Talmud su Esodo 22:78

MISHNAH: The following are recited in the vernacular: The verses of the suspect wife¹The verses the Cohen has to read to the wife before she drinks. While the scroll has to be written in Hebrew, the wife has to understand them and, therefore, they have to be translated into her vernacular., and the declaration of tithes²Deut. 26:12–16., and the recitation of the Šema‘³Cf. Berakhot, Chapters 1–2., and prayer⁴The eighteen (respectively 7 or 9) benedictions of the ‘Amidah; cf. Berakhot, Chapters 1–2., and grace⁵After a meal., and the oath of a witness⁶If somebody puts an oath on a possible witness that he should come and testify for him; Lev. 5:1. Testimony itself is given without an oath., and the oath about a deposit⁷Ex. 22:6–12..

MISHNAH: If somebody borrowed a cow and asked its owner [to work with him], or borrowed a cow and paid its owner [to work with him], or asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and then borrowed the cow: if it died he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner was with it he does not pay¹Ex. 22:14. The verse is read to mean that the borrower is not liable to pay for an animal which dies while working for him if its owner also was working for him all the time the animal was working. The owner need not be near the animal at the moment of its death..”
But if he borrowed the cow and afterwards asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and it died he is liable since it was said: “if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay.²Ex. 22:15.”

MISHNAH: If somebody borrowed a cow and asked its owner [to work with him], or borrowed a cow and paid its owner [to work with him], or asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and then borrowed the cow: if it died he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner was with it he does not pay¹Ex. 22:14. The verse is read to mean that the borrower is not liable to pay for an animal which dies while working for him if its owner also was working for him all the time the animal was working. The owner need not be near the animal at the moment of its death..”
But if he borrowed the cow and afterwards asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and it died he is liable since it was said: “if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay.²Ex. 22:15.”

MISHNAH: The following adolescent girls¹The biblical law prescribes (Deut. 22:28–29) that the man raping נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה “a virgin adolescent girl” has to pay her father 50 šeqel and must marry her. In the corresponding law about the seducer of a virgin (Ex. 22:15) he has to pay if he does not marry the girl. In that paragraph, the adolescent is not mentioned; but since it is stated that the father has the right to withhold her from the seducer, it follows that the girl cannot be an adult; she must be underage or adolescent. An adolescent is a girl in the first 6 months after she grows two pubic hairs, cf. Nedarim Chapter 10, Note 1. The age at which the fine can be claimed is the topic of Halakhah 3:9. can claim a fine: From someone who has intercourse with a bastard girl²Obviously, one who rapes or seduces an eligible Jewish girl has to pay. The Mishnah enumerates only those categories where there might be an argument that he should not be required to pay. Each category is discussed in the Halakhah. A bastard is excluded from contracting a valid marriage in the native congregation in Deut. 23:3., or a Gibeonite or a Samaritan girl, and one who comes to a female proselyte, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at less than three years and one day of age³Cf. Mishnah 1:2.. Also from one who has intercourse with his sister, or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, or his wife’s sister, or his brother’s wife⁴If she was divorced or became a widow before the final marriage. The preliminary marriage activates all incest prohibitions implied by marriage., or his paternal uncle’s wife⁵But for a capital crime he does not pay since there cannot be two punishments for one crime. Extirpation is a divine punishment, outside the purview of a human court., or a menstruating girl; he has to pay the fine since it is not a capital crime⁶This word is in the ms. and editio princeps but should be deleted. even though he is subject to extirpation.

MISHNAH: There are four main categories of damages¹Most rules of payment for damages may be derived from the examples of damages treated in Ex. 21–22, as explained in the Halakhah.: The bull²An agressive bull goring with his horns; Ex. 21:28–32;35–36., and the pit³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34., and the devourer⁴Damage caused by an animal other than goring: feeding (“the tooth”) and trampling (“the foot”), Ex. 22:4. The Aramaic root בעי is found in Pseudo-Jonathan to Num. 22:2 as translation of Hebrew לחך “to devour”. The unusual expression מַבְעֶה is used to subsume two legal terms under one., and the setting on fire⁵Ex. 22:5.. The bull is not like the devourer, nor the devourer like the bull⁶Since goring, trampling, and devouring are all ascribed to the same animal, the question arises why the bull has to be mentioned in two different categories both in the Mishnah and in the biblical text. The details are given only in the Babli: An animal which gores is intent on causing damage; therefore the rules are different for known agressive or generally not agressive animals since these require different levels of supervision. But the rules for damage caused by feeding and trampling are the same for all animals.; neither of them who are alive is like the pit⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which is not alive, nor either of them which move in causing damage is like the fire⁷It is obvious and confirmed by all other sources that the positions of “pit” and “fire” have to be switched. which does not move in causing damage. The common theme of them is that they are usually causing damage and you are obligated to watch them, and if damage was caused the person causing the damage is obligated to pay the damages in best quality land⁸If the person causing the damage cannot pay, the person collecting damages can foreclose the culprit’s land with the highest value per unit of surface area. As biblical law, this applies to damages caused by unattended animals, Ex. 22:4..

MISHNAH: If one deposited an animal or vessels with another¹Without paying for the service. The paid trustee has to pay except for an act of God or armed robbery. and they were stolen or lost: If the other paid and did not want to swear²Since he avoids all oaths because of religious scruples. although they said that the unpaid trustee swears and is absolved³Mishnah 7:8, based on Ex. 22:6–8. He has to swear (1) that the object deposited is not in his possession and (2) that he was not negligent., in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution⁴Ex. 22:6.; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁵Ex. 21:37.. To whom does he pay? To the person with whom it was deposited⁶Who had acquired the right to the deposited object by paying for it..
If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them⁵Ex. 22:10., would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay⁶Since the entire paragraph is about the obligations of the paid trustee in case the deposit was lost. Only the case in which he does not have to pay is described; from this it follows that in all other circumstances he has to pay.? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay⁷Babli 45a, Bava qamma107a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai ad loc., (Tosephta 6:7.)
Probably this statement has to be interpreted following the parallels in the Babli and the Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai: The oath grants the trustee absolute immunity. Even if afterwards witnesses are found who prove that the trustee stole the deposit, he cannot be made to pay. This cannot be inferred from the first part of the verse quoted earlier.
Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin treats the statement as paradigm for all oaths prescribed in the Torah and sees in it proof for the statement that “All who must swear by Torah standards do swear not to pay.”. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi⁸The Babylonian name of R. Yasa who is named correctly in the parallel, Halakhah 4:14 (Note 118). say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay⁹Why should this simple inference be particular to R. Meїr and require R. Joḥanan’s statement?. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower¹⁰It really should read: The depositor may stipulate with a paid or unpaid trustee that they should be strictly responsible for the deposit like a borrower (Mishnah 8:1). Since this is a money matter, the biblical conditions are only valid if there are no explicit dispositions for deviations from these standards (Bava meṣi`a5:5 Note 81). The verse may be read: If the owner accepts the oath, the trustee does not pay; this leaves open the option that the owner stipulated that he would not accept the oath.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech¹¹There is no disagreement with R. Meїr in the interpretation of scriptural verses but there is much disagreement in the interpretation of vows and informal texts..

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written⁷Deut. 22:29, speaking of the rapist.: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife⁸This argument will be used at the end of the paragraph to exclude the slave-girl from consideration since she cannot legally marry anybody. The bastard can legally marry a proselyte or another bastard (Mishnah Qiddušin4:1). The inverse question could be asked if a bastard rapes a regular Jewish girl. The question is asked in the Babli, 29b.. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, that added many virgins. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price¹⁰It implies only that even a virgin disqualified in general still has a claim to a full ketubah; e. g., if a bastard girl marries a proselyte.. But where was this said¹¹That the fine must be paid.? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse¹²By a biblical prohibition.? The verse says “refusing should refuse”, in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry¹³While the Gentile slave-girl of a Jewish owner becomes pseudo-Jewish by baptism in a miqweh, she would be able to contract a marriage only by manumission by which she would become a full-fledged proselyte. Cf. Halakhah 1:4, Notes 181–184.. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine¹⁴Mishnah 3:2.! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money¹⁵Even if he cannot be convicted because there were no two eyewitnesses to the act..

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written⁷Deut. 22:29, speaking of the rapist.: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife⁸This argument will be used at the end of the paragraph to exclude the slave-girl from consideration since she cannot legally marry anybody. The bastard can legally marry a proselyte or another bastard (Mishnah Qiddušin4:1). The inverse question could be asked if a bastard rapes a regular Jewish girl. The question is asked in the Babli, 29b.. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, that added many virgins. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price¹⁰It implies only that even a virgin disqualified in general still has a claim to a full ketubah; e. g., if a bastard girl marries a proselyte.. But where was this said¹¹That the fine must be paid.? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse¹²By a biblical prohibition.? The verse says “refusing should refuse”, in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry¹³While the Gentile slave-girl of a Jewish owner becomes pseudo-Jewish by baptism in a miqweh, she would be able to contract a marriage only by manumission by which she would become a full-fledged proselyte. Cf. Halakhah 1:4, Notes 181–184.. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine¹⁴Mishnah 3:2.! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money¹⁵Even if he cannot be convicted because there were no two eyewitnesses to the act..

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found³Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen goods being found arc found alive in his hand, be it ox, or donkey, or sheep, doubly shall he pay.” Since in 21:37 quadruple or quintuple restitution was ordered for selling or slaughtering stolen cattle or sheep, the mention of “donkey” extends the set of objects subject to double restitution beyond that subject to multiple restitution.”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings⁴Babli 83b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 13, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 194.. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”⁵Since a donkey is an impure animal excluded from the altar, its mention declares the law to be a strictly profane matter.. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.]⁶Addition of E, confirmed by a Genizah fragment. At first look, the argument seems to prove that double restitution be required only for animals whose firstborn are either given to the Cohen (cattle and sheep, Ex. 34:19), or for which a substitute is given to the Cohen (donkeys, Ex. 34:20,13:13). The extended arguments in the Babli, 64a, and even more so in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 194, note that the explicit mention of “stolen goods” shows that the list is incomplete and, therefore, no restriction is intended.. Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof⁷Babli 64b; for these only simple restitution is required. Documents which prove a claim do not in themselves represent money’s worth..

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this⁷That the fine has to be paid to the trustee if the latter had refused to swear.? “If the stolen object be found in his hand⁸Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen object be found in his hand … double he shall pay.”.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double⁹Since this is explicit in Ex. 22:6 (for money or vessels), why does it have to be stated in v. 3 for livestock?? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case¹⁰If the objects were stolen from their owner; Ex. 21:37–22:3., use it for the following subject¹¹If they were stolen from the unpaid trustee, Ex. 22:6–8.. Rebbi [ ]¹²The name of an Amora is missing here. The discussion cannot be between Rebbi and the Tanna R. Jehudah (bar Ilai) since Rebbi was a student of R. Jehudah’s son and never used Aramaic in learned discussions. E reads “Rav Naḥman”. S. Lieberman suggests that he might be R. Naḥman from Jaffa [Gen. r. 53(4)], one of the rabbis of Caesarea. went to the “term”^12*The “term” is the twice-yearly period of public lectures. of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited¹³Since one has to assume that the thief has to pay to the person from whom he stole. Then the trustee would have to pay the restitution to the object’s owner but could retain the fine for himself.? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay¹⁴Ex. 22:3..” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes¹⁵Since it says “double”, not “he has to pay the value of the theft and then a fine in an equal amount”, it follows that double restitution is one payment to one recipient.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid¹⁶Babli 34a,37a. Since by necessity the transaction between owner and trustee happened before the thief was apprehended, when neither one of the two were in possession, the right to ownership is transferred by agreement, rather than by actual payment..

HALAKHAH: “There are four main categories of damages,” etc. The bull means the horn, as is written: “If a man’s bull smite another person’s bull,⁹Ex. 21:35.” etc. So far a harmless animal¹⁰It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.. From where a notorious [dangerous] one¹¹For which full damages have to be paid.? “Or it was known that it be a goring bull,¹²Ex. 21:36.” etc. The pit, “if a man open a pit,” etc.; “the pit’s owner has to pay,³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34.” etc. The devourer: “If a person causes a field or a vineyard to be despoiled by sending his animals;¹³Ex. 22:4. The meaning of יַבְעֵר is in doubt because of lack of parallels. It might as well be referring to damage by excessive grazing as to destruction by trampling.” this is the foot as it is written¹⁴Is. 32:20. The same explanation of Ex. 22:4 by Is. 32:20 is in the Babli, 2b.: “Those who send the foot of bull and donkey.” And it is written¹⁵Is. 5:5.: “Remove its cover and it will be despoiled,” that is the tooth, “tear down its fence and it will be trampled,” that is the foot. And the setting on fire, as it is written⁵Ex. 22:5.: “If fire starts and finds thistles,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “There are four main categories of damages,” etc. The bull means the horn, as is written: “If a man’s bull smite another person’s bull,⁹Ex. 21:35.” etc. So far a harmless animal¹⁰It has no history of attacking other animals. The owner only has to pay half the damage caused.. From where a notorious [dangerous] one¹¹For which full damages have to be paid.? “Or it was known that it be a goring bull,¹²Ex. 21:36.” etc. The pit, “if a man open a pit,” etc.; “the pit’s owner has to pay,³A person digging a pit in the public domain is responsible for any damage caused by his action; Ex. 21:33–34.” etc. The devourer: “If a person causes a field or a vineyard to be despoiled by sending his animals;¹³Ex. 22:4. The meaning of יַבְעֵר is in doubt because of lack of parallels. It might as well be referring to damage by excessive grazing as to destruction by trampling.” this is the foot as it is written¹⁴Is. 32:20. The same explanation of Ex. 22:4 by Is. 32:20 is in the Babli, 2b.: “Those who send the foot of bull and donkey.” And it is written¹⁵Is. 5:5.: “Remove its cover and it will be despoiled,” that is the tooth, “tear down its fence and it will be trampled,” that is the foot. And the setting on fire, as it is written⁵Ex. 22:5.: “If fire starts and finds thistles,” etc.

