# snc

lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k30b_1:" And in the opinion of the first Tanna, the Samaritans were not genuine proselytes and could not inherit the poor man who died."
,k30b_2:" I.e., he need not repay the debt."
,k30b_3:" By allowing him to set aside dues and recover."
,k30b_4:" By not forcing the poor man to repay, although he is no longer entitled to any dues."
,k30b_5:" And we do not legislate for exceptional cases."
,k30b_6:" Who are thus liable to pay their father's debts."
,k30b_7:" [For a creditor cannot recover his debt from immovable property of orphans. v. B.K. 8b.]"
,k30b_8:" I.e., a mere patch of land."
,k30b_9:" This refers to the case where the loan was made before the <i>Beth din</i>. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]. "
,k30b_10:" I.e., enough to be worth working."
,k30b_11:" I.e., the amount of his debt."
,k30b_12:" V. Keth. 91b. A man who owed a hundred <i>zuz</i> left a field worth fifty. The creditor seized it and the heirs induced him to quit it by paying fifty. He again seized it and they again paid. So here, he recovers again and again."
,k30b_13:" V. Num. XVIII, 26, according to which the Levite had himself to set aside a tithe from his own tithe for the priest."
,k30b_14:" [As soon as he had made it over to the owner, before he actually received the money.]"
,k30b_15:" Because it was not yet specified."
,k30b_16:" Because it is specific."
,k30b_17:" [Before they receive the money. and so prevent the Israelite from using it. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]"
,k30b_18:" After learning that the <i>kor</i> had been set aside for him."
,k30b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, s.v. Haber. All Levites were presumed to be Haberim."
,k30b_20:" Lit., 'from that which is not brought near'. It was forbidden to a Haber to say. 'The produce which I have in such-and-such a place shall be <i>terumah</i> for this before me, for fear that produce is not extant at the time."
,k30b_21:" Num. XVIII, 27. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Where there are Cuthean poor.<a id="k30b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If the poor man became rich, he does not set aside dues for him, and that man becomes possessor of what he has.<a id="k30b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did the Rabbis safeguard [the lender] in the case of the poor man dying<a id="k30b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and not in the case of his becoming rich?<a id="k30b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a common thing for people to die, but not to become rich.<a id="k30b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: This is borne out by the common saying: 'If [you hear that] your neighbour has died, believe it: if [you hear that] he has become rich, do not believe it.'
</p><p>
	IF HE DIES, HE MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE HEIRS. It has been taught: Rabbi says. Heirs that have inherited. Are there any heirs that do not inherit? &mdash; R. Johanan explained it to mean heirs that inherit land<a id="k30b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but not money.'<a id="k30b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jonathan said: If he left a mere needleful<a id="k30b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [of land], the other can recoup himself only to the extent of a needleful,<a id="k30b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he left an axeful,<a id="k30b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the other can recoup himself to the extent of an axeful. R. Johanan said: Even if he only left a needleful he can recoup himself to the extent of an axeful,<a id="k30b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; as in the incident of the small field of Abaye.<a id="k30b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If an Israelite says to a Levite, 'I have set aside a tithe for you.' he need not be concerned about the priest's due in the tithe.<a id="k30b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he said, 'I have set aside a <i>kor</i> as tithe for you,' he has to concern himself about the priest's due in the tithe. What does all this mean? &mdash; Abaye said: It means this. If an Israelite said to a Levite, 'I have set aside tithe for you, and here is money for it', he has no need to worry lest the Levite should have made<a id="k30b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; that produce the priestly due on produce received by him from elsewhere.<a id="k30b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he said, 'I have set aside a <i>kor</i> of tithe for you and here is the money for it', he has to worry lest the Levite should have [already] made it the priestly due on tithe from elsewhere.<a id="k30b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Are we then dealing with rogues who take money and make it [the produce] priestly due on tithe from elsewhere?<a id="k30b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact, said R. Mesharsheya the son of R. Idi, [the Baraitha] means this: If the Israelite said to the son of a [deceased] Levite, I have set aside tithe for your father and here is the money for it, he need not worry lest the father had made it priestly due on tithe from elsewhere. If, however, he said, I have set aside a <i>kor</i> of tithe for your father and here is the money, he has to worry lest the father had made it priestly due on tithe from elsewhere.<a id="k30b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Can we than suspect Haberim<a id="k30b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; of setting aside the priestly due from produce in another place?<a id="k30b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact, said R. Ashi, it means this: If a son of a [deceased] Israelite says to a Levite, My father told me [before his death] that he had set aside tithe for you or for your father, he [the Levite] has to worry about the priest's due in it, since as [the quantity is] indefinite, the owner's father may not have made it available for ordinary use [by setting aside the priestly due in it]. If, however, he says, I have a <i>kor</i> of tithe set aside for you or for your father, there is no need to worry lest the priestly due is still contained in it, since as [the quantity] is definite, he may be sure that the owner made it right [before his death]. But has the owner the right to set aside the <i>terumah</i> from the Levite's tithe? &mdash; Yes. Such is the ruling of Abba Eleazar b. Gamala, as it has been taught: Abba Eleazar b. Gamala says. It is written, And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you.<a id="k30b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k31a_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k31a_2:" It was not necessary to measure out the fiftieth part usually given for the <i>terumah</i>."
,k31a_3:" A man could mentally set aside one portion of a heap of produce as <i>terumah</i> and immediately eat of the rest."
,k31a_4:" Even before giving it to the Levite."
,k31a_5:" Lit., 'of setting aside on their account', i.e., with the idea of making it <i>terumah</i> or tithe for other produce."
,k31a_6:" The tithe which had to be turned into money to be spent in Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22-27."
,k31a_7:" That he may have been eating untithed produce in reliance on the produce which has been lost."
,k31a_8:" The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara."
,k31a_9:" To see that it has not turned sour."
,k31a_10:" I.e., he can assume that it has been lost not more than twenty-four hours, and he puts aside fresh tithe etc. only for what he has consumed in that period. "
}

txt:
<p>
Scripture speaks of two heave-offerings, one the 'great terumah'<a id="k31a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other the <i>terumah</i> from the Levite's tithe. Just as the 'great terumah' is set aside by estimate<a id="k31a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and by intention,<a id="k31a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; so the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe is set aside by estimate and by intention; and just as the owner has the right to set aside the 'great terumah', so he has the right to set aside the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe.<a id="k31a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SETS ASIDE PRODUCE WITH THE IDEA OF RECKONING IT AS <I>TERUMAH</I> AND TITHE,<a id="k31a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MONEY WITH THE IDEA OF RECKONING IT AS SECOND TITHE,<a id="k31a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; HE CAN GO ON SO RECKONING IN THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY ARE STILL EXISTING. IF THEY ARE LOST, HE HAS TO PROVIDE AGAINST THE RISK<a id="k31a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.<a id="k31a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS THE RULING OF R. ELEAZAR [B. SHAMMUA]. R. JUDAH SAYS: WINE [SO SET ASIDE] HAS TO BE EXAMINED AT THREE SEASONS OF THE YEAR:<a id="k31a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WHEN THE EAST WIND BEGINS TO BLOW AT THE END OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], WHEN THE BERRIES FIRST APPEAR [ON THE VINE], AND WHEN THE JUICE BEGINS TO FORM IN THE GRAPES.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is meant by FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS? &mdash; R. Johanan says: The twenty-four hours before his examining.<a id="k31a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar b. Antigonus says in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Jannai:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k31b_1:" He assumes that it was lost twenty-four hours after he set it aside, and must put aside fresh tithe etc. for all he has consumed in the interval."
,k31b_2:" Reckoning backwards."
,k31b_3:" And not only for twenty-four hours back, Mik. II, 2."
,k31b_4:" With R. Eleazar in our Mishnah."
,k31b_5:" The year was divided into the four tekufoth or cycles &mdash; of Tishri. Tebeth. Nisan and Tammuz &mdash; each of which commenced on a fixed date of the solar year. Tabernacles fell sometimes in the cycle of Tishri and sometimes in that of Tammuz; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 49, n. 5."
