{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mishnah/09-chapter-vi.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mishnah",
    "name": "Mishnah"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 7,
    "slug": "09-chapter-vi",
    "title": "Berakhot — Chapter VI",
    "of": 30,
    "words": 8435,
    "text": "## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. What blessing must be said for fruit? For fruit which grows on a tree, say, \"who createst the fruit of the tree\" except for wine; for thereon the benediction is; \"who createst the fruit of the vine.\" For fruits growing on the earth say \"who createst the fruit of the earth\" except for bread, for thereon the benediction; \"who bringest forth bread from the earth\" must be said. For vegetables say, \"who createst the fruit of the earth\" R. Jehudah saith \"who createst [various] kinds of herbs.\"\n\n§ 2. If he has said the benediction \"who createst the fruit of the\n\n\nearth,\" for fruit grown on trees he has acquitted himself [of the obligation to return thanks]: but should he say \"the fruit of the tree,\" for fruits grown on the earth, he has not acquitted himself. But if for either [kind] he said \"who gave being to all things through his mandate\" he has acquitted himself.\n\n§ 3. For things which do not derive their immediate growth from the earth [ground] say ‏שהכל‎ \"who gave being to all things,\" &c. For vinegar, unripe fruit which has dropt [off the tree], and locusts 1 say ‏שהכל‎ [\"who gave being,\" &c.] On milk, cheese, and eggs, say [also] ‏שהכל‎. R. Jehudah saith no blessing should be pronounced over things which had their origin in a curse [or corruption], [or which partake of the character of a curse].\n\n§ 4. If a man has before him various kinds [of fruits], R. Jehudah saith, If there be among them of the seven kinds 2, he is to pronounce the benediction thereon: but the sages say he may say the blessing on which of them he pleases.\n\n§ 5. If the blessing on wine has been said before commencing the meal, it frees the wine drunk after the meal. If the blessing has been said over the ‏פרפרת‎ 3 eaten before the meal, it frees the ‏פרפרת‎ eaten after the meal. If the blessing has been said over the bread, it frees the ‏פרפרת‎; but the blessing on the ‏פרפרת‎ does not free the bread. Beth Shammai say, Neither does it free that which has been cooked [made dishes].\"\n\n§ 6. If several persons sit down to eat, each one must say grace for himself; but if they sit at the same table, one says grace for them all. If wine is brought to them during the meal, each one says the blessing thereon for himself: but if it is brought after the meal, one says the blessing for them all. He also says the blessing for the perfume 4, although that be not brought till after the meal.\n\n§ 7. If salted food be set before a man, and bread with it, the blessing is said on the salted food, which frees the bread, as that is only an accessary. The general rule is, whenever any principal\n\n\n[paragraph continues] [article of food] is partaken of, with an accessary to it; the blessing is said on the principal article, which frees the accessary.\n\n§ 8. If a person have eaten figs, grapes, and pomegranates, he must say three blessings after them. Such is the dictum of Rabbon Gamaliel: but the sages hold one blessing only, being a compendium of the three. R. Akiva saith, even if a person has eaten [nothing but] boiled pulse, and he has made his meal of it, he is bound to say the three blessings. Whoever drinks water to [satisfy] his thirst, says the blessing ‏שהכל‎. R. Tarphon saith, [he must say the blessing] ‏בורא נפשות רבות‎. [\"who createst many animate beings and providest for their wants,\"] &c.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n8:1 Locusts form a common article of food in the East.\n\n8:2 The Holy Land is celebrated for the production of seven kinds of fruits, &c. enumerated in Deut. viii. 8.\n\n8:3 ‏פַּרְפֶרֶה‎ derived from the Greek παραφερομενα. It signifies here anything eaten before dinner to excite appetite; also after dinner as dessert. Some are of opinion it means anything that is usually eaten with bread παραφερομενα [food before the repast].\n\n8:4 It was customary to introduce perfumes and incense after the meal was over.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. What is meant by ‏עָרִים‎ [a kind of espalier on which vines are trained]? When a row of five vines is planted near a hedge [wall] ten hands high, or near the side of a trench [ditch or cavity] ten hands deep and four wide, in that case, four amoth must be left for the cultivation of each vine, which [space] must, according to Beth Shammai, \"be measured from the stem of the vine towards the field [ground];\" but according to Beth Hillel, \"from the hedge to the field.\" R. Jochanan ben Nourie saith, \"Whosoever adopts either of these opinions is in error; for the Law is—If there be a space of four amoth from the stem of the vine to the hedge [or trench], the room necessary for the due cultivation of the vine must be allowed [for that purpose] and the remainder of the ground may be sown on.\" What constitutes the room [space] necessary for the due cultivation of the vine? Six hands in every direction. R. Akivah saith, \"three hands only are required [in every direction].\"\n\n§ 2. If an espalier of vines overhangs the steps of a terrace [on a hill], R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, \"When all the grapes can be gathered by a person standing on the [even] ground, four amoth [space] must be left beyond the espalier, within which [four amoth] it is prohibited to sow; but when the grapes cannot all be gathered by a person standing on the [even] ground, the prohibition [to sow] is limited to the spot covered by the espalier. R. Eleazar saith, \"If a man has planted one row of vines on the even ground, and another row on the steps of a terrace, should the terrace have an elevation of\n\n\nten hands from the ground, the two rows need not be considered as connected; but they must be so considered if the height of the terrace be less than ten hands.