Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Babylonian Talmud·Chapter I

Source context

Theme

opening legal and exegetical deliberations of a late tractate in the Babylonian Talmud

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

• Rabbinic hermeneuticsThe structured dialectical method of Talmudic Chapter I — posing a legal question, adducing proof-texts, and adjudicating between authorities — parallels the scholastic quaestio form in medieval Christian theology, representing cross-tradition congruence in the use of authoritative textual reasoning as a path to normative truth.

Chapter I

The Sanhedrin who executes a person once in seven years, is considered pernicious. R. Eliezar b. Azariach said: Even one who does so once in seventy years is considered such. Both R. Tarphon and R. Aqiba said: If we were among the Sanhedrin, a death sentence would never occur." (Mishna X.)

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING COLLUSIVE WITNESSES IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, AND THE APPLICATION THERETO OF CORPOREAL AND OTHER PUNISHMENTS.

MISHNA I.: How should witnesses be made collusive (so that they should be punished)? If, e.g., they testify that so and so (who is a priest) is a son of a divorced woman (whom his father had illegally married, wherefore he lost his priesthood), the court has not to decide that the witness who has falsely testified shall be regarded such (and shall lose his priesthood if he is a priest), but he should be punished with forty stripes; likewise if one testifies that so and so is to be exiled for an unintentional murder, the court has not to decide that he, the witness, be exiled for false witnessing, but he is punished with forty stripes.

GEMARA: How should the text of the Mishna be understood? It states, "how should witnesses be made collusive," and according to the illustration hereafter adduced it ought to be: How should the witnesses not be made collusive (as the punishment of a collusive witness is according to the Scripture that the same which is to be inflicted upon the defendant if the accusation prove true, and it states that such a punishment does not apply to the witness; it furthermore states concerning the case of collusive witnesses, that they are considered collusive only, then, when another party of witnesses come and say that the witnesses in question were with them at another place on the same date on which, according to their testimony, the

alleged crime was done. Hence, only in such cases they are considered collusive, but not otherwise. The Tana of the Mishna refers to this passage (Sanhedrin, p. 261): "Because all who are to be put to death biblically, their collusive witnesses and their abuses are punished with the same, except in the case of the married daughter of a priest," etc. And he (the Tana) adds that there are another sort of witnesses who are not subject to the punishment of collusiveness, but who are to suffer stripes instead, and this are those who testify that so and so is a son of a divorced woman or of such who has performed the ceremony of chalitza.

Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jeoshia b. Levy: From here [Deut. xix. 19]: "Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother; to him but not to his descendants" (and if the decision were that he should lose his priesthood, then even his children would be affected). But let the court affect him only and not his descendants? This cannot be done, as the law dictates that it shall be done just the same to him as to the alleged defendant, and if such be the case his descendants would necessarily be affected. B. Pada, however, says: This is to be drawn by a fortiori reasoning--viz.: he who has transgressed (by illegal marriage of a divorced woman) does not lose his priesthood, and only his descendants from this marriage lose it. Much less so should the witness who falsely testified lose his priesthood. Rabbina opposed: Were we to use such theory the whole case of collusiveness would be made illusory. As the same a fortiori method could be applied thus: He through whose false testimony a man was already stoned, is not to be stoned; so much less so if the accused man was not as yet stoned? Therefore the best is as it is answered above.

"Is to be exiled." Whence is all this deduced? Said Resh Lakish: From here [Deut. xix. 5]: "This one shall flee unto one of these cities," etc., i.e., this one, but not his collusive witnesses. R. Jochanan, however, said: This is to be drawn by a fortiori reasoning. He who has done such a crime intention. ally does not become exiled; so much less so he who is only testifying to such a crime. This statement, however, cannot be taken into consideration, as the reason why an intentional murderer is not to be exiled is that he shall not be atoned. But the witnesses who have not perpetrated such a crime should be exiled, so that they should expiate; therefore, the best interpretation is that of Resh Lakish given above.

Ula said: Where do we find a hint in the Scripture that collusive witnesses shall be punished with stripes (here is quoted from Tract Sanhedrin, p. 20, l. 39 to p. 21 up to l. 17. See there). The rabbis taught, "there are four points concerning collusive witnesses: (a) they are not made sons of a divorced woman or of such who has performed the ceremony of chalitza; (b) they are not exiled to the cities of refuge; (c) they do not pay the atoned money, and (d) they are not sold as Hebrew slaves." In the name of R. Aqiba it was said that: Nor do they pay on self-confession. They are not made sons of a divorced woman, etc., as said above, nor are they to be exiled as said above, and they do not pay atoned money, because the rabbis hold that the money which one has to pay in case his ox has killed a person is not considered as a recompense for damages, but as an atonement, and collusive witnesses are not under the category of atonement. And who is the Tana who holds this? Said R. Hisda: It is R. Ismael, the son of Johanan b. Brokah. (See Baba Kama, p. 90, l. 2 from bottom, to 91, l. 16.)

"And they are not sold as Hebrew slaves." R. Hamnuna was about to say that this is only in the case when he, the alleged defendant, has money to pay for the theft, or if the witnesses have money to pay; but in case both have not they are to be sold. Said Rabba to him: It reads [ibid. xxii. 2], "he shall be sold for his theft, but not for his collusiveness." The text says in the name of R. Aqiba, etc.: What is his reason? He holds that this is only a fine, and one does not pay fine upon his self-confession. Said Rabba: There is a support to R. Aqiba's theory in the fact that a collusive witness, though he has not committed the crime manually, is nevertheless responsible, and is to be killed in case his testimony caused a death-sentence; and likewise in civil cases he has to pay, although he has done no damage. And similarly said R. Na'hman.

R. Jehuda in the name of Rabh said: A collusive witness pays his share. What does this mean? Shall we assume that in the case where two witnesses were found collusive each of them pays half? This is already stated further on in a Mishna. Or does it mean that if one of them was found collusive, he has to pay half? This is not so, as there is a Boraitha which states that there is no payment imposed unless both are found collusive. Said Rabha: He speaks of the case when one came before

the court testifying: I, together with so and so, have testified before such and such a court, and we, having been found collusive, the court has decided that we have to pay such and such an amount. And lest one say that, as his testimony does not make liable his colleague, he himself should not be responsible either, he comes to teach us that this is not so.

MISHNA II.: We testify that so and so has divorced his wife and has not paid the amount mentioned in her marriage contract (and that testimony was false). Although they have not done any damage, as the husband has to pay the marriage contract at some time, they are nevertheless not free from the following payment--namely, it is to be appraised how much one would risk for her marriage contract in case she should remain a widow or be divorced. However, if she died while her husband is still alive, he would inherit her (and such an amount they have to pay).

GEMARA: How should the appraisement be made? (here are two kinds of risks, one can risk to buy the inheritance of a woman from her husband, who would inherit her in case of her death when he is still alive; and one can also risk to buy this from the woman in case her husband die first. However, there is a great difference concerning the amount one would risk. As a rule, one would give much more when buying it from the husband than from the wife). According to R. 'Hisda the appraisement must be of the husband's, and according to R. Nathan b. Oshia, of the wife's estate. Said R. Papa: It prevails that the appraisement should be as of the wife's, and only to the amount mentioned in her marriage contract, without, however, touching the benefit which her husband has in the fruit of her estate while she is yet alive.

MISHNA III.: We testify that so and so owes to his neighbor a thousand zuz on the condition to pay him this debt after thirty days from to-day. He, however, claims that he has to pay the amount at the expiration of ten years: and such was found to be the case. It remains, then, to appraise how much one would give for keeping a thousand zuz ten years instead of thirty days, and such an amount they have to pay.

GEMARA: R. Jehuda in the name of Samuel said: If one made a loan to his neighbor for ten years the Sabbathic year does not annul it, and although when the Sabbathic year will arrive, he would transgress the negative commandment. "He shall not exact it of his neighbor" [Deut. xv. 2], yet at present

this commandment does not exist, and we do not care for the later time. Said R. Kahana: This we have also learned in our Mishna, which states that the witnesses have to pay only the difference between thirty days and ten years. And if the Sabbathic year released the whole debt, they would have to pay the whole thousand zuz. Said Rabha: The Mishna may refer to one who lends his money on a pledge, or to one who transfers his documents to the court; and there is a Mishna teaching that in such cases the Sabbathic year has no effect.

R. Jehuda said again in the name of the same authority: "If one says I will make you a loan with the stipulation that the Sabbathic year shall not release me, it nevertheless releases." Shall we assume that Samuel holds that such is considered a condition against the biblical law, and it therefore does not hold good? Is it not taught (Baba Metzia, p. 126) if one says: I sell this article to you on the condition that you shall not claim any cheating against me, etc.? According to Samuel the condition holds good, though such a condition is against the written law? Yea, but to this it was added by R. Anan that Samuel himself has explained it to him (see continuation, p. 127); and according to this explanation there is no contradiction here. Now as the case here is analogous, it follows that he made the condition: "The Sabbathic year shall not release me, it releases nevertheless. But if he says in the condition that you shall not release it, then his condition holds good."

There is a Boraitha to the effect that if one loans money to his neighbor without a fixed term of return, he has no right to demand it before the elapse of thirty days. And Raba b. b. 'Hana was about to interpret this Boraitha in the presence of Rabh that such is the case only when he lends on a document, as one would not trouble himself to write a document for less than thirty days; but if it was a verbal loan, he may demand it at any time. Said Rabh to him: So said my uncle that there is no difference between a verbal and a written loan as regards the thirty days, so long as the loan was made without any term. Similarly we have learned in a Boraitha. Samuel said to R. Mathna.. You shall not sit down before you have explained me the courses wherefrom is based the Halakha that one shall not demand a loan no matter whether it be verbal or written before the elapse of thirty days? And he answered from [ibid., ibid. 9]: "The seventh year, the year of release," etc. Is it not self-evident that the seventh year is the year of release? why then

the apposition? To tell that there is another release similar, and this is a loan without a term which cannot be demanded before thirty days, as the master said that thirty days, a fragment of a year, is considered a whole year.

MISHNA IV.: We testify that so and so owes 200 zuz to his neighbor, and they were found collusive; they have to suffer both stripes and payment, because the negative commandment for the trespass of which they have to receive stripes does not, make them pay. And only another verse concerning collusiveness makes them to pay. Such is the decree of R. Mair. The sages, however, maintain that he who pays is not to be punished with stripes. If they testify that so and so has deserved forty stripes, and are found collusive, they are to be punished with twice forty stripes, once on the basis of the negative commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and, secondly, on that of the commandment: "Shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother"; such is the decree of R. Mair. The sages, however, say: they suffer stripes only once.

GEMARA: This is in accord with the rabbis' theory, which reads [ibid. xxv. 2]: "According to the degree of his fault," which statement is to be explained that he is made responsible for one fault, and not for two. But what is the reason of R. Mair's decree? Said Ula: He bases it upon the case of an evil name, for which crime the law prescribes the double punishment of stripes and payment, and analogous is the case here treated. But is not the payment for an evil name considered a fine? He, R. Mair, holds with R. Aqiba that the payment of collusive witnesses is also required as a fine.

There are others who refer the saying of Ula to the following Boraitha: It reads [Ex. xii. 10]; (see Sanhedrin, p. 185, l. 23, to the end of the par.), and to the question, whence is it known that to a negative commandment that does not contain manual labor, the punishment of stripes does not apply, Ula answered from the case of an evil name stated above. What, then, do the rabbis who do not hold that they shall be beaten twice infer from "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? They need this for a warning to the case of collusiveness. And where is to be found such a warning according to R. Mair? Said R. Jeramaia in [Deut. xix. 20]: "And those who remain shall hear and be, afraid, and shall henceforth," etc. The rabbis, however, infer from this passage that such a case must be heralded (see Sanhedrin,

p. 256). As to R. Mair, he, too, infers from here heralding, as according to him the words "and shall be afraid" would be superfluous, if heralding were not inferred therefrom.

MISHNA V.: The fine of money may be divided into two or three shares; however, this is not to be done with stripes. How so? If they have falsely testified that one owes to his neighbor 200 zuz, and they were two or three persons, each of them has to pay his share to complete that amount. But if they have falsely testified that one deserves forty stripes, each of them is to get forty stripes in full.

GEMARA: Whence is all this deduced? Said Abaye: Concerning stripes, it reads [Deut. xxv. 2]: "Wicked"; and [Numb. xxxv. 31] it reads also "wicked" concerning capital punishment, and as that cannot be divided, so stripes are not to be divided either. Rabha, however, said: The reason is this: The punishment ought to be done to him as he had the purpose to do it to his brother. And as each one of them intended that the defendant be beaten with forty stripes, he has to get just the same. But why should not the same be concerning money fine? Because money if counted together completes the amount he should suffer, which is not the case with stripes.

MISHNA VI.: Witnesses cannot be made collusive unless the falsehood lies in their bodies; how so? If, e.g., they testify that so and so has killed a person and another party of witnesses came to contradict them, saying: How can you testify so? The killed one or the alleged murderer was with us at that date in such and such a place. They are, nevertheless, not considered collusive (so that they should be killed instead); but if the other party say you yourself were with us at that date in such a place, consequently you could see neither the murderer nor the killed one, then they are considered collusive and are to be killed upon such a testimony. If, thereafter, a third party of witnesses came and made collusive the second party, and a fourth party made collusive the third party, even if the number reach to 100 parties they all are to be killed. R. Jehuda, however, maintains that such parties of witnesses are to be considered , and only the first party is to be killed.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Ada: From [Deut. xix. 18]: "And, behold, if the witness be a false witness, he hath testified a falsehood against his brother," which means that the body of the witness should be found false. The disciples of R. Ismael taught, it reads [ibid., ibid. xix. 16]:

[paragraph continues] "Testify against him for any deviation," 1 which means the testifying itself should be a deviation.

Rabha said: "If two persons testify that one has killed a man in the east side of such and such a palace, and another party of witnesses come, saying that the same witnesses were with them in the west of the same, it is to be investigated if, while standing on the west side, one can see what is going on in the east side, they are not to be considered collusive, otherwise they are." Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that we have to investigate, perhaps their sight is better than the usual one, so that they could see, he comes to teach us that this does not matter. The same said again: "If two have testified that one has killed a person in the City of Sura Sunday morning, and another party came and testified that the same persons were with them in the City of N'hardaia Sunday evening, an investigation is to be made, if it is possible.

If the investigation shows that it is possible for one to walk during that time from Sura to N'hardaia, then they are not collusive; otherwise they are." Is this not self-evident? Lest one say it is to be feared perhaps the man went to the latter city in a flying camel 2 he comes to teach us that such fear must not be taken into consideration.

And he said again: If they testify that on Sunday one has killed a person and are contradicted by another party that on Sunday they were with them, however it is a fact that the same person has killed a man on Monday; or even if they said that this man killed a person on Friday, the collusive witnesses are to be put to death, because at the time they testified the defendant was not as yet sentenced to death. But if they testified that the death sentence occurred on Sunday, and the other party testifies that they were with them at that time, the sentence, however, having occurred on Friday, or even on Monday, the first party is not to be considered collusive, because at the time they testified, the defendant was already sentenced to death. And the same is the case concerning fines. If, for instance, they testify that so and so has stolen an ox, slaughtered him or sold, on Sunday (for which he has to pay four and five fold), and the other party says that on Sunday they were with

them, but the defendant did so on Monday, the first party is subject to the fine, because on Sunday the defendant was not as yet liable. However, if they say that the accused has done so on Friday; or even if they say that the decision of the court occurred on Monday the first party is not considered collusive, because at the time they testified, the man was already sentenced to a fine.

"R. Jehuda, however, said," etc. But according to him that all the parties are staçis, why should the first party be put to death? Said Rabha: He means to say that if there was only one party of witnesses. But did he not say the first party only? This difficulty remains. A woman once brought witnesses, and they were found false. She then brought another party, who were also found false. She then brought a third party. Said Resh Lakish: This woman is to be considered suspicious whose purpose is to use false witnesses. Said R. Alazar to him: Because she is suspicious should all Israel be suspected of testifying falsely? Such a case happened also before the court of R. Johanan, and Resh Lakish said the same as above. But R. Johanan exclaimed: "If she is suspicious should all Israel be suspected?" He (Resh Lakish) looked at R. Alazar rebukingly, saying: You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Johanan), and you have not mentioned his name! Shall we assume that R. Johanan is in accordance with the rabbis of our Mishna, and Resh Lakish is in accordance with R. Jehuda? Nay. Resh Lakish may say: "I am in accordance even with the rabbis, as in that case there was no one who searched for witnesses. In this case, however, the woman was searching for them." And R. Johanan may say: "I am in accordance with R. Jehuda"; however, this case is different, as she may have thought that the first parties were aware of her case, and she erred. The third party, however, may be aware of it.

MISHNA VII.: Collusive witnesses are not to be killed unless the sentence of capital punishment for the defendant is rendered. As only the Saducier declare that the collusive witnesses are put to death after the defendant was executed. Because it reads [Ex. xxi. 23]: "Life for life," to which the sages answered: Is it not written: "It shall be done to him as he had purposed to do unto his brother"? which means that his brother is still alive. Why, then, is it written "Life for life"? Lest one say that they should be executed as soon as their testimony was accepted, therefore it reads, "Life for life," to teach

that they are to be put to death only, then, when the death sentence for the defendant was already rendered.

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha Biribi says: If the man who was accused by them was not executed as yet, the collusive witnesses are put to death; but if he was already executed, they are not. Said his father: "My son, can this not be argued by a fortiori reasoning that they should be put to death, if the accused was executed?" And he answered: "My master, have you not taught me that there is no punishment on the ground of a fortiori conclusions?" And this we have learned in the following Boraitha: It reads [Lev. xx. 17]: "If a man take his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother," from this we know only about the daughter of his father, not of his mother, and vice versa. But where do we know that he is guilty when she was the daughter both of his father and mother? To this it reads at the end of this verse, "The nakedness of his sister hath he uncovered." And this is written only for the purpose that one should not say that such is to be drawn by a fortiori conclusion, thus: If he is guilty for his sister who was only from one side, his father's or mother's, how much the more should he be guilty when she was his sister from both sides? Hence, from this we have to learn, that there is no punishment based on a fortiori conclusions. Thus far concerning punishment; but whence do we know that the same is the case concerning warning? To this it reads [ibid. xviii. 9]: "The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother." And it is also repeated [ibid., ibid. ii.]: "She is a sister," etc. Also for this purpose one shall not base this on a fortiori conclusion. All this is concerning capital punishment. But whence do we know that the same is the case with stripes? From an analogy of the expression "wicked" stated above (p. 7) and whence do we know that the same is the case concerning exile? From the analogy of expression "murder" as stated above. There is a Boraitha. R. Jehuda b. Tabai said: "May I not live to see the consolation of our nation, if I have not killed a collusive witness for the purpose of removing from the mind of the Saducier, who say that, collusive witnesses are not put to death, unless their accused were executed. Said Simeon ben Shata'h to him: I, too, swear by the consolation of our nation that you had shed innocent blood, as the law dictates that witnesses should not be put to death unless both of them are found collusive. Then Jehuda ben Tabai decided that he

shall not render any decision before consulting Simeon ben Shatah. And all his lifetime he used to prostrate himself upon the grave of that witness. And a voice was heard. People thought that this was the voice of the dead one. But Jehuda told them that it was his own voice, saying, "You will see that after my death no voice will be heard."