,k31b_6:" At the end of sowing time. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k31b_7:" Lit., 'in the dividing of,' i.e., in the middle of the period during which the laws of the festival were compounded."
,k31b_8:" I.e., at these seasons a man may sell without consulting his partner, and if the price subsequently rises the latter has no ground of complaint against him."
,k31b_9:" Jonah IV. 8."
,k31b_10:" The word harishith being connected with harash, 'to plough'."
,k31b_11:" Ibid. This shows that the wind cannot have been violent."
,k31b_12:" Harishith being connected with harash, 'to be still'."
,k31b_13:" Job XXXVII, 17."
,k31b_14:" Geniba was at variance with Mar 'Ukba, the Exilarch. V. <i>supra</i> p. 23, n. 4."
,k31b_15:" An angel so named. Cf. B.B. 25a."
,k31b_16:" Job XXXIX. 26."
,k31b_17:" Being the son-in-law of the Exilarch (Rashi). [Tosaf.: 'Being a wealthy man'; Tosaf. being of the opinion that it was R. Nahman b. Jacob who was the Exilarch's son-in-law. For an explanation of Rashi's view, v. Hyman. Toledoth II p. 930.]"
,k31b_18:" Al. 'east wind'. Al. 'a she-devil'."
,k31b_19:" Hos. XIII, 15. "
}

txt:
<p>
The twenty-four hours from his setting aside. We learnt: IF THEY ARE LOST, HE PROVIDES AGAINST THE RISK FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. If this means twenty-four hours from his last examination, the expression is intelligible.<a id="k31b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it means twenty-four hours from the setting-aside, it should say not for twenty-four hours but up to twenty-four hours,<a id="k31b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; should it not? &mdash; This is a difficulty.
</p><p>
	THIS IS THE RULING OF R. ELEAZAR [B. SHAMMU'A]. R. Eleazar [b. Pedath] Says: R. Eleazar's colleagues did not concur with him, as we have learnt: 'If a ritual bath was measured and found to be too small, all the purifications that have been made in it, whether it is in a private or a public placed are retrospectively ineffective.'<a id="k31b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Cannot I see for myself that they do not concur?<a id="k31b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But for R. Eleazar, I might think that 'retrospectively' means 'for twenty-four hours back'. Now I know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAYS, AT THREE SEASONS OF THE YEAR etc. A Tanna taught: when the east wind [blows] at the conclusion of the festival in the cycle of Tishri.<a id="k31b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught: R. Judah says: Produce is sold at three seasons of the year &mdash; before sowing time, at sowing time,<a id="k31b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and shortly before<a id="k31b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Passover. Wine is also sold at three seasons &mdash; shortly before Passover, shortly before Pentecost, and shortly before Tabernacles. Oil is sold from Pentecost onwards. What is the legal bearing of this remark? &mdash; Raba, or, some say R. Papa says: As a guide to partners.<a id="k31b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; After that, what is the rule? &mdash; Raba said: Every day is the season [for selling it].
</p><p>
	And it came to pass when the sun arose that the Lord prepared a sultry East wind [harishith].<a id="k31b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of harishith? &mdash; Rab Judah said: When it blows it makes furrows in the sea.<a id="k31b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabbah to him: If that is so, what do you make of the words, And the sun beat upon the head of Jonah that he fainted?<a id="k31b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said Rabbah; [what it means is that] when it blows it stills all other winds.<a id="k31b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly it is written, How thy garments are warm when the earth is still by reason of the south wind,<a id="k31b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [in explanation of which] R. Tahlifa son of R. Hisda said in the name of R. Hisda: When are thy garments warm? When He maketh the earth still from the south; for when the wind from this quarter blows, it stills all other winds before it.
</p><p>
	R. Huna and R. Hisda were once sitting together when Geniba passed by them. Said one of them: Let us rise before him, for he is a learned man. Said the other: Shall we rise before a quarrelsome man?<a id="k31b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; When he came up to them he asked them what they were discussing. They replied: We were talking about the winds. He said to them: Thus said R. Hanan b. Raba in the name of Rab: Four winds blow every day and the north wind blows with all of them, for were it not so the world would not be able to exist for a moment. The south wind is the most violent of all, and were it not that the Son of the Hawk<a id="k31b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; keeps it back, it would devastate the whole world; for so it says, Doth the hawk soar by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings towards the south?<a id="k31b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba and R. Nahman b. Isaac were once sitting together, when R. Nahman b. Jacob passed by in a gilt carriage and wearing a purple cloak. Raba went to meet him, but R. Nahman b. Isaac did not stir, for he said: 'Perhaps it is one of the court of the Exilarch, and Raba needs them but I do not.'<a id="k31b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; When he saw R. Nahman b. Jacob approaching he bared his arm and said, 'The south wind<a id="k31b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is blowing.' Raba said: Thus said Rab: A woman bears prematurely [when this wind blows]. Samuel said: Even pearls in the sea rot away. R. Johanan said: Even the seed in a woman's womb putrefies. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: All these three Rabbis derived their statements from the same verse of Scripture, viz., Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the breath of the Lord coming up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry and his fountain shall be dried up, he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.<a id="k31b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The spring' is the source of a woman; 'the fountain shall be dried up' refers to the seed in the woman's womb; 'the treasure of all pleasant vessels' is the pearl in the sea.
</p><p>
	Raba said: This one comes from Sura where they examine the Scripture minutely. What is the meaning of the words, 'Though he be fruitful [yafri] among his brethren'? &mdash; Raba said: Even
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k33a_1:" Sheb. X, 14, v. <i>infra</i> 36a in connection with the <i>prosbul</i>."
,k33a_2:" I.e., the fact that he says twice 'So-and-so' is of no significance."
,k33a_3:" Ibid."
,k33a_4:" I.e., 'We, So-and-so, acting as a <i>Beth din</i>. '"
,k33a_5:" I.e., 'This is a record of the testimony given before us&nbsp;&hellip;'"
,k33a_6:" Heb. Mamzerim, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k33a_7:" Hence the enactment of R. Gamaliel the Elder."
,k33a_8:" In spite of the regulation of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k33a_9:" Lit., 'how is the power of the <i>Beth din</i> (left) unimpaired.' The <i>Beth din</i> of Rabban Gamaliel which made the regulation."
,k33a_10:" Because the <i>Beth din</i> can declare the money he gave her as <i>kiddushin</i>, public property (hefker,) v. <i>infra</i> 36b."
,k33a_11:" V. Kid. 2a."
,k33a_12:" In which case one writes and two sign. <i>Infra</i> 66b."
,k33a_13:" In spite of the regulation of Rabban Gamaliel."
,k33a_14:" As to do otherwise would be to disregard the regulation. "
}

txt:
<p>
So-and-so and So-and-so the judges in such-and-such a place.'<a id="k33a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Shesheth? &mdash; [He may rejoin:] Is the Tanna to reckon them out like a pedlar selling his wares?<a id="k33a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Nahman [again]: What is my ground for saying so? Because we have learnt: 'And the judges sign below or the witnesses.'<a id="k33a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Are not the judges here placed on a par with the witnesses, so that just as two witnesses suffice, So two judges suffice? And R. Shesheth? &mdash; [He can reply:] Is this an argument? Judges and witnesses each follow their own rule. [And if you ask] why [the Mishnah] mentions both witnesses and judges, it is to teach us that it makes no difference if they word the document as judges<a id="k33a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and then sign as witnesses or if they word the document as witnesses<a id="k33a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and then sign as judges.