¹⁰The text from here to Note 44 is also in Pesaḥim 2:1, fol. 28c; the parallel in the Babli is Pesaḥim 21b–23a. The discussion is about the prohibition of usufruct of ‘orlah fruits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹¹In the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned. [But the name appears in the Munich ms. of the Babli; added from Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer]: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat¹²Singular or plural., it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat¹³The verse ends: You shall throw it to the dog. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct..” And what did it explain about a carcass? (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement¹⁴In the Babli (Pesaḥim 21b), Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 31) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule appealed to by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog?

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor,¹¹Ex.22:6. etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels¹²Cf. Qiddušin1:1 Note 96 for the arguments which show that this reading is impossible.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth¹³Quoted in Tosaphot39b, s.v. מה.. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

¹⁵Babli Bava qamma93a. It is written: If a man give to another, etc’, to keep¹⁶Ex. 22:6.. To keep, not to tear it up. To keep, not to throw it away. To keep, not to give it away as a gift. Rebbi Yose said, only if he said to give it to anyone he likes. But if he said, to X, since he is obligated to keep it is as if he kept it for him¹⁷The paragraph gives the rules of the unpaid keeper who in case of loss has to swear that he did not appropriate the article for himself and that it was not lost by his negligence. But if he received the article in order to dispose of it, or to distribute it to the poor, even if it was lost there cannot be any oath. R. Yose points out that this applies only if the charge was to distribute to the poor, not if it was to be delivered to a designated person. Rashi explains in Bava qamma that the depositor cannot sue because he renounced ownership and the poor cannot sue since the keeper was free to give to any poor person of his choice..

¹³Babli 3b. From where that civil cases are heard by three [judges]? The owner shall go to the judge,¹⁴Ex. 22:7. he added here one judge. Before the judge,¹⁵Ex. 22:8. these are two. Whom the judges will find guilty, these are three¹⁶Since the paragraph mentions judge three times., the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions¹⁷This is a generally accepted principle (Babli loc. cit.). The expression which introduces a subject always is necessary and cannot be considered additional or extraneous to the subject at hand.. But before the judge, there is one. Whom the judges will find guilty, there are two. No court may be even-numbered,¹⁸The duty of the court is to decide matters based on incomplete information. The possibility of a deadlock would defeat the purpose for which the court was convened. Therefore, no court may be even-numbered. If any of the judges did abstain from voting, the case would have to be tried anew with another judge substituting for the abstaining judge. so one adds another one; this makes three.

If he said, I am paying, one may suspect that possibly he took it for himself¹⁷One forces him to swear a rabbinic oath that the article is not in his possession.. If he said, I am swearing, but then he saw that other oaths were added¹⁸Since once a person is required to swear by biblical standards, the opposing party can make him swear on any other claims even if those claims alone would not be sufficient to force an oath: Soṭah 2:6, Notes 166–169. and he said, I am paying, one is suspicious¹⁹The oath required from every non-payor. For rabbinic oaths one cannot force additions; cf. Rosh Šebuot7, end of Section 18 (Alfasi Šebuot 7, # 1186.). Rebbi Yose said, the Torah did not impose an oath on him to restrict him but to ease for him; for if he wants to pay, he shall pay, and if he wants to swear, he shall swear²⁰Ex. 22:7–8. R. Yose denies the possibility of the imposition of a rabbinic oath if there is no case for a biblical oath.. If he had witnesses that it was forcibly stolen²¹Then he does not pay without swearing an oath., to that case refers what Rebbi Eleazar said: If somebody sells his claims of fines to someone else, he did not do anything²²If the trustee pays even though he is not required to swear in order to be freed from payment, he did not acquire the right to claim double restitution from the thief. If the thief is caught, he has to pay double to the owner of the object who then will return to the trustee what the latter had paid and retain the amount of the fine for himself.. If he had witnesses that it was stolen because of negligence, he comes under the category of “he shall pay”²³Ex. 22:8 explicitly obligates the trustee for damages caused by his negligence. In this case, the Mishnah does not apply and there is no statement that the claims were transmitted to the trustee.. If afterwards the stolen object was found, to whom does [the thief] pay? To the first, or to the second, or to both of them?

¹³Babli 3b. From where that civil cases are heard by three [judges]? The owner shall go to the judge,¹⁴Ex. 22:7. he added here one judge. Before the judge,¹⁵Ex. 22:8. these are two. Whom the judges will find guilty, these are three¹⁶Since the paragraph mentions judge three times., the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions¹⁷This is a generally accepted principle (Babli loc. cit.). The expression which introduces a subject always is necessary and cannot be considered additional or extraneous to the subject at hand.. But before the judge, there is one. Whom the judges will find guilty, there are two. No court may be even-numbered,¹⁸The duty of the court is to decide matters based on incomplete information. The possibility of a deadlock would defeat the purpose for which the court was convened. Therefore, no court may be even-numbered. If any of the judges did abstain from voting, the case would have to be tried anew with another judge substituting for the abstaining judge. so one adds another one; this makes three.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰Ex. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹²Ex. 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions.[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵The thief., to both of them¹⁶The answer is given at the end of the paragraph.? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief.]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief. and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸Who also will confess from whom he took the object., if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned.. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰That he owes them double restitution.. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily²⁸Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work²⁹Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned³⁰Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements³³Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes¹⁵The Mishnah prescribes taking heave of the tithe and ḥallah together, and only then to give a name to Second Tithe and to redeem it. Both tithes should have been given when the grain was first stored at the farm barn. The obligation of ḥallah comes much later, when grain is first made into flour and then the flour into bread dough.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late¹⁶“From your storage and your dema‘ you should not give too late,” Ex. 22:28. From this one concludes that a person who gave heave of the tithe before the first heave cannot declare that he followed all the rules of tithing. No similar rule seems to exist for ḥallah..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay¹⁷Since heave and tithes should have been given at the threshing floor, any fixing of demay is in itself in the wrong order.? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce¹⁸This refers to Mishnah 1:4 which states that the order of separation for demay is irrelevant, that one may separate the heave of the tithe (which is part of the First Tithe) after the Second Tithe. R. Joḥanan notes that this is one of the special leniencies for demay.? And here¹⁹In Mishnah 5:1. we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁰Tosephta Demay 5:6: “He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together …” There the order of the declaration is heave, heave of the tithe, ḥallah, Second Tithe. Since the first heave is mentioned, one speaks about produce from which nothing at all was yet taken. Nevertheless, ḥallah appears between First and Second tithes.: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe²¹Since ḥallah has the status of heave, once the obligation has started it should take the place of heave that must be given before any tithe.? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it²²Just as if one would transgress giving First Tithe before the heave, the heave given later must be not only from the remaining produce but also from the tithe, since anything that comes later needs to be put in order by fulfillment of the prior obligation. Then the requirement that ḥallah should be taken from dough made from grain from which heave and tithes were taken would be put on its head.. And we have stated in this respect²³Tosephta Terumot 4:10. It follows that heave and ḥallah are coordinate, not subordinate one to the other. Hence, each of them needs to be put in order with respect to the other. But definitely this should give ḥallah a status prior to tithes.: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe²⁴I. e., the heave of the tithe that must be given from the First Tithe. have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else²⁵Not quite everything else, but everything else which has to be given for demay, i. e., comes after heave.. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning²⁶Num. 18:12. Ḥallah also is called “beginning” (Num. 15:20,21) but its obligation does not start at the threshing floor..” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

¹⁶The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44, ע. It seems that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in ע. In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹⁷In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat¹⁸Plural., it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog¹⁹Ex. 22:30. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger.²⁰Deut. 14:21. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement²¹In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog²²The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.?

“His field¹²Ex. 22:4: “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate.”, except if it was mortgaged¹³“His field” excludes third-party interests.. “His vineyard”, except Temple property. Where do we hold¹⁴What relation can Temple property have with damages due from a private person?? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated¹⁵Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:2: “If somebody dedicated his property to the Temple while he owed a ketubah to his wife or a debt to a creditor, neither the woman nor the creditor can collect from the Temple; but the redeemer redeems on condition to pay the ketubah to the woman or the debt to the creditor. If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the redeemer] adds another denar and redeems these properties on condition to pay the debt to the creditor.” In order to combine two conflicting principles, viz., that vows cannot be used to escape obligations towards third parties, and that Temple obligations override all others, it is decreed that the Temple has to put the dedicated properties up for sale but collects only for the amount by which the value of the properties exceeds the obligation, with the third party buyer accepting the obligation to pay off the liens on the property. (It has to be a third party buyer since the person making the dedication would have to add another 25% to the redemption amount, Lev. 27:19.) Claims for damages have to be handled in the same way.: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “ ‘His neighbor’s ox⁵Ex. 21:35; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3. The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a.’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rebbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must hold about one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses¹⁶Not in documented form; the witnesses do not sign anything. Such a loan is not a mortgage and is not privileged. damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard”, except Temple property¹⁷The statement about Temple property is not to exclude Temple property from damage claims but to privilege Temple property relative to all civil claims..

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰Ex. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹²Ex. 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions.[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵The thief., to both of them¹⁶The answer is given at the end of the paragraph.? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief.]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief. and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸Who also will confess from whom he took the object., if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned.. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰That he owes them double restitution.. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

It was stated: If it was stolen from the man’s house¹⁶Ex. 22:6.. Not from his roof. Rebbi Eleazar said, that means, from an unprotected roof. But a fortified roof is like a house¹⁸Taking anything from a flat roof visible from the outside is not theft but robbery since it was in the open. There can be no double restitution in this case. But if the roof was surrounded by a wall so that nothing deposited there could be seen from the street it is theft and subject to its laws. Keeping a deposit on an open roof is gross negligence on the part of the keeper..

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath¹⁴In the Babli, 40a, this is a tannaitic statement commented upon by Samuel.. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate¹⁵Since anything can be decided upon the testimony of two witnesses, possession of real estate can be transferred without documentary proof by the testimony of witnesses. Similarly, real estate can be attached in foreclosure for unpaid fines upon the testimony of two witnesses.? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi)¹⁶A slip of the scribe’s pen; the first generation Samuel only had a medical, not a rabbinic degree. Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim¹⁷It is not clear whether the sentence is incomplete and one should add “of at least two oboloi”, or that only the situation of monetary claim and denial can be adjudicated by judicial oath, to support the opponents of R. Joḥanan in the next paragraph. The interpretation of the statement in the Babli has no relation to the discussion here..

“And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen¹⁸The argument is about Ex. 22:8, the basis of the Mishnah. A deposited something with B. B claims that the item was lost and as unpaid trustee he is not liable for damages. A accuses B of having appropriated the item for himself, i. e., to have stolen it. R. Joḥanan holds that this claim is no different from all other claims adjudicated under the rules of Ex. 22:6–8 and, therefore, an oath can be imposed on B only if the latter acknowledges liability for part of the claim., the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues¹⁹According to the Babli (Bava qamma106b, bottom) he is R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph, a student of Rav and member of R. Joḥanan’s court. differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it²⁰Ex. 22:6 reads: About anything criminal, about an ox, about a donkey, about a sheep, about a garment, about anything lost, if he says, for this is it, the suit of them shall come before the Elohim, he whom the Elohim find guilty shall pay double to his neighbor. Elohim means “the powerful;” it can be applied both to God and to judges. From this double meaning it is inferred that judges impose an oath before God on the accused if the latter has acknowledged for this is it, i. e., a partial admission. On the other hand, double restitution is the fine for the thief. Therefore R. Joḥanan is justified in his conclusion that since v.6 declares the entire paragraph to be about deposits, the entire sentence deals with the case of A accusing B of theft of the deposit.? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor²¹The colleagues agree that a fine can be imposed only for theft, but they hold that the clause for this is it does not apply to deposits but to repayment of loans and debts (Lev. 5:24). They have to take the position that this very long sentence deals with different subjects in different parts and that an oath is due on demand of the claimant for any accusation that a deposit was stolen.? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house¹⁶Ex. 22:6.; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter¹⁹The verse speaks of the unpaid keeper, who swears that he did not take it and that he was not negligent but does not pay. The corresponding cases for the paid keeper and the borrower are not mentioned in the verses. The definite article is interpreted to mean that the verse insists that it was stolen from this man’s house; the rule does not apply to others. By the reason explained later it is clear that the borrower cannot swear; he must pay. There is no intrinsic reason in the verse to exempt the paid keeper and the renter. Why are they exempt? In the Babli Bekhorot11a, the verse is read to exclude institutions; cf. Bava qamma7:1 (5d 46), Notes 10 ff.? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him²⁰There is a reason to extend the rule of the unpaid keeper to the paid one.; for you may say that there are three paragraphs²¹Ex. 22:6–8, 9–11, 13–14. A similar statement in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b.. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything²²He did not take anything for his personal use and was not criminally negligent.. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him²³The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear., swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found²⁴Ex. 22:7. If the thief was found, the unpaid keeper is absolved from any oath. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin15.. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house¹⁶Ex. 22:6.; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter¹⁹The verse speaks of the unpaid keeper, who swears that he did not take it and that he was not negligent but does not pay. The corresponding cases for the paid keeper and the borrower are not mentioned in the verses. The definite article is interpreted to mean that the verse insists that it was stolen from this man’s house; the rule does not apply to others. By the reason explained later it is clear that the borrower cannot swear; he must pay. There is no intrinsic reason in the verse to exempt the paid keeper and the renter. Why are they exempt? In the Babli Bekhorot11a, the verse is read to exclude institutions; cf. Bava qamma7:1 (5d 46), Notes 10 ff.? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him²⁰There is a reason to extend the rule of the unpaid keeper to the paid one.; for you may say that there are three paragraphs²¹Ex. 22:6–8, 9–11, 13–14. A similar statement in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b.. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything²²He did not take anything for his personal use and was not criminally negligent.. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him²³The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear., swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found²⁴Ex. 22:7. If the thief was found, the unpaid keeper is absolved from any oath. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin15.. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,¹²Ex. 22:4: “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate.” i. e., the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rebbi Ismael²²In the Babli, 48a, the attribution of names is switched; the same is implied by Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 296; the interpretation of R. Ismael is quoted anonymously in Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 196, together with the interpretation given later to the opinion of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”, of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rebbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so²³Why should the person responsible only pay corresponding to the best remaining parts of a ruined field?? But the court see what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage²⁴According to R. Aqiba, the holdings of the person suffering the damage are graded into best, average, and lowest quality. In each category, the value of the damage is established and paid by the person responsible with his best real estate in the given category, up to the value established in court.. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality [produce] and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rebbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”²⁵Since he reads the verse as referring to the method of estimating the damage, not payment, the Mishnah has no biblical foundation.? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. ²⁶This is a baraita, quoted in the Babli, 49b, in the name of R. Simeon (in some sources, R. Simeon ben Eleazar.) A similar, anonymous, text is in Tosephta Ketubot 12:2.“Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers²⁷Since a robber of land is also inflicting damage on the person robbed.. That a man should say, why should I have robbed [land] in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’ ” So far his real estate. His pledge²⁸If the person responsible cannot pay directly, any pledge taken should be of his most valuable possessions. was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate [is taken] from the best quality, also his pledge [is taken] from the best.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died³¹Ex. 22:13.; and it is said there, it dies or was broken²⁵Ex. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³²This is not an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died and died or was broken defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died³¹Ex. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan..

