{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mishnah/10-chapter-vii.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mishnah",
    "name": "Mishnah"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 8,
    "slug": "10-chapter-vii",
    "title": "Berakhot — Chapter VII",
    "of": 30,
    "words": 9551,
    "text": "## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. Three men who have eaten together, are bound to join in the ‏זמון‎ [preparation to say grace after meat]. If a person has eaten of ‏דמאי‎ [that which is subject to the doubt, whether it has paid tithe or not], or of first tithe, from which the heave offering has been taken; or of second tithe or consecrated things which have been redeemed: also, if the waiter [or attendant] has partaken of their meal, a quantity of the size of an olive, 1 [or if] a Samaritan makes up the party, the ‏זמון‎ [preparatory benediction before grace] must be said. But if things untithed have been eaten, or first tithes, of which the heave offering has not been taken, or consecrated things which have not been redeemed; or if the waiter has eaten [any quantity] less than the size of an olive [of that meal], or [if] an idolator [makes up the party] the ‏זמון‎ is not to be said.\n\n§ 2. Women, slaves, and infants cannot be included in the number required for the ‏זמון‎. Which is [the smallest] quantity [of food that qualifies] for the ‏זמון‎? The size of an olive. R. Jehudah saith the size of an egg.\n\n§ 3. Which is the form of the ‏זמון‎? If three [form the party] he [who says grace] says, \"Let us bless Him of whose gifts we have eaten.\" If three [form the party] besides himself, he says, \"Bless ye Him,\" &c. If ten [form the party] he says, \"Let us bless our God,\" &c. if ten, exclusive of himself, he says, \"Bless ye our God,\" &c. Whether there be ten or ten myriads 2 the form of\n\n\n[paragraph continues] ‏זמון‎ remains the same. If there are exactly one hundred, he says, \"Let us bless the Lord our God,\" &c. if there are one hundred exclusive of himself, he says, \"Bless ye the Lord our God,\" &c. If there are one thousand, he says, \"Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel.\" If there are a thousand exclusive of himself, he says, \"Bless ye the Lord our God, the God of Israel,\" &c. If there are a myriad, he says, \"Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who is enthroned amidst the cherubim,\" &c. If there are a myriad exclusive of himself, he says, \"Bless ye,\" &c. &c. And in the same manner as he pronounces the preparatory invocation, those who sit at the table make the responses. [Thus, for instance] they say, \"Blessed be the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who is enthroned amidst the cherubim, for the food we have eaten.\" R. José, the Galilean, saith the [form of] invocation ought to be arranged according to the number of persons assembled; for it is said, Bless ye God in the congregations, the Lord, ye who spring from the fountain of Israel.\" 3 R. Akivah saith, \"How do we find it at the synagogue? whether there be many or few [assembled] the minister says, 'Bless ye the Lord.'\" R. Ishmael saith, \"Bless ye the Lord, who is ever blessed.\"\n\n§ 4. When three men have eaten together, they are not at liberty to separate [without joining in the ‏זמון‎]; neither may four or five, but six may [divide into two parties], and so may any number up to ten. But ten may not separate [without joining in the ‏זמון‎], nor may any number less than twenty, [who can again form two parties].\n\n§ 5. If two separate parties have dined in the same house, should some of each party be able to see some of the other company, they may join in the ‏זמון‎: but if they cannot so see each other, each party says the ‏זמון‎ by itself. The blessing on the wine should not be said until it has been mixed with water. Such is the dictum of R. Eleazar; but the sages say the blessing may be said [without its being mixed].\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n9:1 So that the waiter, or the Samaritan, can be included in the party of three, that being the smallest number permitted to say the ‏זמון‎.\n\n9:2 Such is the opinion of R. Akiva [an expression omitted in the text].\n\n10:3 Psalm lxviii. 26.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. When a vine is bent, and the tops of its branches set in the ground [to propagate], it is not lawful to sow therein, [even beyond the legal distance], unless the bent tops are covered with mould three hands high. [Such is also the law] should the vine have been drawn through a dry gourd or a tube; but if it be drawn over rock or stone it is lawful to sow thereon, although the soil with which it is covered be no higher than three finger breadths. If a vine has been bent in such a manner that the main stem is out of sight [under ground] the measure, [as to legal distance], must be calculated from the second stem; i.e. the place where it rises from the ground and again becomes visible.\n\n§ 2. If three vines are bent, [and partly covered with mould], should their stems remain visible, R. Eleazar ben Zadock saith, \"If\n\n\nthere remain between them not less than four, nor exceeding five amoth in width, they [the vines] must be looked upon as connected; otherwise, they are not so to be considered.\" It is likewise prohibited to sow near a withered vine: should this, however, have been done, it will not consecrate [the produce]. R. Meir saith, \"It is, in like manner, prohibited to set a cotton plant in a vineyard; nevertheless, if it has been done, it will not consecrate the produce [of the vineyard].\" R. Eleazar ben Zadock saith, in R. Meir's name, \"it is equally prohibited to set it [the cotton-plant] over a covered vine; but if this has been done it will not have the effect of consecrating [the vine].\"\n\n§ 3. In the following places it is prohibited to sow, but if, nevertheless, this has been done, it will not consecrate the proceeds of the seed: these places are, the remainder of an incomplete plot of ground in the vineyard, [which does not contain the space required by law]; the remainder of an incomplete exterior space in the vineyard, [which is beyond the legal distance]; the remainder of an incomplete space between parts of an espalier of vines; and the remainder of an overhanging trellis; but whatsoever is sown under the branches of the vine, in the space legally required for its cultivation, or within the four amoth of the vineyard, becomes consecrated, [and the produce unlawful].