</p><p>
	TO PREVENT ABUSES, What is referred to? &mdash; R. Johanan said: To prevent illegitimacy. Resh Lakish said: To prevent wife-desertion. 'R. Johanan said to prevent illegitimacy,' for he held with R. Nahman who said [that the Get could be cancelled] before [a <i>Beth din</i> of] two: [the proceedings] of two are not generally known, so she, not having heard and not knowing [that the Get is cancelled] might go and marry again, and bear illegitimate children.<a id="k33a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Resh Lakish said to prevent wife-desertion,' for he again held with R. Shesheth who said [that he has to cancel it] before [a <i>Beth din</i> of] three. The proceedings of three are generally known, so she hearing and knowing [that the Get was cancelled] would remain unmarried, and we have therefore to save her from being a deserted wife.<a id="k33a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If [the husband] did cancel [the Get before a <i>Beth din</i>] it is cancelled.<a id="k33a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can neither cancel it nor add any additional conditions, since if so, what becomes of the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>?<a id="k33a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And is it possible then, that where a Get is according to the Written Law cancelled we should, to save the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>, [declare it valid and] so allow a married woman to marry another? &mdash; Yes. When a man betroths a woman, he does so under the conditions laid down by the Rabbis, and in this case the Rabbis annul his betrothal. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This is quite right if the husband had originally betrothed his wife with money.<a id="k33a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he had betrothed her by the act of marriage,<a id="k33a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; what can we say? &mdash; The Rabbis declared the act of marriage to be retrospectively nonmarital.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: 'If a man said to ten persons, Write a Get for my wife,<a id="k33a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he can countermand the order to each of them separately.<a id="k33a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can only countermand the order when they are together.'<a id="k33a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the point at issue between them? &mdash; The point at issue is whether if part of an evidence has been nullified the whole of it is nullified. Rabbi was of opinion that if part of an evidence has been nullified
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k33b_1:" Because as the Get has not been annulled the regulation is not disregarded."
,k33b_2:" Hence the practical difference between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is that according to the former he can at least prevent any two from signing, whereas according to the latter he cannot even do this, unless he forbids them all together."
,k33b_3:" In which case one must write and all sign. <i>Infra</i>, 66b."
,k33b_4:" Does Rabban Simeon still forbid him from preventing one or two separately?"
,k33b_5:" And therefore if we allowed this harm would ensue, as the rest might sign when they had no right to do so."
,k33b_6:" And therefore no harm can ensue and he may do this."
,k33b_7:" And the two whom he forbids can disregard his instruction."
,k33b_8:" Tosef. Git. III."
,k33b_9:" As one cannot sign the Get without the other."
,k33b_10:" And Rabban Simeon requires that they must all be together."
,k33b_11:" Because no harm can possibly ensue, as one signature by itself is worthless."
,k33b_12:" I.e., he appointed the two as bearers to take the Get to the wife, in which case one might take it to her without the other, being unaware that the husband had countermanded the commission."
,k33b_13:" As countermanding the order to one does not affect the order to the other."
,k33b_14:" Since no question of evidence arises in connection with the act of taking the Get."
,k33b_15:" Keth. 26b; B.B. 32a. Similarly here both witnesses must receive in each other's presence the mandate to write the Get."
,k33b_16:" Who holds that they need not be together."
,k33b_17:" Viz., the annulling of the Get in another place and the countermanding of one witness not in the presence of the other."
,k33b_18:" That if the judges estimated an article at a sixth more or less than its real value, the sale is invalid. Keth. 99b."
,k33b_19:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 135. n. 1."
,k33b_20:" Which shows that the authority of the <i>Beth din</i> is in all cases to be upheld."
,k33b_21:" Viz., that the annulment in another place is ineffective, since, if not, the authority of the <i>Beth din</i> is not upheld. (V. Tosaf. s.v. [G])."
,k33b_22:" He can find two other persons and annul it in their presence."
,k33b_23:" Because he cannot countermand it to each witness separately. "
}

txt:
<p>
the whole of it is not nullified. If therefore those [who have not heard the order countermanded] go and write [the Get] and give it to her, their action is quite proper.<a id="k33b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel was of opinion that if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is nullified. [If therefore] those [who] do not know [that the order is countermanded] go and write [the Get] and give it to her, then they are enabling a married woman to marry again. Or if you like I can say that both Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel are agreed that if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is not nullified, and the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel here is that in his opinion a thing which is done in the presence of ten can only by undone in the presence of ten.<a id="k33b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Suppose he said 'All of you write,'<a id="k33b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; what are we to say?<a id="k33b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Do we say that the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [for forbidding in the case where he did not say 'all of you'] is that in his opinion if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is nullilied,<a id="k33b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and since he said to these 'all of you,' they cannot write the Get and give it [without these two],<a id="k33b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or is his reason that in his opinion a thing which has been done in the presence of ten can only be undone in the presence of ten, and therefore even if he said 'all of you' [he can only countermand the order when they are all together]?<a id="k33b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: If a man said to two persons, Give a Get to my wife, he can countermand the order to one without the other. This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can only countermand it to both of them together.<a id="k33b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now two here are equivalent to 'all of you,'<a id="k33b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet we see that Rabbi and Rabban Simeon differ?<a id="k33b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Ashi: If the two are witnesses to the Get, then Rabban Simeon would also admit [that he can countermand separately].<a id="k33b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Here, however, we are dealing with witnesses to the taking of the Get.<a id="k33b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This opinion is borne out by the conclusion of the passage quoted: 'If he told each of them separately [in the first instance], he can countermand to them separately.'<a id="k33b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For if you say that it speaks of witnesses to the taking of the Get, this is intelligible.<a id="k33b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say that it speaks of the witnesses to the writing of the Get, how can these be joined together [if they were at first separate]? Has not the Master said: 'Their [separate] evidences are not combined [to form a whole]; they must both see [the event] together'?<a id="k33b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This, however, is not conclusive], since perhaps [the teaching quoted] follows the view of R. Joshuah b. Korhah.<a id="k33b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Judah said: I have heard R. Abba give rulings on both [these points],<a id="k33b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; one following Rabbi and the other following Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, but I do not know which one follows Rabbi and which Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Said R. Joseph: We are able to throw light on this. For when R. Dimi came [from Palestine], he reported to us that Rabbi once in an actual case decided according to the ruling of the Sages,<a id="k33b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Parta the son of R. Eleazar b. Parta and the grandson of the great R. Parta said to him: If that is so, what authority do you leave to the <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k33b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabbi thereupon reversed his decision and followed the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.<a id="k33b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And since the ruling in this case follows Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,<a id="k33b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other it follows Rabbi. R. Josiah from Usha was also of opinion that the ruling in one case followed the opinion of Rabbi and in the other of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: We were sitting five elders before R. Josiah from Usha and a certain man came before him whom he compelled to give a Get against his will, and he said to them [the witnesses, after compelling him], Go and conceal yourselves [from him] and write her [the Get]. Now if you assume that he ruled according to the opinion of Rabbi, if they did conceal themselves what difference did it make?<a id="k33b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that [in this point] he followed Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. But should you assume further that in the other point also he held with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, [we can ask,] why should they have hidden themselves? It would have been sufficient if they had separated.<a id="k33b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that he held with Rabbi in regard to one point and with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in regard to the other. Raba, however, said in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> follows Rabbi in both points. But does not R. Nahman hold that the authority of the <i>Beth din</i> must be upheld? Did not R. Nahman say in the name of Samuel,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k34a_1:" Viz., of allowing a married woman to marry again, and where this was involved the Rabbis disregarded the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k34a_2:" In giving him a chance to change his mind."
,k34a_3:" But can still be used to divorce the woman."
,k34a_4:" Because he had made it clear that he did not desire the Get to be given."
,k34a_5:" I.e., why he mentioned R. Shesheth."
,k34a_6:" Who beat him and asked him why he had cancelled it. Thus according to Abaye there was here not a mere revealing of intention but an actual annulment."
,k34a_7:" Lit., 'pumpkins'."
,k34a_8:" That you may not hear the annulment."
,k34a_9:" Lit., 'the ferry prevented him', as there was no ferry available for him to cross."
,k34a_10:" This proves that his revealing of his intention to annul the Get made no difference."
,k34a_11:" By calling 'See, I have come' he 'did not mean to annul the Get, but simply to announce that he had endeavoured to fulfil the condition which should invalidate the Get."
,k34a_12:" According to Abaye, the revealing of his intention makes no difference, according to Raba he reveals his intention not to annul the Get but to fulfil his condition. Both, however, agree that the Get is valid."