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died³¹Ex. 22:13.; and it is said there, it dies or was broken²⁵Ex. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³²This is not an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died and died or was broken defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died³¹Ex. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan..

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay³⁸Ex. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear<sup>39</sup>The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter<sup>40</sup>Since Ex. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable<sup>31</sup>Ex. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner<sup>41</sup>There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay<sup>42</sup>Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.<sup>44</sup>In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter<sup>45</sup>Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two..” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶Ex. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality^46,Ex. 22:8.⁵¹This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴²Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay³⁸Ex. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear<sup>39</sup>The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter<sup>40</sup>Since Ex. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable<sup>31</sup>Ex. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner<sup>41</sup>There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay<sup>42</sup>Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.<sup>44</sup>In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter<sup>45</sup>Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two..” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶Ex. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality^46,Ex. 22:8.⁵¹This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴²Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..

A slave may be a permanent sojourner⁴¹A slave may refuse to be circumcised and stay in the Jewish household as a “sojourner”, a Gentile who has accepted the seven Noahide commandments (prohibition of idolatry, murder, adultery and incest with direct descendents; eating flesh torn from living beings, blasphemy; prohibition of robbery, duty to live under the rule of a civil law). As such he is under the protection of the often repeated commandment to treat the sojourner well and he can be tolerated in a Jewish household since his touch does not make wine prohibited (Babli Avodah zarah 64b).
In the Babli, 48b, this is the position taken by R. Ismael; R. Aqiba (48b) and R. Eliezer (71a) prohibit keeping uncircumcised slaves.. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect⁴²This is not meant to be a generally valid statement; the idolator is not protected by the Covenant of the sojourner. What is meant is a rather technical detail. It is stated repeatedly in the Torah, e. g. Deut. 13:18, that statues and other idolatrous objects are prohibited for any use by a Jew. Therefore, valuables of an idolatrous character may only be used by Jews (for example, melted down for their precious metal content) if they come into the hand of a Jew already profaned, i. e., if a non-Jew has treated them contemptuously, preferably damaging them. The Yerushalmi holds that the sojourner still has the power of a Gentile to render profane objects of idolatry even though he is a monotheist, and make them available for a Jew to use. The Babli, Avodah zarah 64b/65a, explains away all the reasons quoted in this paragraph and decides that only an idolator can effectively render idols profane.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects⁴³This statement, that the status of sojourner is only temporary and should lead to full conversion is not found anywhere else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it⁴⁵Deut. 14:21: “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it, or sell it to a stranger.” This seems to imply that cadaver meat must be donated to the sojourner or sold to the Gentile. Whether it may be sold to the sojourner or donated to the Gentile is a matter of controversy in the Babli (Pesaḥim 21b, Avodah zarah 20a) and Sifry Deut # 104. R. Hila wants to decide following the majority that a sale to the sojourner is permitted..” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry⁴⁶In the Babli Avodah zarah 64b, this is the opinion of R. Meïr. The operative majority opinion there, that he has to accept all seven Noahide commandments, is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile⁴⁷This is the same statement as the preceding one, only it emphasizes that the sojourner has not lost his power to render idols profane which was his as an idolator.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden⁴⁸The Noahide precepts are supposed to be valid for all mankind. idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress⁴⁹Deut. 24:14: “Do not oppress the poor hireling, or the deprived, from your brothers or the stranger in your land, in your gates.” The stranger who has the right of permanent residence in your gates is the approved sojourner., do not cheat⁵⁰Deut. 23:17: “With you he shall dwell in your midst, at the place which he will chose, where he feels well within one of your gates; do not cheat him.”, and he is exiled like an Israel⁵¹The exile of the homicide to one of the cities of refuge, Num. 35:15: “For the children of Israel and the sojourner in their midst should these six cities be a refuge.”, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated⁵²More explicit in Babli Baba meṣi‘a 111b, Tosephta Baba meṣi‘a 10:4. In the latter source, it is explained that the prohibition of oppression includes the obligation to pay the day-laborer immediately.: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating⁴⁶In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is⁴⁷Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned⁴⁸It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said⁴⁹Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁰Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares⁵¹Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said⁵²Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat⁵³The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁴Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct⁵⁵In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay³⁸Ex. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear<sup>39</sup>The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter<sup>40</sup>Since Ex. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable<sup>31</sup>Ex. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner<sup>41</sup>There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay<sup>42</sup>Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.<sup>44</sup>In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter<sup>45</sup>Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two..” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶Ex. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality^46,Ex. 22:8.⁵¹This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴²Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it⁶⁴Lev. 24:18, incorrect quote. In the Babli, 10b, R. Ammi (Immi) explains יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה “pay for it” by יַשְׁלִימֶנָּה “shall supplement it,” i. e., pay the difference between the value of the living animal and the carcass. This argument has to be read into the quote here.,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.⁶⁵Ex. 22:12. The sentence has become unintelligible because it mixes quote and two distinct interpretations. Verses 9–12 refer to the person who undertook to watch over another’s property and is paid for his services. If there was a loss because of theft, the watchman has to pay because he failed to prevent the theft (v. 11). If livestock was lost to predatory animals, the watchman “has to bring it עד”. The masoretic vocalization עֵד means (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15 in the name of R. Joshia; Babli 11a) that witnesses who testify that the loss was caused by a lion or similar large animal against which the watchman was powerless, will free the watchman from his obligation to pay. He will have to pay for losses caused by smaller animals which attack by stealth. The other interpretations read עַד, either עַד I “until”, or עַד III “torn, robbed by the enemy”. In the Babli, 11a, and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:12, Abba Shaul reads “he shall bring the torn,” meaning that he does not have to pay for the residual value of the carcass. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15, R. Jonathan reads “he has to bring the owners to the place [of the attack]” to support his claim that the attack was by a large animal against whom he was powerless. The insertion of “up to the place” into Bar Pedaiah’s quote follows R. Jonathan, but his interpretation is that of Abba Shaul.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value⁶⁶Since the verse in Lev. only requires payment by a person who attacks an animal, not if the damage was caused by negligence.. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible⁶⁷By his negligence. he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole⁶⁸As one would understand from Lev. 24:18 without R. Immi’s interpretation.. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

⁵³The remainder of the Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 8:1 but to Bava meṣi`a3:13. There exists a full parallel in the Escurial ms. of Neziqin(E), reproduced above, and a not quite complete version published by R. H.Y.D. Azulai almost 200 years before the discovery of E; cf. Bava meṣi`a3:13, Note 89. The Leiden ms. there quotes only the first line followed by “etc.” This justifies considering the text of E as second source for the text here.
A short parallel to the discussion here is in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a44a. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Any word of criminality<sup>46,</sup>Ex. 22:8.<sup>54</sup>Mishnah Bava meṣi`a3:13 states that according to the House of Shammai, a keeper becomes unfaithful and liable for any and all damages to the deposit if he thinks of appropriating it for his own use; according to the House of Hillel only the actual taking triggers liability. The House of Shammai include in “word of criminality” also unspoken words which would prevent the keeper from swearing to his innocence.. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai? “Criminality,” any word of criminality. Explain it if he appropriated it through an agent⁵⁵Giving orders certainly involves words. If the order was criminal, the person giving the order can no longer swear truthfully that he did not take the deposit even if he himself never touched it..

⁷⁸There exists a parallel text, from a different redaction, in Qiddušin1:4, Notes 466–468. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Does one estimate for the extortionist, the thief, and the robber? He anwered him: one estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber. From where that one does not estimate for them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁷⁹Ex. 22:3; the thief has to pay in full if he cannot return the stolen animal in the shape in which he stole it.;” alive, not dead. That refers to theft; from where for robbery? Rebbi Abin said, “he shall return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.⁸⁰Lev. 5:23. The explanation adds one letter to the biblical text, changing the somewhat redundant description וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object which he robbed” into וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה כַּאֲשֶׁר גָּזַל “let him return the robbed object in the state in which he robbed it.””

On the Eighth {Day}. There are Tannaim who state, it⁹³The Tent of Meeting. was anointed; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not anointed. There are Tannaim who state, it was dismantled; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not dismantled. Rebbi Ḥanin said, it is obvious for us that for him who said, it was anointed it was dismantled; and for him who said, it was not anointed it was not dismantled. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written he anointed them⁹⁰Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between.. But he who said, it was not anointed, how does he uphold he anointed them? I consider it as if it were missing anointment and you anointed it. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written⁹⁴Ex. 29:37. If the altar was not put out of commission in the meantime because the Tent was dismantled, only one atonement would have been necessary. Therefore every day must have seen a new commissioning of the altar., seven days they shall atone the altar. But he who said, it was not dismantled, how does he uphold seven days they shall atone the altari Atonement by blood, as it was stated⁹⁵Babli 4a. The persons referred to are the High Priest for the service of the Day of Atonement and the priest chosen to burn the corpse of the Red Cow. The sprinkling water has to penetrate the prietly garments below the blood and oil by which they were dedicated.: On both of them they were sprinkling from all purifications⁹⁶Ashes from all Red Cows conserved in the Temple. that were there, so that the water should penetrate under the blood, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, under the blood and under the anointing oil.

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave⁷⁰Mishnah Ma‘serot 1:6 states that tithes and heave are due after threshing, when the grain kernels have been assembled into a heap and the heap was smoothed. It is shown in Ma‘serot, Halakhah 1:1, that property which was ownerless at the moment when heave was due is exempt from heave. This seems to contradict the statement here that if a person declared his grain ownerless before it was smoothed, then gave heave, and only after that again took possession, his heave might be heave. The entire argument is possible only for R. Meïr, since R. Yose holds that property can be abandoned only if another person takes it up (cf. Peah 6:1, Note 17). It follows that any heave given in this case is given only because by rabbinic decree this kind of pro forma abandoning was declared invalid; hence, there is a rabbinic obligation of heave. As the Babli notes (Nedarim 44b), any heave given from the repossessed grain must refer to the heap itself; it cannot possibly be given for unabandoned grain which is obligated by biblical decree (if we assume that heave is a biblical obligation after the Babylonian exile, cf. Ševi‘it Chapter 7, Notes 11 ff.).. Let us hear from the following⁷¹Mishnah Terumah 6:4. Stealing sacred property obligates the thief to pay back the amount taken plus a fine of one fifth (Lev. 5:16). The fifth is computed from above (amount stolen = 4/5 amount paid), which is one fourth from below (amount paid = 5/4 amount stolen). Halakhah 6:4 explains that one fifth has to be given to the Temple, restitution of Temple property, and another fifth to a Cohen, as restitution of heave.: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property⁷²Double restitution is required only for theft from natural persons: (Ex. 22:8) “He shall pay double to his neighbor.”.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his⁷³If this argument were valid, no corporation would ever be able to be engaged in agriculture in the Holy Land since it never could tithe.? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner⁷⁴Any duly authorized person can give heave for any corporation. The question asked at the start is not answered since we did not find a case in which it would make any difference.. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person⁷⁵This opinion is not supported by any other source in Talmudic literature..

He who passes by a pagan temple says (Prov. 15:25): “The Eternal will tear down the house of the haughty.” Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Abun, in the name of Rebbi Levi: “If he saw them sacrificing⁷⁵This is the reading of the Rome manuscript. The Venice print has מזבלין “bringing manure,” meaning the same, but using language of contempt. to an idol, he says (Ex. 22:19): He who sacrifices to gods shall be devoted to destruction.”

