{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mishnah/08-chapter-v.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mishnah",
    "name": "Mishnah"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 6,
    "slug": "08-chapter-v",
    "title": "Berakhot — Chapter V",
    "of": 30,
    "words": 11783,
    "text": "## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. Men are not to stand up and pray, except with profound humility. The pious men of ancient days used to pause a full hour before they began to pray, in order to direct their minds [hearts] to the Deity. Though the king salute him he is not to respond [to the salutation] and though a serpent wind itself round his heel, he is not to interrupt [his prayers].\n\n\n§ 2. The [divine] power of [causing] the rain [to descend] must be mentioned in [the benediction for] the resurrection of the dead. Supplication for rain is to be made in the benediction for the year, and ‏הבדלה‎, [the distinction between the Sabbath and week day] in the benediction ‏חונן הדעת‎ [who graciously bestows knowledge]. R. Akivah saith the ‏הבדלה‎ is to be said in a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eleazar saith, in the thanksgiving [‏מודים‎].\n\n§ 3. He who says in his prayers \"Thy mercy extends [even] to a bird's nest, or for the good [which thou doest us] be thy name remembered,\" or he who says twice ‏מודים‎ [we thank] is to be silenced. If a man step up to the ark [as minister to pray for the congregation] and make a mistake, another shall step up in his stead; nor may he in such a case, decline the office. From whence does he [the substitute] begin? From the commencement of the benediction in which his predecessor made the mistake.\n\n§ 4. He who steps up to the ark is not to respond \"Amen\" after the Cohanim [priests], lest his attention become diverted [from the prayers]. If no other Cohen be present but himself, he is not to lift up his hands [to bless the congregation]. But if he feel quite assured that he can lift up his hands, and then resume [his prayers], he is at liberty so to do.\n\n§ 5. If a man prays and makes a mistake, it is a bad omen for him. If he be deputed by a congregation [minister], it is a bad omen for his constituents, for a man's deputy is like the man himself. It is related of R. Hanina ben Dosa, that when he prayed for the sick, he would say, \"This one will live,\" or \"Such a one will die.\" They [the sages] said to him, \"By what dost thou know [it]?\" He said to them, \"If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted; but if not, I know that he is lost!\"\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. A vineyard that has been destroyed, but still contains ten vines [from which grapes may be gathered], planted in regular order on a superficies large enough to receive a saah of seed-corn, such a vineyard is called a *poor vineyard*. Should the vines therein be planted irregularly, as long as there remain two vines [set in due order] facing three, it still continues a vineyard in a legal sense,\n\n\nbut if not, it is [in law] a vineyard no more. R. Meir saith, \"As long as it retains the appearance of a vineyard it remains one [in a legal sense].\"\n\n§ 2. A vineyard [in which the vines are] planted, at less intervals than four amoth, R. Simeon declares to be no vineyard [in a legal sense]; but the sages decide that it is a vineyard [in law], but that the vacant space [between the vines] must be considered as non-existing.\n\n§ 3. Should a trench ten hands deep and four wide traverse the vineyard, R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, \"if it be open from one end of the vineyard to the other, it must be considered as if running between two vineyards, and may be sown in; but if not, it must be considered as a vinepress.\" Now, respecting a vinepress ten hands deep and four wide, R. Eleazar holds that it is lawful to sow therein, but the sages declare it not lawful. On a mound [barbican] ten hands high and four hands wide, [situated] in a vineyard, it is lawful to sow; but if the branches [of the vine] be trained or entwined over it, it is unlawful [to sow thereon].\n\n§ 4. If a vine be planted in a vinepress, or a cavity, sufficient space is to be allowed for its cultivation, and the remainder [of the soil] may be sown in. R. José saith, \"If there be less than four amoth space, no other kind of seed may be sown therein.\" It is permitted to sow in a house that stands in a vineyard.\n\n§ 5. If a man plant herbs in a vineyard, or let them remain therein [after he sets the vines], he consecrates [renders unlawful the produce of] forty-five vines. When [is this the case]? If the vines be set at intervals of four or five amoth: but if they are set at intervals of six or seven amoth, he has only consecrated a radius of sixteen cubits in every direction of a circle, but not of a square.\n\n§ 6. If a man perceives herbs growing in his vineyard, and says, \"When I get yonder [to the spot where they grow] I will pull them up,\" he is permitted so to do; but should he say, \"When I come back again I will pull them up,\" and during his absence they [the herbs] grow one two-hundredth part, the vineyard becomes subject to the prohibitory enactment.\n\n§ 7. If a marl, going through his vineyard, has accidentally dropped seeds therein, or if they have got in with the manure or the water, or the wind has wafted seeds backward into the vineyard, and they have sprung up, it is not unlawful; but if the wind has carried seeds forward into the vineyard, R. Akivah saith, \"if the seeds have sprouted, he must plough up the ground; if they be shot up into ears\n\n\nof corn, he must knock the grain out of the ears; but if the corn be ripe, it must be burned.\"\n\n§ 8. If a man permit thorns to stand in his vineyard, R. Eleazar saith, \"he hath [thereby] consecrated his vineyard [rendered its produce unlawful]:\" but the sages say he has not; inasmuch as the vineyard becomes subject to the prohibition only, though [by means of] such seeds or herbs as it is customary to grow in a vineyard; ‏אִרוּם‎ 1 ‏קִיסוּם‎ 2 and the king's lily, and, in general, all kinds of field herbs are not kilaim in a vineyard; hemp is, according to R. Tarphon, not kilaim; but the sages hold that it is; ‏קִינרם‎ 3 is kilaim in a vineyard.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. Wherewith may [a man let] an animal go out? 1a and wherewith may [he] not [let] it go out? The camel [he] may [let] go out with its halter, the she camel with a nose-ring; the Lybian ass with bridle and bit; the horse with its collar; all [animals] that wear a collar may go out therewith, and be led thereby; [in case it, the collar, becomes unclean] it must be rinsed, and dipped in its place [without taking it off.]\n\n§ 2. The ass goes out with its rug [while it is tied on him]. He-goats may go out with a leather bandage round their privates; sheep with their tails fastened up or down, and with wrapper; 2 sire-goats\n\n\nwith their udders tied up. R. Jose prohibits all these, excepting the sheep with wrapper. R. Jehudah saith, \"She-goats may go out with their udders tied up, if [this be done] to dry [up the milk], but not if it be done to [preserve the] milk.\"\n\n§ 3. Wherewith may [a man] not [let] animals go out? The camel must not go out with a rag tied to its tail, 3 nor with its legs strapped, 4 nor with its fore and hind-legs fastened together; 5 this [applies] to all domestic animals. A man must not fasten camels together and lead them, but he may hold the [different] ropes in his hand, only [taking care] that they do not get twisted. 6\n\n§ 4. An ass must not go out with its rug that had not been fastened on [before the Sabbath], nor with a bell, although it be muffled, nor with a wooden frame-work round its neck, 7 nor with a strap to its legs. Hens must not go out with cords 8 tied on them, nor with straps to their feet. Rams must not go out with go-carts to their tails; 9 nor sheep with sneezing-wood; 10 nor calves with a reed-yoke; 11 nor a cow with the skin of a hedgehog tied to her udders, 12 nor with a strap between her horns. The cow of R. Eleazar hen Azariah went out [on the Sabbath] with a strap between her horns, which was against the consent of the sages.