,k34a_13:" V. preceding note."
,k34a_14:" That the Get can be annulled in the presence of two."
,k34a_15:" Who said that the <i>halachah</i> is according to Rabbi in both points in dispute."
,k34a_16:" In regard to the revealing of intention. "
}

txt:
<p>
'If orphans [under age] desire to divide the property left to them by their father, the <i>Beth din</i> appoints for each of them a guardian who sees that he obtains a fair share. When they grow up, however, they are able to object,' and did not R. Nahman, speaking in his own name, hold that they are not at liberty to object, because if they are, what becomes of the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>? &mdash; The question there was one of money, here it is one of a forbidden act.<a id="k34a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Giddal b. Re'ilai sent a Get to his wife. The bearer went and found her weaving. He said to her, Here is your Get. She said to him: Go away now at any rate and come again tomorrow. He went back to him and told him, whereupon he exclaimed, Blessed be He who is good and does good!<a id="k34a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said, 'Blessed is He who is good and does good,' and the Get itself is not cancelled,<a id="k34a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and Raba said, 'Blessed is He who is good and does good,' and the Get is cancelled. What is the point at issue between them? &mdash; The point at issue is the revealing of intention in respect of a Get. Abaye holds that the revealing of intention in respect of a Get makes a difference, and Raba held that it makes no difference. Said Raba: What makes me take this view? Because R. Shesheth compelled a man to consent to give a Get, and the man said afterwards [to the witnesses], I heard R. Shesheth say to you, 'Let the Get be cancelled,' and R. Shesheth forced him to give another Get.<a id="k34a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And did R. Shesheth then, asked Abaye, cancel other men's bills of divorce? In fact the man himself cancelled it, and the reason why he used these words<a id="k34a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; was on account of his [R. Shesheth's] beadles.<a id="k34a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye: What makes me take my view? Because Rab Judah once forced the son-in-law of R. Jeremiah Bira'ah to give his wife a Get, and he cancelled it, whereupon he forced him again. He cancelled it again and he again forced him to give it, and he said to the witnesses, stuff grass<a id="k34a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; into your ears and write it.<a id="k34a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you assume that the revealing of intention makes a difference in a Get, do they not see him running after them? And Raba? &mdash; [He will reply that they may think] the reason why he ran after them was to tell them to make sure to give it to her so that he could put an end to his troubles.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye further: What makes me take this view? Because there was a man who said to the witnesses, If I do not come within thirty days, this shall be a Get. He came on the thirtieth day, but could not get across the river,<a id="k34a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and he called to them, 'See that I have come, see that I have come,' and Samuel said that this was no coming.<a id="k34a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba? &mdash; [He can rejoin,] In that case did he want to annul the Get? What he wanted was but to fulfil his condition, and his condition was not fulfilled.<a id="k34a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said [on writing a Get for his betrothed], If I do not marry her within thirty days, this shall be a Get. When the thirtieth day came, he said, See, I am busy making the preparations. Now why should we have any doubts [about the validity of the Get]? If because the man was forcibly prevented [from marrying], force majeure is no plea in regard to a Get. If again because he revealed his intention [of annulling it], on this point there is a difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba.<a id="k34a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said [on writing a Get for his betrothed]. If I do not marry by the first day of Adar, this will be a Get. When the first of Adar came he said, I meant the first of Sivan. Now should we have any doubts about the validity of the Get? If because he was forcibly prevented, force majeure does not invalidate a Get. If because he revealed his intention, on this point there is a difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba.<a id="k34a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The law<a id="k34a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; follows Nahman, and the law follows Nahman,<a id="k34a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the law<a id="k34a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k34b_1:" Abaye, so called because he was brought up by Rabbah b. Nahmani, who called him by the name of his father (Rashi). [According to Aruch, Abaye's real name was Nahmani after his grandfather. but he was nicknamed Abaye ('Little father') by his uncle Rabbah b. Nahmani, who had adopted him at an early age, in order to avoid confusion with his grandfather.]"
,k34b_2:" Lit., 'he used to change'."
,k34b_3:" Supposing he had changed his residence temporarily and assumed another name."
,k34b_4:" According to Tosaf., this means that all his other names should be specifically mentioned. V. <i>Infra</i>"
,k34b_5:" Lit., 'for the better ordering of society.'"
,k34b_6:" I.e., to prevent people in case she remarries, from saving that the first husband never divorced her."
,k34b_7:" This seems to confirm the opinion of Tosaf., that all the names must be written in the Get."
,k34b_8:" Neither in Judea nor Galilee."
,k34b_9:" Which shows that his other names must be included."
,k34b_10:" That his other name must be included."
,k34b_11:" That one name is sufficient."
,k34b_12:" This would seem to show that the Mishnah is to be taken in its literal sense and not as interpreted by Tosaf."
,k34b_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k34b_14:" That she had not received any part of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k34b_15:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k34b_16:" E.g., a vow to abstain from certain kinds of food if it should be found that she had already received any part of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k34b_17:" V. <i>infra</i>. Lit., 'for the better ordering of society.'"
,k34b_18:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and <i>infra</i>."
,k34b_19:" For a debt incurred by their father."
,k34b_20:" B.B. 5b; Keth. 872. "
}

txt:
<p>
follows Nahmani.<a id="k34b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ORIGINALLY THE HUSBAND WAS ALLOWED TO GIVE [IN THE GET] AN ADOPTED NAME<a id="k34b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; OF HIMSELF OR OF HIS WIFE, OR AN ADOPTED TOWN OF HIMSELF OR OF HIS WIFE.<a id="k34b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER MADE A REGULATION THAT HE SHOULD WRITE, 'THE MAN SO-AND-SO OR BY WHAT EVER NAMES HE IS KNOWN,'<a id="k34b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'THE WOMAN SO-AND-SO OR BY WHATEVER NAMES SHE IS KNOWN,' TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k34b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The Jews from overseas sent to Rabban Gamaliel the following inquiry: If a man comes here from Eretz Yisrael whose name is Joseph but who is known here as Johanan, or whose name is Johanan but who is known here as Joseph, how is he to divorce his wife? Rabban Gamaliel thereupon made a regulation that they should write in the Get, The man So-and-so or by whatever names he is known, the woman So-and-so or by whatever names she is known, to prevent abuses.<a id="k34b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: This is necessary only if the man is known to have two [or more] names. Said R. Abba to R. Ashi: R. Mari and R. Eleazar concur with you in this. It has been taught in agreement with R. Ashi: If a man has two wives, one in Judea and the other in Galilee, and he has two names by one of which he is known in Judea and by the other in Galilee, and if he divorces his wife in Judea under the name which he bears in Judea and his wife in Galilee under the name which he bears in Galilee, the divorce is not effective: it does not become so until he divorces his wife in Judea under the name he bears in Judea with the addition of the name he bears in Galilee, and his wife in Galilee under the name he bears in Galilee with the addition of the name he bears in Judea.<a id="k34b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he goes away to another place<a id="k34b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and gives a divorce under one of the names only, the divorce is effective. But did you not just say, 'with the addition of the name he bears in Galilee'?<a id="k34b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that the one rule<a id="k34b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; applies where he is known [to have more than one name], and the other rule<a id="k34b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; applies where he is not known [to have more than one name].
</p><p>
	There was a woman who was known to most people as Miriam but to a few as Sarah, and the Nehardeans ruled that [in a Get she should be referred to as] 'Miriam or any other name by which she may be called' and not 'Sarah or any other name by which she may be called.'<a id="k34b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WIDOW HAS [BY RIGHTS] NO POWER TO RECOVER [HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>]<a id="k34b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE PROPERTY OF ORPHANS SAVE ON TAKING AN OATH.<a id="k34b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THEY [THE RABBIS] REFRAINED FROM IMPOSING AN OATH ON HER.<a id="k34b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER THEREUPON MADE A REGULATION THAT SHE SHOULD TAKE ANY VOW<a id="k34b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; WHICH THE ORPHANS CHOSE TO IMPOSE ON HER AND SO RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>. AND [SIMILARLY] WITNESSES SIGN THEIR NAMES TO A GET TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k34b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HILLEL THE ELDER ALSO INSTITUTED THE <I>PROSBUL</I><a id="k34b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; TO PREVENT ABUSES.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why is this rule [about an oath] laid down with reference to a widow, seeing that it applies to everybody, since it is an established rule that 'one who seeks to recover payment from the property of orphans<a id="k34b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot recover save on taking an oath'?<a id="k34b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a special reason for the mention of a widow. For it might occur to you to say that
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k35a_1:" To women in general by making it easier for them to recover their kethubahs."
