Talmud su Esodo 23:78

MISHNAH: All are obligated to appear¹To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah. except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the child, and the sexless, and the hermaphrodite, women, and unemancipated slaves, the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the child, and anybody who cannot ascend on his feet. Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, any who cannot hold on to his father’s hand and climb from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said, three walking occasions²Ex. 23:14..

MISHNAH: These are the matters that have no measure¹These are obligations spelled out in the Torah, so one has to fulfill them; but the Torah did not specify either minimum or maximum obligation. However, there are rabbinic minima and sometimes maxima established for all obligations.: Peah²In harvesting a field, one is not permitted to harvest the last corner (פאה); that must be abandoned to be harvested by the poor (Lev. 19:9,23:22). There is no minimum mentioned in the Torah; the Talmud will discuss whether one may declare one’s entire field as Peah., first fruits³There is an obligation to bring the first fruits of one’s land to the Temple, Lev. 23:19, 34:26; Neh. 10:36. No amount has been specified. This obligation is the subject of tractate Bikkurim., appearance⁴There is an obligation to appear in the Temple on the three holidays of pilgrimage (Ex. 23:17, 34:23–24, Deut. 16:16). It is forbidden to appear in the Temple emptyhanded (Ex. 23:15, 34:20, Deut. 16:16), i. e., without bringing a sacrifice. The Torah does not directly spell out the value of the sacrifice, but the verse in Deuteronomy requires it to be “proportional to the blessing that the Eternal has bestowed on you.” The Talmud will discuss which of the two obligations (appearance or sacrifice) is meant here., works of kindness⁵Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere., and Torah study⁶It is written of the Torah (Jos. 1:8): “You should meditate upon it day and night.” Hence, there is no upper limit. The obligation of Torah study can be fulfilled by the recitation of Shema‘, but that recitation is also an independent obligation. Hence, Torah study per se has no lower limit.. These are the matters whose product a person eats in this world and whose capital remains for him⁷As deeds which merit reward in the future life. in the future world: Honoring father and mother, works of kindness, making peace between people; the study of Torah is worth all of these.

MISHNAH: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration¹The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings., some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring²The reason is explained in Mishnah 2.: He who plants in his own but provines³He bends a branch of a vine down into the earth and has it reappear elsewhere; cf. Kilaim 7:1, Note 1. into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough, etc.” It is written¹Shortened versions of this discussion are in the Babli, Roš Haššanah9b, Makkot 8b. In both places, the argument is attributed to the school of R. Aqiba. In Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai to 34:22, it is attributed to R. Jehudah. Practice noted in the next paragraph follows the school of R. Ismael as explained in Mishnah 5. (Ex. 23:12): “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall rest.” And it is written (Ex. 34:21): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.²The argument is somewhat elliptic. Ex. 23:12 reads: “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall cease, so that your donkey and your ox may rest and the son of your bondsmaid and the stranger may recuperate.” Ex. 34:21: “Six days you shall work; on the Seventh day you shall rest, from ploughing and harvesting you shall rest.” It would seem more natural to quote the second verse in toto; this is the approach of the commentaries which emend the first quote away but such an approach is impossible since our text clearly quotes two different verses. The explanation is in the Mekhiltot(deR.Ismael,Massekhta dekhas pa, p. 331; deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai,Mishpaṭim, p. 217): It says in the Ten Commandments, that “six days you shall labor and do all your work.” Hence, one could think that the Sabbath has to be kept only if all work is permitted on weekdays. This would exclude the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical year since most agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical. Hence, the verse Ex. 23:12 is necessary to include the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical years; this only makes sure that Ex. 34:21 is redundant as far as both Sabbath day and Sabbatical year are concerned.” Where do we hold? If one speaks about the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day., was it not already said (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work?” If one speaks about Sabbatical years, was it not already said (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard?” If it cannot refer to the Sabbath of Creation nor to Sabbatical years, let it refer to the prohibition of the first two terms⁴The “two terms” are the two periods during which agricultural work has to cease before the onset of the Sabbatical year, one for orchards and one for fields.. “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (Ex.23:11)⁷Speaking of the produce of the Sabbatical year. “let drop,” why does the verse say, “and abandon it”? There is another abandoning like this one. Just as this one is for poor and rich alike, also what is spoken of elsewhere⁸Any meaning of נטש must conform with this paradigm. is for poor and rich alike.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc⁶Since for him the Mishnah has no biblical basis; the cessation of commerce with idolators either is rabbinic or an old popular custom. The entire sermon is reproduced in Yalqut Šim`oni Prophets§542.? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal⁷Is. 7:6. The tradition that Ṭabeal is a place rather than a personal name was accepted by the Medieval commentators of Prophets. According to Rashi the name is coded; one has to replace letter nby n+/-11; then טבאל becomes רַמְלֵא, a city founded after the Arab conquest.. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me⁸1S. 2:28.. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people⁹1K. 12:31; quoted in the Babli, Qiddušin75b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day¹¹Lev. 19:6.; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it¹²Deut. 23:22., but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them^3,Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.¹³But it is not necessary to fulfill one’s pledge. The reason of the Northern Kingdom’s apostasy is traced to the cost and onerous rules of Torah practice.. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand¹⁴Hos. 4:5.. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk¹⁵He claimed that his mental faculties were slightly impaired.. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping.¹⁶Hos. 4:6. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration¹⁶Hos. 4:6.. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges¹⁷Hos.4:7. All of Talmudic literature assumes that the legal system imagined for late Hasmonean rule was that of the Davidic kingdom.. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found¹⁸Deut. 21:1. This sermon derives הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 not from חלה “to be sick” but from חלל “to be perforated”.. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat^14,Hos. 4:5.¹⁹Deriving הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 from חול “to be profane”.; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan²⁰1K. 12:29..

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc⁶Since for him the Mishnah has no biblical basis; the cessation of commerce with idolators either is rabbinic or an old popular custom. The entire sermon is reproduced in Yalqut Šim`oni Prophets§542.? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal⁷Is. 7:6. The tradition that Ṭabeal is a place rather than a personal name was accepted by the Medieval commentators of Prophets. According to Rashi the name is coded; one has to replace letter nby n+/-11; then טבאל becomes רַמְלֵא, a city founded after the Arab conquest.. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me⁸1S. 2:28.. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people⁹1K. 12:31; quoted in the Babli, Qiddušin75b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day¹¹Lev. 19:6.; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it¹²Deut. 23:22., but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them^3,Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.¹³But it is not necessary to fulfill one’s pledge. The reason of the Northern Kingdom’s apostasy is traced to the cost and onerous rules of Torah practice.. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand¹⁴Hos. 4:5.. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk¹⁵He claimed that his mental faculties were slightly impaired.. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping.¹⁶Hos. 4:6. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration¹⁶Hos. 4:6.. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges¹⁷Hos.4:7. All of Talmudic literature assumes that the legal system imagined for late Hasmonean rule was that of the Davidic kingdom.. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found¹⁸Deut. 21:1. This sermon derives הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 not from חלה “to be sick” but from חלל “to be perforated”.. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat^14,Hos. 4:5.¹⁹Deriving הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 from חול “to be profane”.; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan²⁰1K. 12:29..

For Torah⁴⁰Torah study, including Torah reading. there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions⁴¹In general, it is assumed in the system of Rebbi Aqiba that a word can have only one meaning. A stronger implication, agreed to by all tannaïtic authorities, is a “parallel expression”. The formal definition of the school of R. Ismael is that if one has a tradition that two equal or synonymous expressions are written in the Torah for purposes of comparison and if these two words are not used for any other inference, then all laws connected with one word apply to the other and vice-versa. The derivation here does not fulfill these conditions; hence, it is labelled to follow the rules of R. Aqiba who is not known to require too much formality in case the verse is used to give a biblical base to an old tradition.. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba⁴²Who is an exponent of intensional interpretation, whereas R. Ismael is an exponent of extensional interpretation. The rules of R. Ismael are systematized in his “13 rules” given in the introduction to the halakhic Midrash Sifra on Leviticus. The problem of both Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael is that in its mishnaic-talmudic form, the rules of Jewish conduct form a logically consistent whole. It was shown earlier in this chapter, Notes 24 – 29, that rules must be consistent from one application to the next, such as rules of Grace and forming a court of law. But the basis of these laws, the words of the Torah, are unsystematic, fragmentary, and sometimes appear contradictory. Hence, one needs a method of translating the aphoristic text of the Torah in a legally consistent new language; cf. the author’s Logical problems in Jewish tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. P. Longworth, Blond, London 1966, 171–196. The rules are discussed in the medieval texts Introduction to the Talmud by R. Samuel Hanaggid and Sefer Keritut of R. Simson of Sens.. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater⁴³קל וחוֹמר, the first rule of R. Ismael. If there are two commandments, A and B, and if every rule for A is no more stringent than the corresponding rule for B, then a rule expressed for A that has no equivalent for B is valid also for B. The Babli (21a) quotes the following qal waḥomer in the name of R. Yoḥanan only and points out that the application here is not justified since it is self-contradictory. The Yerushalmi seems to be of the opinion that in the formulation given here, with “not more stringent” instead of “less stringent”, the argument is logically admissible.. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.”⁴⁴In the Babli (48b) and in the Mekhilta (loc. cit.) this is given in the name of R. Nathan only. A verse from Samuel (Biblical but not Pentateuchal) cannot prove a commandment but can prove a practice. Rebbi Nathan⁴⁵In the Babli and the Mekhilta, this appears in the name of Rebbi Isaac. said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat⁴⁶The full verse seems to read: “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, then He will bless your bread and your water and I will remove sickness from your midst.” The switch from third to first person is awkward in any case. In the Babli (in particular, in the Sephardic incunabula print) it is spelled out: Do not read וּבֵרַךְ “He will bless” but וּבָרֵךְ “and praise”. However, the Bible Concordance of G. Lisowsky (Stuttgart 1958) takes the verse, as it stands, to mean “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, and praise for your bread and your water, then I will remove sickness from your midst.” One may recite a benediction one one’s bread and one’s water only before it is consumed; afterwards one may speak only of nourishment and sustenance.. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more⁴⁷In the Babli and the Mekhilta this is a קל וחוֹמר of Rebbi Ismael..