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

What is the fence that Moses made around his words? It says (Exodus 19:10), “The Eternal said to Moses: Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow.” But Moses the Righteous did not want to say this to them the way that the Holy Blessed One said it to him. So instead he said this to them (Exodus 19:15): “Prepare yourselves: for three days do not go near a woman.” Moses added an extra day for them on his own. (For this is what) Moses reasoned [to himself]: A man will go be with his wife [on the first day] and then his semen will come out of her on the third day, and then they will be [ritually] impure. And so Israel will receive words of Torah from Mount Sinai while in a state of impurity! Instead, I will add a third day for them (so that no man goes to be with his wife, and no semen will come out of her on the third day), and they will be [ritually] pure (and so they will receive Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of purity).
This is one of the things that Moses decided on his own (as a more strict ruling), and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He broke the tablets, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed apart from his wife, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. How so? He said to himself: If Israel need only remain in a state of holiness for a short period of time, and need only be ready to receive the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Exodus 19:10), “Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow”; then I, who am appointed [to receive the Divine Countenance] every day, at every moment, and do not know when He will speak with me, nor whether it will be during the day or at night – all the more so must I stay apart from my wife! And his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: He did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Numbers 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”; that is, mouth to mouth I told him to stay apart from his wife, and so he did. Another opinion also held that Moses did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, [but derived it instead from these verses] (Deuteronomy 5:27–28): “Go and tell them to return to their tents,” and then after that it says, “But you stay here with Me.” So [Moses] returned [to God] and stayed apart [from his wife], and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting. How so? He said to himself: If my brother Aaron, who was anointed with the anointing oil, and wrapped in [the priestly] garments, and is able to use all these things in a state of holiness, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Leviticus 16:2), “Tell your brother Aaron he may not come any time he wishes into the Sanctuary”; then I, who am never allowed in – all the more so should I stay outside the Tent of Meeting! So he stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He broke the tablets. How so? They say that when Moses went up on High to receive the tablets, he found that they had already been written and set aside during the six days of Creation, as it says (Exodus 32:16), “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved there upon the tablets.” (Do not read “engraved” [harut], but “freedom” [herut], for anyone who labors in Torah makes himself a free man.) At that moment, the angels who serve God pinned an accusation on Moses, saying: Master of the World, [it says] (Psalms 8:5–9), “What is the human that You should be mindful of him, the son of man that You should take note of him? You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and splendor. You have set him up to rule over Your handiwork. The world is beneath Your feet. Sheep and oxen, and all of them, and wild beasts as well. The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea.” So they spoke behind Moses’ back and asked: Why is this one, born of an earthly woman, worthy of ascending to the heights? as it says (Psalms 68:19), “You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having taken gifts.” He took them and went down, and was overjoyed. But when he saw that they were disgracing themselves with the Golden Calf, he said to himself: How can I give them these tablets? I will be binding them in serious commandments, and causing them to deserve death from Above! For it is written on these tablets, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). So he started to go back up. The seventy elders saw him and ran after him. He was holding on to one end of the tablets, and they grabbed on to the other end. But Moses’ strength was greater than all of theirs, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “And for all the awesome power that Moses displayed before all of Israel.” (He looked and saw that the writing was flying off them, and he said: How can I give these tablets to Israel? For there is nothing on them! So instead, I will take ahold of them and smash them, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I grabbed the two tablets, and I cast them out of my two hands, and I broke them.”) Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a human king who said to his messenger: Go out and betroth to me a beautiful, gracious maiden, whose deeds are lovely. The messenger went and betrothed such a woman. But after he betrothed her, he went and found her cheating with someone else. He made an instant (a fortiori) judgment with himself and said: If I give her the marriage contract now, she will immediately deserve death. [So let her instead] be released from my master forever. So, too, did Moses the Righteous make an (a fortiori) judgment with himself, and said: How can I give these tablets to Israel and bind them in serious commandments and cause them to deserve death? For it is written upon them (Exodus 22:19), “One who sacrifices to any gods other than the Eternal alone will be put to death.” So instead (I will take ahold of them and smash them, and thereby return the people to good standing, lest Israel say: Where are the first tablets that you brought down? These things are counterfeit! Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Numbers 12:8], “Mouth to mouth I speak to him” – that is, mouth to mouth I said to him: Break the tablets!) And there are others who say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 9:16), “I saw there that you had sinned against the Eternal your God.” It says only, “I saw there,” because he saw the writing flying off [the tablets]. Others say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 10:5), “[The tablets] were there, as the Eternal had commanded me.” It says only, “commanded me,” because [first] he was commanded to [break them], and then he broke them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “…that Moses performed before all of Israel.” Just as later on he was commanded and then did, so too here, he was commanded and then did. (Rabbi Akiva says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I took ahold of the two tablets.” A person can take ahold only of that which he has been permitted by his Creator. Rabbi Meir says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 10:2], “That [asher] which you broke”: Well done [yishar koach] that you broke them!)¹Rashi says the language of asher, “that,” is like the language of ishur, “permission.” I think it more likely that the text is making a play on words between asher and yishar [koah], “well done.” [trans.]

“Since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary”. For it was said (Ex. 22:8): “He should restitute double to his neighbor,” but not to the Sanctuary.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile¹²³The Gentile cannot claim damages in a Jewish court. In particular, claims for half damages are only possible between Jewish parties; for all others it is all or nothing.. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued¹²⁴Since any animal not belonging to the owner of the property is trespassing; the rancher does not have to interfere if his animals defend their territory.. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”¹²⁵Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one.? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter^18,These four entries do not refer to kinds of payments for damages but to the obligations of persons who hold other people’s property in case that property is lost, stolen, or damaged, as specified in Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 7:9 (based on Ex. 22:6–12). The unpaid trustee does not pay if he can swear that he did not use the property; the borrower pays for everything; the paid trustee and the renter have to pay for what was lost or stolen but may swear that it was not their fault if the damage was caused by an act of God or forcible robbery.¹²⁶If somebody received an animal under the terms of one of the four kinds of trusteeship and that animal did damage, the owner is responsible.. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them¹²⁷The formulation “courtyard” instead of “property” indicates that in this case both animals are illegally in the place where the damage occurred.. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.¹²⁸Ex. 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.¹²⁸Ex. 22:4, speaking of damage inflicted by animals grazing (tooth) and trampling (foot). This paragraph only deals with damage caused by foot and tooth.”

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything¹³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9^th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath¹³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel.. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements¹³³Num. 35:29.. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,¹³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9^th rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases..

If he stole two hundred [zuz] and his valuation¹³As a slave. is only a maneh,¹⁴A hundred zuz. he is sold and sold again.¹⁵Each time for his valuation of one hundred zuz. [The correct reading is probably ‘not sold again’, cf. Ḳid. 18a (Sonc. ed., p. 82, n. 3.)] If he stole a maneh and his valuation is two hundred zuz he is not to be sold.¹⁶Since half of him cannot be sold (Ḳid. loc. cit.). R. Eliezer said: In no case should he be sold unless his sale price and the amount of his theft are equal. He cannot be sold and sold again for the same theft and he returns [after his servitude] to the rank which he formerly held. This is the view of R. Meir; but R. Judah said: He does not return to the rank which he formerly held.¹⁷[Cf. the discussion in Mak. 13a (Sonc. ed., p. 89). H has a different version of this paragraph: ‘If one has stolen a maneh and his valuation is a maneh, or [if he stole] two hundred [zuz] and his valuation is two hundred [zuz], he may be sold; but [if he stole] two hundred [zuz] and his valuation is a maneh he may not be sold. R. Eliezer said: He is not sold unless his sale price and his theft are equal. [If he stole] a hundred [zuz] and his valuation is two hundred [zuz], he may not be sold. He may not be sold and resold for another theft or for repayment of double (cf. Ex. 22, 3, 6, 8) or repayment of fourfold and fivefold (cf. ibid. XXI, 37). [After his servitude] he returns to the rank’, etc.]

MISHNAH: He who says the heave of this heap is contained in it, the tithes are contained in it and the heave of this tithe is contained in it, Rebbi Simeon says he gave it a name⁵²In that case, the entire heap becomes dema‘ and can be used only by a Cohen since the heaves are valid but their place is indeterminate. The Sages hold that dema‘ can be created only by heave falling into profane food; heave and dema‘ can never be created simultanously. They hold that designating heave without indicating its place is an invalid action. but the Sages say, only if he said in its Northern or Southern part. Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma⁵³Tanna of the second generation, student of R. Joshua. He admits even more possibilities than R. Simeon since the latter at least requires a declaration that the heave be “contained in it” whereas R. Eleazar Ḥisma already makes the declaration valid if only “from it” is declared. Since tithes and the heave of the tithe do not have to be earmarked, he will hold that tithes and heave of the tithe can be declared without specifying any place. says, he who says, the heave of this heap is from it for itself, gave it a name. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he who says, one tenth of this tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, gave it a name⁵⁴R. Eliezer ben Jacob holds with the Sages for heave, which must be earmarked, and possibly for the first tithe. But he rejects the restrictions for heave of the tithe which may be given from any place (Chapter 2, Note 6)..
One who gives heave before First Fruits, First Tithe before heave, Second Tithe before First, even though he transgresses a prohibition what he did is done since it is said (Ex. 22:28): "Your fullness⁷²In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19, Babli Temurah 4a, it is explained that “your fullness” refers to First Fruits because they are taken when the harvest is still full and nothing had been taken yet. you should not make follow your dema ’ ”.
From where that First Fruits should precede heave since either one is called heave and first. First Fruits should precede since they are due before everything else, heave before First Tithe because it is first, First Tithe before the Second because it contains “first”⁷³Commentary of Maimonides: “The Eternal called heave ‘first’ when He said (Deut. 18:4): ‘The first of your grain, your cider, and your oil.’ He called it heave (Num. 18:8): ‘Lo, I gave to you the guarding of My heaves.’ The Eternal called First Fruits first when He said (Deut. 26:22): ‘You shall take from the first of any produce of the Land.’ He called it heave (Deut. 12:27): ‘You must bring there … and your hand’s heave.’ They said in Sifry (Deut. 62,73): ‘Your hand’s heave means First Fruits.’ This proves that the verse speaks of First Fruits since it deals only with what has to be brought to the Temple and no heave has to be brought to Jerusalem except First Fruits for which there is an explicit verse. They said that First Tithe contains ‘first’, i. e., the heave of the tithe about which the Eternal said (Num. 18:26): ‘You shall lift from it the Eternal’s heave,’ and heave is called ‘first’ ”. {The statement in Sifry is quoted in Bikkurim 2:1 (fol. 64c), Babli Pesaḥim 36b, Yebamot 73b, Makkot17a, Ḥulin 120b, Me‘ilah 15b.].

MISHNAH: He who buys as seeds or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels¹⁰⁹However, oil used as lotion is subject to demay, since rubbing on is everywhere equated to drinking., is free from demay¹¹⁰The obligation of heave and tithes falls only on foodstuffs, not on industrial materials.. From Akhzib and further he is free from demay¹¹¹Explained in Halakhah 1.. Ḥallah¹¹²The heave of the dough made for bread, which is given to the Cohen. of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave¹¹³Which either has to be consumed by the priest or heave has to be taken from it as certain heave. Heave is called דמע in Ex. 22:28., food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices¹¹⁴The offering of a handful for the altar was taken and the rest eaten by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct under the strict rules of sacrifices. For all of these, demay was never intended as it would make no sense. are free from demay. Sweet oil¹¹⁵Perfumed oil for the House of Shammai is a lotion, for the House of Hillel it is a perfume. Cf. Note 155., the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

How do we hold? If she⁸¹The female Hebrew slave who when she becomes an adult either is a wife or a free adult; cf. Note 75. The Babli (Giṭṭin 65a) restricts the female Hebrew slave to redeeming heave of produce not grown in the soil (in a flower pot without a hole). This answer is very questionable for many reasons. is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]⁸²It is argued (Mekhilta Mišpaṭim3) that the verse (Ex. 21:7) which gave the father the right to sell his daughter also restricted her servitude to the period in which the father had this right, before she became an adult.; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave⁸³Cf. Terumot 1:1, Notes 56–58.. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there⁸⁴In Babylonia. it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others⁸⁵In the Babli, Giṭṭin 65a, the formulation (by Rava, student of Rav Naḥman) is: “There are three stages for minors. If he throws away a pebble and takes a nut, he can acquire for himself but not for others; for school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables; if they reached the time of vows (cf. Terumot, Mishnah 1:3, Note 105) their vows and dedications are valid; but to sell inherited real estate {without permission of the court} one must be 20 years old.”. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees⁸⁶The Babli, Baba Qama 106b, concurs. that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs⁸⁷The minor, or an adult representing him, can successfully prosecute the robber from a minor in court but if in the course of the proceedings the accused swears falsely that he did not take anything, he is not obliged to bring (or, if he has a guilty conscience, he is barred from bringing) a guilt sacrifice since his robbery was forbidden by police law, not biblical law.. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there⁸⁸Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:9. The quote here shows that ה and א were both silent.: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state⁸⁹Mishnah Eruvin 7:6. In order to turn a dead-end street into a private domain for the purpose of carrying on the Sabbath, one has to affix to it a symbolic gate and then all residents of the dead-end street have to contribute to the food for a common meal. It is acceptable that one person designate the food, e. g., a wine barrel, and then appoints somebody to acquire for the other dwellers their part for this Sabbath. The qualifications in that Mishnah are the same as in the Mishnah here, with the same questions about the qualifications of the female Hebrew slave. {Since the devices of participation and eruv are ascribed to King Solomon, the mention of the Hebrew slave can be justified in that case.}: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge⁹⁰It seems that a “minor with knowledge” is a minor who reached the time of vows, cf. Tosaphot Sanhedrin68b, s. v. קטן., there a minor without knowledge.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped⁷⁴In Babli Temurah 4a, the position of the Yerushalmi is rejected and it is proved that R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person is not whipped but R. Eleazar says, he is whipped. The argument ascribed to those who hold with the Yerushalmi is that a simple transgression committed by speech only can never be punished by a court (לאו שאין בו מעשׂה). Since R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds here that the fact that he committed a sin proves that the status of the grain has changed from ṭevel to heave and tithes, in the interpretation of the Yerushalmi the transgression is one of fact rather than of speech.. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped⁷⁵He disagrees with R. Zeїra and holds that R. Joḥanan articulated his position.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal⁷⁶He takes דמע to mean “fluid”, derived from דמעה “tear” and reads: Your fullness and your fluids you should not keep too long, referring to tithes of grain, wine, and olive oil which have to be removed from his house and delivered to the poor at the end of the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle..

¹⁸⁰Terumot8:5 Notes 102–103. Although in the first part the Terumot text appears as the original, from here on the order of texts makes more sense. The only connection the present paragraph has with the others is the mention of the Day of Atonement (missing in Terumot) which was introduced in the preceding one (and continues in the next one with the original theme.) It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once on the eve of the day of Atonement before nightfall he drank a great deal of wine and became drunk. He went to the roof, fell down, and died. The dogs started to lick his blood; people came to ask Rebbi Ḥanina how to remove him from before them. He told them, it is written¹⁸¹Ex.22:30., holy people you shall be to Me; torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs. This one robbed the dogs and fed the Jews carcasses and torn meat. Let them alone, they are eating from their own.