,k35a_2:" Lit., 'May the poison of death have benefit from one of the sons of this woman.'"
,k35a_3:" Which saved her the corresponding quantity of flour."
,k35a_4:" For which she considers she is entitled to some compensation."
,k35a_5:" Within the <i>Beth din</i> she would be required to take a scroll of the Law or a pair of phylacteries in her hand and swear by one of the divine Names, but outside the <i>Beth din</i> these solemnities would be dispensed with."
,k35a_6:" Surely he could have had an oath imposed on her outside the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k35a_7:" In accordance with the regulation if Rabban Gamaliel. V. Mishnah."
,k35a_8:" Lit., 'jumps forward'."
,k35a_9:" V. Keth. 542."
,k35a_10:" [May he be humiliated (Rashi) &mdash; a curse the allusion of which is not quite clear. Goldschmidt connects it with the action of overturning the seat of one who died.]"
,k35a_11:" I.e., you follow Rab in refusing to collect the <i>kethubah</i> and Samuel in refusing maintenance."
,k35a_12:" [That the force of the curse should find itself spent in its literal fulfilment]."
,k35a_13:" Rab Judah was a disciple of Samuel, and desired to impose his ruling on R. Huna and the other disciples of Rab."
,k35a_14:" From Eretz Yisrael to Babylon. "
}

txt:
<p>
in order [to render marriage] more attractive<a id="k35a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis made a concession in her case. We are told [therefore that this is not so].
</p><p>
	THEY [THE RABBIS] REFRAINED FROM IMPOSING AN OATH ON HER. What was the reason of this refusal? Shall we say it is to be found in the incident reported by R. Kahana, or, according to others by Rab Judah in the name of Rab, viz., that in a year of scarcity a certain man deposited a <i>denar</i> of gold with a widow, who put it in a jar of flour. Subsequently she baked the flour and gave [the loaf] to a poor man. In course of time the owner of the <i>denar</i> came and said to her, 'Give me back my <i>denar</i>, and she said to him: May death seize upon one of my sons<a id="k35a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; if I have derived any benefit for myself from your <i>denar</i>, and not many days passed &mdash; so it was stated &mdash; before one of her sons died. When the Sages heard of the incident they remarked: If such is the fate of one who swears truly, what must be the fate of one who swears falsely! Why was she punished? Because she had derived advantage from the place of the <i>denar</i>.<a id="k35a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; How then could the Sages speak of her as one who had sworn truly? &mdash; What they meant was, One who might be said to have sworn truly. If that is the reason [why the Rabbis refrained from imposing an oath], why only to a widow? Why not also to a divorced woman? Why has R. Zera said in the name of Samuel, 'This rule applies only to a widow, but to a divorced woman an oath is administered'? &mdash; There is a special reason in the case of a widow, because she finds a justification for herself [for swearing falsely] on account of the trouble she has taken on behalf of the orphans.<a id="k35a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah stated in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Rab and Samuel were both agreed that this rule applied only to an oath imposed in the <i>Beth din</i>, but outside the <i>Beth din</i> an oath may be imposed on a widow.<a id="k35a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Is this so? Is it not a fact that Rab would not enforce payment of a <i>kethubah</i> [by orphans] to a widow?<a id="k35a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a difficulty. This is the version given in Sura. In Nehardea the version is as follows, Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: This rule applies only to an oath imposed in the <i>Beth din</i>, but outside the <i>Beth din</i> an oath may be imposed on a widow. Rab, however, held that even outside the <i>Beth din</i> an oath may not be imposed on her. [This dictum of] Rab [is] in conformity with his expressed view, for Rab would not enforce payment of a <i>kethubah</i> to a widow. Why did he not make her take a vow<a id="k35a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and so let her recover? &mdash; In the time of Rab, vows were not treated lightly.
</p><p>
	A certain woman appealed to R. Huna [to enforce payment of her <i>kethubah</i>]. He said to her, What can I do for you, seeing that Rab would not enforce payment of a <i>kethubah</i> to a widow? She said to him: Is not the only reason the fear that perhaps I have already received part of my <i>kethubah</i>? By the Lord of Hosts I swear that I have not received a penny from my <i>kethubah</i>. Said R. Huna: Rab would admit [that we enforce payment] where the widow takes the oath spontaneously.<a id="k35a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain woman appealed to Rabbah son of R. Huna [to enforce payment of her <i>kethubah</i>]. He said to her: What can I do for you seeing that Rab would not enforce payment of a <i>kethubah</i> and my father also would not enforce payment of a <i>kethubah</i> to a widow? She said to him: At least grant me maintenance. He replied: You are not entitled to maintenance either, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Samuel: If a woman claims her <i>kethubah</i> in the <i>Beth din</i>, she has no claim to maintenance.<a id="k35a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; She said to him: Turn his seat upside down!<a id="k35a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He gives me [the worst of] both authorities.<a id="k35a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; They turned his seat over<a id="k35a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and put it straight again, but even so he did not escape an illness. Rab Judah said to R. Jeremiah Bira'ah: impose a vow on her in the <i>Beth din</i> and administer an oath to her outside the <i>Beth din</i>, and see that the report reaches my ears, since I desire to make this a precedent.<a id="k35a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[The text above stated:] 'R. Zera said in the name of Samuel: This rule applies only to a widow, but to a divorced woman an oath is administered.' Cannot then a divorced woman recover her <i>kethubah</i> on [merely] taking a vow? Was not [a communication] sent from there<a id="k35a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; saying that 'So-and-so the daughter of So-and-so received a Get from the hand of Aha b. Hedia who is also known as Ayah Mari and took a vow binding herself to abstain from all produce whatsoever if she should be found to have received of her <i>kethubah</i> anything besides a blanket, a book of the Psalms, a copy of Job and a copy of Proverbs much worn,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k35b_1:" Apparently the couple had gone from Babylon to Palestine and the husband had given the divorce there, but his property was in Babylon."
,k35b_2:" Who divorced her after having married her as levir, and the <i>kethubah</i> to which she was entitled was that given by the first husband, and therefore she claimed it as a widow and not as a divorced woman."
,k35b_3:" In accordance with the law laid down in Num. XXX, 8."
,k35b_4:" This rule is based on the words, And if she vowed in her husband's house in Num. XXX, 11."
,k35b_5:" If a vow was found to be impossible of fulfilment, a Sage was empowered to discover a loophole for remitting it, v. Ned. 21ff."
,k35b_6:" And if the woman stated that her reason was to obtain money to which she was not entitled, he would certainly not release her."
,k35b_7:" Lit., 'many', i.e., ten or more, R. Nahman holding that such a vow could not be remitted."
,k35b_8:" And this authority therefore allows her to recover the <i>kethubah</i> on taking such a vow even after she is married."
,k35b_9:" Lit., 'will cut short his account.'"
,k35b_10:" And he may grant release where it should be withheld or vice versa."
,k35b_11:" E.g., to prevent the woman from obtaining money wrongfully or to prevent someone from doing a wrong act from which he has vowed to abstain."
,k35b_12:" Bek. 45b."
,k35b_13:" Lit., 'in transgression', e.g., a divorced woman."
,k35b_14:" I.e., to divorce her (Rashi)."
,k35b_15:" From the altar after finishing the service."