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n43:1a The point in question is to decide what is necessary for the safe guidance of the animal, and what is to be considered a burden.\n\n43:2 To preserve the fine wool.\n\n44:3 As a mark to distinguish them by.\n\n44:4 Lest they rub their legs together and wound them.\n\n44:5 To prevent their running away.\n\n44:6 As perhaps they may be kilaim.\n\n44:7 If the beast has a sore upon its neck, a frame of wood is made around it to prevent its rubbing the sore with its head.\n\n44:8 As marks whereby to distinguish them.\n\n44:9 Their tails are so fat that they are supported on small go-carts.\n\n44:10 ‏חנונות‎, according to some, it is *veratrum* [white hellebore], which being put up the nostrils of a sheep causes it to sneeze, and so to shake off the vermin; according to others, it is an ointment applied to the newly-shorn sheep, to protect them against the cold.\n\n44:11 A light yoke, put on calves to break them in to a heavy one.\n\n44:12 To prevent weasels or reptiles from sucking them.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. How can the bounds of a town be enlarged [extended]? If one house recede [from the city wall], and [another] house project [therefrom], or if a ruin recede or project, or if fragments of a wall ten hands high [lie beyond the walls], or if there be any bridges or cemeteries, with dwelling-houses thereon, the measurement of the town is commenced from them; and the whole is formed into a kind of square, in order to gain the angles.\n\n§ 2. An allowance of [seventy and two-thirds amoth] space must be made to the town. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages hold, \"that such an allowance is to be made only if two towns be so close to each other, that each only requires seventy and two-thirds\n\n\namoth [to bring them within techoom; in that case] an allowance is made to both, [so that they become] as one.\"\n\n§ 3. So likewise, if three villages form a triangle, and the two outer ones require 14⅓ amoth, [a double allowance to bring them within techoom of each other], he [in idea] places the third one between them, so that the three become as if they were one.\n\n§ 4. They are not to measure [the techoom], except with a line [exactly] fifty amoth long, neither more nor less; and he [who measures] must not measure except from his breast. 1 If, during the measurement, he arrives at a deep dale [cleft], or heap of stones, he passes [his line] over it, and resumes his measurement, if he arrive at a hillock, he passes [his line] over it, and resumes his measurement, provided always he does not outstep the techoom [in so doing]. If he cannot pass [his line] over [the hillock, because it is too high], R. Dostai bar Janai said of such, [a circumstance] I have heard on the authority of R. Meir, \"that they [who measure] cut straight through the mountain [in idea].\"\n\n§ 5. The measurement must be undertaken by him only who is expert [in measuring land]. [If the techoom has been carried] farther to one place, and less far to another, they abide by the farther [measurement] . If one surveyor [has carried the limit] farther than another, they abide by the farther [measurement]. Even a bond-man or a bond-woman is credible [entitled to belief], if either say, \"Until here, is a techoom Sabbath;\" for the sages did not intend to enforce a more rigid observance, but to make it more easy.\n\n§ 6. If a town [originally the property] of a single individual, becomes [property] of the public, all [the householders residing thereon] must join in preparing the erub. [Should the town originally have been property] of the public, and is become [property] of one individual, all [the householders] are not to join in the erub, but [a number] must be left out equal to the new town in Judæa, in which there are fifty dwellings. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but R. Simeon holds, \"[it is sufficient if] three courts, with two houses in each [are left out].\"\n\n§ 7. Should a man [on the eve of the day of rest] be at the east [of his habitation], and say to his son, \"Place my erub towards the west;\" or [being] to the west [of his habitation], he say to his son,\n\n\n[paragraph continues] \"Place my erub to the east;\" if [the distance] from the place where he is to his habitation is [within] 2000 amoth, and to his erub further than that, he must take his Sabbath-rest 2 at his habitation, but must not take it at his erub; [if the distance] to his erub be [within] 2000 amoth, and to his habitation further than that, he must take [his Sabbath-rest] at his erub, but must not take it at his habitation. If a man has deposited his erub within the limits of a town, he has [in law] done nothing, and it is nothing; if he has deposited it [the erub] out of the techoom, even though but a single amah, whatever extent of ground he gains in this direction, he loses in the opposite one. 3\n\n§ 8. The inhabitants of a large town may traverse the whole of a small town [that lies within or adjoining their techoom], but the inhabitants of the small [town] must not traverse the whole extent of the large town. 4 How are they to do? If an inhabitant of the large town place his erub in the small town, or an inhabitant of the small town place his in the large towel, each may traverse either town, and proceed 2000 amoth beyond its confines. R. Akivah saith, \"He has only [the right to proceed] 2000 amoth from the place where he deposited his erub.\"\n\n§ 9. R. Akivah said to them [the sages], \"Will ye not grant me, in the case of him who deposits his erub in a cavern, that he has not [the right to proceed] further than 2000 amoth from the place where he has [left] his erub?\" They replied \"[True; but] when is this the case? if there are no habitations within the cavern; but if there are habitations [prepared] within it, 5 he may not only traverse the whole of the cavern, but also proceed 2000 amoth outside of it.\" [Consequently, the observance] is found less rigid as to the interior [of a cavern], than as to [the space] above [it]. As to him who measures [spoken of before], he is only allowed [to carry the techoom] 2000 amoth [from the place whence he started], even though the end of his measurement should terminate in a cavern.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n82:1 That is to say, while measuring he invariably holds the line to his breast; this has been enacted to ensure an uniformity in the measuring.\n\n83:2 The spot from whence he is entitled to proceed 2000 amoth, in any direction, on the day of rest.\n\n83:3 The techoom becomes diminished (to him individually) in one direction, by the same extent that he has enlarged it in the opposite direction.\n\n83:4 They must not exceed their legal Sabbath distance of 2000 amoth from the bounds of their town.\n\n83:5 In Palestine there are many spacious caverns which are prepared so as to be fit for human habitations; they have frequently been inhabited, particularly in times of religious persecution.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. The daily offering was slaughtered half an hour after the eighth hour, and sacrificed half an hour after the ninth hour; but on the day before Passover, whether that happened to be on the week or a Sabbath-day, it was slaughtered half an hour after the seventh hour, and sacrificed half an hour after the eighth hour. When the day before Passover happened on Friday, it was slaughtered half an hour after the sixth hour, sacrificed half an hour after the seventh hour, and the Passover sacrifice after it.\n\n§ 2. When the Passover sacrifice had not been sacrificed as such, 1 or that its blood has not been received as such, or as such been brought to the altar and sprinkled, or that one sacrificial act had been done to it as a Passover sacrifice, and another not as such, or when the reverse of this has taken place,—it will not be valid. How is it to be understood doing one act as a paschal sacrifice, and another not as such.? It is when at first some sacrificial act was done to it\n\n\nas a paschal sacrifice, and another act, subsequently, as a peace-offering; and the reverse is, when at first some sacrificial act had been done to it as a peace-offering, and subsequently, as a paschal-offering.