MISHNA VIII.: It reads [Deut. xvii. 6]: "Upon the evidence of two or of three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death," etc. If the evidence of two persons is sufficient, why does the Scripture mention three? To compare the evidence of three to that of two in the case of collusiveness, as another party of two, make the first party of two collusive, so they make them collusive even if the first is of three. And whence do we know that, even if they were a hundred persons, the evidence of two persons is sufficient? To this it reads: "Witnesses." R. Simeon, however, maintains that as two cannot be put to death, unless both of them are found collusive, so is it if they were three, all of them must be found collusive. And even if their number reaches a hundred, all of them must be found collusive before sentencing one of them to death. R. Aqiba, however, maintains that the third witness mentioned in the Scripture was not for the purpose to make for him the punishment more lenient, but, on the contrary, to make it more rigorous--viz., lest one say as the testimony of the third one was superfluous, because the evidence of two suffices, and, therefore, he should not be punished at all. The Scripture terms the third one in order to make him equal with the former two. From this we see that the verse punishes one, an accomplice who conjoins himself to transgressors, with the same punishment to be inflicted upon the transgressors themselves. And we may learn from this: That so much the more will he who conjoins himself to those who are engaged in meritorious acts, be rewarded equally with them. Three witnesses are also equal to two in case one of them was found a relative or legally unfit for witnessing, as it is in the case of two when the testimony is invalidated, so it is in the case when one of the three was found such. And the same law applies even when their number reaches a hundred, from the expression "Witnesses." Said R. Jose: This is said concerning criminal cases only, but in civil cases, if one was found a relative or unfit, the evidence of the remainder is to be taken into consideration. Rabh, however, said, that as regards this there is no difference between civil and criminal

cases. However, this rule holds good only when the relatives took part in warning the trespasser; but if they did not, the evidence of the others must be taken into consideration, since, if not, what could two brothers do when both saw that some one has killed a person (and there were also some other ones who have seen the murder, should then the testimony of the others be eliminated as void because there were also two brothers)?

GEMARA: Rabha said: The Mishna treats of a case where all of them have testified at once. Said R. A'ha of Difti to Rabbina: How could such a thing be possible with a hundred persons; could all of them testify at once? And he answered: It means that every one of them has testified just as his colleague has finished his testimony.

"What could two brothers do?" But how shall the court examine them? Said Rabha: They are to be questioned for what purpose they came here: to testify, or merely to see? If they say, we came to testify, then, if there was a relative or an unfit among them, their testimony is void; but if they say that merely to see, then must be taken into consideration the testimony of the others, since what could two brothers do, etc., as illustrated in Mishna.

It was taught: R. Jehuda in the name of Samuel said: The Halakha rules in accordance with R. Jose. And R. Nachman said: It rules in accordance with Rabbi.

MISHNA IX.: If two persons have seen the crime from one window and two others have seen it from another window, and there was one standing in the middle and warning the criminal, if the two parties could see each other, all of them are considered as one party of witnesses. But if not, they are considered two parties. And therefore if one of the parties was found collusive, he (the accused) and they (the collusive) are put to death, and the other party is free. R. Jose, however, maintains that there is no capital punishment unless two witnesses have warned this culprit, as it reads: "Upon the mouth of two witnesses." 1 Another explanation of the words upon the mouth is that the Sanhedrin must not hear the evidence from a demonstrator (but they themselves must understand the language of the witness).

GEMARA: R. Zuthra b. Tubia in the name of Rabh said:

[paragraph continues] Whence do we know that one witness is not relied upon? From [ibid., ibid. 6]: "He shall not be put to death upon the evidence of one witness." What does the expression, "one witness," mean? If it means that the testimony of one witness does not suffice, this is already stated above, "two witnesses"; hence it means that if two witnesses saw the crime separately, each from another place, and if they themselves could not see each other, such witnesses are not considered conjoined, so that their testimony should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, even if this was from one window, but one has seen it first, and then the other, they are likewise not to be considered conjoined. Said R. Papa to Abayi: Was it necessary to state this after the former statement, that even if each of them has seen the whole crime they are not to be conjoined if they do not see each other? So much the less so if each of them has seen but half of the act. And he answered: He speaks of an adultery case. Rabha said: If both of the witnesses have seen him who warned them, they are considered conjoined. And he said again that the warning suffices even if it comes from the mouth of the killed one. And even if a voice of warning was heard without their knowing whom it is from. R. Na'hman said: The individual witnesses in question are fit for civil cases, as it reads: "He shalt not be put to death upon the evidence of one witness," from which we learn about criminal cases only, but in civil cases they are to be considered.

"R. Jose said," etc.: Said R. Papa to Abayi: does R. Jose really hold such a theory? Have we not learned in a Mishna that if an enemy has killed unintentionally, he may be put to death because he is considered vicious, and warned? And he answered: This is not R. Jose from our Mishna, but R. Jose b. Jehuda from the following Boraitha, who said: A scholar needs no warning, for the warning is on the whole only for the purpose, that the court know whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally.

"From a demonstrator," etc. There were two foreigners who appeared in the court of Rabha, and he appointed an interpreter for them. But why did he do so? Is it not stated that the judges must not hear the case through an interpreter? Rabha understood what they said, but he could not answer them in that language.

Ailea and Tubia were relatives of a surety, and R. Papa was about to say that they are fit to be witnesses, because they are

not relatives of the lender and borrower. Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua to him: If the borrower should not pay would not the lender demand the debt from the surety? Hence they are considered relatives in this case, and are not fit to be witnesses.

MISHNA X.: If, after the decision had been rendered the guilty one ran away, and thereafter he returned to the same court, his case must not be reconsidered. Everywhere, if two persons standing at any place testify that a decision was rendered for so and so by such and such a court, according to the testimony of the witnesses, so and so, the accused may be put to death upon their testimony.

The court of Sanhedrin is to be established in Palestine as well as in the countries outside of it.

The Sanhedrin who executes a person once in seven years, is considered pernicious. R. Eliezar b. Azariach said: Even one who does so once in seventy years is considered such. Both R. Tarphon and R. Aqiba said: If we were among the Sanhedrin, a death sentence would never occur. To which R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Such scholars would only increase bloodshed in Israel.

GEMARA: The Mishna states if he return to the same court his case must not be reconsidered. From which it is to be understood that if he returns to another court, it is to be reconsidered. And in the latter part it states that if two testify that such a decision was rendered, etc., he is to be put to death without any reconsideration? Said Abayi: This presents no difficulty. If he runs away to a court in Palestine from outside, it is to be reconsidered. As it is stated in the following Boraitha, R. Jehuda b. Dusthai said in the name of R. Simeon b. Shatah: That if one runs from the Palestine court to an outside court, his case must not be reconsidered. But if vice versa, it is to be reversed, because of the privilege Palestine has.

"Sanhedrin are to be established," etc. Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught. It reads (Numb. xxxv. 29]: "For a statute of justice throughout your generations, in all your dwellings." From this it is inferred that Sanhedrin are to be established in Palestine as well as in the countries outside. But why is it written elsewhere "in thy gates"? To say that "in thy gates" in Palestine, you have to establish courts in every principal city, as well as in the small cities; but in the countries out of Palestine, you have to establish them in the large cities but not in the small ones.

Footnotes

8:1 Leeser translates "wrong"; however, he is wrong according to the sense in the text.

8:2 Rodkinson: The text says it shall be feared that they went there on a flying camel, We have rendered it a balloon, as the sense is the same. JBH: I have redacted this as the much more charming and to the point 'flying camel'.

12:1 The term in the Bible is al pe and the Hebrew term for mouth is pe, and he takes it literally.

Chapter I

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING OATHS TO WHICH IS ATTACHED THE LIABILITY OF A SIN-OFFERING OR STRIPES.--THE CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY AS DETERMINED BY THE TIME OF REMEMBERING OR FORGETTING THE OATH.--WHICH OATHS ARE OR ARE NOT ATONED FOR BY PRIVATE AND CONGREGATIONAL SACRIFICES AND ALSO BY THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.--ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TWO KINDS OF OATHS SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR.

MISHNA I.: There are two kinds of oaths which are subdivided into four. The cognition of uncleanness is of two kinds subdivided into four. The carrying in and out on the Sabbath day is of two kinds subdivided into four, and also aspects of leprosy are in kind two and subdivided into four.

If one was originally cognizant of his being unclean, and (after he had consumed of the holy food or entered the sanctuary) presently became aware of this fact anew (that he committed this or that while being unclean), but was not conscious of it during the act, so he is obliged to bring a rich or poor offering. If, however, he had the knowledge at the start but not at the end of the act, so the he-goat, the blood of which is interiorly to be sprinkled on the day of atonement as well as the day itself, will effect a delay of the punishment until he gets to know his transgression, and then he is to bring the above-mentioned offering.

If there was no antecedent knowledge, but he became conscious of it after, his expiation is effected by the he-goat sacrificed exteriorly on the day of atonement as well as that day itself; for it reads: "Except the sin-offering of the atonement," i.e., what this atones for the other one does, too; just as the exterior he-goat propitiates only where there was one knowing, so propitiates the interior one, only where one knowing took

place. But where there was no knowledge either before or after, the propitiation is effected by the he-goats sacrificed on (the) holidays and new-moon days. So R. Jehudah; R. Simeon, however, says: The he-goats of the holidays atone, but not those of the new-moon days, which propitiate only him who ate something polluted while being himself clean. R. Mair says: All goat sacrifices are equivalent as to propitiating (the) pollution of the holy temple and its holy sacrifice. R. Simeon would say: The he-goats of the new-moon days propitiate for the clean who ate something polluted; those of the holidays, for cases where there was no knowing either before or after; and that of the day of atonement, for cases where there is no antecedent but a subsequent knowing. And when he was asked: May one of them be sacrificed instead of the other? he answered: Aye! Whereupon they retorted: Since they are not all equivalent as to their capacity of propitiating, how can they substitute one another? To which he replied: They all possess this in common that they propitiate for polluting the holy temple and its offerings. R. Simeon b. Jehudah, however, said in his name: The he-goats of the new-moon days propitiate for a clean one who has eaten defiled food; those of the holidays possess a greater power, as they propitiate for the clean who has eaten defiled, and for the case of polluting where there was neither antecedent nor subsequent knowledge; those of the day of atonement are superior to the others in that they propitiate not only for the clean one who has received defiled food and for the case of neither antecedent nor subsequent knowledge, but also for the case where there is no antecedent but a subsequent knowledge. Hereupon he was questioned: May the one he-goat be offered as substitute for the other? And he answered: Yea. To which the others rejoined: It may be admitted that the goats of the day of atonement be offered on the new-moon days, but how can the reverse take place, i.e., that the goats of the new-moon days propitiate for what they are not capable of doing? And his answer was: They all have this in common that they propitiate defilement of the holy temple and of its holy viands.

For wanton pollution of the holy temple and of its holy offerings the interior he-goat of the day of atonement as well as this day itself atones for all other transgressions of the Law both lenient and rigorous, intentional and unintentional, the foreknown and unforeknown, the positive and negative commandments, those entailing koreth or judicial death-punishment, for

all these the exported goat atones. Herein are equal Israelites, priests, and the anointed high-priest. What difference does, then, exist between Israelite and priest and anointed high-priest? That the blood of the bullock propitiates for the pollution of the sanctuary and of the holy viands by the priests. R. Simeon, however, says: Even as the blood of the goat prepared in the interior propitiates for the Israelites, so does the blood of the bullock for the priest; even as the confession of sins over the kid to be exported propitiates for the Israelite, so does the confession of sins over the bullock propitiate for the priest.

GEMARA: Let us see in accordance with whom is our Mishna's statement. It is not in accordance with R. Ismael and also not with R. Aqiba, as according to the former, one is not liable to a sin-offering, only if the oath concerns the future (this is explained in Chap. III. of this tract), and according to the latter, one is liable only for forgetting that the object is defiled, but not if he forgot that this is the sanctuary? The Mishna can be explained in accordance with both. With R. Ismael, as he may say that the expression of the Mishna, two subdivided into four, means that for some of them one is liable, and for some of them one is not. The same can be said concerning R. Aqiba. But how can R. Aqiba's statement be explained so? Does not the Mishna include leprosy in which there is not a single case for which one is not liable to a sin-offering, consequently all the cases mentioned in the Mishna are of the same kind? We must, therefore, say that it is in accordance with R. Ismael only, and to the question that R. Ismael does not make one liable for the past, it may be answered that he frees him from the liability of a sin-offering only, but not from the punishment of stripes, as he holds that stripes apply even to such a negative command in which there is no manual labor, and this is, as Rabha explained elsewhere (Chap. III.), that such is R. Ismael's opinion. But if so, then R. Johanan's statements would contradict each other--namely, at one place he declared that the Halakha prevails according to an anonymous Mishna (our Mishna, which is anonymous, and is in accordance with R. Ismael), and elsewhere it was thought if one says: I swear to eat this loaf of bread to-day, the day, however, has passed and he did not eat it, according to both Johanan and Resh Lakish stripes do not apply. However, their reasons are different. The reason of the former is that there is no manual act, and the reason of the latter is that the warning to this transgression

could not be of a certain, but of a doubtful kind (as perhaps he will still keep to his oath), hence, we see that R. Johanan's decision is that there are no stripes to a non-manual act, though contrary to the decision of the Mishna? R. Johanan's above decision is in accordance with his rule, for it is in accordance with another anonymous Mishna, as follows: "I swear that I will not eat this loaf, I swear again that I will not eat it," and thereafter he did eat, he is liable only for the oath first which had made this bread illegal to him. (The second oath, however, is considered but an oath to keep his word according to the law, and such an oath is not subject to punishment.) This is an utterance oath, to whose intentional transgression stripes apply, and to an unintentional, a rich or poor offering. Now, the expression of the Mishna, this is, means that only to such a transgression which is of a past nature stripes apply, but not to a transgression of a future nature, e.g., I will eat, etc., hence this Mishna, which is also anonymous, is in accordance with R. Johanan's opinion.

But let us see; both Mishnaioth are anonymous, why, then, should R. Johanan choose the last one and not the first? According to this question, you also may ask: Why did Rabbi (editor of the Mishna) insert such two contradictory Mishnaioth? You must say, then, that formerly, Rabbi's opinion was that a negative command of non-manual act is under the category of stripes, but after reconsideration he came to the conclusion that it is not, and therefore inserted the last, but did not care to strike out the first.

Let us see; after all, you have explained the Mishna in accordance with R. Ismael and as concerning stripes, but does not the Mishna mention four kinds of leprosy, to all of which stripes by no means apply? Nay; there is a case to which stripes do apply--viz.: when cuts off the leprosy (before the priest saw it), and this is in accordance with R. Abin in the name of R. Elai, who said that wherever the Scripture uses one of these expressions, "Take heed to thyself, lest ahl" (the negative particle of the imperative mood) is a negative commandment. But does not the Mishna mention the violation of Sabbath to which also stripes do not apply, for, it is under the category of capital punishment, to which stripes cannot apply? R. Ismael holds that even to such, stripes do apply, and therefore the Mishna is explained in accordance with him.

R. Joseph, however, says: Our Mishna is in accordance with

[paragraph continues] Rabi's own opinion, and he composed it in accordance with different Tanaim, concerning knowing and not knowing, he took R. Ismael's opinion, and concerning oaths he took R. Aqiba's.

Said R. Ashi: I have related this explanation before R. Kahana, and he said to me: Do not say that Rabi inserted the above Mishna in accordance with the above Tanaim, and he himself did not approve of them, for in reality, in this Mishna he explains his own opinion, as we find he did so in the following: Whence do we know that one is not culpable for a transgression of which he was aware both at the start and at the end, but unaware during the act? From [Lev. v. 2-3]: "Escaped his recollection," two times repeated. So R. Aqiba. Rabbi, however, maintains it to be unnecessary, as from the expression "escaped" it is self-evident that he was once aware of it, and further on it reads, "he becometh aware," i.e., twice aware, once at the start and again at the end. But should you ask to what purpose "escaped" is written twice (I say) once to make one liable for the forgetting the defilement, and the second for the forgetting the sanctuary.

(Says the Gemara): From this we find that Rabbi has declared his own opinion concerning known and unknown. Where is such to be found concerning oaths? It is common sense. Why, then, does R. Aqiba make one liable for the transgression of a past oath? Because he considers extensions and limitations (mentioned in the Scripture), and the same did also Rabbi as we have learned in the following Boraitha. Rabbi said: Our first-born male may be redeemed with everything but documents; the rabbis, however, maintain that slaves and real estate are also excluded (and the reasons are there given thus: Rabbi considers extensions and limitations, and the rabbis consider generals and particulars in the Scripture).

Said Rabina to Amamar: Does indeed Rabbi consider extensions, etc., and not generals, etc.? In the following Boraitha we find the reverse; it reads [Deut. xv. 17]: "Then shalt thou take an awl," but whence do we know that one may do it with a thorn, prick, borer, needle or pencil? Therefore it reads: "Shalt thou take," i.e., everything that is to be taken in hand for this purpose. So R. Jose b. Jehudah. Rabbi, however, maintains that since an awl is of metal, so must every instrument for this purpose be of metal. And to the question, what is the point of their difference, we answered that Rabbi considers generals and particulars (awl is of metal, etc.), and the R. Jose considers

[paragraph continues] extensions, etc., hence, we see that Rabbi considers generals and not extensions? Yea; in all other cases Rabbi considers generals, but here he considers also extensions for the reason explained in the following: The disciples of R. Ismael taught [Lev. xi. 9]. In the "water" is mentioned twice; this is not to be taken as a general and a particular, but as an extension and a limitation (this paragraph will be explained in the following tracts). But do not the rabbis hold the above theory? Said Rabina: In the west it was said in every place in the Scripture where the expression of two generals are to be found near each other, one may put a particular between them, and derive the law of general and particular.

But now that we come to the conclusion that Rabbi considers extensions, etc., there will remain a difficulty concerning oaths; we must, therefore, say that Rabbi inserted in this Mishna the opinion of R. Aqiba, with which he himself does not agree.

The text said: From the expression "escaped" it is self-evident that he was aware. Why is it self-evident? We find elsewhere the same expression, and no awareness is therein implied. Said Abayi: Rabbi holds that elementary knowledge is considered, i.e., the knowledge one learns in school when yet a child (e.g., he learned that he who toucheth an unclean thing becomes defiled). Said R. Papa to him: According to this theory, how can we find a case in which he was unaware before? And he answered: It may be found with him who was captured by heathens while he was still an infant, and was brought up by them. 1

"Originally cognisant." The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that the verse speaks of the defilement of the temple and its holy offerings? This maybe learned from an inference. The Scripture warns: One shall not make himself unclean, and he who does so shall be punished, and is liable to a sin-offering (for unintentional), and both the warning and the punishment speak about the temple and its holiness. The same is the case when it makes him liable to a sin-offering, it is only in case of entering the temple. But perhaps it means heave-offering, to which there is also warning and punishment? Nay; we do not find a transgression which is under the category of capital punishment,

to which the liability of a sin-offering attaches, when done unintentionally. However, such is the case with a special offering; but let him bring a rich and poor offering which is to be brought for utterance or witness oath? It reads [Lev. v. 3]: Boh, literally in it 1 to exclude all other things. But perhaps it means to exclude the sanctuary to which a rich or poor offering does not suffice, and only a special is needed? Said Rabha: I apply to Rabbi the saying, "He draws water from very deep wells," as we have learned in the following Boraitha. Rabbi said. I read in the Scripture (in concern with a rich or poor offering) a beast; to what purpose, then, is also written a cow? (is it not included in the term beast?) It is for an analogy of expressions. Here it reads, "an unclean cattle," and further on [Ibid. vii. 22] the very same expression, which speaks particularly about the defilement of the holy offerings; hence, as here it speaks of the holy offerings, so does the former expression, too. But this concerns the holy offerings only; whence do we know that the same is the case with the sanctuary itself?