,k35b_16:" So that retrospectively he proves to have taken part in the service when disqualified. "
}

txt:
<p>
and we valued them at five <i>maneh</i>. When she presents herself to you, empower her to collect the rest.'<a id="k35b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi said: The Get in that case was one given by a brother-in-law.<a id="k35b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER MADE A REGULATION THAT SHE SHOULD TAKE A VOW, etc. R. Huna said: This rule applies only if she is not married again, but if she is married, she cannot take the vow. What is the reason why she cannot take it if she is married? Because her husband may annul it.<a id="k35b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Even if she is not married, cannot the husband annul it when she marries again? &mdash; A husband cannot annul vows taken previously to his marriage with her.<a id="k35b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there not a possibility that she may apply to a Sage<a id="k35b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and obtain release from him? &mdash; R. Huna held that the particulars of the vow must be stated to the Sage.<a id="k35b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman held that even after the [second] marriage [she may take the vow]. But if she is married there is no question that the husband can annul the vow? &mdash; The vow must be taken by her in the presence of a company.<a id="k35b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection [against R. Huna's ruling] was raised [from the following]: If she has married again, she may recover her <i>kethubah</i> provided she has taken a vow. Does not this mean 'if she takes a vow now'? &mdash; No; it means, if she has taken a vow before [the second] marriage. But has it not been taught: 'If she marries again, she can take a vow and recover her kethubah'? &mdash; There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, since there is an authority who holds that a vow which has been taken in the presence of a company can be annulled, and there is an authority who holds that it cannot be annulled.<a id="k35b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised in the Academy: Is it necessary to state the particulars of the vow [on seeking annulment] or is it not necessary? &mdash; R. Nahman said that it is not necessary, R. Papa said that it is necessary. R. Nahman said that it is not necessary, because if you say that it is, it may happen that the applicant will not state the case fully<a id="k35b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sage will act on what he has been told.<a id="k35b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said it is necessary, to prevent forbidden things being done.<a id="k35b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt:<a id="k35b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If [a priest] marries a woman whom he should not,<a id="k35b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he is disqualified [from participating in the Temple service] until he vows to have no benefit [from his wife]:'<a id="k35b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and in this connection it was taught, he can take the vow and participate in the service and give the divorce when he descends.<a id="k35b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that it is not necessary to state particulars of the vow, is there not a possibility that he may apply to a Sage and obtain release?<a id="k35b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k36a_1:" Lit., 'by the knowledge' or 'will of'; i.e., they say to him, 'We administer this vow to you on our responsibility.'"
,k36a_2:" And so of Rabbinical sanction only."
,k36a_3:" Jer. XXXII, 44."
,k36a_4:" That the witnesses who sign the Get make it effective."
,k36a_5:" I.e., their name and that of their father, e.g., Reuben ben Jacob, and not merely their own name, which would be sufficient from the point of view of the Torah. [V. Strashun and cf. following note]."
,k36a_6:" [Without specifying his name (Rashi). The term 'So-and-so' however, hardly bears this interpretation. Tosef. Git, VII omits 'So-and-so' and reads simply 'I am witness'; cf. previous note]."
,k36a_7:" Through which his identity could be established."
,k36a_8:" Because now it would be possible to find witnesses who recognised their signatures."
,k36a_9:" One letter of his Hebrew name."
,k36a_10:" Al. 'boat'; al. 'mast'."
,k36a_11:" [G] 'discs', 'tablets', 'official letters'."
,k36a_12:" Deut. XV, 9. The verse proceeds, The seventh year is at hand, and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother and give him nought."
,k36a_13:" Even after the Sabbatical year."
,k36a_14:" Sheb. x, 3. [The principle underlying the <i>prosbul</i> is founded on the passage 'that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release' (Deut. XV, 2). From this there had been derived the law that the operation of the year of release did not affect debts of which the bonds had been delivered to the Court before the intervention of the year of release (v. Sifre. a.l. and <i>infra</i> p. 38), such debts being regarded as virtually exacted' and hence not coming under the prohibition 'he shall not exact'. By a slight extension of this precedents the <i>prosbul</i> was instituted, which in effect amounted to entrusting the Court with the collection of the debt. Without actually handing over the bond to the court, as required by the existing law, the creditor could secure his debt against forfeiture by appearing in person before the <i>Beth din</i> and making the prescribed declaration. For a fuller examination of the nature and legal effect of the <i>prosbul</i> as well as a survey of the proposed derivations of the term, v. Blau, L. <i>Prosbul</i> im Lichte der Griechischen Papyri und der Rechtsgeschichte.]"
,k36a_15:" After the destruction of the first Temple."
,k36a_16:" Deut. XV, 2."
,k36a_17:" By the juxtaposition of the two words, [H] ('release') and [H] ('shall release')."
,k36a_18:" At the Jubilee. V. Lev. XXV, 13."
,k36a_19:" The Jubilee was not operative in the time of the Second Temple because the land was not fully occupied by Israel. But v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; We assume that the vow is taken by him in the presence of a company. This is a valid reason for one who holds that a vow which has been taken in the presence of a company cannot be annulled. But what are we to say to one who holds that it can be annulled? &mdash; We must say that the vow is imposed on the authority<a id="k36a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of the company. For Amemar has said: The law is that even according to those who hold that a vow made in the presence of a company cannot be annulled, one made on the authority of a company cannot be annulled. This, however, is the case only with a vow relating to some optional action, but if it interferes with a religious duty, it can be annulled. A case in point is that of the teacher of children whom R. Aha bound by a vow on the authority of a company [to give up teaching], because he maltreated the children, but Rabina reinstated him because no other teacher could be found as thorough as he was.
</p><p>
	WITNESSES SIGN A GET TO PREVENT ABUSES. [Is this rule only] to prevent abuses?<a id="k36a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; It derives from the Scripture, does it not, since it is written, And subscribe the deeds and seal them?<a id="k36a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah said: [All the same this reason] is necessary on the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective. The Rabbis nevertheless ordained that there should be witnesses to sign [as well], to prevent abuses, since sometimes the witnesses [to delivery] may die or go abroad. R. Joseph said: You may even say [that this reason is necessary] on the view of R. Meir,<a id="k36a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [and what] they ordained was that the witnesses should subscribe their names in full,<a id="k36a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to prevent abuses, as it has been taught: At first the witness used simply to write, 'I, So-and-so,<a id="k36a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; subscribe as witness. 'If then his writing could be found on other documents,<a id="k36a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the Get was valid, but if not, it was invalid. Said Rabban Gamaliel: A most important regulation was laid down [by the Rabbis], that the witnesses should write their names in full in a Get, to prevent abuses.<a id="k36a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But is not a mark enough? Did not Rab [sign by] drawing a fish and R. Hanina by drawing a palm-branch, R. Hisda with a Samek,<a id="k36a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hoshaia with an Ayin, and Rabbah son of R. Huna by drawing a sail?<a id="k36a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis are different, because their marks are well known. How did they make these signs known to begin with? &mdash; On letters.<a id="k36a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HILLEL INSTITUTED THE <I>PROSBUL</I>. We have learnt elsewhere: A <i>prosbul</i> prevents the remission of debts [in the Sabbatical year]. This is one of the regulations made by Hillel the Elder. For he saw that people were unwilling to lend money to one another and disregarded the precept laid down in the Torah, Beware that there he not a base thought in thine heart saying, etc.<a id="k36a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He therefore decided to institute the <i>prosbul</i>. The text of the <i>prosbul</i> is as follows: 'I hand over to you, So-and-so, the judges in such-and-such a place, [my bonds], so that I may be able to recover any money owing to me from So-and-so at any time I shall desire';<a id="k36a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and the <i>prosbul</i> was to be signed by the judges or witnesses.<a id="k36a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But is it possible that where according to the Torah the seventh year releases Hillel should ordain that it should not release? &mdash; Abaye said: He was dealing with the Sabbatical year in our time,<a id="k36a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and he went on the principle laid down by Rabbi, as it has been taught: Rabbi says: [It is written], Now this is the matter of the release; [every creditor] shall release.<a id="k36a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The text indicates here two kinds of release,<a id="k36a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; one the release of land<a id="k36a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other the release of money. When the release of land is in operation the release of money is to be operative, and when the release of land is not operative the release of money is not to be operative.<a id="k36a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k36b_1:" Which therefore meant rescinding only a regulation of the Rabbis, not a precept of the Torah."