\n\n§ 3. If it had been slaughtered for those who [according to law] may not eat thereof, or for any that do not belong to the persons numbered to eat it, or for the uncircumcised, or for the unclean,—it will not be valid; but if it had been slaughtered for those that may eat thereof, and for those that may not, or for those that are numbered to eat it, and also for those that are not, or for circumcised and also for uncircumcised, or for the unclean and clean,—it will be valid. If it was slaughtered before the hour of noon it is not valid, because it is written (Lev. xxiii. 5), \"Between the evenings.\" If it had been slaughtered before the continual burnt-offering [of the evening] was brought, it is valid; provided some one had been stirring the blood until that of the continual burnt-offering had been sprinkled, but if that had already been done, the paschal sacrifice is valid.\n\n§ 4. If when the Passover sacrifice is offered [any one of those that are appointed to eat it] should yet have leaven in his possession, he will have transgressed a negative precept; 2 R. Jehudah says, \"This is equally applicable to the continual burnt-offering [of that evening];\" R. Simeon says, \"When the paschal sacrifice was slaughtered as such, on the 14th, with leaven, this guilt would be incurred, but not if the paschal sacrifice had not been offered as such.\" For the other sacrifices, however, whether they were brought under their proper denominations or not, no guilt is incurred. When thus offered during the festival [of Passover] no guilt is incurred, if the paschal sacrifice had been offered as such: but it is incurred if it had been offered under any other name. With respect to other sacrifices [under the same circumstances offered during the Passover], guilt is incurred, whether they were offered under their proper denomination or not, excepting in case of the sin-offering that was not slaughtered as such.\n\n§ 5. The Passover sacrifice was slaughtered for three successive bands or divisions of people, because it is said (Exod. xii. 6), \"The whole assembly of the *congregation* of Israel shall slaughter it,\" [i.e. three sets according to the expressions] *assembly*, *congregation*, and\n\n\n[paragraph continues] *Israel*. The first division entered, until the court of the Temple was filled, the doors of the court were then closed, and *Tekiah Teruah* and *Tekiah* were sounded. The priests then placed themselves in double rows, holding each a bowl of silver or gold in his hand, namely, one row held silver bowls, and another gold ones, but not mixed. These bowls had no stands underneath, that the priests might not put them down, and the blood become coagulated.\n\n§ 6. The Israelite slaughtered, and the priest received the blood and gave it to another [priest], who passed it further to others, each receiving a full bowl, and [at the same time] returning an empty one; the priest nearest to the altar, poured it out in one jet at the base of the altar.\n\n§ 7. The first band then went out, and the second entered; when that went out, the third entered; even as the first, so did the second and third divisions. The Hallel was also read: if they had finished it, they re-commenced it, and might even say it for the third time, although it never happened that there was occasion to say it thrice; R. Jehudah says, \"It never happened that the third division read as far as  3 ‏אהבתי כי ישמע ײ‎, because they were but few in number.\"\n\n§ 8. The same things that were done on week days, were also done on the Sabbath, excepting that the priests used thereon to wash the court, against the compact of the sages. 4 R. Jehudah says, \"a cup was filled with the mixed blood, which was poured out in one jet on the altar;\" but the sages would not admit that such was the case.\n\n§ 9. In what manner was the paschal sacrifice suspended, and its skin removed? Iron hooks were affixed to the walls and pillars, on which the sacrifice was suspended, and its skin taken off; those who could not find a place to do it in this manner, used thin smooth pieces of wood, provided there for the purpose, on which the paschal sacrifice was suspended between the shoulders of two persons, and its skin taken off. R. Eleazar says, when the 14th happened on the\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Sabbath day, 5 one person used to place his [left] hand on the right shoulder of the other, and thus they suspended the sacrifice [on their arms], and took off its skin with their right hands.\n\n§ 10. When it had been opened, and the pieces removed, which were to be sacrificed on the altar, 6 they were placed on a large dish, and offered with incense on the altar; when the first band had gone out [on the Sabbath] they remained on the temple mountain; the second in the open place between the ramparts 7 [‏חיל‎]; the third division remained in its place; when it became dark, they [all] went out to roast their paschal sacrifices.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n107:1 It is necessary to observe, for the proper understanding of this Mishna, that it is laid down in Treatise ‏זבחים‎ [of Sacrifices], that if any of four sacrificial acts had not been done with the express intention of doing it for that particular sacrifice, it would become inefficacious. These acts are: to receive the blood in the proper vessel; to bring it to the altar; to sprinkle it; and to slaughter the sacrifice with the intention of applying it to the particular sacrifice intended.\n\n108:2 Namely, that expressed Exod. xxiii. 18.\n\n109:3 7 Psalm cxvi.\n\n109:4 This has been explained in the Talmud and commentators of the Mishna as being effected by them in the following *indirect* manner:—there was a canal filled with water flowing through the court of the temple; this the priests caused to overflow by stopping up the vent or outlet thereof, and afterwards they opened and unstopped it again, when in its overflow it had washed the blood, &c. off the marble floor, and carried it thus off out of the temple. This they did against the consent of the sages, because no other work but that strictly necessary for the sacrifices was allowed to be done in the temple on the Sabbath.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. The pipes [were played sometimes on] five [days], and [sometimes on] six days. This means, the pipes [music] played on during the water-drawing, which does not supersede either the Sabbath or the festival. They [the sages] said, \"He who has not witnessed the rejoicings at the water-drawing, has, throughout the whole of his life, witnessed no [real] rejoicing.\"\n\n§ 2. At the expiration of the first holy day of the festival they descended into the women's court, where great preparations were made 1 [for the rejoicing]. Four golden candelabras were [placed] there, with four golden basins to each; and four ladders [were put] to each candelabra, [on which ladders stood] four lads from the rising youth of the priesthood, holding jars of oil, containing 120 lugs, with which they replenished [fed] the basins.\n\n§ 3. The cast-off breeches and belts of the priests were torn into shreds for wicks, which they lighted. There was not a court in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the lights of the water-drawing.\n\n§ 4. Pious and distinguished men danced before the people with lighted flambeaux in their hands, and sang hymns and lauds before them;, and the Levites accompanied them with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and numberless musical instruments. On the fifteen steps which led into the women's court, corresponding with the fifteen\n\n\nsongs of degrees, 2 stood the Levites, with their musical instruments and sang. At the upper gate, which leads down from the court of the Israelites to the court of the women, stood two priests, with trumpets in their hands. When the cock [first] crowed they blew a blast, a long note and a blast. 3 This they repeated when they reached the tenth step, and again [the third time] when they got into the court. They went on, blowing [their trumpets] as they went, until they reached the gate that leads out to the east. When they reached the gate that leads out to the east, they turned westward [with their faces towards the Temple], and said, \"Our ancestors, who were in this place, turned their backs on the Temple of the Lord, and their faces towards the east; for they worshipped the Sun towards the east: 4 but we lift our eyes to God.