\n\n§ 3. When vines have been trained over part of the laths of a trellis, it is unlawful to sow under the remaining part [on which there are no vines]; should however any kind of seed have been thus sown, that does not consecrate the vine [render its produce unlawful]; but when the young shoots of the vine have spread over the whole trellis, whatsoever is sown underneath is unlawful. Such is likewise the case if a vine be trained over any portion of a wild tree, ‏אִילָן סְרָק‎.\n\n§ 4. When vines are trained over part of a fruit-tree [not wild], it is lawful to sow under the remaining part of the tree; and should even the young shoots of the vine have spread beyond it, they may be bent [or drawn] back, and it is lawful to sow beneath. It once happened that R. Joshua came to R. Ishmael, in the village Aziz, when R. Ishmael shewed him a vine which had been trained over part of a fig-tree, and asked, \"May I sow under the remaining parts of the tree?\" R. Joshua replied, \"[You may]; it is lawful.\" He then took R. Joshua to a place called Beth Hamaganya, and shewed him a vine trained over a thick bough [or arm] of a sycamore-tree, from which many other boughs branched out, [and repeated the question], when R. Joshua decided that it was only unlawful to sow under the particular bough on which the vine had been trained; but that under all the other boughs it was lawful [to sow].\n\n§ 5. What is meant by the expression ‏אִילָן סְרָק‎ a wild tree? All trees which are not fruit-bearing. R. Meir saith, \"Excepting only the olive and the fig-tree, all [other] trees are called ‏אִילָן סְרָק‎.\" R. José saith, \"All trees with which it is not usual to plant entire fields [orchards], are called ‏אִילָן סְרָק‎ wild trees.\"\n\n§ 6. The ‏פסקי עריס‎, or those parts of an espalier of vines which are no longer covered with vines, must be of the extent of eight amoth, and something more, in order that it may be lawful to sow underneath. Of all the measurements established by the sages, when treating of vineyards, this is the only instance in which they require \"something more,\" beyond the fixed measure. The expression ‏פסקי עריס‎, \"part of an espalier of vines,\" is used when the middle of such an espalier has been destroyed, but five vines still remain on either side; if the open space between the two sides is only eight amoth, it may not be sown in; but if it is eight amoth and something more, the necessary room must be left for the due cultivation\n\n\nof the vine, and the remainder [of the open space] may be sown in.\n\nFig, 1. § 7. When an espalier of vines, proceeding from the corner of a wall, extends beyond it (vide Fig. 1), room must be left for the due cultivation of the vines, and the rest may be sown on. R. José saith, \"if this space doth not contain four amoth, it may not be sown on.\"\n\n§ S. It is lawful to sow under such reeds [extending beyond the vine-espalier] as a person does not wish to cut away; but if these reeds have been thus placed with the intention to train the young shoots of the vine on them, it is not lawful to sow under them.\n\n§ 9. When branches of vines extend beyond the espalier, it is to be considered as if a plummet were pending from these branches, and all that space which comes within and under the perpendicular line of the plummet, it is unlawful to sow on. Such is likewise the case with the extending branches of a single vine. When vine-branches have been drawn from one tree to another [to connect them], it is prohibited to sow underneath them; but if they have been fastened by means of a rope [line] or [a band of] reeds, it is lawful to sow under the line; but if it [the rope] has been thus placed in order to train the young shoots of the vine thereon, it is not lawful to sow underneath.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n24:1 Sisymbrium Iris [a kind of colewort].\n\n24:2 Supposed to be hedera [ivy].\n\n24:3 Cynara [artichoke].\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. Wherewith [on her person] may a woman go out? and wherewith may she not go out? 1 A woman must not go out with linen or woollen laces; nor with the straps on her head, because\n\n\nshe cannot bathe with them on, but must first unfasten them: nor with a frontlet and pendants thereto, 2 unless sewn to her cap; nor with the lining of the frontlet, into the public reshuth; 3 nor with a golden [ornament in the shape of a] town; nor with a tight gold chain; nor with nose-rings; nor with finger-rings, on which there is no seal; nor with a needle without an eye: but if she has gone out with either of these, she is not guilty [to bring] a sin-offering.\n\n§ 2. A man is not to go out with iron-bound sandals, 4 nor with one [iron-bound shoe], unless he has a sore in [the other] foot; nor yet with Tephilin; 5 nor yet with an amulet, unless it be by a distinguished sage; nor with cuirass, helmet, or armour for the legs: but if he has gone out [with either of these] he is not guilty [to bring] a sin-offering.\n\n§ 3. A woman must not go out with a needle that has an eye; nor with a finger-ring that has a seal on it; nor with a ‏כוליאר‎; 6 nor with a smelling-bottle, or balm-flask: if she has gone out [with either of these] on her person, she is guilty, [and bound to bring] a sin-offering. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages absolve her [therefrom, as far as regards going out] with a smelling-bottle or balm-flask.