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written¹⁴Deut. 19:17.: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written¹⁵Deut. 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge]¹⁶The scribe’s text in parentheses conforms to the parallels; the corrector’s in brackets is more logical..

²⁸Babli Bava meṣia` 59b. They wanted to excommunicate Rebbi Eliezer. They said, who will go and inform him? Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall go and inform him. He went to him and said to him, my teacher, my teacher²⁹Nobody else wanted to go since they knew that R. Eliezer’s rage would be deadly. R. Aqiba declared himself R. Eliezer’s student, insulating himself from the leaders of the preceding generation who pronounced the excommunication., your colleagues are excommunicating you. He took him outside, saying: Carob tree, carob tree, if practice has to follow their words, be uprooted. It was not uprooted. If practice has to follow my words, be uprooted. It was uprooted. If practice has to follow their words, turn back. It did not turn back. If practice has to follow my words, turn back. It turned back. All these extraordinary happenings and practice do not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥanina said, when it was given, it also was given to follow the majority opinion³⁰Ex. 23:2. This declares rabbinic consensus to be superior to prophetic inspiration. This claim of rabbinic authority to override the will of Heaven is the mirror image of Jesus’s claim (Matth. 12:8) that the prophet (Son of Man) is master over biblical laws.. [Did Rebbi Eliezer not know that practice has to follow the majority opinion?]³¹Addition by the Venice editor, justified by G where one reads ולית ר׳ ליעז….. רבים להטות. He was offended only because they burned his food prepared in purity in his presence³²This follows the story in the Babli that R. Eliezer was excommunicated in his presence.. There we have stated³³Mishnah Kelim 5:10.: “If it was cut into strips and sand was placed between any two strips, Rebbi Eliezer declares pure³⁴In Mishnah Kelim, “pure” always means “impervious to impurity”; “impure” means “susceptible to impurity”. Since every strip of pottery is not a vessel and the connections between the strips are not permanent, the entire oven is not an implement and therefore pure. The Sages argue that since the oven is usable as described it is an implement and impure. but the Sages declare impure. This is the Ḥakhinai oven.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, a big itching was happening on that day: Everything on which Rebbi Eliezer gazed was burned³⁵This describes the antique theory of vision, that the image in the eye is formed by rays emanated from the eye and scanning the objects.. Not only that, but a grain of wheat might have been half burned and half not burned, and the walls of the house of assembly were weakened. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if colleagues are fighting, what does this concern you? There came an unembodied voice and said, practice follows My son Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, it is not in Heaven³⁶Deut. 30:12.. Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi: If a person would say to me, that is how Rebbi Eliezer stated, I am stating following his words since the Tannaïm switch³⁷If a statement consistent with our practice is ascribed to R. Eliezer it need not be rejected since one may assume that it was ascribed to him in error.. Once he was walking in public and he saw a woman when sweeping her house throwing it out, it fell on his head. He said, it seems that today my colleagues are befriending me, for it is written: He lifts the downtrodden from the dung heap³⁸Ps.113:7. The Babli holds that R. Eliezer’s excommunication was lifted only at his death..

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak²⁵While a child can hear and speak, it usually will not understand (meant here by “hear”) and it cannot teach (understood by “speak”).? They turned around and said, all your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn¹To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah., to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?]²⁷Corrector’s addition, unnecessary. Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable²⁸According to the Babli, 6a, this question refers to a deaf-mute child whom the experts give a chance of recovering hearing and/or speech.? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth]²⁹The corrector’s change introduces the Babli’s idiom; it should be deleted. The expression means that one was seeking proof in extraneous sources when the answer is readily available intrinsically. and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable³⁰In this discussion, it should be pointed out that the child is never liable, and cannot be liable before becoming an adult. The question is whether the parent is liable to bring the child to the Temple.. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult]³¹Corrector’s change, misunderstanding the text, to be deleted. The scribe’s text also implies that there should be no distinction made between the minor and the adult deaf-mute. deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male³²By an accident or an operation his skin was torn and it turned out that he had penis and testicles. Then he is a male and liable for all obligations of a male. Since a male is required to appear in the Temple on a holiday, but not before, now that he knows that he is a male he is liable like everybody else. on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen³³Ex.23:17,34:23. In both places only Passover is mentioned as going on for 7 days; Pentecost and Tabernacles appear as single holidays. Since the obligation to appear is repeated, it follows that the seven day holiday has to be treated like a one-day holiday. A person not obligated on the one day cannot become obligated later., he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there³⁴Babli 2a, 9a, Pesaḥim93a. Since the Second Pesaḥ is biblical institution for people not liable to bring the first of the 14th of Nisan, it proves that make-up days are also for people not liable for appearance on the first day of a holiday., the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory³⁵They are independent possibilities for fulfilling the obligation of appearance, including the six days following the one-day holiday of Pentecost.. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one³⁶A person impure on the first day, to become pure on a later day.? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable³⁷Therefore he certainly is not liable for Ḥisqia and R. Joḥanan; the question remains open for R. Hoshaia.; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable³⁸Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1..

As this: ⁸⁰This paragraph also appears word for word in Pesaḥim6:5, Notes 42–48.The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning⁸¹Ex. 23:18. The first part of the verse is about slaughtering the Pesaḥ. The second part quoted here explicitly mentions the holiday offering, the required family sacrifice on the occasion of the holiday pilgrimage, but is interpreted to include the fat of the Pesaḥ.. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday⁸²Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday, it seems obvious that parts of a sacrifice brought on the 14th have to be burned before the start of the holiday; the verse seems to be meaningless.? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath. <rebbi yose asked, if the fourteenth fell on a sabbath,>⁸³Missing in the ms., added from G. In Pesaḥim the name is R. Jonah. no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”⁸⁴Even if we restrict the meaning of the sentence to holiday offerings, since there is none if the 14th falls on a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu seems pointless.? And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”⁷⁹Since on the holiday itself only the holiday offerings may be slaughtered, and on the following days the animal already would be too old, the animal would have to be offered on the day preceding the holiday. (The same statement could have been made for any other holiday.). Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified⁸⁵This argument that a holiday offering, brought in error on the 14th which is a Sabbath, is qualified and the person who brought it is not liable for a Sabbath infraction, is not found in the Babli and the surviving Tosephta mss.; it is quoted as R. Meïr’s opinion in the Tosephta of the Bomberg Babli, Pesaḥim5:4.? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress⁸⁶If one brings a holiday offering on a 14th which is a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu applies. The verse is not meaningless..

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to exclude the hermaphrodite. There³⁸Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1., we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt³⁹Whether the baby was actually born on a Sabbath or maybe on Friday or Sunday. In the latter case he may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case⁴⁰Does R. Jehudah agree with the Mishnah which excludes the hermaphrodite from the duty of pilgrimage?? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one⁴¹Who is excluded from the duty of pilgrimage. Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2a, Sanhedrin4b, Arakhin 2b.. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement⁴²That the hermaphrodite is excluded.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁴³Gen. 17:14, establishing the duty of circumcision. The verse emphasizing male is not needed to exclude female circumcision since the limb to be circumcised always is referred to as flesh, and therefore designates the only boneless limb, the penis, which characterizes males.. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male⁴⁴While the hermaphrodite can be circumcised, having a penis, and has to be circumcised since his maleness may be the dominant trait, he cannot be classified as male.. Rebbi Jehudah explains male⁴⁵Babli Šabbat 137a. Instead of all your males, he reads your total maleness.. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

“Women”. All your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., excluding women⁴⁶Sifry Deut. 143; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)..