It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold to Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once he drank wine Friday night, went to the roof¹⁰²In the dark. In Avodah Zarah: He got drunk on Yom Kippur Eve., fell down, and died. The dogs were licking his blood. People came and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, should we lift him from before them¹⁰³Presumably he was lying in the street where the removal of a corpse on the Sabbath needs detailed rabbinic instruction on how to proceed without a violation of the Sabbath laws. Inside the courtyard it would not have been necessary to ask.? He said to them, it is written (Ex. 22:30): “Torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs!” This one robbed the dogs and fed it to Jews. He said to them, let them, they are eating from their own!

And a stranger [ger] shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him:¹Ex. 22, 20. you shall not wrong him in speech or oppress him in money dealings. Do not say to him,²What follows is according to MS.K. For Bel, etc., cf. Isa. 46, 1, Bel boweth down (קרס), Nebo stoopeth, alluding to Babylonian deities. ‘Yesterday you were worshipping Bel, Ḳores and Nebo, and till now pig’s flesh was between your teeth, and now you stand up and speak with me!’ And whence [do I learn] [not] to wrong him? He can retort, For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt?³Ex. loc. cit. [The more correct version is found in Mekilta ad loc.: ‘If you wrong him he is able to wrong you? Therefore there is a saying, For ye were strangers, etc.’ Hence R. Nathan used to say: Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish which you yourself have.⁴[Cf. B.M. 59b (Sonc. ed.,p. 356).]

HALAKHAH: “Four situations for sellers.,” etc. How is this? If the measuring vessel belonged to the seller, he has the property rights, if to the buyer, he has the property rights⁸⁸This refers to Mishnah 10. Why should it make any difference when the measuring vessel was full? As long as the fluid is in the seller’s vessel it is not delivered.. Rav⁸⁹This has to be read here. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi La⁹⁰In the Babli, 97a, he identifies the third person as the broker. The passage is missing in E. in the name of the Great Rebbi Jehudah, so is the Mishnah: If the measuring vessel belonged to a third person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable since he has permission, but the Sages say, in any case he is liable⁹¹This baraita contradicts the Mishnah which frees the retail grocer from the obligation to wait for three drops.. What is the reason for what Rebbi Jehudah said? “If he is hired, it is paid for by his wages.⁹²Ex. 22:14. The quote has nothing to do with the preceding baraita but refers to the sentence in the Mishnah which holds the broker responsible for the delivery; in Tosephta 5:2 this is R. Jehudah’s opinion. The verse quoted states that if a hired animal dies, the fee paid for it represents indemnification. The fee paid to the broker is indemnification for the risk which he assumes. Pseudo-Jonathan translates the verse: “If he works for a fee, his loss is covered by his fee.””

Rebbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a manumitted slave girl¹⁸⁰It seems that this is a rhetorical question since the ketubah of the freedwoman is determined in Mishnaiot 1:2,4 and her right to the fine imposed on the rapist or the seducer in 3:1,2. R. David Fraenckel emends מהו to מנײן and reads the question as asking for the biblical source of the Mishnaiot mentioned.? Let us hear from the following¹⁸¹A parallel text in Halakhah 3:1.: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay¹⁸²The fine imposed on a person raping or seducing an underage girl, cf. Note 117.; the verse says¹⁸³Ex. 22:15.: “He shall take her as wife by the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the [gentile] slave (or any)¹⁸⁴Reading ארמית for מי או of the text. whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her¹⁸⁵If she is freed and can contract a marriage., she collects the fine, and any who collects the fine has a ketubah. ¹⁸⁶From Halakhah 1:2. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult¹⁴¹Who marries as a virgin. collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine¹⁴²If she still has not reached 12 years and 6 months of age. The argument of R. Yose is shown to be wrong. but her ketubah is a mina⁶²If the husband died immediately after the final marriage ceremony, the widow is still a virgin but in her next marriage she can claim only the widow’s mina for her ketubah, the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday.! Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or manumitted before she reached three years and one day is like an Israel¹⁸⁷Mishnaiot 1:2, 3:1 state clearly that in matters of marriage, girls becoming Jewish at a very young age are equal to those born Jewish [except for marriages with priests where practice follows Ez. 44:22; cf. Bikkurim1:5 (Notes 89–99), Babli Yebamot 60b.].

Before she was preliminarily married, he gives to her father; after she had been preliminarily married, he gives to herself⁵³This is R. Aqiba’s opinion; a mention of R. Aqiba might have been omitted by the scribe; the statement is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Mekhilta.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁵⁴As shown at the end of the paragraph, this should read “R. Aqiba”., if she is an adolescent, he gives to her father⁵⁵The rule for the rapist is formulated for “a virgin adolescent”, when the payment of 50 pieces of silver is due to her father; in the rule for the seducer, only “a virgin” is mentioned, and payment of “bride money”, due to the woman at the dissolution of the marriage. On the face of it, the rule for the seducer does not exclude an adult victim.; if she is an adult, does he give it to herself? If she is a virgin, he gives to her father; if she is injured by wood, does he give it to herself? It is different, because it is written “an adolescent”, adolescent but not adult. “A virgin,” a virgin not one injured by wood. Is it not written⁵²In both the rules about the seducer (Ex. 22:15) and the rapist (Deut. 22:28) it is emphasized that the fine is due only for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married.” Now the verse cannot mean “a virgin not currently preliminarily married” since it is obvious that seduction or rape of a preliminarily married girl is a capital crime and, therefore, free from paying the fine and the mention of her status would be superfluous. R. Aqiba also agrees with this analysis of the verse (Babli 38a), only he reads it that for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married” the fine is payable to her father; otherwise it is payable to the girl whose preliminary marriage emancipated her from her father’s power. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 38a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17; a similar argument is Sifry Deut. 244. An argument strictly following R. Yose the Galilean is in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim, pp. 207–208. “who was not preliminarily married,” “who was not preliminarily married,” to infer from there by an equal cut⁵⁶The second hermeneutical rule, that equal expressions in two different paragraphs lets one transfer rules from one paragraph to the other. A condition for the applicability of that rule is that the expressions should be “free”, not needed to establish a rule. For R. Yose the Galilean, the expressions “who was not preliminarily married” are not free since they establish a nontrivial rule; they cannot be used to argue by “equal cut”. But for R. Aqiba the expressions are essentially superfluous and can be used.? Since in one case it is 50, so in the other case it is 50⁵⁷The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz.. Does Rebbi Yose⁵⁸Rebbi Yose the Galilean who cannot accept R. Aqiba’s “equal cut” as valid. not have “50”? He has “silver, silver”⁵⁹In Ex. 22:16, “he shall weigh silver”; in Deut. 22:29 “50 silver pieces”. The same argument is quoted in the Babli, 38b.. Since “silver” written at one place is 50, so “silver” [written at the other place]⁵⁷The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz. also is 50.

In Lord of lords,²¹Deut. 10, 17. the first is sacred and the second is secular; in the God of Abraham²²Gen. 31, 53. it is sacred; in the God of Nahor²³ibid.; Nahor did not worship the true God. it is secular; in the God of their father²⁴ibid.; Terah (their father) was an idolater. it is secular. In Thou shalt not revile God²⁵Ex. 22, 27. [the noun may bear] a sacred or secular meaning.²⁶It may denote God or judges. R. Simeon maintains that the noun is sacred.²⁷V inserts ‘as it says’ within brackets, the words being redundant. [H omits and reads ‘Ishmael’ instead of ‘Simeon’.] In Forasmuch as I have seen thy face, as one seeth the face of God²⁸Gen. 33, 10. the noun is secular;²⁹Because it refers to an angel or prince. in God’s camp³⁰ibid. XXXII, 3. the noun is sacred.

In For the Lord your God, He is God of gods,¹³Deut. 10, 17. the first [two]¹⁴i.e. your God He is God. are sacred and the last¹⁵Of gods, signifying ‘judges’ or ‘princes’. is secular. In Lord of lords,¹⁶ibid. the first is sacred and the second secular. In the God of Abraham¹⁷Gen. 31, 53. it is sacred; in the god of Nahor¹⁸ibid. Nahor did not worship the true God. it is secular, and in the god of their father¹⁹ibid. Terah (their father) was an idolater. it is secular. In Thou shalt not revile God,²⁰Ex. 22, 27. [the noun may bear] a sacred or a secular meaning.²¹It may refer to God or judges. R. Ishmael²²In Sof. IV, 5, ‘R. Simeon’. maintains that the noun is sacred.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything⁸⁴Mishnah Baba batra 10:2: A document signed by a single witness is invalid.? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second⁸⁵In the Babli, Baba batra 165a, this is a question, if one signature was confirmed from another document and one by oral testimony. It is resolved that the document is valid.. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear⁸⁶Ex. 22:9 decrees that in all money matters in dispute, “if there is one who says, he is the one” who owes money, there should be an oath. This is interpreted to mean that the claimant can force the defendant to swear if he can support his claim by a single witness but does not have the two witnesses necessary to force the defendant to pay.? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. ⁸⁷From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other⁸⁸R. Joshua ben Qorḥa will accept the written testimony of one witness (of two on a document) combined with the oral one of another; the Sages will reject it except in the three cases stated here. The same disagreement in the Babli 26b, Sanhedrin 30b.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to abolish this immersion because of the Galilean women who became sterile¹⁷³Since in Galilee the immersion was required for everybody, not only for Torah study as in Babylonia, it also applied to women. In winter in upper Galilee, water sometimes freezes and all miqwaöt were cold-water miqwaöt; in a parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a, Rav Huna notes that instead of a miqweh one could use a hot bath in Babylonia. because of the cold. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told them: Do you want to uproot something that fences Israel off from sin? What means: Fences Israel off from sin? It happened that a watchman of vinyards wanted to have an affair with a married woman. By the time they were preparing a place where they could immerse themselves, passers-by came by and the sin was not committed¹⁷⁴A parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a is explicitly designated as a baraita, dating from Mishnaic times, and applying the need for immersion only to the man. [Levi Ginzberg conjectures that the watchman was a bachelor; hence, he could not use the public miqweh (except on holiday eve) without drawing public attention to his unmarried sexual activities. However, it is stated explicitly at the end of this halakhah that a miqweh was not used for this immersion.]. It happened that someone wanted to have an affair with Rebbi’s slave girl. She said to him: If my mistress does not immerse herself, I do not immerse myself¹⁷⁵Meaning that as an unmarried woman she does not frequent the miqweh and, therefore, cannot have sex with any man. The slave girl was quite famous for speaking better classical Hebrew than the rabbis.. He said to her: Are you not like an animal¹⁷⁶The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, "for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen" (where "flesh" as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife" (Gen. 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (Niddah 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]? She said to him: Did you not hear that one who has relations with an animal will be stoned, as it is said (Ex. 22:18): “Anyone lying with an animal shall certainly be executed.”

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief⁴⁶⁶The owner obtained a court order of restitution for anything taken unlawfully. If the thing was broken in the meantime or if it was livestock it died (cf. Ex. 21:35), is the thief or robber obligated to pay for the entire damage or may he return the damaged object and pay only the difference between the original value and the amount recoverable from sale of the damaged object?? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal⁴⁶⁷In the Babli, Baba qama 11a, Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar represents the opposite opinion. The opinion expressed here is accepted by the Babylonian authorities as judicial practice. The paragraph is discussed in Tosaphot Baba meṣia‘ 96b/97a, s. v. זיל.. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁴⁶⁸Ex. 22:3, speaking of the thief of livestock.,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed⁴⁶⁹Lev. 5:23.,” as it was.

MISHNAH: He who sets a fire which consumes wood, or stones, or dust, is liable since it is said: “If fire gets out of control and finds thorns, etc.”⁸⁰Ex. 22:5. The Halakhah will explain the proof from the verse. If it crossed a wall four cubits high⁸¹A stone or brick wall which will not burn., or a public road⁸²At least 16 cubits wide (Halakhah 6, Mishnah Bava batra 6:7)., or a brook⁸³At least 8 cubits wide (Halakhah 6)., he is not liable.

MISHNAH: He who sets a fire which consumes wood, or stones, or dust, is liable since it is said: “If fire gets out of control and finds thorns, etc.”⁸⁰Ex. 22:5. The Halakhah will explain the proof from the verse. If it crossed a wall four cubits high⁸¹A stone or brick wall which will not burn., or a public road⁸²At least 16 cubits wide (Halakhah 6, Mishnah Bava batra 6:7)., or a brook⁸³At least 8 cubits wide (Halakhah 6)., he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor⁸¹Ex. 22:6., to exclude the minor⁸²Since a minor is not able to act in law, anything the minor may give does not leave his guardian’s power. Since a minor cannot legally give a deposit, he cannot reclaim it nor ask for an oath in connection with such a deposit. The Yerushalmi Ma`aser šeni4:4 (Note 67, Eruvin7:6) finds this in the first words of v. 6, if a man give. Babli 42a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:6.. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal⁸³If the giving is legal, the request for an oath is legal; this excludes the giving of a deposit by a minor, which is not legal. The Babli (Bava qamma106b) and the Mekhilta derive this from v. 8, before the judges shall come their mutual affair; the oath is possible only if both parties have the same standing.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen⁸⁴Halakhah 8:7; Babli Bava qamma106b. A lost an object with enough unique features that the finder would have been required to publicly ask for its owner to come and reclaim it. B found the object. A has witnesses who saw B taking the object. When A comes to ask B, the latter claims that it was stolen. Since Ex. 22:8 lists lost objects as subjects of judicial oaths, it is clear that B has to swear upon A’s request even though A never handed the object to B. This excludes an interpretation like that given in Note 83. (Babli Yoma79b, Yebamot48b, Soṭah8a, Zevaḥim17a,90a,94b, Menaḥot69b, Keritut3b).. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you⁸⁵An adult can ask for an oath regarding a deposit which he made underage only if the respondent does not claim that he already asked for the deposit back when he was still underage and unable to force an oath.. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them⁸⁶Ex. 22:10., to exclude the heir⁸⁷Only the original parties have enough knowledge of the transaction to be able to swear. Heirs can only swear rabbinic oaths, to state that their father did not inform them that the claims were moot or similar formulations. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim16.. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir⁸⁸The baraita explaining the verse between them is directed also to the heirs. Since normally only the defendant has to swear, the expression between them is interpreted as biblical endorsement of the rule that if the defendant is disqualified as a witness he also is disqualified from swearing; in that case the claimant has to swear that he is entitled to the money. Heirs, who cannot swear in cases of claims against the father’s estate, can as claimants force oaths of debtors to the estate. Babli 47b..