\n\n§ 4. Man must not go out with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he has gone out [with either of these] he is guilty, [and bound to bring] a sin-offering. R. Eleazar saith, \"They are ornaments [becoming] to him:\" but the sages hold, \"they are nothing else but a stigma [unbecoming], for it is said, 'They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears unto pruning-books, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'\" 7\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Knee-buckles are clean, and a man may go out with them on the Sabbath; stride-chains 8 are liable to become unclean, and a man must not go out with them on the Sabbath.\n\n§ 5. A woman may go out with plaits of hair, whether of her own hair or of another woman, or of an animal; with frontlet and pendants, if they are sewn fast to the cap; with the lining of a frontlet, and with false-ringlets [curls], into the courtyard; with soft wool in her ears, or soft wool in her shoe, or soft wool she has prepared for her menstruation; with a [grain of] pepper or [of] salt, or with whatever else she [is accustomed to] put into her mouth, provided she does not put it [into her mouth] especially on the Sabbath; and if she drop it [out of her mouth on the ground] she must not put it back [into her mouth] again; a false tooth, or a gilt tooth, Rabbi permits [the going out with]; but the sages prohibit [it].\n\n§ 6. Women may go out with a coin fastened on a swelling in their feet; little girls may go out with laces on, and even with wires in their ears; Arabian women may go out in their large veils, and Median women in their mantillas: so [indeed] may any one; but the sages adduce their instances from existing [and known objects].\n\n§ 7. A woman may fold up a stone, or a nut, or a coin, in her mantilla, provided she does it not especially on the Sabbath-day.\n\n§ 8. The cripple may go out with his wooden leg: such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. José prohibits it. If the wooden leg has a hollow receptacle for rags, it is [liable to become] unclean; leather crutches [of a cripple who is lame of both ankles], are [liable to become] unclean from pressure; but he may go out with them on the Sabbath, and [also] enter into the outer court [of the temple] with them. The chair and crutches [of one who is paralytic] are [liable to become] unclean from pressure, he must not go out with them on the Sabbath, and he must not enter the outer court [of the Temple] with them: ‏אנקטמין‎ 9 are clean, but he must not go out with them.\n\n§ 9. Boys may go out with their bands, and princes with golden bells: so [indeed] may every one, but the sages adduce their instances from things existing [and known].\n\n§ 10. It is permitted to go out with the egg of a grasshopper, or\n\n\nthe tooth of a fox, or the nail of one who has been hanged, as medical remedies: such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages hold [according to another version; such is the dictum of R. José, but R. Meir holds], \"That even on the week-day this is prohibited, because of [its imitating] the ways of the Amorites.\" 10\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n44:1 The question is, to decide what constitutes ornaments, and, as such, part of her attire, and what is burden.\n\n45:2 In the East, women wear a thin gold plate on their foreheads, with pendants fastened thereto.\n\n45:3 According to some, this restriction applies to the lining only; according to others, to all the articles.\n\n45:4 This prohibition was occasioned by a melancholy accident during the persecution by Hadrian, when some Jews assembled in the synagogue on the Sabbath in defiance of the imperial edict, were disturbed by a sudden noise, and fearing the Romans were upon them, preferred falling by their own hands, and used their iron-bound sandals as the instruments of death.\n\n45:5 Even according to the opinion of those who maintain that tephilin must be used on the Sabbath.\n\n45:6 A diadem, or serpentine kind of head-dress, not generally worn by women, and therefore considered a burden.\n\n45:7 Isa. ii. 4; Mic. iv. 3.\n\n46:8 Small chains used to contract the length of the stride or step. They were the invention of a particular family at Jerusalem, who suffered ill-health, and other inconveniencies from the length and rapidity of their steps.\n\n46:9 Wooden shoes or stilts, used to supply the loss of a limb.\n\n47:10 And, as such, being a reprehensible superstition, prohibited; *vide* Lev. xviii. 3.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. He who dwells in one court with a heathen, or with one who does not acknowledge [the validity of] erub, is through them prohibited [from carrying or moving therein]. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, \"At no time can [such] a prohibition be caused, unless by two Israelites who prevent each other.\"\n\n§ 2. R. Gamaliel related, \"It happened that a Sadducee dwelt with us in one alley, in Jerusalem; and my father said to us [on the Sabbath-eve], 'Make haste and bring all the vessels into the alley, lest this [Sadducee] bring out his, and make it unlawful for you [to carry out yours].'\" R, Jehudah related [the same circumstance], with a variation in the language: \"Make haste and do what you require [done] in the alley, lest he come out and make it unlawful for you.\"\n\n§ 3. Should one of the householders of a court forget, and not join in the erub, it is unlawful for him and for them [the other inmates of the court], to carry any thing out of, or into his house; but their [houses] it is lawful for him and for them to carry into, and out of; if they [the other inmates] have resigned to him their [common] right [to the court], he is permitted [to carry and convey therein], but they are forbidden [so to do]. If there be two [who have neglected to join in the erub], they impede each other; for one individual can renounce [the] right [to the court], and can acquire [that] right; but two persons [though they can jointly] renounce the right, cannot [jointly] acquire the right [to the exclusive use of the court].