From [ibid. xii. 4]: "Anything hallow shall she not touch, and into the sanctuary," etc.; we see, then, that the sanctuary is compared to its holiness.

The sages of Nahardea said in the name of Rabha: There is mentioned in relation to peace-offerings three times, defilement. And why? One for a general, one for a particular, and one for the expression defilement with regard to a rich or poor offering, but it does not explain the kind of a defilement; and not knowing what it means, we assumed it to mean the defilement of holiness; but now as Rabbi above inferred this from another place, we apply this defilement to the sanctuary itself.

"Originally cognisant . . . became aware anew." The rabbis taught [Lev. xvi. 16]: "Shall make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness," etc. In this case there can be three kinds of defilement: by idolatry, licentiousness, and bloodshed, for we find, in regard to idolatry [ibid. xx. 3]: "In order to defile my sanctuary"; concerning licentiousness [ibid. xviii. 30]: "Ye shall not defile yourselves therewith"; finally, concerning bloodshed [Numb. xxxv. 34]: "Ye shall not render unclean." Lest one say that for all these three defilements the he-goat atones, therefore [Lev. xvi. 16]: "Mitumoth," literally, from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, but not all of

them; and as we saw elsewhere that the Scripture has separated the defilement of the sanctuary and its holiness from all other defilements, we must say that here, also, it means the sanctuary, etc. So R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, maintains that this theory is inferred from the very same place, as it reads, "he shall make an atonement for the holy place from the uncleanness (mitumoth)," consequently it means from the uncleanness of the holy place. But lest one say that for every defilement which happens to be in the sanctuary the he-goat atones, therefore, further on, "because in all their transgressions, in all their sins," it compares intentional transgressions to sin. As to the former, offerings do not apply, so, also, does it not to sins, which are not under the category of offerings (and which of them are under this category? That of which he was aware at the start and at the end, but forgot during the act). And whence do we know that in a case of which he was aware at the start, but not at the end, that the same he-goat makes it pending? From "in all their sin," i.e., all sins which are under the category of a sin-offering.

The master said: There are three kinds of defilement, etc. Let us see how was the case; e.g., idolatry, if intentional, is under capital punishment; if unintentional, then the transgressor is liable to a sin-offering. The same is the case with licentiousness: for intentional, capital punishment, and unintentional, a sin-offering; and the same with bloodshed: intentional, by capital punishment; unintentional is punished with exile. It may be said that in the first two it means that it was done intentionally but without warning; and concerning bloodshed, if committed unintentionally by such a person who cannot be exiled, e.g., a high-priest of whom it is said in tract Sanhedrin that he cannot be exiled.

The master said: The he-goat makes it pending. How is this to be understood? If it does not atone, what is the use of making it pending? Said R. Zera: It means, i.e., if the transgressor dies then it may be considered that if he dies before he becomes aware of it, this sin is not reckoned to him any more. Said Rabha to him: In case he dies, the death itself completes the atonement; it is the he-goat that saves him from chastisement before he becomes aware by making it pending.

"If he had no antecedent knowledge . . . by the he-goat sacrifice exteriorly," etc. Let us see; both he-goats are considered equal. Why, then, should the inner he-goat not atone also for

the things the exterior one atones for? And the difference would be that if the exterior happened not to be sacrificed at all, the interior would do also his atoning? It reads [Exod. xxx. 10]: "Upon its horns once," i.e., it atones only one atonement, but not two. Why should not the exterior atone for itself and for the interior also, and the difference would be that a defilement happened during the time between the sacrifice of the interior and that of the exterior? The verse says "once in a year," i.e., once, and not twice in a year. But according to R. Ismael, who said that to such a case offerings apply, what then does the exterior he-goat atone for? For such a case in which there was no knowledge at either start or the end, but does not for such atone the festival and the new-moon goats? He holds with R. Mair, who said that the atonement of all the goats are equivalent, as they atone for defilements in the sanctuary and its holiness, and the equality of the interior and exterior goats lies that both do not atone for other transgressions outside of the sanctuary with its holiness.

"So R. Jehudah." Said Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The reason why R. Jehudah of the Mishna so maintains is [Numb. xxviii. 15]: "And one he-goat for a sin-offering unto the Lord,--i.e., for such a sin of which none is aware but the Lord, this he-goat atones.

The schoolmen propounded a question: Does R. Jehudah speak only of such a case which could never be known, but not such which must come to knowledge at the end (e.g., if there were witnesses who saw him entering the sanctuary while he was defiled, of which they are bound to inform him thereafter) and which is atoned by the exterior he-goat on the day of atonement; or even of such a case which so long as it is not known to him at the present time, is considered that nobody knows of it but the Lord? Come and hear the following: For such a case in which there was no knowledge at the start and the end, and also for such a transgression that finally the transgressor must be informed of, the festival and new-moon he-goats atone; such is the decree of R. Jehudah.

"But not of the new-moon." Said R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshia: The reason of R. Simeon's theory is thus [Lev. x. 17]: "And he had given it to you to bear the iniquity," etc., which applies to the new-moon he-goat, and by an analogy of the expression "iniquity," which is also found concerning the golden plate on the forehead of the high-priest [Exod. xxviii. 38],

it may be said that as the latter atones only for bodily defilement, so also the he-goat in question does. And lest one say that as the golden plate of the high-priest atones only for such things which come on the altar, so also should the he-goat in question; it reads here, "the iniquity of the congregation," 1 but not of the things of the altar.

"R. Meier says: All goat-sacrifices are equivalent," etc. Said R. Hama b. R. Hanina: The reason of R. Meier's theory is that in some places it is written "the he-goat," and in others "and the he-goat" (the letter vahve, prefixed to he-goat, means and), and this intends to signify all the he-goats with regard to their atoning power. But this is correct only where the vahve is written, but how is it concerning the day of Pentecost and the day of atonement where the word he-goat is not written with a vahve? Therefore said R. Jonah, it reads [Numb. xxix. 39]: "These shall ye prepare unto the Lord on your appointed festivals, "whence all the festivals on which a he-goat is sacrificed are equal to one another. But is not there the he-goat on new-moon, which is not a festival? In reality the new-moon is also called festival, as Aabayi said elsewhere: The month of Thamuz in the year when the temple was destroyed, was a full month of thirty days, as it reads [Lament. i. 15]: "He hath called an assembly (moëd)," which moëd means literally festival (and the thirtieth day of the month is new-moon). 2

R. Johanan said: R. Mair admits that the interior he-goat does not atone for what all other he-goats do, nor do the latter atone for what it does; it does not atone for what the others do, because it is written "once," which signifies that it atones but for one sin and not for two; on the other hand, they do not atone for what it does, as it reads "once a year," which signifies that such an atonement takes place only once a year. There is a Boraitha in support to this: For the case where there was no knowledge at either start or end, and for that where there was none at the start but at the end, also for that where a clean one has consumed defiled food, the he-goats of the festivals, of the new-moons, and the exterior he-goat of the day of atonement atone; so R. Meier. We see here that he left out the interior he-goat and also what it atones for.

"R. Simeon used to say: He-goats of the new-moons," etc. It is correct that the new-moon's he-goat does not atone for what the festival's do, as it reads "a sin," which means one sin, but not two, but why should not that of the festivals atone for what the new-moon's does? Because of the expression "its," which signifies its iniquity but not that of another. Furthermore, the festival's (goats) do not atone for what that of the day of atonement does, because it reads "once a year," which means such be only once; nor does that of the day of atonement atone for what the festivals' do, because it is written "once," which means it atones once but not twice; and although this is written but concerning the interior he-goat, yet there is another place where it is called the sin-offering of the day of atonement in which the interior is included; and it has been already said above that in this respect the exterior is equalled to the interior. And R. Simeon b. Jehudah, who said that the he-goat of the festivals does atone for what the new-moon's atones, does not hold the extension "it" mentioned above.

Ula said in the name of R. Johanan: Daily offerings which were not necessary for the congregation any more, may be redeemed, although they have no blemish; Rabba sat down and repeated this Halakha. Said R. 'Hisda to him: Who will listen to you and to R. Johanan your master, for, whereto vanished their sanctity? And his answer was: Where, indeed, do you think it went to? Is not there a Mishna (Shekalim, 4, e): The sanctification of the incense on hand was then transferred to money, etc., and there was no question raised as to where the sanctity went to? Whereupon R. 'Hisda rejoined: Incense is incomparable, as it was not sanctified in a holy vessel, but by the money paid. (See Appendix.)

"For intentional defiling," etc. Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught [Lev. xvi. 16]:"And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." Transgressions (P'shaim) imply intention, as [II Kings, iii. 7]: "King of Moab hath rebelled (Pasha) against me," and [ibid. Viii. 22]: "Then did Libnah revolt"; on the other hand, sin implies unintention, as [Lev. iv. 7]: "If any person do sin (Techtah) through ignorance."

"For other transgressions, etc. . . . lenient and rigorous." Let us see; does not lenient mean positive and negative commandments, while rigorous, such to which korath and capital

punishment apply? And again, "known" means intentional, unknown, erroneous; why then the repetition? Said R. Jehudah: It intends to say that for all other transgressions found in the Torah, be they lenient or rigorous, be they committed intentionally or unintentionally and in latter case with knowledge or ignorance thereof, atonement is effected by the he-goat. And lenient are the positive and negative commandments, and the rigorous are those to which Korath and capital punishment apply. But again, how can there be a transgression of a positive commandment? If the transgressor has not repented [Prov. xxi. 27]: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination"; and if he has, why the specific on the day of atonement, when any day is good, as the Boraitha teaches: When one transgresses a positive commandment and repents it, he is atoned for before yet leaving the place. Hereupon said R. Zera: It speaks of no repentance, and our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that the day of atonement atones for each of the transgressions found in the Torah, regardless of antecedent repentance; except him who shakes off the yoke, explains the Torah not according to its real meaning and destroys the covenant in his flesh; as for him, the day of atonement atones, provided he first repented, otherwise it does not. Rabbi bases this, his opinion, on [Numb. xv. 31]: "Because the word of the Lord hath he despised," which means, he who has shaken off the yoke of, and misinterpreted, the Torah, "and His commandments hath he broken," which means, he who has destroyed the covenant in his flesh [ibid. 30]: "Hicoreth Ticoreth," meaning literally "cut off, shall be cut off," i.e., cut off before, shall be cut off after, the day of atonement; but lest one say the same is the case with him who has repented, it reads "the iniquity is therein," whence it is to infer that only in case the iniquity is upon him (but not after the repentance when the iniquity is gone). The rabbis, however, explain this verse thus: "Cut off" in this world and "shall be cut off" in the world to come; and as to the iniquity, it means if he die upon repenting, the death completes the atonement.

But how can this Mishna be in accordance with Rabbi, when the second part, "There is no difference between the Israelite, priest and anointed high-priest," is only the view of R. Jehudah; hence, the first part should, too, rather be in accordance with the latter? Said R. Joseph: The whole Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi who agrees with R. Jehudah concerning the

latter part only. Said Abayi to him: Does the master mean to say that Rabbi agrees with R. Jehudah, while R. Jehudah does not agree with Rabbi, or he does agree, and that you say the former is only because it is customary that the disciple agrees with his master? And he answered: I am very specific in this expression; Rabbi upholds R. Jehudah, while R. Jehudah does not agree with him with regard to the first part of the Boraitha; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Lest one say that the day of atonement atones for both repenters and non-repenters, there is an analogy in the following. A sin and trespass offerings atone as well as the day of atonement, and as the former atones for but them who repent, so does also the day of atonement; but lest one say there is a considerable difference between them, as the said offerings atone only for sinning by error, while the day of atonement atones even for an intentional act, whence it might atone also for non-repenters, therefore it reads [Lev. xxiii. 27]: "But . . . it," which excludes non-repenters. Now, this Boraitha is found in Siphrah, and according to tradition all the anonymous Boraithas of Siphrah are in accordance with R. Jehudah. 1

"No difference between an Israelite," etc. Does not the Mishna contradict itself by saying here there is no difference, etc., and immediately hereafter asking what is the difference between, etc.? Said R. Jehudah: It is to be explained thus, all the above-mentioned persons are atoned for by the exported he-goats for all other transgressions without any difference; a difference between person and person arises, however, with regard to the bullock that atones only for the priests in the case of defilement of the temple and its holiness; and this is only in accordance with R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha; it reads [Lev. xvi. 31]: "And he shall make an atonement for the sanctum sanctissimum" means the innermost holy chamber; "and for the tabernacle of the congregation" means the whole temple; "and for the altar," literally; "shall he make an atonement" means the courtyards of the temple; "and also for the priests," literally; "and for all the people of the congregation", means Israelite; "shall he make the atonement" means the Levites; hence, they all are equally atoned for by the exported he-goat for all transgressions but that of defilement. Such is the

dictum of R. Jehudah; R. Simeon, however, maintains that as the blood of the interior he-goat atones for the defilement of the temple by the Israelites, so does the blood of the bullock atone for the defilement of the temple by the priests; likewise, as the confession of sins over the exported he-goat atones for all other transgressions by Israelites, so does the confession over the bullock atone for the priests in all other transgressions. And as to the above deduction that all are equally atoned for, it means that they are equal, in as much as the category of atonement is concerned.

Who is the Tana of the following Boraitha? It reads [ibid. xvi. 15]: "He shall kill the goat of the sin-offering of the people," which means that which does not atone for the priests; but what does atone for them? Aaron's own bullock, because it is assigned to atone for his house also. And lest one say that they should not be atoned for even thereby, as the phrase "of him" is used concerning Aaron's bullock, then the priests who must be atoned for would remain without all atonement, we say it is better they should be atoned for by Aaron's bullock, which, atoning for all the house of Aaron, is eo facto no longer "of him" individually, than to be atoned for by the interior he-goat, which does not include any other thing. As to the possible objection that "his house" is meant to exclude other priests, there is a verse [Ps. cxxxv. 19, 20]: "O house of Aaron, bless the Lord; O house of Levi. . . . ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord," and this includes all the priesthood. There is a Boraitha relating that the disciples of R. Ismael taught: Such is the custom of the divine attribute of justice that the righteous atone for the wicked and not that the wicked atone for another wicked.

Footnotes

8:1 The text repeats here what is already translated in tract Sabbath about carrying on Sabbath which is two divided into four, and also about leprosy, therefore we omit it.

9:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

12:1 The text discusses again, why should not the golden plate atone also for that which the he-goat does, and vice versa? and as it is almost the same which was said above, we omit it.

12:2 See Taanith, p. 86.

15:1 There is a contradiction in the Boraithas of Siphrah, which will be treated of in Tract Krithoth.

Chapter I

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA I.: Shamai says: For all women suffices their perceiving the menses (to make unclean whatever one of them may happen to touch; but not before this perceiving). Hillel, however, says: The time is to be counted between two consecutive examinations regardless of the length of the interval and be it of many days (and all she touches at that time is unclean). The sages, however, say: The Halakha prevails with neither Shamai nor Hillel; but one day (night included) reduces the interval between the said examinations; on the other hand, the moment of examination reduces the allowance of the day (and night). (However, all agree) that for every woman who has a regular periodic menstruation the perceiving suffices. She who uses sheets to examine herself before and after intercourse, reduces thereby both the time of the previous examination and the above-said day of allowance. 1

MISHNA II.: Shamai says: One must separate Chalah (first dough) from one Kab; Hillel says from no less than two, while the sages set the minimum at one and a half Kab, lowering it, however, to five-fourths of a Kab when the measures were increased. R. Jose says: Not exactly five-fourths, but a trifle above.

MISHNA III.: Hillel says: One Hin-ful of drawn water renders a legal bath, 2 when poured therein, unfit. (A Hin-ful is not the exact quantity, but is stated here as it is one's duty to use the teacher's language.) Shamai says: Nine Kab, while the sages, disagreeing with either view, uphold the two weavers that came from the gates-of-refuse in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemai and Abtalion that three Lugs of drawn

water render the aforesaid bath unfit, and decided that Halakha to prevail so.

MISHNA IV.: Why, then, are the theories of Shamai and Hillel stated at all, if without avail? To teach to posterity that one must not insist upon one's statements, since the distinguished masters of the world did not persist in their views.

MISHNA V.: And why is mention made of the opinion of a single person in connection with that of many, when the final decision is invariably with the majority? In order that when a court should happen to approve of some one's opinion it might base its decision thereon, for no court may annul the decision of another court, unless it be superior to latter both in erudition and number. If, however, it be superior only in one respect: in either erudition or number, it cannot annul; as it must be superior in both.

MISHNA VI.: Said R. Jehudah: If this be the case, why is mention made of the opinion of an individual in connection with that of the majority to no purpose? In order that if one were to base his argument on tradition he could be answered that his tradition is in accordance with the opinion of that and that individual.

MISHNA VII.: Beth Shamai says: A quarter Kab of the bones of the dead (defiles one in the tent) be it from two or three dead; Beth Hillel says: A quarter Kab from one corpse, from the quarter part of the entire structure, or of the number of bones. Shamai himself says: One bone suffices.

MISHNA VIII.: Vetch terumah may, according to Beth Shamai, be soaked and peeled in a state of cleanness, but in that of uncleanness the cattle may be fed on it. Beth Hillel, however, hold that in the former state it may be soaked only, while peeling and feeding may be done in the latter. Beth Shamai says: It must be very dry when given to the cattle; R. Aqiba holds that in a state of uncleanness all actions may be performed on it.

MISHNA IX.: If one desires a sela in exchange for copper coin of the second tithe, he must, according to Beth Shamai, exchange the whole coin for a sela, while the Beth Hillel maintain that he may take but one shekkel in silver and the other have in copper coin. 1 (R. Mair says): One must not redeem fruit and silver by other silver, while the sages allow it.

MISHNA X.: When one exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem, he must, according to Beth Shamai exchange the entire sela for copper coin; Beth Hillel hold as above; the experts 1 of the sages say: For three dinar in silver and one dinar coin. R. Aqiba's opinion is: Three dinar in silver and of the fourth one a quarter in coin. R. Tarfon says: Four aspers in silver. Shamai himself says: Let him leave the sela in the store till he gradually consumes its worth in goods.

MISHNA XI.: The bride's chair, when stripped of its adornments is declared by the Beth Shamai as subject to defilement, but not so by Beth Hillel. Former holds that even the seat alone of that chair is unclean. Similar are the respective opinions of the Beth Shamai and the Beth Hillel with reference to a chair put into a trough, the former declaring in addition the chair unclean if even only made in a trough. (Will be explained in Tract Kelim.)

MISHNA XII.: Following are the cases wherein the Beth Hillel have altered their views in favor of those advanced by the Beth Shamai: The woman who upon coming from the sea-countries asserts that her husband died may, according to the Beth Shamai, remarry or enter a levirat marriage; while the Beth Hillel contended: We heard this as holding good only concerning a woman who comes from the harvest; whereupon the Beth Shamai retorted: It is immaterial whether she comes from the harvest, olive gathering or from a sea-country; and the expression "harvest" as used by the sages in this matter was one of fact; thereupon the Beth Hillel conceded. Furthermore, according to Beth Shamai such woman is allowed to marry and to obtain her marriage contract, which latter right the Beth Hillel denied her, whereupon the Beth Shamai argued: You allow a possible adultery, a rigorous transgression, and prohibit a money matter, a (lenient) misdemeanor? Whereto the B. Hillel rejoined: For we find that the heirs of the deceased cannot enter inheritance upon her statement alone. And Beth Shamai replied: But we are informed directly from her marriage contract, where the husband writes: If you get married to another one you should get what is here devised to you; thereupon the B. Hillel conceded to them.