⁴⁵The following is quoted from Berakhot 7:1, Notes 40–52 (ב). For Torah⁴⁶Torah study, including Torah reading. there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God⁴⁷Deut. 32:3.. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise⁴⁸Deut. 8:10.. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions⁴⁹In general, it is assumed in the system of Rebbi Aqiba that a word can have only one meaning in the Pentateuch. A stronger implication, agreed to by all tannaitic authorities, is a “parallel expression”. The technical term is equal cut. The formal definition of the school of R. Ismael is that if one has a tradition that two equal or synonymous expressions are written in the Torah for purposes of comparison and if these two words are not used for any other inference, then all laws connected with one word apply to the other and vice-versa. The derivation here does not fulfill these conditions; hence, it is labelled to follow the rules of R. Aqiba who is not known to require too much formality in case the verse is used to give a biblical base to an old tradition.. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael⁵⁰The rules of R. Ismael are systematized in his 13 hermeneutical rules given in the introduction to Sifra on Leviticus.? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus⁵¹The first rule of R. Ismael. If there are two commandments, A and B, and if every rule for A is no more stringent than the corresponding rule for B, then a rule expressed for A that has no equivalent for B is valid also for B. The Babli (Berakhot 21a) quotes the following in the name of R. Joḥanan only and points out that the application here is not justified since it is self-contradictory. The Yerushalmi seems to be of the opinion that in the formulation given here, with “not more stringent” instead of “less stringent”, the argument is logically admissible.. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat⁵²1S. 9:13. In the Babli (Berakhot 48b) and in the Mekhilta dR. Ismael (Ba 16, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 61) this is given in the name of R. Nathan only. A verse from Samuel (Biblical but not Pentateuchal) cannot prove a commandment but can prove a practice.. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water⁵³Ex. 23:25. In the Babli and the Mekhilta, this appears in the name of Rebbi Isaac.; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat⁵⁴The full verse seems to read: You shall serve the Eternal, your God, then He will bless your bread and your water and I will remove sickness from your midst. The switch from third to first person is awkward in any case. In the Babli (in particular, in the Sephardic incunabula print) it is spelled out: Do not read וּבֵרַךְ He will bless but וּבָרֵךְ “and praise”. The Bible Concordance of G. Lisowsky (Stuttgart 1958) takes the verse, as it stands, to mean You shall serve the Eternal, your God, and praise for your bread and your water, then I will remove sickness from your midst. One may recite a benediction on one’s bread and one’s water only before it is consumed; afterwards one may speak only of nourishment and sustenance.. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more⁵⁵In the Babli and the Mekhilta this is an argument of Rebbi Ismael..

“Slaves”. Let us hear from the following: Three times a year shall all your males be seen⁴⁷Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a., anybody who has no master but the Holy One, praise to Him. This excludes the slave who has another master. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, from where that anybody who keeps the commandment of appearance is like one who greets the Divine Presence? From this, Three times a year shall all your males be seen before the face of the Master, the Eternal, etc⁴⁷Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a..

⁴²This paragraph also appears word for word in Roš Haššanah 1:1 (56c l. 13), which seems to be the original source.“And the burning of its fat.” The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning⁴³Ex. 23:18. The first part of the verse is about slaughtering the Pesaḥ (Chapter 5, Note 130). The second part quoted here explicitly mentions the holiday offering, the required family sacrifice on the occasion of the holiday pilgrimage, but is interpreted to include the fat of the Pesaḥ.. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday⁴⁴Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday, it seems obvious that parts of a sacrifice brought on the 14th have to be burned before the start of the holiday; the verse seems to be meaningless.? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath. Rebbi Jonah asked, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath, no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”⁴⁵Even if we restrict the meaning of the sentence to holiday offerings, since there is none if the 14th falls on a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu seems pointless.? (And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”⁴⁶This sentence, referring to Deut. 23:22, belongs to Roš Haššanah and has no meaning here..) Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified⁴⁷This argument that a holiday offering, brought in error on the 14th which is a Sabbath, is qualified and the person who brought it is not liable for a Sabbath infraction, is not found in the Babli and the surviving Tosephta mss.; it is quoted as R. Meïr’s opinion in the Tosephta of the Bomberg Babli, 5:4.? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress⁴⁸If one brings a holiday offering on a 14th which is a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu applies. The verse is not meaningless..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., and another verse says, walking occasions¹To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah.. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him⁴⁹For the House of Shammai the obligation of appearance extends to all boys able to ride on their father’s shoulders without being held by their father.. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being⁵⁰By Pentateuchal standards, only intelligent Jews can become impure (Mishnah Taharot 3:6). (The impurity of Gentiles is rabbinic, i. e., popular usage traceable to First Temple times.) Therefore a baby cannot be impure (but he cannot be pure either and as such is prevented from entering the Temple). It is now stated that as long as a parent has to grab his hand to make him walk with the parent he is considered unable to be asked in matters of purity and therefore impervious to purity. If such a child touches food prepared in purity, it remains pure. But if the child by himself takes his parent’s hand, he is treated as intelligent being and since he may be asked whether he touched certain things he is subject to impurity and if he touched pure food and does not remember what he did before this the food has to be treated as impure.. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt]⁵¹Corrector’s addition; correct but unnecessary in Yerushalmi style. he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable⁵²The rules of appearance (which refer to the parent’s obligation to bring his child) and those of impurity (which refer to the status of the child) are not comparable..

HALAKHAH: From where years¹⁵⁸That the Pentateuch counts years from the Fall equinox.? One verse says¹⁵⁹Ex. 23:16., the festival of gathering at the end of the year, and another verse says¹⁶⁰Ex. 34.22., the festival of gathering at the turn of the year. Which month contains a festival, and a turning point, and the year starts from it? Which one is this? It is Tishre. If you would say Ṭevet, there is a turning point¹⁶¹The winter solstice. but neither festival nor gathering. If you would say Nisan, there is a turning point¹⁶²The spring equinox. and a festival, but no gathering. If you would say Tamuz, there is a turning¹⁶³The summer solstice. point and gathering but no festival. So which one is this? It is Tishre. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah: should it not be Tamuz? He told them, it is written, in the seventh month¹⁶⁴Num. 28:24., and your are saying so? They said to him, should it not be Tamuz¹⁶⁵Maybe the month of the fall equinox should be called “Tamuz”.? He said to them, from here on you are quarrelling with me about names of months? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, the names of the months ascended with them from Babylonia. Originally, in the month of Ethanim¹⁶⁶1K. 8:2., in which the Patriarchs were born, and the Patriarchs died, and the Mothers were remembered¹⁶⁷One cannot say that Sarah and Rebecca became pregnant in Tishre, this would contradict the statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were born in Tishre. So one has to say that in that month the Divine decree was passed that the mothers should become pregnant. The language is taken from Gen. 21:1. Babli Berakhot29a.. Originally, in the month of Bul¹⁶⁸1K. 6:37., where the leaves are falling, and the earth is made into lumps; where one mixes for domestic animals in the house¹⁶⁹Because in November there is little food to be found in the fields.. Originally, in the month of Ziw¹⁷⁰1K. 6:2, misquoted., which is the splendor of the world, when plants are recognized and trees recognized¹⁷¹In Nisan the growth on newly sown fields is recognizable and fruit trees are blossoming.. From then onwards¹⁷²After the Babylonian exile., it was in the month of Nisan of year twenty¹⁷³Neh. 2:1.; it was in the month of Kislew of year twenty¹⁷⁴Neh. 1:1.; in the tenth month, this is the month of Ṭevet¹⁷⁵Esth.2:16.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the names of angels were in their hands from Babylonia. Originally, there flew to me one of the Seraphim¹⁷⁶Is. 6:6.; Seraphim standing over Him¹⁷⁷Is. 6:2.. From then on, but the man Gabriel¹⁷⁸Dan. 9:21.; but your lord Michael¹⁷⁹Dan. 10:21..

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]⁴¹The text is not clear, nor is its meaning. The scribe’s text is תיטק but the letter ט is damaged and was read as נו by the Venice printer and נז by the corrector. There is no Hebrew root נטק (or יטק) on record; the Arabic root נטק means “to gird”. In the Babli 36b the reason is purely rabbinic, lest one cut a twig from a tree to drive the animal. The reader’s own conjecture as to the meaning will be as good as any other proposed interpretation.. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest⁴²Ex. 23:12.; like you⁴³Deut. 5:14.. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak⁴⁴A healthy person leans on an animal as he would lean on a human; this must be permitted. A sickly person might use the animal to support his entire weight; this is counted as a biblical infraction.. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies⁴⁵Since R. Yose reported the disagreement between Amoraim without further discussion he indicated that this disagreement was unimportant since the apparent disagreement between Tannaim already was explained away by Rav Ḥisda; the latter’s explanation was accepted also in the Galilean Academy. In the Babli (Šabbat155a, Ḥagigah16b) any leaning on animals is forbidden. that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

MISHNAH: One does not bring First Fruits except from the Seven Kinds³⁸The fruits enumerated in Deut. 8:8; cf. Berakhot 6, Notes 15, 151., nor from mountain dates, nor from valley fruits³⁹Grapes, figs, pomegranates and olives. These grow better in the hills; dates grow best in the Jordan valley. The requirement of “best quality” applies to all First Fruits., nor from oil olives which are not best quality. One may not bring First Fruits before Pentecost. ⁴⁰The remainder of the Mishnah is also Mishnah Ḥallah 4:11; Notes 172,173. The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.”

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 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.].

HALAKHAH: ⁶²The main occurrence of this paragraph is in Ḥallah 4:12, on the Mishnah: “Joseph the Cohen brought his First Fruits as olive oil and wine and these were not accepted in the Temple.” That Mishnah seems to contradict the Mishnah here; cf. Šiṭṭah Mequbeẓet,Ḥulin 120b, Note 11. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners⁶³The priests serving in the Temple. Since First Fruits were designated as such while still growing, they were already dedicated when harvested and never were property of the farmer.. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’⁶⁴Since the commandment is repeated, it means “bring in any shape or form.””. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose⁶⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, the entire discussion is only about grapes. It is difficult to decide whether this is also the point of view of the Yerushalmi..