\n\n§ 4. If a man train his own vine over his neighbour's corn, it will thereby become consecrated, and he is bound to make good to his neighbour the damage he thus has caused him; but R. Joseph and R. Simeon say, \"No man can legally consecrate that which is not his own, [does not belong to him].\"\n\n§ 5. R. José saith, \"It once happened that a man had sown his vineyard during the seventh [sabbatical] year. 1 The case came before R. Akivah, who said, 'No man can legally consecrate that which does not belong to him.'\"\n\n§ 6. If a person has forcibly possessed himself of a vineyard, sown in it, and then left it, the rightful owner, on recovering possession, must have it cut down [immediately], even if on the middle days of the festival. To what extent is he [the owner] bound to go in respect to the hire of labourers, [in case they refuse to work during the middle days at the usual rate of wages]? To the extent of\n\n\none-third 2 [beyond the usual rate]. Should the labourers exact more, the owner is not bound to comply with their demand; but may have it cut in the usual way, after the festival. From what period is the vineyard called that of the forcible [wrongful] possessor? When the name of the right owner is forgotten. 3\n\n§ 7. Vine branches which by a high wind have been cast among corn, [and have taken root], must immediately be cut down; but if, owing to accidental circumstances, the owner has not done so, the vine and the corn are allowed to be used. If corn or pot-herbs incline towards a vine, they must be put back, but, [if this is not done], it will not consecrate the produce. From what time does grain [planted near a vine] become consecrated? From the time it strikes root; and the grapes from the time they reach the size of a white bean. If grain is completely dry [if it be cut down] when a vine is planted near it, or if the grapes are fully ripe [when corn is sown], it does not cause either to be consecrated.\n\n§ 3. When, near vines, any thing is sown in a pot with holes, it causes consecration; but, if sown in a pot without holes, it does not. R. Simeon saith, \"Both are, indeed, prohibited, yet if it has been done, it does not consecrate the produce of the vine.\" Should a pot, with any thing sown in it, be carried through a vineyard, [and some of the contents have dropped out, and taken root], it [the fruit of the vineyard] is prohibited as soon as the seed is grown a two-hundredth part.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n27:1 Because, during the sabbatical year, the spontaneous, as well as all other fruits, both of field and vineyard, do not belong to the owner of the soil, but become public property, given to the poor.\n\n28:2 Or, according to another opinion, one-third part of the whole property.\n\n28:3 Such is the explanation of the Talmud and Jarchi on this most obscure and difficult passage, but which explanation seems altogether incongruous. It appears that, during the Roman supremacy in Judea, it was common for the sub-officers and chiefs of the legions to seize on vineyards and lands, which they caused to be cultivated for their own use, and held possession of, until the legions they belonged to were quartered elsewhere. It is to such a forcible detention that the text seems to allude; and it uses the word ‏משישקע‎ as long as he maintained possession, in which the right owner was unable or afraid to disturb him.\n\nThe question of the Mishna seems to be, What term of possession by the ‏אנס‎ [forcible intruder] absolves the rightful owner from the responsibility, or exempts him from the penalty of kilaim? And the answer is, As long as that intruder maintains possession, be the period short or long. Such, at least, appears the plain and rational explication of the text, which is very obscure.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. One great rule they [the sages] laid down respecting the Sabbath. He who has [entirely] forgotten the principle of the Sabbath, and has done many kinds of work on many Sabbath-days, is bound to bring but one sin-offering. He who knows the principle of the Sabbath, but, [mistaking the day], has done many kinds of work on many Sabbath-days, is bound to bring a separate sin-offering for every Sabbath-day [which he has violated]. He who knows that it is Sabbath, and has [nevertheless] done many kinds of work on many Sabbath-days, is bound to bring a separate sin-offering for every principal occupation. He who has done divers work, all arising from the same principal occupation, is bound to bring but one sin-offering.\n\n§ 2. Principal occupations there are forty less one: to sow, to plough, to mow, to gather into sheaves, to thrash, to winnow, to sift [corn], to grind, to sieve, to knead, to bake, to shear wool, to wash wool, to card, to dye, to spin, to warp, to shoot two threads, to weave two threads, to cut and tie two threads, to tie, to untie, to sew two stitches, to tear thread with intent to sew two stitches, to catch a stag [game], to slaughter it, to skin, to salt [cure] a hide, to singe a hide, to tan, to cut up a skin, to write two letters, to erase with intent to write two letters, to build, to demolish, to extinguish fire, to kindle fire, to hammer, to carry [or convey] from one reshuth 1 into another. Thus these principal occupations are forty less one.\n\n§ 3. Another rule they [the sages] laid down. Whatever is fit [and proper] to be preserved, and in a quantity, such as is usually preserved, whosoever carries it out on a Sabbath is bound to bring a sin-offering. But whatever is not fit [and proper] to be preserved, and [is] in such quantity as is not usually preserved, if it be carried out on the Sabbath, he only is bound to bring a sin-offering [for carrying it out] who [usually] preserves it.\n\n§ 4. Whoever carries out [chopped] straw equal to a cow's mouthful;\n\n\nstalks equal to a camel's mouthful; stubble equal to a lamb's mouthful; herbs equal to a kid's mouthful, if fresh, equal to [the size of] a dried fig; leek or onion leaves if dry equal to a kid's mouthful. But these are not to be computed together, as the legal quantities are not equal [for all]. Whoever carries out [any article of] food equal to [the size of] a dried fig is guilty. And victuals may be computed together, as the legal quantity is the same for all; excepting peels, [shells], kernels, and stalks; [likewise] bran, fine or coarse. R. José saith, \"Excepting, also, the husks of lentils, which have been boiled with them.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n47:1 Vide Introduction.