{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mishnah/17-chapter-xii.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mishnah",
    "name": "Mishnah"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 15,
    "slug": "17-chapter-xii",
    "title": "Shabbat — Chapter XII",
    "of": 30,
    "words": 2936,
    "text": "## Chapter XII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER XII.\n\n§ 1. He who builds, how much must he build to become guilty? Whoever builds at all [be it ever so little], whoever chops a stone, strikes with a hammer, or uses a plane, or bores a hole; [whosoever] at all [does either of these] is guilty. The rule is, whosoever does any work, which is lasting and durable, 1 on the Sabbath, is guilty. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"He [likewise is guilty] who strikes with a hammer on an anvil, because it appears as if he prepared [or finished off] work.\n\n§ 2. Whoever ploughs at all, or weeds, or clears [away parasite branches; whoever] at all [does either of these], is guilty. Whoever gathers wood, if to [clear], improve [the] ground, any quantity, [however small]; if to burn, sufficient to boil a light egg. Whoever gathers herbs, if to [clear], improve the ground, any quantity, [however small]; if for [feeding] a beast, sufficient for a kid's mouthful.\n\n§ 3. Whoever writes two letters, whether with his right or with\n\n\nhis left hand, whether the one letter [twice], or two [different] letters, or with different inks, in any language [or character], is guilty. R. José saith, \"The writing of two letters was prohibited, solely because [they may serve] to mark [withal]; for the boards of the tabernacle were thus lettered, to know how to match them.\" Rabbi saith, \"We find short names, [which are abbreviations] of larger ones; as ‏שם‎ [Sam or Sim], from Samuel or Simeon; ‏נח‎ [Noah], from Nahor; ‏גן‎ [Dan], from Daniel; ‏גד‎ [Gad], from Gadiel.\n\n§ 4. Whoever, on one occasion, unwittingly [off-hand at once] writes two letters, is guilty; whether he write with ink, or paint, or ruddle, or gum, or vitriol, or any [other] substance that leaves a [lasting] mark. [Moreover, whoever writes] on the two [angles forming] corner walls, or on two tablets [leaves] of an account-book, 3 so that the two correspond, 4 is guilty. Whoever writes on his [own] flesh, is guilty. Whoever scratches [alphabetical characters] on his own flesh, R Eleazar [pronounces] bound to bring a sin-offering; but R. Joshua absolves him.\n\n§ 5. Whoever writes with [any kind of dark] beverage [liquid], or with the juice of fruit, or with dust from the road, or with writing sand, or with any [other] substance which is not durable, is absolved; [whoever writes] with the back of his hand, or his foot, or his mouth, or his elbow, or if he writes [adds] one letter to writing [which is already written], or writes over writing; [moreover], if he intended to write [the letter] ‏ח‎, but actually wrote two ‏ז‎, [or wrote] one [letter] on the ground, and one on the boards [partition], or wrote on two walls of the house, or on two leaves of an account-book, which do not correspond [cannot be joined], so that the writing may be read [as a whole]; [whoever does either of these] is absolved. Whoever writes one letter of notaricon 5 is, by R. Joshua ben Bethera, pronounced guilty; but the sages absolve him.\n\n§ 6. Whoever unwittingly writes two letters on two [different] occasions, [as], one in the morning, and one towards evening, is, by Rabbon Gamaliel, pronounced guilty; but the sages absolve him.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n54:1 Such work as is done on the Sabbath remains, either *per se*, or as an integral portion of something else, *in statu quo*, after the Sabbath.\n\n55:3 ‏פנקס‎, derived from the Greek πινακος, *pinacos*, and used by the Mishna to designate books of account, such as are used by commercial men.\n\n55:4 I.e. So that the two can be joined, and the letters matched, to be read as forming one whole.\n\n55:5 A kind of short-hand used by law-writers [notaries, from whom it derived its name], and formed by the initial letters of the different words composing a sentence.\n\n## Chapter XII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER XII.\n\n§ 1. The ceremony of *Chalitzah* must take place before three judges, who may be laymen. 1 If it is performed with a shoe, 2 it is valid, but not if with a shoe made of felt, or of cloth. The *Chalitzah* is also valid when it is performed with a sandal which has a leather strap at the heel, but not if it is not furnished with such a strap. If it is tied under the knee, it is valid, but not if it was tied above the knee.\n\n§ 2. If *Chalitzah* was performed with a sandal which does not belong to the man, or with a wooden sandal [covered with leather], or on the right foot, with a sandal belonging to the left foot, it is valid. If with a sandal which is too large, but with which the man may walk nevertheless, or with one too small [to cover the whole foot], but which nevertheless covers the greater part of the foot, the *Chalitzah* is valid. If that ceremony was performed at night it is valid, but R. Eleazar declares it void. A *Chalitzah* performed on the left foot is void, but R. Eleazar declares it to he valid.\n\n§ 3. If the woman took off the shoe, and did expectorate [before the brother-in-law], but did not pronounce the words [necessary to be spoken on that occasion], the *Chalitzah* is valid; if she spoke the words and expectorated, but did not take off the shoe, the *Chalitzah* is valid; if she took off the shoe and spoke the words, but did not expectorate, the *Chalitzah* is void, according to R. Eleazar; but valid according to R. Akivah. R. Eleazar thus expounds the text (Deut. xxv. 9), \"Thus shall it be done,\" &c. viz. \"All acts there prescribed must be performed, and the omission of any renders the *Chalitzah* void.