,k36b_2:" For by so doing they rob creditors of their just due."
,k36b_3:" They do not tell the debtors to commit an actual trespass hut merely to refrain from paying debts."
,k36b_4:" Lit., '(Anything declared) hefker (ownerless) by the <i>Beth din</i> is hefker'."
,k36b_5:" Ezra, X, 8."
,k36b_6:" Josh. XX, 51."
,k36b_7:" It would have been sufficient to say, 'heads of the tribes'."
,k36b_8:" In any case the regulation goes in till it is rescinded."
,k36b_9:" A.Z. 36a."
,k36b_10:" The <i>Beth din</i> of Rab."
,k36b_11:" His own <i>Beth din</i>."
,k36b_12:" Heb. 'ulbana. The meaning of this word is discussed later."
,k36b_13:" Which shows that Hillel ordained it only for his own generation."
,k36b_14:" Even without a superior <i>Beth din</i>."
,k36b_15:" I.e., did Samuel mean that it was an assumption on the part of the judges to seize money wrongfully, or that it was a convenience for the judges that creditors did not ask them to secure payment of their debts for them before the seventh year."
,k36b_16:" In reference to the making of the Golden Calf."
,k36b_17:" This proves that the root 'alab means 'to be shameless' or 'arrogant'."
,k36b_18:" I.e., shameless Israel, to be false to God while the <i>Shechinah</i> still hovered over them at Mount Sinai."
,k36b_19:" Cant. I, 12."
,k36b_20:" A further proof that the root 'alab means 'to insult'."
,k36b_21:" Judg. V, 31."
,k36b_22:" This seems to conceal the Greek [G] (before the Council). "
}

txt:
<p>
The Rabbis, however, ordained that it should be operative, in order to keep alive the memory of the Sabbatical year, and when Hillel saw that people refrained from lending money to one another, he decided to institute the <i>prosbul</i>.<a id="k36b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But is it possible that where according to the Torah the seventh year does not release, the Rabbis should ordain that it does release?<a id="k36b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: It is a case of 'sit still and do nothing'.<a id="k36b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, replied: The Rabbis have power to expropriate [for the benefit of the public]<a id="k36b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Isaac has said: How do we know that the Rabbis have power to expropriate? Because it says, And that whosoever came not within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.<a id="k36b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar said: We derive it from here: These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun and the heads of the fathers' houses etc.<a id="k36b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Now why is the word 'fathers' [here] put next to 'heads'?<a id="k36b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; To show that just as fathers transmit to their children whatever property they wish, so the heads transmit to the public whatever they wish.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: When Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i>, did he institute it for his own generation only or for future generations also? What is the practical bearing of this question?<a id="k36b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [In case we should desire] to abolish it. If you say that Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i> only for his own generation, then we may abolish it, but if for future generations also, [this would not be easy] since one <i>Beth din</i> cannot annul the decisions of another unless it surpasses it in wisdom and in numbers.<a id="k36b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What [then is the answer]? &mdash; Come and hear, [since] Samuel has said: We do not make out a <i>prosbul</i> save either in the <i>Beth din</i> of Sura<a id="k36b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or in the <i>Beth din</i> of Nehardea.<a id="k36b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you assume that Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i> for all generations, then it should be made out in any <i>Beth din</i>? &mdash; perhaps when Hillel instituted it for all generations, he meant it to be issued by a <i>Beth din</i> like his [Samuel's] or like that of R. Ammi and R. Assi, which are strong enough to enforce payment [where necessary], but not for the ordinary <i>Beth din</i>.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Samuel said: This <i>prosbul</i> is an assumption<a id="k36b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; on the part of the judges; if I am ever in a position, I will abolish it.<a id="k36b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; He abolish it? How so, seeing that one <i>Beth din</i> cannot annul the decision of another unless it is superior to it in wisdom and numbers? &mdash; What he meant was: If ever I am in a stronger position than Hillel, I will abolish it.<a id="k36b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman, however, said: I would confirm it. Confirm it? Is it not already firmly established? &mdash; What he meant was: I will add a rule that even if it [the <i>prosbul</i>] is not actually written it shall be regarded as written.
</p><p>
	The question was raised [in the Academy]: Does this word 'ulbana mean 'assumption' or 'convenience'?<a id="k36b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear, for 'Ulla once exclaimed:<a id="k36b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; O shameless ['alubah]<a id="k36b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; bride, to be false under the very bridal canopy!<a id="k36b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Mari the son of Samuel's daughter [in reference to this]: What scriptural verse indicates this? The verse, While the king sat at his table my spikenard sent forth its fragrance.<a id="k36b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: The [sacred author] still shows his love for us by writing 'sent forth' and not 'made foul'.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'They who suffer insults [ne'elabin]<a id="k36b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but do not inflict them, who hear themselves reviled and do not answer back, who perform [religious precepts] from love and rejoice in chastisement, of such the Scripture says, And they that love him are like the sun when he goeth forth in his might.'<a id="k36b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is the meaning of the word '<i>prosbul</i>'? &mdash; R. Hisda says: Pruz buli u-buti.<a id="k36b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k37a_1:" Lev. XXVI, 19."
,k37a_2:" City councils, [G]."
,k37a_3:" Deut. XV, 8. The Hebrew root for lend is 'abat, which is somewhat fancifully connected with buti. The <i>prosbul</i> benefits the rich because it secures them their loans, and the poor because it enables them to borrow. [Goldschmidt suggests in this connection the derivation from [G] and [G] 'provision against loss']."
,k37a_4:" Heb. la'oza, a man speaking a foreign languages. Possibly we should translate 'linguist'."
,k37a_5:" Cf. [G] 'manner', 'order'."
,k37a_6:" Who was the supreme authority at the time when the Baraitha was first taught."
,k37a_7:" [In which case the debt is regarded as having been refunded to the court who virtually hold the land in payment of the debt on behalf of the creditor, v. p. 148, n. 4.]."
,k37a_8:" Not the author of the <i>prosbul</i>."
,k37a_9:" Because the earth-pot is then connected with the soil and so the debtor may be regarded as possessing land."
,k37a_10:" And it is therefore analogous to the stove, on which a <i>prosbul</i> may he made out."
,k37a_11:" It occupies no place on the ground, in which case unless it has a hole to connect it with the soil, it cannot serve as basis for a <i>prosbul</i>."
,k37a_12:" Al. 'branch'."
,k37a_13:" Lit., 'commit their words'; i.e., the verbal instructions relating to the recovery of their debts."
,k37a_14:" I.e., used to appoint one another a <i>Beth din</i> for the receiving of their debts without the formality of writing out a <i>prosbul</i>."
,k37a_15:" Num. V, 7. Hence the land of A's debtor can serve as the basis for a <i>prosbul</i> against A."
,k37a_16:" Sheb. X, 1."
,k37a_17:" I.e., a mortgage on his property."
,k37a_18:" Because it is looked upon as having been already enforced, so that there really is no debt."
,k37a_19:" <i>supra</i>."
,k37a_20:" Sot. 25a."
,k37a_21:" Lit., 'which is ready to be enforced.'"
,k37a_22:" Sheb. X, 2."
,k37a_23:" And the <i>Beth din</i> have power to expropriate, and therefore the creditor is not guilty of 'exaction' in recovering after the seventh year."
,k37a_24:" And he does not 'exact' anything from the debtor."
,k37a_25:" On the security of his courtyard. V. Tosaf. [Evidently in the case where the debt was contracted verbally.]"
,k37a_26:" [Whereas in B.M. 67b it is stated that the debt in such a case is cancelled, (Tosaf.).]"
,k37a_27:" Of movable property (Rashi)."
,k37a_28:" Deut. XXIV, 13. The 'righteousness' is in restoring the pledge to the poor man at sunset."