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n##### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. If there be an aperture [opening] four hands square, and [not quite] ten hands high [from the ground], between two courts, [the inmates of each court may] prepare two separate erubin; or if they prefer it, [may join in] one erub. If the opening be less than four hands square, or above ten hands high from the ground, they must each prepare their separate erub, and may not join, in one.\n\n§ 2. If there be a wall ten hands high and four hands wide, between two courts, they [the inmates of each] must prepare a separate erub, and may not join in one. If there lie fruit on the wall, they may ascend from each side to eat thereof, provided always they bring none thereof down with them. Should there be a gap [breach] in the wall, not wider than ten hands, they may prepare two erubin, or if they prefer it, join in one, because it [the breach] is considered as a door [gate]. [Should the breach be] wider than this [ten amoth], they must both join in one erub, and not prepare two separate ones.\n\n§ 3. If a trench [or ditch] separate two courts, should it be ten hands deep, and four wide, they [the inmates of each court] must prepare two separate erubin, and may not join in one, even though it [the trench or ditch] be filled with stubble or with straw. Should it [however] be filled with mould or stones, they must join in one erub, and not prepare two separate ones.\n\n§ 4. If a board [plank] four hands wide, has been put across the ditch [trench], and in like manner, if two projecting balconies have been connected by means of such a board or plank, they [the, inmates] may prepare two erubin, or if they prefer it, they may join in one; but [if the board or plank be] less [wide] than this [four hands], they must each prepare a separate erub, and not join in one.\n\n\n§ 5. If there be between two courts a straw-rick, ten hands high, they [the inmates] must prepare two separate erubin, and may not join in one. The cattle may be fed [thereof] from each side; and when the rick becomes lower than ten hands, they must join in one erub, and not prepare two.\n\n§ 6. How are [streets or] alleys to be combined? 1 A man places a cask of wine [in the alley], and says, \"This shall be for all the inmates of the alley,\" 2 he may confer on them the right thereto, either through his grown-up son or daughter, or through his Hebrew man-servant or maid-servant, or through his wife; but he cannot confer the right thereto through his minor son or daughter, or through his Canaanitish bond-man or bond-woman, because they are altogether dependant on him.\n\n§ 7. If the [quantity of] food [required to effect the combination] becomes decreased, he may [by himself] add [thereto], and confer the right, without giving them [the other inmates] notice [thereof]; but if [some of] them join him, he adds [sufficient food to make up the quantity required], confers the right [thereto] on them, and gives them notice thereof.\n\n§ 8. How much is the legal quantity [of food required to combine streets or alleys]? When they [who join therein] are numerous, food sufficient for two [Sabbath] meals for all of them; but if they be few, the size of a dried fig, [which is also the quantity of food unlawful for any one] to carry out on the Sabbath, 3 for each of them.\n\n§ 9. R. José said, \"To what does the [preceding] regulation apply? To the first preparation for the erub; but to continue the erub, any quantity [of food, however small, is sufficient].\" Nor did the sages direct that [where the combinations of an alley had been effected] an erub should be prepared for the [different] courts, except that the children might not become oblivious [altogether forget the rule of erub].\n\n§ 10. With all [kinds of nutriment] the erub or combination may be effected, excepting only water and salt. Such is the dictum of R. Eleazar; but R. Joshua saith, \"[Nothing but] a [whole] loaf of bread is a [lawful] erub.\" Should even a [whole] saah [of flour] be\n\n\nbaked into one loaf, but that is broken, it must not be used for erub; [whereas] a [small] loaf for an eesar, 4 provided it be whole, may be used for an erub.\n\n§ 11. A man may give money to the wine-seller or baker, thereby to acquire the right to [join in] the erub. Such is the dictum of R. Eleazar; but the sages hold, that his money cannot acquire for him the right to [join in] the erub. They however admit, that [if he has given] his money to any other person, [with the commission to effect his erub], it will acquire for him the right to [join in] the erub, since no erub can be effected for a man without his knowledge. R. Jehudah said, \"To what do the [preceding] observations apply?\" To the combining of limits: but in the combining of courts a man may be joined with or without his knowledge; because a right may be conferred on a person, though he be not present, whereas, he must not be deprived of any right in his absence.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n87:1 Vide Introduction to the present Treatise.\n\n87:2 Whosoever lifts it off the ground acquires the right to drink the wine, and to join in the combination.\n\n87:3 Vide Treatise Sabbath, chap. VIII. § 4.\n\n88:4 A small coin; probably the Roman \"as.\"\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. How must the paschal sacrifice be roasted? A spit made of the wood of the pomegranate-tree is to be taken and put in at the mouth [of the lamb or kid] and brought out again at the vent thereof; its legs and entrails are to be placed inside, according to R. José the Galilean; but R. Akivah says, \"This would be a kind of boiling, therefore they ought to be suspended on the outside [of the lamb].\"\n\n§ 2. The paschal sacrifice may not be roasted on an iron roasting spit, nor on a gridiron [‏אסכלא‎]. R. Zadok relates that R. Gamaliel said once to his bondsman Tabbi, \"Go and roast for us the paschal sacrifice on a gridiron.\" If the roasted lamb had in any part touched the earthenware oven on which it was roasted, that part must be\n\n\npared off. If the fat which drips therefrom had fallen on the oven, and had again fallen on the lamb, the part so touched must also be cut out; but if the dripping fell on [hot] fine flour, a handful [of the flour] must be taken [and burned].\n\n§ 3. If the paschal sacrifice has been anointed [or basted] with consecrated oil of heave-offering, and the company appointed to eat it consists of priests, they may eat it; but if of Israelites, they must wash it off the lamb, if yet raw; or should it have been already roasted, they must pare off the outward skin. If it had been anointed with oil of the second tithe, its value may not be charged to the company in money, because it is not lawful to redeem and sell it in Jerusalem. 