\n\n§ 4. From when is the right to be conferred? Beth Shammai hold, \"while it is yet day-light;\" but Beth Hillel hold, \"from dusk [on the eve of the day of rest].\" Whoever renounces his right [to the court], and afterwards carries [or conveys within it], whether he does it inadvertently or intentionally, he renders it unlawful for them [the other inmates of the court to carry or convey therein]. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Jehudah saith, \"If he does it intentionally, he makes it unlawful [for them], but if inadvertently, he does not make it unlawful.\"\n\n§ 5. Should a householder be in partnership in [one cask of] wine with two of his neighbours [residing in the same alley], they require no erub; if he is partner with one in wine, and with one in\n\n\noil, they do require an erub: R. Simeon saith, \"In the one [case] as in the other, they do not require any erub.\"\n\n§ 6. Should five different companies take their Sabbath-rest in one saloon, 1 Beth Shammai hold, \"that each company requires a separate erub;\" but Beth Hillel hold \"that one erub [is sufficient] for [them] all.\" Both agree, that if any of these companies occupy distinct chambers, or attics, [then] each company requires a separate erub.\n\n§ 7. Brothers, or associates, who take their meals at their fathers’, [or at one] table, but sleep [each] in his [separate] house [in the same court], must each one prepare a separate erub. Therefore, if one of them has forgotten, and not prepared an erub, he must renounce his right [to the common court]. When is this the case? When the erub has been deposited in some other place [house]; but if the erub has been placed with them, or if there are no other inhabitants in the court, they need not prepare any erub.\n\n§ 8. Five courts that open into each other, and also open into one [common alley], if they [the householders therein] have joined in erub for the courts, but have not combined the alley, 2 they are permitted [to carry and convey] in the courts, but are prohibited [so to do] in the alley; but if they did combine the alley, they are permitted in both [courts and alley]. If they have combined the courts and also the alley, should one of the householders of the courts forget, and not join in the erub, they are [nevertheless] permitted [to carry and convey] in both [courts and alley]; should one of the householders of the alley have forgotten to join in the combination, they are permitted [to carry and convey] in the courts, but are forbidden [so to do] in the alley, [inasmuch] as the alley is [in the same relation] to the courts, as the courts [are] to the houses [within them].\n\n§ 9. If two courts be one within the other, [should] the [inmates of the] inner court prepare its erub, and [those of] the outer court not, [the inmates of] the inner court may [carry and convey within it],but [those of] the outer court must not [do so]. Should [those of], the outer court have prepared the erub, but not [those of] the inner court, both are prohibited; if each have prepared its separate erub, the [inmates of] each are permitted [to carry or convey] within its own limits. R. Akivah holds that the outer court is prohibited, and that the right of thoroughfare [possessed by the inner court]\n\n\nrenders it so; but the sages hold that this right of thoroughfare does not render [the outer court] prohibited.\n\n§ 10. Should one [of the householders] of the outer court forget to join in the erub, the inner court is permitted, but the outer court is prohibited. Should one [of the householders] of the inner court forget to join in the erub; both are prohibited. If they both deposit their erub in one place, and one [of the householders], whether of the inner or of the outer [court] forgot, and did not join in the erub, both are prohibited. Should each court be the property of a single individual, [or inhabited by one household only] they require no erub.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n85:1 ‏טרקלין‎, from the Latin *triclinium;* here it means one saloon divided by partitions into five compartments, each having a distinct outlet into the court.\n\n85:2 Vide Introduction to this Treatise.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. The following acts necessary for the sacrifice of the paschal offering, supersede the command of abstaining from work on the Sabbath, namely, the slaughtering thereof, the sprinkling of its blood, the removal of its entrails, and the burning of them with incense; but the roasting of it, as also the washing of its entrails, do not supersede the Sabbath. To carry and bring it beyond the Sabbatical limits, or to remove a tetter [or spreading eruption] thereon, are acts which do not supersede the Sabbath. R. Eleazar says they do supersede it.\n\n§ 2. For, said R. Eleazar, this is surely a logical sequence—if slaughtering an animal which is prohibited on the Sabbath on account of ‏מלאכה‎ 1 is allowed in this instance [of the passover], and does supersede the Sabbath; does it not follow that these, 2 which are only acts disallowed on account of ‏שבות‎ 3 should also be permitted? R. Joshua answered and said, \"The laws concerning the festival shall prove the contrary; for many things prohibited on the Sabbath, as ‏מלאכה‎, are nevertheless permitted on the festival: 4 whilst those which}\n\n\nare prohibited on account of infringement of Sabbatical rest [‏שבות‎] are also prohibited on the festival.\" 5 R. Eleazar replied, \"How is this, Joshua? What sort of proof is it to infer from purely voluntary acts 6 to one which is enjoined by the express command of the Holy Law?\" Then R. Akivah answered, \"The sprinkling 7 shall prove it; for that also is an express law, and is not otherwise prohibited on the Sabbath, than on account of ‏שבות‎, it does not, however, supersede the Sabbath; do not, therefore, wonder that these, which also are express commands of the law, and are prohibited on the Sabbath, only on account of ‏שבות‎, should also not supersede the Sabbath.