would die, but then its effect lessened [so that it was thought that he would live], only to increase subsequently, so that he died he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah said that he is exempt, since there is a strong possibility [that he did not die as a result of his injuries].

If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable.”

If a murderer became mixed up with others, they are all exempted [from the death penalty]. R. Judah said: they are placed in a cell. If a number of persons condemned to different types of sentences became mixed with one another, they are executed by the most lenient. If criminals condemned to stoning [became mixed up] with others condemned to burning, Rabbi Shimon said: they are stoned, because burning is severer. But the sages say they are burned, because stoning is severer. Rabbi Shimon said to them: “If burning was not severer, it would not be decreed for a priest's adulterous daughter.” They replied: “If stoning was not severer, it would not be the penalty of a blasphemer and an idolater.” If men condemned to decapitation became mixed up with others condemned to strangling, Rabbi Shimon said: “They are [all] decapitated.” The sages say: “They are [all] strangled.”

He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the court is executed by the severer. If he committed one sin for which a twofold death penalty is incurred, he is executed by the severer. R. Jose says: “He is judged according to the first penalty which was placed upon him.”

He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction.

If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish) woman, he is punished by zealots. If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.”

Chapter 10

All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”

Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world to come: The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Judah says: “Manasseh has a portion in the world to come, for it says, “He prayed to him, and He granted his prayer, and heard his plea and he restored him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). They [the sages] said to him: “They restored him to his kingdom, but not to [his portion in] the world to come.” The four commoners are: Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed.

“You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deut. 13:16): a company of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place saves the city. “Doom it and all that is in it” (ibid.): From here they said that the property of the righteous, which is within [the city] is destroyed, but that which is outside of the city is saved, while that of the wicked, whether in or outside of the city, is destroyed.

“And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. “And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings (terumoth) allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. “A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” “And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world.

Chapter 11

The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable.

He [the rebellious elder] was executed neither by his local court nor by the court at Yavneh, but rather was taken to the great court in Jerusalem and kept there until the [next] festival and executed on the festival, for it says, “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17:13), according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Judah says: “His judgment must not be delayed, but he is executed immediately, and proclamations are written and sent by messengers to all places, “So and so has been sentenced to death at the court.”

‘A false prophet’; he who prophesies what he has not heard, or what was not told to him, is executed by man. But he who suppresses his prophecy, or disregards the words of a prophet, or a prophet who transgresses his own word, his death is at the hands of heaven, as it says, “[And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in my name] I Myself will call him to account (Deut. 18:19).

“He who prophesies in the name of an idol”: this is one who says, “Thus has the idol declared” even if he directed the teaching to declare the unclean, unclean, or the clean, clean. “One who has sexual relations with a married woman” after her entry into her husband’s home for marriage, though she did not have sexual relations with her husband, the one who has relations with her is strangled. “Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her”, for all false witnesses are led forth to meet the same death [which they sought to impose,] save witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her.

משנה מכות

Chapter 1

How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?[If they say:] “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,” it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”, it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah” seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years.

[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”

[If they say:] “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.” Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend two hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes.

Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said: “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word.

If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed. Rabbi Judah says: “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”

Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.

“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!”

Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Yose said: “When is this true? With regards to capital cases; but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbi says: “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.” This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person?

If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.

If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. [Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”

Chapter 2

The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.”

If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”

The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment.

To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14). Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.

And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). And they delegate to him two disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4).

Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25). All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer. Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death. If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death.

If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.

A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”

Chapter 3

And these are liable to be flogged:One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.

An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4); One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13); One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27); Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8); Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18); Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19); One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4); One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15,; One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31); One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28): One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21); Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30); Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11,. One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property. How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”

One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10); Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9); Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18). One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes].

If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say: “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.” This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable.

He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged]. If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says: “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).

If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance.

If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance. If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance. If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on! Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.

It is possible for one to plough one furrow and become liable for eight prohibited acts: If he ploughs with an ox and donkey [yoked together] (2+3) and these were sanctified [animals], [the plough being drawn over] diverse mixed-seed sown] in a vineyard, during the sabbatical year, on a festival-day, [the plower being] a priest and a nazirite and the plot being situated on a defiled area. Hanania ben Hakinai says: “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them: “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.”

How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders.

When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.

How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it.

The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen. He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force.

And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (lashes)” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time remains) he returns to the beginning of the section. [“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.

All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more]... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!

Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching” (Isaiah 42).

משנה שבועות

Chapter 1

Oaths are of two kinds, subdivided into four; The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four; The laws concerning carrying on the Sabbath are of two kinds, subdivided into four. The symptoms of negas are of two kinds, subdivided into four.

Where there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end but forgetfulness between, a “sliding scales” sacrifice is brought. Where there is knowledge at the beginning but not at the end, the goat which is [sacrificed and its blood sprinkled] within [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] together with the Day of Atonement itself hold the sin in suspense until it become known to the sinner, and he brings the “sliding scale” sacrifice.

Where there is no knowledge at the beginning but there is knowledge at the end, the goat sacrificed on the outer altar together with the day of atonement bring atonement, for it says: “[one he-goat for a sin-offering] beside the sin-offering of atonement” (Numbers 29:1: for that which this goat [prepared inside the Holy of Holies] atones this goat [prepared outside] atones: just as the ‘inner’ goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the beginning], so the “outer” goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the end].

Where there is no knowledge [of the impurity] either at the beginning or at the end, the goats offered as sin-offerings on festivals and new months bring atonement, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: “The festival goats atone [for such sins] and not the new moon goats. And for what do the new month goats bring atonement? For a pure man who ate impure holy food.” Rabbi Meir says: “All the goats have equal powers of atonement for imparting impurity to the Temple and holy food. Rabbi Shimon used to say: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure man who ate impure holy food; and the festival goats atone for transgression of the laws of impurity where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; and the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement atones for transgression of these laws where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said to them: “Let it be offered.” They said to him: “Since they are not equal in the atonement they bring how can they take each other's place?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Judah said in his name [of Rabbi Shimon (bar Yohai)]: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food; the festival goats, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food, atone also for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food and for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, atones also for a case where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said, “Yes.” They [further] said to him: “Granted that the Day of Atonement goat may be offered up on the new month, but how can the new month goat be offered up on the Day of Atonement to bring atonement for a sin that is not within its scope?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.”

For intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food, the goat offered inside [the Holy of Holies] on the Day of Atonement together with the Day of Atonement itself bring atonement. For other transgressions of the Torah, light and grave, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive and negative, those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death imposed by the court for all these the scapegoat [sent out on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement.

[The scapegoat] brings atonement to Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest alike. What [then] is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest? [None], save that the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement to the priests for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food. Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as the blood of the goat that is offered within [the Holy of Holies] brings atonement for Israelites, so the blood of the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement for priests; and just as the confession of sins pronounced over the scapegoat brings atonement for Israelites, so the confession pronounced over the bullock brings atonement for priests.

Chapter 2

The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four;[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that the food was holy; [If the fact that it was] holy food was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were unknown to him; And he ate holy food, and was not aware, and after he had eaten, he became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. [[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that [he was entering] the Temple; [If the fact that he was entering] the Temple was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were hidden from him; And he entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he had gone out, became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice.

It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable.

If he became impure while in the Temple court [and was aware of it], and then forgot that he was impure, though he remembered that he was in the Temple; [Or] he forgot that he was in the Temple, though he remembered that he was impure; [Or,] he forgot both; And he prostrated himself, or waited [in the Temple] the time it takes to prostrate; Or went out the long way, he is liable; [If he went out] the shorter way, he is not liable; This is the positive precept concerning the temple for which they [the court] are not liable.

And which is the positive precept concerning a menstruant for which they are liable? [This:] if one cohabited with a [ritually] pure woman, and she said to him: “I have become impure”, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his withdrawal is as pleasant to him as his entry.

Rabbi Eliezer said: “[Scripture says: ‘If any one touch… the carcass of] an impure creeping thing, and it be unknown to him’ (Leviticus 5:2), when the impure creeping thing is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.” Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.” Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”

Chapter 3

Oaths are two, subdivided into four. “I swear I shall eat”, and “[I swear] I shall not eat”; “[I swear] I have eaten”, and “[I swear] I have not eaten”. “I swear I shall not eat”, and he ate [even] a minute quantity, he is liable, the words of Rabbi Akiva. They [the Sages] said to Rabbi Akiva: “Where do we find that he who eats a minute quantity is liable, that this one should be liable?” Rabbi Akiba said to them: “But where do we find that he who [merely] speaks brings a sacrifice, that this one should bring a sacrifice?” [If a man says,] “I swear I shall not eat” and he ate and drank, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,” and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate [all three], he is liable for each one.

“I swear I shall not drink,” and he drank many liquids, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not drink wine, oil, and honey,” and he drank [all three], he is liable for each one.

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. “I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him.

It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Rabbi Ishmael says: “He is liable only for [an oath with regards to] the future, for it says, “To do bad or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). Rabbi Akiva said to him: “If so, we would know only such cases where doing evil and doing good are applicable; but how do we know such cases where doing evil and doing good are not applicable? He said to him: “From the amplification of the verse.” He said to him: “If the verse amplifies for that, it amplifies for this also.”

If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. [For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt!

“I swear I shall not eat this loaf”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; and he ate it, he is liable only once. This is the oath of utterance, for which one is liable, for its willful transgression, flogging; and for its unwitting transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. For a vain oath one is liable for willful transgression, flogging, and for unwitting transgression one is exempt.

What is a vain oath?If he swore that which is contrary to the facts known to people, saying of a pillar of stone that it is of gold; or of a man that he is a woman; or of a woman that she is a man. If he swore concerning a thing which is impossible, [for instance if he said,] “If I have not seen a camel flying in the air”, or “If I have not seen a serpent as thick as the beam of the olive press”. If he said to witnesses, “Come and bear testimony for me”, [and they replied,] “We swear that we will not bear testimony for you”. If he swore to annul a commandment, [for example] not to make a sukkah, or not to take a lulav, or not to put on tefillin. These are vain oaths, for which one is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression one is exempt.

[If one said:] “I swear I shall eat this loaf”; [and then he said,] “I swear I shall not eat it,” the first is an oath of utterance, and the second is a vain oath. If he ate it, he transgressed the vain oath; if he did not eat it, he transgressed the oath of utterance.

The oath of utterance applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man’s own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice.

A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man's own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, stripes, and for unintentional transgression he is exempt. [In the case of] both this and that [oath], if he was adjured by the mouth of others, he is liable. How so? If he said, “I have not eaten today,” or, “I have not put on tefillin today” [and the another person said,] “I adjure thee,” and he said, “Amen!”, he is liable [if his oath was false].

Chapter 4

The oath of testimony applies to men and not to women, to non-relatives and not to relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and not to those unqualified. And it applies only to those eligible to bear witness. Whether [uttered] in front of the court or not in front of the court, if [uttered] with his own mouth; [but if adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Whether [uttered] with his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court.”

And they are liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of knowledge of] testimony, but they are not liable for unintentional transgression. And what are they liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A sliding scale sacrifice.

The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge].

If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two.

“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that there are of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know not that there are of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”, they are liable for each one. “I adjure you that you bear testimony for me that there is of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know no testimony for you that there is of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, they are liable for each one.

“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so owes me full damages, or half damages, or double payment, or four or five payment; Or that so-and-so raped my daughter, or seduced my daughter; Or that my son struck me; Or that my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Day of Atonement”; [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are liable.

I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that I am a priest, or, that I am a levite, or, that I am not the son of a divorced woman, or, that I am not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so is a priest, or, that so-and-so is a levite, or, that he is not the son of a divorced woman, or, that he is not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so violated his daughter, or seduced his daughter; That my son injured me; That my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Sabbath [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are exempt.

[If a man said,] “I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so promised to give me two hundred zuz, and did not give me”, they are exempt, for they are liable only for a money claim as [in the case of] deposit.

“I adjure you that, when you know any testimony for me, you should come and bear testimony for me,” they are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony.

[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them.

If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt.

If he sent by the hand of his servant, or if the defendant said to them: “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for him you should come and bear testimony for him”, they are exempt, until they hear [the adjuration] direct from the claimant.

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

Chapter 5

The oath of deposit applies to men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those qualified [to bear testimony] and those unqualified; before the court and not before the court, [if uttered] from his own mouth. And [if adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, whether [uttered] from his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others since he denied it, he is liable. And he is liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of having received the] deposit, but he is not liable for unintentional transgression. And what is he liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver.

The oath of deposit how? If he said to him: “Give me my deposit which I have in your possession” [and the other replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession”; or he replied to him; “You have nothing in my possession,” [and the depositor said:] “I adjure you”, and he responded, “Amen!”, he is liable. If he adjured him five times, whether before the court or not before the court, and he denied, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Shimon said: “What is the reason? Because he can retract and admit.”

If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” “Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. “Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one.

“You raped or seduced my daughter” and the other says, “I did not rape, nor seduce,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he does not pay a fine on his own admission. They said to him: “Even though he does not pay a fine on his own admission, he still pays for the shame and blemish [to the girl], based on his own admission.

“You stole my ox,” and he says, “I have not stolen it” “I adjure You,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. “I have stolen it, but I have not killed it or sold it”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. “Your ox killed my ox,” and he says, “It did not kill [your ox]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. “Your ox killed my slave,” and he says, “It did not kill [your slave]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. He said to him, “You injured me, or bruised me,” and the other says, “I have not injured you or bruised you,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. His slave said to him, “You knocked out my tooth, or blinded my eye,” and he said, “I did not knock out [your tooth], or blind [your eye],’ “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. This is the principle: whenever he pays on his own admission, he is liable; and when he does not pay on his own admission, he is exempt.

Chapter 6

The oath of the judges [is imposed when] the claim is [at least] two silver coins, and the admission the equivalent of a perutah. And if the admission is not of the same kind as the claim, he is exempt. How is this so? “Two silver ma’ahs of mine are in your possession,” [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is exempt. “Two silver ma’ahs of mine and a perutah are in your possession,” [and the other replies,] “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is liable. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours,” he is exempt. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have of yours only fifty denarii,” he is liable. “You have of my father’s a hundred denarii”, [and the other replies], “I have of his only fifty denarii”, he is exempt, because it is as if he restores a lost object.

“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me”, [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is exempt. [If he says,] “Nothing of yours is in my possession,” he is liable. “You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes”. [And then he said], “Do not give them to me except before witnesses.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me;” [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is liable, because he should have given them to him before witnesses.

“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. “You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of Admon. If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them.

No oath is imposed in a claim by a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor. And no oath is imposed on a minor. But an oath is imposed when a claim is lodged against a minor, or against the Temple’s property.

And these are the things for which no oath is imposed: slaves, bonds, lands, and dedicated objects. [The law of] paying double, or four or five times the value, does not apply to them. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath, and a paid guardian does not pay. Rabbi Shimon says: “For dedicated objects for which he is responsible an oath is imposed and for [dedicated objects] for which he is not responsible an oath is not imposed.

Rabbi Meir says: “There are things which are [attached] to land, but are not like land.” But the sages do not agree with him. How so? [If one says,] “Ten vines laden with fruit I delivered to you” and the other says, “There were only five”; Rabbi Meir makes him take an oath; But the Sages say: “All that is attached to land is like land.” An oath is imposed only for a thing [defined] by size, weight, or number. How so? [If one says,] “A store room full [of produce] I delivered to you,” or “A purse full [of money] I delivered to you” – and the other says, “I do not know; but what you left you may take,” he is exempt. If one says, “[I gave you produce reaching] up to the moulding [above the window],” and the other says, “Only up to the window,” he is liable.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

Chapter 7

All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. “The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver denar).”

“He who has been robbed” How so? If they testified of a man that he entered into another’s house to take a pledge without permission, and the other says, “You have taken my vessels, and he says, “I have not taken them,” he takes an oath, and takes back his vessels. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, “You have taken two vessels,” and the other says, “I have taken only one.”

“He who has been wounded,” How so? If they testified about a person that another went onto his property whole, and came out wounded, and he said to him, “You have wounded me,” and the other said, “I have not wounded you,” he takes an oath, and receives [damages]. R. Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, you have inflicted on me two wounds,” and the other said, “I inflicted on you only one wound.”

“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].”

“And the shopkeeper with his account book,” How so? Not that he [the shopkeeper] says to him [the customer], “It is written in my account book that you owe me two hundred zuz”. Rather he [the customer] says to him [the shopkeeper], “Give my son two seahs of wheat,” or, “Give my laborer small change to the value of a sela” and then he says, “I have given,” and they say, “We have not received”; he [the shopkeeper] takes an oath, and receives [his due from the customer]. And they take an oath, and receive [their due]. Ben Nanas said: “How can both be permitted to come to a vain oath? Rather he takes without an oath, and they take without an oath.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.”

And these take an oath though there is no [definite] claim: partners, tenants, guardians, the wife who transacts the affairs in the house, and the son of the house. [If] he said to him, “What do you claim of me?”, [and the other replied,] “I want you to swear to me”, he must take an oath. If the partners or tenants had divided, he cannot impose an oath upon them. If an oath was imposed upon him in another case, they impose upon him the whole. And the seventh year cancels the oath.

Chapter 8

There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.

If he [the owner] said to the unpaid guardian, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied], “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “amen”, he is exempt [from having to bring a sacrifice for a false oath].

[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen”, he is exempt. [If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was lost”; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you”, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he had consumed it, he pays the principal; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, a fifth, and brings a guilt-offering. [If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was stolen;” [and the owner said,] “I adjure you, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he himself stole it, he pays double; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, fifth, and brings a guilt-offering.

If a man said to one in the market, “Where is my ox which you have stolen?” and he replied, “I did not steal it,” and witnesses testified against him that he did steal it, he pays double. If he killed it or sold it, he pays four or five times its value. If he saw witnesses coming nearer and nearer, and he said, “I did steal it, but I did not kill or sell it,” he pays only the principal.

If he [the owner] said to the borrower, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt.

[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. If he said to a paid guardian, or hirer, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it was lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it was stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. [If he replied,] “It died,” or, “It was injured,” or, “It was captured,” whereas in reality it was stolen or lost; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. [If he replied,] “It was lost,” or, “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. This is the principle: he who [by lying] changes from liability to liability or from exemption to exemption, or from exemption to liability, is exempt; From liability to exemption, is liable. This is the principle: he who takes an oath to make it more lenient for himself, is liable; to make it more stringent for himself, is exempt.

משנה עדיות

Chapter 1

Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination.

Shammai says: “[Dough] of a kav or more is subject to the law of hallah.” And Hillel says: “Of two kavs or more.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [dough of] a kav and a half is subject to the law of hallah.” And after they increased the measures they said: “[Dough of] five quarters is subject. Rabbi Yose said: “Five are exempt, five and more are liable.”

Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement.

And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion.

And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.

Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it.’”

Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.” And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones]. Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

One who changes for a sela copper coins from second tithe: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel say: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” Rabbi Meir says: “Silver and fruits may not be substituted for silver.” But the sages allow it.

One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.”

A bride’s stool from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounce it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even the framework of a stool [by itself is liable to become] unclean.” A stool which has been set in a baker’s trough: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even one made therein [is liable to become unclean].”

These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the levir). But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” But Beth Hillel says: “She may be married again but may not take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai said to them: “You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden marriage, should you not permit the lighter matter of property?” Beth Hillel said to them: “We have found that brothers do not inherit on her statement.” Beth Shammai said to them: “Do we not infer it from her marriage document in which he writes to her ‘That if you be married to another you shall take what is written for you’?” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

Whoever is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, according to Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: “You have set matters in order with regards to his master, but you have not set matters in order with regards to himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able [to marry] a woman who is free. Is he to refrain [from marrying]? [How can he] for is it not the case that the world was created in order for people to be fruitful and multiply? For it is said, “He did not create it to be a waste; but formed it for inhabitation” (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world his master is compelled to make him free, and he writes out a bond for half his value.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

Chapter 2

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters:Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.”

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, said: “All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Rabbi Akiba said: “From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn beast and it is found to be trefah, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide.” But the Sages say: “[A testimony which consists of] ‘we didn’t see’ is not a proof; rather the hide must be taken out to the place of burning.

He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean.

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

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

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

They said three things before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua. Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:A woman may go out [on the Sabbath adorned] with a “golden-city”; And they that fly pigeons are unfit to bear evidence. And one in the name of Rabbi Joshua: If there was a creeping thing in the mouth of a weasel when it walked over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether it touched them or whether it did not touch them, that about which there is doubt remains pure.

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him.About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity.

He used to say: the father transmits to the son beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years. And the number of generations before Him, that shall be their appointed end: For it is said, “calling the generations from the beginning” (Isaiah 41:4) Although it is said, “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), it is also said, “And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (Genesis 15:16).

Also he used to say that there are five things that last twelve months:The judgment of the generation of the flood [continued] twelve months; The judgment of Job [continued] twelve months; The judgment of the Egyptians [continued] twelve months; The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come [will continue] twelve months; The judgment of the wicked in gehinom [continues] twelve months, for it is said, and “It will be from one month until its [same] month” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: “[As long as] from Passover to Shavuoth, for it is said, “And from one Sabbath until its [next] Sabbath” (ibid.).

Chapter 3

[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.”

Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.”

The insides of a melon and the discarded leaves of a vegetable of terumah: Rabbi Dosa permits [their] use to non-priests, and the Sages forbid it. Five ewes, their fleeces weighing each a mina and a half, are subject to [the law of] the first of the fleece, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “Five ewes [are subject] whatever [their fleeces weigh].”

All mats are [liable to become] impure by “corpse” impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “[Also by] “midras” impurity. All network is unsusceptible to impurity except a [network] girdle, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “They are all liable to uncleanness, except those used by wool dealers [for carrying raw wool].”

A sling whose pocket is woven is susceptible to impurity. If it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces it not susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce it susceptible to impurity. If its finger-hold is broken off, it is not susceptible to impurity; [But if the] string-handle [only] is broken off it is susceptible to impurity.

A female captive may eat of terumah, according to the words of Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: “There is a female captive who may eat, and there is a female captive who may not eat. How is this so? The woman who said: ‘I was taken captive but [nonetheless] I am pure’, she may eat; because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit. But if there are witnesses [who declare] that she was made a captive, and she says: ‘[nonetheless] I am pure’, she may not eat.”

Four cases of doubt Rabbi Joshua pronounces impure, and the Sages pronounce them pure. How is this so? If the impure person stands and the pure person passes by him; or if the pure person stands and the impure person passes by him; or if impurity is in the private domain and something pure is in the public domain; Or if something pure is in the private domain and something impure is in the public domain; If it is doubtful [in all of these case] whether one touched or did not touch the other, or if it is doubtful whether one formed a tent over the other or did not form a tent over the other, or if it is doubtful whether one moved or did not move the other Rabbi Joshua pronounces such a case impure, and the Sages pronounce it pure.

Three things Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]: The nail of the money-changer; And the chest of grist makers; And the nail of a stone dial. Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive].

Four things Rabban Gamaliel pronounces susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce them not susceptible to impurity.The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metals vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”

Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns; One may curry cattle on a festival; And one may grind pepper in its own mill. Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them. But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.

Chapter 4

The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel.An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases.

A beast which was born on a festival all agree that it is permitted; and a chicken which was hatched from the egg all agree that it is forbidden. He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Beth Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood], but Beth Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.

Beth Shammai says: [produce pronounced] ownerless with respect to the poor [only] is counted as ownerless. But Beth Hillel says: it is not counted as ownerless unless it is made ownerless also with respect to the rich, as in the year of release (shmittah). If all the sheaves of the field were of one kav each and one was of four kavs, and it was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten.

A sheaf which was close to a wall or to a stack or to the herd or to [field] utensils, and was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten.

A vineyard of the fourth year Beth Shammai says: it is not subject to the law of the fifth nor to the law of removal. And Beth Hillel says: it is subject to the law of the fifth and to the law of removal. Beth Shammai says: it is subject to the law of fallen grapes and to the law of gleanings, and the poor redeem them for themselves. And Beth Hillel says: all of it goes to the winepress.

A barrel of pickled olives: Beth Shammai says: one need not perforate it, And Beth Hillel say: one must perforate it. But they agree that if it was perforated and the dregs stopped it up, it is not liable to receive impurity. One who had anointed himself with clean oil and [then] became unclean, and he went down and immersed himself, Beth Shammai says: although he still drips [oil], it is clean. And Beth Hillel says: [only while there remains] enough for anointing a small limb. And if from the beginning it was unclean oil, Beth Shammai says: [it is unclean as long as there remains] enough for anointing a small limb, And Beth Hillel says: [even if there remains as much] as a moist liquid. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Beth Hillel: [provided it remains] moist [itself] and [can also] moisten [other things].

A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her.

Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other.

[In the case of] three brothers, of whom two were married to two sisters and one was unmarried, if one of the husbands of the sisters died and the unmarried one betrothed her (maamar), and afterwards his other brother died, Beth Shammai says: his wife remains with him, and the other [widow] is released on the grounds of [the law forbidding] the wife’s sister. But Beth Hillel says: he should put away his wife with a get and halitzah, and the wife of his brother [he should put away] with halitzah. This is the case of which they said: woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife!

One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. [With regards to the rules of] tzitzit (fringes) on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it.

One who vowed [to keep] a longer naziriteship [than ordinary] and he completed his naziriteship and afterwards came to the [holy] land: Beth Shammai says: [he must be] a nazirite [only] thirty days, But Beth Hillel says: [he must be] a nazirite [the full time vowed as] in the beginning. One who has two groups of witnesses who testify about him, these testifying that he vowed two naziriteships and these testifying that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: their testimony is divided, and there is no [obligation to perform] naziriteship. But Beth Hillel says: within the five, two are included, so that he must be a nazirite twice.

A man who was set beneath the gap: Beth Shammai says: he does not cause the impurity to pass over. But Beth Hillel says: a man is hollow, and the upper side causes the impurity to pass over.

Chapter 5

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Beth Shammai says: a waterskin [is liable to become impure only if it is] tied up and remains unimpaired. And the school of Hillel says: even if it is not tied up.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry.

[In the case of] four brothers of whom two were married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, behold, these should perform halitzah and not enter into levirate marriage (with the brothers-in-law). If they went ahead and married them, they must put them away (divorce them). Rabbi Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: they may keep them. But Beth Hillel say: they must put them away.

Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], And green (yellow) blood (of vaginal discharge); But the Sages declared them clean. He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real water). Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned.

At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.”

Chapter 6

Rabbi Judah ben Bava testified concerning five things:That women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; That a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; That a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being; And about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; And about the morning tamid offering, that it is offered at the fourth hour.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan, a man of Kefar Habavli, testified concerning a limb [separated] from a corpse that it is impure; whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: they declared [this] only of a limb from a living [man]. They said to him: is not there an inference from the minor to the major (kal vehomer): If in the case of a living man [who is himself pure] a limb severed from him is impure, how much more in the case of a corpse [which is itself impure] should a limb severed from it be impure! He said to them: they have [nevertheless] declared it only of a limb from a living man. Another answer: The impurity of living men is greater than the impurity of corpses, because a living man causes that on which he lies and sits to become capable of making impure a man and clothing, and [he causes also] what is over him to transfer impurity to foods and liquids- which is defilement that a corpse does not cause.

1) An olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man: 1) Rabbi Eliezer pronounces impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia pronounce pure. a) A barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, b) Rabbi Nehunia pronounces impure and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua pronounce pure. 2) They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man? 1) He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it must be impure. 2) They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it? 3) They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man? 1) He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it must be impure. 2) They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it? 1) They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! 1) He said to them: greater is the impurity of flesh than the impurity of bones, for the defilement of flesh applies both to (animal) carcasses and to creeping things, but it is not so in the case of bones. Another answer: a limb which has on it the proper quantity of flesh causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is still impure, while if the bone is diminished it is pure. They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of bones than the impurity of flesh, for flesh severed from a living man is pure, whereas a limb severed from him, while in its natural condition, is impure. Another answer: an olive’s quantity of flesh (from a corpse) causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); and a majority of a corpse’s bones causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is pure, but if a majority of the bones is diminished, although it does not cause impurity by being under the same roof-space, it yet causes defilement by touching and by carrying.Another answer: any flesh of a corpse less than an olive’s quantity is pure, but bones forming the greater portion of the body’ build or the greater portion of the number of the corpse’s bones, even though they do not fill a quarter-kav are yet impure. They said to Rabbi Joshua: what reason have you found for pronouncing them both pure? He said to them: No! When you pronounce impure in the case of a corpse, it is because the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” apply to it. But how can you say the same of a living man, seeing that the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” do not apply to him?