MISHNA XIII.: He who is half slave and half free 2 works,

according to Beth Hillel, one day for his master and one for himself. Hereto objected the Beth Shamai: You amply provide for his master but not for him; he has no right to marry either a slave or a free woman, nor should he remain single, for the world has been created for propagation, as it reads [Isa. xlv. 18]: "Not for naught did he create it; to be inhabited did he form it." Accordingly, for the sake of a better organization of the world his master is compelled to wholly free him, and the slave writes him a note on the half of his value; and the Beth Hillel accepted this opinion.

MISHNA XIV.: An earthen vessel when covered protects (against tent-uncleanness) according to Beth Hillel all (it contains), while the Beth Shamai holds that it protects only food, beverages and earthen vessels. Asked Beth Hillel: Why? And they answered: Because it is unclean in the opinion of the Amharetz, and no clean vessel is protective; and B. Hillel's question as to why have you declared it protective of food and beverages, they meet thus: We declare these clean only for the Amharetz, but if you were to declare the vessel as such clean, it would be so in general; hereupon the B. Hillel agreed.

Footnotes

3:1 This Mishna is the first in the I. Chapter of Tract Nidah, and will be translated in the proper place with the Gemara.

3:2 In case same does not yet contain the legally prescribed 40 saah.

6:1 All this receives its explanation in Tract Second-Tithe, section Seeds.

7:1 I.e.: Ben Azai, Ben Zoma, 'Hanan the Egyptian, and 'Hanania.

7:2 I.e., he was a slave of two masters, one of whom freed him.

Chapter I

CHAPTER I.

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS WITH HEATHENS ON THEIR FESTIVAL DAYS; WHICH FESTIVALS ARE CONSIDERED, AND WHAT REAL ESTATE MAY BE SOLD AND RENTED, AND AT WHAT PLACES.

MISHNA I.: Three days before the festivals 1 of the heathens it is forbidden to have any business with them. One must not lend them anything (which can be useful to them) nor borrow such from them. And the same is the case with cash money, even to pay or to receive payment is forbidden. R. Jehuda, however, maintains: To receive payment is allowed, because it is a displeasure to the payers. And he was answered: Although it is now a displeasure, it pleases them, in the future.

GEMARA: R. Hanina b. Papa, according to others, R. Simlai, lectured: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will take the Holy Scroll in hand, saying: "He who was occupied with it shall appear and receive his reward." The nations then at once will gather themselves and come motley crowded as it reads [Is. xliii. 9]: "All the people were gathered together." The Holy One, blessed be He, however, tells them: "Do not enter in such confusion, but let each nation with her scribes enter Separately," as it reads further on: "Let the people 2 be assembled." And by the term people kingdoms are meant. [Can there be such a thing as motley before the Holy

[paragraph continues] One, blessed be He? It means they themselves shall not come in confusion, so that they shall understand what will be said to them.] The kingdom of Rome will then enter first on account of its greatness. As concerning it [Dan. vii. 23]: "And will devour all the earth, and will tread it down, and grind it up." And R. Jochanan said: Rome is thereby meant, whose fame is respected throughout the whole world. But whence do we know that the more distinguished come first to judgment? It is as R. Hisda said (Rosh Hashana, p. 13). The Holy One, blessed be He, questioned her: "What was your occupation in the world?" To which she answered: "Lord of the Universe! we have established many markets, we have constructed many bath-houses, we have multiplied in great mass gold and silver, and all this was done for the sake of Israel, to enable them to study the Law." The Lord's answer will be: It is foolish of ye to state that all you have done was for the sake of Israel, while in reality it was but for yourselves. The construction of markets was for the purpose of prostitution. The establishment of bath-houses was for your own pleasure, and as to gold and silver, it is mine, as [Hos. ii. 8]: "Mine is the silver, mine," etc. But, are there, then, among ye those who have studied the Law? They went out in despair.

After Rome has departed, Persia enters. Because she is considered second to Rome, as [Dan. vii. 5]: "And behold, there was another, a second beast, like a bear." To which R. Joseph taught: Thereby, Persia is meant, the people of which are fleshy like bears, eat and drink like bears, are overgrown with hair, and have no rest, like bears. And to the question of the Holy One, "What was your occupation?" They will answer: We have constructed many bridges, conquered many great cities, we were engaged in many wars, all for the sake of Israel to enable them to study the Law. The reply to which will be: "All that was done by you was for your own sake." Bridges, for the collection of duties. Great cities, to establish angaria. And as to wars, I have conducted them. As it reads [Ex. xv. 3.]: "The Eternal is the lord of war." But are there among ye those who have studied this Law? And they also went out in despair. [But, why did Persia enter, after seeing that Rome was disappointed? They thought: We may have more chance than Rome, as the latter has destroyed the holy Temple, while we have rebuilt it.] And a similar answer will be given to the other nations. But why should the other

nations enter after seeing the disappointment of the first two? They thought: The first two made slaves of Israel, which was not the case with them. But, if so, why should Rome and Persia be more honored than the other nations? They are distinguished by the permanence of their kingdoms, which will exist until the time of Messia. Finally they will say before Him: Lord of the Universe, didst thou give us the Torah and we did not accept it? But how could they say so? Is it not written [Deut. xxxiii. 2]: "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Sa'ir unto them: he shone forth from Mount Paran." And it also reads [Habak. iii. 3]: "(When) God from Theman came, and the Holy One from Mount Paran." And to the question: What has the Law to do in Sa'ir and Paran? Said R. Jochanan: From this it is inferred that the Lord has presented his Torah to every nation, but it was not accepted until it came to Israel. Therefore, it is supposed that they said to Him: "Have we then accepted the Torah, and not fulfilled its commandments?" [But what answer is this. Could they not be accused because they have not accepted it?] They said thus: Lord of the Universe, hast thou inclined the mountain toward us as thou didst toward the children of Israel? (See Sabbath, p. 167, par. Ex. xix., etc.) To this the answer will come: "Let the former things shew us." [Isaiah xliii. 91 The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them: "The seven commandments which were given to the descendants of Noah, have ye observed them?" And whence do we know that they have not? From that which R. Joseph taught. It reads [Hab. iii. 6]: "He stood forward, and made the earth tremble; he looked, and dispersed nations." What did He see? That the seven commandments accepted by the descendants of Noah, were not observed. And therefore He absolved the nations of them. Absolved. Should then the sinner be benefited? Said Mar b. Rabbina: It means that even should they absolve them, they would not be rewarded. Is that so? Did not R. Mair say: "Whence do we know that even a Gentile who is occupied with the study of the Law, is likened to a high-priest from [Levit. xviii. 5] "Which if a man do, shall live on it," where it does not specify priest, Levite, or Israelite, but states in general if a man, whence it may be inferred that a Gentile, too, who occupies himself with the study of the Law is equal to a high-priest." It means that they will not be rewarded for the observance equally with those who observe in accordance

with the commandments. As R. Hanina said: The reward for him who observes that which he is commanded, is greater than to him who observes same without being commanded. The nations will then exclaim: "Lord of the Universe, has then Israel, who has accepted the Torah, observed it?" And to the answer of the Holy One: "I testify that he did," they exclaim: "Lord of the Universe, is then a father fit to be a witness in the case of his son? Is not Israel called the son of the Eternal [Ex. iv. 22] "My son, my first-born, is Israel." He will then say: "Let heaven and earth testify that the Torah was observed by Israel." They, however, object in saying that heaven and earth are interested in this case, and therefore are not fit to be witnesses--viz: [Jer. xxxiii. 25]: "If my covenant be not . . . the appointment with heaven and earth, would not be established." 1 And Resh Lakish said: It reads [Gen. i. 31]: "And it was evening, and it was morning," and this justifies the inference that the Lord made a stipulation with all that had been created in the six days to the effect that if Israel will accept the Torah, well and good, but if not I will return all of you to chaos and ruin. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say: "Men of ye nations may come and testify that Israel has observed the Torah. Nimrod may testify that Abraham has not worshipped idols. Laban may testify that Jacob was not suspected of robbery. The wife of Potiphar may testify that Joseph was not suspicious of sin. Nebuchadnezzar may testify that Chananyah, Mishaël and Azaryah had not bowed themselves to the image; Darius of Daniel, that he had not abolished prayer; Eliphaz the Themanite, and Bildad the Shuchite, and Zophar the Na'amathite may say of all Israel that they have observed all the Laws." They will then exclaim: "Lord of the Universe, give it to us now, and we will observe it." To which they will be answered: "He who has prepared on the Eve of Sabbath, for the Sabbath, will have what to eat. But he who has not prepared, what then will he have to eat on Sabbath? However, I have one easy, meritorious act, it is the Sukka, go and perform it. [Why is it called easy? Because it requires no expense.] Everyone of them will then prepare a Sukka on his roof, but as soon as the sun heats it, they abandon it, and go away. But did not Rabha say that he who is afflicted by performing the command of Sukka, is free from this obligation? Yea, but not to reject.

[paragraph continues] The Holy One, blessed be He, will then smile upon them. Said R. Itzchak: "There is no smiling with the Holy One, but on that day."

There are others who taught the saying of R. Itzchak in the following connection: R. Jose said: In the future heathens will come to convert themselves with the Tephilin on their heads and arms, tchitches on their dresses, mazuzas on their doors. But, as soon as they will see the war of Gog and Magog, and will question them: "With whom do you want to fight?" Whereto the answer will be: With the Lord and his Messiah [as it reads [Psalm ii. 2]: "Against the Lord and his anointed"], each of the nations will remove the above, and go away; and the Holy One will smile upon them. It is here that R. Itzchak said: There is no smiling with the Lord, but on that day. But did not R. Jehudah say in the name of Rabh: There are twelve hours in a day, three hours of which the Holy One, blessed be He, is occupied with the Torah. The next three hours, He judges the whole world, and seeing that it is liable to be destroyed, He rises from the chair of judgment and sits down on the chair of mercy. The third three hours, He supports the whole world with food, from the very largest creature to the smallest one. And the last three hours, He plays 1 with the leviathan, as it reads [Psalm civ. 26]: "Leviathan, whom thou hast made to sport therein." Said R. Nachman b. Itzchak: "With His creatures He smiles, but not upon them." R. Aha said to R. Nachman: There is no smiling by the Holy One, since the Temple was destroyed. As it reads [Is. xlii. i4]. 2 But in the fourth three hours, he teaches the Torah to the school-children. As it reads [ibid. xxviii. 9]: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he give to understand doctrine? (to) those that are weaned from the milk, (to) those that are taken from the breasts." And what does He do in the night-time? If you wish, it may be said that He does the same as in the day-time. And if you wish, it may be said that He rides upon His light cloud and moves in all directions upon 18,000 worlds. As it reads [Psalm lxviii. 18]: "The chariots of God are two myriads; thousands of angels (follow him)." And if you wish, it may be said that He is sitting and

listening to the song of the angels, as [ibid. xlii. 9]: "And in the night his song shall be with me."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: It reads [Hab. i. 14]: "And (why) makest thou men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them?" Why are men compared with fish of the sea? To wit: even as the fish die as soon as they are taken on land, so do men die when they separate themselves from the law of the Torah. Another explanation: as fish die from the strong heat of the sun, so also do men. If you wish it may be said in this world, and this would be in accordance with R. Hanina, who said: "Everything is decreed by heaven, except cold" (see Middle Gate, p. 285). And if you wish it may be said, in the world to come, and this is in accordance with Resh Lakish, who says: There is no Gehenna in the future. But the Holy One, blessed be He, will take out the sun from its sheath. The wicked will be punished with its heat, and the upright be cured by it. As it reads [Malachi, iii. 19]: "For, behold, the day is coming, which shall burn as an oven; and all the presumptuous, yea, and all who practice wickedness shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall see them on fire, . . . who will not leave them root or bough. (20) But there shall rise unto you that fear my name, the sun of righteousness with healing in his wings." Furthermore, the latter will have pleasure and become fat from it, as the end reads, "And ye will go forth, and grown fat as calves of the stall."

There is another explanation, "as fish in the sea," the larger one swallows the smaller, so also is it with men, since if not for the fear for government the stronger would swallow the weaker. And this is what a Mishna states: "Pray for the peace of the government," etc. (See Aboth, p. 72.)

R. Hinna b. Papa propounded a contradiction to the following [Job, xxxvii. 23]: "The Almighty we do not find him out excellent in power." And [Ex. xv. 6]: "Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power." 1 And also [Psalm cxlvii. 5]: "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power"? This presents no difficulty: At the time of judgment, He does not use his might; but in time of war, He uses it.

Rabha said [Job, XXX. 24]: "But doth not a man stretch out

his hand among ruins? or doth one not cry out therefrom when he meeteth his downfall?" So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel. By judging Israel, I do not treat them in the same manner as I do heathens, which is mentioned in [Is. xxi. 32]: "Overthrown, overthrown. . . . I will render it." But I punished them as the picking of a chicken. And according to others: "Even if Israel do but small good deeds, as the picking of chickens in the dunghill, I will combine them into one large sum." Another explanation: "I help them because of their praying to me. And this is what R. Aba said: It reads [Hos. vii. 13]: "Though I desired to redeem them, they yet spoke lies against me." I.e., I thought: I will redeem them by loss of money in this world, for the purpose of rewarding them in the world to come. And they told lies about me. And the same said R. Papa in the name of Rabha: The inferring it from [ibid., ibid. 15].

R. Abuhuh introduced R. Safra to the minim (who were appointed by the government to collect duties) as a great man. And they freed him from duty for thirteen years. Once they met him and asked him to explain the following [Amos, iii. 2]: "Only you have I loved out of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities." If one is in bad humor, will he let it out on his friend? He kept silent, as he was ignorant of the answer. And they inflicted upon him. R. Abuhuh then met them, to ask for the reason. And they answered: You introduced him as a great man, while he does not even know the explanation of a passage. Rejoined he: "I told you he was a scholar, but did I say that he was a master in the study of the Bible?" And to their question: Why are you familiar with it? He answered: "Because we have to discuss with you frequently, we give our attention to it." They say: It is for you, then, to explain the above-mentioned passage. And he answered thus: I will do it in the form of a parable. There was once a creditor of two persons, one a friend, and the other an enemy of his. From his friend, he demands to be paid in small sums, while from his enemy he demands the whole debt at once. (And the same is the case with Israel: He clears them of all their iniquities by small punishments in this world, so that they shall not have to suffer in the world to come.)

The rabbis taught: The Lord becomes angry every day, but only during one instant, which is the fifty-three thousand eight hundred and forty-eighth part in one hour; and there is

no creature in the world who is able to guess this moment, except Bil'am, about whom it reads [Numb. xxiv. 16]: "Knoweth the knowledge of the Most High." Which means that he knew how to guess the second in which the Lord becomes angered. (See Sanhedrin, p. 339.)

R. Joseph said: It is advisable for one not to pray singly the additional benediction in the first three hours at the first day of new year, for, the heavenly judgment takes place at that time, and because of his praying attention may be given to his deeds, and he may get an unfavorable decree. But if so, one should not do it even with the congregation together? With the congregation is different, as the attention is given to their deeds in average. But was it not said above that in the first three hours the Lord is engaged in the Law? Yea, however, by the Torah, in which truth is mentioned [Prov. xxiii. 23]: "Buy the truth," judgment cannot be modified. But concerning judgment, truth is not mentioned, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, modifies it.

R. Joshua b. Levi said [Deut. vii. 11]: "Which I command thee this day, to do them," means to do it to-day, but not to be rewarded for it to-day. He said again: "All the performance of the commandments which Israel observed in this world, will come and testify for them in the world to come." He said again: The crime of the golden calf was committed only to give a chance to the repenter. As it reads [ibid. v. 26]: "Who would grant that this their heart might remain in them to fear me at all times." (Hence, they were not fit to commit a crime.) Similarly said Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai: David was not fit to commit the crime with Bath Shaba, as concerning him it reads [Psalm, cviii. 22]: "My heart is deeply wounded within me." And also Israel was not fit for the above crime, for the reason said above. And why was it committed? For the benefit of sinners. If it happens to be an individual, it may be said to him: Repent, as the individual David did. And if it happens to be a congregation, they also may be told to repent, as the congregation of the desert did. And this is what R. Samuel b. Nachman in the name of Jonathan said: It reads [II Sam. xxiii. 1]: "And thus saith the man who was raised up on high" (the term in Hebrew for high is ol, which means also yoke), and is to be interpreted thus: The man who had raised the yoke of repentance The same said again in the name of the same authority: When one performs a meritorious act in this world, it precedes

him in the world to come. As it reads [Is. lviii. 8]: "And before thee shall go thy righteousness, the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward." And the same is the case with him who commits a crime in this world, that it clings to him and goes before him on the day of judgment. As it reads [Job, vi. 18]. 1

The rabbis taught: Concerning the above-cited verse [Deut. v. 26]: Moses said to Israel: Ye are ungrateful my children, as at the time, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to you: "Who would grant," etc., ye ought to say: Thou, Lord, grant it to us. Your ungratefulness is also marked from [Numb. xxi. 5]: "And our soul loathed this miserable bread." Ye are also children of an ungrateful, as it reads [Gen. iii. 12]: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree," etc. Moses, however, hinted this to Israel only after the forty years in which he led them in the desert. As in respect of that time it reads [Deut. xxix. 3]: "And yet the Lord gave you not a heart to perceive," etc. Said Rabba: "Infer from this that one cannot know the real mind of his master, until the elapse of forty years."

R. Johanan said in the name of R. B'naha: It reads [Is. xxxii. 20]: "Happy are ye that sow beside all waters, freely sending forth the feet of the ox and the ass." Happy is Israel at the time when he is occupied with the Torah and with bestowing of favors; as his evil spirit is then transferred into his hands, and not vice versa. And this is inferred from the just-cited verse, "that sow," which means charity, as [Hos. x. 12]. And "by water" it means the Torah, as in [Is. lv. 1] means the Torah. And "by freely sending forth," etc., is meant, what the disciple of Elijah taught. One should always consider himself in his relation to the laws of the Torah, as an ox to its yoke, and an ass to its load.

"Three days," etc. Is such a long time needed? Does not a Mishna state: At four periods in the year, he who sells a cow to his neighbor must notify him thus: I have sold her mother or her daughter to be slaughtered. (It is biblically forbidden to slaughter the mother and her child on one and the same day), and they are: the Eve of the second festival of Tabernacles, the Eve of the first day of Passover, the Eve of Pentecost, and the Eve of New Year. According to R. Jose the Galilean: Also

the Eve of the day of Atonement in Galilee. (Hence, we see that only one day is sufficient.) Where eating is treated of, one day suffices, but where sacrificing is treated of three days are needed. Are, then, three days sufficient for sacrificing? Is there not a rule that thirty days before Passover are needed to study the laws of this festival? Concerning our sacrifices, which even a blemish in the eye-lash makes invalid, thirty days are needed for studying the Law. But concerning the heathens, that only a missing limb of an animal makes it invalid. But not a blemish, three days suffice.