\" Then R. Eleazar replied, \"I also draw the same conclusion with respect to the sprinkling, 8 and say, if slaughtering, which as ‏מלאכה‎, or work prohibited by the Holy Law to he done on the Sabbath, is here allowed to supersede that command, 9 does it not follow that the sprinkling of an impure person, which is only prohibited on account of ‏שבות‎ should also be prohibited thereon?\" But R. Akivah replied, \"Rather conclude the reverse, for if the sprinkling, which is only prohibited on account of ‏שבות‎ does nevertheless not supersede the Sabbath, does it not follow that slaughtering, which is prohibited, as ‏מלאכה‎ should also [*a fortiori*] *not* supersede the Sabbath?\" Then R. Eleazar said to him, \"Akivah! thou wouldst thus annul that which is written in the Holy Law, 10 'between the evenings at its appointed season,' whether that be a week or Sabbath day.\" R. Akivah then said, \"My honoured teacher! pray, adduce a text of the law which prescribes a particular and appointed time for these acts, 11 even as it does in respect to the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice.\" The following rule did R. Akivah [therefore 12] lay down—every work\n\n\n[paragraph continues] [‏מלאכה‎] done in respect to the paschal sacrifice, which could or might he done to it, previous to the Sabbath, does not supersede the Sabbatical laws, but as the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice could not have been done on any preceding day, it does supersede the Sabbath.\n\n§ 3. When is it allowed to bring a festive offering [in addition] to the paschal sacrifice? When it [the paschal offering] is sacrificed on a week-day: when those that offer it are in a state of legal cleanliness, and when it is insufficient for the number of those that are appointed to eat it. But when it is sacrificed on a Sabbath, when it is sufficient for the persons appointed to eat it, or when these are in a state of legal defilement, 13 no festive offering may be brought in addition to the paschal sacrifice.\n\n§ 4. The festive offering might be brought of the flock, of cattle, lambs, or goats, and might be brought either of male or female [cattle]; it might also be eaten during two days and one night.\n\n§ 5. When a person has brought on the Sabbath a paschal sacrifice not as such, he is bound to bring a sin-offering in expiation. If he did slaughter other sacrifices as a passover-offering, if they are of a nature so as not to be a proper paschal sacrifice, 14 he is guilty; 15 but if they are proper for that purpose, R. Eleazar declares him guilty, but R. Joshua absolves him. 16 For thus R. Eleazar argues, \"If a person, when he has changed the name of the paschal sacrifice, which sacrifice he may slaughter on the Sabbath, is deemed to be guilty; does it not follow that when he had changed the names of other sacrifices which are *already* prohibited to be offered thereon as such, that he must *a fortiori*, be considered guilty?\" To this R. Joshua answered, \"You cannot apply what is affirmed in respect to the sacrifice, when it was changed to that which it is *un*lawful to offer on the Sabbath, to other sacrifices where the name has been changed to what *i*s lawful.\" R. Eleazar replied, \"The offerings brought for the whole congregation [of Israel] shall prove [my assertion,] for it is\n\n\nlawful to offer them on the Sabbath under their proper name; yet whoever brings other offerings under their denomination is declared to be guilty.\" Then R. Joshua answered, \"You cannot apply what is affirmed in respect to the offerings of the whole congregation which have a determinate number, to the paschal sacrifice which has no determinate number.\" R. Meir said, \"He also who offers on the Sabbath other offerings under the name of those of the congregation is absolved.\"\n\n§ 6. If a person slaughtered the paschal sacrifice for those who may not eat thereof, or for persons who are not numbered and appointed to eat it, and for uncircumcised or unclean persons, he is guilty; but if he had slaughtered it for those who may, and also for those who may not eat thereof; for those who are numbered to eat, and for those who are not; or for circumcised as well as for the uncircumcised; or for clean as also for unclean persons, he is absolved. If he has slaughtered it, and a blemish was found, he is guilty; 17 but if, after being slaughtered, it was found to be ‏טריפה‎ [prohibited to be eaten on account of inward blemishes], he is not guilty. If, after slaughtering it he became acquainted that the owners had withdrawn themselves from it, or had died, or become polluted, he is absolved, because when he slaughtered it, it was under lawful circumstances.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n110:5 On which it is not lawful to use these sticks.\n\n110:6 See Leviticus iii. *passim*.\n\n110:7 This was the open space between the walls of the court of women, and the ‏סורג‎, or trellis work in the Temple.—See Treatise Middoth, c. II. § 3.\n\n110:1 It is essential to bear in mind here the difference between ‏מלאכה‎ and ‏שבות‎, as all the arguments pro and con turn on that difference. By the first expression is understood all *work* which is prohibited on the Sabbath, by direct authority of the Holy Law; and by the second, the laws which the Rabbins have instituted for the better preservation of Sabbatical *rest*.—See farther, Treatise Sabbath.\n\n110:2 Namely, the acts mentioned in the preceding section.\n\n110:3 See note 1.\n\n110:4 Such as cooking, lighting a fire, splitting wood, &c.\n\n111:5 Such as the prohibition of moving from one ‏תחום‎ into another, excepting by means of Erub, as mentioned in Treatise ‏ביצה‎, which prohibition is of Rabbinical origin.\n\n111:6 The cooking of food on the festival.