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit,” etc. ³⁰Babli 33b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim 20 (p.327–328), dR. Simeon ben Iohai 23:7; shortened Sifry Deut. 144. If he left the court being acquitted, and they found reasons for conviction, could I understand that one returned him? The verse says³¹Ex. 23:7., do not slay the acquitted. If he left the court being convicted, and they found reasons for acquittal, could I understand that one should not return him? The verse³¹Ex. 23:7. says, but do not slay the innocent. I could think that if he is acquitted in your court, he is acquitted in My court; the verse³¹Ex. 23:7. says, I shall not acquit the wicked. Rebbi Isaac said, Rebbi Yose told me: There is no difference; if the acquittal was in error³²For example, if the clerk of court made an error in tallying the votes. The Babli, 33b, holds that a retrial is possible if an acquittal was in clear violation of a biblical verse., one retries him.

“One may not tie camels one to the other and draw.” Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion, that they should not say this man goes out to do his job on the Sabbath. Assi said, it was necessary for kilaim⁵⁰This refers to the rule that in leading a group of camels or horses one should not twist the ropes together but keep them separate in his hand. This is to avoid problems if one rope was of linen and another of wool. Babli 54a. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel ⁵¹The text in parentheses is a duplicate of the following one and is out of place here; it should be disregarded.(said, from his hand it is forbidden but from the neck of the animal it is permitted, for if it is not for the animal) wound around the animal’s neck it is forbidden⁵²In this opinion, the rope coiled around the animal’s neck is a load forbidden on the Sabbath., hanging from the animal’s neck it is permitted. Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah, both in the name of Samuel. One said, from his hand is forbidden but from the animal’s neck it is permitted. The other one inverts. He who says from his hand is forbidden, because of a load on the Sabbath⁵³Since the animal may be led against its will the rope is a load.. But from the animal’s neck it is permitted, because for the animal it is not a load on the Sabbath. And he who says from his hand is permitted, because it is impossible⁵⁴It may be necessary to lead the animal to water or to pasture for the animal’s benefit and this may be impossible without having control over the animals by the ropes., but from the animal’s neck it is forbidden⁵²In this opinion, the rope coiled around the animal’s neck is a load forbidden on the Sabbath., because he is responsible for the rest of his animal as for his own, as it is said, that your ox and your donkey rest”⁵⁵Ex. 23:12. “like you”⁵⁶Deut. 5:14..

BARAITHA. [The disciple of the wise must be] sin-fearing, estimating a man according to his deeds, and he should say, ‘As for my possessions in this world I have no desire for them because the whole world is not mine’. He sits at the feet¹⁷lit. ‘sits and soils his clothes’. In the Talmudic schools the disciple sat on the ground. He is so eager to learn and not miss any of the instruction that he will not leave even to relieve himself. of the disciples of the wise; he never takes an oath in connection with any matter; he questions according to the subject-matter and answers to the point.¹⁸From Aboth V, 10 (Sonc. ed., V, 7, p. 65) where it is included among the characteristics of a wise man.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whence [do we know that a disciple of the wise should be] meek? From Moses our teacher, as it is stated, Now the man Moses was very meek;¹⁹Num. 12, 3. and on that account Moses was praised, as it is stated, My servant Moses is not so.²⁰ibid. 7. Moses is described as My servant. [We learn that the disciple of the wise must be] lowly of spirit from Aaron, for it is written, For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts;²¹Mal. 2, 7. and it is written, The law of truth was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from iniquity.²²ibid. 6.
There is no one more lowly of spirit than he who pursues peace. Consider, how can a man pursue peace if he be not lowly of spirit? How [does he act]? If a man curse him, he says to him, ‘Peace be upon you!’; should a man quarrel with him, he keeps silent; and further, if two men have quarrelled, he humbles his spirit, approaches them and effects a reconciliation between them.
Such, indeed, was the procedure of Aaron, the righteous. When he heard of two men who had quarrelled, he would go to one and say to him, ‘So-and-so, peace be upon you, my master!’ and he replied, ‘Peace be upon you, my master and teacher! What does my master seek here?’ He then said, ‘So-and-so, your friend, sent me to you to appease you, because he declares, “I have offended my friend” ’. Immediately the man reflects, ‘A righteous man like him has come to appease me!’ and exclaims, ‘Master, it was I who offended him’. [Aaron] then went to the other man and said the same to him. When the two meet on the way, one says to the other, ‘Forgive me for the offence which I did to you’ and the other speaks likewise.
When [Aaron] heard of a husband and wife who had quarrelled, he would go to the husband and say to him, ‘[I have come] because I heard that you have quarrelled²³Adopting the reading of H. V has ‘you have become reconciled’. with your wife; should you divorce her it is doubtful whether you will find another like her or not; and further, should you find another and quarrel²⁴The word in V is corrupt and corrected by H. with her, the first thing she will say to you will be, “You must have behaved in a like manner towards your first wife” ’. In consequence of this all Israel, men and women, loved him. Know that it was so; for what does Scripture relate when Moses our teacher died? And the children of Israel wept for Moses;²⁵Deut. 34, 8. but of Aaron it is written, They wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel²⁶Num. 20, 29.—that is to say, even the women. Not only [did the women mourn], but they also covered their young children with mud and dust, thereby confirming the word all. It has been taught: Eighty thousand young men named Aaron followed Aaron’s bier. They were the issue of those who wanted to divorce but retracted and their wives became pregnant.²⁷In gratitude to Aaron they gave their sons his name.
We have learnt there:²⁸Aboth I, 12 (Sonc. ed., p. 8). Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving your fellow-creatures and drawing them near to the Torah. It is quite right with ‘loving peace’ as we have already mentioned; but where [in the Torah] is ‘pursuing peace’ [enjoined]? As it has been taught: Seek peace, and pursue it.²⁹Ps. 34, 15. Cf. j.Pe’ah I, 1, 15d, where the comment is made: Seek peace in your place, and pursue it in another place. And wherein do all other precepts differ from it? A man is only under the obligation to perform them when they come to his hand, as it is written, If thou meet thine enemy’s ox,³⁰Ex. 23, 4. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee,³¹ibid. 5. If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee,³²Deut. 22, 6. When thou buildest a new house.³³ibid. 8. But as for peace [it is written], Seek peace, and pursue it—everywhere.
It has been taught: [The letters of the word] shalom, ‘peace’, have the numerical value of three hundred and seventy-six and [that number] is indicated by the letters sh w ‘a which form a verb meaning ‘to cry for help’. This teaches that the prayer of one who pursues peace does not go unanswered. If so, when [the name] is written ‘Esau’,³⁴Which also has the numerical value 376. is it [an indication of] peace? Yes, there too we may say so. If, although ‘peace’ is associated with his name, he shakes countries because of [the blessing given to him], And by thy sword shalt thou live,³⁵Gen. 27, 40. had ‘peace’ not been associated with his name, how much more terror would he have caused! But what of, They made war?³⁶ibid. XIV, 2. The Heb. for made is עשו which has the numerical value 376 and is connected with war. It is the same there. If a word with the numerical value of shalom is associated with peoples who aimed to destroy the world and to do injury to Abraham, were the word not used how much more [disastrous would their attack have been!] But what of, Who have done this evil thing?³⁷Deut. 17, 5. Here עשו is associated with evil thing. It is the same there. When [the evildoers] are stoned [to death], peace ensues; and if they were not stoned they would kill one another.
It has been taught: These four kings³⁸Enumerated in Gen. 14, 1. planned [their attack] only on account of Abraham, as it is written, And they turned back, and came to En-mishpaṭ,³⁹ibid. 7. En here means ‘well’ but also signifies ‘eye’. i.e. to Abraham who was the eye of the world. The same is Ḳadesh⁴⁰ibid, The same in Heb. could also be read to mean ‘he’, and Ḳadesh denotes ‘holy’.—through him the name of Heaven was sanctified. But they captured Lot mistaking him for Abraham, as it is written, And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive,⁴¹ibid. 14. and it does not state, ‘his brother’s son’.⁴²They mistook one brother for the other.
It has been taught: These [kings]⁴³Enumerated in Gen. 14, 2. who were allied with Abraham were more guilty [than those opposed to them] and from their names you may learn their character: Bera [signifies that he was bent] on evil [bera‘], Birsha‘ [that he was bent] on wickedness [berisha‘], Shinab [signifies] that he hated his father [sana’ ’ab], Shemeber that he made himself wings [to fly, sam ’eber], Bela that he was a swallower [bolea‘].
The question was asked: Is it permissible to give salutation to a heathen? Come and hear: Greetings may be given to them even on their feast day in the interests of peace.⁴⁴Cf. Giṭ. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 292). Seeing that [the answer] is evident, why was the question asked? The question asked was, Is it permissible to salute them first? It has been taught: Better is he who greets him first than he who responds to his greetings.⁴⁵Cf. Ṭur Y.D., §148. By greeting him first, he avoids the need for further greetings.
The question was asked: Is it permissible to greet a murderer, adulterer or those who are liable to kareth? As for returning their greetings there is no question [that it is permissible], since they were the first to greet you their salutation must be returned. But how is it with greeting them first? Come and hear: [It is written,] The way of peace they know not, and there is no right in their goings; they have made them crooked paths, whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace.⁴⁶Isa. 59, 8. L. Ginzberg suggested that the author found in the words the way of peace they know not an allusion to murderers and in they made them crooked paths to violent men who escape punishment through superior force (Higger). Hence it can be inferred that if greetings are given by those who are about to suffer the death penalty they may be returned, but not of those who save themselves [from punishment] by force. And as for greeting them first, it is prohibited in all cases. As for an adulterer and his friends, should they greet one in public their salutation is returned out of respect for the public. Some say that he who associates with an adulterer is like an adulterer. And what of the other?⁴⁷The anonymous author of the first statement; how will he refute this argument? [He can reply,] perhaps they were compelled to associate with him.
If these men⁴⁸The men of ill-repute cited. come to make peace with those with whom they quarrelled, they are not received with a full heart, even on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹When it is a duty to forgive fully any wrong which had been done. The general rule is that it is forbidden to have any dealings with one who adheres [to his sins] and does not repent. What is meant by ‘a full heart’? If, for instance, one says, ‘I absolve and release you’, that is not with ‘a full heart’; [if one says,] ‘May the All-merciful absolve you for what you have done to me’,⁵⁰So H. V has ‘to them’. it is.
The question was asked: [May one return the salutation of] an adulterer and another [man of good repute]? According to the second opinion⁵¹That an adulterer’s greeting may be returned if made publicly. there is no question [that it is forbidden,] seeing that it prohibits the return of a salutation even when given by him in public; but how is it according to the first opinion?⁵²lit. ‘according to some say [that he who associates with an adulterer is like an adulterer]’. Raba replied: Is there, then, here any question at all? He addresses himself to the two of them as one.⁵³He ignores the man of ill-repute and responds to the other, seeing that both greeted him. The question, however, does arise where there are two, one with another behind him who says nothing. He replied: He returns their salutations.⁵⁴Since he includes in his salutation the man of good repute although not greeted by him.
It has been taught: Great is peace because the world is based upon it; as we have learnt: The world is preserved by three things: by judgment, by truth and by peace.⁵⁵Aboth I, 18 (Sonc. ed., p. 10).
It is written in the book of Ben Sira:⁵⁶Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. The quotation is not found in the extant texts. Cf. Schechter, ‘The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature’, J.Q.R., III (1891), pp. 696f, 704f. Here the quotation is in rhymed Aramaic. Love peace for on it the world is based. Love all people and be warned against pride because it is unbecoming⁵⁷Reading יאיא for יבוא Schechter conjectures delibba’ and renders ‘be careful of pride [of heart] against any man’. to any man. For [pride] kindles anger⁵⁸Disturbs the harmony between people. and uproots the threshold⁵⁹Breaks friendships. and builds up woes⁶⁰Cf. Soṭah 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 19): ‘Over every man in whom is haughtiness of spirit the Divine Presence laments’. instead of [the music of] tabrets. Learn from kings and princes and their entourage who worship idols, in the end they are devoured by fire.⁶¹There is a play on the words תורפין, ‘idols’, and טריפין, ‘devoured’. Love humility so that you come not to poverty.⁶²Shab. 33a (Sonc. ed., p. 154): ‘Poverty is a sign of conceit’. For [pride] is despised and contemptible before God;⁶³[lit. ‘the glorious One’, an epithet for God common in the Targum. Cf. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, I, p. 88.] it is unbecoming before Him Who performs mighty acts which cannot be conceived [by man]. [Before Him] myriads upon myriads of angels and Seraphim beat their wings and make them to sound as though they were playing on tabrets. From the beginning He was exalted in His heights,⁶⁴Reading ברומיה for ביומיה, ‘in His day’. robed in excellency as in a cloak,⁶⁵Cf. Ps. 93, 1. and this is His garment always. But to those who whisper in His name He lowers His heights, and from the highest heavens He cares for the poor and orphans. How praiseworthy and beautiful was the prophet who was lauded by the mouth of the Creator, ‘There is none like My servant the prophet’!⁶⁶i.e. Moses; cf. Num. 12, 3, 7. Who among you has inherited the crown⁶⁷So Schechter, who reads kether for bethar, ‘after’. of royalty? The beginning of wisdom and understanding is the fear of the Lord.⁶⁸[Cf. Ps. 111, 10, Prov. 9, 10 and Ben Sira I, 14.] And let not your heart persuade you that your Master will not bring you into judgment⁶⁹Following the emended text of H. for this, and do not hearken to your enemy⁷⁰Instead of רובך, ‘thy master’, read דבבך, ‘thy enemy’. ‘Enemy’ is one of the designations for the evil inclination, which is also termed ‘the hidden one’ because it lies hidden in man’s heart. Cf. Suk. 52a (Sonc. ed., pp. 247f.). hidden within you. Reflect and [let your reflection] lead you [to think on] the day when every face is darkened, when the body burns and the soul is withdrawn.