1\n\n§ 4. Five kinds of sacrifices maybe brought, even if those who offer them should be in a state of [legal] pollution; but they may not be eaten in that state; namely, the \"Omer,\" the two loaves, 2 the shewbread, 3 the peace-offerings of the congregation, and the he-goats, offered on the feast of the New Moon; but the paschal offerings, which were sacrificed in a state of pollution, may be eaten in that state, because the primary intention [of the command of the law] was, that they should be eaten.\n\n§ 5. If the flesh of the paschal offering had contracted a legal pollution, and the fat thereof remains [unpolluted] its blood may not be sprinkled on the altar: but if the fat had become polluted, and the flesh remains [unpolluted], the blood may be sprinkled, although this is not the case with respect to other consecrated sacrifices [under similar circumstances]; for although the flesh [of these] had contracted pollution, and the fat remains unpolluted, their blood may be sprinkled [on the altar].\n\n§ 6. When the whole or the greater part of the congregation had contracted [legal] pollution, or that the priests were in a state of [legal] pollution—but the congregation was clean—it may be brought in this state of pollution; but if the minority only of the congregation had contracted pollution, the majority that are clean shall sacrifice the first passover at its proper time, and the unclean [minority] shall sacrifice a second passover [on the 14th of the following month].\n\n§ 7. If, after the blood of a paschal sacrifice had been sprinkled on the altar, it became known that it was unclean, the plate or frontlet of gold [of the high priest 4] expiates [the sin]; 5 but if the body of\n\n\nthe paschal sacrifice had been polluted, the golden plate does not expiate; 6 because it is a maxim, that the golden plate expiates the paschal sacrifice and that of the Nazarite, when the blood of these had been polluted; but it does not expiate when the body of the sacrifice had become polluted. It does, however, expiate, for [the so called] pollution of the abyss or ground. 7\n\n§ 8. If the whole or greater part of the paschal offering had become polluted, it must be burned before the sanctuary with wood used for the altar: if the lesser part thereof had become polluted, or, that some part had remained [on the morning of the 15th] they must burn it in their own courts, or on their roofs, with their own wood; avaricious persons, however, used to burn it before the sanctuary, to avail themselves of the wood used for the altar.\n\n§ 9. When a slaughtered passover sacrifice has been carried [beyond the walls of Jerusalem] or has become polluted, it must be immediately burned. If the owners thereof have contracted pollution or died, it must he left till its form has passed away, 8 and must be burned on the 16th of Nissan. 9 R. Johanan ben Berokah says, \"That also must be burned immediately, because there are none to eat it.\"\n\n§ 10. The bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th; but if that should be a Sabbath, they must be burned on the 17th, because the burning of these does not supersede the laws of the Sabbath nor those of the festival.\n\n§ 11. Every part usually eaten of a full grown ox, may be eaten of the tender passover kid or lamb; such as the sinews or tendons over the joints. Whoever breaks any bones of the clean passover lamb, incurs the penalty of forty stripes, but the person who should leave a part of the paschal lamb over night, or who breaks a bone of an unclean paschal sacrifice, does not incur that penalty.\n\n§ 12. If part of a member reaches or extends outside, it must be cut till it [the knife] reaches the bone, then the flesh is to be removed\n\n\ninwardly, till the joint is reached, when it may be there cut off [and the bone must be cast away]. With regard to other sacrifices [the bones of which might be lawfully broken], the protruding part must be cut off with a chopping knife; if it extend from the ‏אגף‎ [door-wing or lobby 10], it must be considered as inward; if it protrude further than this, it is to be considered as outward [and must be cut off]. The openings in a wall, and the thickness of a wall, maybe considered as inward.\n\n§ 13. When two companies eat their paschal sacrifice in one house [room], each turning their faces in a different direction while eating it, 11 and the warming pot or kettle [containing water to mix with the wine 12] is in the middle between the two companies, the waiter or servant [‏שמש‎] must close his mouth [i.e. not eat] while he waits on the other company to pour out wine for them; then he must turn his face towards the company he eats with, and he must not eat till he has rejoined his own company. 13 It is, however, permitted to a bride to avert her face from the company while eating the paschal sacrifice.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n114:1 Where alone the paschal sacrifice might be lawfully brought and eaten.\n\n114:2 Offered on the feast of weeks.\n\n114:3 Offered on the Sabbath.\n\n114:4 See Exodus xviii. 36–38.\n\n114:5 And it is not necessary to bring a second paschal offering on the 14th of Iyar.\n\n115:6 And an offering must be again brought on the second passover.\n\n115:7 By this term the Mishna and Talmud express the pollution contracted by passing over ground containing a dead body, without the person passing being then aware of the fact.\n\n115:8 Rashi and Bartenora explain this phrase thus:—\"It is to be left over-night so as to become ‏נותר‎, or a paschal sacrifice which has remained over-night uneaten, and which must be burned, according to the command of the Holy Law.\" (Exodus xii. 10.)\n\n115:9 According to Maimonides, the sacrifice is to be left till it becomes decomposed and putrid.\n\n116:10 The first is the literal translation of the word ‏אגף‎, mentioned in the original, which Rashi explains to be the place over which the door swings, i.e. the area contained on the segment of the circle it describes in swinging outwards, is yet considered as belonging to the room. According to Maimonides, ‏אגף‎ is the space between the inner and outer door of a room; i.e. a kind of lobby or entry.\n\n116:11 Of the same paschal sacrifice.\n\n116:12 Anciently water used to be placed near the table, as the wine was considered too strong to be drunk unmixed.\n\n116:13 No one may eat of the paschal offering in two places, or with two separate companies.