The schoolman propounded a question as to whether or not the statement of the Mishna, "three days," include the festival day also? Come and hear. R. Ismael said: "Three days before and three days after their festivals." Now, should it mean to include the festival day, would, then, R. Ismael count it twice, to the first and to the last days? This is no objection, as the number three, mentioned last, may be used merely because of the first. Come and hear the following: R. Tachlipha b. Abdimi in the name of Samuel said: If their festival occurs in the middle of the week, it is forbidden to do business with them the whole week. Now, if that day were included, one day of the week would be allowed. There is no question, according to R. Ismael, as he certainly excludes that day, but how is it the question is according to the rabbis? Come and hear: The following are the festivals of the heathens: kalends, Saturnalia and kratsim. And R. Hanin b. Rabha said: Kalends occurs eight days after the solstice, and the Saturnalia eight days before. Now, if the festivals were included, it would be said ten days? Perhaps the Tana counts the whole festival of kalends for one day. Said R. Ashi: From the expression of the Mishna, "before," it may be inferred that it means to exclude the day in question. For if not, it would state three days of their festivals, etc. Infer from this that so it is.

The schoolmen propounded a question: Is this forbidden because a Jew must not interfere with the idols, or because of the commandment, "Thou shalt not put a stone for the blind"? And the difference is in whether or not the heathen has his own animal for sacrificing. If because of interfering, it is forbidden, but if because of the latter, it is not, as he has his own. But even if he has his own, the above negative rests upon him, as R. Nathan states in a Boraitha: Whence do we know that one must not serve a goblet of wine to a Nazerite nor a member

of a live animal to a descendant of Noah? from [Levit. xix. 14], "Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind." We see then, that though these two would each take the forbidden even if not offered, nevertheless he who serves therewith commits a transgression, it speaks of a case when the two, giver and receiver, are separated, by e.g., a river, so that if not served he could not take it himself; and the word serve instead of give seems to corroborate this view. The schoolman propounded another question: How is it if he had done business with him in the prohibited days? According to R. Johanan: The benefit which he derived from the business is forbidden, and according to Resh Lakish, it is not. Resh Lakish objected to R. Jochanan from the following: In the festivals of heathens, if one had business with them, the derived benefit is forbidden. We see that thus the festivals, as such are meant, but not the time before. R. Jochanan, however, maintains: That in the expression "festivals" the days before are also meant.

There is a Boraitha in accordance with Resh Lakish: The prohibition to do business with them refers only to a thing which can be kept in good order until the festival day, but not otherwise. And even concerning the former, if it was already done, the benefit is allowed.

R. Zabid taught in a Boraitha of R. Osia: A thing which cannot be kept in good order may be sold to, but not bought from, them. There was a minn who, in his festival, sent a new dinar to R. Jehudah the second. Resh Lakish was then at the latter's house, and Jehudah consulted him as to the acceptance of it. If he accepted he would transgress the rule of interfering, while his refusal would cause animosity. Said Resh Lakish to him: Accept, and throw it away in the presence of the donor. To which R. Jehudah rejoined: Then I will cause still more animosity. Rejoined Resh Lakish: I mean that you should throw it in such a manner that he should think it was done unintentionally.

"To lend them or to borrow." The prohibition to lend them is correct, because it pleases them. But why is it forbidden to receive payment from them; does it not diminish their property? Said Abai: If it were permitted to receive from them, one would be led also to lend them. Rabha, however, maintains: Both are prohibited only because of interfering.

"Because it is a displeasure." Does not R. Jehudah hold the view: That it pleases him in the future. We have heard

him say elsewhere that he upholds such a theory concerning Jewish festivals? Said R. Na'hman b. Itzchak: Leave alone the Halakhas of minor festivals, as they are allowed only upon the basis of "it pleases him in the future, although it is a displeasure to him while performing it." Rabbina, however, maintains: A heathen is always displeased at a payment.. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Joshua b. Karcha of the following Boraitha, who said: If the lender had a document, he must not receive payment at that day. But if it was a verbal loan, he may, as it is a rescue. (Here is repeated from the First Gate, 229 par., "R. Jehudah says," to p. 30 next par.) 1

MISHNA. II.: R. Ismael said: Three days before and three days after it is prohibited. The sages, however, say: Before the festivals, but not after them.

GEMARA: What new views do the sages of this Mishna advance. Was same not said by the first Tana of the first Mishna? They differ in what was said by Samuel: "In exile, the prohibition refers to the day of the festival only." The first Tana upholds the theory of Samuel, which the sages of the latter Mishna do not. It may also be said that they differ in that which was said by Na'hum the Modaite. The prohibition is imposed only upon one day before their festival. And in this case, the Tana of the first Mishna does not agree with him, while the sages of the second do. There is a Boraitha which states that as regards the decision of Na'hum the Modaite, it was said: It is better that such should be dropped and not repeated. There is another Boraitha; Na'hum the Modaite said: An old male horse may be sold to them in case of war. And he was also answered: Such may be dropped, etc. And there is another Boraitha: That the same declared a Halakha concerning tithe, seeds and herbs, and was also answered: It may be dropped, etc. Said R. Aha b. Minumi to Abai: Is it right that everything declared by so great a man who comes into our country be annulled by mere exclamation such as above? And he answered: There is one thing of the following Boraitha, on which we act according to his decision--namely, Na'hum the Modaite says: One may pray for his necessities the benediction of, "He listens to prayer." Rejoined R. Aba: Leave alone this Halakha which relies not upon Na'hum the Modaite only,

but upon the discussion of great men in the following Boraitha: R, Eliezar said: One should beg for his necessities first, and thereafter he shall recite the daily benediction. As [Psalms, cii. 1]: "A prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out before the Lord his complaint." 1 R. Joshua, however, maintains: One has to recite his benediction previously, and thereafter pray for his necessities. As [Psalms, cxlii. 2]: "I poured out my shicho before him, I relate before him my trouble." (Hence, the trouble is related after the benediction.)

Let us see: The passages do not correspond with either of them; hence, there must be some other reason. Wherein, then, is their point of difference? In that which was lectured upon by R. Simlai: It is advisable for one to always arrange the praises of the Omnipotent first, and thereafter to recite the daily eighteen benedictions. And this can be inferred from Moses, our master [Deut. iii. 24]: "Thou hast begun to show," etc., and thereafter (25): "Let me go over, I pray thee." R. Joshua maintains: We may learn it from Moses, but R. Eliezar holds that we cannot compare ourselves to Moses, and must not dare to do like him. The sages, however, maintain differently from both: As according to them, one may pray for his necessities in the benediction of, "He listens to prayer." Said R. Jehudah b. R. Samuel b. Shilath in the name of Rabh: Although it was decided that one may pray for his necessities in the benediction of "listen to prayer," yet if he understands how to express his desire at the end of each benediction (conjoined in the daily eighteen benedictions), he may do so.

MISHNA III.: The following are the festivals of the heathens: Kalends, Saturnalia, kratsin. The accession of their kings upon the throne, their birthday, and the day of their death. So R. Mair. The sages, however, maintain that only such a death on which burning (dresses) is used, is conjoined with worshipping the idols. But in such on which it is not used, there is no .idolatry. All, however, agree concerning the following days: That of shaving his beard and hair, that in which he lauds, that on which he was released from prison, and that on which is celebrated a marriage of his son that the prohibition concerns only one day, and the only one man engaged in this affair.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Adam the first, when he saw

that each day of the week became shortened, cried: Woe is to me, the world becomes dark to me because of my sin, and it seems to be returned to chaos and ruin. And this is my death which was decreed by heaven. He arose and fasted and prayed eight days. Thereafter, when he lived to see the solstice of the month of Tabit, when the days become longer, he understood that such is the cycle of the world, and therefore established eight holidays. The next year, he also proclaimed the eight days on which he had fasted as holidays. He has established them to laud heaven; his descendants, however, made them holidays for the idols.

The rabbis taught: Adam the first, on the first day of his creation, when he saw the sun set, cried: Woe is to me, the world is to be returned to chaos, because of my sin, etc. He wept all night, and Eve did the same opposite him. However, when the morning star appeared, he understood that such was the order of the world. He arose and sacrificed an ox, whose horns were like its hoofs.

R. Mathna questioned: Are the small towns under the dominion of Rome and near to the capital, prohibited, at the time Rome celebrates its kalends, or not? According to R. Jehoshua b. Levi, the festival kalandes is forbidden to everyone. And according to R. Johanan, it is forbidden to interfere with those who worship her only. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Johanan as follows: Although it was said that if Rome established a kalandes, and all the near cities which are under her dominion supported her, the prohibition of interfering concerns only its worshippers. On Saturnalia, kratsin, the day of the throne and the day in which he ascends to reign, only one day before, interfering is prohibited; but not the day after. During the celebration of the son's marriage the interfering is forbidden to this man, and on that day only. Said R. Ashi: The statement of R. Johanan is also hinted at in our Mishna by the expression "and that man," which excludes those who are under his dominion. (Here is repeated from Aboth, p. 94. R. Simeon b. Eliezar said the whole par.; here, however, it is said in the name of R. Ismael. (The Gemara adds): It is therefore decided that if a heathen invites one during thirty days from his son's wedding, the invitation being special to the wedding, or anonymous, it is considered a wedding day, and the interfering is not allowed. At the elapse of thirty days, if the invitation was specific of the wedding, it is so considered; and

if anonymous, it is not. Until what time is it considered wedding time in the case of a special invitation? Said R. Papa: Twelve months. And previous to the wedding, at what time is to be considered? From the time when they put the barley in the pestle for preparing beer.

"Kratsin." What festival is this? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It is the day on which Rome has established her kingdom. But is there not a Boraitha: Kratsin and the day on which Rome has established her kingdom? (Hence kratsin must be something else.) Said R. Joseph: Rome has established her kingdom twice. Once in the days of the Queen Cleopatra and the second time in the day of the Greeks. As R. Dimi told when he came from Palestine: Thirty-two battles the Romans fought with the Greeks, and could not conquer them until they had conjoined the Israelites with them, under the stipulation that if the kings were of one nation, the great officers of the government should be taken from the others. And then the Romans sent a message to the Greeks: Until now we have tried to conquer you by battles, but now we will try to do it by a discussion. We may ask you, if one likes to conjoin a pearl with a diamond, which of them shall be the basis? And they answered: The pearl to the diamond. A diamond and an onyx? The diamond as a basis, was the answer. An onyx and the Holy Scrolls? The onyx to the Holy Scrolls, was the answer. Then they sent to them: "Now, the Holy Scrolls with the Israelites are with us." (And the Greeks were conquered.) Twenty-six years the Romans kept their promise to Israel, and thereafter they failed, and took the Israelites under their dominion. Whence do we know that they were true to their promise twenty-six years? From what was said by R. Ka'hana. When R. Ismael b. Jose was sick, it was sent to him that he should recite a few things which he related in the name of his father. And his answer was this: A hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, Rome had thrust her dominion upon Israel. Eighty years before the destruction, it was decreed by the sages that the land of the nations outside of Palestine should be subject to defilement. Forty years before, the Sanhedrin were exiled from their place and settled in shops. (Here is repeated from Sanhedrin, p. 121, concerning the establishment of fine.) The text says 180 years, and not more? Does not a Boraitha state in the name of R. Jose the great: Palestine was under the dominion of Persia 430 years; under the Greek, 180

years; the house of the Makabaius reigned 103 years and the house of Herod reigned likewise 103 years. Now, according to this chronology there will be 206 years for the dominion of Rome over Israel. 1 Therefore, we must say that the 26 years in which they were true to their promise are not counted under their dominion. There is a Tosephtha: The disciples of Elijah taught: The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which were a chaos (Tahu), the second two thousand were of Torah, and the third two thousand are the days of the Messiah, and because of our sins many years of these have elapsed, and still he has not come. 2 Let us see from what time the two thousand of Torah are reckoned. Shall we assume it to be the time when the Torah was given to Israel? Two thousand years have not elapsed as yet since. 3 We must therefore say that it means the time mentioned in [Gen. xii. 5]: "And the persons that they had obtained in Charan." And it is known by tradition that Abraham was then fifty-two years of age. And from his fifty-second year until the Torah was given, 448 years elapsed, and that number will complete the number of 2,000 which were less at the time the Tana taught about the 2,000 years of wisdom. 4

"The accession to the throne." Whose accession? If it means the king's, how should the following Boraitha be understood? "The ascending to the throne, and the day on which they select the king," which seems to be one and the same. We must say therefore, that by accession that of the king's son is meant. And the objection that it was not customary in Rome the son should inherit the throne, may be thus meant: That upon the request of the king, they were now to affiliate it to the son. As it happened with Antoninus (the Cæsar of Rome), who said to Rabbi: I would like that Asurius, my son, should reign after me, and also that Tiberius should be free from duty. But I am aware that if I will ask my people to do me one favor, they will, but not two.

[paragraph continues] What have I to do? Rabbi, who did not want to answer his question in words, told a man to mount upon the shoulders of another one, and having given him a dove, said to the other one, tell him who is mounted upon you to let the dove free. From this Antoninus understood that he had to request his people to proclaim his son king after him, and to instruct his son that he should set Tiberius free. Once the same said to Rabbi: The officers of Rome irritate me. (What shall I do?) Rabbi asked him to walk with him in the garden, and began to tear out the large radishes of the beds, planting smaller ones instead, by which Antoninus understood that he intimates the necessity of removing the old officers little by little and not all at once, so as to prevent a rebellion. But why did not Rabbi answer him in words? He was afraid that the officers of Rome would get wind of it and would harm him. The same Caesar had a daughter by the name Girah, and it happened that she sinned. Antoninus then sent to Rabbi white mustard, which is called in Aramaic gargira (whence Rabbi understood that something happened with Girah). He sent him in answer a seed by the name of khusbratha, the meaning of which in Aramaic is khus bratha (remove the daughter). Antoninus again sent him garlic, named in Aramaic karthi, from which Rabbi understood that he questioned him: Shall I cut off my child? And in answer he sent him lettuce, which is named chassa, which means have mercy with her.

Antoninus used to send to Rabbi frequently pieces of pure gold in leather sacks covered with wheat. And to the objection of Rabbi: I have too much of my own, he exclaimed: Leave them to him who will substitute thee, that he shall spend it to please those who will reign after me. From the house of Antoninus, there was a cave which reached the house of Rabbi, and each time that he went to the house of Rabbi through this cave, he would take with him two slaves. One he used to kill at the gate of Rabbi, and the other when he returned, at his own gate. He, however, told Rabbi that at the time of his visit no one should be found with him. It once happened that he found Hanina b. Hamana with him, and to his question: Did not I say that no one should be found with you during my visit? Rabbi answered: This is not a human being. Said Antoninus to Hanina: Go and call for me the slave who sleeps at the gate.

Hanina, however, found him dead, and he deliberated what to do: shall he go to tell him that he is dead? There is a rule that

one must not answer with degradation; should he leave him and go away? This would be a disgrace to a king. He therefore prayed, and the dead became alive, and he then sent him to his master. Said Antoninus to Rabbi: I am aware that even the smallest of you is able to bring the dead to life. However, I want that when I come here, I should not find a living soul with you. He used to serve Rabbi in all his needs, and he once questioned him if he would have a share in the world to come. To which Rabbi answered, "yea." Said he: Does it not read [Ab. i. 18]: "And there shall not be anyone remaining of the house of 'Eseau." It means he who acts like 'Eseau. But, it reads [Ezek. xxxii. 29]: "There are Edom, her kings, and all her princes," etc. The answer was, it reads kings, but not all her kings. Princes, but not all of them. So also we have learned in the following: "Her kings, and not all of them, i.e., exclude Antoninus b. Asudius. Her princes and not all of them, excluding K'tiha b. Shalum."

What happened with the latter? There was a Cæsar who disliked the Jews, and he asked the advice of his officers: Should he who has a fibre in his foot cut it off and be at ease, or should he leave it and be afflicted? And the advice of them all was, that he should cut it off and remain at rest. K'tiha, however, who was one of them, objected, saying: First you cannot get rid of all the Jews, as it reads [Zech. ii. 10]: "For as the four winds of the heaven have I spread you abroad, saith the Lord." 1 And secondly, your kingdom will be considered mutilated, and one that kills its own subjects. The king then said: Thy advice is true, but there is a law that he who concurs the king, must be thrown into the furnace. When they took him to be slain, he said: I bequeath all my property to R. Aqiba and his colleagues. A heavenly voice was then heard: K'tiha b. Shalum has a share in the world to come. Rabbi then wept and said: Here we have a man who has bought his world in one moment, while another one has to work for it all his life.

Antoninus served Rabbi; Adarkhan (a Persian Prince) served Rabh. When Antoninus departed, said Rabbi: Our union broke, and the same said Rabh when Adarkhan departed.

Unklus b. Klenimus embraced Judaism, and the Cæsar sent militia to take him. He, however, persuaded them, and they also became proselytes. He then sent other militia, warning

them that they should not converse with him. When they took him and were going, he said to them: I will tell you something; usually the torch-bearer carries the light in front of the litter, the chief lecticarius (behind the litter, carries the light) for the dux, the dux for the hegemon, the hegemon for the comes; but does the comes carry the light before the people? And they answered, No. Said he: The Holy One, blessed be He, carries light before Israel as it reads [Ex. Xiii. 21]: "And the Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud," etc. And they also became proselytes. The Cæsar then sent other ones after him, telling them not to talk to him at all. But when they took him, he saw a mazuzah on the doorpost, and said to them: Do you know what this is? They answered: No, but you may tell us. He then said: It is customary with a human king that while he is sitting inside of his palace his servants guard him outside. With the Holy One, blessed be He, it is the contrary. His servants are inside, and He guards them from the outside, as it reads [Psalm cxxi. 8]: "The Lord will guard thy going out and thy coming in," etc. Then these became proselytes, too, and the Cæsar did not send any more after him. It reads [Gen. xxv. 23]: "And the Lord said to her, two nations are in thy womb." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: This means Antoninus and Rabbi, upon whose tables were not missing lettuces, cucumbers and radishes, summer as well as winter. As the master said: The radishes masticate the food in the stomach, lettuces overturn it, and cucumbers extend the gut. But have not the disciples of Ismael taught that cucumbers are as harmful to the body as swords? This presents no difficulty, as one speaks of large ones, and the other of small ones.

"The day of death," etc. From this we see that R. Mair makes no difference between a death, to which burning is, and that to which it is not, used; in both cases as according to him, idols are worshipped there. Hence the burning is not a custom of the Amorites, which the Israelites are prohibited from. And the rabbis who oppose R. Mair hold that it is a custom. Why then do we use burning? As there is a Boraitha that one may burn things for the death of kings. Therefore, as to burning, we must say, all agree that it is not considered a custom, but an act of honor. The rabbis, however, hold that worship of idols takes place only in cases where there is burning. While according to R. Mair, it is worship in both cases. Where do we find that burning is used for kings? [Jer. xxxiv. 5]: "In peace

shalt thou die and as burnings were made for thy fathers," etc. And as they burn for kings, so also do they for princes. What they used to burn upon kings? Their beds and all the utensils which were used by the deceased. And it happened on the death of Raban Gamaliel the elder, that Unclus the proselyte burned clothing worth seventy manas coined in Zur.

"The day of shaving his beard," etc. The schoolman propounded a question: Does the Mishna mean the shaving of his beard and the surrounding of the hair (which they used as a worship for the whole year, and at the end they used to remove for the same purpose) or do they mean the removing of the hair? Come and hear the following: The day of shaving the beard and leaving the hair and also the day of removing it.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: There was still another festival in Rome which occurs once in seventy years, on which they would make a well man ride on a lame man, dress him in the garments of Adam, and place on his head the scalp of R. Ismael, etc.; on his neck was suspended gold of the weight of four zuz. And they cover the markets with it, heralding before him: sakh quiriphlaster. 1 The brother of our Lord is a deceiver. (They mean Jacob, the brother of Eseau, who deceived the latter by taking away the blessing of Isaac to himself.) He who saw this now may be rejoiced, as if not to-day, he will not see it any more (because it was once in seventy years), and they would finish with: Woe will be to him at the time the other will arise. But why does not the Tana of our Mishna count this feast? Because he counts only what is usual each year, and not what happens once in seventy.