\" R. Jehudah saith, they repeated again and again, \"We belong to God, and raise our eyes to God.\"\n\n§ 5. In the Temple they never blew the trumpet less than twenty-one times a-day, nor oftener than forty-eight times, They daily blew the trumpet twenty-one times:—thrice at opening the gates, nine times at the continual [burnt-offering] of the morning, and nine times at the continual [burnt-offering] in the evening. When additional offerings [‏מוםפין‎] were brought, they blew nine times more. On the eve of the Sabbath, they blew six times more:—thrice to interdict the people from [doing] work, and thrice to separate the holy day from the work day. But on the eve of the Sabbath, during the festival [of succoth], they blew forty-eight times:—thrice at the opening of the gates, thrice at the upper gate, thrice at the lower gate, thrice at the water-drawing, thrice over the altar, nine times at the continual [burnt-offering] of the morning, nine times at the continual [burnt-offering] in the evening, nine times at the additional offerings, thrice to interdict the people from [doing] work, and thrice to separate the holy day from the work day.\n\n§ 6. On the first holy day of the festival there were thirteen bullocks, two rams, and one goat [to be offered]; there then remained fourteen lambs for eight orders of priests. 5 On the first day of the\n\n\nfestival six [of these orders] offered two lambs each, and the other [two orders] one lamb each. On the second [day] five [of the orders] offered two lambs each, and the remaining [four orders] one lamb each. On the third [day] four [orders] offered two lambs each, and the remaining six [orders] one lamb each. On the fourth [day] three [orders] offered two lambs each, and the remaining [eight orders] one lamb each. On the fifth [day] two [orders] offered two lambs each; and the remaining [ten orders] one lamb each. On the sixth [day] one [order] offered two lambs, and the remaining [twelve orders] one lamb each. On the seventh day they were all equal. On the eighth day they cast lots, as on other festivals. It was so regulated, that the order which offered bullocks one day were not permitted to offer bullocks the next day; but it went in rotation.\n\n§ 7. Three times in the year 6 all the twenty-four orders of priests were alike entitled to share in the offerings of the festival, and in the shewbread; and on the feast of weeks the distributors say to each priest, \"Here is leavened bread for thee, and here is unleavened bread for thee.\" 7 The order [of priests], whose regular time of service occurs in the festivals, offer the continual offerings, vows, and free-will offerings, and all public services, and every sacrifice [that does not belong to the festival]. If a festival fall next to a Sabbath, either preceding or succeeding it, all the [twenty-four] orders share alike in the shewbread.\n\n§ 8. But if a day intervene between the Sabbath and the festival, the order [of priests] whose regular turn [of service] it was, received ten of the shewbread, and the loiterers 8 received two shewbread. At other times of the year the order which entered [on their duty] received six [shewbread]; and that which went off duty also received six. R. Jehudah saith, \"That [order] which enters [on duty]\n\n\nreceives seven [shewbread], and that which goes off receives five [shewbread].\" Those who entered, shared them on the north side; and those who went out, on the south side [of the Temple court]. The order Bilgah 9 always divided [their share] on the south side; their slaughter ring was fastened down, and the window [of their chamber] blocked up.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n140:1 Galleries were erected for the women, while the men occupied the space below.\n\n141:2 ‏שיר המעלות‎. (Ps. cxx. to cxxxiv. inclusive.)\n\n141:3 This was the signal for drawing water.\n\n141:4 In the days of the first Temple. (Vide Eze. viii. 15, 16.)\n\n141:5 The priesthood was divided into twenty-four orders, each of which, in rotation, ministered one week in the Temple. (Vide 1 Ch. xxiv. 7–19.) But, during the festival, the whole of the twenty-four orders ministered. On the first day, thirteen bullocks, two rams, and one goat were offered by sixteen orders, and the fourteen sheep by the other eight. As each day one bullock less was offered, p. 142 one more order of priests joined in offering the fourteen lambs in the manner mentioned in the text. On the seventh day, seven bullocks, two rams, one goat, and fourteen lambs, furnished one beast a-piece for each of the twenty-four orders.\n\n142:6 At the three annual festivals.\n\n142:7 If the feast of weeks fell on the Sabbath, the unleavened shewbread, and the two leavened wave loaves, had to be divided. (Vide Levit. xxiii. 17.)\n\n142:8 Various explanations are given as to the meaning of this word. It seems to apply to the priests, whose regular turn of service it was, but who were in no hurry to attend; as, during the festival, they had to share the perquisites with the whole priesthood.\n\n143:9 The order Bilgah was the fifteenth. (Vide 1 Ch. xxiv. 14.) Each order had an iron ring of its own, to which the head of the animal was fastened, so as to slaughter it with greater ease. Each order also had a chamber or store-room of its own. The order Bilgah was deprived of these, and otherwise stigmatised, through an occurrence that took place during the persecution under Antiochus. Miriam, a daughter of Bilgah, renounced her faith, and married a Syro-Grecian chieftain. When the Greeks took possession of the Temple, she struck the altar with her shoe, exclaiming, \"Thou insatiable wolf, how much longer art thou to consume the wealth of Israel, and canst not help them in their hour of need.\" This conduct was imputed to the bad example she must have seen in her father's house; and a stigma was cast on the whole order, which was degraded, as related in the text.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. It is lawful to let down fruit on the festival by a trap-door, and to cover fruit, and jars containing oil, to protect them from water dripping thereon; but this may not be done on the Sabbath. It is nevertheless lawful to place a utensil under a dropping vessel on the Sabbath [to prevent the waste of the liquor].\n\n§ 2. In whatsoever a person transgresses and infringes the precept of resting on the Sabbath [‏שבות‎], whether in doing any optional action, 1 or a legal action, 2 he will also transgress, if he does them on the festival. The following actions are prohibited ors account of the precept to rest [‏שבות‎]:—It is prohibited to climb trees, to mount any animal, to swim on the waters, to clap with the hands, 3 to strike on the hips, 4 or to dance. The following are prohibited as optional\n\n\nactions:—It is unlawful to administer justice, to acquire a woman as a wife [by giving her a ring, money, &c.], and to perform the ceremony of taking off the shoes of one that refuses to marry the widow of his deceased brother (Deut. xxv. 5, &c.), or to marry such a brother's widow. The following are prohibited as legal actions:—It is not permitted to consecrate any thing, to value sacred things, to pronounce any thing as devoted [to the service of the temple], and to separate heave-offerings and tithes; all these actions have been decided to be prohibited to be done on the festival, and a fortiori on the Sabbath. There is no difference between the Sabbath and the festival, except that the preparation of food is permitted on the latter.\n\n§ 3. Cattle and utensils may be brought as far only as their owners may go, 5 and when a person commits his cattle to his son or shepherd, they may not be brought or driven further than the owner may go. Utensils that are appropriated to the exclusive use of one among brethren living together in the same house, may be brought as far as that brother may go; but if they are not thus exclusively appropriated to one only, they may be brought to the places where all may go.\n\n§ 4. A utensil that had been borrowed since the day before the festival, maybe carried as far as the borrower may go; but if on the festival, as far as the lender may go: and when one woman has borrowed of another spice, water, or salt, to make dough, they may be carried as far as both may go. Rabbi Jehudah excepts water, because its substance does not remain visible.