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. When a widow who [unlawfully] married a high-priest, or a divorced woman, or one who had given *Chalitzah*, had been [also unlawfully] married to an ordinary priest, and brought their husbands [as a marriage portion] the *usufructum* of slaves ‏עבדי מלוג‎, 1 or of slaves which are as an iron flock, 2 ‏עבדי צאן ברזל‎: the first-mentioned slaves may not eat of the heave, but the last-mentioned slaves may eat thereof. The term \"*usufructum* slaves,\" denotes, that the loss of these slaves by death, or the profit that may accrue from them by their increase, are entirely at the risk, or for the advantage of the wife; and, therefore, although the husband is bound to maintain them, yet they may not eat of his heave-offering. Slaves which are as an \"iron flock,\" are such, whose death is the husband's loss, or their increase his profit; and as he has thus the entire risk of them, they may eat of the heave-offering [as if they had been bought by him].\n\n§ 2. When an Israelite woman marries a priest, to whom she brought slaves as her marriage portion, the said slaves may eat of the heave, whether they are *usufructum* slaves, or [as the so called] iron flock; but if a priest's daughter was married to an Israelite, and brought him slaves, whether in *usufruct* or as an iron flock, they may not eat heave.\n\n§ 3. When a priest, who had married an Israelite woman, dies, leaving her pregnant, her [iron flock] slaves may not eat of the heave, on account of the share [or interest] the yet unborn child of\n\n\nthe priest has [in the inheritance of his father], and the heave belongs to the heirs [of the priest 3]; because an unborn priest's child may indeed disqualify a person to eat of heave, 4 but cannot confer the right to give slaves to eat thereof. Such is the dictum of R. Josh; but the sages argued against this, and said unto him, \"[If so] even as you affirm this in respect to an Israelite woman married to a priest, thus also, even if she were a priest's daughter married to a priest, and had been left pregnant by him at his decease, ought also not to be allowed to eat of the heave, on account of the share of the unborn infant?\" [Because the slaves are the property of the unborn infant as being the heir; and, according to R. José, an unborn child cannot confer a right to give slaves to eat of consecrated heave].\n\n§§ 4 &5. *      *      *      *\n           *      *      *      *\n\n§ 6. A high-priest may occasionally disqualify [his grandmother to eat of the heave], as in the following instance:—when a priest's daughter was married to an Israelite, and bore him a daughter, which daughter married a priest, and had a son by him,—that son will be qualified to be a high-priest, and to minister as such at the altar; he qualifies his mother [at the death of his father] to eat of the heave, but disqualifies his maternal grandmother, who may well pray that \"there be not many in Israel like my grandson the high-priest, who disqualifies me from eating of the heave-offering.\"\n\n#### CHAPTER VIII.\n\n*      *      *      *      *\n*      *      *      *      *\n*      *      *      *      *\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n215:1 That is, the property remains vested in the wife, but the husband has, during the marriage, the use of their services; the term ‏מלוג‎, plucking [of poultry], is here frequently used to describe *usufructum* goods of which a person has the risk; like a person who contracts to pluck the geese of another person, the former has a right only in the feathers, whether much or little, at the risk of the plucking, but has no property in the geese. This term ‏נכסי מלוג‎ will in future be rendered by us, \"*usufructum* goods.\"\n\n215:2 Under this term must always be understood here, a sum, the value of which is immoveably fixed: namely, If a husband receives certain goods, which in the *Ketubah* are valued at a certain sum, that sum, and neither more or less, he is to return, in case of death or divorce, whether he lost or gained by them, and under any circumstances. The term \"iron flock,\" arose from the circumstance of its being usual, in the time of the Mishna, to entrust flocks to a shepherd, at a certain valuation, and at the shepherds entire risk; so that if, through whatever cause, the flock was lost or deteriorated, the shepherd was bound to pay the whole amount valued.\n\n216:3 For only after a priest's child is born, can he confer a right to give the slaves to eat of the heave.\n\n216:4 Such as a priest's daughter, who, at the death of her Israelite husband, was left pregnant.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. He who by vow interdicts his wife from enjoying any benefit from him for thirty days, must provide her [maintenance through] a guardian: 1 beyond then [if for a longer period] he must divorce her, and pay [the amount of] her Ketubah. R. Jehudah saith, \"In the case of an [ordinary] Israelite, [if his vow extends to] one month, he must keep her, [but if to] two months, he must divorce her, and pay [the amount of] her Ketubah. [In the case of] a priestess [should his vow extend to] two months, he must keep her, [but if to] three months, he must divorce her and pay her Ketubah.\n\n§ 2. He who tacitly confirms the vow 2 of his wife, that she will not taste any [particular] kind of fruit, must [at once] divorce her, and pay lier Ketubah. R. Jehudah saith, \"[In the case of] an [ordinary] Israelite, [should the vow extend to] one day, he must keep her, [but if to] two days, he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah: [in the case of] a priestess, [should the vow extend to] two days, he must keep her, [but if to] three days, he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah.\"\n\n§ 3. He who tacitly confirms the vow of his wife, that she will not adorn herself with any particular kind of ornament, must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah. R. Jose saith, \"[In the case] of a poor woman, if she has set no [fixed] limit [to the duration of her vow]: 3 and [of] a rich woman after thirty days.\n\n§ 4. He who tacitly confirms the vow of his wife, that she will not\n\n\nenter her father's house, 4 should the father reside in the same town, [if the vow extends to] one month, he [the husband] must keep her; [but if to] two months, he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah. Should the father reside in another town, [if the vow extends to] one festival, he [the husband] must keep her; 5 [but if to] three festivals, he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah.\n\n§ 5. He who tacitly consents to the vow of his wife, that she will not enter a house of mourning or a house of feasting, 6 must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah, because he closes [all doors] against her. 7 But if he assigns other [good] reasons [for confirming her vow 8], he is permitted to keep her. If he says: \"[I will annul thy vow] on condition thou tellest A.B. what [lewd words] thou didst speak to me,\" or \"which I did speak to thee,\" or that she is to fill [a given number of buckets of water] and pour [them] on a dunghill, 9 he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah.\n\n§ 6. The following women are divorced, and do not receive [the amount of] their Ketubah:—She who violates the Law of Moses, or Jewish [rules]. 10 What constitutes [a violation of] the Law of Moses? If she causes him to eat [food] which has not paid tithe: if she submits to his embraces while she is in a state of Niddah: 11 if she does not set apart Chalah: and if she vows, but does not keep [her vow]. What constitutes [a violation of] Jewish rules [customs]? If she goes out with her hair loose [bareheaded]: if she spins in the street, and converses [flirts] with any man. Abbah Saul saith, \"[Likewise] if she curses his children in his presence.\" R. Tarphon saith, \"[Also] if she is a ‏קולנית‎, a noisy woman.\" What is [meant\n\n\nby] a noisy woman? One who speaks in her own house [so loud] that the neighbours can hear her.\n\n§ 7. If a man is Mekadesh 12 a woman, on condition that she is not subject to any vows, and it is discovered that she is subject to vows, the Kidushin 13 are void. Should he have espoused her without investigation [as to the condition he stipulated], and then discovers that she is subject to vows, he may divorce her without paying her Ketubah. If he has mekadeshed her on condition that she is free from corporeal blemishes, and she is found to be subject to such blemishes, the Kidushin are void. Should he have espoused her without investigation, and then discovers blemishes, he may divorce her without paying her Ketubah. All those blemishes which disqualify priests 14 [from ministering at the altar], also disqualify women [from insisting on the validity of their Kidushin].\n\n§ 8. If the blemishes are discovered while she is yet in her father's house, it is incumbent on the father to prove, that after she was betrothed these blemishes had arisen, and his [the bridegroom's] field become harrowed. 15 But if she is entered under the husband's authority, it is incumbent on the husband to prove, that before she was betrothed these blemishes existed in her, and that his bargain was entered upon in error. Such is the dictum of R. Meir, but the sages say: \"To what do these remarks apply? To blemishes that are hidden [out of sight]; but with respect to those that are evident he cannot start any objections. And should there be a bath in the city in which the espousals are to take place, he cannot raise any objections, even with respect to such blemishes as are hidden, as he could cause her to be examined by his female relatives.\"\n\n§ 9. Should the husband contract any corporeal blemish, they [the Bethdin] do not compel him to divorce his wife. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"To what [case] does this assertion apply? To minor blemishes. But [in cases of] serious blemishes, they compel him to divorce [his wife].\"\n\n§ 10. The following [are the circumstances on account of which] they compel him to divorce [his wife]: if he is smitten with leprosy, or afflicted with a polypus; 16 or if he gathers dogs’-dung [for the purpose of preparing leather], or is a copper-smelter, or a tanner. 17\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Whether these circumstances existed before marriage or arose after marriage, with respect to them all, R. Meir observes, \"Even though he [the husband] specially covenanted with her, 18 she may plead, 'I thought I could bear it, but now I find I cannot.'\" The sages, however, hold, that she is compelled to bear it, 19 except [in the case of the husband becoming] smitten with leprosy, as he [then] is in danger of a decline. 20 It happened at Sidon, that a tanner died, and left a brother [who also was] a tanner. The sages held \"That she [his childless widow] had a right to plead, 'Thy brother I could bear, but thee I cannot bear.'\" 21\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n258:1 Who is to furnish her with necessaries beyond the produce of her own labour. This guardian the husband must not specially appoint, since a man's representative is like himself; a special appointment would, therefore, be an infringement on his vow, but he declares, \"Whosoever provides for her shall not he a loser.\"\n\n258:2 By not exercising his prerogative to annul her vow the day he hears thereof. (Vide Numbers xxx. 8–11.)\n\n258:3 And if she has fixed a limit to her vow, it must not exceed twelve months.\n\n259:4 Under a penalty, that if she does she would forego all connubial intercourse with her husband.\n\n259:5 The text here requires the following emendation: \"But if to two festivals, he must divorce her, and pay her Ketubah; but in the case of a priestess, should the vow extend to two festivals, he may keep her, but if to three,\" &c.\n\n259:6 Under the same penalty as in note 4.\n\n259:7 He excludes her from sympathy in the hour of grief, and from consolation that might alleviate her sufferings.\n\n259:8 That the inhabitants of the town are wicked, and not fit to associate with.\n\n259:9 According to some commentators, this means that she is to prevent conception after coition. The conditions here mentioned are such, that in the one case she is required to violate the rules of decency and of self-respect, and in the other to appear in the eyes of the world as a lunatic, or be guilty of an impious act.\n\n259:10 Customs observed by Jewish women, though not enacted in the law.\n\n259:11 Telling him that she is clean.\n\n260:12 Mekadesh, the act of betrothing.\n\n260:13 Kidushin, betrothment.\n\n260:14 Vide Leviticus xxi. 17, and Treatise Bekooroth, chap. VII.\n\n260:15 Vide chap. I. § 6, and note 8 of this Treatise.\n\n260:16 ‏פיליפוס‎, from the Greek πολυπους, a disease of the nose.\n\n260:17 In the last-mentioned four instances, either by reason of his disease or of p. 261 his trade, he emits a fetid disagreeable odour, which renders contact with his person extremely loathsome.\n\n261:18 Before marriage, that she was not to avail herself of her legal right to seek a divorce.\n\n261:19 In case he has made it a matter of special agreement before marriage, that she is not to enforce her right of divorce.\n\n261:20 As a consequence of his performing the marriage duty.\n\n261:21 She was consequently entitled to perform the ceremony of Chalitzah, and did not forfeit her Ketubah.