“One is responsible for them,” for it is written (Ex. 23:19): “The beginning of the First Fruits of your land.¹¹⁹Cf. Mishnah 1:9.”

MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition¹³⁰Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice¹³¹Since this is an elevation offering which is completely burned, it is My sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable¹³²A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable¹³³Since the verse refers only to the Pesaḥ.. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable¹³⁴R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose¹³⁵Which is disqualified (Mishna Zevaḥim 1:1)..

MISHNAH: The High Synhedrion³³²As usual in rabbinic sources, the political institution of the Synhedrion is identified with the juridical of the High Court, projecting Jabneh arrangements into Temple times. had 71 members and a lower one 23 members. From where that the High Court has 71 members? For it is said³³³Num. 11:16.: Assemble for me 70 men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was presiding, that makes 71. Rebbi Jehudah says, 70³³⁴He is known for the correctness of his historical traditions. For the political functions of a Synhedrion, an even number of members is acceptable. The judicial functions were exercised by committees of 23 each.. From where that a lower court has 23 members? For it is said, the congregation shall judge, the congregation shall save³³⁵Num. 35:24,25 speaking of the trial of the homicide; cf. Sifry Num. #160.. One congregation judges, one congregation saves, this makes twenty. And from where that a congregation consists of ten persons? As it is said, how long this evil congregation³³⁶Num. 14:27, interpreted as speaking of the ten bad spies., without Joshua and Caleb.
From where that one adds another three³³⁸Since Mishnah 6 established that a criminal court must have 20 judges/jurors.? From the interpretation of what is said³³⁹Ex. 23:2: Do not follow the majority to do evil; do not testify in a quarrel, to bend, to twist after the majority. This is read to mean that for acquittal one vote is enough but that for conviction one needs a qualified majority even without the one judge who is voting. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim20, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:2 (in the name of Rebbi.), do not follow the majority to be unfavorable, I understand that He said, follow them to be favorable. Then why was it said, to bend after the majority? Your bending to be favorable is not equal to your bending to be unfavorable. Your bending to be favorable shall be by one [vote] (witness), your bending to be unfavorable shall be by two. Since no court may be even-numbered, one adds another one to obtain 23. How many people shall live in a town that it may have a criminal court? 120. Rebbi Nehemiah said 230, that they might be commanders over tens³⁴⁰Since the verse requires that judges be outstanding personalities, Ex. 18:21, Deut.1:15, each judge must be qualified at least to be the leader of ten men..

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says¹³⁰Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified^132,A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.¹³⁶Tosephta 4:3.. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring¹³⁷In both cases the slaughter was correct and only the pouring incorrect. One still has to assume that the Pesaḥ slaughtered on leavened matter even in the afternoon of the 14^th is disqualified..

R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Because [the proselyte’s] original nature was evil,⁵[When he was a heathen, and ill-treatment by an Israelite may have the effect of making him relapse.] Scripture gave many warnings in connection with him, as it is stated, And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye know the heart of a stranger.⁶Ex. 23, 9. Hence because his original nature was evil, Scripture gave many warnings concerning him.

¹⁴⁴This paragraph is copied from Megillah 1:3, Notes 134–140. One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work¹⁴⁵Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do¹⁴⁶Lev. 23:21.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice¹³⁰Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., the Torah called it “My sacrifice”¹³⁸This implies that it is a valid sacrifice. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 219, line 1.. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice¹³⁹Without Ḥizqiah”s statement we would have declared the sacrifice disqualified since in fact we find that a person who sacrifices outside the official sanctuary is liable (i. e., for extirpation or a purification sacrifice) both for the slaughter and for burning on an altar even though the slaughter disqualifies (Mishnah Zevaḥim13:1).? If somebody leavens the disqualified¹⁴⁰This refers to flour offerings the entire year. They are required to be unleavened, Lev.2:11.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening²⁴¹Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down.; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.

What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? The blood of my sacrifices, the blood of Pesaḥ and the blood of the daily sacrifice¹⁶⁶R. Jehudah in the Mishnah includes the daily sacrifice in the prohibition of leavened matter. He reads זְבָחַי instead of זְבְחִי. Babli 64a..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse¹⁶⁷The second verse is Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Babli 64a. says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one¹⁶⁸This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday. to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted¹⁶⁹Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”¹⁷⁰Chapter 2:2 Note 90., and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words¹⁷¹Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth¹⁷²Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position.