\n\n111:7 Of a person who had contracted legal pollution by contact with a dead body, whose seventh day, when he was to be sprinkled for his purification happened on Sabbath the 14th of Nissan, and who could not eat of the passover sacrifice before he had been thus rendered clean.\n\n111:8 That is, I dispute, by the same mode of argument and syllogism, your inference, and say, that this sprinkling *ought* to supersede the Sabbatical command in respect to this work, in order that the unclean person may be purified by means of the sprinkling, to enable him to partake of the paschal sacrifice.\n\n111:9 For it is agreed that the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice, if the 14th happen on the Sabbath, is a lawful act.\n\n111:10 See Numbers xii.\n\n111:11 Mentioned § 1. of this chapter.\n\n111:12 Since there is no command which prescribes a fixed time, either for the p. 112 cases mentioned in the preceding § or for the sprinkling of the defiled person, the talmudical decision is therefore like R. Akivah's. Compare c. XIX. § 1. of Treatise ‏שבת‎; c. IV. § 8. of Treatise Rosh Ashana; and c. XI. of Treatise ‏מנחות‎.\n\n112:13 This may be done under certain circumstances enumerated in the next chapter, § 6.\n\n112:14 If, for instance, the sacrifice consisted of a calf, ox, or female of any kind of cattle; because the Holy Law orders the paschal sacrifice to be of a male lamb or kid of one year old.\n\n112:15 And is obliged to bring a sin-offering as expiation.\n\n112:16 From bringing the said offering.\n\n113:17 For as it is an express command of the Holy Law that the paschal sacrifice should be \"perfect and without blemish,\" he ought to have had it examined previously. This, of course, relates to external blemishes.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. Whatever a woman finds, and [likewise] the produce of her labor belongs to her husband: of what she inherits he enjoys the usufruct during her life. [Damages awarded to her in compensation for] insult or injury 1 belong to her. R. Jehudah ben Bethera saith \"[If the injury inflicted on her is] hidden [not visible] two-thirds [of the damages recovered] belong to her, and one-third to him [the husband]. But if it is apparent [visible] two-thirds belong to him and one-third to her. His [share] is paid [over] to him at once: for her share land is bought, of which he has the usufruct.\"\n\n§ 2. Should a man stipulate [to give a certain sum of] money [as dowry] to his son-in-law, and his son-in-law dies, he may say [to the brother of the deceased who is to marry his childless widow], \"To thy brother I would have given [the money], but to thee I do not intend giving it.\"\n\n§ 3. If she [the bride] stipulates to bring him one thousand dinar [in ready money as a dowry], he must against that sum assign to her [in the Ketubah] fifteen maneh. 2 But against [articles subject to] appraisement, he assigns to her one-fifth less than her valuation. 3 [Should the articles be] appraised at a maneh, and are [actually] worth a maneh, he assigns to her only one maneh. [But if he is required to assign her that sum for articles] to be valued at a maneh, she must bring him [property to the value of thirty-one selah], 4 and if [he is to assign] four hundred dinar, she must bring him [to the value of] five hundred.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] But if he assigns [the amount of her dowry in the Ketubah after the property has been appraised], he deducts one fifth [from the amount of the valuation].\n\n§ 4. If she stipulates to bring [her dowry in] ready money, he must [in the Ketubah] assign her six dinar for every selah [of four dinar]. The bridegroom must also take upon himself [to allow her] ten dinar pocket money 5 for every maneh she brings him. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"Every thing is regulated according to the custom of the country.\"\n\n§ 5. He who gives his daughter [in marriage] without any [previous] stipulation [as to dowry], must not give her less than fifty zooz. If it is stipulated that he [the husband] is to take her naked [without any outfit], he must not say, \"When I have brought her to my own house I will cover her with my raiment,\" but he is bound to clothe her while she is yet in her father's house. So likewise must he, who [by virtue of his office as overseer of the poor] gives an orphan in marriage, not give her less than fifty zoos [for her dowry], and if there is sufficient [means] in the box 6 she is to be provided [with an outfit] becoming her condition.\n\n§ 6. An orphan who was given in marriage by her mother and brothers with her consent, and they had assigned to her a dowry of a hundred or of fifty zooz, she is entitled when she comes of age to recover from them whatever is her due. R. Jehudah saith, \"If the father has given one daughter in marriage, the same amount [of dowry] must be given to the second [daughter] as he had given to the first;\" the sages, however, object that sometimes a man was poor and becomes rich, or was rich and becomes poor; 7 but the property [the father left] is to be appraised, and [her fair share] given to her.\n\n§ 7. If a person deposits money for [the dowry of] his daughter in the hands of a trustee, 8 should she say, \"I have full confidence in my bridegroom,\" 9 the trustee must [nevertheless] act according to the strict letter of the trust reposed in him. 10 Such is the dictum of\n\n\n[paragraph continues] R. Meir, but R. Joss saith, \"Suppose it [the trust money] had been converted into a field, which she is desirous to sell, she has a right to sell it at once.\" 11 To whom do these remarks apply? To a grownup female; but as to a minor, whatever a minor does is as nothing [void].\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n256:1 Such as the loss of a limb, or any other permanent blemish.\n\n256:2 He adds one third for the use of the ready money which may at once be productive of profit to him.