Chapter 7

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption (lamb) of a firstborn donkey, that if it died, the priest receives nothing, Whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: the owner must bear the responsibility as with the five selas [in the case] of a [firstborn] son. But the Sages say: he bears no responsibility any more than in the case of the redemption of second tithes.

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning brine of unclean locusts that it is clean, Whereas the first mishnah [said]: unclean locusts that have been preserved together with clean locusts do not make their brine unfit.

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which exceeded in quantity dripping water; that it was valid. There was such a case at Birath Hapilya, and when the case came before the Sages they declared it valid.

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which was made to run in a stream through nut-leaves, that it was valid. There was such a case at Ahaliyya, and when the case came before [the Sages in] the Chamber of Hewn Stone they declared it valid.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim, a man of Hadar, testified concerning a jar of ashes of a red heifer which was put over a creeping thing, that they were unclean. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer had pronounced them clean. Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who had vowed two naziriteships, that if he cut his hair after the first one on the thirtieth day, he could cut his hair after the second one on the sixtieth day; and if he cut his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has also fulfilled his duty, for the thirtieth day counts towards the required number.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified concerning the offspring of a peace-offering, that it can be brought as a peace-offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of a peace-offering cannot be brought as a peace-offering. But the sages say: it can be brought. Rabbi Papias said: “I testify that we had a cow, which was a peace-offering, and we ate it at Passover, and its offspring we ate as a peace-offering at the [next] festival.

They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated.

Menahem ben Signai testified concerning the ledge attached to an olive-boiler’s cauldron, that it is [liable to become] impure; and concerning that of dyers, that it is not [liable to become] impure, whereas they used to say the reverse.

Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.

Chapter 8

Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit.

Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by gentiles) in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testified concerning the widow of [a man belonging to] a family of doubtful lineage (an issa), that she was fit to marry into the priesthood, [And that those of] a family of doubtful lineage are fit to declare who was unclean and who clean, who was to be put away and who was to be brought near. Rabban Gamaliel said: we accept your testimony, but what can we do since Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that courts should not be commissioned for this purpose? The priests would listen to you concerning those who might be put away, but not concerning those who might be brought near!

Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the Temple), that it is pure; And that one who touches a corpse is impure. And they called him “Yose the permitter”.

Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nehemiah, a man of Beth Deli, that a woman is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Joshua testified concerning bones found in the wood-shed that the Sages said: one may gather them, bone by bone, and they are all clean.

Rabbi Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the Temple [complex] they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the Temple-courts; but in the case of the Temple they built from the outside, and in the case of the Temple-court they built from the inside. Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered even though there is no Temple, and that the most holy sacrifices may be eaten even though there are no curtains, and the less holy sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]; because the first sanctification sanctified both for its own time and for the time to come.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2.

משנה עבודה זרה

Chapter 1

On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently.

Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden; But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted.

These are the festivities of the idolaters: Kalenda, Saturnalia, Kratesis, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry. But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person.

When an idolatrous [festival] takes place within a city it is permitted [to conduct business with non-Jews] outside it. If the idolatrous [festival] takes place outside it, [business] is permitted within it. Is it permitted to go there? If the road leads solely to that place, it is forbidden; But if one can go by it to any other place, it is permitted. A city in which an idolatrous festival is taking place, some of its shops being decorated and some not decorated this was the case with Beth-Shean, and the Sages said: in the decorated stores it is forbidden [to buy] but in the undecorated ones it is permitted.

The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters.

In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse.

One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build.

One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.

Even in such a place where the letting of a house has been permitted, they did not say [that this was permitted if it was] for the purpose of a residence, since the idolater will bring idols into it; for it says, “you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26). In no place may one let a bath-house to an idolater, as it is called by the name of the owner.

Chapter 2

One should not place animals in inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; Nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood. A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises.

We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing; Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said: in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone.

The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted.

Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted. Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit.

Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple property). Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” He (Rabbi Joshua) diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).”

The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them.

The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him; honey, grape-clusters even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar, pickled herring which has not been minced, brine containing fish, a leaf of asafoetida, and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited. Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.

Chapter 3

All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited].

One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped.

If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted. Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”.

Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite. He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?” He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.” When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’ Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.

If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.

If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. [If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried.

There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted. There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted. There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted. What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”

One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure. If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath he is pure. They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Jose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them.

If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used, and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the garment) became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol.

How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled. If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.

Chapter 4

Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a merculis, they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted. The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.

If he found on top [of a mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted; [But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.

If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage. If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.

The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped. An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.

An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted, in time of war it is prohibited. Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.

They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?” They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!” They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!” They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”

A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a libation) until it descends into the vat. When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.

A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery.

If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but should he not have loaned money to the Jew, then it is permitted. If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking].

If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew.

If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it.

Chapter 5

If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] workman to assist him in [the transportation of] yen nesekh, his wage is prohibited. If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, "remove for me a cask of yen nesekh from this place to that," his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jew's] donkey to carry yen nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yen nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted.

If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans.

If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.

If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.

If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited. Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.

If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations.

If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited. If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited.

Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.

The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity:[a cask of] yen nesekh; an idolatrous object; skins of animals which have holes over the heart; an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned; a heifer whose neck was broken; birds brought as an offering by a leper; the hair-offering of a nazirite; the first born of a donkey; meat cooked in milk; the scapegoat; and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.

If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.

If a non-Jew covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean; But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch. If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.

If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse; Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water; Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire. A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.

משנה אבות

Chapter 1

Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.

Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety.

Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.

Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst.

Yose ben Yochanan (a man) of Jerusalem used to say: Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household. Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife, how much more [does the rule apply] with regard to another man’s wife. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom.

Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor.

Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution.

Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not [as a judge] play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were [both] guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were [both] innocent, when they have accepted the judgement.

Shimon ben Shetach used to say: be thorough in the interrogation of witnesses, and be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie.

Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.

Abtalion used to say: Sages be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters, and the disciples who follow you drink and die, and thus the name of heaven becomes profaned.

Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah.

He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; one who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall pass away.

He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?

Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countenance.

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork.

Shimon, his son, used to say: all my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence. Study is not the most important thing, but actions; whoever indulges in too many words brings about sin.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16).

Chapter 2

Rabbi Said: which is the straight path that a man should choose for himself? One which is an honor to the person adopting it, and [on account of which] honor [accrues] to him from others. And be careful with a light commandment as with a grave one, for you did know not the reward for the fulfillment of the commandments. Also, reckon the loss [that may be sustained through the fulfillment] of a commandment against the reward [accruing] thereby, and the gain [that may be obtained through the committing] of a transgression against the loss [entailed] thereby. Apply your mind to three things and you will not come into the clutches of sin: Know what there is above you: an eye that sees, an ear that hears, and all your deeds are written in a book.

Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi said: excellent is the study of the Torah when combined with a worldly occupation, for toil in them both keeps sin out of one’s mind; But [study of the] Torah which is not combined with a worldly occupation, in the end comes to be neglected and becomes the cause of sin. And all who labor with the community, should labor with them for the sake of Heaven, for the merit of their forefathers sustains them (the community), and their (the forefather’s) righteousness endures for ever; And as for you, [God in such case says] I credit you with a rich reward, as if you [yourselves] had [actually] accomplished [it all].

Be careful [in your dealings] with the ruling authorities for they do not befriend a person except for their own needs; they seem like friends when it is to their own interest, but they do not stand by a man in the hour of his distress.

He used to say: do His will as though it were your will, so that He will do your will as though it were His. Set aside your will in the face of His will, so that he may set aside the will of others for the sake of your will. Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge your fellow man until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure.

He used to say: A brute is not sin-fearing, nor is an ignorant person pious; nor can a timid person learn, nor can an impatient person teach; nor will someone who engages too much in business become wise. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.

Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned.

He used to say: The more flesh, the more worms; The more property, the more anxiety; The more wives, the more witchcraft; The more female slaves, the more lewdness; The more slaves, the more robbery; [But] the more Torah, the more life; The more sitting [in the company of scholars], the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace. If one acquires a good name, he has acquired something for himself; If one acquires for himself knowledge of Torah, he has acquired life in the world to come.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai.He used to say: if you have learned much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose were you created. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. He [Rabbi Johanan] used to list their outstanding virtues: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop; Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him; Rabbi Yose, the priest, is a pious man; Rabbi Simeon ben Nethaneel is one that fears sin, And Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach is like a spring that [ever] gathers force. He [Rabbi Yohanan] used to say: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus also with them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach on the other scale, he would outweigh them all.

He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the right way to which a man should cleave? Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye; Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion; Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, foresight. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the evil way which a man should shun? Rabbi Eliezer said, an evil eye; Rabbi Joshua said, an evil companion; Rabbi Yose said, an evil neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, one who borrows and does not repay for he that borrows from man is as one who borrows from God, blessed be He, as it is said, “the wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous deal graciously and give” (Psalms 37:21). Rabbi Elazar said, an evil heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included.

They [each] said three things: Rabbi Eliezer said: Let the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own; And be not easily provoked to anger; And repent one day before your death. And [he also said:] warm yourself before the fire of the wise, but beware of being singed by their glowing coals, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire.

Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world.

Rabbi Yose said: Let the property of your fellow be as precious unto you as your own; Make yourself fit to study Torah for it will not be yours by inheritance; And let all your actions be for [the sake of] the name of heaven.

Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the reading of Shema and the prayer, And when you pray, do not make your prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion before God, for it is said: “for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, and renouncing punishment” (Joel 2:13); And be not wicked in your own esteem.

Rabbi Elazar said: Be diligent in the study of the Torah; And know how to answer an epicuros, And know before whom you toil, and that your employer is faithful, for He will pay you the reward of your labor.

Rabbi Tarfon said: the day is short, and the work is plentiful, and the laborers are indolent, and the reward is great, and the master of the house is insistent.

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come.

Chapter 3

Akabyah ben Mahalalel said: mark well three things and you will not come into the power of sin: Know from where you come, and where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning. From where do you come? From a putrid drop. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot. Before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning? Before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he.

Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28).

Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:22).

Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, this man is mortally guilty.

Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns.

Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:1). How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).

Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14). Rabbi Jacob said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty.

Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart.

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring. He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring.

He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world.

Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come.

Rabbi Ishmael said: be suppliant to a superior, submissive under compulsory service, and receive every man happily.

Rabbi Akiva said: Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness; Tradition is a fence to the Torah; Tithes a fence to wealth, Vows a fence to abstinence; A fence to wisdom is silence.

He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “you are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).

Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted, And the world is judged with goodness; And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.

He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: Where there is no Torah, there is no right conduct; where there is no right conduct, there is no Torah. Where there is no wisdom there is no fear of God; where there is no fear of God, there is no wisdom. Where there is no understanding, there is no knowledge; where there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread. He used to say: one whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few, so that when the wind comes, it uproots it and overturns it, as it is said, “He shall be like a bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good. It is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitant” (Jeremiah 17:6). But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are few but roots are many, so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow upon it, they cannot move it out of its place, as it is said, “He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream. It does not sense the coming of heat, its leaves are ever fresh. It has no care in a year of drought; it does not cease to yield fruit” (ibid, 17:8).

Rabbi Eliezer Hisma said: the laws of mixed bird offerings and the key to the calculations of menstruation days these, these are the body of the halakhah. The calculation of the equinoxes and gematria are the desserts of wisdom.

Chapter 4

Ben Zoma said:Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (Psalms 119:99). Who is mighty? He who subdues his [evil] inclination, as it is said: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32). Who is rich? He who rejoices in his lot, as it is said: “You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors, you shall be happy and you shall prosper” (Psalms 128:2) “You shall be happy” in this world, “and you shall prosper” in the world to come. Who is he that is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings as it is said: “For I honor those that honor Me, but those who spurn Me shall be dishonored” (I Samuel 2:30).

Ben Azzai said: Be quick in performing a minor commandment as in the case of a major one, and flee from transgression; For one commandment leads to another commandment, and transgression leads to another transgression; For the reward for performing a commandment is another commandment and the reward for committing a transgression is a transgression.

He used to say: do not despise any man, and do not discriminate against anything, for there is no man that has not his hour, and there is no thing that has not its place.

Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name.

Rabbi Ishmael his son said: He who learns in order to teach, it is granted to him to study and to teach; But he who learns in order to practice, it is granted to him to learn and to teach and to practice. Rabbi Zadok said: do not make them a crown for self-exaltation, nor a spade with which to dig. So too Hillel used to say, “And he that puts the crown to his own use shall perish.” Thus you have learned, anyone who derives worldly benefit from the words of the Torah, removes his life from the world.

Rabbi Yose said: whoever honors the Torah is himself honored by others, and whoever dishonors the Torah is himself dishonored by others.

Rabbi Ishmael his son said: he who refrains himself from judgment, rids himself of enmity, robbery and false swearing; But he whose heart is presumptuous in giving a judicial decision, is foolish, wicked and arrogant.

He used to say: judge not alone, for none may judge alone save one. And say not “accept my view”, for they are free but not you.

Rabbi Jonathan said: whoever fulfills the Torah out of a state of poverty, his end will be to fulfill it out of a state of wealth; And whoever discards The torah out of a state of wealth, his end will be to discard it out of a state of poverty.

Rabbi Meir said: Engage but little in business, and busy yourself with the Torah. Be of humble spirit before all men. If you have neglected the Torah, you shall have many who bring you to neglect it, but if you have labored at the study of Torah, there is much reward to give unto you

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: he who performs one commandment acquires for himself one advocate, and he who commits one transgression acquires for himself one accuser. Repentance and good deeds are a shield against punishment. Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar said: every assembly which is for the sake of heaven, will in the end endure; and every assembly which is not for the sake of heaven, will not endure in the end.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said: let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, and the honor of your colleague as the reverence for your teacher, and the reverence for your teacher as the reverence of heaven.

Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all.

Rabbi Nehorai said: go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you, for [it is] your fellow [student]s who will make it permanent in your hand and “and lean not upon your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5).

Rabbi Yannai said: it is not in our hands [to explain the reason] either of the security of the wicked, or even of the afflictions of the righteous. Rabbi Mathia ben Harash said: Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings; And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes.

Rabbi Jacob said: this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall.

He used to say: more precious is one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the world to come; And more precious is one hour of the tranquility of the world to come, than all the life of this world.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Do not try to appease your friend during his hour of anger; Nor comfort him at the hour while his dead still lies before him; Nor question him at the hour of his vow; Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace.

Shmuel Hakatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from him” (Proverbs 24:17).

Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine].

Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar said: envy, lust and [the desire for] honor put a man out of the world.

He used to say: the ones who were born are to die, and the ones who have died are to be brought to life, and the ones brought to life are to be judged; So that one may know, make known and have the knowledge that He is God, He is the designer, He is the creator, He is the discerner, He is the judge, He the witness, He the complainant, and that He will summon to judgment. Blessed be He, before Whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetting, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes, for all is His. And know that all is according to the reckoning. And let not your impulse assure thee that the grave is a place of refuge for you; for against your will were you formed, against your will were you born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

Chapter 5

With ten utterances the world was created. And what does this teach, for surely it could have been created with one utterance? But this was so in order to punish the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, And to give a good reward to the righteous who maintain the world that was created with ten utterances.

[There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. [There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them.

With ten trials was Abraham, our father (may he rest in peace), tried, and he withstood them all; to make known how great was the love of Abraham, our father (peace be upon him).

Ten miracles were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten at the sea. Ten plagues did the Holy one, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the sea. [With] ten trials did our ancestors try God, blessed be He, in the Wilderness, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).

Ten wonders were wrought for our ancestors in the Temple: [1] no woman miscarried from the odor of the sacred flesh; [2] the sacred flesh never became putrid; [3] no fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse; [4] no emission occurred to the high priest on the Day of Atonement; [5] the rains did not extinguish the fire of the woodpile; [6] the wind did not prevail against the column of smoke; [7] no defect was found in the omer, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread; [8] the people stood pressed together, yet bowed down and had room enough; [9] never did a serpent or a scorpion harm anyone in Jerusalem; [10] and no man said to his fellow: the place is too congested for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem.

Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the staff [of Moses], [7] the shamir, [8] the letters, [9] the writing, [10] and the tablets. And some say: also the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham, our father. And some say: and also tongs, made with tongs.

[There are] seven things [characteristic] in a clod, and seven in a wise man: A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom, And does not break into his fellow’s speech; And is not hasty to answer; He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point; And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last; And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard; And he acknowledges the truth. And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod.

Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; [When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law.

Wild beasts come to the world for swearing in vain, and for the profanation of the Name. Exile comes to the world for idolatry, for sexual sins and for bloodshed, and for [transgressing the commandment of] the [year of the] release of the land. At four times pestilence increases: in the fourth year, in the seventh year and at the conclusion of the seventh year, and at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year. In the fourth year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the third year. In the seventh year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the sixth year; At the conclusion of the seventh year, on account of the produce of the seventh year; And at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year, for robbing the gifts to the poor.

There are four types of character in human beings: One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character. [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz); [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person. [One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.

There are four kinds of temperaments: Easy to become angry, and easy to be appeased: his gain disappears in his loss; Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain; Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person; Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person.

There are four types of disciples: Quick to comprehend, and quick to forget: his gain disappears in his loss; Slow to comprehend, and slow to forget: his loss disappears in his gain; Quick to comprehend, and slow to forget: he is a wise man; Slow to comprehend, and quick to forget, this is an evil portion.

There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man.

There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet midrash):He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance. He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice. He who attends and practices: he is a pious man; He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.

There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.A sponge, soaks up everything; A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other; A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees; A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.

All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

Whoever causes the multitudes to be righteous, sin will not occur on his account; And whoever causes the multitudes to sin, they do not give him the ability to repent. Moses was righteous and caused the multitudes to be righteous, [therefore] the righteousness of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “He executed the Lord’s righteousness and His decisions with Israel” (Deut. 33:21). Jeroboam, sinned and caused the multitudes to sin, [therefore] the sin of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “For the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he caused Israel to sin thereby” (I Kings 15:30).

Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Balaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Balaam, the wicked, inherit gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psalms 55:24).

Judah ben Tema said: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. He used to say: the arrogant is headed for Gehinnom and the blushing for the garden of Eden. May it be the will, O Lord our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah.

He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.

Ben Bag Bag said: Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein. And look into it; And become gray and old therein; And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.

Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward.

Chapter 6

The sages taught in the language of the mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching. Rabbi Meir said: Whoever occupies himself with the Torah for its own sake, merits many things; not only that but he is worth the whole world. He is called beloved friend; one that loves God; one that loves humankind; one that gladdens God; one that gladdens humankind. And the Torah clothes him in humility and reverence, and equips him to be righteous, pious, upright and trustworthy; it keeps him far from sin, and brings him near to merit. And people benefit from his counsel, sound knowledge, understanding and strength, as it is said, “Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, strength is mine” (Proverbs 8:14). And it bestows upon him royalty, dominion, and acuteness in judgment. To him are revealed the secrets of the Torah, and he is made as an ever-flowing spring, and like a stream that never ceases. And he becomes modest, long-suffering and forgiving of insult. And it magnifies him and exalts him over everything.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: every day a bat kol (a heavenly voice) goes forth from Mount Horeb and makes proclamation and says: “Woe unto humankind for their contempt towards the Torah”, for whoever does not occupy himself with the study of Torah is called, nazuf (the rebuked. As it is said, “Like a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman bereft of sense” (Proverbs 11:22). And it says, “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). Read not haruth [‘graven’] but heruth [ ‘freedom’]. For there is no free man but one that occupies himself with the study of the Torah. And whoever regularly occupies himself with the study of the Torah he is surely exalted, as it is said, “And from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and Nahaliel to Bamoth” (Numbers 21:19).

One who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, is obligated to treat him with honor; for so we find with David, king of Israel, who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, yet called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend, as it is said, “But it was you, a man mine equal, my guide and my beloved friend” (Psalms 55:14). Is this not [an instance of the argument] “from the less to the greater” (kal vehomer)? If David, king of Israel who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, nevertheless called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend; then in the case of one who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, all the more so he is under obligation to treat him with honor. And “honor’” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “It is honor that sages inherit” (Proverbs 3:35). “And the perfect shall inherit good” (Proverbs 28:10), and “good” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “For I give you good instruction; do not forsake my Torah” (Proverbs 4:2).

Such is the way [of a life] of Torah: you shall eat bread with salt, and rationed water shall you drink; you shall sleep on the ground, your life will be one of privation, and in Torah shall you labor. If you do this, “Happy shall you be and it shall be good for you” (Psalms 128:2): “Happy shall you be” in this world, “and it shall be good for you” in the world to come.

Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not covet honor. Practice more than you learn. Do not yearn for the table of kings, for your table is greater than their table, and your crown is greater than their crown, and faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor.

Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things. By study, Attentive listening, Proper speech, By an understanding heart, By an intelligent heart, By awe, By fear, By humility, By joy, By attending to the sages, By critical give and take with friends, By fine argumentation with disciples, By clear thinking, By study of Scripture, By study of mishnah, By a minimum of sleep, By a minimum of chatter, By a minimum of pleasure, By a minimum of frivolity, By a minimum of preoccupation with worldly matters, By long-suffering, By generosity, By faith in the sages, By acceptance of suffering. [Learning of Torah is also acquired by one] Who recognizes his place, Who rejoices in his portion, Who makes a fence about his words, Who takes no credit for himself, Who is loved, Who loves God, Who loves [his fellow] creatures, Who loves righteous ways, Who loves reproof, Who loves uprightness, Who keeps himself far from honors, Who does not let his heart become swelled on account of his learning, Who does not delight in giving legal decisions, Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague, Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor, Who leads him on to truth, Who leads him on to peace, Who composes himself at his study, Who asks and answers, Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge], Who learns in order to teach, Who learns in order to practice, Who makes his teacher wiser, Who is exact in what he has learned, And who says a thing in the name of him who said it. Thus you have learned: everyone who says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22).

Great is Torah for it gives life to those that practice it, in this world, and in the world to come, As it is said: “For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22), And it says: “It will be a cure for your navel and marrow for your bones” (ibid. 3:8) And it says: “She is a tree of life to those that grasp her, and whoever holds onto her is happy” (ibid. 3:18), And it says: “For they are a graceful wreath upon your head, a necklace about your throat” (ibid. 1:9), And it says: “She will adorn your head with a graceful wreath; crown you with a glorious diadem” (ibid. 4:9) And it says: “In her right hand is length of days, in her left riches and honor” (ibid. 3:1, And it says: “For they will bestow on you length of days, years of life and peace” (ibid. 3:2).

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Beauty, strength, riches, honor, wisdom, [old age], gray hair, and children are becoming to the righteous, and becoming to the world, As it is said: “Gray hair is a crown of glory (beauty); it is attained by way of righteousness” (Proverbs 16:31), And it says: “The ornament of the wise is their wealth” (ibid. 14:24), And it says: “The glory of youths is their strength; and the beauty of old men is their gray hair” (ibid. 20:29), And it says: “Grandchildren are the glory of their elders, and the glory of children is their parents” (ibid. 17:6), And it says: “Then the moon shall be ashamed, and the sun shall be abashed. For the Lord of Hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and God’s Honor will be revealed to his elders” (Isaiah 24:23). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: these seven qualities, which the sages have listed [as becoming] to the righteous, were all of them fulfilled in Rabbi and his sons.

Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said: Once I was walking by the way when a man met me, and greeted me and I greeted him. He said to me, “Rabbi, where are you from?” I said to him, “I am from a great city of sages and scribes”. He said to me, “Rabbi, would you consider living with us in our place? I would give you a thousand thousand denarii of gold, and precious stones and pearls.” I said to him: “My son, even if you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and pearls that are in the world, I would not dwell anywhere except in a place of Torah; for when a man passes away there accompany him neither gold nor silver, nor precious stones nor pearls, but Torah and good deeds alone, as it is said, “When you walk it will lead you. When you lie down it will watch over you; and when you are awake it will talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). “When you walk it will lead you” in this world. “When you lie down it will watch over you” in the grave; “And when you are awake it will talk with you” in the world to come. And thus it is written in the book of Psalms by David, king of Israel, “I prefer the teaching You proclaimed to thousands of pieces of gold and silver” (Psalms 119:72), And it says: “Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, says the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:8).

Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they:The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22)., 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).

Whatever the Holy Blessed One created in His world, he created only for His glory, as it is said: “All who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7), And it says: “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever” (Exodus 15:18). Said Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashya: It pleased the Holy Blessed One to grant merit to Israel, that is why He gave them Torah and commandments in abundance, as it is said, “The Lord was pleased for His righteousness, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21).

משנה הוריות

Chapter 1

If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt, because he relied on the court. If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court. This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.

If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”, but not the congregation of one particular tribe.

Chapter 2

An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.

An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part.

The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him.

For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering.

The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.

Chapter 3

If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat.

If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person.

If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler (king) who has none above him save the Lord his God.

And who is the anointed priest? He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting (high) priest and the former (high) priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the (accidental) killer (from the city of refuge).

A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them.

Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details.

A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman.

A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest.

משנה זבחים

Chapter 1

All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Eliezer says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].

Chapter 2

All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified. If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified. If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

Chapter 3

All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood.

If a fit person received [the blood] and gave [it] to an unfit person, he must return it to the fit one. If he received [the blood] in his right hand and transferred [it] to his left, he must return it to his right. If he received [it] in a sacred vessel and poured it into a secular [non-sacred] vessel, he must return it to the sacred vessel. If he spilled it from the vessel on to the pavement and then collected it, it is fit. If [the priest] applied it on the ascent [or on the altar], [but] not against [the altar’s] base; [or] if he applied what should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or what should be applied above, below; or what should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without, within1 and life-blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [blood] anew.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.

If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

Chapter 4

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.

With regard to any [blood] which is sprinkled on the inner altar, if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has not atoned; therefore if he applied all in the proper manner but one in an improper manner, it [the sacrifice] is invalid, but does not involve karet.

These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul:The fistful, The incense, The frankincense, The priests’ meal-offering, The anointed priest's meal-offering, The minhah with libation The blood, The libations that are brought separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: also those that are brought with an animal [sacrifice]. The log of oil brought by the metzora: Rabbi Shimon says: one is not liable on account of piggul; But Rabbi Meir says: one is liable on account of piggul, because the blood of the asham makes it permitted and whatever has something else that makes it permitted, whether for man or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.

The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the [Divine] Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper.

Chapter 5

Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices?Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. [The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].

As for the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, their slaughtering is [done] at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling on the veil, and on the golden altar; [The omission of] a single one of these applications invalidates [the sacrifice]. He [the priest] pours the remainder of the blood on the western base of the altar; but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice]. Both of these were burnt at the ash pit.

[Concerning] public and private hatats: (These are the public hatats: the goats of new moons and festivals) They are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in ministering vessels in the north, and their blood requires four applications on the four corners [of the altar]. How was it done? He went up the ascent, turned to the surrounding walkway, and came to the south-east corner, then the north-east, then the north-west, and then the south-west. He would pour the residue of the blood out at the southern base. They were eaten within the hangings [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any fashion, the same day and night, until midnight.

The olah is a most holy sacrifice. It is slaughtered in the north, and its blood is received in a ministering vessel in the north; and its blood requires two applications, which are four. It had to be flayed, dismembered, and completely consumed by the fire.

The shelamim of the public and the ashams: These are the[different types of] ashams: The asham for robbery; The asham or illegal use of holy property; The asham for a betrothed maidservant; A nazirite's asham; A leper's asham; And the suspended asham. These are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in a service vessel in the north, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten within the curtains [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any manner, the same day and night, until midnight.

The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The shelamim is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. It may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and its blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any way, during two days and one night. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar]. They differ in the [rules governing] their eating: The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night. The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.