\" But R. Akivah replied, \"The same text affords a proof of my opinion, for it is there stated, 'Thus shall it be done to the man;' which proves that it only relates to the acts of the man.\" 3\n\n\n§ 4. When a deaf and dumb man had performed to him the ceremony of *Chalitzah*, or if a deaf and dumb woman performed it, or when a woman performed it to a minor, the *Chalitzah* is void. A female who, during her minority performed a *Chalitzah*, must repeat it on attaining her majority, otherwise the first *Chalitzah* is void.\n\n§ 5. When a woman gave *Chalitzah* in the presence of two, or even of three judges, if one of them happens to be related to her, or incompetent to give evidence, the *Chalitzah* is void: but R. Simeon and R. Jochanan Hasandelar declare it valid. It happened once that a man received *Chalitzah* from a woman in a prison, where none but themselves were present, and when that case was submitted to R. Akivah, he declared it a valid *Chalitzah*.\n\n§ 6. The due performance of the precept of *Chalitzah* is as follows:—The man and his sister-in-law shall appear before the tribunal [Beth Din] who are to advise him according to circumstances, for it is said (Deut. xxv. 8), \"The elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him,\" &c., she shall say (Deut. xxv. 7), \"My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform to me the duty of a husband's brother.\" He shall then say, \"I like not to take her (Deut. xxv. 8).\" This was always said in the Holy language [Hebrew], \"Then shall the brother's wife come unto him, and spit out before him;\" viz. so that the judges can plainly see her expectorate. Then shall she answer and say, \"So shall it be done with the man that will not build up his brother's house\" (Deut. xxv. 9). Thus far was it read formerly, but when R. Hyrcanus had the whole passage 4 read under an oak in the village Atam [‏עיטם‎], it became customary ever after to read the whole section. The injunction of the law (Deut. xxv. 16), \"His name shall be called in Israel the house of him that hath his shoe loosened,\" is obligatory on the judges only, 5 but not on the disciples present; but according to R. Jehudah, it is incumbent on every one present at the ceremony to call out three times [‏חלוץ הנעל‎], Unshod one! Unshod one! Unshod one!\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n225:1 Men who are not the regularly appointed judges of the town.\n\n225:2 Made of soft or thin leather.\n\n225:3 That is, if the match is unequal from disparity of age, they shall advise him to receive *Chalitzah* instead of marrying his sister-in-law by *Yeboom*, as otherwise his domestic felicity may be seriously compromised hereafter, all which they are to represent to him, and when the match is a suitable one in point of p. 226 age, they shall advise him to marry his sister-in-law by *Yeboom*, in preference to receiving *Chalitzah* from her.\n\n226:4 Till the end of verse 10.\n\n226:5 That is, *they* are bound to call him so publicly, but no one else.\n\n## Chapter XII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER XII.\n\n§ 1. He that marries a woman, who stipulates that he is to maintain her daughter [by a former husband] five years, is bound to maintain her during the five years. [If he divorces his wife, and] she marries another man, with whom she likewise stipulates that he is to maintain her daughter five years, he is [also] bound to maintain her during the five years. The first husband is not entitled to say, \"When she comes to me I will maintain her,\" but he must bring her maintenance to the place where she is with her mother. Neither are the two husbands at liberty to say, \"We will jointly maintain her,\" but the one must maintain her, and the other give her the value of her maintenance in money.\n\n§ 2. Should she [the daughter spoken of in the preceding Mishna] marry [during the stipulated period of five years], her husband furnishes her maintenance, and they [her mother's two husbands] must give her the amount of her maintenance in money. Should they die, their own daughters are maintained out of their unencumbered property. whilst she must be maintained [even] out of their encumbered [alienated] property, because she is [possessed of the same rights] as a [mortgage] creditor. Prudent men stipulated, 1 \"On condition that I maintain thy daughter during five years, provided thou art living with me.\"\n\n§ 3. Should a widow declare, \"I will not remove from my husband's house,\" the heirs cannot say to her, \"Depart to thy father's house and we will there maintain thee;\" but they must maintain her in her husband's house, and provide her a dwelling in accordance with her dignity [rank and station in society]. 2 Should she declare, \"I will not remove from my father's house,\" the heirs may reply, \"While thou art with us thou shalt have thy maintenance, but if thou art not with us, thou shalt not have thy maintenance.\" Should she object to this, because she herself is young, and the heirs\n\n\nlikewise are young, they are bound to furnish her maintenance, and she continues in her father's house.