\n\n256:3 Because it is assumed that to gain favor with her bridegroom, the amount of her dowry has been swelled, and the articles composing the same rated beyond their real value.\n\n256:4 A selah is four dinar, so that the actual value must exceed the amount assigned to her by one fifth.\n\n257:5 ‏קופה‎ box: some commentators render it \"perfume-box,\" others \"cash-box.\"\n\n257:6 Should the charity funds be exhausted, the overseers are bound to borrow the money necessary for this purpose, on the security of the rates.\n\n257:7 And as his mind would be influenced by the change in his circumstances, what he gave to one daughter is not a fair criterion of what he would give to the other.\n\n257:8 To purchase land withal.\n\n257:9 Therefore let him have the money.\n\n257:10 And not comply with her wish.\n\n258:11 Consequently her wishes are to be complied with.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. When one person says to another, \"Receive this Get for my wife,\" or, \"Bring this Get to my wife,\" he may, if he likes, take it back again; 1 but when the wife said [to the messenger], \"Receive for me my Get,\" the husband cannot resume it. Therefore, should a husband say to the messenger, \"I do not wish that you should receive it for her [as her messenger], but go and give it her [as my messenger],\" he may, if he likes, resume it again. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"Also, when the wife said, 'Fetch me my Get,' the husband cannot take it back.\"\n\n§ 2. A wife who had said, \"Receive for me my Get,\" must produce two [sets or] pairs of witnesses; two must testify [and say], \"She uttered this [order] in our presence,\" and two more to say, \"The messenger received the Get, and tore it up 2 in our presence;\" the same witnesses may however testify to the truth of both assertions, or one of the first and one of the second pair of witnesses may conjoin with them a third person to bear testimony. A betrothed girl may either receive her Get herself, or her father may receive it for her. R. Jehudah saith, \"That right cannot be possessed at the same time by both parties; but her father only has a right to receive her Get.\" Any female who is too young to take proper care of her Get, cannot be divorced at all.\n\n§ 3. When a female minor said, \"Receive my Get for me,\" the Get is ineffective until it has reached her hands. Therefore, should the husband wish to revoke the Get, he is at liberty to do so, because a minor has not the power of appointing a messenger [or deputy]; but if her father said [to the messenger], \"Go and receive my daughter's Get,\" the husband cannot revoke it. When a husband says,\n\n\n[paragraph continues] \"Give this Get to my wife in the place N. N.\" and the messenger gave it her elsewhere, the Get is void. [But if the husband had only said] \"My wife is in the place N. N.\" and the messenger gave it her in another place, it is valid. When a woman says, \"Receive for me my Get in such a place,\" and the messenger received it for her in another place, it is void; but R. Eleazar declares it valid. If she said, \"Bring me my Get from such a place,\" and he fetched it from elsewhere, it is valid.\n\n§ 4. When a wife says, \"Bring me my Get,\" she may [if married to a priest] continue to eat heave till the Get has been delivered into her hands. When she said to a messenger, \"Receive my Get for me,\" she may not, from that instant, eat any longer of the heave. If she said, \"Receive my Get for me, and bring it to the place N. N.\" she is permitted to eat heave till the time the Get can have reached that place; but R. Eleazar prohibits it immediately. 3\n\n§ 5. When a husband says, \"Write a Get, and give it to my wife,\" or, \"Divorce her,\" or, \"Write a letter [‏אגרת‎] and give it her,\" they are to write the Get, and give it her. If he said, \"Release her,\" or, \"Provide her her maintenance,\" or, \"Do with her as is customary,\" or, \"Do with her as is proper,\" what he has said amounts to nothing. Formerly, it was held that when a criminal was led out with an iron collar [to the place of execution], and he said, \"Write a Get for my wife,\" they should write it, and deliver it to her. It was afterwards decided, also those that are about going to sea, or to travel with a caravan [in the desert]. R. Simeon Sazuree saith, \"Also those who are dangerously ill.\"\n\n§ 6. If a person who was cast into a pit, called out from thence, that whoever should hear his voice should write a Get to his wife, they shall write it and deliver it to her. When a person in health says, \"Write a Get for my wife,\" he must be considered as if joking with her. It once happened that a person in health said, \"Write a Get for my wife,\" and then went on his roof, from whence he fell and died; Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"The sages decided upon that occasion, that if he fell down with premeditation [on his part] the Get is valid, but not if the wind blew him down.\" 4\n\n§ 7. If a husband says to two [men], \"Give a Get to my wife,\" 5 or to three, \"Write a Get, and give it to my wife,\" they shall write,\n\n\nand deliver it to her. 6 If he said to three, \"Give a Get to my wife,\" the latter can depute others to write it, because he constituted them a tribunal. Such is the dictum of R. Meir, and this doctrine R. Hanina of Ono 7 brought with him from prison; 8 [he said] \"I have received a tradition, that when the husband said to three men, 'Give my wife a Get,' that they may depute others to write it, because the constituted them a tribunal.\" R. José saith, \"We tell this emissary, 9 We [also] have a tradition, that when a husband had said even to the Great Tribunal in Jerusalem, 'Give my wife a Get,' the latter are bound to study [the laws of Get], 10 write a Get, and deliver it to the wife.