Chapter 6

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight.

The hatat of a bird was sacrificed by the southwest horn [of the altar]. It is valid [if done] in any place, but this was its [particular] place. That horn served for three things below, and three things above: Below: for the hatat of the bird, For the presenting [of meal-offerings]. And for the residue of the blood. Above: for the pouring out of wine and water, and for the olah of a bird when there was too much on the east.

All who ascended the altar, ascended by the right, then they went round [the altar] and descended by the left, except for these three, who ascended and descended by retracing their steps.

How was the hatat of a bird sacrificed?He pinches off its head behind its neck, but he did not sever it. And he would sprinkle its blood on the wall of the altar. The residue of the blood was drained out on the base. Only the blood belonged to the altar, while the rest of it belonged to the priests.

How was the olah of a bird sacrificed? He [the priest] ascended the ramp, and turned to the surrounding walkway, and made his way to the southeast horn. There he pinched its head at the back of the neck, and severed it, and drained out its blood on the wall of the altar. He took the head, turned the part where it was nipped to the altar, saturated it with salt, and threw it on to the fires [of the altar]. Then he came to the body, and removed the crop, the feathers, and the entrails that came out of it, and threw them on to the burning place. He tore [the body], but did not sever it in half, but if he did sever it, it is still valid. Then he saturated it [the body] with salt, and threw it on to the fires of the altar.

If he did not remove the crop or the feathers or the entrails which came out of it, or did not dry it with salt, or made any other deviation after he had drained the blood out, it is still valid. If he severed the [head of the] hatat or did not sever the olah, it is unfit. If he drained out the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body, it is unfit; The blood of the body, but not the blood of the head, it is fit.

If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. [If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. [If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine.

Chapter 7

If a hatat of a bird is offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] for the sake of a hatat, it is fit. [If it is offered] with the rites of a hatat, [but] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a hatat; Or with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of an olah, it is unfit. If he offers it above [the red line] [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.

If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit. With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation. [If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit. If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.

And all of these do not defile in the gullet And they involve trespass, except the hatat of a bird which was offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat.

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?

If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet.

If one performed melikah, and he found it [the bird] to be a terefah: Rabbi Meir said: it does not defile in the gullet; Rabbi Judah said: it does defile in the gullet. Rabbi Meir said: if with regard to a beast, when it is carrion (a nevelah) it defiles through contact or carrying, yet slaughtering it purifies its terefah from defiling, when it comes to carrion (nevelah) of a bird which does not defile through contact or carriage, is it not logical that slaughtering would cleanse its terefah? Now, just as we have found that slaughtering, which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah from its uncleanness; so melikah (nipping), which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah. Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient for it to be like the nevelah of a beast, which is cleansed by slaughtering, but not by melikah (nipping).

Chapter 8

All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice].

A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with another sacrifice, both being of the same kind: this one is offered in the name of whoever is its owner, and the other is offered in the name of whoever is its owner. A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with a sacrifice, both being of different kinds: they must graze until they become unfit, and then he purchases at the price of the better of them [an animal] of each kind, and he pays the loss of the excess out of his own pocket. If they were mixed up with a firstling or tithe, they must graze until they become unfit, and then they are eaten as firstling or tithe. All [sacrifices] can be mixed up, except the hatat and the asham.

An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.

Limbs of a hatat which were mixed up with limbs from an olah: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must place [them all] on the top [of the altar], and regard the flesh of the hatat on top as though it were wood. But the sages say: they must become disfigured, and then go out to the place of burning.

Limbs of [unblemished olahs which were mixed up] with the limbs of blemished [olahs]: Rabbi Eliezer says: if [the priest] offered the head of one of them, all the heads are to be offered; the legs of one of them, all the legs are to be offered. But the sages say: even if they had offered all except one of them, it goes forth to the place of burning.

If blood was mixed with water, if it retains the appearance of blood, it is fit [to be sprinkled on the altar]. If it was mixed with wine, we regard it as though it were water. If it was mixed with the blood of a beast or wild animal, we regard it as though it were water. Rabbi Judah said: blood cannot nullify blood.

If it was mixed with the blood of unfit [animals], it must be poured out into the duct. [If it was mixed] with the blood that came out after death, it must be poured out into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer declares it fit. If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid.

[If] blood of unblemished animals [was mixed] with blood of blemished animals, it must be poured out into the duct. [If] a goblet [of valid blood was mixed up] with other goblets [of invalid blood]: Rabbi Eliezer said: if he [the priest] offered [sprinkled] one goblet, all the goblets can be offered; But the sages say: even if they offered all of them save one, it must be poured out into the duct.

If [blood] that is to be sprinkled below [the red line on the altar] was mixed with blood that is sprinkled above: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must sprinkle [it] above, and I regard the lower [blood which was sprinkled] above as though it were water, and then he sprinkles again below. But the sages say: he must pour it out into the duct. If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid.

[If blood] which requires one application [was mixed] with blood [also] requiring one application, it [the mixture] should be presented with one application. [If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood requiring four applications, they should be presented with four applications. [If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood which requires one application: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [the mixture] should be presented with four applications. Rabbi Joshua says: it should be presented with one application. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, he transgresses the [injunction] not to diminish [from God’s commandment]! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Behold, he transgresses the injunction not to add [to God’s commandments]. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The injunction not to add applies only where it is by itself. Rabbi Joshua said to him: The injunction not to diminish applies only where it is by itself. Moreover, Rabbi Joshua said: when you make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to add, and perform an action with your own hands; whereas when you do not make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to diminish, but do not perform an action with your own hands.

If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. [If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7).

If the blood of a hatat was received in two goblets and one of them went outside [the Temple courtyard], the inside one is fit. If one of them entered within [the Sanctuary]: Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares the outer one fit. The sages disqualify it. Rabbi Yose the Galilean: if the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies, i.e. without, you do not treat what is left [inside] as what went out; then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify, i.e. within, is it not logical that we do not treat what is left [outside] as what entered within? If it entered within to make atonement, even if he [the priest] did not make atonement, it is unfit, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon said: [it is not unfit] unless he makes atonement. Rabbi Judah said: if he took it in unwittingly, it is fit. For all unfit blood which was put on the altar, the head plate [of the high priest] does not propitiate, save for the unclean, for the headplate propitiates for that which is unclean, but does not propitiate for what goes out.

Chapter 9

The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

Just as they do not descend once they have ascended, so they do not ascend if they have descended. And all of these, if they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they must descend. An olah which ascended live to the top of the altar, it must descend. If one slaughtered it on the top of the altar, he must skin it and dismember it where it lies.

The following if they ascended are taken down:The flesh of most sacred sacrifices The flesh of lesser sacrifices; The remnants of the omer; The two loaves; The showbread; The remnants of meal-offerings; And the incense. The wool on the heads of lambs, the hair of he-goats’ beards, the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs if they are attached, go up, because it is said, “And the priest shall turn it all into smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they were severed [from the animal], they do not go up, for it is said, “And You shall offer your olah, the flesh and the blood, [upon the altar of the Lord your God]” (Deuteronomy 12:27).

And if any of these sprang off from the altar they are not replaced. Similarly, if a coal sprang off from the altar, it is not replaced. Limbs that sprang off from the altar: if before midnight, must be replaced, and they involve trespass; after midnight, they are not replaced and do not involve trespass.

Just as the altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it, so does the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for it; And just as the altar and the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for them, so do vessels sanctify. Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids, And the measures sanctify dry material. A liquid vessel does not sanctify dry matter, nor does a dry [measure] sanctify a liquid. If holy vessels were perforated and they can be used for the same purpose as when whole, they sanctify [what is placed in them]; if not, they do not sanctify. And all these sanctify only in the holy place.

Chapter 10

Whatever is more frequent than another, takes precedence over the other. The daily offerings precede the additional offerings; The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh; The additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hashanah. As it is said, “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering” (Numbers 28:23).

Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.

A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards.

Birds precede meal-offerings (minhah), because they are blood sacrifices. A sinner’s meal-offering precedes a voluntary meal-offering, because it comes on account of sin. A hatat of a bird precedes an olah of a bird. And it is likewise when he dedicates them.

All hatats in the Torah precede ashams, except the asham of a metzora (one with a skin affliction), because it comes to make [a person] fit. All ashams of the Torah must be two-year olds and [two] silver shekels in value, except a nazirite’s asham and the asham of a metzorah, for they are a year old, and need not be [two] silver shekels in value.

Just as they take precedence in being offered, so they take precedence in being eaten. Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s shelamim, yesterday’s takes precedence. Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s hatat and asham, yesterday's shelamim takes precedence, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the hatat takes precedence, because it is a most sacred sacrifice.

And in all of these, the priests may deviate in how they eat, and eat them roasted, stewed or boiled. And one may season them with hullin spices or terumah spices, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: one should not season them with terumah spices, so as not to bring terumah to unfitness.

Rabbi Shimon said: if you see oil being divided in the Temple courtyard, you don’t need to ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of oil of the wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings, or of the metzora’s log of oil. If you see oil being poured on to the fires, you don’t need not ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of the oil of the wafers of priests’ meal-offerings, or of the anointed priest's meal-offering; for one cannot voluntarily offer offer oil [alone]. Rabbi Tarfon say: oil can be voluntarily offered [alone].

Chapter 11

If the blood of a hatat spurted on to a garment, it must be washed. Though scripture speaks only of [hatats] which are eaten, for it is said, “In the holy place shall it be eaten,” (Leviticus 6:19), yet both those which may be eaten and the inner [sacrifices] necessitate washing, for it is said, “[This is] the law of the hatat” (Leviticus 6:18), there is one law for all hatats.

The blood of a disqualified hatat does not necessitate washing, whether it had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. Which had a period of fitness? One [whose blood] was kept overnight, or was defiled, or was taken out [of the Temple courtyard]. Which did not have a period of fitness? One which was slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate bounds; or whose blood was received by unfit persons, and sprinkled by them.

If [blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat onto a garment, it does not require washing. From the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not require washing. If it spilled out on to the floor [of the Temple] and [the priest] collected it, [and then it splattered onto a garment] it does not require washing. Only blood which was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires washing. If [the blood] spurted on to the hide, before it was flayed, it does not require washing. [If it spurted] after it was flayed, it requires washing, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Eliezer says: even [if it spurted on the skin] after it was flayed [it does not require washing]. Only the place of the blood requires washing. And whatever is eligible to contract uncleanness, And whatever is fit for washing.

Whether a garment, a sack, or a hide, it requires washing in a holy place. The breaking of an earthen vessel must be in a holy place. And the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be in a holy place. In this the hatat is more stringent than [other] sacrifices of higher sanctity.

If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place.

If a copper vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the hangings, it must be broken through, then it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.

Whether one boiled in it or poured boiling [sacrificial flesh] into it, whether most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices, [the pot] requires scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: lesser sacrifices do not require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Tarfon says: if one boiled [sacrifices in a pot] at the beginning of a festival, he can boil in it during the whole festival. But the sages say: until the time of eating, scouring and rinsing. Scouring is done as the scouring of a goblet; and rinsing is as the rinsing of a goblet, Scouring [in hot water] and rinsing in cold [water]. The spit and the grill are cleansed with hot water.

If one boiled sacrifices and hullin in it [the copper pot], or most holy sacrifices and lesser sacrifices, if they were sufficient to impart their flavor, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them; But they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing; And they do not disqualify by touch. If [an unfit] wafer touched a [fit] wafer, or an [unfit] piece of meat touched a [fit] piece of meat, not the whole wafer or the whole piece of meat is forbidden; only the part that absorbed [of the unfit] is forbidden.

Chapter 12

A tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not share in sacrifices for consumption in the evening. An onen may handle [sacrifices], but he may not offer them, and he does not receive a share for consumption in the evening. Priests with blemishes, whether permanent or passing, receive a share and may eat [of the sacrifices] but they may not offer them. Whoever is not eligible for service does not share in the flesh. And he who does not share in the flesh does not share in the hides. Even if one was unclean when the blood was sprinkled but clean when the fats were burned [on the altar], he does not share in the flesh, for it is said: “he among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the shelamim, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33).

Whenever the altar does not acquire its flesh, the priests do not acquire the hide, for it is said, “[And the priest that offers] any man’s olah [the priest shall have … the hide]” (Leviticus 7:8), [this means,] an olah which went up on the altar on behalf a man. If an olah was slaughtered under a different designation, although it does not count for its owner, its hide belongs to the priests. Whether [it be] a man’s olah or a woman's olah, the hide belong to the priests.

The hides of less holy sacrifices belong to their owners. The hides of most holy sacrifices belong to the priest. This is a kal vehomer: if with an olah, even though they do not acquire its flesh they do acquire its hide, is it not logical that they acquire the hides of most holy sacrifices, when they do acquire their flesh? The altar does not refute [this argument], for it does not acquire the hide in any instance.

All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Akiva said: we learn from his words that if one flays a firstling and it is found to be terefah, the priests have a right to its hide. But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning.

Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet hadeshen), and they defile garments. But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments.

They would carry them on staves [out of the Temple courtyard]. If those in front had passed outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but those in the back had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile their garments, while those in the back do not defile their garments, until they go out. When they both go out, both defile their garments. Rabbi Shimon says: neither defile [their garments] until the fire is burning in the greater part of them. When the flesh is dissolved, he who burns [it] does not defile his garments.

Chapter 13

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

An unclean [person] who eats [of sacrifices], whether unclean sacrifices or clean sacrifices, is liable. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: an unclean person who eats clean [sacrifices] is liable, but an unclean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable because he ate only that which is unclean. They said to him: even when an unclean person eats clean [sacrifices], when he touches it, he defiles it. A clean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable, because one is liable only on account of bodily uncleanness.

Slaughtering [outside the Temple] is more stringent than offering up [outside], and offering up [is more stringent] than slaughtering. Slaughtering is more stringent, for he who slaughters [a sacrifice] to a man is liable, whereas he who offers up to a man is not liable. Offering up is more stringent: two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, [whereas] if two take hold of a limb and offer it up, they are liable. If one offered up, then offered up again, then offered up again, he is liable in respect of each [act of] offering up, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yose says: he is liable for only one. He is liable only when he offers up on the top of an altar. Rabbi Shimon says: he is liable even if he offers up on the top of a rock or a stone.

In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable.

One who offers sacrifices together with the innards outside the Temple, is liable. If a minhah had not had its fistful removed and one offered it outside, he is exempt. If one took out the fistful, and then the fistful went back into the minhah, and he offered it outside, he is liable.

As for the fistful and the frankincense, if one offered one of them [without the other] outside [the Temple], he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. As for the two dishes of frankincense, if one offered one of them outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. If one sprinkles part of the blood outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: also one who makes a libation of the water of the Festival [of Sukkot] on the festival, outside is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah says: if one offered the residue of the blood outside, he is liable.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal].

Chapter 14

If one slaughtered the hatat cow [the red heifer] outside its appointed place, and likewise if one offered the scapegoat [of Yom Kippur] outside, he is not liable, because it says, “And has not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting,” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account.

[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. [As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. [As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. [One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment.

“Before time” applies both to [the animal] itself and to its owner. What is “before time” as applied to its owner? If a zav or a zavah, a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, offered their hatat or their asham outside [before the time in which they were obligated], they are exempt; [If they offered] their olah or their shelamims outside [before their time], they are liable. One who offers up flesh of a hatat, or flesh of an asham, or flesh of most holy sacrifices, or flesh of less holy sacrifices; or the remainder of the omer, or the two loaves, or the showbread, or the remainder of meal-offerings; Or if he pours [the oil on to the meal-offering], or mingles [it with flour], or breaks up [the meal-offering cakes], or salts [the meal-offering], or waves it, or presents it; or sets the table [with the showbread], or trims the lamps, or takes out the fistful, or receives the blood; [If he does any of these] outside, he is exempt. One is also not liable for any of these acts on account of not being a priest, or uncleanness, or lack of [priestly] vestments, or the non-washing of hands and feet.

Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local altars) were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites.

When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local altars) were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere.

When they came to Shiloh, bamot were forbidden. [The Tabernacle] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a base of stones with a ceiling of curtains, and that was the “resting place” [referred to in the Torah]. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe [were eaten] wherever [Shiloh] could be seen.

When they came to Nov and to Givon, bamot were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices in all of the cities of Israel.

When they came to Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden and were never again permitted, and that was the ‘inheritance’. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe within the walls [of Jerusalem].

All sacrifices consecrated while bamot were forbidden and offered outside while bamot were forbidden involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable for karet on their account. If one consecrated them while bamot were permitted, but offered them without when bamot were forbidden, they involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for karet on their account. If one consecrated them when bamot were forbidden, and offered them when bamot were permitted, they involve the transgression of a positive commandment, but they do not involve the transgression of a negative commandment.

The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah); priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both.

משנה מנחות

Chapter 1

All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy. A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid. How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah. And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.

As for both a sinner’s minhah and any other minhah if [one of the following] removed the handful: a non-priest; or [a priest] that was an onen; or one who immersed himself during the day; or was not wearing the priestly vestments, or whose atonement was lacking; or who had not washed his hands and feet; or that was uncircumcised; or unclean; or was sitting, or standing upon vessels or upon a beast or upon another's feet, it is invalid. If [a priest] removed the handful with his left hand it is invalid. Ben Batera says: he may put [the handful] back and take it out again with the right hand. If on taking the handful there came into his hand a small stone or a grain of salt or a drop of frankincense it is invalid, for they have said: if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid. What is meant by “too much? If he took an overflowing handful. And ‘too little’? If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers only. How should he do it? He should stretch out his fingers on to the palm of his hand.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else;Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the lawBut the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet.[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

Chapter 2

If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah.

If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten.

The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.

Chapter 3

If he took the handful from the minhah intending to eat [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to burn, the offering is valid. But Rabbi Eliezer says it is invalid. If he intended to eat less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to burn, the offering is valid. If he intended to eat a half of an olive's worth and to burn a half of an olive’s worth, the offering is valid, for eating and burning cannot be reckoned together.

If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other.

Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid. If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable, But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable. For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.

If the remainder of the minhah became unclean or was burnt or lost: According to the rule of Rabbi Eliezer it is valid [to burn the fistful], But according to the rule of Rabbi Joshua it is invalid. If [he did] not [put the fistful] into a ministering vessel it is invalid; But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If he burnt the handful twice, it is valid.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Chapter 4

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of either the] bullocks or the rams or the lambs does not invalidate the others. Rabbi Shimon says: if they had [money enough to buy] many bullocks but not [enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] daily offerings (tamidin) does not invalidate the additional offerings (musafin), neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening.

The high priest’s griddle-cakes cannot be brought in [two separate] halves. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. If a [high] priest offered half in the morning and then died and they appointed another priest in his place, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house, neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, and offer one half and leaving the other half goes to waste. It turns out that two halves are offered and two halves go to waste. If they did not appoint another priest in his place, at whose expense was it offered? Rabbi Shimon says, at the expense of the community; But Rabbi Judah says: at the expense of his heirs, And a whole [tenth] was offered.

Chapter 5

All minhahs must be offered unleavened, with the exception of the leavened cakes of the todah and the two loaves [of Shavuot] which are offered leavened. Rabbi Meir says: the leaven must be taken from [the minhahs] themselves and with this they are leavened. Rabbi Judah says: that is not the best way, rather [first of all] he brings leaven and puts into the measuring vessel and then he fills the measuring vessel up [with flour]. But they said to him: even so [it is not satisfactory], for it would be sometimes too little and sometimes too much.

All minhahs must be kneaded with lukewarm water and must be watched lest they become leavened. If one allowed the remainder to become leavened he has transgressed a negative commandment, for it is written, “No minhah which you shall bring to the Lord shall be made leavened” (Leviticus 2:11). One is liable for the kneading, and for rolling and for baking.

Some [minhahs] require oil and frankincense, some require oil but not frankincense, some frankincense but not oil, and some neither oil nor frankincense. These require oil and frankincense: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer. The minhah offered with the drink-offerings requires oil but not frankincense. The showbread requires frankincense but not oil. The two loaves, the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy require neither oil nor frankincense.

One is liable for the oil on its own and for the frankincense on its own. If he put in oil, he has rendered it invalid, but if frankincense, he can remove it. If he put oil on the remainder, he has not transgressed a negative commandment. If he put one vessel above the other vessel, he has not rendered it invalid.

Some [minhahs] require bringing near but not waving, some require bringing near and also waving, some require waving but not bringing near, and some require neither bringing near nor waving. These require bringing near but not waving: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer. Rabbi Shimon says: the minhah of the priests and the minhah of the anointed high priest do not require bringing near, since no handful is taken out of them, and where no handful is taken out bringing near is not necessary.

These require waving but not bringing near: The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering, The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others; The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27). The waving was performed on the east side [of the altar] and the bringing near on the west side. The ceremony of waving comes before that of bringing near. The minhah of the omer and the minhah of jealousy require bringing near and waving. The showbread and the minhah with the libations require neither bringing near nor waving.

Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.

One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah] prepared on a griddle,” he must not bring one prepared in a pan; If [he says, I take upon myself to offer a minhah prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring one prepared on a griddle. What is the difference between a griddle [mahabat] and a pan [marheshet]? The pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: a pan is deep and what is prepared is spongy; a griddle is flat and what is prepared on it is hard.

[If a man said,] “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah baked] in an oven,” he must not bring what is baked in a stove or on tiles or in the cauldrons of the Arabs. Rabbi Judah says: he may bring what is baked in a stove. [If he said,] “I take upon myself [to offer] a baked minhah,” he may not bring half in loaves and half in wafers. Rabbi Shimon permits it for it is one kind.

Chapter 6

From the following menahot the handful must be taken and the remainder is for the priests: The minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the loaves and the wafers, the minhah of a Gentile, the minhah of women, the minhah of the omer, the sinners’ minhah, and the minhah of jealousy. Rabbi Shimon says: a sinners’ minhah brought by priests the handful is taken, and the handful is offered by itself and so also the remainder is offered by itself.

The minhah of the priests, The minhah of the anointed high priest, And the minhah that is offered with the libations are [wholly] for the altar and the priests have no share in them; with these the altar is more privileged than the priests. The two loaves and the showbread are eaten by the priests and the altar has no share in them; with these the priests are more privileged than the altar.

All menahot that are prepared in a vessel require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing and putting oil in the vessel, before they are completed. The [baked] cakes were mixed [with oil], the words of Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi]. But the sages say: the fine flour [was mixed with oil]. The loaves were mixed and the wafers anointed. How did he anoint them? In the form of a “chi.” And the rest of the oil was eaten by the priests.

All menahot prepared in a vessel must be broken into pieces. The minhah of an Israelite was folded into two and the two were folded into four, and it was severed [at each bend]. The minhah of priests was folded into two and the two were folded into four, but it was not severed. The minhah of the anointed high priest was not folded. Rabbi Shimon says: neither the minhah of the priests nor the minhah of the anointed high priest was broken in pieces, since the handful was not taken from them, and whenever the handful is not taken [from a minhah] it is not to be broken in pieces. The pieces were the size of an olive.

All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each.

The omer consisted of one tenth [of an ephah of flour] taken from three se'ahs. The two loaves consisted of two tenths taken from three se'ahs. And the showbread consisted of twenty-four tenths taken from twenty-four se'ahs.

The omer was sifted through thirteen sieves, the two loaves through twelve, and the showbread through eleven. Rabbi Shimon says: there was no prescribed number for them, rather they brought fine flour and sifted it as much as was necessary, as it is said, “You shall take fine flour and bake it” (Leviticus 24:5) [you should not bake it] until it is sifted as much as is necessary.

Chapter 7

The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. “Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; “And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. “Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. “And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav.

The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: “One:” that he may not take what is broken. “Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner.

One who slaughtered the todah within [the Temple court] while its bread was outside the wall, the bread has not been sanctified. If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven, even if all except one had become crusted, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered the todah [intending to eat it] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish: Rabbi Eliezer says: the bread is sanctified. But the sages say: it is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it under another name, and so, too, if the ram of the consecration-offering or the two lambs offered at Shavuot were slaughtered under another name, the bread is not sanctified.

If a [minhah that is accompanied by] the libations had already been sanctified in a vessel when the animal-offering was found to be invalid: If there is another animal-offering, they may be offered with it; But if not, they are left to become invalid by remaining overnight. The offspring of a todah, its substitute, and the animal which was set apart in the place of the todah which was set apart and was lost, do not require the [accompanying] bread, as it says, “And he shall offer [them] with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (todah)” (Leviticus 7:1; the todah requires the accompanying bread, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the accompanying bread.

One who says: “Behold I take upon myself [to bring] a todah”, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin. [If he said:] “A todah from hullin and its bread from tithe,” he must bring the bread from hullin. [If he said:] “A todah from tithe and bread from hullin,” he may bring. [If he said:] “A todah, it and its bread from tithe,” he may bring. But he must not bring from grain of second tithe, rather from second tithe money.

From where [is it derived] that if one says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” he can bring it only from hullin? As it is said, “And you shall sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:. But is not the pesah sacrifice brought only from the lambs and from the goats? Why then is it written, “from the flock or the herd”? It is to compare whatever is brought from the flock and the herd with the pesah: just as the pesah is obligatory and offered only from what is hullin, so everything that is obligatory may be offered only from what is hullin. Therefore if a man says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” or “I take upon myself [to offer] a shelamim,” since [in these cases] these are obligatory they may be offered only from what is hullin. The libations in every case may be offered only from what is hullin.

Chapter 8

All the sacrifices communal or individual may be offered from [produce grown] in the Land [of Israel] or outside the Land, from new [produce] or from the old, except for the omer and the two loaves, which must be offered only from new produce and from [produce grown] in the land. All [offerings] must be offered from the choicest produce. And which is the choicest? That from Michmas and Zanoha are “alpha” for the quality of their fine flour; second to them is Hafaraim in the valley. The [produce of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it from these places.

One may not bring [grain for menahot] from the produce of a manured field or from an irrigated field or from a field stocked with trees. But if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. How was it prepared? In the first year it was plowed and in the second year it was sown seventy days before Pesah, thus it would produce fine flour in abundance. How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to thrust his hand into it; if some dust came up in [his hand] it was invalid, until it was sifted [more]. If it had become magotty it is invalid.

Tekoa is “alpha” first its oil. Abba Saul says: Second to it is Regev, on the other side of the Jordan. The [oil of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from olive-trees planted in a field sown with seeds, but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring anpakinon, and if one did bring it, it is invalid. One may not bring it from olive-berries which had been soaked in water or preserved or stewed; and if one did bring it, it is invalid.

There are three [periods of gathering in the] olives and each crop gives three kinds of oil. The first crop of olives is when the olives are picked from the top of the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The second crop is when the olives at roof-level are picked from the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The third crop is when the last olives of the tree are packed inside the house until they become overripe; they are then taken up and dried on the roof they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot.

The first oil of the first crop, there is none better than it. The second oil of the first crop and the first oil of the second crop are equal. The third oil of the first crop, the second oil of the second crop and the first oil of the third crop are equal. The third oil of the second crop and the second oil of the third crop are equal. As to the third oil of the third crop, there is none worse than it. It would have been logical by the following argument that menahot should also require the purest olive oil: if the candlestick, whose [oil] is not for eating, requires pure olive oil, how much more should menahot, whose oil is for eating, require pure olive oil! But the text states, “Pure olive oil of beaten olives for lighting” (Exodus 27:20), but not “pure olive oil of beaten olives for menahot.”

From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards.

They did not put [the wine] in large casks but in small barrels. And one did not fill the barrels to the brim so that its scent might spread. One may not take the wine at the mouth of the barrel because of the scum, nor that at the bottom because of the lees; but one should take it only from the third or the middle of the barrel. How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to sit nearby with his stick in his hand; when the froth burst forth he would knock with his stick. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: wine on which there is a scum is invalid, for it is written, “They shall be for you without blemish, and their minhah,” and “They shall be for you without blemish, and their libations” (Numbers 28:19-20,.