\n\n§ 5. Burning coals may be carried as far as the owners thereof may go, but a flame may be carried everywhere. If a coal of consecrated fire be applied to profane use, the sin of desecration has been committed, 6 and although no profane use may be made of the flame of a sacred fire, yet the person who thus applies it has not incurred the penalty, and thus, if any person carries [on the Sabbath] a burning coal into a public place, he is guilty, but does not incur the penalty for a flame only. The waters of a well belonging to a private individual, may be carried as far as that person may go, but if it belonged to a town, as far as the inhabitants thereof may go. The waters of a well made for the use of travellers [such as those] who\n\n\ncore from Babylon, may be carried as far as the person who draws them may go.\n\n§ 6. If a person has fruit in another town, whose inhabitants have made an erub [Sabbatical mixture] in order to bring him something [on the festival], they may not bring him any of his own fruit, but if he has made the erub himself, the fruit may be carried to any place he is allowed to go.\n\n§ 7. When any person has invited guests 7 [on the festival], they may not carry home with them any food, unless he has on the day before the festival granted the guests a right of possession to their portions. 8 It is not lawful to give drink to, or to slaughters animals living free [not under the control of man], but it is allowed in respect to domestic animals. The animals which at night are in town, or in the suburbs thereof, are considered domestic; and those which lie at night in the open field 9 are called animals living free [i.e. not under the immediate care of man].\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n153:1 Actions proper to be done, but not strictly necessary.\n\n153:2 Actions legally enjoined, but prohibited to be done on the Sabbath.\n\n153:3 As a sign of rejoicing.\n\n153:4 As a mark of despair, or mourning. (Compare Jeremiah xxi. 19.)\n\n154:5 This and the following sections can only be understood by a reference to what is laid down concerning the Sabbatical limits ‏תחום שבת‎, in Treatise Erubin.\n\n154:6 And the person who has thus used it must bring the sacrifice called ‏קרבן מעילה‎.\n\n155:7 This treats of guests living in another place, who have made erub to be able to go to the residence of their host.\n\n155:8 By expressing himself to that effect to some person on that day: in which case the guests, although not present, gain a right to their portions.\n\n155:9 Beyond the ‏תחום‎, or Sabbatical limits, and remain there during the summer months.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. Rabbon Gamaliel saith, \"In marriage by *Yeboom* no other letter of divorce is valid after such a one has. already been given, 1\n\n\nnor a promise of marriage after such a promise, nor connexion [with another sister-in-law] after such connexion [with a first], and no *Chalitzah* after a first *Chalitzah* had been given.\" But the sages say, \"Another divorce may be given after a first, or a promise of marriage after such a promise, but there cannot be any thing [further of the same nature] after a connexion, nor after a *Chalitzah*.\"\n\n§ 2. As in the following cases:—When a brother-in-law promised marriage by *Yeboom* to his widowed sister-in-law, and then gives her a *Get*, she will be bound to perform also *Chalitzah* to him. 2 If he promised her marriage, and then received *Chalitzah* from her, she will require a *Get* [in addition] to be fully released. If, after having promised her marriage, he had connexion with her, he acted according to law. 3\n\n§ 3. If he gave her a letter of divorce, and promised her marriage afterwards, she will require another *Get* and *Chalitzah* [to be fully released]. Also, if after giving her *Get* he had connexion with her; but if, after giving her *Get*, he received *Chalitzah* from her, this latter will be a useless act. 4 If he received *Chalitzah* from her, and then gave her either a promise of marriage, or a *Get*, or had connexion with her, or that the connexion preceded the promise, or the *Get*, or the receipt of *Chalitzah* from her, then neither of these acts are valid after *Chalitzah* has been once performed. 5 It is immaterial in these cases, whether it happened with one sister-in-law, and one brother-in-law, or two sisters-in-law with one brother-in-law.\n\n§ 4. As in the following case:—If a person promised marriage to his two widowed sisters-in-law, they will both require [to enable them to marry another man] a *Get* from him, and he is to receive *Chalitzah*\n\n\nfrom one of them. If he promised marriage to one, and divorced the other, then the first will require a *Get* and *Chalitzah*. If he promised marriage to one, and then had connexion with the other, both will require a *Get*, and one the *Chalitzah*. If he promised marriage to one, and received *Chalitzah* from the other, the first will require a *Get*. If he divorced both, they will both require *Chalitzah*. If he divorced one, and had connexion with the other, this latter requires both *Get* and *Chalitzah*. If he divorced one, and promised marriage to the other, the last mentioned will require both *Get* and *Chalitzah*. If he divorced one, and received *Chalitzah* from the other, nothing that was done after the *Chalitzah* is valid.\n\n§ 5. If he received *Chalitzah* first from one, and subsequently from another sister-in-law, or after having received *Chalitzah* of one, promised marriage to the other, or gave her *Get*, or had connexion with her, or had connexion, first with one, and then with the other, and gave the last mentioned then 6 a promise of marriage, or a *Get*, or received *Chalitzah* from her, then, all that happened after the *Chalitzah* [or after the connexion] is not valid. It is indifferent whether this happen with one brother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, or with one sister-in-law and two brothers-in-law.\n\n§ 6. If, after receiving *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law, he promised her marriage, or divorced her, or had connexion with her, and gave her afterwards a promise of marriage, or gave her *Get*, or received *Chalitzah* from her, then no other acts after the *Chalitzah* are valid, be it in the beginning, middle or end [of other acts], but in the case of connexion; whatever took place afterwards is not valid, when it happened at the beginning, but it is valid if it happened in the middle, or end [of other acts]. R. Nehemiah saith, \"Nothing is valid either after *Chalitzah*, or after connexion, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of other acts.\"\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n*      *      *      *      *\n*      *      *      *      *\n*      *      *      *      *\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n212:1 It is necessary to observe, that the Mishna treats here of a case when many wives were left by a deceased brother to the surviving brother, who must perform the *Yeboom*, or when there is but one such a widow, but many surviving brothers. Neither this section, nor, indeed, the whole of this chapter, can be well understood, without attending to the following rules, mentioned in the commentary of Maimonides.\n\nFirst, that a widow who, agreeably to the law of *Yeboom*, must either be married by her brother-in-law, or must perform *Chalitzah* to him, but is not released so as to enable her to marry again by any *Get* she may have received of her said brother-in-law.\n\nSecondly, that the obligation incumbent on the parties does only then cease, when the said widow has fully and completely become the wife of her former brother-in-law [i.e. after the marriage has been consummated], and not before, p. 213 so that although he betrothed her either with money, a ring, &c., or with a marriage contract, which on other occasions is considered a binding and valid marriage (see Treatise Kedushin, chap. I. § I); yet, here it is but partially binding, and it is the same with a letter of divorce [*Get*] given her before consummation of the marriage, which also has the effect of releasing her, but partially only; for it will be necessary that the ceremony of *Chalitzah* be performed before she be finally released; and when such a woman is betrothed, she must first receive a *Get*, and then perform *Chalitzah*, before she will be finally released.