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor⁸¹Ex. 22:6., to exclude the minor⁸²Since a minor is not able to act in law, anything the minor may give does not leave his guardian’s power. Since a minor cannot legally give a deposit, he cannot reclaim it nor ask for an oath in connection with such a deposit. The Yerushalmi Ma`aser šeni4:4 (Note 67, Eruvin7:6) finds this in the first words of v. 6, if a man give. Babli 42a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:6.. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal⁸³If the giving is legal, the request for an oath is legal; this excludes the giving of a deposit by a minor, which is not legal. The Babli (Bava qamma106b) and the Mekhilta derive this from v. 8, before the judges shall come their mutual affair; the oath is possible only if both parties have the same standing.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen⁸⁴Halakhah 8:7; Babli Bava qamma106b. A lost an object with enough unique features that the finder would have been required to publicly ask for its owner to come and reclaim it. B found the object. A has witnesses who saw B taking the object. When A comes to ask B, the latter claims that it was stolen. Since Ex. 22:8 lists lost objects as subjects of judicial oaths, it is clear that B has to swear upon A’s request even though A never handed the object to B. This excludes an interpretation like that given in Note 83. (Babli Yoma79b, Yebamot48b, Soṭah8a, Zevaḥim17a,90a,94b, Menaḥot69b, Keritut3b).. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you⁸⁵An adult can ask for an oath regarding a deposit which he made underage only if the respondent does not claim that he already asked for the deposit back when he was still underage and unable to force an oath.. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them⁸⁶Ex. 22:10., to exclude the heir⁸⁷Only the original parties have enough knowledge of the transaction to be able to swear. Heirs can only swear rabbinic oaths, to state that their father did not inform them that the claims were moot or similar formulations. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim16.. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir⁸⁸The baraita explaining the verse between them is directed also to the heirs. Since normally only the defendant has to swear, the expression between them is interpreted as biblical endorsement of the rule that if the defendant is disqualified as a witness he also is disqualified from swearing; in that case the claimant has to swear that he is entitled to the money. Heirs, who cannot swear in cases of claims against the father’s estate, can as claimants force oaths of debtors to the estate. Babli 47b..

Between both of them⁸⁶Ex. 22:10. it will never move from between them. If the one forcing the oath forces the oath lying, at the end it⁸⁹The oath will destroy him. will come over him. If the one swearing swears lying, at the end it will come over him. What is the reason? I shall take it out, oracle of the Eternal Sabaot, and it will come into the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely in My Name⁹⁰Sach. 5:5. “It” is the curse mentioned in v. 4., etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, destructive angels have no joints. What is the reason? From roving about the Earth and walking there⁹¹Job2:2, Satan’s answer. Having no joints at knees or ankles, he could never sit down. The order of topics is better in Lev. rabba6(1) where it is explained that the Satan has to move perpetually because he has no joints but the curse of a false oath comes and dwells at length in the house of the swearer.. But here, it will destroy its wood and its stones⁹⁰Sach. 5:5. “It” is the curse mentioned in v. 4.. Come and see, things which the fire will not burn, a vain oath will destroy. Rebbi Jonah said, about falsehood. Rebbi Yose said, even on truth. ⁹²The Aramaic of the following paragraph shows that this is a sermon, rather than a halakhic discussion. In slightly different form Lev. rabba6(1).Ḥaggai was preaching following Rebbi Yose. There was a case about a woman who went to knead dough with another and had two denarii bound into the seam of her head cover. These fell out and were rolled into a loaf. She went back to he house, wanted them and did not find them. She returned to her and said to her, give me the two denarii which fell from me in your house. She told her, I do not know. If she⁹³As always in rabbinic literature, in relating bad things about oneself one always used the third person (“this man, this woman”) instead of the first. The woman must have used an oath formula to be punished for vain oaths. would know of it, she should bury her son. She buried him. When they returned from his grave, she heard a voice saying, if she had not known about them she would not have buried him. She said, if this woman⁹³As always in rabbinic literature, in relating bad things about oneself one always used the third person (“this man, this woman”) instead of the first. The woman must have used an oath formula to be punished for vain oaths. knows about them, she should bury her other son. She buried him. They came to console her and cut one loaf and found two denarii rolled into the loaf. This says, whether innocent or guilty, never swear an oath⁹⁴It is better to pay, or not to sue and not collect money, than force or swear any oath..

“The seducer only if he divorces her,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if he does not want to keep her. But if he decides to keep her, he does not give anything. Rebbi Ismael stated: “He should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, which indicates that his obligation is for him that of bride-price, and bride-price is the ketubah⁷⁰This implies that all his obligations are transformed into ketubah obligations due at the dissolution of the marriage; not only the 200 zuz basic fee but also the sums fixed for shame and diminution of value.; as it also says⁷¹Gen. 34:12. “add for me much bride-price and gifts.”

The following names are to be divided:³⁹Although each represents one name, it is to be written as two words. Beth-el,⁴⁰e.g. Gen. 12, 8. Beth-’awen,⁴¹Hos. 4, 15, X, 15. Beer-sheba,⁴²E.g. Gen. 21, 31. Ẓofenath-pa’neaḥ, [37b] Poṭi-fera,⁴³ibid. XLI, 45. E.V. Zaphenathpaneah and Poti-phera. Ben-’oni,⁴⁴ibid. XXXV, 18. Yedid-yah,⁴⁵2 Sam. 12, 25. E.V. Jedidiah. Halelu-yah.⁴⁶E.g. Ps. 111, 1, ‘praise ye the Lord’. E.V. prints it as one word. V and H add: וחרה אף וחרה אפי, and the anger [of the Lord] was kindled, My wrath shall wax hot (Ex. 22, 23; Num. 11, 10). R. Jose says: These must not be divided.⁴⁷But written as one word. All, however, agree that there must be no breaking up of ‘Ammi’el,⁴⁸A name meaning ‘God is with me’ (e.g. Num. 13, 12). Another reading is עזיאל, ‘God is my strength’ (e.g. Ex. 6, 18). ‘Amminadab,⁴⁹A name meaning ‘my kinsman is noble’ (e.g. ibid. 23). Ẓuri’el,⁵⁰A name meaning ‘my Rock is God’ (Num. 3, 35). Ẓurishaddai.⁵¹A name meaning ‘my Rock is Shaddai’ (cf. Num. 1, 6).

The following names are to be divided:³⁸Although each represents one name it is to be written as two words. Beth-’el,³⁹e.g. Gen. 12, 8. Beth-’awen,⁴⁰Hos. 4, 15; X, 5. Be’er-sheba‘,⁴¹e.g. Gen. 21, 31. Poṭifera‘,⁴²ibid. XXXV, 18. Ẓafenath-pa‘neaḥ,⁴³ibid. XLI, 45. E.V. Poti-phera and Zaphenath-paneah. [and the words] ḥarah ’af,⁴⁴lit. ‘the anger was kindled’ (cf. Num. 11, 10). ḥarah ’appi.⁴⁵lit. ‘My anger was kindled’ (cf. Ex. 22, 23). R. Jose says: These must not be divided. All agree that there must be no breaking up of ‘Ammiel,⁴⁶A name meaning ‘God is with me’ (e.g. Num. 13, 12). ‘Amminadab,⁴⁷Meaning ‘my kinsman is noble’ (e.g. ibid. 23). Ẓuri’el,⁴⁸The name means ‘my rock is God’ (cf. ibid. III, 35). Ẓurishaddai.⁴⁹A name meaning ‘my rock is Shaddai’ (e.g. ibid. I, 6).

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread⁹²That the spreading of the fire was not foreseeable and the person starting the fire would no longer be liable.? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor⁹³Which is 75’000 square cubits (Note 49). The edge length of a bet kor therefore is 273.86 cubits and the distance of the center from the side is 136.93 cubits. For him, the liability stops if a strip 137 cubits wide around the fire is protected against the spread of the fire. Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,⁹⁴Ex. 22:5.” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously¹⁰⁶Mishnah Terumot 3:7 states that the First Tithe is called “beginning” since it contains heave of the tithe, but the Second Tithe is never called “beginning.” Hence, the beginning should precede the non-beginning., and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket¹⁰⁷In the parallel in Babli Temurah4a/b, both R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Eleazar agree that declaring the Second Tithe before the First is a violation. R. Yose bar Ḥanina holds that transgressing a prohibition by words alone is not punishable in criminal law while R. Eleazar declares it punishable..

Where do we hold⁷⁵From here to the end of the discussion of Mishnah 6 the text is from Ma`aser Šeni 4:4, Notes 80–97.
The problem is that the Mishnah enables a Hebrew slave girl to act as an agent. But a Hebrew woman can only be sold into slavery by her father (Ex. 21:7–11) while she is in his power and only for as long as she would be in his power. This means that when she is legally an adult she either is the wife of the man who bought her or she is a free woman. The inclusion of the female Hebrew slave seems to be inappropriate since the Mishnah explicitly excludes the owner’s own minor children.? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs [of puberty]. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave⁷⁶The status of a minor in matters of heave and tithes is a matter of dispute, Terumot 1:1 Notes 56–59.. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. ⁷⁷The remainder of this paragraph also is in Giṭtin 5:9 Notes 234–238. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written⁷⁸Ex. 22:6., if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa]⁷⁹Added from the parallels; missing here but necessary. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery⁸⁰Robbing a minor may be prosecutable under police law, not under biblical criminal law. unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a [false] oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs⁸¹A minor might be able to bring a suit to recover what was taken from him but since he is not subject to criminal law in case of perjury he may not atone by a sacrifice.. But following to the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written⁷⁸Ex. 22:6. to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated⁸²Mishnah Giṭtin 5:9.: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite¹²All slaves that could be held during the Second Commonwealth and later, cf. Qiddušin 1:3. These and minor children have no independent legal standing and no property separate from that of their owner or father; therefore giving to them is like giving to oneself, without legal consequences. male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge⁸³A minor whose vows may be valid., there a minor without knowledge.

Some want to understand it from here¹¹⁰The exclusions from oaths about deposits enumerated in the Mishnah.: An ox, or a donkey, or a sheep¹¹¹Ex. 22:9, about the oath of the paid trustee. Breaking, kidnapping, and dying are all mentioned in the verse.. Since these are particular in that they are subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying, this excludes real estate which is not subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying. I shall exclude real estate but shall not exclude slaves. Since these are particular in that they are subject to a fine, this excludes slaves which are not subject to a fine¹¹²The person who kidnaps a slave does not have to pay the double restitution exacted from a thief.. I shall exclude slaves but shall not exclude documents since they are subject to fines. Since these are particular in that they are subject to overcharging, this excludes documents which are not subject to overcharging¹¹³The thief of documents has to pay double restitution for the value of the paper on which the documents are written. On the other hand, documents are not traded as commodities but for the financial values of the contracts written on them. Commodities are subject to the rules of overcharging or underpaying; a transaction which differs more than +/- 16 ⅔% from the going market rate can be voided on the request of the injured party. Financial speculation, such as over the counter stock or bond trades, are not protected by this law (which is based on Lev. 25:14.). From here they say, if somebody sells documents to the spice trader¹¹⁴If an IOU has been paid, it can be sold as packaging material; then it is a commodity. Babli Bava meṣi`a56b, where the baraita is quoted as proof that the laws of overcharging apply to penny matters., it is subject to claims of overcharging. Rebbi Ismael explained: Or a person, if he would swear, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a repeat general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail¹¹⁵Halakhah 8:3, Note 83. However, this reference to Lev. 5:4 is out of place since the argument is about Ex. 22:9. The text should be similar to that of Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim15 (pp. 300–301): About anything criminal, a general statement. About an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, detail. About anything lost, a repeat general statement.. Since the detail¹¹⁶In Ex. 22:9. is about monetary claims, [originating] from himself, which can be collected by court order, having monetary value, which is a fixed value, and are movables, and one is not liable for punishment and fines. Monetary claims, excluding one who said to another, give me the 200 denar which you promised me but never gave¹¹⁷A promise does not generate an enforceable claim.. [Originating] from himself, excluding one who said to another, you cursed me and shamed me, who is not liable¹¹⁸Since the paradigm is a deposit made by the claimant, the defendant’s oath is only about actions initiated by the claimant. Suits about matters initiated by the defendant’s actions cannot be settled by oaths.. Which can be collected by court order, excluding one who said to another, you raped or seduced X’s daughter¹¹⁹The only persons who can go to court are the woman or her father.. It has monetary value, excluding documents¹²⁰Since the value of the document is not determined by the cost of the paper on which it is written.. Which is a fixed value, excluding slaves¹²¹The value of the slave largely depends on his education, which has no standard value attached to it.. Movables, excluding real estate. One is not liable for punishment, excluding one who said to another, you set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath; who is not liable¹²²No money can be recovered for actions which carry the death penalty, even if there are no eye witnesses and therefore no court procedures are possible.. One is not liable for fines, excluding double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution which are fines¹²³Only simple restitution of stolen property is within the purview of a civil court. Fines can be imposed only by a duly authorized criminal court where trials by oath are impossible..