R. Hanan b. R. 'Hisda or R. Hanan b. Rabha in the name of Rabh said: There are five houses of idols; the house of Beil in Babylon, the house of Nebu in Khursi, of Tharetha in Mapag, Zripha in Askkilon, and Nishra in Arabia. When R. Dimi came, he said: It was added to them the yared of An Bekhi of Ekha of the town of N'dbkah. All these houses were standard, and were worshipped the whole year. So said R. 'Hisda in the name of his father-in-law.

It is said above, that according to Samuel: In exile it is forbidden

only the very day of the festival, not the day before and after. But even on that day did not R. Jehudah allow R. Brona to buy wine and R. Giddle to buy wheat in the festival of the merchants? Such a festival is different, as it is not standard.

MISHNA IV.: In a city where the idol is placed, interfering is forbidden inside, but not outside. And if outside, the inside is not forbidden. May one go to the city at that time? If the way leads to the idol only, it is forbidden, but if it leads also to another place, it is not.

GEMARA: What is meant by outside is, e.g., the bazaar of Gaza. Resh Lakish questioned R. Hanina: Is indeed the bazaar of Gaza permitted? And he answered: Did it not happen to you to be in Zur where you could see an Israelite and a Gentile putting their pots upon -one stove, and the sages did not object. The same is the case with the bazaar of Gaza; the sages did not care to forbid this because of these festivals.

"May one go to the city," etc. The rabbis taught: A city in which an idol is placed, one must not enter, nor pass from it into another city. So R. Mair. The sages, however, say: The prohibition lies when the way is specified to that place only, but not otherwise. If a thorn sticks in one's foot at that place where the idol is standing, he must not bend to take it out, because it would seem as bowing to the idol; but if it does not seem so, he may. And the same is the case if one's money scattered near that place. From a spring which runs before the idol, one must not bend to drink for the same reason, unless it does not seem as if bowing to the idol. If an aqueduct is placed in the idol, one must not put his mouth to it, as it would seem like kissing it. However, it is not advisable to put one's mouth to any duct, as one may swallow a leech.

The rabbis taught: One may not drink water from rivers or ponds either with his mouth or with one hand (as he cannot discern anything in it with both hands; however, he can keep the water, and examine it). And if he did so, he would be responsible in case he swallowed a leech, which is dangerous, and this is a support to R. Hanina, who said: That for such an accident it is allowed to violate the Sabbath by warming water; and also R. Ne'hamaia allowed to do same in such a case. And R. Huna b. Jehoshua said: That if such happened, he may drink vinegar until the water is warmed. R. Idi b. Abin said: He who has swallowed a bee, cannot be cured. However, he may drink some strong vinegar, perhaps this will give him time to make his will.

MISHNA V.: If, during an idol festival in the city, some stores were there decorated, one must not buy from these stores, while he may from the others, as such a case happened in the city of Beth Shean, and the sages have so decided.

GEMARA: Said Resh Lakish: The prohibition lies only on those which are decorated with roses and myrtles, because the odor pleases him, but not to those which were decorated with some other fruit. And the reason is [Deut. xiii. 18]: "And there shall not cleave to thy hand aught of the devoted things." Which signifies that it is prohibited only to derive any benefit for himself, but not to benefit others. R. Johanan, however, maintains that the prohibition lies also on those which are decorated with fruit, as such conclusion can be drawn a fortiori. If deriving benefit from them is forbidden, so much the more should it be, to benefit them. An objection was raised from the following: R. Nathan said: It is usual in the day of the idol to herald: everyone who will decorate his head and the heads of his animals for the honor of the idol will be freed from duties for such and such a time. What had then a Jew to do? Should he decorate, then he derives benefit from the idols; should he not, then he benefits them. From this it was said: He who is doing business in the market established for the idol, his property must be destroyed in such a manner that no one should be able to derive any benefit of it. We see, then, that to benefit is also prohibited, and this contradicts Resh Lakish's above statement. Said R. Mesharshia b. R. Idi: Resh Lakish hold that the rabbis differ with R. Nathan, and the Halakha prevails with the majority, while R. Johanan holds that they do not differ. (Here is repeated from tract Minor Festivals and Abel Rabbathi, which we deem not necessary to translate.)

R. Jacob bought shoes on such a market day, and R. Jeremiah bought bread. Each of them bought from a private man, not from a storekeeper. However, each one thought that his colleague bought from a storekeeper, and rebuked each other because of the statement of Aba b. R. 'Higya b. Aba: That the prohibition to buy lies only from a storekeeper, but not from a private, as a private does not pay any duties. He also said that if R. Johanan were in such a place where they take duties from a private also, he would forbid to buy even from a private. The above-mentioned sages, however, bought their goods from such a private who was not established at that city, and, therefore, they were sure that he does not pay duties,

MISHNA VI.: The following are forbidden to be sold to the heathens: Fir-cones, white figs on their stems, frankincense, and a white cock. R. Jehudah, however, said: That a white cock may be sold among other cocks, and if singly, he has to cut off a finger of it, because the heathens do not sacrifice an animal of which an organ is missing. All other things may be sold anonymously, but if they say that they buy it for worshipping, one must not sell. R. Mair, however, forbids to sell them fine date trees, sugar-canes, and a variety of dates.

GEMARA: "Frankincense," said R. Itzchak in the name of Resh Lakish: Only the best frankincense which is used for worshipping, and there is a Boraitha: That from all the things mentioned above, one bundle may be sold; and what is to be considered a bundle? Explained R. Jehudah b. Bathyra: No less than three manas worth. But why not fear perhaps the buyer will sell of it for worshipping? Said Abayi: We are told not to put a stone before the blind, ourselves, but we are not told that we should fear some other one should do same with our stone. (The prohibition is, because one must not assist a sinner, and worshipping idols is a sin even to the heathens.)

"A white cock," etc. R. Jonna in the name of R. Zara according to others quoting R. Zebid, said: If the buyer is searching for a cock anonymously, even a white one may be sold to him. But if he asks for a white cock, then such must not be sold. There is an objection from our Mishna. R. Jehudah said: It may be sold among others. Now, let us see the nature of the case. If the buyer ask for a white cock, then certainly it must not be sold even among others; we must then say that he asks for a cock in general, and notwithstanding this, is allowed to sell it among the others, but not singly, even according to R. Jehudah. And according to the first Tana, not even among the others? Said R. Nahman b. Itzhak: The Tanaim of our Mishna speaks of a case when the buyer mentioned a black, red and white one. According to the first Tana, as soon as white is mentioned, it must not be sold even among others, and according to R. Jehudah, it may, on the supposition that as the other colors are not for sacrificing, the white is not either. But if color was not mentioned at all, even according to the first Tana, the white may be sold among other colors. And there is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Na'hman b. Itzchak, as follows: R. Jehudah said: The prohibition is in force only when the buyer says, Sell me this white cock; but if he said, Sell me this

and other colors you have, it is not. And even in the former case, if the buyer has a sick person in his house; or he is preparing a banquet for his son, it is permitted. But does not our Mishna state above: That in such a case that man as well as that day is prohibited? Said R. Itzchak b. R. Mesharshia: R. Jehudah, by the word banquet means a dancing banquet, on which sacrificing is not used, and not a wedding banquet. R. Ashi propounded a question: If the buyer asks for a blemished white cock (which is not used for sacrificing), may one sell him a good white cock, or is it to be feared that because he knows that an Israelite would not sell him a white cock, he deceives him by asking for a blemished one; and should you decide that such is prohibited? Furthermore, how is the law in case he asks for a white one and, nevertheless, takes also a black and a red one; may one then sell him a white one also, as it is to be supposed that he does not take them for sacrificing; or here, also, it may be feared that he bought the other colors only because he needs the white one? This question remains undecided.

"R. Mair said," etc. Said R. 'Hisda to Abimi: We have a tradition that the tract Aboda Zara of Abraham the patriarch contained four hundred chapters. We, however, have only five of them, and even these we do not quite understand. What is the difficulty? R. Mair said: "A fine date tree," from which it is to be understood that a simple one may be sold. And there is a Mishna: Nothing must be sold of that which is attached to the ground. Answered Abimi: By a "fine date tree" the fruit of it is meant; and so also said R. Huna: e.g., ('Hazal nkshba nklas) the species or variety of dates. When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of Hamma b. Joseph: Quryti (that which is fit for a drink, made of cariota [cariotum]). Said Abayi to him: We have learned nklas, and we do not know what it is, and now you say quryti, and we do not know what it is either. Of what use is it, then, to us? And he answered: If you happened to be in Palestine and say nklas, no one would understand you, but if you said there quryti, they would understand, and show you what it means.

MISHNA VII.: In places where it is customary to sell small cattle (sheep, goats, etc.) to heathens, it is lawful to do so, but not in places where this is not customary. Large cattle must not be sold to them at all, nor calves nor foals of asses, either sound or broken-legged. R. Jehudah permits

the sale of the latter, and Ben Bathyra permits the sale of a horse. 1

GEMARA: From this Mishna it seems that it relies only upon a custom, but there is no prohibition, and in the first Mishna of the second chapter, we see that one must not place an animal in the inns of the heathens, etc. Said R. Eleazar: Even at those places where it is forbidden to place the animals in their inns, it is allowed to sell them. As usual the heathen takes care that his animals should riot be uprooted. And so also said R. Tachlipha in the name of Shila b. Abimi, quoting Rabh. As the latter retracted his first statement "that it must not."

"Large cattle," etc. R. Ada permitted to sell an ass through a middleman (also an Israelite). R. Huna sold a cow to a heathen. Said R. 'Hisda to him: Why did the master do so? And he answered: Because it seems to me that he bought it for the purpose of slaughtering. And whence do we know that such is permitted? From (Shebüth, v. 8), where the school of Shamai says: One must not sell a ploughing cow on the Sabbathical year. The school of Hillel, however, permits it, because one may buy it for slaughtering.

Said Rabba: What comparison is this? Concerning the Sabbathical year, there is no obligation that cattle shall rest then, while on the Sabbath one is obliged to give his cattle rest. Said Abayi to him. But where do we find that such is forbidden, even when there is an obligation? There is a Tosephta: The school of Hillel permits to sell a ploughing field in the Sabbathic year, because it may be supposed that one buys it to rest this year, but to plough it the next, and one is certainly obliged not to plough his field on the Sabbathic year. R. Ashi opposed: On the contrary, there is a Mishna [Shebüth, v. 6]: "Ploughing vessels must not be sold on the Sabbathic year," and we know of no obligation that one must give rest to his ploughing vessels. And therefore, says he: When there is a supposition that it can be used for another purpose, we may do so, even, when there is an obligation; but when there is no such supposition, it must not be done, even when there is no obligation.

Rabba sold an ass to an Israelite, who was suspected of selling it to a heathen. Said Abayi to him: Why have the masters

done so? And he answered: I sold it to an Israelite. And to Abayi's question: But he will sell it to a heathen, he answered: Does he sell to heathens only, if an Israelite will give him a good price will he not sell it? Abayi then objected to him from the following: In places where it is customary to sell small cattle to Samaritans, one may do so, but not in places where it is not customary; and this is only because they are suspected of selling it to the heathens, as all other reasons advanced were denied. (Hence, we see that one must not sell to a suspected one.) Rabba then ran after him three miles to return him, but failed to overtake him. Said R. Dimi b. Aba: As it is not allowed to sell to a heathen, so it is not allowed to sell to an Israelite either, who is a robber. What does the expression "robber" mean? If he is suspected that in case of an opposition, he would slay, then it is self-evident, for he is worse than a heathen; and if he is not suspected of such, why not sell to him? It speaks of one who is suspected of slaying only, then, when the owner runs after him to persecute. The rabbis taught: Shields must not be sold to those; others, however, taught they may. The reason of those who forbid is, that if they are short in weapons they use the shields instead; and the reason of those who permit is, that if they are short in weapons they run away. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: The Halakha prevails with the latter. R. Ada b. Aba said: Lumps of wrought iron must not be sold to them, because they make weapons of it; but if so, should not spades be forbidden, too? Said R. Zabid: It means of Indian iron, which is useful for weapons. And now that we do sell to them is because the Persians are protecting us with their weapons. So said R. Ashi.

MISHNA VIII.: One must not sell to them bears, lions, and all such things by which the people can be injured. One must not conjoin himself in building their court houses (from the roofs of which they usually throw the one who is sentenced to death, to be killed), gradus, arenas and scaffolds. However, in building monuments and bath-houses, one may. But when they reached that chamber in which their idols should be placed, be must stop.

GEMARA: Rabbina propounded a contradiction. Our Mishna states: That only things which may be injurious to the people, whence it is to be understood that if not injurious, it does not matter, from the following: As one must not sell to them large cattle, so also must he not do with large beasts.

And even in those places where small cattle may be sold, large beasts must not. (We see, then, that even such that are harm. less must not be sold either.) And he explains that our Mishna speaks of a lame lion, and it is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that such may be sold. R. Na'hman opposed: Who can say that the lion is placed under the category of large beasts; perhaps he is placed under the category of small ones. 1

"Himself in building." Said Rabba b. b. Hanna in the name of R. Johanan: There were three such palaces: for kings, for bath-houses, and for treasuries. Said Rabba: All of them are permitted.

The rabbis taught: When R. Eleazar was captured by the government, accusing him of being a min, he was brought to the gradus, and the hegemon (chief judge) said to him: A sage like yourself should engage himself in such a valueless thing. And he answered: The judge himself may testify that such is not the case. [The hegemon thought that he means him; he, however, meant the heavenly judge.] And he said: Because you trust in me, I swear by Dimus (his idol) that you are free from this accusation. When R. Eleazar returned home, his disciples surrounded him to condole him, but he did not accept it. Said R. Aqiba to him: "Rabbi, allow me to say before you one of the things you taught me," and he allowed him. Said he to him: "Rabbi, probably some explanations of the minim pleased you and you have accepted them, and therefore you were suspected and captured." Answered he: "Aqiba, you have reminded me; it happened once that I walked in the upper market of Ciporas, and I met one of the minim, named Jacob, of the village of Zachania and he said to me": It reads [Deut. xxiii. 19]: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot," etc. May then a retiring room for the high priest be built from such money? And I kept silent. Said he to me: So taught Jeshu. b. Panthyra. 2 It reads [Mich. i. 7]: "For from harlot's wages she gathered them, and for harlot's wages shall they be used again"; hence, money that comes from a dirty place, may be expended

on a dirty place, which explanation pleased me. It is for this that I was suspected and captured. And I confess that I have transgressed [Prov. v. 8]: "Remove far from her thy way, and come not nigh to the door of her house." "Remove from her," means from minunism and "come not nigh" means to government. Others, however, interpret same "remove far" etc. as to mean minunism, and "come not nigh" etc., prostitution, which place, according to R. 'Hisda, is prohibited to approach from a distance of four yards.

Mar. Uqba said: it reads [Ps. xxx. 15]: "The leech hath two daughters (crying) Give, give," i.e., minunism and the government, which are never satisfied, the first of catching men to her belief, and the second, duties. R. 'Hisda in the name of Mar. Uqba said: The Gehenna cries, saying, "bring me in the two daughters, who always cry in this world": "Bring in to me, bring in to me." It reads [Prov. ii. 19]: "All that come unto her return not again, and they will not reach the paths of life." If they do not return again, they will certainly not reach the paths of life? It means, therefore, that they who repent and return from minunism, die that they might not return to minunism again. Does one die who repents minunism only and not other sins; is there not a Boraitha: It was said of Elazar b. Durdia who left not out one prostitute. He was once informed that there was a prostitute in one of the sea countries, who received a pocketful of dinars in reward, and he took this amount and passed seven rivers until he reached her. She, however, caused him to repent. He then placed himself between two mountains saying; "O ye mountains, pray for me," to which they answered: "Instead of praying for thee, we must pray for ourselves" [Is. liv. 10]: For the mountain may depart, and the hills may be removed. He then said: "Heaven and earth, pray for me," and they also answered: "We have to pray for ourselves," as it reads [ibid. li. 6]: "For the heavens shall vanish," etc. The same answer he got from the sun and the moon of which it reads [ibid. xxiv. 23]: "And the moon shall be put to the blush and the sun be made ashamed." A similar answer he got from the stars and planets of which it reads in [ibid. xxxiv. 4]: "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved." He then exclaimed: "I see that I can rely only upon myself," and having put his head between his knees, he wept until his soul departed. A heavenly voice was then heard, saying, "R. Elazar b. Durdia is prepared for life in the world to come."

[paragraph continues] Rabbi, when he heard this, wept, saying, "there is again one who bought his world in one moment while another one must work for it all his life." And again, it is not enough for those who repent, that they get a share in the world to come, but they are named also rabbis, as the heavenly voice said: Rabbi Eliazar, etc. [hence we see that he who has repented from sin, also died? Because he, Elazar was involved in such, it is similar to minunism].

R. Hanina and R. Jonathan were on the road and they met two thoroughfares, one leading to the gate of an idol and thc other to the gate of the prostitutes. Said one to his colleague: Let us go on that which leads to the idol as the evil spirit of idolators is killed. Answered his colleague: On the contrary, let us go on to that which leads to the prostitute so that we should overrule the evil spirit, and be rewarded. When they arrived to the prostitutes, the latter ran away to their homes. And his colleague asked him: "What was the reason you relied upon--[Prov. ii. 11]: 'Discretion 1 will watch over thee, understanding will keep thee.'"

The rabbis taught: When R. Elazar b. Partha and R. Hanina b. Tradian were captured by the government, said the former to the latter: "Happy are you, that you were captured because of one thing only, and woe is to me that I am captured for five things." Said he: Happy are you who are accused of five things and will be saved, woe is to me who am accused only of one thing shall be sentenced. The reason is, that you were occupied with both the Torah and with bestowing of favors, while I was occupied with the Torah only. This is in accordance with R. Huna who said elsewhere: He who is occupied with the Torah only, is similar to him who denies God. As it reads [II Chron. xv. 3]: "And many days (had elapsed) for Israel, (they being) without the true God." What does the expression "without the true God" mean? He who occupies himself with the Torah, but does not observe bestowing of favors, which is the main point of humanity. Was indeed R. Hanina b. Tradial not occupied in bestowing of favors? Is it not stated further on that he did? Yea, but not so as it was fit for his dignity. Elazar b. Partha was brought before the judges and they asked: "Why are you studying, and stealing? And he answered: If

one is a scholar, he is no warrior (robber) and if a warrior, he is no scholar, and as it is not true that I am a warrior, so is it also untrue that I am a scholar. Why then are you named master? And he answered: "I am the master of embroidering." They brought two coils before him and said to him: "Which is warp and which is woof?" A miracle occurred and a female bee set on the warp while a male bee on the woof and he said: This is a warp and this is a woof. "Why did you not visit the Bee abidon (the house of discussion)?" And he answered: "I am too old, and feared perhaps I would be trodden down under the feet of the crowd." "Has it ever happened that old men should be trodden down in the mentioned house? Again a miracle occurred, and just at that time they were notified that an old man was trodden down in the house in question. "And why then have you freed your slave (which is forbidden)?" This never occurred. One of the crowd, however, arose to testify against him. Elijah then disguised himself as one of the consuls of the government and said to the witness: As in all the other things a miracle occurred, the same would occur also in this case and you would be considered an enemy of his and a liar. The alleged witness, however, did not listen and rose to bear his testimony. Meanwhile, a letter from one of the great officers which was to be sent to the Cæsar was handed to this man as messenger. While he was going, Elijah caught and threw him four hundred parsas, so that he did not return any more. Hanina b. Tradian was then brought before them and questioned why he occupied himself with the Torah, and he answered: Because I am so commanded by the Lord my God. The decree was then rendered that he should be burned, his wife killed, and his daughter to be taken to the house of prostitutes. [He to be burned, because he used to express the name Jehovah as it is written (and not Adonai as it is to be read instead), but why did he so? Did not Aba Shaul say (Sanhedrin, p. 265) that he who does so has no share in the world to come? He did so to learn which is allowed privately, but he did it also publicly. His wife to be killed, because she has not prevented his doing so by protesting; from this it is to be inferred that he who feels that his protests would effect and does not protest, is punished therefor. And his daughter to prostitution; because, according to R. Johanan, it happened once that she walked in the presence of the great people of Rome, and they exclaimed: How nice are the steps of this girl!