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. If a person seized with Cardiacos 1 should say, \"Write a Get for my wife,\" 2 his words are not to be noticed. If he said [before he was taken ill], \"Write a Get for my wife,\" and when seized with the Cardiacos, he said, \"Do not write it,\" his last words are not to\n\n\nbe noticed. When a person became dumb, and on being asked, \"Shall we write a Get for your wife?\" nods his head [in token of assent], he shall be questioned three times, and if he [by his motions or gestures] answers rightly the questions proposed to him, both affirmative and negative, they may in that case write a Get and deliver it to his wife.\n\n§ 2. If a person [in health, or a sick person acquainted with the Law] is asked, \"Shall we write a Get for your wife?\" and he answered, \"Write it;\" and they ordered the notary in consequence, who wrote it, and the witnesses, who signed it: although it was duly written, attested and delivered to the husband, who delivered it to his wife, nevertheless it is ineffective, because it is only then valid when the husband himself orders the notary to write, and the witnesses to attest it.\n\n§ 3. [When a husband says to his wife] \"This is your Get in case I die,\" or, \"If I die of this illness,\" or, \"To take effect after my decease,\" his words are vain; 3 but if he said, \"Here is your Get, to take effect from this day,\" or, \"from this moment, if I should die,\" it is a valid Get. If he said, \"To take effect from this day and after my death,\" it is doubtful whether such Get is valid or not: 4 and in case he dies [without leaving issue], his widow must perform the ceremony of Chalitzah to her brother-in-law, but the latter may not marry her by Yeboom. 5 If he said, \"This is your Get from this day if I die of this illness,\" and he rose [from his sick bed], went out into the street, and became ill again and died: if he died in consequence of a relapse of the former illness the Get is valid, but not otherwise.\n\n§ 4. Under the mentioned circumstances 6 the wife may not meet the husband but in the presence of witnesses. 7 A slave or a bondwoman is a competent witness for this purpose, her own bondwoman\n\n\nexcepted, because a mistress is usually quite familiar with such a one. 8 How is she to be considered during that interval? 9 According to R. Jehudah, \"As a married woman in every respect,\" but according to R. José, \"As one whose divorce is doubtful.\"\n\n§ 5. If he [a husband] says, \"Here is your Get, on condition that you give me two hundred zooz,\" she is divorced from the moment she accepts the Get, and is bound to pay the stipulated amount. If he said, \"On condition that you give me [two hundred zooz, or any other sum] within thirty days,\" and she consented and paid the amount agreed upon within the time stipulated, she is duly divorced, but not if she did not pay it within that time. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel relates, \"That once at Sidon a husband said to his wife, 'Here is your Get, on condition that you give me my ‏אצטלית‎,' 10 and she lost it: 11 the sages decided that the Get should be still valid, if she paid him a sum equal to the value thereof.\"\n\n§ 6. If a husband says to his wife, \"Here is your Get, on condition that you wait on my father,\" or \"suckle my child\" [the period allowed for the general duration of suckling a child is two years]. What period is she bound to suckle it? R. Jehudah saith, \"Eighteen months only, and if during that period the child or the father should die, the Get is valid.\" If he said, \"Here is your Get, on condition that you wait on my father for two years,\" or \"suckle my child two years,\" and either the child or the father dies, or that the latter refuses her services, without being angry with her, the Get is not valid: but Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel considers it valid under the mentioned circumstances, for he establishes it as a rule \"That every impediment which does not proceed from the part of the wife does not render the Get void.\"\n\n§ 7. Should a husband say to his wife, \"Here is your Get if I do not return within thirty days,\" 12 and intending to travel from Judea\n\n\ninto Galilee he returned after having proceeded to Antipatris 13 only, he has voided his condition. If he said, \"Here is thy Get if I do not return within thirty days,\" and intending to travel from Judea to Galilee returns from the village Otenai, 14 he has voided his condition. 15 If he said, \"Here is thy Get if I do not return within thirty days,\" and intending to travel beyond sea he went only as far as Acco 16 and returned, he has voided his condition. If he said, \"Here is thy Get if at any time I should stay away for thirty days from thee,\" though he should frequently go and return for that period, the Get is valid, provided he did not remain alone with her.\n\n§ 8. When a husband said to his wife, \"Here is thy Get if I do not return within a twelve-month,\" and he died within that twelvemonth, the Get is void; but if he said, \"This is thy Get from the *present moment*, if I do not return within a twelvemonth from this day,\" and he died within that time, the Get is valid.\n\n§ 9. When a husband said, \"If I do not return within a twelvemonth from this day, write ye, and deliver a Get to my wife;\" if they wrote it within the twelve-month, but did not deliver it till after that time, the Get is void. If he said, \"Write ye, and deliver a Get to my wife if I do not return within a twelve-month from this day;\" if they wrote it within that time, but did not deliver it till after the expiration thereof, the Get is void. R. José saith, \"It is valid in similar cases.\" If they wrote and delivered it after the expiration of the twelve-month, and the husband died meanwhile; if the delivery of the Get preceded the death of the husband, the Get is valid, but not if posterior to that event; and where it cannot be ascertained which event was prior to the other, she is to be considered as one whose divorce is doubtful.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n295:1 Hebrew ‏קוֹרְדִיָקוֹם‎, and in other copies of the Mishna ‏קַרְדִקוֹם‎. This word, which signifies a species of disease, is probably derived from the Latin. Commentators differ widely as to what disease is here alluded to. Maimonides explains it to be a determination of blood to the vessels of the brain, affecting the patient's reasoning faculties. According to the \"Aruch\" the word is of Greek origin, and signifies an affection of the digestive organs. This is corroborated by Celsus, who describes a similar disease under the same name. But De Pomis, and the modern lexicographers, explain it to be a preternatural palpitation of *the heart*.—\"Affectus *cordis* in quo sentitur pulsatio præter naturam.