Hezekiah said: Great is peace, for in connection with all other precepts in the Torah it is written, If thou see,¹⁷Ex. 23, 5. etc., If thou meet,¹⁸ibid. 4. If there chance,¹⁹Deut. 22, 6. If thou buildest,²⁰ibid. 8, E.V. when thou buildest. [implying,] if a precept comes to your hand, you are bound to perform it;²¹But if not, you are not bound to perform it. but what is written in connection with peace? Seek peace, and pursue it,²²Ps. 34, 15. [meaning,] seek it in your place and follow it to another place.²³If your presence can help to bring about peace there.

MISHNAH: Nittai from Tekoa brought ḥallot from Baithur¹⁷²This place has not been convincingly identified. Possibly it is the place of origin of the family Ben Bathyra, the leading rabbinical authorities in the region of Nisibis on the upper Tigris during the centuries of the Mishnaic period. but they did not accept from him¹⁷³Since it is impure by coming from outside the Land, the rabbinic authorities of the day forbade any Cohen to accept it.. The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them¹⁷⁴Probably near the place צבעים (Neh. 11:34, 1S. 13:18), West of Jerusalem.. The people from Hyena Mountain¹⁷⁵Pentecost. brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest¹⁷⁶In the quote Babli Temura 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331)., the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.”
Ben-Atitas¹⁷⁶In the quote Babli Temura 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331). brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them¹⁷⁷In the Temple, since firstlings can only be brought from places from which heave and tithes are obligatory [Sifry on Deut. 14:23 (#106); Babli Bekhorot 53a].. Joseph the Cohen¹⁷⁸A Tanna of the Temple period, mentioned in Mishnah Miqwa’ot 10:1 and several baraitot in the Babli. brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household¹⁷⁹Women, slaves, and minor children who are exempt from bringing the Pesaḥ sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar if they were unable to bring it on the 14th of Nisan, since it is a positive obligation due at a fixed time. It seems that Joseph the Cohen was sufficiently known for the Temple authorities to be afraid that his example would be imitated and in the end create a baseless obligation. to make the second Passover in Jerusalem but they turned him back so as not to create a precedent for the future. Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them for they said, he who buys in Syria is like him who buys in the suburbs of Jerusalem¹⁸⁰Cf. Mishnah Demay 6:11..

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink¹²Blocks of soot or sepia used to make India ink. This and the following rules are based on a fundamental disagreement between the House of Shammai, who hold that a person may not use his vessels for any procedure which he could not do on the Sabbath, and the House of Hillel who allow a person’s machines to work for him as long as he does not risk temptation to interfere with their working on the Sabbath., chemicals, or vetch,”³⁴⁸Quote from Mishnah 9. etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds³⁴⁹Ex. 20:9. The argument is quoted in Tosephta 1:21, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149.. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day³⁵⁰Ex. 23:12.. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands³⁵¹While work on the Sabbath is forbidden, letting machines work for you on the Sabbath is permitted.. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated³⁵²Tosephta 1:23, Babli 18a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149. The Tosephta stated rules common to the Houses of Hillel and Shammai even if the reasons for permission or prohibition may be different for the Houses. It is clear from the Tosephta that the House of Shammai forbid soaking ink in water during the Sabbath only because nothing of it is usable when the Sabbath begins, while watering a garden or smoking out lice from a garment is useful even if done only for a short time. The Babli disagrees, 18a (Explanation of S. Liebermann.), “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment³⁵³Greek κολλύριον, τό. on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise³⁵⁴In the Babli 18a this is an argument of the Babylonian Rabba. Since some grain will have been turned into flour, without this argument also the House of Shammai would permit milling flour in a watermill on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started³⁵⁵This refers to Mishnah 2:4 where R. Jehudah permits feeding a burning light on the Sabbath with oil dripping from a vessel above the fire while the majority forbid it.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg³⁵⁶According to him by biblical law milling on the Sabbath in an automatic mill is permitted according to both Houses; the prohibition is purely rabbinic; both Houses agree that it should be forbidden because the miller will hear when the milling is done and move a peg on his mill, which is a Sabbath desecration..

Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph¹¹²This homily is based on a reading in the Mishnah, not אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם but אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלִים “do not displace the boundary of the rising.” This reading is attested to by Maimonides in his Commentary and is found in most Mishnah manuscripts of Babylonian type. One might assume that the scribes of most of the Mishnah manuscripts of Yerushalmi type were more versed in Biblical verses and copied from memory rather than from the text before them. As explained before, the part important for the
Mishnah is the second part of the verse. Here, by a change of vocalization, one author wants to give a better parallel to “orphan” than “eternal”., one said these are the ones who came up from Egypt, the other said these are the ones who lost their property; a blind man is called “plenty of light.¹¹³Those coming down in the world are called “rising”.” Rebbi Isaac said, (Is. 58:7) “degraded poor you shall bring to your house¹¹⁴He objects to the previous homily since a verse explicitly called the poor “degraded.”.” Rebbi Abin said, if you do this¹¹⁵To bring the poor into your house. This homily no longer is connected to the Mishnah., I will credit it to you as if you had presented First Fruits in the Temple. It says here, “you shall bring,” and it says there (Ex. 23:19): “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the Eternal’s Temple¹¹⁶See the commentary of I. A. Rabin to Mekhilta Mišpatim 20 (p. 335) that there is a clear disagreement between Babylonian and Galilean Amoraïm in the interpretation of “to bring” in this verse, and the interpretation given here is Babylonian..”

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” ¹⁹¹The discussion is not about the quote from the Mishnah but about Joseph the Cohen who brought his First Fruits as wine and oil. There¹⁹²Terumot 11:3. The text of the discussion is also from there, Notes 62–65. The Mishnah states: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for grapes and olives.” This text is implied in the discussion here., we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose¹⁹³But fruits other than grapes and olives may not be made into juice under any circumstances..

³³³Similarly Thr. rabba 3(38), Yalqut Prophets 421; cf. Tanhuma Yitro 5. Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80’000 young priests (broke through) [fled to] Nebuchadnezzar’s armies and went to the Ismaelites. They said to them, give us to drink for we are thirsty. They brought before them salted fish and inflated waterskins. They said to them, eat and then you can drink. When one of them opened the waterskin and put it into his mouth, the wind came out and suffocated him. That is what is written³³⁴Is. 21:13–15., load in Arabia, a large load on Arabia. In a forest in Arabia they will stay, those that should have been in the forest of Lebanon, in Arabia they will stay. But the ways of Dedanians³³⁵A grandson of Abraham by Qetura., that is the way the Dedanians act. When Ismael was thirsty, did they not bring water towards the thirsty? God opened her eyes and she saw a water cistern³³⁶Gen. 21:19.. Not voluntarily they came to you, for they fled from swords. From the unfettered sword, because they did not want to keep their Sabbaticals, as you are saying, and the seventh unfetter and abandon³³⁷Ex. 23:11.. And because ofcocked bows, because they did not want to keep their Sabbaths, as you are saying, in these days I saw in Jehudah people pressing wine-presses on the Sabbath³³⁸Neh. 13:15.. And because of the difficulty of war, they did not want to engage in the Torah’s war, [as you are saying], therefore it was said in the book of the wars of the Eternal³³⁹Num. 21:14..

What is a couch and what is a dargesh? Rebbi Jeremiah²³⁸He is the Tanna usually referred to simply as “R. Yose.” said, one that one plaits³⁰Ex. 23:2. This declares rabbinic consensus to be superior to prophetic inspiration. This claim of rabbinic authority to override the will of Heaven is the mirror image of Jesus’s claim (Matth. 12:8) that the prophet (Son of Man) is master over biblical laws. on its body is a couch and one that one does not plait on its body²³⁹He and R. Meïr induced the people in Galilee to adopt the custom of the South (i. e., Lydda and its surroundings) to allow mentions of consolation on the Sabbath. Babli 24a. is a dargesh. But have we not stated²⁴⁰Prov. 10:22. “Bed and crib after he rubs them with fish skin²⁴¹2S.19:3.” If he plaits on its body, why does he rub²⁴²Babli 24a.? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it with those Caesarean cribs that have holes²⁴³One has to wear the kaftan which was torn in honor of the deceased for the entire week (except the Sabbath) but after the funeral the tear should not be seen..

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat including the remainder¹¹⁷“The Seventh year you must let rest and abandon it, so the destitute of your people may eat, the wildlife on the fields should eat the remainder.”.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat with the remainder.” It was stated¹¹⁸Tosephta 8:2.: Rebbi Simeon says, richpersons may eat from storage. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat, and the remainder¹¹⁹The “remainder” are the people who are not poor..”