Chapter 9

There were two dry-measures in the Temple: the tenth and the half-tenth. Rabbi Meir says: a tenth, [another] tenth, and a half-tenth. For what purpose did the tenth measure serve? By it they used to measure all the menahot. One did not measure with a three-tenths measure [the minhah] for a bull or with a two-tenths measure [the minhah] for a ram, rather, one measured them by all by tenths. For what purpose did the half-tenth measure serve? By it one used to measure the griddlecakes of the high priest [which was offered] half in the morning and the half towards evening.

There were seven liquid measuring vessels in the Temple: the hin, the half-hin, the third-hin, the quarter-hin, the log, the half-log, and the quarter-log. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: there were markings in the hin measure [indicating] thus far for a bull, thus far for a ram, and thus far for a lamb. Rabbi Shimon says: there was no hin measure at all, for what purpose could the hin serve? But there was an additional measure of one and a half logs by which one used to measure [the oil] for the minhah of the high priest, a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half towards evening.

For what purpose did the quarter-log serve? [To measure] a quarter-log of water for the one with skin disease and a quarter-log of oil for the Nazirite. For what purpose did the half-log serve? [To measure] a half-log of water for the sotah and a half-log of oil for the todah. With the log one measured [the oil] for all the menahot. Even a minhah of sixty tenths required sixty logs [of oil]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even a minhah of sixty tenths required only one log [of oil], for it is written, “For a minhah, and for a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). Six [logs] were required for a bull, four for a ram, and three for a lamb; Three logs and a half for the menorah, a half-log for each lamp.

One may mix the drink-offerings of bulls with the drink-offerings of rams, or the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of other lambs, or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering, or those of [an offering offered] today with those of [an offering offered] yesterday; But one may not mix the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of bulls or of rams. If they mixed these on their own, and they mixed these on their own, and then they were mixed, they are valid. But if before each was mixed by itself [they were mixed together], they are invalid. Although the minhah of the lamb that was offered with the omer was doubled, its drink-offerings were not doubled.

All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not.

All the offerings of the congregation and of the individual require libations except the first-born animal, the cattle tithe of cattle, the pesah, the hatat and the asham; But the hatat and the asham of the one with skin disease do require libations.

None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it].

All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.

Laying on of hands is [in certain respects] more stringent than waving and waving is [in other respects] more stringent than laying on of hands. For one may perform the waving on behalf of all the others, but one may not perform the laying on of hands on behalf of all the others. Waving is more stringent, for waving takes place for offerings of the individual and for offerings of the community, for living animals and for slaughtered animals, and for things that have life and for things that do not have life; but it is not so with laying on of the hands.

Chapter 10

Rabbi Ishmael says: On Shabbat the omer was taken out of three seahs [of barley] and on a weekday out of five. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was taken out of three seahs. Rabbi Hanina the vice-high priest says: on Shabbat it was reaped by one man with one sickle into one basket, and on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles.

The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from [what grows] near by. If [the crop] near Jerusalem was not yet ripe, it could be brought from any place. It once happened that the omer was brought from Gagot Zerifin and the two loaves from the plain of En Soker.

How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival.

They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

After the omer was offered they used to go out and find the market of Jerusalem already full of flour and parched grain [of the new produce]; This was without the approval of the rabbis, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: it was with the approval of the rabbis. After the omer was offered the new grain was permitted immediately, but for those that lived far off it was permitted only after midday. After the Temple was destroyed Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that it should be forbidden throughout the day of the waving. Rabbi Judah said: is it not so forbidden by the law of the Torah, for it is said, “Until this very day?” Why was it permitted for those that lived far away from midday? Because they know that the court would not be negligent with it.

The omer permits [the new grain] throughout the land, and the two loaves permit it in the Temple. One may not offer minhahs, first-fruits, or minhahs that accompany animal offerings, before the omer. And if one did so, it is invalid. Nor may one offer these before the two loaves. But if one did so it was valid.

Wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye are subject to hallah. And they are reckoned together. They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new grain before the omer. And they may not be harvested before Pesah. If they had taken root before the omer, the omer permits them; And if not, they are forbidden until the next year's omer.

[Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

Chapter 11

The two loaves [of Shavuot] were kneaded each on its own and baked each on its own. The [cakes of the] showbread were kneaded each on its own and baked two at a time. They were prepared in a mould, and when they were taken out from the oven they were again put in a mould lest they become damaged.

Both the two loaves and the showbread their kneading and their shaping were performed outside [the Temple Court], and their baking was inside. And they do not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: all of these were performed inside [the Temple Court]. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always accustom himself to say, “The two loaves and the showbread were valid whether made in the Temple Court or in Bet Pagi.”

The high priest’s griddle cakes: their kneading, their shaping, and their baking were performed within [the Temple Court], And they override the Shabbat. The grinding [of the grain for it] and the sifting did not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said a general rule: any work that can be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat, but that which cannot be done on the eve of Shabbat does override Shabbat.

All menahot require a vessel [for works that are performed] within, but do not require a vessel [for those works that are performed] outside. How so? The two loaves were seven handbreadths long and four wide and their horns were four fingerbreadths. The [cakes of the] showbread were ten handbreadths long and five wide and their horns were seven fingerbreadths. Rabbi Judah says: lest you err [remember but the words] “zadad yahaz.” Ben Zoma says: “And you shall set upon the table showbread (lehem panim) before me continually:” panim signifies that it should have faces.

The table was ten handbreadths long and five wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two and a half handbreadths were turned up at either side so that its length filled the entire breadth of the table, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: the table was twelve handbreadths long and six wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two handbreadths were turned up at either side; and there was a space of two handbreadths between [the two sets] so that the wind could blow between them. Abba Shaul says: there they used to put the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. They said to him: Has it not already been said, “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7)? He replied, But has it not also been said, “And next unto [al] him shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)?

There were there four golden props [at the corners of] the table, each split at the top, which supported the cakes, two for the one row and two for the other row. And there were twenty-eight rods, each [shaped] like the half of a hollow reed, fourteen for the one row and fourteen for the other row. Neither the placing of the rods nor their removal overrode the Shabbat, but [a priest] used to enter on the day before Shabbat, pull out the rods, and place them parallel with the length of the table. Every article that stood in the Temple was placed with its length parallel with the length of the House.

There were two tables inside the sanctuary, at the entrance of the Temple, the one of marble and the other of gold. On the table of marble they laid the showbread when it was brought in, and on the table of gold they laid the showbread when it was brought out, since we raise [the status] of what is holy and we don’t lower it down. And within [the sanctuary] there was a table of gold on which the showbread lay continually. Four priests entered: two bearing the two rows [of the showbread] in their hands and two bearing the two dishes [of frankincense] in their hands; And four went in before them, two to take away the two rows [of the showbread] and two to take away the two dishes [of frankincense]. Those who brought them in stood at the north side facing the south, and those who took them away stood at the south side facing the north. These withdrew [the old] and the others laid down [the new], the handbreadth of the one being by the side of the handbreadth of the other, as it is said, “Before me continually” (Exodus 25:30). Rabbi Yose says: even if these [first] took away [the old] and the others laid down [the new later on], this too fulfills the requirement of continually. They went out and laid [the old bread] on the table of gold that was in the sanctuary [at its entrance]. They then burned the dishes [of frankincense] and the loaves were distributed among the priests. If Yom Kippur fell on a Shabbat the cakes were distributed in the evening. If it fell on a Friday the he-goat of Yom Kippur was eaten in the evening. The Babylonian [priests] used to eat it raw for they were not fastidious.

If he arranged the showbread on Shabbat and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat, and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on Shabbat and burned the dishes of frankincense on the day after Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid. What should he do? He should leave it until the following Shabbat, for even if it remains many days on the table there is nothing to this.

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

Chapter 12

If menahot and libation-offerings became unclean before they were sanctified in a vessel, they may be redeemed. If [they became unclean] after they were sanctified in a vessel, they may not be redeemed. Bird-offerings, the wood, the frankincense, and the ministering vessels, may not be redeemed, for the rule of redemption applies only to [offerings of] beasts.

If one said, “I take upon myself [to bring a minhah prepared] on a griddle”, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. [But if he said, “I take upon myself] to bring this [flour] as a minhah prepared on a griddle”, and he brought it prepared in a pan; or as “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought it prepared on a griddle, it is invalid. If one said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or [he said] “in two vessels,” and he brought them in one vessel, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. But [if he said, “I take upon myself to bring] these [two tenths] in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or “in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, they are invalid. If he said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel” and he brought them in two vessels, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in one vessel”, if he brought them in one vessel, they are valid, but if he still offered them in two vessels, they are invalid. If he said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in two vessels”, if he offered them in two vessels they are valid; but if he still kept them in one vessel, they are considered as two menahot which have been mixed.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah of barley,” he must bring one of wheat. “Of coarse flour,” he must bring it of fine flour. “Without oil and without frankincense,” he must bring it with oil and frankincense. “Half a tenth,” he must bring a whole tenth. “A tenth and a half,” he must bring two. Rabbi Shimon declares him exempt, because he did not make his offering in the manner in which people usually make their offerings.

A man may offer a minhah consisting of sixty tenths and bring them in one vessel. If one said, “I take upon myself to offer sixty-one tenths,” he must bring sixty in one vessel and the one in another vessel, since the congregation brings on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot] when it falls on Shabbat sixty-one tenths [as a minhah], it is enough for an individual that [his minhah] should be one tenth less than that of the congregation. Rabbi Shimon said: but some of these [sixty-one tenths] are for the bullocks and some for the lambs, and they may not be mixed one with the other! Rather sixty tenths mingles [in one vessel]. They said to him: can sixty be mingled [in one vessel] and not sixty-one? He answered, so it is with all the measures prescribed by the sages: a man may immerse himself in forty seahs of water, but he may not immerse himself in forty seahs less one kortob. One may not offer one [log], two, or five [logs], but one may offer three, four, six, or anything above six.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

Chapter 13

[One who says], “I take upon myself to bring a tenth,” he must bring one [tenth]. “Tenths,” he must bring two [tenths]. [If he said,] “I specified [a certain number of tenths] but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths [If he said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah,” he may bring whichever kind he chooses. Rabbi Judah says: he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for that is the distinctive [one] among the menahot.

[If he said] “A minhah” or “a kind of minhah,” he may bring one [of any kind]. [If he said] “Menahot” or “A kind from menahot,” he must bring two [of any one kind]. [If he said,] “I specified [a certain kind], but I do not know what kind I specified,” he must bring the five kinds. [If he said,] “I specified a minhah of [a certain number of] tenths but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths. But Rabbi says, he must bring menahot [of every number] of tenths from one to sixty.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring [pieces of] wood,” he must bring not less than two logs. “Frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. There are five cases of [not less than] a handful: One who says, “I take upon myself to bring frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. One who voluntarily offered a minhah must bring a handful of frankincense with it. One who offered up the handful outside [the Temp] is liable. The two dishes [of frankincense] require two handfuls.

“I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. “Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. “Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. [If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!”

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring wine,” he must bring not less than three logs. “Oil,” he must bring not less than one log; Rabbi says: not less than three logs. [If one said,] “I specified [how much I would offer] but I do not know how much I specified,” he must bring that quantity which is the most that is brought on any one day.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. [If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer a todah or a shelamim,” he must bring a lamb. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer, a ram and a ewe, a he-goat and a she-goat, a he-kid and a she-kid, a he-lamb and a ewe-lamb.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

It is said of the olah of cattle, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 1:9); and of the olah of birds, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the minhah, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs one’s heart to heaven. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that one’s intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what today’s mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple.

משנה חולין

Chapter 1

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.

If one slaughtered [by cutting] at the [top] ring [of the trachea] and left a hair's breadth of its entire circumference [towards the head], the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: if there was only left [towards the head] a hair's breadth of the greater part of its circumference, [the slaughtering is valid].

If one cut at the side [of the neck], the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head of a bird sacrifice] from the side of the neck, the nipping is invalid. If one cut at the back of the neck, the slaughtering is invalid. If one nipped off [the head] from the back of the neck, the nipping is valid. If one cut at the front of the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head] from the front of the neck, the nipping is invalid. For the whole of the back of the neck is the appropriate place for nipping, and the whole of the front of the neck is the appropriate place for slaughtering. It follows, therefore, that the place which is appropriate for slaughtering is inappropriate for nipping, and the place which is appropriate for nipping is inappropriate for slaughtering.

[The age] which qualifies turtle doves [for sacrifice] disqualifies pigeons, and [the age] which qualifies pigeons [for sacrifice] disqualifies turtle doves. At the period when the neck feathers begin to turn yellow in either kind they are disqualified.

[The method of killing] which renders the red cow valid renders the heifer invalid, and the method which renders the heifer valid renders the red cow invalid. [The disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. That which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. That which cannot be rendered unclean in wooden things can be rendered unclean in metal things, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in metal things can be rendered unclean in wooden things. When bitter almonds are subject to tithing sweet almonds are exempt, and when sweet almonds are subject to tithing bitter almonds are exempt.

Temed: Before it has fermented it may not be bought with second tithe money and it renders a mikveh invalid; After it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money and it does not render a mikveh invalid. Brothers who are partners [in their inheritance]: When they are liable to pay the kalbon, they are exempt from the cattle tithe, And when they are liable to the cattle tithe, they are exempt from the kalbon. Whenever there is [the power] to sell, there is no fine, and whenever there is a fine there is no power to sell. Whenever there is the right of refusal there can be no halizah, and whenever there can be halizah there is no longer the right of refusal. When the shofar is blown there is no havdalah, and when there is havdalah the shofar is not blown. [Thus], if a festival falls on the day before Shabbat the shofar is blown but there is no havdalah; If it falls on the day following Shabbat there is havdalah but the shofar is not blown. How do they recite havdalah [on a festival that follows Shabbat]? “Who distinguishes between holy and holy.” Rabbi Dosa says: “Who distinguishes between the more holy and less holy day.”

Chapter 2

If one cut one [of the organs of the throat] in the case of a bird, or both organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid. The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it. Rabbi Judah says: he must cut through the veins. [If one cut] half of one organ in the case of a bird, or one and a half organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is invalid. [If one man cut] the greater part of one organ in the case of a bird, or the greater part of each organ in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid.

If one slaughtered two animals simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. If two persons held the knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.

If he chopped off the head with one stroke, the slaughtering is invalid. He was slaughtering and he cut through the neck with one stroke, if the knife was as long as the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If he was slaughtering and he cut off two heads at the same time, if the knife is as long as the neck it is valid. When is this so? When the slaughterer moved the knife forward and not backward, or backward and not forward; but if he moved the knife to and fro, however small it was, even if it was a scalpel, the slaughtering is valid. If a knife fell down and slaughtered [an animal], even though it slaughtered it in the proper way, the slaughtering is invalid, for it is said, "And you shall slaughter and eat," that which you slaughter, you may eat. If [while slaughtering] the knife fell and he picked it up, if his clothes fell and he picked them up, if he sharpened the knife, or if he got tired and his friend came and [continued] slaughtering, if he delayed the time that it takes to slaughter, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: if he delayed the time it takes to examine the slaughtering.

If one first sliced the esophagus and then cut away the windpipe, or first cut away the windpipe and then sliced the esophagus; or if he sliced one of these organs and paused until the animal died; or if he thrust the knife underneath the second organ and cut it: [In all these cases] Rabbi Yeshevav says: the animal is nevelah; Rabbi Akiva says: it is terefah. Rabbi Yeshevav stated this general rule in the name of Rabbi Joshua: whenever an animal is rendered invalid by a fault in the slaughtering it is nevelah; whenever an animal has been duly slaughtered but is rendered invalid by some other defect it is terefah. And Rabbi Akiba [ultimately] agreed with him.

If one slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came out, they are valid and may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for they have not been rendered susceptible to impurity by blood. Rabbi Shimon says: they have been rendered susceptible to impurity by the slaughtering.

One who slaughtered a dying animal: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked its foreleg and its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is enough if it spurted [the blood]. Rabbi Shimon said: even if one slaughtered [a dying animal] by night and the following morning he got up early and found the sides [of the throat] full of blood, the slaughtering is valid, for this proves that it spurted [the blood], as is Rabbi Eliezer's measure. The sages say: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked either its foreleg or its hind leg, or it moved its tail to and fro. This is the test both with regard to large and small animals. If a small animal stretched out its foreleg [at the end of the slaughtering] but did not withdraw it, [the slaughtering] is invalid, for this was just an indication of the expiration of its life. When do these rules apply? To case of an animal which was believed to be dying. But if it was believed to be sound, even though it did not show any of these signs, the slaughtering is valid.

If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

If one slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered [an animal], one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid.

One may not slaughter [so that the blood runs] into the sea or into rivers, or into vessels, But one may slaughter into a pool (or vessel) of water. And when on board a ship on to vessels. One may not slaughter at all into a hole, but one may dig a hole in his own house for the blood to run into. In the street, however, he should not do so as not to follow the ways of the heretics.

If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.

Chapter 3

The following [defects] render cattle terefah: If the esophagus was pierced; If the windpipe severed; If the membrane of the brain was pierced; If the heart was pierced as far as its cavity thereof; If the spine was broken and the cord severed; If the liver was gone and none of it remained; If the lung was pierced, Or if part of it was missing. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was pierced as far as the main bronchi; If the stomach, If the gall-bladder was pierced, If the intestines were pierced; If the innermost stomach was pierced, If the greater part of the outer stomach was pierced. Rabbi Judah says: in a large animal [if it was torn] to the extent of a handbreadth, and in a small animal the greater part. If the omasum (the third stomach of a ruminant) [was pierced]; Or if the second stomach was pierced on the outside; If the animal fell from the roof; If most of its ribs were fractured; Or if it was mauled by a wolf. Rabbi Judah says: small animals [are terefah] if mauled by a wolf, large cattle if mauled by a lion; small fowl if mauled by a hawk, large fowl if mauled by a falcon. This is the rule: if an animal with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is terefah.

And the following [defects] do not render cattle terefah:If the windpipe was pierced, or cracked [lengthwise]. To what extent may it be deficient? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: up to an Italian issar. If the skull was cracked but the membrane of the brain was not pierced; If the heart was pierced but not as far as its cavity; If the spine was broken but the cord was not severed; If the liver was removed but an olive's size of it remained. If the omasum or the third stomach were pierced at their juncture; If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys, or the lower jaw-bone or the womb. If [the lung] was shrunken up by an act of Heaven. If an animal was stripped of its hide: Rabbi Meir declares it valid, but the rabbis declare it invalid.

The following [defects] render birds terefah: If the esophagus was pierced, If the windpipe was severed; If a weasel struck [the bird] on the head in such a place as would render it terefah. If the gizzard was pierced, If the intestines were pierced, If it fell into the fire and its innards were scorched: If they turned green, it is invalid, But if they remained red it is valid. If one trod upon it or knocked it against a wall or if an animal trampled upon it, and it still jerks its limbs, and it remained alive after this for twenty-four hours, and it was thereafter slaughtered, it is valid.

And the following [defects] do not render birds terefah: If the windpipe was pierced or cracked lengthwise; If a weasel struck it on the head in such a place as would not render it terefah. If the crop was pierced Rabbi says: even if it was gone. If the innards protruded [from the body] but were not pierced. If its wings were broken, or its legs; or if [the wing’s] feathers were plucked. Rabbi Judah says: if its down was gone it is invalid.

[If an animal] suffered from congestion of the blood, or was overcome by smoke or by a cold, or if it ate oleander or chicken dung, or if it drank noxious water, it is permitted. If it ate poison or was bitten by a snake, it is not forbidden as trefah but it is forbidden as a danger to life.

The characteristics of cattle and of wild animals are stated in the Torah. The characteristics of birds are not stated, but the sages said: every bird that seizes its prey is unclean. Every bird that has an extra toe, or a crop and a gizzard that can be peeled, is clean. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: every bird that parts its toes is unclean.

Of locusts: all that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body, [are clean.] Rabbi Yose says: its name must be locust. Of fishes: all that have fins and scales [are clean]. Rabbi Judah says: there must be [at least] two scales and one fin. The scales are those which are immovable, the fins are those [wings] by which it swims.

Chapter 4

If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.

If an animal giving birth for the first time was having difficulty, one may cut off each limb [as it comes out] and throw it to the dogs. If the greater portion came forth it must be buried, and she is exempt from the law of the firstling.

If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, for just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the joint, it is permitted; If above the joint, it is terefah. So too if the juncture of the tendons was gone, [it is terefah]. If the bone was broken but the greater part of the flesh [around the fracture] remained, it is rendered clean by the slaughtering; otherwise it is not rendered clean by the slaughtering.

If a person slaughtered an animal and found in it an amniotic sac, he who is not fastidious may eat it. It does not contract uncleanness, either food uncleanness or the uncleanness of nevelah. If he intended to eat it, it can contract food uncleanness but not the uncleanness of nevelah. If part of the amniotic sac emerged [before the slaughtering of the mother], it may not be eaten; for it is a sign of birth in a woman and also a sign of birth in an animal. If an animal which was pregnant for the first time miscarried an amniotic sac, it may be thrown to dogs. But in the case of a consecrated animal it must be buried. It may not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for these are amorite practices.

Chapter 5

[The law of] “It and its young” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated animals. How so? If a person slaughtered an animal and its young, both animals being unconsecrated, [and they slaughtered them] outside [the sanctuary], they are both valid, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, both animals are invalid, and each incurs forty lashes. If both animals were unconsecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], both animals are invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not culpable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes, and it is invalid.

If [the first animal was] unconsecrated and [the second] consecrated [and they were both slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If [the first was] consecrated and [the second] unconsecrated [and they were both slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet and it is invalid, and the second [animal] is valid, and each incurs forty lashes. If [the first was] unconsecrated and [the second] consecrated [and they were both slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], they are both invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If [the first was] consecrated and [the second] unconsecrated [and they were both slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first animal is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If both were unconsecrated and [the first was slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary] and [the second] inside, the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If both were consecrated and [the first was slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary] and [the second] inside, [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, each incurs forty lashes, and both animals are invalid. If both were unconsecrated and [the first was slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary] and [the second] outside, the first is invalid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is valid. If both were consecrated and [the first was slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary] and [the second] outside, the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid.

If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; but the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day.

At these four periods a butcher can be compelled to slaughter against his will. Even if the ox was worth a thousand dinars and the purchaser has only [paid] a dinar, they can force the butcher to slaughter it. Therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the purchaser. At other times of the year it is not so, therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the seller.

The “one day” mentioned in connection with the law of “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it. This was how Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma expounded (darash): it says “one day” (Genesis 1:5) in connection with the creation and it also says “one day” (Leviticus 22:28) in connection with “it and its young” Just as the “one day” mentioned in connection with the creation means the day and the night preceding it, so too the “one day” mentioned in connection with “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it.

Chapter 6

[The law of] “covering up the blood” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, It applies to unconsecrated animals but not to consecrated animals. It applies [only] to wild animals and birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not. It applies also to a koy, for it is an animal about which there is a doubt. It may [therefore] not be slaughtered on a festival; and if it was slaughtered [on a festival] one may not cover up its blood.

If a person slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered that which was unconsecrated inside the sanctuary or that which was consecrated outside, or if he slaughtered a wild animal or a bird that was condemned to be stoned: Rabbi Meir makes him liable to cover up the blood; but the sages make him exempt. If he slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he is exempt from covering up [the blood].

If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor slaughtered while others watched them, one must cover up the blood; but if they were alone, they are exempt from covering it up. Similarly for the matter of “it and its young”: if they slaughtered while others watched them, it is forbidden to slaughter after them [the mother/young], but if they were alone: Rabbi Meir permits to slaughter after them [the mother/young]. But the rabbis forbid it. They agree, that if a person did slaughter [after them], he has not incurred forty lashes.

If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again.

If the blood became mixed with water and it still has the color of blood, it must be covered up. If it became mixed with wine, [the wine] is to be regarded as though it was water. If it became mixed with the blood of a beast or with the blood of a wild animal, it is to be regarded as though it was water. Rabbi Judah says: blood does not annul other blood.

The blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must also be covered up. Rabbi Judah says: when is this the case? When there is no other blood but that; but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up.

With what may one cover up [the blood] and with what may one not cover it up? One may cover it up with fine dung, with fine sand, with lime, with white clay, or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder. But one may not cover it up with coarse dung or coarse sand, or with a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have not been ground into powder. Nor may one cover it with a vessel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated a general rule: one may cover it with anything in which plants would grow; but one may not cover it with anything in which plants would not grow.

Chapter 7

[The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.

One may send to a non-Jew a thigh in which the sciatic nerve has not been removed, because its place is known. When a person removes the sciatic nerve he must remove all of it. Rabbi Judah says: only so much as is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of removing it.

If a person ate an olive’s bulk of the sciatic nerve, he incurs forty stripes. If he ate all of it and it was not as much as an olive’s bulk, he is liable. If he ate an olive’s bulk of it from one thigh and another olive’s bulk of it from the other thigh, he incurs eighty stripes. Rabbi Judah says: he incurs only forty stripes.

If a thigh was cooked together with the sciatic nerve and there was enough [of the nerve] as to impart a flavor [to the thigh], it is forbidden. How does one measure this? As if it were meat [cooked] with turnips.

A sciatic nerve which was cooked with other [permitted] nerves: If it can still be recognized, [then all the nerves are prohibited] if [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor. But if it can no longer [be recognized] then they are all forbidden. And the broth [is prohibited] if it [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor. And so it is with a piece of nevelah, or a piece of an unclean fish that was cooked together with other pieces of flesh [or fish]: If it can still be recognized, [then all are prohibited] if it imparts a flavor. But if it can no longer [be recognized] then they are all forbidden. And the broth [is prohibited] if it [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor.

It applies to clean animals but not to unclean. Rabbi Judah says, even to unclean animals. Rabbi Judah said: was not the sciatic nerve prohibited from the time of the sons of Jacob, and at that time unclean animals were still permitted to them? They replied, this law was ordained at Sinai but was written in its proper place.

Chapter 8

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.

A person may wrap up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided they do not touch one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: two people at an inn may eat at the same table, the one meat and the other cheese, without concern.

If a drop of milk fell on a piece of meat and it imparted a flavor into that piece, it is forbidden. If he stirred up the pot, then it is forbidden only if [the drop of milk] imparted a flavor into [all that was in] the pot. The udder: he must cut it open and empty it of its milk; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. The heart: he must cut it open and empty it of its blood; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. One who puts fowl onto a table with cheese has not transgressed a negative commandment.

It is forbidden to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal or to derive any benefit from it. But it is permitted to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal or the meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal and to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Akiva says: wild animals and fowls are not included in the prohibition of the Torah, for it is written three times, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;” to exclude wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it is said, “You shall not eat any nevelah” and [in the same verse] it says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) anything that is prohibited because of nevelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Fowl which is prohibited because of nevelah, it might also be forbidden to cook in milk, Scripture says, “In its mother’s milk;” this excludes fowl which has no mother's milk.

The [milk in the] stomach [of an animal] of a Gentile or [in the stomach of] a nevelah is forbidden. If a man curdled milk with the skin of the stomach of an animal that was validly slaughtered and it imparted its flavor [to the milk] it is forbidden. The [milk in the] stomach of a validly slaughtered animal which had suckled from a terefah animal is forbidden. The [milk in the] stomach of a terefah animal which had suckled from a kosher animal is permitted, because the milk is collected inside.

In certain respects the prohibition of the fat is stricter than the prohibition of the blood, and in certain respects the prohibition of the blood is stricter than the prohibition of the fat. The prohibition of the fat is stricter, in that the fat is subject to the law of sacrilege, and one is obligated over it for piggul, notar, and uncleanness which is not the case with the blood. And the prohibition of the blood is stricter, for it applies to cattle, wild animals and fowl, whether clean or unclean; but the prohibition of the fat applies to clean cattle only.

Chapter 9

The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. [Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says: if an olive’s bulk of dried-up meat was gathered in one place, one would thereby become liable [for nevelah-uncleanness].

In the following cases the skin is considered flesh: The skin of a person, The skin of the domesticated pig. Rabbi Yose says: even the skin of the wild pig. The skin of the hump of a young camel. The skin of the head of a young calf. The skin around the hooves. The skin of the pudenda. The skin of a fetus. The skin beneath the fat tail. The skin of the gecko, the monitor, the lizard and the skink. Rabbi Judah says: the lizard is like the weasel. If any of these skins was tanned or trampled upon as much as [was usual] for tanning, it becomes clean, excepting the skin of a man. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the eight reptiles have [real] skins.