‘Five things’, etc.: ‘A round cushion’. Why?²⁷Why is not their stuffing removed before immersion? For it is written, Woe to the women that sew cushions upon all elbows, and make pads for the head of persons of every stature to hunt souls!²⁸Ezek. 13, 18. Here cushions are compared with pads [mispaḥoth]: just as a ‘scab’ [sapaḥath] is clean, as it is written, Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab,²⁹Lev. 13, 6. so too is a cushion clean.³⁰i.e. the stuffing in it need not be removed before the cushion is immersed.
The Rabbis taught:³¹Sanh. 68a (Sonc. ed., p. 462). [The story is related in ARN, p. 124ff.] When R. Eliezer fell sick, all the wise men of Israel came to visit him. That day was the Sabbath-eve and he was wearing his tefillin. His son entered to remove them from him,³²Because they are not worn on the Sabbath. but he rebuked him and drove him away in anger. [The son] said to the wise men, ‘I believe that my father’s mind is deranged’. Whereupon [R. Eliezer] exclaimed, ‘His mind and that of his mother are deranged but my mind is not’. As he was dying, he put two of his fingers together and said, ‘Woe to me because of these two Scrolls of the Torah!³³The parallel passage in Sanh. adds: ‘that are wrapped up’, so that they cannot be read. So had it been with his knowledge, none learning from him because he had been excommunicated. Cf. B.M. 59b (Sonc. ed., p. 353). Much Torah have I learnt and much Torah have I taught,³⁴Before the ban. yet I extracted little from the knowledge of my teachers like a dog lapping from the sea. My disciples have only extracted little from me like a painting-stick from its tube. If all the trees were made into pens and all the seas into ink, they would not suffice to write down all that I expounded. Moreover, I have studied three hundred laws on the subject of a deep bright spot³⁵One of the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13, 2). and three hundred established laws³⁶i.e. decisions arrived at after discussion. derived from the verse, Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live,³⁷Ex. 22, 17. and no man, excepting ‘Aḳiba b. Joseph, ever questioned me thereon’ [54a].
The master said, ‘Like a dog lapping from the sea’—he compared himself to a dog! He said it with reference to his disciples. And why to his disciples? Because they did not visit him during his illness; and it has been taught: He said concerning them, ‘I will be surprised if they die a natural death’.³⁸Sanh. loc. cit.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written¹³³Ex. 22:20; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 18, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.”
One¹³⁴The farmer. does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth¹³⁵“In truth” characterizes undisputed practice. they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One¹³⁶The winery. does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so.
The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel¹³⁷Greek πίθος., on condition that he not intend to mix¹³⁸He may only pour wines of the same kind into one barrel.. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor¹³⁹The Sages oppose restrictions which hinder competition.. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest¹⁴⁰A store may not dress up the upper layer of merchandise, which is seen by the buyer, and then sell lesser quality from below. This is cheating. since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans¹⁴¹Slaves one offers for sale., animals, or vessels.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

There¹⁵¹The discussion is paralleled in Baba Qama 6:5 in a different formulation. we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley¹⁵²Both Babli and Yerushalmi are agreed that the Mishnah refers only to a man who lights a legal fire on his own field and it burns out of control. But an arsonist has to pay for everything under any circumstance. The Babli (Baba Qama 61b) states that the Sages agree that whoever started the fire is responsible for agricultural implements usually hidden in stacks. Hence, in the opinion of the Babli but not the Yerushalmi, the Sages free him only from the responsibility for unexpected losses..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a¹⁵³This is the Biblical text, not “the stack” as given here. “If fire gets out of control and a stack, or the standing grain, or the field is consumed, the person who caused the fire should certainly pay.” stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only¹⁵⁴There is an אלא missing in the text or the אין is superfluous (Yebamot12:1). The principle that a restriction after a restriction is an extension is universally accepted in both Talmudim; in Horaiot 1:1 it is generalized to the statement that any sequence of restrictions of an even number of elements is an extension; for an odd number of elements it is a restriction. to add the hidden things.

MISHNAH: The intruder by stealth is judged because of his end⁷⁵Ex. 22:1 permits the residents of a house to kill the stealth intruder since it is assumed that he would kill anybody offering resistance to his burglary.. If in the course of a burglary he broke an amphora, if he has blood-guilt attached to him⁷⁶If the sun shone on him, Ex. 22:2., he is liable⁷⁷Ex. 22:2.; if he has no blood-guilt attached to him, he is not liable⁷⁸Since he can be killed, his burglary is the equivalent of a capital crime cf. Note 102..

MISHNAH: The intruder by stealth is judged because of his end⁷⁵Ex. 22:1 permits the residents of a house to kill the stealth intruder since it is assumed that he would kill anybody offering resistance to his burglary.. If in the course of a burglary he broke an amphora, if he has blood-guilt attached to him⁷⁶If the sun shone on him, Ex. 22:2., he is liable⁷⁷Ex. 22:2.; if he has no blood-guilt attached to him, he is not liable⁷⁸Since he can be killed, his burglary is the equivalent of a capital crime cf. Note 102..

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season¹⁸³One may not offer to exchange agricultural work against agricultural work if these would represent vastly different expenditures if they needed hired hands..
Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y¹⁸⁴To let the debtor take care of the guest for the creditor..
The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:37.” and “do not take from him,¹⁸⁸Lev. 25:36” and “do not be a creditor,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “do not burden him with interest,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:14. While the preceding verses spell out the guilt of the parties, this verse explains the guilt of the scribe, who is supposedly learned in the law and has to know that he participates in an illegal activity. The extended interpretation of Lev. 19:14 is one of the signs of pharisaic doctrine; it is intimated that the Sadducees, the opponents of the Sages, would absolve the scribe from guilt.”

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. ⁷⁹Parallel texts are in the Babli 72a, Mekhilta dR.. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13, dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 192, Sifry Deut. 217; partially Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:4 (Notes 88–93). Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses⁸⁰To the verses Ex. 21:19 and 22:2 mentioned here one has to add Deut. 22:17. which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support⁸¹Ex. 21:19.. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood⁷⁷Ex. 22:2.. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed⁸²The Babli, 79b, states that if a father intrudes in the son’s home, the son does not have the right to kill him. The Yerushalmi does not have this good opinion of family relationships, cf. the next paragraph.. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed⁸³In Tosephta 11:9, this is a declarative sentence; the next sentence is missing there.? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship)⁸⁴Obviously, foreign worship has to be deleted since Mishnah 9 states clearly that a person intent on idolatry cannot be killed before he acts. One must read שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים “bloodshed” which defiles the Land (Num. 35:33; Babli Šabbat 33a, Yoma 85a); by Mishnah 9 a person intent on committing murder may be killed by any bystander before he commits the murder. If a person with a drawn sword runs after another, it is only a surmise but one which allows the bystander to kill the attacker; maybe the pursuer would not kill his victim. This is the “action in doubt“ referred to in this sentence. is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life⁸⁵The Sabbath must be desecrated for the possibility of saving a life. For example, if there was a landslide on the Sabbath and it is only surmised that somebody was buried in it, one starts digging without delay..

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. ²¹²The parallel in the Babli is 56a. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God²¹³Ex. 22:27. Since El means “power”, Elohim as a plural of majesty means “superior power”; in this case “supreme power” in contrast to elohim aḥerim which are not other gods” but “other powers”, such as the rain worshipped by Semites as Baal and by the Greeks as Zeus.. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁴Lev. 24:15. In Num. 9:13, referring to the Second Passover, it is spelled out that “carrying one’s sin” is equivalent to “being subject to extirpation” [Sifra Emor Pereq19(6), in the name of R. Jehudah.]. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death²¹⁵Lev. 24:16.. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges²¹⁶He reads Ex. 22:27 as referring to judges, who are called elohim in Ex. 22:7, Ps. 82:1. Babli 66a, Mekhilta dR. IsmaelMišpatim 19 (p. 317). The previous argument is R. Aqiba’s.? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names²¹⁷Any reference to the Deity other than the Tetragrammaton, the Unique name. Babli 56a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 213. The argument seems to contradict the principle that “one may not punish on the basis of a logical argument” (cf. Halakhah 7:1 Note 9). But since the argument refers only to warning and Heavenly retribution, not to penalties imposed by the court, there is no contradiction.. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation²¹⁸Sifra Emor Pereq 19(5), opinion of the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meïr who equates the Unique Name and its substitute names.. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁹The same group of verses can lead to two different conclusions without possibility of deciding between them., etc.

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸Ex. 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹Ex. 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰Deut. 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹Ex.. 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹²Deut. 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim⁹³Lev. 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴Ex. 23:12..”

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt⁷⁵Ex. 22:1 permits the residents of a house to kill the stealth intruder since it is assumed that he would kill anybody offering resistance to his burglary.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel⁸⁶From חתר “to undermine”. The thief digs under the wall to enter the house. there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He⁸⁷The property owner. sees him⁸⁸The thief., that he⁸⁸The thief. comes to take his⁸⁷The property owner. money away from him, stands up against him⁸⁸The thief. and kills him^88,The thief.⁸⁹A similar statement is anonymous in the Babli, Yoma 85b.. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him⁸⁸The thief. the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot⁹⁰Deut. 19:6, another case of non-prosecutable homicide.. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila⁹¹A cousin of Rav, lover of roast pigeon (Babli Pesaḥim 10:8)., of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila⁹²Therefore, any their caught in a house may be killed by the owner..

²⁶[Cf. ARN XXXVIII, 3, above pp. 191ff.] When R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael came [to be tried], it was decreed against them that they should be put to death. Whereupon R. Ishmael broke into tears; and R. Simeon said to him, ‘Abrek,²⁷A title of honour (cf. Gen. 41, 43). It was interpreted by the Rabbis as the initial letters of the Heb. phrase, ‘father in wisdom though tender in years’; cf. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, XC, 3 (Sonc. ed., p. 829). why do you weep? Two steps more²⁸i.e. immediately. and you will be in the bosom of the righteous, and yet you weep!’ He replied, ‘Do I then weep because we are about to be executed? It is because we are about to be executed [in the same way] as murderers and desecrators of the Sabbath’. He said to him, ‘Perhaps you were having a meal or you were sleeping when a woman came to ask [a ruling] concerning her ritual impurity or her cleanness, and your servant told her that you were asleep. And the Torah states, Ye shall not aflict²⁹Keeping an anxious woman waiting is a form of affliction. any widow or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise—for if they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry.³⁰Ex. 22, 21f. And what is written after this? My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword’. Some say that it was [47b] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who was weeping and R. Ishmael who answered him in these words.
When R. Simeon and R. Ishmael were executed and the report reached R. ‘Aḳiba and R. Judah b. Baba, they arose, girded their loins with sackcloth, rent their garments and exclaimed, ‘Our brother-Israelites, if good were destined to come to the world, at first none would receive it but R. Simeon and R. Ishmael; but now that it is revealed before Him Who spake and the universe came into being that eventually great punishments will come upon the world, they have consequently been taken out of the world; [as it is stated,] The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart,³¹Isa. 57, 1. and it continues, He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds’.³²ibid. 2.

And what is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Any talk of criminality.⁸⁸Ex. 22:8. The same argument is in the Babli 44a, Qiddušin 42b; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 202.” How do the House of Hillel explain “any talk of criminality’? I could think only if he acts alone⁸⁹The trustee is guilty in civil law even if the taking of the depositor’s property was done by the trustee’s agent; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 202.
This is explained at the start of a lengthy text in Šebuot 8:1 (38c l. 37 – 38d l. 1) which really is a commentary on Mishnah Bava meṣi‘a 3:13. E copies this text here; R. Ḥ. Y. D. Azulai (פתח עינים) published a slightly shorter text from a ms. of R. Menaḥem Lonzano who copied it from a ms. of Yerushalmi Bava meṣia‘. E’s text is an exact copy of Šebuot, and Azulai’s text is identical with these two except for some omissions of repetitions. It seems that these texts are later additions, not original to the text of Neziqin nor in its spirit. The present edition therefore will treat these texts as copies from Šebuot., etc.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.

BARAITHA.⁵⁵Cf. ibid. 94a (Sonc. ed., p. 527). A man may not say to his fellow, ‘Take oil from the jar when it is [in fact] empty’.
GEMARA. He who steals the mind⁵⁶Crafty deception, cf. I. Epstein, The Jewish Way of Life, pp. 58f. of his fellow is as though he deceived the All-present, because the Torah decreed that the robber must pay in full⁵⁷Ex. 22, 2. for the theft, but the thief must pay twofold in the case of articles, fourfold in the case of sheep, but fivefold in the case of cattle.⁵⁸ibid. XXI. 37. The thief had to carry the sheep off on his shoulders but he could ride on the ox. Cf. B.Ḳ. 79b (Sonc. ed., p. 452). Why [the difference]? Because the All-merciful showed consideration [to the thief for his trouble].

HALAKHAH: It is written about torts that the collection be from the best quality, as it is said: “his best field, etc.⁹³Ex. 22:4; Babli Giṭṭin 48b.” And it is written about a loan that the collection be from average quality, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor, etc.^87,Deut. 24:11.⁹⁴The inference is explained later by R. Simai.” They inferred real estate from pledges⁹⁵Since Deut. 24:14 refers to a pledge of movables, it is not obvious that the same rule should be applied to the foreclosure of a mortgage.. Similarly, should not pledges be inferred from real estate⁹⁶If payment for torts is made by cash or movables, not in real estate, that only best quality would be acceptable. But any debt can be liquidated by money or money’s worth to avoid foreclosure.? ⁹⁷A parallel to the remainder of the paragraph is in Giṭṭin 5:1, Notes 30–32. Rebbi Simai explained: It is a word of the Torah that the court’s bailiff enter and collect from average quality. For if the creditor enter, he would bring out the best. And if the debtor enter, he would bring out the worst. But the court’s bailiff enters and collects from average quality. Rebbi Ismael stated: It is a word of the Torah that the debtor enter, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor etc.⁹⁸Deut. 24:10–11: “If you are a creditor to your neighbor for anything, do not enter his house to take his pledge. Stand outside, and the man to whom you are creditor shall bring the pledge outside to you.” This clearly indicates that it is up to the debtor to determine what to give as pledge; the requirement that it be of medium quality is purely rabbinical for R. Ismael; in the words of the Babli “not to lock the door before borrowers” (Babli 113b). The obligation to stand outside extends to the bailiff (Sifry Deut. 276).
But R. Simai, and the Masoretes who follow him in their punctuation, read: “Stand outside, and the man, acting on behalf of the one to whom you are creditor, shall bring …” The man is the court’s employee.” Rebbi La said, it was stated there⁹⁹In Babylonia.: “to seize as pledge”, by the court. Outside the court, from where¹⁰⁰The court has to give authorization; it does not have to oversee the execution.? The verse¹⁰¹Ex. 22:25. says, “if to seize as pledge you seize as pledge.” If he took the pledge without authorization, he transgresses all these verses¹⁰²Tosephta 10:8: Ex. 22:25, Deut.24:10–13, for a total of five sins committed by one action.. Rebbi La said, he caused himself to transgress all these verses¹⁰³If he received the pledge through the court’s bailiff and did not return it, he still would transgress Ex.22:25 and Deut. 24:13, but not the other commandments..