How does one dance before a bride?¹⁰What does one recite or sing in praise of a bride? Beth Shammai said, ‘The bride as she is’.¹¹One should not exaggerate, and if she is obviously not beautiful one should not say that she is. Beth Hillel said, ‘Beautiful and graceful bride’.¹²Every bride should be complimented. Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel, ‘According to your view, if she were lame or blind one still has to call her “beautiful and graceful bride”, but the Torah has declared, Keep thee far from a false matter!’¹³Ex. 23, 7. Beth Hillel replied to Beth Shammai, ‘If one has made a bad purchase in the market, should one praise it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should praise it in his eyes’. Therefore the Sages said: The disposition of man should always be pleasant with people.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel⁶⁴Ex. 23:2.. It is written against the greatest⁶⁵The word is written defective. The masoretic text follows the Talmudim in this (Babli 36a). It is difficult to decide whether the pronunciation of “the greatest” was רִבּ or רָב., that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest⁶⁶Depending on how one understands the word עַל, one comes to opposite conclusions. R. Yose ben Hanina denies that there be a difference in procedures between civil and criminal cases.. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred⁶⁷He denies that the verse has any relevance for judicial procedures; he reads it as an injunction not to change one’s mind even in the face of a hundred opposing opinions unless one is convinced that his earlier opinion was incorrect., the words of Rebbi Phineas⁶⁸No Tanna “R. Phineas” is known, nor any such Amora in the first generation. Either the name has to be deleted or the reference is to R. Phineas ben Yaïr..

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra¹⁵²In the parallel in Babli Ḥulin134a, he appears as R. Jehudah bar Agra (from Kefar Acco), a Tanna of the fourth generation. There in Ḥulin, R. Jehudah ben Agra explicitly formulates that peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves in case of doubt belong to the poor, confirming the interpretation of R. Joḥanan., as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free¹⁵³From the obligation of gleanings, even if he converted before the grain was bound into sheaves. The poor may collect gleanings only after the cut grain is bound into sheaves.; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him¹⁵⁴If he is Jewish at the moment the field is ready to be searched by the poor, he cannot collect gleanings after his conversion..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it¹⁵⁵Even Rebbi Meïr will agree with the Sages against R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra since our question is not one of doubt but of principle. agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings¹⁵⁶And you obligate the convert because of a legal doubt, viz., whether the obligation of leaving the gleanings is incurred at the moment of cutting, in which case there would be no obligation, or at the moment the field is abandoned to the poor, in which case the convert is obligated.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings¹⁵⁷But the case of R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra is not comparable to that of the Mishnah.?

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him¹⁵⁸There is no such verse in Scripture. The consensus of the commentators is that it should read: (Ps. 82:3) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt.” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend¹⁵⁹The judge may not say: His opponent has deep pockets; let me rule for the poor; then he will need no public assistance., but you may bend for him in his gifts¹⁶⁰To rule for him also in doubtful cases.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he¹⁶¹The poor acquires as his right, not as a possibility as in the previous argument. acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own¹⁶²The term “abandon” first refers to the gifts that belong to the poor as of right; the second mention in the same verse refers to the doubtful cases when one has to renounce his rights; a similar argument is found in Sifra Qedošim 2:7. The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:9).. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial⁸¹Ex. 23:6. The protection accorded defendants in criminal trials cannot be made dependent on the defendant’s status.. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial⁸²While the ox who killed a human is on trial for its life, the rules are those of civil suits since the ox represents its owner’s money.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine⁸³In Mishnaiot 1–7. The Babli, 36b, points out that there is another difference stated in Mishnah 8, but the exclusion of bastards is implicit already in the choice of 23 judges since these judges must in theory be qualified to serve in Moses’s council.; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children⁸⁴The Babli, 36b, also excludes men too old to remember the trouble they had in raising their children, who also would be inclined to cruelty. is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs⁸⁵Although he is past age 20 he still is infantile; cf. Yebamot 10:17 Notes 221–227. is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress⁸⁶Where the proof of guilt of one person equally applies to the other. In the Babli, 46a, Rav Ḥisda restricts this to the case where the statutory punishments are different, such as adultery with a Cohen’s daughter, where the adulterer is strangled but the adulteress burned. There is no reason to transfer this statement to the Yerushalmi. Cf. Note 35..

MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah²¹¹The fruit of a tree in the first three years after planting whose usufruct is forbidden (Lev. 19:23–24; cf. Introduction to Tractate ‘Orlah.) The entire list consists of items forbidden for usufruct. Since marriage is to the man’s advantage, items forbidden for usufruct cannot be used as marriage gifts., or kilaim of a vineyard²¹²While mixtures of seeds are always forbidden (cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim), only foreign produce in a vineyard is forbidden for usufruct (Deut. 22:9)., or an ox sentenced to be stoned²¹³An animal which killed a human (Ex. 21:28,29)., or a calf whose neck was broken²¹⁴To atone for an unsolved murder (Deut. 21:1–9); cf. Tractate Soṭah, Chapter 9., or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease²¹⁵The two birds the recovered sufferer from skin disease needs for his purification (Lev. 14:1–7)., the hair of a nazir²¹⁶Which must be burned when his sacrifice is cooked, Num. 6:18., or the first-born of a she-ass²¹⁷This is forbidden for usufruct only before it was redeemed by a lamb, or whose neck broken. Ex. 13:11–13. The question of the biblical root of the prohibition of usufruct is raised in the Halakhah., or meat cooked in milk²¹⁸Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21., or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct²¹⁹Forbidden for usufruct by rabbinic interpretation., [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items²²⁰While the sale is sinful, the coins received in payment are not forbidden. and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

MISHNAH: The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit, separating from Mount Sinai⁸⁸Ex. 19:13., paying double restitution, returning lost property, unloading, muzzling, interbreeding, and the Sabbath. Wild animals and birds follow the same rules. Then why was it said “ox or donkey”? But the verse speaks of the actuality⁸⁷At the time of the promulgation of the Law, these were the most frequent cases..

MISHNAH: He who has 50 zuz and uses them for trade should not take¹³⁵Neither the agricultural gifts to the poor nor public assistance.. One who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures¹³⁶I. e., people.. One who has need to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; for him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal, the Eternal will be his trust.” The same applies to a judge who delivers strictly true judgment¹³⁷While compromise is usually preferred, he who negotiates a compromise does not have the same responsibility as one who has to deliver unassailable true judgment.. But one who is neither lame nor blind nor limping and presents himself as such will not die from old age until he will be one of them, as it is said (Deut. 16:20): “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” But every judge who takes bribes and bends the law will not die from old age until his eyes are dimmed, as it is said (Ex. 23:8): “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the seeing.”¹³⁸The blinding of the seeing can also be applied to welfare fraud, as it was stated in Halakhah 6 that certifying eligibility for welfare is a judicial task.
In the most trustworthy Mishnah manuscripts, the text after the quote from Jeremiah is missing. In others, only the reference to honest and dishonest judges is added. It is clear from the disconnected text that the insertion about simulants is the last. Since these additions are not discussed in the Halakhah, it seems that they are late additions to emphasize the end of the tractate (probably being added by the compilers of the Yerushalmi.)

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..”

²⁸¹Num. rabba 9(24). It is written: “They came to the vineyards in direction of Timna.²⁸²Jud. 14:5.” Rav²⁸³The title has to be “Rebbi”. Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this teaches you that his father and mother were showing him the vineyards in direction of Timna sown in several kinds and saying to him: My son, just as their vineyards are sown with several kinds so their daughters are sown with several kinds²⁸⁴They are children of adultery. Jud. 14:4.. “And his father and mother did not know that this was from the Eternal, that he was looking for a pretext from the Philistines.” Rebbi Eleazar said, In seven places it is written: “Do not contract marriage with them.²⁸⁵That verse is only in Deut. 7:3. But the prohibition of Canaanite women is also in Ex. 34:16. Outside the Pentateuch, the prohibition is mentioned Mal. 2:11, Ezra 9:2,12,14; Neh. 10:31.” Rebbi Abun said, to prohibit seven peoples²⁸⁶The seven Canaanite tribes enumerated in Gen. 15:20–21. Philistines are not mentioned in that list.. And here, it says so²⁸⁷It is not obvious what the remark means. According to R. David Fraenckel, since Simson’s relations with Philistine women were not forbidden, why was he punished? According to R. Moses Margalit, since all non-Jewish women are forbidden in the interpretation of pentateuchal law in Mal., Ezra, Neh., how can it be said that his first marriage was (Jud. 14:4) “from the Eternal”?? Rebbi Isaac said, “if he scoffs about the scoffers.²⁸⁸Prov. 3:34. According to R. David Fraenckel, since at least Simson’s relations with the Gazean prostitute and Dalilah were illegitimate, he deserved punishment.”