\n\n213:2 But owing to the divorce he may not marry her by *Yeboom*.\n\n213:3 According to the regulations of the sages, that the promise of marriage must precede connexion.\n\n213:4 For she is prohibited to him from the moment he gave her the *Get*.\n\n213:5 Or after connexion in other cases.\n\n214:6 After the connexion\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. Although they [the sages] decided that a virgin receives 200 dinar, and a widow a maneh, yet if he [the husband] likes to add even 100 maneh, he can add it. Should she [the bride] become widowed or divorced, whether it occur subsequent to the betrothment or to the espousals, she receives the whole [amount settled upon her]. R. Eleazar ben Azariah saith, \"If subsequent to the espousals she receives the whole [amount], [but if] subsequent to the betrothment, a virgin [only] receives 200 dinar, and a widow a maneh, as the settlement was made solely on condition of the marriage taking place.\" R. Jehudah saith, \"If he [the husband] likes, he gives to a virgin a bond for 200 dinar, and she writes, 'I have received from thee 100 [dinar];' or to a widow [a bond for] 100 dinar, and she writes 'I have received from thee 50 zooz.'\" But R. Meir said, \"Whoever giveth to a virgin less than 200 dinar, or to a widow less than a maneh [for their respective Ketubah], his intercourse [with them] is [like] fornication.\"\n\n§ 2. They allow a virgin twelve months from [the time] the husband proposed [marriage] to her, to provide herself [with an outfit]. And even as they allow the woman [twelve months time], they also allow [it] to the man to provide himself [with an outfit]. A widow is allowed thirty days. Should the appointed time come, and they are not married, she is [to be] maintained out of his [property], and [if he is a priest] she may eat heave. R. Tarphon saith, \"They may give her all [her maintenance in] heave,\" but R. Akivah saith, \"They are to give her half [her maintenance in] Choolin, and half in heave.\"\n\n§ 3. A Yabam 1 does not qualify [his sister-in-law, who expects to be married by him] to eat of heave. If [out of the twelve preparatory months allowed her] she has passed six months [during the lifetime] of her [intended] husband, and six months before the Yeboom, or even the whole twelve months before [the death of] her [intended] husband, less one day before the Yeboom, or the whole twelve months before the Yeboom, 2 less one day before her [intended] husband's [death], she is not [entitled] to eat of heave. Such was the first [eldest] Mishna, but a subsequent Bethdin decided, in no case is the woman [entitled] to eat of heave until she is placed under the nuptial canopy.\n\n\n§ 4. Should a man by vow consecrate [the produce of] his wife's industry, she [nevertheless has a right to] subsist on her earnings. [If he consecrate] the surplus, 3 R. Meir saith, \"It is consecrated:\" R. Jochanan, the Sandaller, saith, \"It is Choolin [non-consecrated].\" 4\n\n§ 5. These are the [kinds of] work which the woman is bound to do for her husband. She must grind corn, and bake, and wash, and cook, and suckle her child, make his bed, and work in wool. If she brought him one bondwoman [or the value of one, for her dowry], she needs not to grind, bake, or wash: [if she brought him] two [bondwomen, or the value of two], she need not cook nor suckle her child: [if] three, she need not make his bed nor work in wool: [if] four, she may sit in her easy chair. 5 R. Eleazar saith, \"Even though she has brought him [her husband] a hundred bondwomen, he can compel her to work in wool, as idleness leads to unchastity.\" R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"In like manner, should a man by vow 6 interdict his wife from doing any kind of work, he is bound to divorce her, and to pay [the amount of] her Ketubah, because idleness may lead her to mental aberration.\"\n\n§ 6. He who by vow interdicts his wife from connubial intercourse, Beth Shammai hold [after] two weeks, Beth Hillel hold after [one] week [he must either be absolved from his vow by a person properly qualified, or he must divorce her]. Students may, for the purpose of studying the law, be absent without the consent of their wives during thirty days: workmen during one week. The marriage duty mentioned in the Law, 7 is incumbent on men of independence 8 daily, on workmen twice a week, [on] ass drivers 9 once a week, [on] camel drivers 10 once in thirty days, [on] navigators 11 once in six months. Such is the dictum of R. Eleazar.\n\n§ 7. A woman who is refractory against her husband 12 has her Ketubah diminished by [a deduction of] seven dinar every week.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] R. Jehudah saith \"[By] seven terpaïkin.\" 13 How long is the deduction to be continued? Until it reaches [the full amount of] her Ketubah. R. José saith, \"He [the husband] continues the deductions [so long as she remains refractory], for should any inheritance fall to her from any other quarter, he can therefrom recover them.\" Thus likewise, should the husband prove refractory against his wife, 14 they increase her Ketubah by [the addition of] three dinar every week. R. Jehudah saith \"[By] three terpaïkin.\"\n\n§ 8. He who provides his wife [with her maintenance] through a third person, 15 must not allow her less than two kab wheat or four kab barley [a week]. R. José stated that this [double] allowance of barley was granted only through [the decision of] R. Ishmael [to those] who resided near Idumea. 16 He [the husband] must [also] allow her half a kab of legumes, half a lug of oil, a kab of dried figs, or a maneh weight of fig-cake: and if he has none, he must allow her fruits of another kind in its stead. [Further] he must provide her with a bedstead, a pillow, and a mattress [another version has: \"if he has no pillow he must provide her with a mattress\"], [Moreover] he must give her a bonnet [cap] for her head, a girdle for her loins, shoes every festival, and wearing apparel to the value of fifty zooz every year. He must not give her new garments in the summer season nor worn-out ones in the rainy season; but he must give her garments to the value of fifty zooz in the rainy season, so that she wears the old ones in the hot weather, and the worn-out ones belong to her.\n\n§ 9. He must further allow her a meah in money for her petty expences, and she takes her meals with him every Sabbath evening. Should he not allow her a meah in money for her petty expences, her earnings belong to her. 17 What quantity of work is she bound to do for him? Five selah weight [of spun wool] for warp 18 in Judea, which [are equal to] ten selah in Galilee, or ten selah weight for shute 19 in Judea, which are [equal to] twenty selah in Galilee. If\n\n\nshe is suckling, the quantity of her labor is [to be] diminished, and that of her sustenance increased. To whom do [all] the [above] stipulations apply? To the poor in Israel, but with respect to persons of distinction, every thing is regulated according to rank [and station in society]. 20\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n253:1 A brother who is bound to marry the childless widow of his deceased brother. (Vide Treatise Yebamoth, chap. I. § 1.)\n\n253:2 The espousals of a Yabam.\n\n254:3 Which, after providing for her own sustenance, she may accumulate, and he inherits at her decease.\n\n254:4 Because that which has not yet actual existence cannot legally be consecrated.\n\n254:5 ‏קתדרא‎ Catheder, a raised seat or dais.\n\n254:6 Should he vow, \"If thou doest any kind of work I will not hold any connubial intercourse with thee.\"\n\n254:7 Vide Exodus xxi. 10.\n\n254:8 ‏טילין‎, persons whose circumstances place them above the necessity of following any trade or profession.\n\n254:9 Who carry corn or vegetables to places in the vicinity of their abodes.\n\n254:10 Whose trade carries them to greater distances.\n\n254:11 Who sail on long voyages.\n\n254:12 If she denies him his conjugal rights.