[paragraph continues] And from that time she took care of her steps to please the spectators.] When all the three went out from the court, they justified the decrees upon them. Hanina said [Deut. xxxii. 4]: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect," etc. His wife said: "The God of truth and without iniquity"; and his daughter said [Jer. xxxii. 19]: "Great in council, and mighty in execution (thou) whose eyes are open over all the ways of the sons of man." Said Rabbi: How great are these upright that to justify their decrees, the three verses of justification came to their mouths, at the time of so great a trouble.

The rabbis taught: When R. Jose b. Kisma became sick, R. Hanina b. Tradian called on him; the former said to him: Hanina, my brother, are you not aware that this nation is reigning by heavenly decree, and notwithstanding that she has destroyed the Temple, burned the palaces, killed the pious and put out of the way all the best of Israel, she is still in force. About you, however, I heard that notwithstanding the decree of the government, you occupy yourself with the Torah publicly, and you bear with you the Holy Scrolls at all time. Hanina then answered: The heavens shall have mercy with us. Exclaimed Jose: I am relating to you reasons, and you say, the heavens shall have mercy. I wonder whether the government will not burn you with the Holy Scrolls on fire? Hanina then said: Rabbi, what will become of me in the world to come? And Jose asked him: Did not some of the meritorious acts come to your hand? And he answered: The money which I prepared to celebrate Purim, I erred, thinking that it was of the charity treasury; I have distributed it to the poor, and thereafter I have not collected from the charity. If so, answered Jose, I wish that my share should be like yours, and my fate similar.

It was said that a few days later R. Jose ben Kisma departed, and all the great men of Rome were going after his coffin, lamenting him greatly. On their return, they found Hanina b. Tradian studying the Torah publicly with the Holy Scrolls in his bosom; he was enwrapped in the Holy Scrolls and surrounded with branches of trees, which were kindled. And two woollen towels, soaked in water, were placed on his heart that his soul might not depart so quickly, and when his daughter said to him: Father, is it just, what I see done with you? He answered: If I were burned alone, it would be hard for me, but now that I am burned in conjunction with the Holy Scrolls, I am sure that He who will take revenge for the Holy Scrolls

will take revenge for me also. His disciples questioned him: What do you see now? And he answered: I see the letters are flying away from the parchment while they burned. They said to him: Rabbi, open your mouth, so that the fire should catch you, and he answered: It is better that my soul be taken by Him who gave it and not I myself shall cause it an earlier death. The executioner then said to him: Rabbi, if I will increase this fire and will take off the woollen towels from your heart, would you bring me to life in the world to come? To which he answered, Yea. He then asked him to swear, which he did. Immediately he increased the fire, took off the towels, and his soul departed. The executioner himself then jumped into the fire. A heavenly voice was then heard: Hanina and the executioner are prepared for life in the world to come. Rabbi then wept, saying: There is one again who bought his world in one moment, etc.

Bruria, the wife of R. Mair, was a daughter of Hanina b. Tradian, and she said to her husband: It is a disgrace for me that my sister should be in the house of prostitution. He then took with him a ; full with dinars, and said: I will go there, and if she is yet pure, a miracle will occur. He disguised himself as a military rider, visited her, asking her to listen to him. She, however, gives him many reasons, and finally tells him that in this place he will find many who are more beautiful than she. He then convinced himself that she answered the same to everyone, and went to her guardian asking him to accept the money he brought for transferring her to him, saying: The half of the dinars will be sufficient to bribe the officers of the government, and the other half will remain for you. And to his question: What should I do when the half will be spent and they will still persecute me? he answered: You will then say, God of Mair, help me, and you will be saved. And whence do I know that so it is? Mair answered: I will convince you immediately. There were dogs who devoured people, and the guard stimulated them upon Mair, and he pronounced God of Mair, answer me, and they kept aloof from him. The guard then delivered to Mair his sister-in-law. Finally, the government got wind of it, and the guardian was brought to the gallows to be hanged, and as soon as he pronounced, God of Mair, help me, he was thrown down uninjured. And to the question, What is it? he related before all what happened. The government then engraved the picture of R. Mair on the gate of Rome,

commanding that he who should see such a face should deliver him to the officers. It happened that he was once seen, and they ran after him; he then ran away to a place of prostitution, and Elijah disguised himself as one of the prostitutes and embraced him. The officers then said that it must be someone else, as Mair would not do so. Thereafter, Mair ran away to Babylon, according to some, because of this occasion, and according to others, because of that which happened to Brura. 1

(Concerning arenas and circuses) Tanaim differ in the following: An Israelite must not visit arenas, because they are considered a place of scorners. R. Nathan, however, permits it for two reasons: first, one should be able to save an Israelite if it happened that he was placed there by animosity; and secondly, if it happened that an Israelite should die there, the visitor may then be a witness, so that the widow of the deceased should be allowed to remarry.

The rabbis taught: One must not go to the theatres and circuses, because at those places they gather up money for the idols; so R. Mair. The sages, however, say: In the places where they gather, it is prohibited because of the suspicion of idolatry. And in those where they are not gathering, it is prohibited, because they are considered places of scorners. R. Simeon b. Pazi lectured [Psalm i. 1]: "Happy is the man who walketh not in the council of the wicked, and standeth not in the way of sinners, and sitteth not in the seat of scorners." If he had not walked how could he stand, and if he did not stand how could he sit, and if he did not sit, how could he scorn? It means as follows: That if he had walked, he will finally stand, and if stood, he will finally sit and scorn, and concerning him it is said [Prov. ix. 12]: "But if thou art a scorner, thou alone will have to bear it." Said R. Eliezar: He who scorns brings chastisements upon himself as [IS. xxviii. 22]: "And now be ye no longer scornful, lest your bonds be made strong." And Rabha said to the rabbis (his disciples): I beg you not to scorn so that chastisements shall not come upon ye. And R. Ktina said: Even his food becomes lessened, as it reads [Hos. vii. 5]: "(Because) he joineth his hand with scorners." (Here is repeated about the same matter from Last Gate, p. 30.) R. Simeon b. Pazi lectured again: "Happy is the man who walketh not" to

the theatres and circuses of the heathens, "standeth not in the way of sinners," that is, he who does not stand as a spectator at bestial contests (arranged by the Romans). And "the sitting of scorners" beget contention. And lest one say: As all the above I have not done, I may engage my time in sleeping, therefore, "But whose delight is in the law of the Lord."

R. Samuel b. Na'hman in the name of R. Jonathan said: "Happy is the man who walketh not," etc., means Abraham our father, who was not conjoined with the generation of separation, who were wicked, as [Gen. xi. 3]: "Let us make bricks," etc. "In the way of sinners," etc.--he did not stand with Sodomites of whom it reads [ibid. xiii. 13]: "But the men of I Sodom were wicked and sinners," etc.--"with scorners"--he did not associate himself with the Philistines, who were "scorners," as [Judges xvi. 25]: "Call for Samson that he may make sport of us."

It reads [Psalms, cxii. 1]: "Happy is the man that feareth the Lord." Man, and not woman? Said R. Amram in the name of Rabh: Happy is he who repents when he is still young. And R.. Jehoshua b. Levi said: Happy is he who conquers his evil spirit, as a heroic man; "that greatly delighteth in his commandments." Said R. Eliezar: In his commandments, but not in the reward for them. And this is what a Mishna in Aboth states: Be not like slaves who serve their master because of reward, but as the one who serves him not to receive any reward. "In the law of the Lord is his delight," said Rabh: i.e., one should always study the law to which his heart is inclined. Levi and R. Simeon, the son of Rabbi, were sitting before Rabbi reading one book of the Bible, and after finishing Levi said: Bring us "Proverbs." And R. Simeon said: Bring us "Psalms." He overruled Levi, and "Psalms" was brought. When they came to the verse, "In the law of the Lord is his delight," Rabbi stopped and said: One has to study only what his heart is inclined to. Said Levi to him: Rabbi, with this you have given us permission to stop studying. R. Abdimi b. Hama said: Him who occupies himself with the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, grants his desire. Rabha said: At the time one begins to study, the Torah is named the Holy One's, but after studying, it is considered to be his (the student's); as first it is written the law of the Lord, and thereafter, in his law. And be said again: One shall first study, and thereafter deliberate, as the above-cited verse reads. The same said again: One shall study,

although he forgets; shall study, although he does not understand it well. 1 (Here is repeated from Sanhedrin, p. 369, and from Erubin, p. 126. See there.) It reads [Psalm i. 3]: "And he shall be like a tree replanted by rivulets," etc. Said the disciple of Janai: "Replanted and not planted" signifies that he who receives his knowledge from one master, does not see any blessing in his studies. Said R. 'Hisda to his disciples: I would like to tell you something, but I am afraid you will leave me: He who studies always from one master, does not see any blessing. They then left him and went to the college of Rabba, who, when he heard the above reason, said to them: This is true only concerning reasons and ingenuity; but as for traditions, it is better to learn them from one master, so that they should not be metamorphosed in different versions. Tanhum b. Hanilai said: It is advisable to divide one's years into three parts: one-third for the study of Scripture, the second, Mishna, and the third, Talmud. But does one know how long he has to live? It means, he should do it every day.

"The fruit in its season . . . does not wither," said Rabha: It signifies that if the fruit is given in its season, then its leaves will not wither; but if not, the succeeding verse (4) applies to both the teacher and pupil.

R. Aba in the name of R. Hunna, quoting Rabh, said [Prov. vii. 26]: "For many deadly wounded hath she caused to fall," means a disciple who, though not as yet fit, decides questions; "very numerous were slain by her," means the contrary: he who is fit to do so and does not. And until what age? Till he reaches his fortieth year. But has not Rabha decided questions in his youth? It was because there was no greater scholar than he. Aba b. Ada in the name of Rabh, or b. Aba in the name of R. Hamnuna, quoting Rabh, said: Even the gossip of a scholar is to be studied, as it reads: "And its leaves shall not wither."

R. Joshua b. Levi said: The following is written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, and thirdly in the Hagiographa: He who occupies himself with the Torah is prosperous in all his undertakings. In the Pentateuch [Deut. xxix. 8]: "Keep ye therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do," repeated in Prophets [Jos. i. 8]:

[paragraph continues] "This book of the book shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt mediate therein day and night, in order that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success." And thirdly in Hagiographa [Psalm i. 2, 3]: "But whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who doth meditate in his law by day and night. (3) And he shall be like a tree planted by rivulets of water, that yieldeth its fruit in its season, and the leaf of which doth not wither; and all that he may do shall prosper."

R, Alexander heralded: Who wants to live, who wants to live? And a big crowd surrounded him. He then referred them to [ibid. xxxiv. 14-16].

"Where the idols should be placed," etc. Said R. Eliezar in the name of R. Johanan: If however, he has built, the reward of it is valid. Is this not self-evident? It is only the preparation for the idol to which both R. Ismael and R. Aqiba agree that they are not forbidden, unless the idol is already worshipped? Said R. Jeremiah: The Mishna means that even if he has made the idol itself, the reward is valued. But this is correct only to him, who holds that when an Israelite made an idol for himself, it is forbidden even before it was worshipped; but of a heathen, it is not, unless worshipped. But to him who holds that the same is the case with the idol of a heathen, what can be said? Said Rabba b. Ula: The Mishna refers to the finishing touch, which completes the idol, and the reason is: what made the idol ready? The last touch, which in itself is not worth the smallest coin (a perutha), and therefore it is not forbidden. From this it may be inferred that the Tana holds the obligation to pay a laborer, counts from the beginning till the very end of the labor, and not only after its completion.

MISHNA IX.: One must not manufacture ornaments for an idol--e.g., necklaces, nose-bands and rings. R. Eliezar, however, maintains that for reward one may. Nothing must be sold to them while attached to the ground, but after it was cut off, one may. R. Jehudah said: He may also sell with the stipulation to cut it off afterward.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jose, from [Deut. Vii. 2]: "Nor favor them," 1 means, he shall not give

him a rest in the land; we have learned similarly in a Boraitha, with the addition that it also means: You shall not give him such which shall make them merciful in the eyes of others. (Here is repeated from Chulin, p. 114 b.) The above statement is a support to that which Rabh said: It is forbidden to say: How nice is this female heathen? An objection was raised. R. Simeon b. Gamalien, being once on the steps of the Temple mountain, happened to see a female heathen who was a great beauty, and he exclaimed: "How great is thy work O Lord!" And it happened also to R. Aqiba that, when he saw the wife of Tornus Rupus, he laughed and wept. Laughed, because he saw that she would become a proselyte, and he would marry her; wept, that such a beauty must be buried under earth? This does not contradict Rabh, as it was only a benediction, which one has to recite by seeing nice creatures. 1 R. Joshua b. Levi said: Modesty is the greatest of them all, as it reads [Is. lxi. 1]: "Hath anointed me to announce good tidings unto the meek," it does not read to announce pious men, but meek; hence modesty is greatest.

"One must not sell." The rabbis taught: One may sell them a tree with the stipulation to cut it off, and he cuts it immediately, so R. Jehudah. R. Mair, however, says: Only that which is already cut. The same is the case with hay, and also with flour. According to R. Jehudah, it may be sold to harvest, and according to R. Mair that which is already harvested. It was necessary to learn their points of differing in all the three, as one from the other could not be inferred (we omit the reasons, as of little importance). The schoolman propounded a question.. May one sell them a cow with the stipulation to slaughter it? Shall we assume that the above things R. Jehudah permits, because they are not under the control of the heathen so that he is not able to prolong time? But in the case of a cow which he takes immediately, he may prolong the time a good deal until slaughtering, and this even R. Jehudah will not allow. Come and hear the following: One may sell a cow with the stipulation of slaughtering, and the heathen has to do it immediately. So R. Jehudah, while R. Mair permits only the sale of the slaughtered.

MISHNA X: Houses must not be rented to the heathens in Palestine, not to speak of fields. In Syria, however, houses are permitted to be sold, but not fields, and out of Syria houses may be sold and fields rented. So R. Mair. R. Jose, however, said: In Palestine, houses may be rented, but not fields, in Syria houses sold, and fields rented; out of Syria, everything may be sold. However, even in the places where renting is allowed, it must not be for residence, as the idol is brought there, which is against [Deut. Vii. 26]: "And thou shalt not bring an abomination in thy house." A bath-house must not be rented at any place because it is named after the owner, who is an Israelite (and he can be suspected of heating it himself on the Sabbath).

GEMARA: What is meant by the expression "not to speak of fields"; is it because two things would be neglected, resting the fields and tithe from the growth? The same would be with the houses also, resting, and the neglect of a mazuza? Said R. Mesharshia: The mazuza is not an obligation upon the house, but upon him who lives in it.

"In Syria houses," etc. Let us see; why is selling forbidden? Because it is considered as the land of Israel. Why, then, is renting permitted? Renting even in Palestine is only as a safeguard that one should not come to sell; and a safeguard to a safeguard we do not decree. But is not renting fields in Syria also a safeguard to a safeguard, and is nevertheless forbidden? This is not considered a safeguard, as the Tana holds that the land which was taken away by an individual (not by the people of Israel at large) is considered, nevertheless, to be the land of Israel. Hence, against fields upon which two things would be neglected, as said above, the rabbis decreed; but this is not the case with houses.

"In Syria houses are permitted," etc. For the just-mentioned reasons. "R. Jose . . . in Palestine, houses," etc. Also for the same reason.

"In Syria houses sold," etc. It is because he holds that the land which was taken by an individual is not considered the land of Israel, and, therefore, only against fields they decreed for the reasons adduced above, but not against houses.

"Everything maybe sold," etc. Because it is far from Palestine, no decree was rendered. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose. Said R. Joseph: Provided it does not make a whole neighborhood of heathens,

[paragraph continues] And there is a Boraitha: That less than three families is not considered a neighborhood.

"Where renting is allowed," etc. From this we infer that not in every place renting is allowed. Hence, the unnamed Mishna is according to R. Mair; as according to R. Jose, renting is permitted in every place.

"Put not a bath-house," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Gimalia said: One must not rent his bath-house to a heathen because the bath is named after the owner and the heathen does his labor on Sabbath and holidays (and people may think that the Israelites themselves do this). But how is it to a Samaritan? It may be rented, although he works on the minor festivals? On minor festivals, we Israelites also are permitted to heat baths. But let us see why it is permitted to rent a field to a heathen, although he does labor on Sabbath? Because people know that the gardener is doing work for himself. Why not say the same concerning a bath-house? It is because usually a field is hired to a gardener, which is not the case with bathhouses. There is another Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Eliezar: One must not rent his field to a Samaritan because it is named after him, and the Samaritan works the field during the minor festivals. But how is it with a heathen? It is allowed, because people know that he does it for himself; why not say the same concerning a Samaritan? R. Simeon b. Eliezar does not consider the reason of a gardener at all, and his reason why it is allowed to a heathen is that if we tell him that be should not work, he will listen to, which is not the case with a Samaritan, who thinks that he knows better than woe do. There were fields of safran in partnership of an Israelite and a heathen; the heathen worked on Sabbath and the Israelite on Sunday, and Rabha has permitted to do so. Rabbina questioned him from the following: "An Israelite and a heathen who have hired a field in partnership, the Israelite must not say to the heathen: You take your share on Sabbath and I on a week day, unless it was so stipulated at the time they started. However, when they come to make their accounts, it is not permitted to the Israelite that he should take his share from the Sabbath labor." Rabha became ashamed; thereafter, however, it was announced that such was stipulated when the partnership was started.

The schoolman propounded a question: How is it if there was no stipulation? Come and hear: "If such a stipulation was made at the time when started, it is allowed"; whence it may

be inferred, that if there was no stipulation, it is prohibited. But if so, how is the latter part to be understood? "When they come to make the account, the Israelite must not take his share of Sabbath," from which it may be inferred that without an account, he may accept it, although there was no stipulation. In view of this, from this Boraitha nothing can be taken for a support.

Footnotes

1:1 The term for festivals in the Mishna, is "Aidehen" and Rabh and Samuel are discussing this term at some length. According to one it is Aidehen and means misfortune while to the other it is "Edihen," and means "witnesses." It is because the sages of the Mishna hesitate to name the holidays of the idolaters with the term "festivals." We, however, deem it not necessary to translate this discussion, as it is unimportant.

1:2 The term for people here, is Leum and by an analogy of expression it is inferred to mean kingdom.

4:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

5:1 The term for this word is sh'hok, which means both sport and smile, hence the objection.

5:2 The translation of this verse does not correspond at all, it is therefore of no use to quote it.

6:1 Leeser's translation, according to the sense, does not correspond with the Talmud who takes it literally.

9:1 We do not quote the passage, as the translation of it does not at all correspond.