\n\n§ 4. While she continues in her father's house, 3 she is entitled at any time to claim [the amount of] her Ketubah: but if she remained in her husband's house [she is entitled to claim it only during] twenty-five years; for in the twenty-five years she will have done [herself] good, 4 [derived benefits] equal to [the amount of] her Ketubah. Such is the dictum of R. Meir, which he advanced on the authority of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel; but the sages hold, \"As long as she remains in her husband's house, she is entitled at any time to claim her Ketubah; as long as she remains in her father's house, she is entitled to claim her Ketubah [only during] twenty-five years. If she dies, her heirs can claim [the amount of] her Ketubah [only] before the expiration of the twenty-five years.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n273:1 In the Ketubah which, under such circumstances, they signed.\n\n273:2 This comprises the use of the furniture and utensils which she had been in the habit of using during the lifetime of her husband, and also the services of the male and female domestics, to whose attendance she is accustomed.\n\n274:3 Where the husband's heirs allow her a maintenance.\n\n274:4 The text has ‏שתעשה טובה‎ \"she will have done good.\" Some commentators interpret, \"that she will have done good to the poor,\" others \"that she will have treated her neighbours and visitors to an amount equal to her Ketubah.\" Jost, in his translation, has adopted their rendering; we have, however, preferred adopting the simple wording of the text.\n\n## Chapter XII\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER XII.\n\n§ 1. The precept of letting the parent bird, found in a nest, fly away [Deut. xxii. 6] is obligatory, in, and out of the Holy Land, during, and after the existence of the Temple, and applies to non-consecrated\n\n\nbirds [‏חולין‎], but not to those which are consecrated sacrifices. 1 The law is more rigid in respect to the obligation of covering the blood, than in that of letting the parent bird fly away, in as much as the first-mentioned precept applies to wild animals and fowl, whether ready at hand or not, and the latter applies to fowl only, and to those which are not ready at hand. By this latter expression is understood such as geese or fowls, which make their nest in an open field or orchard; but those which nestled within the house, or in respect to Herodian doves, 2 this obligation does not apply, nor to unclean birds, 3 nor unclean birds incubating the eggs of clean birds, nor these latter hatching the eggs of unclean birds. R. Eleazar holds, \"That it is obligatory to set at liberty a cock partridge 4 found in a nest,\" but the sages do not consider this necessary.\n\n§ 2. If the dam was fluttering about the nest, if she touched it with her wings, it is obligatory to let her fly away, but not when her wings do not touch it; if there was but one young bird, or one egg, it is nevertheless obligatory to let the dam fly away, because the Scripture uses the term ‏קן‎, \"nest,\" i.e. any nest. When some of the young birds are already on the wing, or that the eggs are addled, the precept does not apply, for it is written, \"And the dam sitting upon the young birds, or upon the eggs.\" Even as the young birds are supposed in the text to be live ones, thus also must the eggs be fit for incubation [and to produce life], from which term addled eggs are [of course] excluded; and even as the eggs [to complete the process of incubation] require the care of the dam, thus also must the young bird mentioned in the text yet require the nurture of the dam, consequently those birds which are already able to fly are excluded. Should a person have let the dam fly away, and she returns constantly to the nest, even four or five times [or oftener], he is bound to let her fly away, for it is said, \"Thou shalt surely let the dam go,\" &c. When a person says, \"I take the dam, and set the young birds free,\" he must let the dam go also, since it is written, \"Thou shalt surely\n\n\nlet the dam go.\" If he takes the young birds first, and then puts them again in the nest, and the dam returns, he is no longer bound to let her fly away again.\n\n§ 3. When a person has taken the dam and the young birds from the nest, he shall, according to R. Jehudah, suffer the punishment of the stripes, but he is not bound to let the dam fly away; but the sages hold, \"That he is bound to let her fly, but is free of the punishment.\" For this is the rule, \"For the transgression of a negative precept, which may be rectified by an act, no punishment is to be inflicted when that rectifying act has been done.\"\n\n§ 4. The dam and the young birds are not to be taken from a nest, even to [serve as a sacrifice] to cleanse the leper [Lev. xiv]. If the Holy Law attaches so much importance to this precept, which is so easy to be observed, and though scarcely demanding the sacrifice of the value of an issar, 5 does nevertheless use the expression, \"That it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be prolonged,\" how much more precious must be the reward attached to the observance of other [more difficult] precepts of the Holy Law.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n353:1 For instance, if a person consecrated a bird for the service of the Temple, and that bird flew away, and was afterwards found brooding in a nest, and recognised.\n\n353:2 Original ‏יוני הרדסיאות‎; some explain it as in our text, and derive that name from King Herod, who used to be partial to that breed; others derive it from a town called ‏הרדס‎; but all agree that a kind of doves is meant which are bred in the dovecote, and are quite domesticated.\n\n353:3 This is learned from the expression ‏צפור‎.\n\n353:4 Because [it is said] that bird incubates as well as the hen.\n\n354:5 A small coin.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}