\" (De Pomis, Lexicon ad literam.)\n\n295:2 That is, \"To divorce her,\" and in this sense throughout.\n\n296:3 Because the right of divorce does not exist after death, as that event dissolves the marriage tie.\n\n296:4 Because it is uncertain whether the husband really meant that the Get should be effective from that day if he were to die, and the condition being confirmed by the event of his death, the Get should be valid; or, whether he said at first, \"The Get is to be effective from that day,\" and he then changed his mind, saying, \"[It will not take effect] till after my decease,\" in which case it is void, for the reason stated in the preceding note.\n\n296:5 On account of the doubt as to the validity of the Get.\n\n296:6 Viz. when the husband said, \"This is your Get from this day and when I die.\"\n\n296:7 Lest he might have intercourse with her.\n\n297:8 And perhaps she may not be ashamed before her, &c. (Compare chap. VIII. § 9 of this Treatise.)\n\n297:9 This does not relate to the last mentioned case, but to that of a husband who is dying, and says to his wife, \"From this moment, and while I am alive thou shalt be divorced by this Get, provided I *now* die and do not recover.\"\n\n297:10 This word is of Greek origin (\"stolium\"), and signifies an ornamental or state dress. According to De Pomis it is a kind of cloak or upper garment. \"Stola\" in Latin, probably the same as the English word \"stole.\"\n\n297:11 And of course could not give that *identical* dress.\n\n297:12 According to the Gemarah the following words must be added to this and the following proposition, \"If I arrive at Galilee or—\" i.e., that the husband p. 298 made a double condition, viz., \"If I arrive in Galilee the Get shall be valid *immediately*, but if not, it shall be valid only in case I do not return within thirty days.\"\n\n298:13 A place on the extreme limits of Judea.\n\n298:14 Situated on the confines of Galilee.\n\n298:15 And the Get in this and in the preceding cases is void.\n\n298:16 A sea-port on the Mediterranean, now called Acre.\n\n## Chapter VII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER VII.\n\n§ 1. The precept concerning the prohibition of eating the \"sinew which shrank\" [‏גיד הנשה‎] is obligatory in and out of the Holy Land, during and after the existence of the Temple, in animals slaughtered for profane use [‏חולין‎], and in respect also to consecrated sacrifices, and applies to wild and domestic animals, and to both the right and left thighs of the animal; it does not apply to fowl, since these have no \"hollow in the thigh.\" It applies to a fœtus in embryo, 1 and its suet [‏חלב‎] it is permitted to use. 2 According to R. Meir, \"The assertion of butchers in respect to their having removed the ‏גיד הנשה‎ is not to be relied on;\" but the sages hold, \"That they may be relied on in this respect, and in that of the removal of ‏חלב‎, or suet.\"\n\n§ 2. It is lawful to send to a non-Israelite a thigh having the ‏גיד הנשה‎ yet within it, 3 because its existence is easily ascertained. In removing the ‏גיד הנשה‎ the whole sinew must be carefully cut out. R. Jehudah saith, \"It suffices if enough was removed so as to fulfil the precept.\" 4\n\n§ 3. A person who eats the quantity of an olive in size of a ‏גיד הנשה‎, incurs the penalty of forty stripes. Should a person have eaten the whole of that sinew, and it was under the mentioned size, he has nevertheless incurred the same penalty. If a person eat the size of an olive of the sinews of each hip, eighty stripes are to be inflicted on him; but according to R. Jehudah, forty stripes only.\n\n§ 4. If a hip was boiled with the ‏גיד הנשה‎ within it, if that sinew was of sufficient size to impart a flavor to the hip, this latter may not be used. How is this to be calculated? In the same proportion as meat boiled with turnips. 5\n\n\n§ 5. When the Guid Anashé was boiled with other sinews, if that sinew can be recognised [it must be removed, and] the other sinews are prohibited, if it could have imparted a flavor to them. 6 But when it cannot be recognised, all the sinews are prohibited. The broth [or liquid in which it is boiled] may not be used if the Guid Anashé imparted a flavor to it; 7 and it is even so if a piece of Nebelah, or of a fish prohibited to be eaten, should have been boiled with other pieces of meat or fish allowed to be eaten: if the first mentioned pieces can be recognised, they are to be removed, and if they could have imparted a flavor to the other pieces, the latter may not be used. If they could not be recognised, all the pieces are prohibited; and thus in respect to the broth, which may not be used, if the flavor of the prohibited pieces could have been imparted to it.\n\n§ 6. The prohibition of the Guid Anashé applies to clean animals, and not to unclean ones. R. Jehudah saith, \"It must be observed also in respect to unclean animals;\" for he argued thus, \"The Guid Anashé was prohibited since the time of the sons of Jacob [i.e. *before* the promulgation of the law], when it was not yet prohibited to use unclean animals as food.\" 8 The sages replied, \"This precept was first promulgated at Sinai, but it was written [incidentally] in its place.\" 9\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n343:1 Found full grown in the matrix of the dam, and which it was desired to use as food.\n\n343:2 Commentators of this Mishna differ whether this permission to use the suet applies to that on the ‏גיד הנשה‎, or to that of the fœtus.\n\n343:3 It need not be apprehended that he might sell it to an Israelite, who, knowing that it originally came from an Israelite, might suppose that the sinew had been removed.\n\n343:4 It suffices to cut out the upper part, without cutting into the flesh to remove the smaller filaments.\n\n343:5 That is, the Guid Anashé must be considered as if it were meat, and the hip p. 344 as the same quantity of turnips if the sinew was of a size that the same quantity of meat would impart a flavour to the turnips, the hip may not be used. The Halacha is not according to this Mishna, for it is held that the Guid Anashé cannot communicate any flavor whatever.\n\n344:6 See the last sentence of the preceding note.\n\n344:7 That is, if it was of sufficient size to impart a flavor to the proportion of liquid in which it was boiled.\n\n344:8 And as there was thus no distinction between clean and unclean animals, the prohibition must apply to both kinds.\n\n344:9 Namely, in the relation of the event of the wrestling of Jacob with the angel (Gen. xxxii. 33), the *occasion* from which this precept arose is mentioned.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}