12:1 In text many things on which the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehoshua b. Kar'ha are gathered, though they do not belong to this tract at all; and as all of them are mentioned, each in its proper place, they are omitted here.

13:1 The word complaint is termed by shicho, which means "prior" according to the Talmud concerning Isaac in [Gen. xxiv. 63] where the same term is used.

16:1 We do not quite understand how to make out 206 years according to this account. Rashi's explanation does not suffice, and all other commentators keep silent. The Gamara itself was in doubt, concerning this account, as R. Papa said in text. We have, however, omitted it, leaving the whole affair to the historian.

16:2 There are a few lines repeated here from Sanhedrin, p. 303, to which we could not refer because of the continuation in text.

16:3 The reader must not forget that this was said fourteen centuries ago.

16:4 This account remains very complicated, notwithstanding Rashi's attempt to explain it. And as it seems to us unimportant, we have omitted the whole discussion.

18:1 For the explanation, see Taanith, p. 4.

20:1 To the explanation of these peculiar words, we give the following of Jastrow Dictionary: an alleged proclamation made in Rome on the occasion of a sort of secular game, and intended as a satire of Eseau (Rome) on his brother Jacob (Judaism). The interpretations of commentaries (sakh number of years predicted for the coming of the Messiah, or sakh brother) are unsatisfactory.

25:1 This Mishna is repeated from tract Passover, p. 90. We did not omit because it is a Mishna and because of the discussions of the Gemara here.

27:1 The text discusses here whether an animal in convulsive movement before death is considered alive or dead, which is inserted here not in its proper place, nor is it of importance and therefore omitted.

27:2 In Tosaphta Chulin (ii. 24) it states that Eliazar said: Jacob has related to me things of minim in the name of Jeshu b. Panthyra, and I was pleased with them. But it is not mentioned what it was, and we are in doubt whether it means the joke in text. This may serve as an answer to the criticism of the "Open court" Vol. 16, pp. 475-477.

29:1 The term for discretion in Hebrew is me zema the last word is the term for prostitution and the Talmud explains it as it would be written men zema which means from prostitution.

33:1 The text does not say what happened to her. Rashi explains that she committed suicide because of a discussion between her and her husband, who finally conquered her.

35:1 In text it is inferred from (Ps. cxix. 20). However, the translation does not correspond and therefore the quotation is omitted.

36:1 The term for favor in Hebrew is chanina. Chanina means also rest. Hence the deduction.

37:1 Here is repeated from many tracts, especially from Middle Gate, p. 227, and a whole Mishna front Tract Shekalim vi, which we have omitted. The statement of R. Joshua b. Levi in text belongs to the Mishna Shekalim vi, which states that piety is greater than all other good things.

Chapter I

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA I.: If, after the court had decreed the transgression of one of all the commandments prescribed in the Torah, an individual guided by this decree acted erroneously, either simultaneously with the judges, or after they had acted, or altogether independently, the court not having acted yet at all, he is free, for he followed the decree of the court. If, however, the transgressor was one of the members of the court and knew the decree to be erroneous, or a scholar already qualified to himself decide, he is in any of the aforementioned conditions liable (to bring a sin offering), as he has not based his transgression upon the decree of the court. This is the rule: Whoever relies upon his own judgment is liable, but whoever follows the decision of the court is free.

GEMARA: Samuel said: The court is not liable unless its decree read thus: You are all-owed to practise so and so. R. Dimi of Nahardea, however, said: The phrase "to practice" is not necessary, the statement "you are allowed" being sufficient; which view was, however, objected to by Abaye, R. Aba, and Rabima from Mishnaioth that oppose it and it was accordingly overthrown without any further discussions.

"An individual . . . acted erroneously," etc. Said Rabha: This is so only when he acted ac-cording to the decree of the court, but if he ate, e. g., illegal fat in the belief that it was legal, he is liable. This view of the case so certain to Rabha was doubtful to Rami b. Hama, as he propounded the same question and Rabha answered it from the expression "guided by this decree" (the Gemara, however, says) that in this case Rabh R. Johanan differ, viz.: in case the court has decreed that this fat is allowed to use and has consumed illegal fat thinking it legal, according to the former he is free, and according to the latter he is liable. And. R. Papa explained R. Johanan's

reason to be that the transgressor is still considered as having acted in accordance with the decree, as if the court became aware that it has erred it would retract and so would the transgressor abstain from eating, hence R. Johanan's decision. And Rabha said: Rabh admits that the transgressor in question does not complete the majority, because it reads "erroneously," which means that all must err with regard to the same thing but not to different things.

"Either simultaneously with the judges," etc. This is stated in order to teach that he is free, not only when he acted simultaneously with, but also when after, the judges had acted.

"A scholar qualified," etc. To what purpose are both the conditions stated? Rabha: To teach that even such a person who is learned but who lacks discriminating power, or vice versa, is also culpable. Said Abaye to him: But from the statement of the Mishna, "who is already qualified to decide," obviously follows that he is both learned and strong is discrimination? Answered Rabha: I mean to say that if the Mishna stated not the last phrase, it could be said that in order to make him liable he must possess the two qualifications, hence the Mishna states it to indicate that its first phrase refers to him who possesses even but one qualification.

Again: "Qualified himself to decide," etc. Who is meant thereby? Said Rabha, such, e.g., as Simeon b. Azai and Simeon b. Zoma. Said Abaye to him: An act of such great men may be considered intentional; we must, therefore, say that such a case can take place only if he was aware that such is prohibited, but he committed an error by thinking that it is meritorious to follow the decree of sages even when they err.

"This is the rule," etc. What does this sentence intend to add? Him who does not care at all to guide himself by the decision of the court. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The whole Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah (the Jana), but according to the sages one is liable for acting upon the decree of the court as his guidance. Which R. Jehudah is this? From the following Boraitha. It reads [Lev. iv. 27]: "If any person . . . sin through ignorance, by his doing," where there are three extensions, to teach that he is liable by his doing it himself, but if by doing it upon the decree of the court, he is free. And which sages are there spoken of? From Torath Kohanim, section i., Leviticus. But let us see, our Mishna as well as that of Torath Kohanim is each taught anonymously;

hence, then, do we know that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah and the Boraitha with the rabbis, may be the converse is the case? Nay, as of no other have you heard to consider such extensions than of R. Jehudah, who said in the following Boraitha: it reads [ibid. vi. 2]: "This is the law of the burnt-offering," where there are three extensions. However, the Mishna can not be in accordance with R. Jehudah, for the reason that according to him the congregation is liable to bring a bullock in case its majority have sinned erroneously, while according to the sages the court must bring it. Therefore, our Mishna must be interpreted to mean that the court has decreed and only the minority has acted thereupon, and the point of their difference is that according to one an individual acting on the basis of the court's decree is free, while according to the other he is liable. R. Papa, however, said: All agree that in such a case the transgressor is free, and their point of difference is that one holds. The court is completing the majority of the congregation, while the other does not hold so.

R. Assi said: In a decision for practising, it is not the majority of the congregation but that of all the population that must be considered, as [I Kings viii, 65], "And Solomon held at that time the feast, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from the entrance of Chamath unto the river of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days," now, as it is written, "and all Israel with him," what for, then, yet the description, "great assembly from the entrance of Chamath unto the river of Egypt"? To teach that in such a decision (as to abolish the day of atonement) the population of the whole land is considered the assembly.

R. Jonathan said: If there were one hundred assembled to decide some point, there is no liability (attached to the transgression of the decision) unless the decree was made unanimously, as it reads [Lev. iv. 13]: "And if the whole congregation of Israel sin," which means that all sin by error, and that the decision be brought about unanimously. Said R. Huna b. R. Ashia: It seems to be so, since with regard to all the laws of the Torah there is a tradition that the majority is equivalent to the whole, and here it reads, "the whole congregation," i.e., it must be the whole of the body, so that if there were one hundred their decision must be unanimous.

An objection was raised from our Mishna which states that

he is liable if "he has not based his transgression upon the decree of the court," whence it follows by implication that if another one (not so qualified) acted thus he would be free; why so, since in this the decree was no longer unanimous (as one of the members deviates)? It means here that this one member has also nodded his head affirmatively (while the vote was taken).

R. Mesharshia objected from the following: Our masters have relied upon R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Elazar b. Zadok, who have decided that no decree must be promulgated unless the majority of the congregation is able to comply with it; and R. Ada b. Aba said: Where is there an allusion thereto in the Scripture? [Mal. iii. 9]: "With curse are ye cursed, and yet me do ye rob, O ye entire nation." Now, here is written the entire nation and nevertheless the majority is equivalent to the whole; hence, R. Jonathan's view is wholly overthrown, and the expression in the Scripture (cited above), "the whole congregation" means: if the whole is able to comply with the decree it is considered, but not otherwise.

MISHNA II.: If upon issuing the decree the court becomes aware of its being conceived in error and retracts, and meanwhile an individual commits a transgression upon that decree either before or after the court succeeded to bring its atoning offering, he is free according to R. Simeon, while R. Elazar classes it among the doubtful cases. In what sense is it doubtful? He may have stayed at his home, then he is liable; but if he was in the sea countries he is free. Said R. Aqiba: I agree that in the latter case he is rather free than liable. Whereupon Ben Azai asked: What difference is there between the two cases? It consists in that he who stays at home can possibly hear (of the retraction), while to the other one this is impossible.

If the court decided to annihilate a law in its very essence, by saying, e.g., that there is not in the Torah the law of menses, of Sabbath, of idolatry, the members of the court are free (from an offering); but if it decided to abolish only one part of a law retaining in force the other part, they are liable. How so? If it decided, e.g., that, though the law of menses is in the Torah, a man who has sexual relations with a woman in her watching days is free; or, that he who transports something from private to public grounds is free though the law of Sabbath is in the Torah; or, that the Torah truly forbids idol worship, yet he who bows to the idol is free--the court is liable, for it reads

(Lev. iv. 13): "And the thing be hidden," i.e., something, but not the whole essence.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: R. Simeon used to say that if one acted upon a decision issued by the majority of the congregation, he is free; because a decision discriminates between intentional and unintentional acting, and here the transgressor, guided in his act by the decision, sins unintentionally (though he acts intentionally), and according to Rabh R. Simeon is consistent with his own theory elsewhere that the bullock for the forgetting by the congregation, and the he-goat for idolatry, are to be brought from the treasury of the temple.

There is a Boraitha. In the case mentioned in the Mishna, R. Mair makes him liable, and R. Simeon holds him free, while R. Elazar finds this case to be doubtful; and in the name of Symachos such was said to be a pending case. Said R. Johanan: They differ concerning a pending-offering. Said R. Zera: R. Elazar's decision is like that regarding the case where one consumes fat doubtful whether it is legal or illegal, and thereafter he became aware that it was doubtful, he is to bring a pending offering; and not only according to him who obliges the congregation to bring such an offering, as such an act is known to every one, hence, if the transgressor has acted after the congregation brought its atoning offering, in which case it cannot possibly be said that he in his act guided himself by the court's decree,--but even according to him who obliges the court to such an offering, which may be not known to everybody, the transgressor is also liable, since he could find this out upon investigating.

R. Jose b. Abin, according to others b. Zebida, likens Symachos' decision to that regarding the case where one brings his atoning offering at twilight, which makes the atonement doubtful, since if it was yet day he is atoned, but if night he is not, and none the less he is not obliged to bring another offering.

"Ben Azai asked," etc. Is not Ben Azai right? The difference between them is the case when the transgressor has just set out on his journey; according to Ben Azai he is liable, while according to R. Aqiba he is free as soon as he starts on his way.

"If the court decided to annihilate," etc. Said R. Jehudah, in the name of Samuel: The court is not liable unless it has decided

upon a point which the Sadducees do not admit, but where they do, it is not considered an error, since even a child knows such a point, and the court is accordingly free.

MISHNA III.: If while the court was deciding, one of its members who perceived their error drew their attention to it, or if the presiding judge was absent, or one of them was a proselyte, a bastard, a nation, or an aged man who had no children, they are free; on the ground of the following analogy [Lev. iv. 3]: the expression congregation is used and [Numb. xxxv. 24] the same expression, it is inferred thus: just as there the expression means a congregational meeting whose members are singly and severally qualified to decide law questions, in the latter case it means the same.

GEMARA: "The presiding judge," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Sheshith: It is likewise found in a Boraitha of the disciples of R. Ismael, viz.: Why was it said that if the court decides on a point which the Sadducees admit, it is free? Because this is not considered an error but a fact of ignorance, as the members of the court ought to have learned; the same is the case here where the presiding justice was absent, some one of the members ought to substitute him, and as there was none competent to do so they are ignorants who ought to learn.

"The expression congregation," etc. And whence do we know that there they are fit to decide questions? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: It reads [Ex. xviii. 22]: "With thee," i.e., such as are equal to you.

MISHNA IV.: If the court decided in error, causing the whole people to act erroneously, a bullock is to be offered; but if the court decided intentionally (against the law) and the people acted in error, a sheep or goat is to be sacrificed (by each individual transgressor). If, however, the reverse was the case, all are free.

GEMARA: It states: If the court decided unintentionally and the people acted intentionally, they are all free, whence it follows by implication that if the unintentional act was equal to an intentional one, i.e., done independently of the court's decree, one is liable; and what case would illustrate this? E.g., the court decided that fat is legal and one has consumed such in the belief that it is legal, whence could be solved the question propounded above by Rami b. Hama? Nay, it may be said that because in the first part it speaks of an intentional decision

and of subsequent unintentional act, it expresses in the last part the reverse.

MISHNA V.: If upon the erroneous decree of the court the whole people, or its majority, acted, a bullock is to be brought; or, in case the decree referred to idol worship, a bullock and a he-goat; so holds R. Mair, while R. Jehudah says: Twelve tribes bring 12 bullocks, and in the case of idol worship yet 12 he-goats in addition. R. Simeon says: 13 bullocks in the one and 13 bullocks plus 13 he-goats in the other case respectively, thus making one bullock with one he-goat to each tribe, and one such pair for the court. If but seven tribes or the majority (of the people) acted upon the decree, the court members must bring a bullock, and in case of idolatry also a he-goat, so holds R. Mair, while according to R. Jehudah, the 7 tribes that sinned should bring 7 bullocks, and the innocent remaining tribes also sacrifice one bullock for the sinners. R. Simeon maintains his foregoing view, reducing the number of the sacrifices from 13 to 8.

If a tribal court caused by its erroneous decision the tribe to act accordingly, only this tribe is liable, while all the others are free, so holds R. Jehudah; the sages, however, maintain that only those are liable who act on the decree of the supreme court, for it reads [Lev. iv. 13]: "If the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance," hence not that of a single tribe.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If the court was aware that its decision was erroneous, lest one say that it is liable, it reads [Lev. iv. 14]: "The sin becometh known," but not the sinner, "through which they have sinned," i.e., if there were two tribes they bring two bullocks; three, three bullocks, and so forth. But perhaps it means: If two individuals have sinned, they must bring two bullocks, and if three, three, and so on? To this it reads: "The congregation shall offer," i.e., each congregation, as well as the congregation at large, is liable; how so? If there were two tribes, they bring two, and if seven tribes, they bring seven, and all other tribes who have not sinned should also each of them bring a bullock, since, though they have not sinned, they must conjoin themselves to the sinning tribes, as for this purpose it reads "the congregation," to make liable each of them. So R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, said: The seven tribes that have sinned bring seven, and the court brings one bullock in addition, for, as here *congregation

*

is used and there the same term, hence, just as there the court with the congregation is meant, the same is the case here. R. Mair, however, said: If the seven tribes have sinned, the court brings only one bullock, and all are free for the same reason, as congregation mentioned above means only the court, the same is the case here. And R. Simeon b. Elazar said, in the name of R. Mair: If six tribes have sinned, and they formed the majority of all Israel, or seven tribes, though not forming the majority of Israel, only one bullock must be brought.

"If a tribal court," etc. The school-men propounded a question: If one tribe has sinned, guided by the decree of the supreme court, may the other tribes conjoin with it to bring bullocks or not? Shall we assume that only to seven tribes conjoining takes place, but not to one, which does not form majority, or since it acted upon the decree of the court there is no difference whether one or seven? Come and hear: R. Jehudah said: If one tribe has acted in accordance with its court, it alone is liable, but if it acted according to the decision of the supreme court, all the other tribes are also liable. Said R. Ashi: It seems to be so also from our Mishna, which states, "only this tribe is liable, while all the others are free"; to what purpose does it add, "while all the others," etc., after it states "only this tribe," etc? To teach us, thus: Only in the case of its own court, but if it is a case of the supreme court, all the others are also liable.

But let us see, whence do both R. Jehudah and R. Simeon deduce that one tribe is also called Kahal, i.e., congregation (of all Israel)? From [II Chron. xx. 5]: "And Jehoshaphat stood forward in the Kahal of Judah and Jerusalem." R. A'ha b. Jacob opposed: Perhaps there it was Kahal, because the tribe Benjamin, too, was there, hence more than one tribe? Therefore, says he, it is deduced from [Gen. xlviii. 4]: "And I will make of thee a Kahal of people"; now, at that time Benjamin was born, and you infer from here that so said the Merciful One to Jacob: one Kahal more is born to you. Said Shba to R. Kahana: But perhaps the Merciful meant, now as Benjamin is born, and you have twelve tribes you are called a Kahal? And he answered: Do you mean to say that eleven tribes are not called Kahal?

The rabbis taught: If one member of the congregation dies, the liability does not cease, but if one member of the court dies, it does cease. According to what Tana is this Said R, 'Hisda,

in the name of R. Zera, in the name of R. Jeremiah, quoting Rabh: It is in accordance with R. Mair, who said that the court and not the congregation brings the offering; hence, if a member of the court dies, it means one of the partners to the sin-offering died, and in such a case the sin-offering can not be brought.

R. Joseph opposed: Why not say on the same reasoning lines that it is in accordance with R. Simeon, who says that the court with the congregation must bring the offering? Said Abaye to him: We have heard R. Simeon saying elsewhere that a sin-offering of partners is not put to death: If the bullock and he-goat of the day of atonement upon being lost were substituted by others, and thereafter the first were found, they all are put to death (because none of them is fit for the altar); so R. Jehudah. R. Elazar and R. Simeon, however, maintain that they must be kept until they become blemished, as there is a rule that a sin-offering of a congregation is not put to death. Rejoined R. Joseph: You speak of priests, an entirely different case, as they are themselves called Kahal [Lev. xvi. 33]: "For all the priests and for all the people of the Kahal." Answered Abaye: According to this they ought to bring a bullock for an erroneous decision by their own court; and should you say that such is the case, then there will be more than twelve tribes! Thereupon said R. A'ha b. Jacob that the tribe of Levi is not called Kahal at all, as from the above cited verse [Gen.], it is to be understood that they who inherited landed property in Jerusalem are called a tribe, but not the Levites, who had no such inheritance. But if so there are fewer than twelve tribes? Said Abaye: It reads there [ibid.] that Ephraim and Menashah (the two sons of Joseph) are considered as Rubin and Simion: i.e., as two tribes. Said Rabha: Does it not read [ibid., ibid. 6]: "After the name of their brothers shall they be called"? The answer is: They are called after the brothers' name only in respect of inheritance, but not in other respects. But are they not all divided into flag-division? This was only to honor the flags, as the division of the inheritance took place in accordance with the flag-divisions. But are they not divided according to their respective princes? This also was done to honor the princes; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Solomon has celebrated seven days the dedication of the temple; why did Moses celebrate twelve days the tabernacle? To honor the princes.

JSON: /api/sources/talmud/vol-9-05-chapter-i.json