\n\n255:13 A terpaïk is half a dinar.\n\n255:14 Withhold connubial intercourse.\n\n255:15 If he himself does not reside or board with her.\n\n255:16 The barley in that neighbourhood is very inferior in quality. R. Ishmael ordered the quantity to be doubled to make up for that inferiority.\n\n255:17 That is, after deducting the cost of her maintenance, the surplus of her earnings belongs to her.\n\n255:18 and 19 The thread for the warp is much more difficult to spin than that for the shute, and is therefore computed as equal to double the quantity of shute. The selah of Judea is as heavy again as that of Galilee.\n\n255:19 See previous note.\n\n256:20 And according to the customs of the country in which the parties reside.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. Compensation in damages is to be levied from the best field of an aggressor; for a creditor, from medium property 1 of the debtor; and for the payment of a Ketubah, from that which is least in value. R. Meir saith, \"The latter is also to be paid from medium property.\"\n\n§ 2. They cannot be levied from mortgaged property, 2 while there is yet uncharged property to levy from, although that should be the least valuable. The payment of claims against the estate of orphans, can only be enforced by the sale of their least valuable property.\n\n§ 3. Payment for usufructum, 3 for the improvement of the land, or for the maintenance of a wife and her daughters [of a former marriage], 4 is not to be levied from mortgaged property. 5 All this was ordered for the maintenance of social order, and an oath is not to be imposed on a finder 6 for the same reason.\n\n§ 4. When the estate of orphans is administered by the father of a family, 7 or that the father of the orphans had nominated a person as guardian to them, these persons so acting are bound to tithe the fruit belonging to the orphans. A guardian nominated by the father of the orphans, must swear to his due administration of the estate; but one appointed by the tribunal is not bound to do so. But Abbah Saul says, \"It is just the reverse.\" 8 When a person had\n\n\ncaused fruit belonging to another to become [legally] unclean, or mixes them with heave, or his wine with other wine used for idolatrous libations; if he did it inadvertently, he is absolved from paying for the damage he has caused; but if he did it wilfully, he is liable. Priests who wilfully render sacrifices ‏פיגול‎ [unacceptable], are bound to make good the damage [to the owner].\n\n§ 5. R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah testified, \"That it is lawful to divorce by a Get a deaf and dumb woman, who had been given in marriage by her father; and that an Israelite [orphan] girl, who in her minority had been married to a priest, may eat heave; also, that if she dies first, her husband becomes her heir; also, that the owner of a stolen beam which was used in a large ornamental building, can only claim its present value, to facilitate the repentance of transgressors; also, that a stolen sin-offering, the theft of which was not generally known, does expiate, which was thus ordered for the benefit of the altar.\" 9\n\n§ 6. The right of Sicaricon 10 did not prevail in Judea during the war, 11 but it did afterwards; as for instance: When an Israelite bought a field from a Sicaricon [forcible intruder], and afterwards from the rightful owner, the bargain is void; but it is effective if he bought it first of the rightful owner, and then of the Sicaricon. When a person bought a field from a husband, and then of his wife, 12 the bargain is void; but if he bought it first of the wife, and subsequently from the husband, it is effective. Such was the first decision. But a subsequent tribunal decided, that a person who bought a field from a Sicaricon must pay a fourth part of the price paid for the purchase to the rightful owner of the field. This is when it is not in the power of the latter to repurchase his field; but when that is the case, the rightful owners are to be preferred to any one. Ribi constituted a Beth Din, which decided that a field which had remained for a twelvemonth in the power of a forcible intruder [Sicaricon]\n\n\nmay be sold to any one, but the purchaser must pay a fourth part to the former rightful owner.\n\n§ 7. A deaf and dumb person may enter into engagements by contract, by means of mutual signs [between the contracting parties]. Ben Beterah saith, \"Where the contract affects moveable property only, the mutual motion of the lips suffices.\" When children have arrived at the age of discernment, 13 their purchase or sale of moveable property stands good.\n\n§ 8. The following ordinances were made for the sake of promoting of peace: That a Cohen should read first in the Holy Law, then a Levite, and an Israelite afterwards, for the sake of peace; the Erub must be placed in the same house in a court where it had always been put, for the sake of peace; the well nearest to the water-course must be filled first, for the sake of peace. Taking out of nets or traps belonging to other people, 14 [any animal, bird, or fish] therein caught, was made constructive felony, in order to preserve peace. R. José saith, \"It is a real felony.\" What a deaf and dumb or foolish person or minor finds [is his own], and the taking it from him was made a constructive felony, for the preservation of peace. R. José saith, \"It is a real felony.\" It was also ordained, in the case of a poor person beating down olives from the top of a tree, that the fruit so dropped is his property, and whoever takes it from him will be considered guilty of a constructive felony. R. José saith, \"It is a real felony.\" Non-Israelite poor must not be prevented to glean in the fields of Israelites, from gathering the forgotten. [corn ears], and from the produce of the corner of the field [reserved for the poor], for the sake of peace.\n\n§ 9. One woman may lend to another who is suspected [not to observe properly the laws] of the Sabbatical year, 15 a flour-sieve, a winnow, a handmill, and a stove, but she may not assist her to winnow or to grind. The wife of a ‏חבר‎ (i.e. one learned in, and observant of, the law] may lend to the wife of an unlearned person, a flour-sieve or a winnow, and may aid her to winnow, to grind, or to sift; but as soon as water is poured over the flour, she may not further assist her, for those who transgress the law are not to be aided in their transgressions. All the mentioned permissions have been granted for the sake of peace only. A heathen [who works in\n\n\nthe fields] during the Sabbatical year may be comforted, 16 but not an Israelite; 17 and the former may be greeted at any time, for the sake of promoting concord.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n290:1 That is, of medium value, that which is neither the best nor the worst property of the debtor.\n\n290:2 Or as others explain it, from property already sold, and which has become subject to another.\n\n290:3 This treats of a case where a person took forcible possession of the field of another, then sold it to a third, who cultivated it and used the produce. When after this the rightful owner is reinstated by a legal decision in his favor, he need only pay to the third possessor his outlay for the improvement of the estate, leaving the latter for the repayment of his purchase-money, &c. to his remedy at law against the person who fraudulently sold another man's property to him.\n\n290:4 When her husband agrees to do so in the Ketubah.\n\n290:5 See Note 2, above.\n\n290:6 To swear that he did not find more than he owned he did find.\n\n290:7 That is, one who was not nominated as executor, but acts as such.\n\n290:8 Because a person appointed executor does it only either for the sake of his former friendship with the testator, or for the benefit of the orphans, and if an oath were to be imposed, many would refuse to act, and the orphans suffer in consequence.\n\n291:9 That the priests might not suppose they had been eating profaned offerings, and refuse to minister, by which means the altar would remain unoccupied.\n\n291:10 From the Latin *Sicarii*. It treats here of an Israelite who bought a field of a heathen, who, by violence and threatening to murder the rightful owner, had forcibly ejected him from his property.