²⁸¹Num. rabba 9(24). It is written: “They came to the vineyards in direction of Timna.²⁸²Jud. 14:5.” Rav²⁸³The title has to be “Rebbi”. Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this teaches you that his father and mother were showing him the vineyards in direction of Timna sown in several kinds and saying to him: My son, just as their vineyards are sown with several kinds so their daughters are sown with several kinds²⁸⁴They are children of adultery. Jud. 14:4.. “And his father and mother did not know that this was from the Eternal, that he was looking for a pretext from the Philistines.” Rebbi Eleazar said, In seven places it is written: “Do not contract marriage with them.²⁸⁵That verse is only in Deut. 7:3. But the prohibition of Canaanite women is also in Ex. 34:16. Outside the Pentateuch, the prohibition is mentioned Mal. 2:11, Ezra 9:2,12,14; Neh. 10:31.” Rebbi Abun said, to prohibit seven peoples²⁸⁶The seven Canaanite tribes enumerated in Gen. 15:20–21. Philistines are not mentioned in that list.. And here, it says so²⁸⁷It is not obvious what the remark means. According to R. David Fraenckel, since Simson’s relations with Philistine women were not forbidden, why was he punished? According to R. Moses Margalit, since all non-Jewish women are forbidden in the interpretation of pentateuchal law in Mal., Ezra, Neh., how can it be said that his first marriage was (Jud. 14:4) “from the Eternal”?? Rebbi Isaac said, “if he scoffs about the scoffers.²⁸⁸Prov. 3:34. According to R. David Fraenckel, since at least Simson’s relations with the Gazean prostitute and Dalilah were illegitimate, he deserved punishment.”

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal¹⁰⁹The Mishnah refers to Deut. 22:1 and Ex. 23:4 which state the duty to return straying animals to their owners.? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road¹¹⁰Even if no person was near watching the animal., this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said¹¹¹Deut. 22:1. The infinitive construction is regularly interpreted as implying repetition; cf. Sifry Deut. 222.: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma¹¹²If the person finding the animal is highly paid and his time is worth much more than that of an agricultural hired hand, the question arises whether he can be forced to miss his lucrative trade in order to return a stray animal., he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court¹¹³According to Rashi, this may be an ad hoc court composed of three of the finder’s acquaintances who can empower him to charge full compensation for his time. Since the Yerushalmi does not discuss the Mishnah, its position cannot be ascertained., he can stipulate with him¹¹⁴This word is also in Alfasi’s text but only in one ms. of the Babli. R. Yosef Ḥabiba (Nimmuqe Yosef) in his commentary to Alfasi points out that the word makes no sense since the finder’s obligation already has terminated if the animal’s owner is around. before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first¹¹⁵There is no obligation to incur monetary loss in following Deut. 22:1..
¹¹⁶This is a continuation of Mishnah 11. On the owner’s property, no animal is staying. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he¹¹⁷If the possible helper was a Cohen. may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him¹¹⁸Since both son and father are required to follow God’s commandments, if the father commands not to obey God, he must be disobeyed (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin Chapter 20; ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 325.). ¹¹⁹Here begins the rabbinic interpretation of Ex. 23:5. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”¹²⁰Ex. 23:5; in rabbinic interpretation, the root here is עזב II. Ibn Ezra in both his commentaries ad loc. calls this “far fetched”. Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Saadia translate as if it were written twice, first עזב I “abandon”, then עזב II “put in good order.” This may be a pun intended in the biblical text.. If he¹²¹The owner of a animal which stumbled. sat down and said, since it is your¹²²The person who comes to help. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, p. 215. religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he¹²²The person who comes to help. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, p. 215. is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load¹²³Implied by the parallel Deut.22:4: “uplifting you shall uplift with him.” Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 20 (p. 326); Sifry Deut. 225.. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry¹²⁴Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 20 (p. 325)..

BARAITHA.¹Keth. 16b-17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 92ff.). How does one dance²The meaning here is to recite the praises of a bride. before the bride? Beth Shammai said: The bride as she is; and Beth Hillel said: Beautiful and graceful bride!³Whether she possessed the qualifications or not. Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: Even if she is lame or blind? But it is written, Keep thee far from a false matter!⁴Ex. 23, 7; and there must be no departure from the truth even for a bride. Beth Hillel replied: If one has made a bad purchase, should one esteem it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should esteem it in his eyes. Therefore Beth Hillel said: Always should the disposition of a man be pleasant towards his fellow-creatures.
GEMARA. But how can Beth Hillel [say of a bride] that she is beautiful when in fact she is not? [Beth Hillel can reply that in the circumstances people will understand it as] beautiful in her deeds and graceful in her person because we do not presume [to attribute to a person] what is unbecoming. And [what can] Beth Shammai [reply to this]? They can say: Is it written, ‘Keep far from a falsehood’? [It is written, From a false] matter,⁵lit. ‘word’. even if it be inexplicit.⁶It is therefore wrong to make a statement and expect people to take it in a different sense. And [what can] Beth Hillel [reply to this]? They can say: When the All-present declared, Keep thee far from a false matter, it is in connection with what follows, And the innocent and righteous slay thou not;⁷i.e. the context is giving false evidence which will lead to an innocent person being condemned to death. but where it is a case of preserving life⁸Creating a deeper love between husband and wife. it is in order [to depart from the strict truth]. Should the question be raised: Why do Beth Hillel in their refutation cite the example of ‘a bad purchase’, let them refute Beth Shammai from the Torah! For it has been taught:⁹Yeb. 65b (Sonc. ed., pp. 437f.); B.M. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 502, n. 4). Great is peace, seeing that for its sake the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. At first it is written, My lord being old,¹⁰Gen. 18, 12. and afterwards, I … who am old.¹¹ibid. 13. When Sarah was told by the angel that she would have a son she laughed to herself and exclaimed, My lord being old; but when God repeated what she had said to Abraham, not to hurt his feelings He changed the word to I … who am old. [Beth Hillel] can reply: There is no question [that what we say] is correct according to the Torah, but it is also correct by the standard of human beings; reverse it.¹²The text should read kelappë ’alyah, lit. ‘towards the tail’, i.e. reverse it, and the word which follows is an explanatory gloss (Jastrow s.v. ’alyah). The meaning is, To meet the question raised, it would be best in the Baraitha first to cite the passage from Genesis and then the example of ‘a bad purchase’.
[It was quoted above:] And the innocent and righteous slay thou not. Since you mention the innocent [may not be slain], obviously the righteous [may not]!¹³The term innocent has a negative connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil; but the term righteous has both a negative and positive connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil and does good. [It denotes] ‘innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘righteous because of disciples’.¹⁴These are forensic terms. I. Where two witnesses testify against a man that he had committed an offence but disagree on the details, the accused is discharged. E.g., two witnesses testify that they saw him worshipping idols; one says that he worshipped the sun and the other that it was the moon. Because the witnesses are in disagreement on details, the man is acquitted. He is technically termed naḳi me‘edim, ‘innocent (or, freed) because of [the disagreement of] witnesses’. II. In the criminal court young scholars sat in rows in front of the judges. When the trial ended and before the verdict was delivered, any one of these scholars could, if he knew anything in favour of the accused, come forward and speak for him, and if the judges accepted his statement they discharged the accused. He was then termed ẓaddiḳ min hattalmidim, ‘righteous (i.e. acquitted) because of the disciples’. If the disciple wished to testify against the accused, he was not permitted to do so. That would be a case of rasha‘ min hattalmidim, ‘condemned because of the disciples’, which was not allowed. Cf. Sanh. 33b-34a (Sonc. ed., p. 212) and Rashi ad loc. From this we learn [the ruling]: Do not put to death ‘the innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘the condemned because of disciples’. [Do you think,] ‘Condemned because of disciples’? Say, because of one of the disciples.¹⁵This refusal to listen to disciples’ statements against the accused holds good only when one disciple came forward. This procedure is based on Num. 35, 30; cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of what is written, For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; the upright shall behold His face?¹⁶Ps. 11, 7. If so, [the verse should read,] ‘He loveth the righteous’!¹⁷Since He is described as righteous, that is the wording which might have been expected. But [it is to be understood] as Raba interpreted it:¹⁸Cf. ‘Erub 19a (Sonc. ed., pp. 129f.). Abraham¹⁹So the text must be emended. V reads ‘from forty’. comes and brings [redemption to the wicked who are under sentence to suffer in Gehinnom, in agreement with] Resh Laḳish [who said: The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors in Israel,] or it may be deduced by an argument from minor to major [from the golden altar], as it is stated, Every one that is written unto life in Jerusalem.²⁰Isa. 4, 3. The text is obviously corrupt and is conjecturally reconstructed from the Talmud. Abraham, in freeing the sinners of Israel from Gehinnom, performs an act of righteousness which merits him the love of God, Who is righteous, especially as He has written unto [eternal] life every one in Jerusalem (i.e. the whole people of Israel).

¹²⁸Babli 32a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 20 p. 323, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 215, Sifry Deut. 222, Midrash Tannaїm (Midrash Haggadol) 22:4.“if you hit upon.¹²⁹Ex. 23:5.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.¹³⁰Deut. 22:4.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred¹³¹E has מלוא מיל “a full mil”, which for practical purposes is as impossible as 100 mil. mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion¹³¹E has מלוא מיל “a full mil”, which for practical purposes is as impossible as 100 mil.. ¹²⁸Babli 32a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 20 p. 323, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 215, Sifry Deut. 222, Midrash Tannaїm (Midrash Haggadol) 22:4. Putting in order you shall put in order,¹²⁹Ex. 23:5.” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,¹³⁰Deut. 22:4.” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah¹³³Whereas for the Sages he may ask to be paid for helping in loading; cf. Note 134.. ¹³⁴Babli 32b; other sources cf. Note 128. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat¹⁵²Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking¹⁶³Babli Ḥulin 115b, Qiddušin 57b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 20 (opposed by Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:19, Sifry Re`eh 104)..