One who was flaying cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large: In order to use the hide for a covering, if he stripped as can be taken hold of [the hide is no longer considered as connected to the flesh.] In order to make a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed. If he was flaying from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [has been flayed]. [All of these measures apply] for both conveying uncleanness and becoming unclean. As for the skin that is on the neck: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: it is not connected. But the sages say it is connected until the whole hide has been flayed.

A hide which had an olive’s bulk of [unclean] flesh clinging to it, one who touches a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite to it, he becomes unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh attached to it, each the size of half an olive, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: neither by contact nor by carrying. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if there were two pieces of flesh, each the size of half of an olive, that he stuck on a twig and he waved them, he becomes unclean. Why then does Rabbi Akiva declare him clean in the [case where they cling to the] hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.

With regard to a thigh-bone of a corpse or a thigh-bone of a consecrated animal, he who touches it, whether it be stopped up or pierced, becomes unclean. With regard to a thighbone of a nevelah or of a [dead] sheretz, if it was stopped up, he who touches it remains clean, but if it was at all pierced it conveys uncleanness by contact. From where do we know [the same rules apply] for carrying? Scripture says, “He that touches and he that carries” (Leviticus 11:39-40), anything that [can become unclean] by contact [can become unclean] by carrying. And anything that cannot [become unclean] by contact, cannot become [unclean] by carrying.

The egg of a sheretz in which there has formed an embryo is clean. If it was pierced, however small the hole was, it is unclean. A mouse which is half flesh and half earth, if a man touched the flesh he becomes unclean, but if he touched the earth he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: even if he touched the earth that is over against the flesh he becomes unclean.

Limbs or pieces of flesh which hang loose from a [living] animal are susceptible to food uncleanness while they are in their place. And [in order to become unclean] they must be first rendered susceptible to uncleanness. If the animal was slaughtered, they have by the blood [of the slaughtering] become susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: they have not become susceptible to uncleanness. If the animal died, the hanging flesh must be rendered susceptible to uncleanness. The limb is unclean as a limb severed from a living creature, but is not unclean as the limb of a nevelah (carcass), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon declares it clean.

A limb or a piece of flesh which hangs loose from a person are clean. If the man died, the flesh is clean, the limb is unclean as a limb severed from the living body but is not unclean as a limb severed from a corpse, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon declares it clean.

Chapter 10

The [law of] the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. For it might have been argued thus: if unconsecrated animals, which are not subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, are subject to these dues, how much more are consecrated animals, with are subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, subject also to these dues! Scripture states, “And I have given them to Aaron the priest and his sons as a due for ever” (Leviticus 7:34) only what is mentioned in this passage shall be his.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle. All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

A first-born got mixed up with a hundred other animals: If a hundred [and one] persons slaughtered them all, they are all exempt from the gifts. If one person slaughtered them all, only one animal is exempt from the gifts. If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or a non-Jew, he is exempt from the gifts. If he had a share [in the animal] with them, he must indicate this by some sign. If he said, “Except the gifts” he is exempt from giving the gifts. If he said, “Sell me the entrails of a cow” and among them were the gifts, he must give them to a priest and [the seller] does not need to reduce the price. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give them to a priest, and [the seller] must reduce the price.

A convert who converted and owned a cow: If he slaughtered it before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts. If [he slaughtered it] after he converted, he is liable. If there was a doubt about it, he is exempt, for the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. What is ‘the shoulder’? From the joint up to the shoulder-socket of the forelimb, and this is the same for the nazirite. The corresponding part of the hind leg is called the thigh. Rabbi Judah says: the thigh extends from the joint up to the fleshy part of the leg. What counts as ‘the cheek? From the joint of the jaw to the last protrusion of the windpipe.

Chapter 11

The law of the first of the fleece is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. The law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is of stricter application than the law of the first of the fleece; for the law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach applies both to herds and flocks, whether they are many or few, whereas the law of the first of the fleece applies only to sheep, and only when there are many.

How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him? The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.

Chapter 12

The law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest is in force both within the holy land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated birds but not consecrated birds. The law of covering up the blood is of broader application than the law of letting [the mother bird] go; for the law of covering up the blood applies to wild animals as well as to birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not, whereas the law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest applies only to birds and only to those which are not at one's disposal. Which are they that are not at one's disposal? Such as geese and fowls that made their nests in the open field. But if they made their nests within a house or in the case of Herodian doves, one is not bound to let [the mother bird] go.

An unclean bird one is not obligated to let it go. If an unclean bird was sitting on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird on the eggs of an unclean bird, one is not obligated to let it go. As to a male partridge: Rabbi Eliezer obligates [one to let it go]. But the sages exempt.

If the mother was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings touch the nest, one is obligated to let her go; if her wings do not touch the nest, one is not obligated to let her go. If there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is still obligated to let the mother go, for it is written: “A nest,” [implying], any nest whatsoever. If there were there young birds able to fly or spoiled eggs, one is not obligated to let [the mother] go, for it is written, “And the mother sitting up on the young or upon the eggs:” Just as the young are living beings so the eggs must be such as [would produce] living beings; this excludes spoiled eggs. And just as the eggs need the care of the mother so the young must be such as need the care of the mother; this excludes those that are able to fly. If one let [the mother] go and she returned, even four of five times, he is still obligated [to let her go again], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” If one said, “I will take the mother and let the young go,” he is still obligated [to let her go], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” If one took the young and brought them back again to the nest, and afterwards the mother returned to them, he is not obligated to let her go.

If one took the mother with the young: Rabbi Judah says: he has incurred [forty] lashes and he need not now let her go. But the sages say: he must let her go, and he does not incur lashes. This is the general rule: [For the transgression of] any negative commandment which has of a remedy by the subsequent fulfillment of a positive commandment one does not incur lashes.

One may not take the mother with the young even for the sake of purifying the metzora. If in respect of so light a commandment, which deals with that which is but worth an issar, the Torah said, “In order that you may fare well and have a long life”, how much more [must be the reward] for the observance of the more difficult commandments in the Torah!

משנה בכורות

Chapter 1

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a donkey belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his donkey] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and levites are exempt through [an argument made by a] kal vehomer: if they exempted the first-born belonging to the Israelites in the wilderness, it follows all the more so that they should exempt their own.

If a cow gave birth to a species of donkey, or a donkey gave birth to a species of horse, it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling, for it is said, “the firstling of a donkey,” “the firstling of a donkey,” twice [to teach that the law of the firstling does not apply] until that which gives birth is a donkey and that which is born is a donkey. And what is the law with regard to eating them? If a clean animal gave birth to a species of unclean animal, it is permitted to be eaten. But if an unclean animal gave birth to a species of a clean animal, it is forbidden to be eaten, for that which comes out of the unclean is unclean and that which comes out of the clean is clean. If an unclean fish swallowed a clean fish, it is permitted to be eaten. But if a clean fish has swallowed an unclean fish, the latter is forbidden to be eaten, because it is not [the clean fish's] growth.

If a donkey that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. [If it gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. If two donkeys that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to the priest. [If they gave birth to] a male and a female or two males and a female, he gives one lamb to the priest. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or to two males and two females the priest receives nothing.

If one donkey had given birth before and one had not given birth before and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. [If they gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. For it says, “And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20), [the lamb can come either] from the sheep or the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. He can redeem with the same lamb many times. [And the lamb] enters the pen to be tithed. If it dies [before he gives it to the priest], he can benefit from it.

We do not redeem with a calf, a wild animal, an animal slaughtered, a terefah, kilayim (a mixed breed) or a koy. Rabbi Elazar permits [redemption] with kilayim because it is a lamb. But he forbids with a koy, because its nature is doubtful. If he gave [the first-born of a donkey] itself to the priest, the latter may not keep it, until he sets aside a lamb in its place.

If one sets aside [a lamb] for the redemption of the first-birth of a donkey and it died: Rabbi Eliezer says: he is responsible as is the case with the five selas for the redemption of the first-born. But the sages say: he is not responsible, as is the case with the redemption of the second tithe. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption of the first-born of a donkey which died that the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. If the first-born of a donkey died [after the lamb for redemption had been set aside]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be buried, but the lamb may be used. But the sages say: it does not need to be buried and the lamb belongs to the priest.

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

Chapter 2

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a cow belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his cow] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to Me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and Levites are subject [to the law of the first-born pure animal]. They are not exempt from [the law of] the first-born of a clean animal, but only of a first-born son and the first-born of a donkey.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed:Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle.

All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed:Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

If one receives flock from a non-Jew on “iron terms” their offspring are exempt [from the law of] the first born. But the offspring of their offspring are liable [to the law of the first born]. If [the Israelite] put the offspring in the place of their mothers, then the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even for ten generations the offspring are exempt [from the law of the first born] since they are pledged to the non-Jew.

If a ewe gave birth to what looked like a kid, or a [female] goat gave birth to what looked like a lamb, it is exempt from [the law of] the first born. But if it some of the signs of [its mother] it is liable [to the law of the first born].

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. [If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. [If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances.

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it:Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it.

Chapter 3

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: if one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring belongs to another [animal]. If he went among his herd and saw animals which had given birth for the first time nursing and animals which had not given birth for the first time nursing, we need not fear that perhaps the offspring of this one came to the other or perhaps the offspring of the other came to this one.

Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: one who slaughters the first born, [first] clears a space with the [butcher's] knife on both sides and tears the hair, as long as he does not remove the wool from its place. And similarly one may tear the hair to show the place of the blemish [to a sage].

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

Chapter 4

For how long is an Israelite bound to take care of a first born? In the case of small cattle, for thirty days, and large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: in the case of small cattle, three months. If the priest says [to the Israelite] during this period “Give it to me,” he must not give it to him. But if the first born was blemished and the priest said to him “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” then it is allowed. And in Temple times, if [the first born] was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him “Give it to me, and I will offer it up it was allowed.” A first born is eaten year by year both in an unblemished as well as in a blemished state, for it is said: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20).

If a blemish appeared on it in its first year, he is permitted to keep it all the twelve months. If after the twelve months, however, he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty days.

If one slaughtered the first born and then showed its blemish [to an expert]:Rabbi Judah permits, But Rabbi Meir says: since it was not slaughtered by the instructions of the expert, it is forbidden.

If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket. If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket. If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation. It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.

If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished.

If one takes payment to act as a judge, his judgments are void; to give evidence, his evidence is void; to sprinkle or to sanctify, the waters are considered cave waters and the ashes are considered burned ashes. If he was a priest and he was made unclean regarding his terumah, he must give him food and drink and rub him with oil. And if he was an old sage, he mounts him on a donkey. He also pays him as he would a workman.

If one is suspected in connection with first borns, one must not buy from him even deer's flesh or unprocessed hides. Rabbi Eliezer says: one may buy from him female hides we may buy from him. One may not buy from him washed or dirty wool, but one may buy spun wool or garments.

If one is suspected of [ignoring the] sabbatical year, one may not buy from him flax, even combed; but spun or woven flax may be bought from him.

If one is suspected of selling terumah as hullin, one may not buy even water and salt from him, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: [one may not buy from him] whatever is connected to terumah and tithes.

One who is suspected of ignoring the sabbatical year is not suspected of ignoring [also] the tithes. One who is suspected of ignoring tithes is not suspected of ignoring [also] the sabbatical year. One who is suspected of ignoring both is suspected of ignoring the rules of purity. And it is possible for one to be suspected of ignoring the rules of purity and yet not be suspected of ignoring the two laws [cited above]. This is the general rule: one who is suspected of [transgressing] something must not give judgment on it or testify concerning it.

Chapter 5

All dedicated animals which became unfit [for the altar] are sold in a market, slaughtered in a market and weighed by the liter, except for a first born or a tithed animal, as their profit goes to the owners, [whereas] the profit on dedicated objects which became unfit goes to the Temple. One can weigh one piece of meat of the first-born against another piece of ordinary meat.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. It happened that a quaestor (a Roman official) saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted.

If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it.

A priest is trusted to say, “I have shown this first born [to an expert] and it is blemished.” All are trust worthy with regard to the blemishes of a tithed animal. A first born whose eye was blinded or whose fore-foot was cut off, or whose hind-leg was broken, may be slaughtered with the approval of three [persons] of the synagogue. But Rabbi Yose says: even if twenty-three were present, it must not be slaughtered except with the approval of an expert.

If one slaughtered a first born and it became known that he had not shown it [to an expert]: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not yet eaten, the flesh must be buried and he must return the money to them. And likewise if one slaughtered a cow and sold it and it became known that it was terefah: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not eaten, they return the flesh to him and he must return the money to them. If [the purchasers], sold it to non-Jews or cast it to dogs, they must pay him the price of a terefah.

Chapter 6

In consequence of the following blemishes a first-born animal may be slaughtered:If its ear has become defective, from the cartilages [inward] but not if the defect is in the ear-flap; If it is slit although there was no loss [of substance]; If it is perforated with a hole as large as a karshinah Or if [the ear] has become dry. What is considered “becoming dry”? If when pierced no drop of blood comes out. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: [it] is dry when it crumbles [when touched].

One whose eyelid is pierced, defected or slit, Or if the eye has a cataract, or a tevalul, halazon [snail-shaped], nahash [snake-shaped] or a [berry-shaped] growth on the eye, [the animal is disqualified]. What is a tevalul? The white of the eye breaking through the ring and entering into the black. But if the black breaks through the ring and goes into the white, it is not a [disqualifying] blemish, because there are no disqualifying blemishes as regards the white of the eye.

Havarvar [white spots] on the cornea and water constantly dripping from the eye, [are disqualifying blemishes]. What do we mean by a permanent hawarwar? If it remained for a period of eighty days. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we must examine it three times in the eighty days. And the following are cases of constant dripping from the eye [and how to test its permanency]: if it ate [for a cure] fresh [fodder] and dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain [it is a permanent blemish, if not cured]. [If it ate] fresh [fodder] and then dry [fodder] from a field requiring artificial irrigation, or if it ate dry [fodder] first and then fresh [fodder from field watered by rain] it is not a blemish unless it eats dry [fodder] after the fresh.

If its nose is perforated, defective, or slit, or its upper lip perforated, defective, or slit [these are disqualifying blemishes]. If the outer incisors are defective or leveled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely], [these are disqualifying blemishes]. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we do not examine behind the molars, nor the molars themselves.

If the sheath [of the penis] is defective or the genitals of a female animal in the case of sacrificial offerings [it is defective.] If the tail is mutilated from the bone but not from the joint; or if the top end [root] of the tail is bared to the bone; or if there is flesh between one joint and another [in the tail] to the amount of a finger's breadth [the animal is defective].

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

If [a first born] has five legs or if it has only three legs, or if its feet are uncloven like that of a donkey, or if it is a shahul or a kasul [these are blemishes]. What is a shahul? [An animal] with a dislocated hip. What is a kasul? [An animal] one of whose hips is higher than the other.

If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. [The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes]. Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.

If the tail of a calf does not reach the joint, [it is a blemish]. The sages said: the growth of all calves is in this manner, as long as [the animals] grow, the tails also extend [below]. To which joint does this refer? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the hip. In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals rendered unfit [for the altar] in consequence of these blemishes may be redeemed.

And in consequence of the following blemishes one may not slaughter a first born either in the Temple or in the rest of the state: White spots on the cornea and water [dripping from the eye] which are not permanent, Or molars which have been broken but not torn out [completely]; Or [an animal] affected with garav, a wart, or hazazit. An old [animal] or a sick one, [an animal] of offensive smell; Or [an animal] which with a transgression has been committed or an animal which is known to have killed a human being on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. A tumtum or a hermaphrodite cannot be slaughtered, neither in the Temple or in the rest of the state. Rabbi Ishmael however says: there is no greater blemish than that [of a hermaphrodite]. But the sages say: it is not considered a first-born and it may be shorn and worked with.

Chapter 7

These blemishes [named above], whether permanent or transitory, make human beings unfit [to serve in the Temple]. There are more than this concerning human beings: kilon, liftan, makkaban, one whose head is angular or shekifas. A hunchback: Rabbi Judah considers him fit, Whereas the sages consider him unfit.

A bald-headed person is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is considered bald-headed? One who does not have a line of hair from ear to ear. If he has one, then he is fit. One who has no eyebrows or has only one eyebrow [is unfit], this being the gibben mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Dosa says: one whose eyebrows lie flat [overshadowing the eyes]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a double back or a double spine.

A harum is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is a harum? One who can paint both of his eyes with one movement. If both of his eyes were above or both of his eyes were below; or if one one eye was above and the other below; Or one who sees the room and the ceiling in one glance; Or one who covers [his eyes] from the sun; A zugdos and a tziran. One whose eyelashes have fallen off is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake.

One whose eyes are as large as a calf's or as small as those of a goose; Or whose body is [unduly] large for his limbs, [unduly] small for his limbs; or whose nose is [unduly] large for his limbs, or whose nose is [unduly] small for his limbs; A tzimem and a zimea. What is tzimea? One whose ears are very small. What is tzimem? One whose ears resemble a sponge.

If the upper lip overlaps the lower or the lower lip overlaps the upper, behold this is a blemish. One whose teeth have fallen out is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake. If his breasts hang down like those of a woman, or his belly is swollen, or his navel sticks out, or if he is epileptic, even once every few days, or he is subject to melancholy, a me'ushkan and a ba'al gever [all these are unfit for the priesthood]. If he has no testicles, or only one testicle, this is the “meroah ashekh” mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Ishmael says: anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: anyone who has wind in his testicles. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a black complexion.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals:A father with his son, A terefah; One born by means of a caesarean section. One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead.

Chapter 8

There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregnant, or if she was freed when pregnant, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest.

A fetus extracted by means of a caesarean section and one that follows neither is a first-born for inheritance or a first-born to be redeemed from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: the first is a first-born for inheritance and the second is a first-born as regards [the redemption] with five selas.

If a man's wife had never before given birth and she gave birth to two males, he gives five sela's to the priest. If one of them dies within thirty days [of birth] the father is exempt. If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property. If she gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.

Two women who had never before given birth gave birth to two males: he [the father] gives ten selas to the priest. If one of the children dies within thirty days [of its birth], if he gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to him, but if he gave it to two priests, he cannot reclaim the money from them. If they gave birth to a male and a female or to two males and a female, he gives five selas to the priest. If they gave birth to two females and a male, or to two males and two females, the priest receives nothing. If one woman had given birth before and the other had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives five selas to the priest. If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], the father is exempt. If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.

If two women who had never before given birth married two men and gave birth to two males, the one father gives five selas to the priest and the other gives five selas to the priest. If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], if they gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to them, but if they gave the money to two priests, they are not able to recover it from them. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the fathers are exempt, whereas the son must redeem himself [as in any case he is a first-born]. If they gave birth to two females and a male or to two females and two males, the priest receives nothing.

If one woman had given birth before and the other had never before given birth, the two women belonging to two husbands, and they gave birth to two males, the one whose wife had never before given birth gives five selas to the priest. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing. If the son dies within thirty days although he gave the priest [the five selas], he must return them. If he dies after thirty days, although he has not yet given the five selas, he (the father) must give them. If he dies on the thirtieth day, it is as if he died on the previous day. But Rabbi Akiva says: if he gave [the five selas] he cannot reclaim them, but if he had not yet given, he need not give. If the father dies within thirty days, [the infant] is under the presumption of not having been redeemed until proof is brought that he has been redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days, the infant is under the presumption of having been redeemed until he [the son] is told that he was not redeemed. If both he and his son need to be redeemed, the father takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Judah says: his son comes first for the command to redeem him was upon his father, and the command of his son is upon him.

The five selas of a first-born [are paid in] the standard of Tyrian maneh. As regards the thirty shekels of a slave and likewise the fifty shekels of the rapist and seducer and the one hundred shekels for one who spreads an evil name in all these cases the payment is in the holy shekel, in the standard of Tyrian maneh. All of these are redeemed with money or the equivalent of money with the exception of shekel payments.

We must not redeem [a first-born] with slaves, nor with notes of indebtedness, nor with immovable properties, nor with objects of hekdesh. If one gives a written acknowledgment to a priest that he owes him five selas he is bound to give them to him, although his son is not considered as redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him [the note of indebtedness] as a gift he is permitted to do so. If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it became lost, he is responsible for it, because it says: “Shall be for you [but] you shall surely redeem” (Numbers 18:15).

The first-born takes a double share of the father's estate but he does not take a double share of the mother’s estate. He also does not take a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate. Nor from what will fall due [to the estate] as he does of what is held in possession. Nor can a woman claim with her ketubah [from these], Nor can daughters claim their support. Nor can a yavam make a claim [from these]. None of these take from the improvement in the value of the estate, nor of what will fall to the estate as they do of what is now held in possession.

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: The share of the first-born, [The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] [And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. Rabbi Eliezer says: all of these return in the Jubilee. R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money.

Chapter 9

The law concerning the tithe of cattle is in force in the Land and outside the Land, in the days when the Temple exists and when it does not exist, [It applies] to hullin (non-sacred) animals only but not to consecrated animals. It applies both to cattle and flock animals, but they are not tithed together. To lambs and to goats, and they are tithed together. To the new and the old, but they are not tithed together. Now it might be logical: seeing that new and old animals which are not treated as kilayim in regard to one another are yet not tithed one for the other, lambs and goats which are treated as kilyaim in regard to one another, all the more should not be tithed one for the other. Scripture therefore states: “And of the flock” all kinds of flock are considered one [for purposes of tithing].

Animals are combined for purposes of tithing so long as they can still pasture within the distance that cattle wander. And what is the distance over which they wander while pasturing? Sixteen mils. If there was between two groups of animals a distance of thirty-two mils, they do not combine for the purpose of tithing. If however there was one in the middle [of the distance of thirty-two mils] he brings them into the middle and tithes them. Rabbi Meir says: the [river] Jordan is regarded as forming a division as regards the tithing of animals.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

All [domesticated animals] enter the shed to be tithed except kilayim, a terefah, offspring brought forth by means of a caesarean section, an animal too young for sacrifice, and an “orphan”. And what is an “orphan”? When its mother has died during its birth or was slaughtered [and subsequently gave birth.] But Rabbi Joshua says: even if the mother has been killed, if the hide is still intact the offspring is not an ‘orphan’ animal.

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

All those born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul combine [for matters of tithing]. Five lambs born before Rosh Hashanah and five born after Rosh Hashanah do not combine. But five lambs born before the period [of tithing] and five after the period [of tithing] do combine [for tithing]. If so, why did they speak of three periods for the tithe of cattle? Until the arrival of the [tithing] period it is permitted to sell and slaughter [the animals], but when the period has arrived he must not kill, but if he killed, he is exempt.

How does one tithe animals? He brings them to a shed and makes for them a small opening so that two cannot go out at the same time. And he counts them with a rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And the one that comes out tenth he marks with red chalk and he says: “Behold, this is [the tithe].” If he did not mark it, or if he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them while they were crouching or standing, they are still considered tithed. If he had one hundred [lambs] and he took ten or if he had ten and he took one [without counting], this is not [a valid] tithe. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: this is a [valid] tithe. If one [of the lambs] already counted jumped back into the flock [in the shed] they are all exempt. If one of the lambs that was a tithe jumped back into the flock [in the shed], they all go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, and the owners may eat them in their unfit state.

If two [lambs] came out at the same time, he counts them in pairs. If he counted [the two] as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If the ninth and the tenth came out at the same time, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are holy: the ninth can be eaten when it becomes blemished, the tenth is the tithe and the eleventh is sacrificed as a shelamim, and it can make a substitute, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: can one substitute make another substitute? They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: if it were a substitute, it would not have been sacrificed. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy. The following is the rule: wherever the name of the tenth [animal] has not been taken away from it, the eleventh is not consecrated.

משנה ערכין

Chapter 1

All [persons] are fit to evaluate or to be made the subjects of evaluation, are fit to vow [another's worth] or have their worth vowed: priests, Levites and [ordinary] Israelites, women and slaves. The tumtum and the hermaphrodite are fit to vow [another's worth], or to have their worth vowed, and are fit to evaluate, but they are not fit to be made the subjects of evaluation, for the subject of evaluation must be definitely either male or female. A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor are fit to have their worth vowed or be made the subject of evaluation, but they are not fit to make either a vow [of another's worth] or to evaluate, because they have no intelligence. A person less than one month old may have his worth vowed but not his valuation.

A non-Jew: Rabbi Meir says: he can be evaluated but he cannot evaluate. Rabbi Judah says: he can evaluate but cannot be evaluated. Both agree that he can vow another's worth and have his worth vowed by others.

One at the point of death or about to be put to death cannot have his worth vowed, nor be evaluated. Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia says: he can be evaluated because his value is fixed, but his worth cannot be vowed because his worth is not fixed. Rabbi Yose says: he may vow, evaluate, and consecrate [to the sanctuary], and if he caused damage, he is obliged to make restitution.

If a woman is about to be executed, they do not wait for her until she gives birth. But if she had already sat on the birthstool, they wait for her until she gives birth. If a woman has been put to death one may use her hair. If an animal has been put to death it is forbidden to make any use of it.

Chapter 2

There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. How so? If one paid a sela and became rich, he need not give any [more]. But if he gave less than a sela and became rich, he must pay fifty selas. If he had five selas in his possession: Rabbi Meir says: he need not give more than one; The sages say he must give them all. There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days. No signs of leprosy are shut up for less than one week and none more than three weeks.

There are never less than four full months in the year, nor did it seem right to have more than eight. Two loaves were eaten, never earlier than the second day, nor later than the third day. The shewbread was eaten never earlier than the ninth day, nor later than the eleventh day. An infant may never be circumcised earlier than the eighth nor later than the twelfth day.

There are never less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple and never more than forty-eight. There are never less than two harps, nor more than six. There are never less than two flutes, nor more than twelve. On twelve days in the year the flute was played before the altar: At the slaughtering of the first pesah, At the killing of the second pesah, On the first festival day of Pesah, On the festival day of Atzeret (Shavuot), And on the eight days of Sukkot. And they did not play on a pipe [abuv] of bronze but on a pipe of reed, because its tune is sweeter. Nor was anything but a single pipe used for closing a tune, because it makes a pleasant finale.

They were slaves of the priests, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose said: they were of families from Bet Hapegarim, Bet-Zipparya and from Emmaus, places from which priests would marry [women]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos said: they were Levites.

There were never less than six inspected lambs in the chamber of lambs, enough for Shabbat and the [two] festival days of Rosh Hashanah, and their number could be increased infinitely. There were never less than two trumpets and their number could be increased infinitely. There were never less than nine lyres, and their number could be increased infinitely. But there was only one cymbal.

There were never less than twelve levites standing on the platform and their number could be increased into infinity. No minor could enter the court of the sanctuary to take part in the service except when the Levites stood up to sing. Nor did they join in the singing with harp and lyre, but with the mouth alone, to add flavor to the music. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: they did not count in the required number, nor did they stand on the platform. Rather they would stand on the ground, so that their heads were between the feet of the levites. And they were called the youth of the Levites.

Chapter 3

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

“The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether one dedicates a field in the sandy plain of Mahoz or in the orchards of Savaste, [if he would redeem it] he must pay fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley. But if it was a field which he bought, he must pay what it is worth. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is all the same whether it is a field of possession or one that he bought. What is the difference between the field of possession and one that he bought? A field of possession he must pay the [added] fifth, whereas for a field that he has bought he need not pay the added fifth.

“The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether it killed the fine looking slave or an ugly slave, he must pay thirty selas. If it killed a free man he must pay what he is worth. If it wounded, whether this one or the other, he must pay the full damage.

“The law of the rapist and seducer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether he raped or seduced a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But compensation for shaming and for blemish is in accord with the [circumstances] of him who shames and of the one who suffers the shame.

The law of the defamer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.How so? Whether he defamed a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay one hundred selas. Thus it turns out that he who speaks with his mouth suffers more than he that commits an act. For thus we have also found that the judgment against our fathers in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil tongue, as it is written: “Yet you have tested me these ten times, and you have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22).