\n\n291:11 That is, during the great war against the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, when lawful authority was powerless to shield those whom the barbarous conquerors murdered and violently despoiled.\n\n291:12 Who has a lien on that field by her marriage contract.\n\n292:13 At the public readings in the synagogue.\n\n292:14 This treats of nets where the animals or fish were not completely caught, and might have escaped.\n\n292:15 Compare Treatise Shebiith, chap. V.\n\n293:16 By wishing him good success, &c.\n\n293:17 Because he is a transgressor, in labouring in his field during the Sabbatical year.\n\n## Chapter V\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER V.\n\n§ 1. The prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day [Lev. xxii. 28], is obligatory in the Holy Land, and out of it, during and after the existence of the Temple, with respect to animals slaughtered for profane use [i.e. to eat them], and to those slaughtered as consecrated sacrifices, as follows. When a person slaughtered an animal and its young [on the same day] without the temple-court [not as holy sacrifices, but] as animals slaughtered for profane use though both animals are Cashér, yet in slaughtering the second, he incurred the penalty of the forty stripes. 1 Should he have slaughtered them outside the temple-court as holy sacrifices, he has incurred the penalty of utter excision [‏כרת‎] for the slaughter of the first. Both animals are Pasool, and he has moreover incurred the penalty of forty stripes for the slaughtering of each animal. Should he have slaughtered them as ‏חולין‎ [i.e. for profane or ordinary use] within the temple-court, both animals are Pasool; and for the slaughter of the second, he incurred the penalty of forty stripes. If both were consecrated sacrifices, and were slaughtered within the temple-court, the animal first slaughtered is a valid sacrifice, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty for so doing; but he incurred the penalty of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second animal, and that animal is unfit for sacrifice.\n\n§ 2. If the animal first slaughtered was ‏חולין‎, and the other a consecrated sacrifice, and they were slaughtered outside the temple-court, the first animal is Cashér, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty; but for the slaughter of the second he incurred that of the forty stripes, and the animal is an unfit sacrifice. If the first animal was consecrated, and the second ‏חולין‎, and both were slaughtered outside the temple-court, he who slaughtered the\n\n\nfirst incurred the penalty of utter excision, and the animal is an unfit sacrifice; the second animal is Cashér, and for the slaughtering of each, the penalty of the forty stripes has been incurred. If the first animal was ‏חולין‎, and the second a consecrated sacrifice, and they were slaughtered inside the temple-court, both are Pasool; and for the slaughter of the second, the penalty of forty stripes has been incurred. If the first animal was consecrated, and the second ‏חולין‎, and they were slaughtered within the temple-court, the first animal is Cashér, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is Pasool. If both animals were ‏חולין‎, and one of them was slaughtered outside, and the second inside the temple-court, the first animal is Cashér, and he who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is Pasool. If both animals were consecrated sacrifices, and one of them was slaughtered outside, and the second inside the temple-court, the person who slaughtered them has incurred the penalty of excision for the slaughter of the first [both animals are Pasool], and that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of each. If both animals were ‏חולין‎, and one of them was slaughtered within, and the second without the temple-court, the first animal is Pasool, and he who slaughtered them has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, but that animal is Cashér. If both were consecrated animals, and one of them was slaughtered inside, and the other outside of the temple-court, the first animal is Cashér, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is an unfit sacrifice.\n\n§ 3. When one of the animals was found to be Terefá, or that one had been slaughtered for idolaters, or that one is a cow of a sin-offering, or an ox condemned to lapidation, 2 or a calf whose neck was to be struck off, 3 R. Simeon absolves [the person who slaughtered the second animal on the same day] from any penalty; but the sages hold \"That he incurred that [of the forty stripes].\" 4 When one of the animals becomes Nebelah by being improperly slaughtered; or when it was killed by a knife being thrust up its nostrils; or that the trachea and œsophagus were forcibly torn off, the law against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is not\n\n\napplicable: When a cow and its calf were bought by two persons, one buying the cow and the other the calf, the first buyer has a right to slaughter his purchase first; but if the other buyer anticipated him in slaughtering his, he has acquired his right. 5 Should a person have slaughtered a cow and her two calves on the same day, he has incurred a penalty of eighty stripes; but if he slaughtered the two calves first, and then the cow, he has only incurred [one] penalty of forty stripes. If he slaughtered [on the same day] a cow and its young, and the calf of that young cow, eighty stripes shall be inflicted on him. If he slaughtered [on the same day] a cow, then the calf of its young, and lastly the young itself, the forty stripes shall be inflicted on him. Symmachus, 6 in the name of R. Meir, saith, \"eighty [stripes].\" At four periods of the year a seller of cattle is bound to inform the buyer that he had sold the dam or leer young on the same day for the purpose of being slaughtered, viz. on the day preceding the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, on those preceding the first day of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and of the New Year; and according to R. José the Galilean, also on the day preceding the Day of Atonement in Galilee. R. Jehudah saith, \"When is he bound to give that information? Only if there should not be a day's interval between the sale of one of the animals and that of the other; but if there was such an interval, the mentioned information is not required from the seller.\" Yet R. Jehudah admits, \"That in case he sold the dam to a bridegroom, and the young to his bride, he is bound to inform them thereof, because it is to be supposed that both animals will be slaughtered on the same day.\"\n\n§ 4. On the mentioned four periods [or days], a butcher can be compelled to slaughter cattle against his will. 7 Even if he had an ox worth a thousand dinars, and there was a purchaser for only a single dinars worth of meat, he will be compelled to slaughter it. Hence, should the animal die meanwhile [naturally], the loss 8 falls on the purchaser; but it is not so at other times, for when the animal then dies of itself, the loss falls on the seller [or butcher].\n\n§ 5. The expression of the law, \"One day,\" when treating of the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young in one [and the same] day, is to be understood, that the day and the night which\n\n\npreceded it are to be reckoned together [as forming one day]. For thus was it expounded by R. Simeon ben Zomah, \"The term 'one day' is used in the History of the Cosmogony, and also in the precept relative to the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young [on the same day], to teach us, that even as in the first instance, the night and the day which followed it made 'one day,' 9 thus also must it be understood in the second or present instance.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n338:1 For transgressing the law (Lev. xxii. 28).\n\n339:2 See Exodus xxi. 29.\n\n339:3 Deut. xxi.\n\n339:4 For transgressing the precept, Lev. xxii. 28.\n\n340:5 And the first buyer must wait till the next day to slaughter his.\n\n340:6 Original, ‏סומכוס‎.\n\n340:7 This treats of a case where a butcher received deposit-money, and agreed to furnish meat.\n\n340:8 Of the deposit-money.\n\n341:9 See Genesis i. 5.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}