\" When a husband says to ten [men], \"Write ye and deliver a Get to my wife,\" one of that number shall write, and two others sign it, but if he said, \"Write it all of ye,\" then one shall write, and all must sign it. Therefore, if one of them should die, 11 the Get becomes void.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n293:1 That is, he may revoke the commission he gave. Note that in this as in the following sections, this revocation is admissible only before the Get was delivered to the wife.\n\n293:2 This relates to a time of persecution, when the Get was torn up as soon as a divorce had taken place.\n\n294:3 That is, immediately the messenger left her to proceed on his mission.\n\n294:4 Or that he fell owing to any other accidental circumstance.\n\n294:5 Without adding that they were to write it.\n\n295:6 And require no other writer or witnesses.\n\n295:7 The name of a place.\n\n295:8 Where R. Akivah was incarcerated, and from whom he learned the above narration.\n\n295:9 Viz. R. Hanina of Ono, who was deputed to communicate this doctrine to the sages.\n\n295:10 If necessary, or if they had no practice in the writing of a Get. [See Maimonides’ Commentary, *ad literam*.]\n\n295:11 Before the delivery of the Get.\n\n## Chapter VI\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VI.\n\n§ 1. The precept of covering the blood [of wild animals and fowl] [Lev. xvii. 19], is obligatory in and out of the Holy Land, during and after the existence of the Temple, in animals slaughtered for ‏חולין‎, but not in those which are consecrated sacrifices. It applies solely to wild animals and fowl, whether these were domesticated, or were caught in a wild state. Also to the ‏כוי‎, 1 because it is doubtful [whether that animal is to be classed among the domestic or wild animals]. It may therefore not he slaughtered on the festival, but if it was slaughtered [thereon], its blood need not be covered [on that day].\n\n§ 2. When an animal was slaughtered and found to be Terefá, or if it was slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, or as ‏חולין‎ within, or as consecrated offerings without the temple-court; or a bird or wild animal condemned to lapidation, 2 R. Meir considers it obligatory [to cover the blood], but the sages hold, \"It is not obligatory to do so.\" When it became Nebelah by being slaughtered, or when it was killed by a knife being thrust up its nostrils, or that the trachea and œsophagus were forcibly torn off, it is not obligatory to cover the blood.\n\n§ 3. When a deaf and dumb person, an idiot, or a minor, have slaughtered in the presence of other [i.e. qualified] persons, the latter are bound to cover the blood, but not if the above [disqualified persons] had slaughtered by themselves; and thus also in respect to the precept of not slaughtering an animal and its young [on the same day]: if any of these [unqualified persons] had slaughtered\n\n\none of the animals in the presence of [qualified] persons, the other animal may not be slaughtered after them [on the same day]. If they had slaughtered one of the animals by themselves, R. Meir permits to slaughter the other after them [on the same day], but the sages decide it to be prohibited; they admit, however, \"That a person who did so slaughter it, is not liable to the punishment of the forty stripes.\"\n\n§ 4. Should a person slaughter as many as a hundred wild animals or fowl in one place, one covering will suffice for all of them. If many fowl are killed in one place, one covering suffices for all. If many wild animals and fowl were killed in one place, one covering suffices for both kinds. R. Jehudah saith, \"When a person slaughtered the wild animal, he must cover its blood first, and then slaughter the fowl.\" When a person had slaughtered [a wild animal or fowl], and omitted to cover the blood, if another person had observed that omission, the latter is bound to cover the blood. When the blood, after it was duly covered, became uncovered, it is not necessary to cover it again; but if the wind had covered it [and it was afterwards uncovered], it is required to be again covered.\n\n§ 5. When the blood was mixed with water, if the blood is still apparent, the obligation of covering it remains in force. If mixed with [red] wine, [that wine] must be considered as if it were water. If it was mixed with the blood 4 of another domestic or wild animal, that blood must be considered as water; but R. Jehudah observes, \"One kind of blood does not neutralise another kind.\"\n\n§ 6. The blood which spirts [from the throat of an animal on its being cut, and bespatters a wall, &c.] and that on the slaughtering knife, it is obligatory to cover. R. Jehudah saith, \"When is this the case? When there is no other blood but that; but when there is other blood besides, it is not required to do so.\"\n\n§ 7. With what substances is it lawful to cover the blood, and with what may it not be covered? It is lawful to cover with pulverised manure, with fine sand, with mortar, with potsherds, with bricks, or with the earthenware cover [or bung] of a barrel, viz. when these substances had been pulverised, but not with unpulverised manure, coarse sand, or brick, or earthenware covering, which had not been pounded. Nor may it be covered by merely placing a vessel over it. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel laid it down as a rule, \"That\n\n\nit is lawful to cover with any substance which would sustain vegetation, but not with substances unfit for the growth of plants.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n341:1 The offspring of a he-goat and a hind. (De Pomis.)\n\n341:2 This does not refer to the precept Exod. xxi. 29, like the above, but to another case, viz. when an unnatural crime had been committed with any animal, when the animal, as well as the person who committed the crime, is to be put to death, as ordered in Lev. xx. 15 and 16.\n\n342:4 Produced by venesection from the wild animal.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}