Chapter 4

The sufficiency of means is according to the ability of the vower. And the age is according to the subject of the vow. The evaluation is according to the subject of the evaluation. And the evaluations [shall be paid according to the rate prescribed] at the time of the evaluation. The sufficiency of means is according to the ability of the vower. How so? If a poor man evaluated a rich man, he pays only the valuation of a poor man. But if a rich man evaluated a poor man, he must pay the valuation of a rich man.

But it is not so with sacrifices. If he said: “I take upon myself the sacrifices of this metzora,” and the metzora was poor, he brings the sacrifices of a poor metzora. But if the metzora was rich, he must bring the sacrifices of a rich man. Rabbi says: I say the same applies with regard to an evaluation. Why is a poor man who evaluated a rich man obliged to pay only the evaluation of a poor man? Because the rich man is not obligated at all. But if the rich man said: “My value is upon me” and the poor man, hearing that, said: “What this man has said, I take upon myself,” then he must pay the evaluation of a rich man. If he was poor and then became rich, or rich and then became poor, he must pay the evaluation of a rich man. Rabbi Judah says: even if he was poor and became rich and then again became poor he must pay the evaluation of a rich man.

But it is not so with sacrifices. Even if his father was dying [when a man vowed] and left him ten thousand, or if he had a ship on the sea and it brought to him ten thousand, the sanctuary has no claim at all on them.

“And the age is according to the subject of the vow:” How so? If a child evaluates an old man, he must pay the value of an old man. And if an old man evaluates a child he must pay the value of a child. The evaluation is according to the subject of the evaluation. How so? If a man evaluated a woman, he must pay the value of a woman. And if a woman evaluated a man, she must pay the value of a man. “And the evaluations [shall be paid according to the rate prescribed] at the time of the evaluation.” How so? If he evaluated one who was less than five years of age, and he became [meantime] older than five years of age, or if [he evaluated one] who was less than twenty years of age and he became twenty years old, he must pay [only] in accord with the age at the time of the valuation. The thirtieth day is considered to be under this age. The fifth year or twentieth year is considered to be under this age. For it says: “And if he is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), thus we can learn thus with regard to all others from what is said about sixty years: just as the sixtieth year is considered to be under this age, so also the fifth and twentieth years are under this age. Is that so! Just because [the Torah] accounts the sixtieth year to be under this age, thereby being more stringent, shall we make the fifth or the twentieth year be considered under this age, in order to be lenient? Scripture says, “Years,” “years” as a gezerah shavah: just as with the sixtieth year the word “years” means that it is considered under this age, so the word “years” with the fifth and with the twentieth year are considered under this age, whether this results in being lenient or being stringent. Rabbi Elazar says: [this rule holds good] until they are a month and a day beyond the year.

Chapter 5

One who said: “I vow my weight,” he must pay his weight, in silver [if he had said in] silver, or in gold [if he had said in] gold. It happened with the mother of Yirmatia, who said, “I vow my daughter's weight.” She went up to Jerusalem and weighed her and then paid her weight in gold. [If a man said: “I vow] the weight of my hand,” Rabbi Judah says: let him fill a barrel with water and put it [his hand] in up to the elbow. Then let him weigh the flesh, bones and sinews of a donkey and put it into the barrel until it is filled up again. Rabbi Yose said: “But how is it possible to account exactly one kind of flesh against another kind of flesh, and one kind of bones against another kind of bones? Rather: one estimates what the hand is likely to weigh.

[If one said] “The worth of my hand is upon me,” they estimate his worth with his hand and [what it would be] without his hand. In this respect vows of worth are more stringent than vows of value. There is an aspect of vows of value that is more stringent than vows of worth. How so? If one said: “My value is upon me” and then he dies, his heirs must pay it. [But if he said:] “My worth is upon me,” and then he dies, his heirs need not pay anything because dead persons have no worth. [If he said,] “The value of my hand or foot is upon me,” he has said nothing, [But if he said,] “The value of my head is upon me,” he must pay his whole value. This is the general rule: Anything upon which his life depends, he must pay his full value.

[If one said:] “Half my value is upon me,” he must pay half his evaluation. [But if he said,] “The value of one half of me he is upon me,” he must pay his full value. [If he said] “Half of my worth is upon me,” he must pay half his worth. [If he said,] “The worth of half of me is upon me,” he must pay his whole worth. This is the general rule: Anything on which his life depends, he must pay his whole worth.

If he said: “The value of so-and-so is upon me,” if both the vower and the subject of the vow died, then the heirs must pay it. [If he said,] “The worth of so-and-so is upon me,” and the vower died, the heirs must pay it. But if the subject of the vow died, the heirs need not pay anything because dead persons have no worth.

[If someone said:] “This ox shall be an olah [a whole burnt offering],” or “This house shall be an olah,” and the ox died or the house fell down, he is not obligated to pay. [But if he said:] “This ox is upon me as an olah” or “this house is upon me as an olah” and the ox died, or the house fell down, he is obligated to pay [their worth].

With regard to those who made a vow of value: they take a pledge from them. With regard to those obligated to bring a hatat or asham: they do not take a pledge. With regard to those obligated to bring an olah or a shelamim: they do take a pledge. And even though he is not atoned for unless he is willing [to pay his obligation], as it is said: “willingly” (Leviticus 1:3), they coerce him until he says: I agree. The same is true in the case of divorce documents: they coerce him until he says: I agree.

Chapter 6

[The property] of orphans which has been evaluated [must be proclaimed for] thirty days. And [the property of] the Sanctuary which has been evaluated, [for] sixty days. They must make the proclamation in the morning and in the evening. If a man dedicates his property to the Sanctuary and he is still liable for his wife’s ketubah: Rabbi Eliezer says: when he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her. Rabbi Joshua says: he need not do so. Similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: Also if one guarantees a woman's ketubah and her husband divorces her, the husband must vow to derive no benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of that man [the guarantor] and take his wife back again.

A man who dedicates his possessions to the sanctuary while he is still liable for his wife's kethubah or in debt to a creditor, the wife cannot collect her ketubah from the consecrated property nor the creditor his debt. Rather he who redeems them must redeem for the purpose of paying the wife her ketubah or the creditor his debt. If he had dedicated ninety maneh, worth of property, and he owed one hundred maneh, then he [the creditor] must add one dinar more and he redeems the property for the purpose of paying the ketubah to the wife or the debt to the creditor.

Even though they said: they take pledges from those who owe vows of value, they allow him food for thirty days, clothing for twelve months, bed and bedding, shoes and tefillin. For himself, but not for his wife and children. If he was a craftsman, they leave him two tools of every kind. If he was a carpenter, they leave him two axes and two saws. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he was a farmer, they leave him his yoke [of oxen]. If a donkey driver, they leave him his donkey.

If he had many [tools] of one kind, and few of another kind, they may not say to him to sell the many and buy some of the few, but one leaves him two of the kind of which he has many and all that he has from those of which he has few. One who consecrates [all] his possessions to the Sanctuary, they count his tefillin in the evaluation.

Whether one consecrates his property or evaluates himself, it [the Sanctuary] has no claim to his wife's garment or his children's garment or to the dyed clothes which he had dyed for their use or to the new sandals which he has bought for their use. Although they said: “Slaves are sold with their garments to increase their value,” because when a garment for thirty denars is bought for him his value is increased by a maneh. And likewise with a cow, if it is kept waiting to the market-day it increases in value, and similarly a pearl, if brought to a big city increases in value. Nevertheless, the Sanctuary can only claim the value of anything in its own place and at its own time.

Chapter 7

One may not consecrate [a field of his possession] less than two years before the Jubilee, nor redeem it less than one year after the Jubilee. One does not reckon months to [the disadvantage of] the Sanctuary, but the Sanctuary does reckon months [to its own advantage]. If a man consecrated his field at a time when the law of the Jubilee is in force, he must pay fifty shekels for [every piece of field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley. If the field contained ravines ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not included as part of the field. But if less than this, they are included. If he consecrated it two or three years before the Jubilee, he must pay one sela [shekel] and one pondion for each year. If he says: “I shall pay for each year as it comes,” they do not listen to him, rather he must pay for all the years together.

It is all the same whether the owner or anyone else [redeems the field]. What is the difference between the owner and any other man? The owner must add one fifth, whereas any other man need not add one fifth.

If a man consecrated [his field] and then redeemed it, it does not go out of his possession in the Jubilee. If his son redeemed it, it reverts to his father in the Jubilee. If another person, or a relative redeemed it, and he redeemed it from his hand, it goes out [to the priests]. If one of the priests redeemed it, and it was still in his possession, he cannot say: “Since it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee, and since it is now in my possession, therefore it belongs to me.” Rather, it goes out of his possession to all his fellow priests.

If the Jubilee arrived and it was not yet redeemed then the priests enter into possession of the land and they pay its value, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: they enter [into possession] but they do not pay [its value]. Rabbi Eliezer says: they neither enter [into possession] nor pay [its value]. But it is called an abandoned field until the second Jubilee. If the second jubilee has arrived and it was not yet redeemed, it is called a ‘twice abandoned field’ until the third Jubilee. The priests never enter into possession of the field until someone else had redeemed it.

If one bought a field from his father, and his father died and afterwards he consecrated it, it is considered a field of possession. If he consecrated it and afterwards his father died, then it is considered a field acquired by purchase, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: it is considered a field of possession, as it is said: “And if a field which he has, which is not a field of his possession” (Leviticus 27:22) a field which is not capable of becoming a field of his possession, thus excluding a field which is capable of becoming a field of possession. A field acquired by purchase does not go out to the priests in the year of the Jubilee, for no man can consecrate an object not belonging to him. Priests and Levites may consecrate [their fields] at any time and redeem at any time, both before and after the jubilee.

Chapter 8

If one consecrated his field at a time when the [law of the] Jubilee was no longer observed, they say to him: “You open [the bidding]!” because the owner must pay an added fifth, whereas others do not pay an additional fifth. It happened that one consecrated his field because it was bad. They said to him: “You open the bidding.” He said: “I will acquire it for an issar.” Rabbi Yose said: he did say that, but rather “for an egg,” because consecrated objects may be redeemed by either money or money's equivalent. He [the Temple treasurer] said to him: It’s yours. It turns out he lost an issar and the field was his again.

If one said: I will acquire it for ten selas, and another, [for] twenty, and another for thirty, and another for forty, and another for fifty, If he [that bid] fifty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he [that bid] forty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he [that bid] thirty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid twenty reneged they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid ten reneged they sell [the field] for what it is worth, and collect what remains from him who bid ten. If the owner bid twenty and any other man bid twenty, then the owner comes first, because he must add one fifth.

If one said I will acquire it for twenty-one selas, then the owners must pay twenty-six. [If one said] Twenty-two, the owners must pay twenty-seven. Twenty-three, the owners must pay twenty-eight. Twenty-four, the owners must pay twenty-nine. Twenty-five, the owners must pay thirty, For they need not add one fifth to what the other bids more. If one said: I will acquire it for twenty-six, if the owners want to pay thirty-one and an extra denar, the owner comes first. And if not, we say to the other: It has become yours.

A man may proscribe [part] of his flock or of his herd, of his Canaanite slaves or female slaves or of his field of possession. But if he proscribed all of them, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: just as when it comes to the Highest One, one is not permitted to proscribe all of his possessions, how much more so should one be careful with his property.

If one proscribes his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or female slave, or the field which he acquired by purchase, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, for one can proscribe something that does not belong to him. Priests and Levites cannot proscribe [their belongings], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: the priests cannot proscribe, because things proscribed belong to them. But Levites can proscribe, because things proscribed do not belong to them. Rabbi says: the words of Rabbi Judah seem acceptable in cases of immovable property as it is said: “For that is their perpetual possession,” (Leviticus 25:34) and the words of Rabbi Shimon seem acceptable in cases of movable property, since things proscribed do not fall to them.

Things proscribed for [the use of] the priests cannot be redeemed but are to be given to the priests. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: things proscribed without specification fall to [the fund for] Temple repairs, as it was said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:25). But the sages say: things proscribed without specification go to the priests, as it is said: “As a field proscribed: its possession belongs to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). If so, why is it said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord”? This teaches that it applies to most holy and less holy things.

A man may proscribe his holy things, whether they are most holy things or less holy things. If [they had been] consecrated as a vow, he must give their value, if as a freewill-offering, he must give what it is worth to him. [If he said:] “Let this ox be an olah,” one estimates how much a man would pay for the ox to offer it as an olah, which he was not obliged [to offer]. A first-born, whether unblemished or blemished, may be proscribed. How can it be redeemed? They estimate what a man would give for this first-born in order to give it to the son of his daughter or to the son of his sister. Rabbi Ishmael says: one verse says, [All first-born males] you shall sanctify,” (Deuteronomy 15:19) and another verse says: [“The first-borns among beasts] no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall sanctify,” since it was said already: “No man shall sanctify,” and it is impossible to say: “No man shall sanctify,” since it is also said: “You shall sanctify”? Therefore resolve [thus]: you may sanctify it by consecrating its value [to the owner], but you may not sanctify it by consecrating it to the altar.

Chapter 9

If one sold his field [of possession] at the time when the Jubilee was in force, he may not redeem it for two years, as it says: “According to the number of the years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). If there was a year of blight or mildew, or a seventh year, it is not included in the count. If he only broke the ground [without planting] or left it fallow [for a year], that year is included in the count. Rabbi Elazar says: if he sold it to him before Rosh Hashanah year, and it was still full of fruit, he enjoys three crops in two years.

If he sold it to the first for one hundred [denars] and the first sold it to the second for two hundred, then he need reckon only with the first, as it says, “With the man to whom he sold” (Leviticus 25:27). If he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for one hundred, then he need reckon only with the second, as it says: “With the man” (ibid) the man in possession of the field. One may not sell a distant field in order to redeem a near one, or a poor field in order to redeem a good one. One may not borrow [money] in order to redeem, nor redeem it in halves. But in the case of objects consecrated all these things are permitted. In this respect the laws concerning a person’s [property] are more stringent than those concerning sacred things.

If one sold a house among the houses of a walled city, he may redeem it at once and at any time during twelve months. This is a kind of interest, yet it is not interest. If the seller died, his son may redeem it. If the purchaser died, it may be redeemed from his son. One counts the year only from the time that he sold it, as it is said, “Before a full year has elapsed” (Leviticus 25:30). When it says a “a full” [year] the extra month is included. Rabbi says: he is allowed a year and its extra month.

If the [last] day of the twelve months has arrived and it was not redeemed, it becomes his permanent [possession]. This applies whether he bought it or received it as a gift, as it is said: “beyond reclaim” (Leviticus 25:30). In earlier times, he [the buyer] would hide on the last day of the twelve months, so that [the house] might become his permanent [possession]. Hillel enacted that he [the seller] could deposit his money in the chamber and break down the door and enter, and that the other [the buyer], whenever he wanted, might come and take his money.

Whatever is within the [city] wall is regarded as the houses in a walled city, with the exception of fields. Rabbi Meir says: even fields. A house built into the wall: Rabbi Judah says: it is not considered a house within a walled city. Rabbi Shimon says: its outer wall is regarded as its [city] wall.

A city whose roofs [look as if] they form its wall, Or that was not encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, is not considered like houses in a walled city. [A house in any of] the following counts a house in a walled city: [those in a city] of no less than three courtyards, having two houses each, which have been encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, such as the old acroplis of Tzippori, the fort of Gush-Halav, old Yodfat, Gamla, G'dod, Hadid, Ono, Jerusalem and other similar cities.

Houses in courtyards - we accord to them the advantages of houses in a walled city and the advantages given to fields: They can be redeemed at once, and at any time within the twelve months like houses [in a walled city], and they return [to the owners] in the Jubilee or [at an earlier time] by [payment of a] reduced price like fields. The following are considered houses in courtyards: [a city which has] two courtyards, each having two houses, even though they have been encompassed by a wall since the days of Joshua ben Nun, they count as houses in courtyards.

If an Israelite inherited from his mother's father who was a Levite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here. Also if a Levite inherited from his mother's father who was an Israelite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here, As it says, “As for the houses of the cities of the Levites” (Leviticus 25:32) [this order does not apply] unless he is a Levite and in the cities of the Levites, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: these things apply to the cities of the Levites. One may not turn a field into pasture land, nor pasture land into a field, nor pasture land into a city, nor a city into pasture land. Rabbi Eliezer said: When is this so? When it comes to the cities of the Levites, but when it comes to cities of Israelites one may turn a field into pasture land, pasture land into a field, pasture land into a city, but not a city into pasture land, in order that they should not destroy the cities of Israel. Priests and Levites may sell [a house] at any time and redeem it at any time, as it is said: “The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32).

משנה תמורה

Chapter 1

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

One cannot substitute limbs [of hullin] for [dedicated] embryos; Or embryos [of hullin] for [dedicated] limbs; Or embryos and limbs [of hullin] for whole [dedicated animals]; Or whole [animals of hullin] for them. Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them. Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt offering),” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place!

[Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion. [Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion. Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.

Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water]. A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard. Nor can terumah be made after terumah. A substitute cannot make another substitute. The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute.

Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10). A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute. One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said: Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned? In order to make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs.

Chapter 2

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too [the rules concerning] the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and [a hatat] whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

Chapter 3

The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them:The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Sukkot].

The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread. The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned.

If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the [male] animal itself is offered as an olah. If one sets aside a female [animal] for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham [in its place], its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without [waiting for] a blemish. The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money. An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement [through another animal] goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

Chapter 4

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.

If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first [animal] is found, it is left to die. If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.

Chapter 5

How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah. [If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. [If he said:] if it is a male, let it be an olah, and if a female [let it be] a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a male and a female, the male is offered as an olah and the female is offered as a shelamim.

If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin. If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin. If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.

If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand. But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.

[If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.

[If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute. [If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

Chapter 6

All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.

What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.

What is meant by the “price of a dog”?If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog. And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar]. An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four. Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.

If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.

With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Eliezer says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.

Chapter 7

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar.Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar.Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things, The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

And the following are things which must be buried:A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, [the miscarriage] must be buried. A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, [the placenta] must be buried. An ox which was condemned to be stoned. The heifer whose neck was broken. The birds [brought in connection with the purification] of one with skin disease (metzora). The hair of a nazirite. The first-born of a donkey. [A mixture of] meat [cooked] in milk. And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court [is also burned].

And the following are to be burned:Chametz on Pesah is burned; Unclean terumah; Orlah; Kilayim (mixed seeds) in the vineyard--that which it is customary to burn is to be burned and that which it is customary to bury is to be buried. We may kindle with the bread and oil of [unclean] terumah.

All dedicated animals which were slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned. An asham offered by one in doubt [as to whether he has transgressed] is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried. A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer. All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.

משנה כריתות

Chapter 1

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet:When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.

For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.

The following bring an offering which is not eaten:A woman who miscarries but does not know what the miscarriage was, Or if two women who have a miscarriage, one of a kind which did not render her liable [to an offering], and the other of a kind that does render her liable [to an offering]. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? This applies only if one went towards the east and the other towards the west, but if both remained together they bring [together] one offering which is eaten.

The following do not bring a sacrifice:A woman who discharges a sac filled with water or with blood or with pieces of flesh; Or if the miscarriage was in the shape of fish, locust, unclean animals or reptiles; Or if the miscarriage took place on the fortieth day [after the conception], Or if it was extracted by means of a caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon declares her liable [to an offering] in the case of a caesarean section.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

Chapter 2

There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness.

The following bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgressions:One who has intercourse with a female slave, A nazirite who has become unclean, For a false oath concerning testimony; And for a false oath concerning a deposit.

There are five persons who bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions, and five who bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value. The following bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions:One who has intercourse with a female slave several times, A nazirite who became unclean several times. One who warns his wife in regard to several men, And a metzora who has contracted skin disease several times. If he has offered the birds and then contracted the disease again, they do not count for him until he has offered his hatat. Rabbi Judah says: until he has offered his asham.

A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.

To which type of female slave [does this refer]?To one who is half a slave and half a free person, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: to a full female slave. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: all other forbidden sexual relations are stated explicitly, and of the remainder there is only one who can be half a slave and half a free person.

In the case of all forbidden relations, if one partner was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; If one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; If one is an inadvertent and the other intentional, the former is liable to a hatat, the latter to karet.

Chapter 3

If they said to him: you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to a hatat; If one witness says: he ate, and another says: he did not eat, or if one woman says, he ate, and another says, he did not eat, he is liable to an asham talui. If one witness says, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat, he is exempt. If two [witnesses] say, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat: Rabbi Meir says he is liable. Rabbi Meir said: if two witnesses are capable of bringing upon him severe penalty of death, can they not impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice? They replied: suppose he said, I did it intentionally, would he not be exempted?

If one twice ate forbidden fat in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to but one hatat. If one ate forbidden fat, blood, piggul and notar in one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each kind. This is an instance where different kinds [of food] are more stringent than one kind. In the following instance, however, one kind [of food] is more stringent than several kinds: if one ate half an olive-size and then again half an olive-size, both in one spell of unawareness, if of one kind he is liable, if of two kinds, he is exempted.

Within what time must he eat them [for him to be liable]? [The time he would need] if he ate a similar amount of parched grains of corn, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the rabbis say: he must take from the beginning to the end [of his eating] no more time than is required for the eating of a peras (a half a loaf of bread) [to be liable]. If one eats unclean food or drinks unclean drinks, or if he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine and then enters the Temple [he is liable if it takes less time] than it takes to eat a peras. Rabbi Eliezer says: if the drinking was interrupted or if he diluted it, he is exempt.

It is possible that by one act of eating a person could become liable to four hatats and one asham:If an unclean person eats forbidden fat, which was at the same time notar of an offering, and [it was on] Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says: if it was on Shabbat and he carried it out, he is liable [to yet another hatat]. But they said to him: this is a different name.

By one act of intercourse one may become liable for six hatats: If one had intercourse with his daughter, he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter, his sister, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, and [he can also be guilty] of intercourse with a married woman and a menstruant. If one had intercourse with his daughter’s daughter he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter's daughter, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. Rabbi Yose said: if the grandfather transgressed and married her first, he may thereby become guilty for offending with his father's wife. So too, if one had intercourse with his wife's daughter or her daughter's daughter.

If one had relations with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so too, if one had intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if one had intercourse with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They said to him: all these three are the same name.

Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua at the meat-market of Emmaus, where they went to buy meat for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the law concerning] a man who had intercourse with his sister, his father's sister and his mother's sister? Is he liable for one sacrifice for all of them, or to one [separate sacrifice] for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing [about this], but we have heard that if one had intercourse with five menstruants in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to a sacrifice for each [act], and it seems to us that the case [you asked about] may be derived by an a fortiori conclusion (kal vehomer).

Rabbi Akiva further asked: If a limb hangs loose from the body of a living beast, what is the law? They replied: We have heard nothing about this, but we have heard about a limb hanging loose from the body of a man, that it is clean. And thus those that were afflicted with boils used to do in Jerusalem. He would go on the eve of Pesah to the doctor, and he would cut the limb until only contact of a hairbreadth was left; he then stuck it on a thorn and then tore himself away from it. In this manner both that man and the physician could make their pesah offering. And it seems to us that your case may be derived from this by a kal vehomer.

Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Chapter 4

If [a person was] in doubt whether he had eaten forbidden fat or not, or even if he had certainly eaten [of it] but [was] in doubt as to whether it had the requisite quantity or less; or [if there were] before him permitted fat as well as forbidden fat, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which of them he ate; Or if his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he unwittingly [had sex] with one of them and does not know with which of them he unwittingly [had sex]; Or if he did forbidden labor and does not know whether it was on Shabbat or on a weekday, He is liable for an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Chapter 5

If one ate blood of a slaughtered beast, a wild animal or a bird, either clean or unclean, or blood of an animal stabbed in his throat or neck, or of the blood of an animal slaughtered by having his throat ripped, or of the blood of the arteries whereby life-force escapes, he is liable. But [if he ate] the blood of the spleen or of the heart, or blood found in eggs, or blood of fish, or of locusts, or secondary blood, he is not liable. Rabbi Judah says: he is liable for secondary blood.

Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams? Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know.

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

Chapter 6

If a person brought an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is then sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be offered up, for if it does not expiate this sin, it will expiate another sin. If he learns of it after it was slaughtered, the blood shall be spilled out and the flesh is removed to the place of burning. If the blood had already been tossed [onto the altar], the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the vessel, it should be tossed and the flesh then eaten.

The law is different with a certain asham: If before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was slaughtered, it shall be buried; If after the blood was tossed, the flesh must be removed to the place of burning. The law is also different regarding an ox to be stoned: If before it was stoned, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was stoned, it is permitted for use. The law is also different regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken: If before its neck was broken, it may go out to pasture among the flock. If after its neck was broken, it shall be buried on the spot, for it was from the outset brought in a matter of doubt, it has atoned for the doubt, and so has served its purpose.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.

A man set apart two sela's for an asham:If he bought with it two rams for an asham; if one was of the value of two sela's, it may be offered for his asham, and the other must be let out to pasture until it becomes blemished when it is sold and its value goes for freewill-offerings. If he had bought with the money two rams for hullin use, one worth two sela's and the other worth ten zuz, that which is worth two sela's should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege. [If he had bought with the money] one for an asham and the other for ordinary use, if that for the asham was worth two sela's it should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege, and with it he shall bring a sela and its fifth.

If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin.

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

משנה מעילה

Chapter 1

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled:Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

Chapter 2

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.

The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication. When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication. Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered. Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.

The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication. Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary]. Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

Our mishnah discusses how the law of sacrilege relates to menahot.The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain offerings) from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

Chapter 3

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.

The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.

The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of [consecrated] turtle-doves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege. When is this so? For things dedicated for the altar, but as for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege.

Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege. How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property. The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use. Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple.

If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them. The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it When it has left the field it may be used. The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege. The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.

A nest which is built on the top of a dedicated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. That which is on the top of an asherah, one flicks [it] off with a reed. If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it. If the treasurers [of the Temple] bought trees, the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege but not the chips and not the fallen leaves.

Chapter 4

Things dedicated for the altar combine with one another with regard to the law of sacrilege, and to render one liable over them [for the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. Things dedicated for Temple repair combine with one another. Things dedicated for the altar combine with things dedicated for Temple repair with regard to the law of sacrilege.

Five things in an olah combine with one another: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine and the oil. And six in a todah: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil and the bread. Terumah, terumah of the tithe, terumah of the tithe separated from demai, hallah and first-fruits combine with one another to make up the size required to render other things forbidden and to be liable for the payment of a fifth.

All kinds of piggul can combine with one another and all kinds of notar can combine with one another. All kinds of carrion can combine with one another. All kinds of sheratzim can combine with one another. The blood of a sheretz and its flesh can combine with one another. A general rule was stated by Rabbi Joshua: all things that are alike both in respect of [duration of] uncleanness and in respect of their minimum measure can combine with one another. Things that are alike in respect [of duration] of uncleanness but not in respect of minimum measure, in respect of minimum measure but not in respect [of duration] of uncleanness, or [if they are alike] neither in respect [of duration] of uncleanness nor in respect of measure, cannot combine with one another.

Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they are of two different names. Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to effect impurity, not even in respect of the more lenient of the two [grades] of defilement. Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to affect uncleanness according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.

All kinds of food can combine with one another:To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit [To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv; To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food; To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat; And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit; To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine. Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason? Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.

Chapter 5

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

If one derived half a perutah's worth of benefit and impaired [the value of the used article] by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he had not committed sacrilege, until he benefits a perutah's worth and diminishes the value of a perutah of the same thing.

One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry. How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it.

If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah. If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.”

The portion which a person has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to eat, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given to his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given his friend to eat can combine with one another even after the lapse of a lot of time.

Chapter 6

If an agent has fulfilled his agency, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his agency, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. How so? If he [the employer] said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “[Give] liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. If he [the employer] said to him, “Bring me [something] from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him [from one of these places] even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.

One who has sent a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor: If they carried out their agency the employer is guilty, If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty. If one sent one of sound senses and remembers [that the money belongs to Temple property] before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it. What should he do? He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this;” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money's worth.