HALAKHAH: It is written about torts that the collection be from the best quality, as it is said: “his best field, etc.⁹³Ex. 22:4; Babli Giṭṭin 48b.” And it is written about a loan that the collection be from average quality, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor, etc.^87,Deut. 24:11.⁹⁴The inference is explained later by R. Simai.” They inferred real estate from pledges⁹⁵Since Deut. 24:14 refers to a pledge of movables, it is not obvious that the same rule should be applied to the foreclosure of a mortgage.. Similarly, should not pledges be inferred from real estate⁹⁶If payment for torts is made by cash or movables, not in real estate, that only best quality would be acceptable. But any debt can be liquidated by money or money’s worth to avoid foreclosure.? ⁹⁷A parallel to the remainder of the paragraph is in Giṭṭin 5:1, Notes 30–32. Rebbi Simai explained: It is a word of the Torah that the court’s bailiff enter and collect from average quality. For if the creditor enter, he would bring out the best. And if the debtor enter, he would bring out the worst. But the court’s bailiff enters and collects from average quality. Rebbi Ismael stated: It is a word of the Torah that the debtor enter, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor etc.⁹⁸Deut. 24:10–11: “If you are a creditor to your neighbor for anything, do not enter his house to take his pledge. Stand outside, and the man to whom you are creditor shall bring the pledge outside to you.” This clearly indicates that it is up to the debtor to determine what to give as pledge; the requirement that it be of medium quality is purely rabbinical for R. Ismael; in the words of the Babli “not to lock the door before borrowers” (Babli 113b). The obligation to stand outside extends to the bailiff (Sifry Deut. 276).
But R. Simai, and the Masoretes who follow him in their punctuation, read: “Stand outside, and the man, acting on behalf of the one to whom you are creditor, shall bring …” The man is the court’s employee.” Rebbi La said, it was stated there⁹⁹In Babylonia.: “to seize as pledge”, by the court. Outside the court, from where¹⁰⁰The court has to give authorization; it does not have to oversee the execution.? The verse¹⁰¹Ex. 22:25. says, “if to seize as pledge you seize as pledge.” If he took the pledge without authorization, he transgresses all these verses¹⁰²Tosephta 10:8: Ex. 22:25, Deut.24:10–13, for a total of five sins committed by one action.. Rebbi La said, he caused himself to transgress all these verses¹⁰³If he received the pledge through the court’s bailiff and did not return it, he still would transgress Ex.22:25 and Deut. 24:13, but not the other commandments..

It was stated¹⁰⁸Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 19 (p. 316–317); Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai p. 212; Tanḥuma Mišpaṭim 10; Ex. rabba 30:7; Sifry Deut. 277.: He takes a day garment as pledge during the night and a night garment during the day. He returns a day garment during the day and a night garment during the night. Pillow and bed sheet¹⁰⁹Corrected version of the scribe. First he wrote סָגוֹס σάγος, "coarse coat" (expression used in Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai, Sifry Deut.). which are used as cover during the night he may take as pledge during the day and return for the night. An axe and a plough which usually are used for work during the day he may take as pledge during the night and return for the day. Rebbi La said: Sometimes one explains the verse¹¹⁰Deut. 24:15 (speaking of worker’s wages, not pledges). “the sun shall not come onto it,” as “the sun shall not rise upon it”, but sometimes one explains as “the sun shall not set upon it” since it is written “returning you shall return the pledge to him when the sun comes,¹¹¹Deut. 24:13.” at sunrise, “until the going of the sun return it to him,¹⁰¹Ex. 22:25.” until sundown.

HALAKHAH: “The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. A sorceress you shall not let live³⁶³Ex. 22:17., whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery³⁶⁴Babli 67a and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, ad loc., the first part only in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ad loc.. Rebbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is [executed] by stoning. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, whether human or animal they shall not live³⁶⁵Ex. 19:13. The verse requires stoning or shooting the transgressor.
In the Babylonian sources (Babli and the two Mekhiltot), this argument is attributed to R. Aqiba, who in the Yerushalmi rejects it.. Since shall not live there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’³⁶⁶There “rabbis” oppose the Mishnah and decree beheading for the sorcerer; in Babli and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai the author is R. Yose the Galilean, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael it is R. Ismael. reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, you shall not let live anybody³⁶⁷Deut. 20:16.. Since you shall not let live there means death by the sword, also you shall not let live here means death by the sword. Rebbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn you shall not let live from you shall not let live rather than from shall not live. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason³⁶⁸The student of R. Eliezer’s student gives the final argument for the Mishnah. In the Babli (here and Berakhot 21b) and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai his argument is attributed to Ben Azzai, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael to R. Yose the Galilean.? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, anybody lying with an animal shall die the death³⁶⁹Ex. 22:18, the verse following the one about the sorceress. Since in v. 17 the method of execution is not indicated, the instruction of v. 18 is interpreted in the light of Lev. 20:15–16 and applied to both verses.. Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning³⁷⁰Since for animals the only explicitly mentioned example of execution is the stoning of the notorious bull..

HALAKHAH: “The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. A sorceress you shall not let live³⁶³Ex. 22:17., whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery³⁶⁴Babli 67a and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, ad loc., the first part only in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ad loc.. Rebbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is [executed] by stoning. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, whether human or animal they shall not live³⁶⁵Ex. 19:13. The verse requires stoning or shooting the transgressor.
In the Babylonian sources (Babli and the two Mekhiltot), this argument is attributed to R. Aqiba, who in the Yerushalmi rejects it.. Since shall not live there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’³⁶⁶There “rabbis” oppose the Mishnah and decree beheading for the sorcerer; in Babli and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai the author is R. Yose the Galilean, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael it is R. Ismael. reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, you shall not let live anybody³⁶⁷Deut. 20:16.. Since you shall not let live there means death by the sword, also you shall not let live here means death by the sword. Rebbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn you shall not let live from you shall not let live rather than from shall not live. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason³⁶⁸The student of R. Eliezer’s student gives the final argument for the Mishnah. In the Babli (here and Berakhot 21b) and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai his argument is attributed to Ben Azzai, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael to R. Yose the Galilean.? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, anybody lying with an animal shall die the death³⁶⁹Ex. 22:18, the verse following the one about the sorceress. Since in v. 17 the method of execution is not indicated, the instruction of v. 18 is interpreted in the light of Lev. 20:15–16 and applied to both verses.. Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning³⁷⁰Since for animals the only explicitly mentioned example of execution is the stoning of the notorious bull..

Hatred of Others. How so? This teaches that a person should not say: Love the sages, but hate the scholars; or: Love the scholars, but hate the common people. Rather, love all of them, but hate the heretics, the enticers, the bad influences, and the traitors. So, too, did David say (Psalms 139:21–22), “I will hate those who hate You, O Lord, and I will despise those who rise up against You. With the utmost hatred I will hate them. They will become my enemies.” But it also says (Leviticus 19:18), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Eternal.” [What is the reason? Because I] created him. So if he does well by you,²I.e., if he keeps the laws of your people. you should love him. And if not, you should not love him.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: This was meant as an great oath. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Eternal.” I created him, so if you love him, I can be relied upon to give you great reward. And if not, I am the judge who will punish you.

When Rabbi Eliezer became sick, (they say) it was the eve of the Sabbath. Rabbi Akiva and his companions came in to visit him. He was sleeping in his room, so they sat in the entrance hall. His son Hyrcanus went in to take off his father’s tefillin,¹It was right before the Sabbath, and tefillin are not worn on the Sabbath. but his father would not let him, and began to cry. Hycanus came out and said to the sages: My masters, it seems to me that my father is confused. But his father called out: My son, I am not confused – you are confused! For you have not lit the Sabbath candles, for which you can be sentenced to death by divine decree. But I was just wearing tefillin, which is forbidden [to be worn on the Sabbath] only by rabbinic practice. When the sages saw that he was of clear mind (they went in) and sat before him, at a distance of four cubits. They said to him: Rabbi, a circular cushion, a ball, a mannequin, an amulet, and a torn prayer box – what is their status (with regard to whether they can become impure)? He said to them: They can become impure, and you should immerse them in water just as they are. Be very careful to do this, because these are important laws that were said to Moses on Mount Sinai. So they continued asking about ritual purity and impurity, and immersions. They would say: Rabbi, what about this? And he would say: Impure. What about that? And he would say: Pure. In this way he answered all their questions about what was pure and what was impure.
Afterward, Rabbi Eilezer said to the sages: I wonder if the students of this generation will be punished by death at the hands of Heaven. They replied: Rabbi, why? He said to them: Because they have not come and apprenticed with me.
Then he said to Akiva ben Yosef: Akiva, why did you not come to apprentice with me? Rabbi Akiva said: I did not have any time to come. He replied: I wonder if you will die a natural death.
Some say they never said any of this; rather, when Rabbi Eliezer first said this about the students, Akiva’s blood started racing inside of him, and he said: And Rabbi, how will I die? And Rabbi Eliezer said: (Rabbi) Akiva, your death will be the worst of all. Then Rabbi Akiva went and sat before him and said: Rabbi, teach me. Rabbi Eliezer began by teaching him three hundred laws about impure white patches of skin [baheret]. Then Rabbi Eliezer raised both of his arms and lay them on his chest, and said: Oy, these two arms of mine are like two Torah scrolls that will vanish from the world! For if all the seas were ink, and all the reeds were quills, and every person was a scribe, they still could not write down everything that I have read and taught. I apprenticed with the sages in the academy and did not forget (a thing I witnessed), not even a drop out of the sea. I never ceased learning except to dip my quill into ink. I could teach three hundred laws just on the verse, “Do not let a witch live” (Exodus 22:17) – and some say it was three thousand laws! – But no one ever asked me about them except for Akiva ben Yosef, who once said, Rabbi, teach me how they plant squash [through witchcraft], (and how we uproot them). And I answered, With one word, the whole field is filled with squash. So he said to me, Rabbi, you have taught me about how they are planted; now teach me about how they are uprooted. And I said, With one word, they can all be gathered together into one place.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Rabbi, what about a sandal on a mannequin’s leg? He answered: Pure. In this way he kept answering questions about what was pure and what was impure, until his soul departed in a state of purity. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah tore his clothes and wept. Then he went out and said the sages: My Masters, come and see Rabbi Eliezer, who will be pure in the World to Come (because) his soul left in a state of purity.
After the Sabbath, Rabbi Akiva came and found Rabbi Eliezer being taken in a coffin from Caesarea to Lod. Immediately, he tore his clothes and pulled at his hair until blood began to come out and drip onto the ground. And he screamed and cried and said: Woe is me, my master, for I have lost you! Woe is me, my master, for I have lost you! My master, you have left this whole generation like an orphan! At the head of his funeral line, he said, “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and all its horsemen!” (II Kings 2:12). You have left money for me, and I have no table [i.e., money changer] to exchange them.

The sword comes into the world because of the delay and perversion of justice, and because of those who teach the Torah contrary to the Halakhah. When Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael were taken out to be killed, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was sitting and wondering, and he said: Woe are we, for we are being killed like those who violate the Sabbath, worship idols, commit sexual transgressions, and murder! Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: May I suggest something to you? Rabbi Shimon said: Go ahead. Rabbi Yishmael said: Perhaps you were once sitting at a meal, and some poor people came and stood at your door, and you did not allow them to come in to eat? Rabbi Shimon said: Heaven forbid I ever did something like that! I had guards posted at my door, so that when poor people came, they would be let in to sit and drink with me, and then bless the heavenly Name with me. So Rabbi Yishmael said: Perhaps when you were sitting and preaching on the Temple Mount, and all of Israel were sitting before you, you became arrogant for a moment? Rabbi Shimon said: Yishmael my brother, a person must simply be ready to receive his punishment. So they went and pleaded with the executioner. One said: I am a priest, the son of a high priest. Kill me first, so that I do not have to witness the death of my friend. [The other said: I am the leader of the community, the son of a former leader of the community. Kill me first, so that I do not have to witness the death of my friend.] The executioner replied: Let’s draw lots. So they drew lots, and it fell on Rabbi Shimon. Immediately, the executioner took his sword and chopped off Rabbi Shimon’s head. Rabbi Yishmael took it and held it to his chest and cried and shouted out: This holy mouth, this faithful mouth! This holy mouth, this faithful mouth! This mouth that brought forth precious jewels and gems and pearls! Who has buried you in the dirt? Who has stuffed your mouth with dirt and dust? Of you the verse (Zechariah 13:7) speaks: “Arise, sword, against My shepherd, against My own beloved man!” He had not finished speaking when the sword came down and chopped off his head as well. (About them the verse [Exodus 22:23] says: “My anger will rage, and I will kill them by the sword! [And your wives will become widows, and your children will become orphans.]” [From the fact that it says, “I will kill them by the sword,”] don’t I know that their wives were made widows and their children were made orphans? But they both were and were not widows. For there were no witnesses there to testify that these women were permitted to marry again. This is like what happened in Beitar, where not a soul survived to testify that a woman could marry again. And from the fact that it says, “your wives will become widows,” don’t I know that the children will be orphans? But they both were and were not orphans. For their inheritance stood in their fathers’ name and was not given to them to inherit so they could marry and give it to their wives.)