If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Bring me for half a perutah lamps and for the other half wicks,” and he went and brought for the whole perutah wicks or for the whole perutah lamps; Or if he said to him, “Bring me for the whole lamps or for the whole wicks,” and he went and brought for half [a perutah] lamps and for the other half wicks, neither is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring for half a perutah lamps from one place and for half a perutah wicks from another,” and he went and brought the lamps from the place where the wicks [were to be bought] and the wicks from the place where the lamps [were to be bought], the agent is guilty of sacrilege.

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it; and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege. If [the money was deposited] with a private person, he may not use it in neither case, and therefore if he did spent it he is guilty of sacrilege. A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a money-changer.

If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.

משנה תמיד

Chapter 1

In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber. In the chamber of Avtinas and in the chamber of the spark there were upper chambers where the youths kept watch. The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands. The priestly initiates used to place their bedding on the ground. They did not sleep in their sacred garments, but they used to take them off [and fold them] and place them under their heads and cover themselves with their own ordinary clothes. If one of them had a seminal emission, he used to go out and make his way down the winding stairs which went under the Birah, and which was lit by lights on each side until he reached the bathing place. There was a fire close by and an honorable seat [i.e. toilet]: and this was its honor: if he found it locked, he knew there was someone there; if it was open, he knew there was no one there. He would go down and bathe and then come up and dry himself and warm himself in front of the fire. He would then go and take his seat next to his fellow priests until the gates were opened, when he would take his departure.

Anyone who desired to remove the ashes from the altar used to rise early and bathe before the superintendent came. At what time did the superintendent come? He did not always come at the same time; sometimes he came just at cock-crow, sometimes a little before or a little after. The superintendent would come and knock and they would open for him, and he would say to them, let all who have bathed come and draw lots. So they drew lots, and whoever was successful.

He took the key and opened the small door, and went from the fire chamber into the Temple courtyard, and the priests went in after him carrying two lighted torches. They divided into two groups, one of which went along the portico to the east, while the other went along it to the west. They went along inspecting until they came to the place where the griddle-cakes were made. There the two groups met and said, Is all well (shalom)? All is well (shalom)! They then appointed they that made the griddle-cakes to make griddle-cakes.

The one who had merited to clear the ashes, would get ready to clear the ashes. They said to him: “Be careful not to touch any vessel until you have washed your hands and feet from the laver. See, the fire-pan is in the corner between the ascent and the altar on the west of the ascent.” No one entered with him, nor did he carry any light. Rather, he walked by the light of the altar fire. No-one saw him or heard a sound from him until they heard the noise of the wooden wheel which Ben Katin made for hauling up the laver, when they said, “The time has come.” He washed his hands and feet from the laver, then took the silver fire-pan and went up to the top of the altar and cleared away the cinders on either side and scooped up the ashes in the centre. He then descended and when he reached the floor he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and he then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent, in the place where they used to put the crop of the birds and the ashes from the inner altar and the ash from the menorah.

Chapter 2

When his fellow priests saw that he had descended, they came running and hastened to wash their hands and feet in the laver. They then took the shovels and the forks and went up to the top of the altar. The limbs and pieces of fat that had not been consumed since the evening they pushed to the sides of the altar. If there was not room on the sides they arranged them on the surround or on the ascent.

They then began to throw the ashes on to the heap (tapuah). This heap was in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor on it. On festivals they did not use to clear away the ash because it was reckoned an ornament to the altar. It never happened that the priest was neglectful in taking out the ashes.

They then began to take up the logs to place onto the fire. Were all kinds of wood valid for the fire? Yes! All kinds of wood were valid for the fire except vine and olive wood. But what they mostly used were boughs of fig trees and of nut trees and of oil trees.

He then arranged a large pile on the east side of the altar, with its open side on the east, while the inner ends of the [selected] logs touched the ash heap. Spaces were left between the logs in which they kindled the brushwood.

They picked out from there some good fig-tree branches to make a second fire for the incense near the south-western corner some four cubits to the north of it, using as much wood as he judged sufficient to form five seahs of coals, and on the Shabbat as much as he thought would make eight seahs of coals, because from there they used to take fire for the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. The limbs and the pieces of fat which had not been consumed over night were put back on the wood. They then kindled the two fires and descended and went to the chamber of hewn stone.

Chapter 3

The superintendent then said to them: come and cast lots, to see who is to slaughter, and who is to sprinkle the blood, and who is to clear the ashes from the inner altar, and who is to clear the ash from the candlestick, and who is to lift the limbs on to the ascent: the head, the right leg, the two forelegs, the tailbone, the left leg, the breast and the neck and the two flanks, the entrails, the fine flour, the griddle cakes and the wine. They cast lots and whoever won, won.

He then said to them: Go out and see if it is yet time for the slaughter. If the time had come, the one who saw would say, “There are flashes.” Matya ben Samuel says: [He used to say] Has the whole of the east [of the sky] lit up. as far as Hebron? And he [the observer] would answer yes.

He said to them: Go out and bring a lamb from the chamber of lambs. Now the lamb’s chamber was in the north-western corner. And there were four chambers there the chamber of lambs, the chamber of the seals, the chamber of the fire-room and the chamber where the showbread was prepared.

They went into the chamber of the vessels and they took out ninety-three vessels of silver and gold. They gave the animal for the daily sacrifice a drink from a cup of gold. Although it had been examined on the previous evening it was now examined again by torchlight.

The priest who had won the right to slaughter the tamid takes it along with him to the slaughter house, and those who had won the right to bring the limbs up followed after him. The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the tamid] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars.

Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick would go first with four vessels in their hands the teni, the kuz and two keys. The teni resembled a large tarkav of gold and held two and a half kavs. The kuz resembled a large gold pitcher. And two keys: One of the two keys would reach down to the “amah of the armpit” and the other opens immediately.

He then came to the small opening on the north. The great gate had two small openings, one on the north and one on the south. No one ever went in by the openings on the south, about which it is stated explicitly in Ezekiel, “And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be closed, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it” (Ezekiel 44:2). He took the key and opened the small opening and went in to the cell and from the cell to the Sanctuary, until he reached the great gate. When he reached the great gate he drew back the bolt and the latches and opened it. The slaughterer did not slaughter till he heard the sound of the great gate being opened.

From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah. From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver. From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites]. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar. Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur. From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense. Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.

The one who had been chosen for clearing the ashes from the inner altar went in carrying the teni which he set down in front of it, and he scooped up the ash in his fists and put it into it, and in the end he swept up what was left into it, and then he left it there and went out. The one who had been chosen to clear the ashes from the menorah went in. If he found the two eastern lights burning, he cleared the ash from the rest and left these two burning. If he found that these two had gone out, he cleared away their ash and kindled them from those which were still lit and then he cleared the ash from the rest. There was a stone in front of the candlestick with three steps on which the priest stood in order to trim the lights. He left the kuz on the second step and went out.

Chapter 4

They would not tie up the lamb but rather they would string its legs together. Those who merited [to bring up] the limbs took hold of it. Thus it was strung up: its head was to the south while its face was turned to the west. The slaughterer stood to the east of it, facing the west. The morning tamid was killed by the north-western corner of the altar at the second ring. The evening tamid was killed by the north-eastern corner at the second ring. While one slaughtered another received the blood. He then proceeded to the north-eastern corner and cast the blood on the eastern and northern sides; he then proceeded to the southwestern corner and cast the blood on the western and southern sides. The remnant of the blood he poured out at the southern base of the altar.

He did not use to break the leg, but he made a hole in it at the [knee-] joint and suspended it from there. He then began to flay it until he came to the breast. When he came to the breast he cut off the head and gave it to the one who merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. He then cut off the legs [up to the knees] and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp]. He then finished the flaying. He tore out the heart and squeezed out the blood in it. He then cut off the forelegs and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp]. He then went back to the right leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who merited [to bring it onto the ramp], and the two testicles with it. He then tore it [the remaining carcass] open so that it was all exposed before him. He took the fat and put it on top of the place where the head had been severed. He took the innards and gave them to the one to who had merited washing them. The stomach was washed very thoroughly in the washing chamber, while the entrails were washed at least three times on marble tables which stood between the pillars.

He then took a knife and separated the lung from the liver and the finger of the liver from the liver, but he did not remove it from its place. He cut out the breast and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. He came to the right flank and cut into it as far as the spine, without touching the spine, until he came to the place between two small ribs. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the liver attached to it. He then came to the neck, and he left two ribs on each side of it, cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the windpipe and the heart and the lung attached to it. He then came to the left flank in which he left the two thin ribs above and two thin ribs below; and he had done similarly with the other flank. Thus he left two on each side above and two on each side below. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], and the spine with it and the spleen attached to it. This was really the largest piece, but the right flank was called the largest, because the liver was attached to it. He then came to the tail bone, which he cut off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], along with the tail, the finger of the liver and the two kidneys. He then took the left leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. Thus they were all standing in a row with the limbs in their hands The first had the head and the [right] hind leg. The head was in his right hand with its nose towards his arm, its horns between his fingers, and the place where it was severed turned upwards with the fat covering it. The right leg was in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The second had the two fore legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left hand, the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The third had the tail bone and the other hind leg, the tail bone in his right hand with the tail hanging between his fingers and the finger of the liver and the two kidneys with it, and the left hind leg in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The fourth had the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand, its ribs being between two of his fingers. The fifth had the two flanks, the right one in his right hand, and the left one in his left hand, with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The sixth had the innards on a platter with the knees on top of them. The seventh had the fine flour. The eighth had the griddle cakes. The ninth had the wine. They went and placed them on the lower half of the ramp on its western side, and salted them (see Leviticus 2:13). They then came down and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema.

Chapter 5

The superintendent said to them: Bless one blessing! And they blessed. They then read the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the “And it will be if you hearken” (the second paragraph of Shema) and Vayomer (the third paragraph of Shema), and they blessed the people with three blessings: Emet veYatziv, and Avodah, and the priestly benediction. On Shabbat they added a blessing to be said by the watch which was leaving.

He said to them: those who are new to the incense come and draw lots, and who ever won, won. He then said: new and old, come and draw lots to see who shall take up the limbs from the ascent to the altar. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: the one who brought the limbs on to the ascent also takes them up to the altar.

He then handed them over to the attendants, who stripped them of their garments, and they would leave on them only the pants. There were windows there on which was inscribed the name of the garment to which each was assigned.

The one who had been selected to offer the incense took up the ladle, which was in shape like a big tarkav of gold, and it held three kavs, And the [small] dish was in the middle of it, heaped up with incense. This had a covering, over which was spread a piece of cloth.

The priest who had won the firepan, would take the silver pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear away the live coals to this side and that, and he would rake [the coals]. He then went down and poured them into a gold [firepan]. About a kav of the coals was spilt, and these he swept into the channel. On Shabbat he used to put an overturned pot on them. This pot was a large vessel which could hold a letekh. It had two chains; with one he used to draw it down, and with the other he used to hold it above so that it should not roll over. It was used for three purposes for placing over live coals, and over a [dead] creeping thing on Shabbat, and for drawing down the ashes from the top of the altar.

When they came between the Sanctuary and the altar, one took the magrefah and threw it between the Sanctuary and the altar. People could not hear one another speak in Jerusalem from the noise of the magrefah. It served three purposes: When a priest heard the sound of it he knew that his fellow priests were going in to bow down, and he would run to join them. When a Levite heard the noise he knew that his fellow Levites were going in to sing, and he would run to join them. And the head of the Ma’amad used to make the unclean stand in the east gate.

Chapter 6

They began to ascend the steps of the Sanctuary. Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick went in front. The one who won the right to clear the inner altar went in and took the teni and bowed down and went out again. The one who had been chosen to clear the candlestick went in, and if he found the two eastern lights still burning he cleared out the eastern one and left the western one burning, since from it he lit the candlestick for the evening. If he found that this one had gone out, he cleared the ash away and lit it from the altar of burnt-offering. He then took the kuz from the second step and bowed down and went out.

The one who had won the right to bring in the firepan made a heap of the coals on the top of the altar and then spread them about with the end of the firepan and bowed down and went out.

The one who had won the right to the incense took the dish from the middle of the spoon and gave it to his friend or his relative. If some of it spilled into the spoon, he would put it into his hands. They used to instruct him: Be careful not to begin immediately in front of you or else you may burn yourself. He then began to scatter the incense and [after finishing] went out. The one who burned the incense did not do so until the superintendent said to him: burn the incense. If it was the high priest who burned: he would say to him: Sir, high priest, burn the incense. Everyone left and he burned the incense and bowed down and went out.

Chapter 7

When the high priest went in to bow down, three priests supported him, one by his right and one by his left and one by the precious stones. When the superintendent heard the sound of the footsteps of the high priest as he was about to go out [from the Sanctuary], he raised the curtain for him. He went in, bowed down and went out, and then his fellow priests went in and bowed down and went out.

They went and stood on the steps of the Sanctuary. The first ones stood at the south side of their fellow priests with five vessels in their hands: one held the teni, the second the kuz, the third the firepan, the fourth the dish, and the fifth the spoon and its covering. They blessed the people with a single blessing, except in the country they recited it as three blessings, in the Temple as one. In the Temple they pronounced the divine name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute. In the country the priests raised their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest, who did not raise his hands above the diadem. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest also raised his hands above the diadem, since it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).

If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right. When he reached the middle of the ascent the deputy took hold of his right hand and helped him up. The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire]. If he wanted, he could lay his hands and let others throw [them] on the fire. He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern. They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

The following are the psalms that were chanted in the Temple.On the first day they used to say, “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Psalms. On the second day they used to say: “Great is the Lord and highly to be praised, in the city of our God. His holy mountain” (Psalms. On the third day they used to say: “God stands in the congregation of God, in the midst of the judges he judges” (Psalms. On the fourth day they used to say: “O Lord, God to whom vengeance belongs. God to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth” (Psalms. On the fifth day they used to say: “Sing aloud unto God our strength, shout unto the God of Jacob” (Psalms. On the sixth day they used to say: “The lord reigns, he is clothed in majesty, the Lord is clothed, He has girded himself with strength” (Psalms. On Shabbat they used to say: “A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” (Psalms. A psalm, a song for the time to come, for the day that will be all Shabbat and rest for everlasting life.

משנה מדות

Chapter 1

In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber. And the Levites in twenty-one places: Five at the five gates of the Temple Mount; Four at its four corners on the inside; Five at five of the gates of the courtyard; Four at its four corners on the outside; One at the offering chamber; One at the chamber of the curtain, And one behind the place of the kapporet.

The officer of the Temple Mount used to go round to every watch, with lighted torches before him, and if any watcher did not rise [at his approach] and say to him, “Shalom to you, officer of the Temple Mount, it was obvious that he was asleep. Then he used to beat him with his rod. And he had permission to burn his clothes. And the others would say: What is the noise in the courtyard? It is the cry of a Levite who is being beaten and whose clothes are being burned, because he was asleep at his watch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: once they found my mother's brother asleep, and they burnt his clothes.

There were five gates to the Temple Mount: The two Huldah gates on the south were used both for entrance and exit; The Kiponus gate on the west was used both for entrance and exit. The Taddi gate on the north was not used at all. The Eastern gate over which was a representation of the palace of Shushan and through which the high priest who burned the red heifer and all who assisted with it would go out to the Mount of Olives.

There were seven gates in the courtyard: three in the north and three in the south and one in the east. In the south: the Gate of Kindling, and next to it the Gate of the First-borns, and then the Water Gate. In the east: the Gate of Nicanor. It had two chambers, one on its right and one on its left. One was the chamber of Pinchas the dresser and one the other the chamber of the griddle cake makers.

On the north was the Gate of the Sparks which was shaped like a portico. It had an upper chamber built on it, and the priests used to keep watch above and the Levites below, and it had a door opening into the Hel. Next to it was the Gate of the Sacrifice and next to that the fire chamber.

There were four chambers inside the fire chamber, like sleeping chambers opening into a hall, two in sacred ground and two in non-holy, and there was a row of mosaic stones separating the holy from the non-holy. For what were they used? The one on the southwest was the chamber of sacrificial lambs, The one on the southeast was the chamber of the showbread. In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled. Through the one on the northwest they used to go down to the bathing place.

The fire chamber had two gates, one opening on to the Hel and one on to the courtyard. Rabbi Judah says: the one that opened on to the courtyard had a small opening through which they went in to search the courtyard.

The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands. The priestly initiates used to place their bedding on the ground.

There was a place there [in the fire chamber] one cubit square on which was a slab of marble. In this was fixed a ring and a chain on which the keys were hung. When closing time came, the priest would raise the slab by the ring and take the keys from the chain. Then the priest would lock up within while the Levite was sleeping outside. When he had finished locking up, he would replace the keys on the chain and the slab in its place and put his garment on it and sleep there. If one of them had a seminal emission, he would go out by the winding stair which went under the Birah, and which was lighted with lamps on both sides, until he reached the bathing place. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: he descended by the winding stair which went under the Hel and he went out by the Taddi gate.

Chapter 2

The Temple Mount was five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits. The greater part of it was on the south; next to that on the east; next to that on the north; and the smallest part on the west. The part which was most extensive was the part most used.

All who entered the Temple Mount entered by the right and went round [to the right] and went out by the left, save for one to whom something had happened, who entered and went round to the left. [He was asked]: “Why do you go round to the left?” [If he answered] “Because I am a mourner,” [they said to him], “May He who dwells in this house comfort you.” [If he answered] “Because I am excommunicated” [they said]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire them to draw you near again,” the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose to him: you make it seem as if they treated him unjustly. Rather [they should say]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire you to listen to the words of your colleagues so that they may draw you near again.”

Within it was the Soreg, ten handbreadths high. There were thirteen breaches in it, which had been originally made by the kings of Greece, and when they repaired them they enacted that thirteen prostrations should be made facing them. Within this was the Hel, which was ten cubits [broad]. There were twelve steps there. The height of each step was half a cubit and its tread was half a cubit. All the steps in the Temple were half a cubit high with a tread of half a cubit, except those of the Porch. All the doorways in the Temple were twenty cubits high and ten cubits broad except those of the Porch. All the doorways there had doors in them except those of the Porch. All the gates there had lintels except that of Taddi which had two stones inclined to one another. All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle happened with them. Some say: because their copper gleamed like gold.

All the walls that were there [in the Temple] were high except the eastern wall, for the priest who burned the red heifer would stand on the top of the Mount of Olives and direct his gaze carefully to see the opening of the Sanctuary at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.

The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide. It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits. They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used? The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot. The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar. The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease. The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil. It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together. Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.

There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name.

Chapter 3

The altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two. It rose a cubit and went in a cubit, and this formed the foundation, leaving thirty cubits by thirty. It then rose five cubits and went in one cubit, and this formed the surround, leaving twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight. The horns extended a cubit in each direction, thus leaving twenty-six by twenty-six. A cubit on every side was allowed for the priests to go round, thus leaving twenty-four by twenty-four as the place for the wood pile [for the altar fire]. Rabbi Yose said: Originally, the complete area [occupied by the altar] was only twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight, and it rose with the dimensions mentioned until the space left for the altar pile was only twenty by twenty. When, however, the children of the exile returned, they added four cubits on the north, and four on the west like a gamma, since it is said: “Now the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve broad, square” (Ezekiel 43:16). Is it possible that it was only twelve cubits by twelve? When it says, “With four equal sides” (ibid), this shows that he was measuring from the middle, twelve cubits in every direction. A line of red paint ran round it in the middle to divide between the upper and the lower blood. The foundation ran the whole length of the north and of the west sides, and it took up one cubit on the south and one on the east.

At the southwestern corner [of the foundation] there were two openings like two small nostrils through which the blood which was poured on the western side of the foundation and on the southern side flowed down till the two streams became mingled in the channel, through which they made their way out to the Kidron wadi.

On the floor beneath at that corner there was a place a cubit square on which was a marble slab with a ring fixed in it, and through this they used to go down to the pit to clean it out. There was an ascent on the south side of the altar, thirty-two cubits [long] by sixteen broad. It had a square window in its western side where disqualified sin-offerings of birds were placed.

The stones both of the ascent and of the altar were taken from the valley of Bet Kerem. They dug into virgin soil and brought from there whole stones on which no iron had been lifted, since iron disqualifies by mere touch, though a flaw made by anything could disqualify. If one of them received a flaw, it was disqualified, but the rest were not. They were whitewashed twice a year, once at Pesah and once at Hag, and the Sanctuary was whitewashed once a year, at Pesah. Rabbi says: they were whitewashed every Friday with a cloth on account of the blood stains. The plaster was not laid on with an iron trowel, for fear that it might touch and disqualify. Since iron was created to shorten man's days and the altar was created to prolong man's days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.

There were rings to the north of the altar, six rows of four each. And some say, four rows of six each. Upon them they used to slaughter the sacrificial animals. The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the sacrifice] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars.

The laver was between the porch and the altar, a little to the south. Between the porch and the altar there were twenty-two cubits. There were twelve steps there, each step being half a cubit high and a cubit broad. There was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then at the top a cubit, a cubit and a level space of four cubits. Rabbi Judah says that at the top there was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of five cubits.

The doorway of the porch was forty cubits high and its breadth was twenty cubits. Over it were five main beams of ash [wood]. The lowest projected a cubit on each side beyond the doorway. The one above projected beyond this one a cubit on each side. Thus the topmost one was thirty cubits long. There was a layer of stones between each one and the next.

There were poles of cedar wood stretching from the wall of the Sanctuary to the wall of the Porch to prevent it from bulging. There were chains of gold fixed in the roof beams of the Porch by which the priestly initiates used to ascend and see the crowns, as it says, “And the crowns shall be to Helem and to Toviyah and to Yedaya and to Hen the son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the Temple of the Lord” (Zechariah 6:14). A golden vine stood at the door of the Sanctuary trained on poles, and anyone who offered a leaf or a grape or a bunch used to bring it and hang it there. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok said: on one occasion three hundred priests were commissioned [to clear it].

Chapter 4

The doorway of the Hekhal was twenty cubits high and ten broad. It had four doors, two on the inner side, and two on the outer, as it says, “And the Hekhal and the Sanctuary had two doors” (Ezekiel 41:23). The outer ones opened into the interior of the doorway so as to cover the thickness of the wall, while the inner ones opened into the Temple so as to cover the space behind the doors, because the whole of the Temple was overlaid with gold except the space behind the doors. Rabbi Judah says: they stood within the doorway, and they resembled folding doors. These were two cubits and a half [of the wall] and these were two cubits and a half, leaving half a cubit as a doorpost at the one end and half a cubit as a doorpost at the other end, as it says, “And the doors had two leaves apiece, two turning leaves, two leaves for the one door and two leaves for the other” (Ezekiel 41:24).

The great gate had two small doors, one to the north and one to the south. By the one to the south no one ever went in, and concerning it was stated explicitly be Ezekiel, as it says, “And the Lord said to me: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut” (Ezekiel 44:2). He [the priest] took the key and opened the [northern] door and went in to the cell, and from the cell he went into the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah says: he used to walk along in the thickness of the wall until he came to the space between the two gates. He would open the outer doors from within and the inner doors from without.

There were thirty-eight cells there, fifteen on the north, fifteen on the south, and eight on the west. On the north and on the south there were five over five and five again over these; On the west there were three over three and two over these. Each had three openings, one to the cell on the right and one to the cell on the left and one to the cell above. In the [one at the] northeastern corner there were five openings, one to the cell on the right, one to the cell above, one to the mesibbah, one to the door, and one to the Hekhal.

The [chamber] of the lowest [story] was five cubits wide and at the ceiling six cubits. The [chamber] of the middle [story] was six cubits wide and at the ceiling of seven. The [chamber] of the top [story] was seven cubits wide, as it says, "The lowest story was five cubits wide, the middle one 6 cubits wide and the third 7 cubits wide" (I Kings 6:6).

The mesibbah (a winding walkway) went up from the north-east corner to the north-west corner by which they used to go up to the roofs of the cells. One would ascend the messibah facing the west, traversing the whole of the northern side till he reached the west. When he reached the west he turned to face south and then traversed whole of the west side till he reached the south. When he reached the south he turned to face eastwards and then traversed the south side till he reached the door of the upper chamber, since the door of the upper chamber opened to the south. In the doorway of the upper chamber were two columns of cedar by which they used to climb up to the roof of the upper chamber, and at the top of them was a row of stones showing the division in the upper chamber between the holy part and the Holy of Holies. There were trap doors in the upper chamber opening into the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were let down in baskets so that they should not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies.

The Hekhal was a hundred cubits by a hundred with a height of a hundred. The foundation was six cubits, then it rose forty, then a cubit for the ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling and a cubit for the plastering. The height of the upper chamber was forty cubits, there was a cubit for its ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling, a cubit for the plastering, three cubits for the parapet and a cubit for the spikes. Rabbi Judah says the spikes were not included in the measurement, but the parapet was four cubits.

From east to west was a hundred cubits: The wall of the porch five cubits, the porch itself eleven, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior forty, a cubit for the space between, and twenty cubits for the Holy of Holies, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits, the cell six cubits and the wall of the cell five. From north to south was seventy cubits: The wall of the mesibbah five cubits, the mesibbah itself three, the wall of the cell five and the cell itself six, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior twenty, then the wall of the Hekhal again six and the cell six and its wall five, then the place of the water descent three cubits and its wall five cubits. The Porch extended beyond this fifteen cubits on the north and fifteen cubits on the south, and this space was called the House of the slaughter-knives where they used to store the knives. The Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front, resembling a lion, as it says, "Ah, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped" (Isaiah 29:1): Just as a lion is narrow behind and broad in front, so the Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front.

Chapter 5

The whole of the courtyard was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five broad. From east to west it was a hundred and eighty-seven. The space in which the Israelites could go was eleven cubits. The space in which the priests could go was eleven cubits. The altar took up thirty-two. Between the Porch and the altar was twenty-two cubits. The Hekhal took up a hundred cubits, and there were eleven cubits behind the kapporet.

From north to south was a hundred and thirty-five cubits.The ascent and the altar took up sixty-two; From the altar to the rings was eight cubits. The rings took up twenty-four cubits. From the rings to the tables was four cubits, From the tables to the dwarf pillars four, And from the dwarf pillars to the wall of the courtyard eight cubits, And the remainder was between the ascent and the wall and the space occupied by the dwarf pillars.

There were six chambers in the courtyard, three on the north and three on the south. On the north were the salt chamber, the parvah chamber and the washer's chamber. In the salt chamber they used to keep the salt for the offerings. In the parvah chamber they used to salt the skins of the animal-offerings. On its roof was the bath used by the high priest on Yom Kippur. In the washers’ chamber they used to wash the entrails of the sacrificial animals, and from it a winding way went up to the roof of the parvah chamber.

On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones. The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three. In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard. In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood. A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests. They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.

משנה קינים

Chapter 1

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah. What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah. Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names.

Chapter 2

If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one. If it flew among birds that are to be offered up, it becomes invalid and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]; for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].

How is this so? Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew]. If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return. If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred, since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

An unassigned pair and an assigned pair: if one bird from the unassigned [pair] flew to the assigned [pair], then a pair must be taken for the second [bird]. If one bird flew back, or if in the first place a bird from the assigned pair flew [to the other pair], then all must be left to die.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Chapter 3

When are these words said? When the priest asks advice. But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another, and he offered all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If the hatats belonged to one and the olot to another, and the priest offered them all above, then half are valid and half disqualified. If he offered them all below, half are valid and half disqualified. If he offered half of them above and half below, then all of them are disqualified, because I can argue that the hatats were offered above and the olot below.

If a hatat, an olah, an unassigned pair of birds and an assigned pair [became mixed up], and he offered them all above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly] if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If he offered half of them above and half below, none is valid except the unassigned pair, and that must be divided between them.

If hataot birds were mixed up with [unassigned birds that were] obligatory offerings, only the number of hataot among the obligatory offerings are valid. If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the hataot, then half are valid and half invalid; But if the hataot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of hataot] among the obligatory offerings are valid. So, too, if [birds assigned as] olot were mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory offerings, only the number of olot among the obligatory offerings are valid. If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the olot, then half are valid and half invalid. But if the olot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of olot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

משנה כלים

Chapter 1

The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, But they do not convey impurity by being carried.

Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone.

Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies.

Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel (tent) whereby all the others convey no impurity.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

There are ten grades of holiness: the land of Israel is holier than all other lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the omer, the firstfruits and the two loaves, which cannot be brought from any of the other lands.

Cities that are walled are holier, for metzoras must be sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out.

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

The area between the porch (ulam) and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it. The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it. The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it. Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned.

Chapter 2

Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. If they were broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean.

As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity

The following are not susceptible to impurity among earthen vessels: A tray without a rim, A broken incense-pan, A pierced pan for roasting corn, Gutters even if they are bent and even if they have some form of receptacle, A cooking vessel that was turned into a bread-basket cover, A bucket that was turned into a cover for grapes, A barrel used for swimmers, A small jar fixed to the sides of a ladle, A bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship, and an earthen lamp, behold these are no susceptible to impurity. The following is a general rule: any among earthen vessels that has no inner part is not susceptible to impurity on its outer sides.

A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it.

The covers of wine jars and oil jars and the covers of papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity But if he adapted them for use as receptacles they are susceptible. The cover of a pot: When it has a hole or it has a point, it is not susceptible to impurity, But if it does not have a hole or a pointed top it is susceptible because she drains the vegetables into it. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: because she turns out the contents [of the pot] on to it.

A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible. A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only.

The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity:A tray with a rim, An unbroken fire-pan, And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot. If one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.

A torch is susceptible to impurity. And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air- space. The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible.

Chapter 3

The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean:If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through.

A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives. A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through]. A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through]. A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through]. Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through]. A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through]. A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean. And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.

A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it. A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it.

If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space.

One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity. But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible. And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.

As to dog's tooth which which they line large jars: anything that touches it becomes unclean. The plug of a jar is not regarded as connected. That which touches the lining of an oven is unclean.

A cauldron which was lined with mortar or with potter's clay: That which touches the mortar is unclean; But that which touches the potter's clay is clean. A kettle which was punctured and the hole was stopped with pitch: Rabbi Yose rules that it is clean since it cannot hold hot water as cold. The same ruling he also gave concerning vessels made of pitch. Copper vessels which were lined with pitch the lining is clean, But if they are used for wine, it is unclean.

A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean.

Chapter 4

A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean.

If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean. If a damaged vessel (gistera) was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants.

What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.

An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.

Chapter 5

A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one.

A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean.

The crown of a double stove is clean. The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean. If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean. The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean.

An oven that was heated from its outside, or one that was heated without the owner's knowledge, or one that was heated while still in the craftsman's house is susceptible to impurity. It once happened that a fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signah, and when the case was brought up at Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel ruled that they were unclean.

The additional piece of a householder's oven is clean, but that of bakers is unclean because he rests the roasting spit on it. Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar said: because one bakes on it when pressed [for space]. Similarly the additional part of the boiler used by olive cookers is susceptible to impurity, but that of one used by dyers is not susceptible.

If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air- space. If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.

If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground. Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths. Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position]. If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean.

If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides of such an oven it has been said, "A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean."

An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean. If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean. If he put them back on, it is still clean. If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated.

If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.

An oven of stone or of metal is clean, But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or cracked, and he lined it with plaster or with a rim of clay, it is unclean. What must be the size of the hole [for it to be pure]? It must be big enough for the flame to come through. The same applies also to a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is clean. But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or cracked but was provided with props it is unclean. If it was lined with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: if [the lining was] inside it is unclean but if outside it remains clean.

Chapter 6

If he put three props into the ground and joined them [to the ground] with clay so that a pot could be set on them, [the structure] is susceptible to impurity. If he set three nails in the ground so that a pot could be set on them, even though a place was made on the top for the pot to rest, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. One who made a stove of two stones, joining them [to the ground] with clay: It is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that it is not susceptible to impurity, unless a third stone is added or [the structure] is placed near a wall. If one stone was joined with clay and the other was not joined with clay, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity.

A stone on which he placed a pot, [on it] and on an oven, or on it and a double stove, or on it and on a stove, is susceptible to impurity. [If he set the pot] on it and on another stone, on it and on a rock, or on it and on a wall, it is not susceptible to impurity. And such was the stove of the Nazirites in Jerusalem which was set up against a rock. As regards the stove of the butchers, where the stones are placed side by side, if one of the stoves contracted impurity, the others do not become unclean.

If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg.

If two stones were made into a stove and they became defiled, and a stone was set up near the outer side of the one and another stone near the outer side of the other, [the inner half] of each [inner stones] remains unclean while [the outer] half of each [of these stones] is clean. If the clean stones are removed the others revert to their impurity.

Chapter 7

The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar.

A hob that has a receptacle for pots is clean as a stove but unclean as a receptacle. As to its sides, whatever touches them does not become unclean as if the hob had been a stove, But as regards its wide side: Rabbi Meir holds it to be clean But Rabbi Judah holds it to be unclean. The same law applies also where a basket was inverted and a stove was put upon it.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air- space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean. If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number.

If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.

How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean.

Chapter 8

An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided?

If the hive was complete, and so too in the case of a basket or a skin-bottle, and a sheretz was within it the oven remains clean. If the sheretz was in the oven, any food in the hive remain clean. If a hole was made in it: A vessel that is used for food must have a hole large enough for olives to fall through, If it is used for liquids the hole must be large enough for liquids to pass into it, And if it is used for either it is subjected to the greater restriction: the hole need only be large enough for liquids to pass into it.

Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel. A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean.

A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, "That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean."

If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree.

A leavening pot with a tightly fitting lid which was put in an oven, and there was some leaven and a sheretz within the pot, but there was a partition (of inedible bread) between them, the oven is unclean but the leaven is clean. But if it was an olive's bulk of corpse, both the oven and the house are unclean, and the leaven remains clean. If in the partition there was an opening of one handbreadth, all become unclean.

A sheretz which was found in the eye-hole of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove: If it was outside the inner edge, it is clean. If it [the oven] was in the open air, even if it was an olive's bulk of corpse it is clean. If there was [in the eye-hole] an opening of one handbreadth, it is all unclean.

If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean. If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards.

A pit which has a place on which a pot may be set is unclean. And so also an oven of glass-blowers, if it has a place on which a pot may be set, it is unclean. The furnace of lime-burners, or of glaziers, or of potters is clean. A purna: If it has a frame is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if it has coverings [for compartments.] Rabban Gamaliel says: if it has edges.

If a person who came in contact with one who has contracted corpse impurity had (food liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they cause the oven to be unclean. If a person who was clean had food or liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean. If a person was eating a pressed fig with impure hands and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone: Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be unclean But Rabbi Judah says it as clean. Rabbi Yose says: if he turned it over [in his mouth] the fig is unclean but if he did not turn it over the fig is clean. If the person had a pondion in his mouth, Rabbi Yose says: if he kept it there to relieve his thirst it becomes unclean.

If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean.

Chapter 9

If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean. Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough. If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean. If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean. If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean. If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean.

A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.

If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now. If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived. If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness.

A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases.

Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean.

If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent in which was a corpse, they become unclean. If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean.

If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.

If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.

Chapter 10

The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels.

How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects.

A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect. If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean.

If a ball or coil of reed grass was placed over the mouth of a jar, and only its sides were plastered, it does not protect unless it was also plastered above or below. The same is true with regard to a patch of cloth. If it was of paper or leather and bound with a cord, if he plastered it from the sides, it protects.

If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect.

If a jar had a hole in it and wine lees stopped it up, they protect it. If one stopped it up with a vine shoot [it does not protect] until he plasters it at the sides. If there were two vine shoots, [it does not protect] unless he plastered it at the sides and also between the one shoot and the other. If a board was placed over the mouth of an oven, it protects if he plastered it at the sides. If there were two boards [it does not protect] unless he plastered at the sides and also between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or with bamboo joints there is no need for them to be plastered in the middle.

An old oven was within a new one and netting was over the mouth of the old [new] one: If [it was placed such that if] the old one were to be removed the netting would drop, all [the contents of both ovens] are unclean; But if it would not drop, all are clean. A new oven was within an old one and netting was over the mouth of the old one if there was not a handbreadth of space between the new oven and the netting, all the contents of the new one are clean.

If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean. If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean.

Chapter 11

Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. On being broken they become clean. If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse.

Every metal vessel that has a name of its own [is susceptible to impurity,] Except for a door, a bolt, a lock, a socket under a hinge, a hinge, a clapper, and the [threshold] groove under a door post, since these are intended to be attached to the ground.

If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.

If unclean iron was smelted together with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, [the vessel made of the mixture] is unclean; If the greater part was from the clean iron, the vessel is clean. If each was half, it is unclean. The same law also applies to a mixture of cement and cattle dung. A door bolt is susceptible to impurity, but [one of wood] that is only plated with metal is not susceptible to impurity. The clutch and the crosspiece [of a lock] are susceptible to impurity. A door-bolt: Rabbi Joshua says: he may remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is like all other vessels and may be carried about in a courtyard.

The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity, When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity.

A metal spindle-knob:Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case.

A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean. If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean. If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean. While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity.

A helmet is susceptible to impurity but the cheek-pieces are clean, But if they have a receptacle for water they are susceptible to impurity. All weapons of war are susceptible to impurity: a javelin, a spear-head, metal boots, and a breastplate are susceptible to impurity. All women's ornaments are susceptible to impurity: a golden city (a tiara), a necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, a ring whether it has a seal or does not have a seal, and nose-rings. If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread broke, the beads are still susceptible to impurity, since each one is a vessel in itself. If the thread was of metal and the beads were of precious stones or pearls or glass, and the beads were broken while the thread alone remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. The remnant of a necklace [is susceptible] as long as there is enough for the neck of a little girl. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if only one ring remained it is unclean, since it also is hung around the neck.

If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The hooklet is clean. If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they are clean.

Chapter 12

A man's ring is susceptible to impurity. A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean. A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean. A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity. A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean. The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity.

The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks. And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity. The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean. The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean. [The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean. That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean. This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean. All these, however, are by themselves clean.

The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean. But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean. The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean.

A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity. But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity. A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity. The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean. If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity.

A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.

There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metal vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.

If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up.

A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity. All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood. Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated.

Chapter 13

The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean. The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

A harhur that is damaged is still susceptible to impurity until its greater part is removed. But if its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. A hatchet whose cutting edge is lost remains susceptible to impurity on account of its splitting edge. If its splitting edge is lost it remains susceptible on account of its cutting edge. If its shaft-socket is broken it is clean.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.

Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean. How so? If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean. If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean. The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself.

If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.

A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity.

Chapter 14

What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil. Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs. Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean.

A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.

A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity. Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity. A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean. The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths. A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity. A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean. All covers are clean except that of a boiler.

The parts of a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces that hold the straps, the iron bar under the necks of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the clapper, the hook, and any nail that holds any of its parts together.

The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean. Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean. When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened.

A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean.

Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day.

A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. A metal mill-funnel is unclean.

Chapter 15

Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.

Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.

The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed.

All hangers are susceptible to impurity, except for those of a sifter and a sieve that are used by householders, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: all hangers are clean, excepting those of a sifter of flour-dealers, of a sieve used in threshing-floors, of a hand-sickle and of a detective's staff, since they aid when the instrument is in use. This is the general rule: [a hanger] that is intended to aid when the instrument is in use is susceptible to impurity and one intended to serve only as a hanger is clean.

The grist-dealers’ shovel is susceptible to impurity but the one used in grain stores is clean. The one used in wine- presses is susceptible to impurity but that used in threshing- floors is clean. This is the general rule: [a shovel] that is intended to hold anything is susceptible to impurity but one intended only to heap stuff together is clean.

Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean. All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean. All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard. A wooden toy horse is clean. The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it. A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean.

Chapter 16

A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool. Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law. When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity? A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.

Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition. A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished. A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition.

Small reed baskets and baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. Large reed baskets and large hampers, as soon as two rows have been made round their sides. The container of a sifter or a sieve and a cup of the balances, as soon as one circling band has been made round their sides. A willow basket, as soon as two twists have been made around its wide sides. And a rush basket, as soon as one twist has been made round it.

When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on. A leather apron [becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops have been sewn on. A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its straps have been sewn on. A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open.

A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean. Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness. The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean.

The leather glove of winnowers, travelers, or flax workers is susceptible to uncleanness. But the one for dyers or blacksmiths is clean. Rabbi Yose says: the same law applies to the glove of grist dealers. This is the general rule: that which is made for holding anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which only affords protection against perspiration is clean.

The dung bag of a bull and its muzzle, a bee shelf, and a fan are clean. The cover of a small box is susceptible to uncleanness; The cover of a clothes chest is clean. The cover of a box, the cover of a basket, a carpenter's vice, a cushion under a box or its arched cover, a reading-desk for a book, a bolt-socket, a lock-socket, a mezuzah case, a lyre case, a violin case, the block of the turban-makers, a wooden musical toy horse, the clappers of a wailing woman, a poor man's parasol, bed posts, a tefillin mould, and the mould of string makers all these are clean. This is the general rule which Rabbi Yose stated: all objects that serve as a protection to objects that a man uses, both when the latter are in use and when they are not in use, are susceptible to uncleanness; but those that serve them as a protection only when the latter are in use are clean.

The sheath of a sword, a knife or a dagger, the case for scissors, or shears or a razor, the case of make-up and the make-up box, the stylus case, the compass case, the tablet case, the case for a board, a quiver and a javelin case all these are susceptible to uncleanness. The case for a double flute is susceptible to uncleanness if the instrument is put in from above, but if it is put in from the side it is clean. A case for flutes Rabbi Judah says it is clean because these are put in from the side. The covering of a club, a bow or a spear is clean. This is the general rule: that which serves as a case is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which is merely a covering is clean.

Chapter 17

All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through]. Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.

A skin bottle [becomes clean if the holes in it are of] a size through which warp-stoppers [can fall out]. If a warp-stopper cannot be held in, but it can still hold a woof-stopper it remains unclean. A dish holder that cannot hold dishes but can still hold trays remains unclean. A chamber- pot that cannot hold liquids but can still hold excrements remains unclean. Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is clean since people do not usually keep one that is in such a condition.

Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through]. Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean.

The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].

The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.

The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest must be brought and put in water and the displaced water is then divided. Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest? Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate.

The dried fig of which they spoke--- it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Rabbi Judah says: the biggest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands.

The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori. The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind. "Any movable object conveys uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by "one of moderate size?" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth.

The cubit of which they spoke is one of medium size. There were two standard cubits in Shushan Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the south-eastern corner exceeded the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses by a fingerbreadth. But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit? Only for this reason: so that craftsmen might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and return their finished work according to the larger cubit, so that they might not be guilty of any possible trespassing of Temple property.

Rabbi Meir says: all cubits were of the moderate length except that for the golden altar, the horns, the surround and the base. Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building was one of six handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths.

Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.

And sometimes they stated a large measure:A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean.

The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day.

If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not.

The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible to uncleanness. About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.

The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.

Chapter 18

A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included.

Its carriage: if it can be slipped off, is not regarded as connected, nor is it included in its measurement, nor does it afford protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, nor may it be drawn along on Shabbat if it contains money. If it cannot be slipped off, it is regarded as connected, it is included in its measurement, it affords protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, it may be drawn along on Shabbat even if it contains money. Its arched top, if it is fixed [to the box], is considered connected and is measured with it, but if it is not fixed it is not connected and is not measured with it. How is it measured? As an ox-head. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand by itself it is clean.

If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity. The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean. Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness. The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean.

A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean?

A bed that had contracted midras uncleanness: If a short side was removed and its two legs still remains it is unclean. But if a long side and two legs were removed it becomes clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says: it is unclean. If two props at opposite corners were cut off, or if two legs at opposite corners were cut off, or if the bed was reduced to a level of less than a handbreadth, it becomes clean.

A bed that had contracted midras impurity:If a long side of it was broken and then he repaired it, it still retains its midras impurity. If the second side was also broke and then he repaired it, it becomes pure from midras impurity but is unclean by virtue of contact with midras. If before one could manage to repair the first side the second one broke, the bed becomes clean.

If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.

A tefillin box consisting of four vessels: if the first compartment was unloosed, and then he mended it, it retains its corpse uncleanness. So is it also the case with the second and the third. If he unloosed the fourth it becomes free from corpse uncleanness but it is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If he went back to the first compartment and unloosed and mended it, it remains unclean from contact. So also in the case of the second compartment. If he then unloosed the third compartment and mended it becomes clean, since the fourth is unclean from contact, and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact.

A bed half of which was stolen or lost, or one which brothers or joint owners divided between themselves, becomes clean. If it was restored it is susceptible to uncleanness henceforth. A bed may contract uncleanness and be rendered clean when all its parts are bound together, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: it can contract uncleanness and is rendered clean in single parts.

Chapter 19

One who dismantles a bed in order that he might immerse it and [while doing so] touches the ropes remains clean. When does the rope begin to constitute a connective with the bed? As soon as three rows of meshes of it have been knotted. And [if another rope was tied to this one] and a person touches it: If from the knot inwards he becomes unclean; But if from the knot outwards he remains clean. As to the loose ends of the knot, any one that touches that part which is needed for it becomes unclean. And how much is needed for it? Rabbi Judah says: three fingerbreadths.

A rope that hangs out from a bed:If it is shorter than five handbreadths, it is clean, If it is from five to ten handbreadths long, it is unclean. From ten handbreadths and longer is clean; For it is with [this rope] that paschal lambs were tied and beds were lowered down.

If a part of a mattress hangs over, it is unclean whatever its length, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths. The remnant of a mattress remains unclean if the length is at least seven handbreadths from which a donkey's covering can be made.

If a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress, the latter causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress the part that is shorter than ten handbreadths causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, but that which is over the ten handbreadths causes only an uncleanness of one grade and an unfitness of one grade. If he was carried on the mattress, [on the overhanging part] that was shorter than ten handbreadths, it becomes unclean, but if on the part that was longer than ten handbreadths it remains clean.

If around a bed that had contracted midras uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to midras uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to midras uncleanness but the mattress is unclean only from contact with midras. If around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to seven-day uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to seven-day uncleanness but the mattress is unclean until the evening. If the bed was subject to evening uncleanness and around it he wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to evening uncleanness; If it was removed, the bed remains subject to evening uncleanness but the mattress becomes clean.

If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness. If a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness. A bed from which the two longer sides were removed and two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones.

A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If a piece fell out above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged below, it becomes clean. The compartments within it remain unclean and are not regarded as a connected to it.

If a shepherd's bag was damaged, the pocket within it retains its uncleanness and is not regarded as a connected to it. A skin whose testicle bags serve also as receptacles and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer serve their original purpose.

A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness and corpse uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep. If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.

A dung-basket that was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates: Rabbi Meir says is still susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.

Chapter 20

Pillows, bed coverings, sacks and packing cases that were damaged are still susceptible to midras uncleanness. A fodder-bag that can hold four kav, a shepherd's bag that can hold five kav, a traveling bag that can hold a se'ah, a skin that can hold seven kav, Rabbi Judah adds: also a spice-bag, and a food wallet that can hold the smallest quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness. If any of them was damaged it becomes clean, since if the primary function ceases the secondary function also ceases.

A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness, And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.

If a stick was used as a handle for a hatchet, it is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of use. A yarn winder is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of its use. If it was fixed to a pole it is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not considered connected to it. If the pole itself was converted into a yarn winder, only that part which is needed for use is susceptible to uncleanness. A seat that was fixed to the pole is susceptible to uncleanness, but the latter is not regarded as connected to it. If the pole itself was turned into a seat, only the place of the seat is susceptible to uncleanness. A seat that was fixed to the beam of an olive-press is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not connected to it. If the end of a beam was turned into a seat it remains clean, because people would tell him, "Get up and let us do our work."

If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A wood block that was fixed to a row on a wall, whether he fixed it and did not built upon it or built upon it but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed it and also built upon, it is clean. Matting that was spread over the roof-beams, whether he fixed it but did not put on the plasterwork or whether he put on the plasterwork but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was fixed and he laid plasterwork over it, it is clean. A dish that was fixed to a chest, box or cupboard: If in such a manner as to hold its contents in the usual way, it is susceptible to uncleanness, But if it was in a manner that it cannot hold its contents in the usual way it is clean.

If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it.. Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.

A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. So also, where the end-knots are untied, it is clean. If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture.

Chapter 21

One who touches the upper beam, the lower beam, the harnesses, the sley, the thread that is drawn over purple material, or a spool which is not to be shot back, remains clean. If he touches the woof, the standing warp, the double thread that is drawn over purple material or a spool which is to be shot back, he becomes unclean. If one touches the wool that is on the distaff, or on the spool, he remains clean. If he touches the spinner: Before it was uncovered he is unclean, After it was uncovered he remains clean.

One who touches the yoke, the crossbar, the collar-piece, or the thick ropes, even when they are being used, he remains clean. If he touched the tail piece, knee or handle, he becomes unclean. If he touched the metal rings, the guides, or the flanks, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says that he remains clean if he touched the guides since they only serve to increase the soil.

One who touches the handle of a saw at either end becomes unclean; [If he touched] its string, cord, cross-piece or side-pieces, a carpenter's vice, or the bow-handle of a bow-drill, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: so too he who touches the frame of a large saw remains clean. One who touches the bow-string or the bow, even though it was stretched, he remains clean. A mole-trap is clean. Rabbi Judah says: when it is stretched, the separate parts are [regarded as] connected.

Chapter 22

If a table or a side-board was damaged or he covered them with marble but room was left for cups to be set, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah ruled: there must be room enough for pieces of food.

A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. The same law applies also to the side-board.

A bench, one of whose legs was removed, is clean. If its second leg also was removed it is still clean. If it was one handbreadth high it is unclean. A footstool one of whose legs was removed is unclean. The same applies to the stool in front of a cathedra.

A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A chair whose seat boards did not project and then they were removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness, for it is usual to turn it on its side and to sit on it.

A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide.

A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased, the secondary one also ceases.

A chest whose top part was removed is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bottom; If its bottom was removed it is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its top part. If both the top part and the bottom part were removed: Rabbi Judah says that it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its sides, But the sages rule that it is clean. A stonecutter's seat is subject to midras uncleanness.

A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out. A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.

A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness. A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean. A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean. Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them. A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean.

Chapter 23

If a ball, a mould, an amulet or tefillin were torn, one that touches them becomes unclean, But one that touches what is inside them remains clean. If a saddle was torn, one that touches its contents unclean, because the stitching joins them.

The following are susceptible to uncleanness as objects that are fit for riding upon (merkav): an Ashkelon donkey belt, a Medean saddle, a camel's pillow, and a horse-cloth. Rabbi Yose says: a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat, since people stand on it in the arena. But a saddle of a female camel is susceptible to [sitting] uncleanness.

What is the practical difference between [the uncleanness of an object used for] riding upon and [one used for] sitting upon? In the case of the former the effect of contact with it is different from the effect of carrying it, but in the case of the latter there is no difference between the effect of coming in contact with it or carrying it. The pack-frame of a donkey on which a zav sat is clean; But if the size of the spaces has been changed or if they have been broken one into another it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A bier, the mattress and the pillow of a corpse are susceptible to the uncleanness of midras. A bride's stool, a midwife's stool, and a launderer's stool on which he piles the clothes: Rabbi Yose says: it is not regarded as a seat.

A fishing net is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bag. Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings and fishermen's skeins are susceptible to uncleanness. A fish-trap, a bird-basket and a bird-cage are not susceptible to uncleanness.

Chapter 24

There are three different types of shields:A bent shield is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A shield used in the arena is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And the Arabian toy shield is pure from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of wagons:The one made like a cathedra is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The one made like a bed is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, And the one for [the transport of] stones is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of baking-troughs:If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split it is susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of boxes:A box whose opening is at the sides is susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it is on the top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of leather covers:That of barbers is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That on which people eat is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And that for [spreading out] olives is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of bases:One which lies before a bed or before a scribe is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One for a side-table is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one for a cupboard is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of writing tablets:That of papyrus is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That which had a receptacle for wax is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And that which is smooth is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of beds:One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of baskets:The one for dung is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The one for straw is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And a camel's rope bag is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of mats:One used for sitting upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used by dyers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And one used in wine-presses is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of water skins and three different types of shepherds' wallets:Those that can hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness; Those that cannot hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And those made of fish skin are free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of hides:That which is used as a rug is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That which is used as a wrapper for vessels is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And that which is intended for straps and sandals is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of sheets:One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of napkins:One used for hands is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used for books is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And the one used as a shroud or a covering for the harps of the Levites is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of hip-boots:Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness; Those used by locust gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And those used by fig-pickers are free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of hair nets:A girl's is susceptible to midras uncleanness; An old woman's is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And [the hair net] of a woman who "goes out" is free from all uncleanness.

There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one, all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one. Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean.

Chapter 25

All vessels have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, as for instance, cushions, coverings, sacks and packing-bags, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: any vessel that has loops has [different laws] for inner and outer sides but one that has no loops does not have different laws for outer and inner sides. A table and a side-board have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not have a different law for their outer sides. The same applies to a frame.

An ox-goad has different laws for its outer and inner parts, [The outer part is] the seven handbreadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: it is not to [subject to such distinction], the four and the seven handbreadths were mentioned only in regard to its remnants.

Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not have. Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required.

If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean. They argued before Rabbi Akiva: since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean? He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness.

If the [inside of the] quarter contracted uncleanness, the quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the half quarter and its outer side remain clean. If the [inside of the] half quarter contracted uncleanness, the half quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the quarter and its outer side remain clean. If the outer side of the quarter contracted uncleanness,the outer side of the half quarter remains clean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the outer side cannot be divided. When he immerses the vessel, he must immerse the whole thing.

The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner sides), the whole becomes unclean. If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.

All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held. Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough. Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups. Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands. Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands.

How so?If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

Chapter 26

An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman. Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness and again insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian basket which even a craftsman cannot [easily] restore.

A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure.

The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure. A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness. Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness. But hand-coverings are pure. All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure.

A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.

The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness. A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only.

A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure.

Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover.

The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.

If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean.

Chapter 27

Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness; Sack-cloth is susceptible to four; Leather to three; Wood to two; And an earthenware vessel to one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part. Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one. Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent. Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work. Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.

Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed.

If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible.

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over.

The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled.

If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.

Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness.

If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.

[A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains impure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property.

Chapter 28

[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean. But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball remains unclean. If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.

[A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiba ruled: if it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in readiness it is pure.

If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off.

Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure.

If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness. A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean. A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean. This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean.

If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material.

The three (fingerbreadths) square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.

Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness. If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected. Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square.

A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness.

A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished. Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected. A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair.

Chapter 29

The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] up to a length of six fingerbreadths; Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths]. The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths. The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.

Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.

The string of a [common] plumb-line is regarded as connected up to a length of twelve [cubits]; That of the carpenters’ plumb-line, up to eighteen [cubits]; And that of the builders’ plumb-line up to fifty cubits. The parts that exceed these lengths, even if it was desired to retain them, are pure. The plumb-line of plasterers or moulders is regarded as connected whatsoever its length.

The cord of the balances of goldsmiths or the weighers of fine purple cloth is regarded as a connective up to a length of three fingerbreadths, The handle of an axe behind the grip, up to a length of three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yose says: if the length behind the grip is no less than one handbreadth the entire handle is unsusceptible to uncleanness.

The cord of the balances of shopkeepers or householders is regarded as connected up to a length of one handbreadth. The shaft of an axe in front of the grip, up to one handbreadth. The projection of the shaft of a compass, up to one handbreadth. That of the shaft of the stone-masons’ chisel, one handbreadth.

The cord of the balances of wool dealers or of glass-weighers is regarded as connected up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of a millstone chisel, up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of the battle-axe of the legions, up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of the goldsmiths’ hammer, up to a length of two handbreadths. And that of the blacksmiths' hammer, up to three handbreadths.