,k37a_29:" Sheb. X, 8. "
}

txt:
<p>
Buli means the rich, as it is written, And I will break the pride of your power,<a id="k37a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Joseph explained: These are the bula'oth<a id="k37a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in Judah. Buti means the poor, as it is written, Thou shalt surely lend him sufficient.<a id="k37a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba asked a certain foreigner,<a id="k37a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of <i>prosbul</i>? He replied: The porsa<a id="k37a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; of the matter.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Orphans do not require a <i>prosbul</i>. So too Rami b. Hama learnt: Orphans do not require a <i>prosbul</i>, because Rabban Gamaliel<a id="k37a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and his <i>Beth din</i> are the parents of orphans.
</p><p>
	We have learnt elsewhere: A <i>prosbul</i> is not made out unless [the debtor has] some land. If he has none, the creditor can present him with a spot from his own.<a id="k37a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; How much is a 'spot'? &mdash; R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: Even a stalk of a carob [is enough]. Rab Judah said: Even if he only lends him a space sufficient for his stove and oven, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out on the strength of it. Is this so? Has not Hillel<a id="k37a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; learnt: 'A <i>prosbul</i> may be made out only [if the debtor] has a flowerpot with a hole in it', that is, if it has a hole, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out,<a id="k37a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but otherwise not. Now why should this be, seeing that the place it occupies [belongs to the debtor]?<a id="k37a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This rule applies only where the pot rests on some sticks.<a id="k37a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi would transfer to the debtor the trunk<a id="k37a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; of a date tree and then write a <i>prosbul</i> for the creditor. The Rabbis of the Academy of R. Ashi used to transfer their debts<a id="k37a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to one another.<a id="k37a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jonathan transferred his debt to R. Hiyya b. Abba. Do I require anything more? he asked him. You do not, he replied.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught; If the debtor has no land but one who is security for him has land, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out for him. If neither he nor his security has land but a man who owes him money has land, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out for him. [This is based] on the ruling of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: If a man lends another a <i>maneh</i>, and this one lends to a third, how do we know that the <i>Beth din</i> can take from the last [named] and give to the first [creditor]? Because it says, And he shall give it unto him in respect of whom he has been guilty.<a id="k37a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt elsewhere: The seventh year brings release from a debt, whether contracted with a bond or without a bond.<a id="k37a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Both Rab and Samuel explain that 'with a bond' here means that the debtor has given a lien on his property [for the debt] and 'without a bond' means that he has given no lien. <i>A fortiori</i> then does the seventh year release from a debt contracted verbally. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, explain that 'with a bond' means a bond that does not contain a lien clause,<a id="k37a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'without a bond' means a debt contracted verbally. A bond which secures a lien, however, is not cancelled.<a id="k37a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish: A bond for a debt is cancelled [by the seventh year], but if it contains a lien clause it is not cancelled. It has further been taught: If the debtor has specified a certain field to the lender [as security] for his loans, it is not cancelled. Nay more: Even if he writes [only] 'All my property is security and guarantee for you,' it is not cancelled.
</p><p>
	A relative of R. Assi had a bond containing a lien clause. He came before R. Assi and said to him: Is this cancelled [by the seventh year] or not? &mdash; He replied: It is not cancelled. He left him and went to R. Johanan [and asked the same question]. [R. Johanan] replied: It is cancelled. R. Assi went to R. Johanan and asked him: Is it cancelled or not cancelled? &mdash; He replied: It is cancelled. But you yourself [once] said<a id="k37a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; that such a bond is not cancelled? &mdash; He replied: Because we have an opinion of our own [different from what we have learnt], are we to act on it? Said R. Assi: But there is a Baraitha in support of your opinion? &mdash; He replied: perhaps that follows Beth Shammai, who said<a id="k37a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; that a bond which is perfectly in order<a id="k37a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is like one which has already been put into operation.
</p><p>
	We have learnt elsewhere: If a man lends another money on a pledge or if he hands his bonds to the <i>Beth din</i>, the debts are not cancelled [by the seventh year].<a id="k37a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; That this should be so in the latter case we understand, because it is the <i>Beth din</i> which seizes the debtor's property.<a id="k37a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should it be so in the case of a loan given on a pledge? &mdash; Raba replied: Because [the lender] is already in possession of it.<a id="k37a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: If that is so, suppose a man lends another money<a id="k37a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and lives in his courtyard, in which case he is also in possession, is the debt in this case too not cancelled?<a id="k37a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: A pledge<a id="k37a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is different, because the holder becomes also its owner, according to the dictum of R. Isaac, who said, How do we know that a creditor becomes the owner of a pledge [given for the debt]? Because it says, And it shall be righteousness unto thee.<a id="k37a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If he is not the owner, what righteousness is there [in restoring the pledge]? Hence we learn that a creditor becomes owner of the pledge.
</p><p>
	We have learnt elsewhere:<a id="k37a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k37b_1:" The release of the seventh year, according to the Rabbis, took place only at the end. Hence the word 'seventh year' here is explained to mean 'in the period when the rule of the seventh year is in force,' and the repayment is supposed to be offered after the seventh year (Rashi)."
,k37b_2:" Heb. dabar (E.V. 'manner')."
,k37b_3:" Deut. XV, 2."
,k37b_4:" Lit., 'hang him'."
,k37b_5:" [Martha was the name of his mother by whose name he was designated, because she it was who once cured him from the bite of a mad dog, v. Yoma 84a]."
,k37b_6:" V. <i>supra</i>, n. 4."
,k37b_7:" I.e., he would not have neglected in the first instance to obtain a <i>prosbul</i>, and then afterwards come and claimed the money wrongfully."
,k37b_8:" I.e., where the judges suggest a plea to one of the parties. The expression is taken from Prov, XXXI, 8."
,k37b_9:" Even if he pleads that he lost the <i>prosbul</i>."
,k37b_10:" But he can plead that he lost it."
,k37b_11:" Jews."
,k37b_12:" Because whatever the ransomer may stipulate with the captor, the slave is still the property of his master."
,k37b_13:" Viz., to his first master, seeing that he has ceased to be his property."
,k37b_14:" The implication is that there is some merit in restoring the slave to freedom."
,k37b_15:" I.e., from heathen masters, so that they may resume the performance of certain precepts in the service of their Jewish masters. Hence since it is a religious duty, there is no fear that people will refrain from ransoming him."
,k37b_16:" I.e., it was necessary for R. Simeon to adduce this reason."
,k37b_17:" Lev. XXV, 45. "
}

txt:
<p>
If a man repays another money which he owes him in the seventh year, the other should say to him, I remit it.<a id="k37b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If the debtor then says, 'All the same [take it]', he may take it from him. [This rule is based on] the text, Now this is the word<a id="k37b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of the release.<a id="k37b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: The creditor may tie him up<a id="k37b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; till he says so. Abaye raised an objection [from the following]: When [the debtor] offers him the money he should not say, This is in payment of my debt, but, 'It is my [money] and I make you a present of it'? &mdash; Rabbah replied: Yes; he ties him up until he says so.
</p><p>
	Abba b. Martha, who was the same as Abba b. Manyumi,<a id="k37b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; was pressed by Rabbah for repayment of money he had lent him. He brought it to him in the seventh year.<a id="k37b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said, I remit it. So he took it and went away. Abaye afterwards found Rabbah looking sad. He said to him, Why are you sad? He told him what had happened. So Abaye went [to Abba] and said to him, Did you offer money to Rabbah? I did, he said. And what did he say to you? &mdash; I remit it. And did you say to him, Even so take it? &mdash; He replied, I did not. Abaye thereupon said to him: If you had said to him, All the same take it, he would have taken it. Now at any rate go and offer it to him and say, All the same take it. He went and offered it to him, saying, All the same take it. He took it from him and said, This rabbinical student did have the sense to see this from the beginning!
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of R. Nahman: We take a man's word if he says, I had a <i>prosbul</i> and lost it. What is the reason? Since the Rabbis have instituted a <i>prosbul</i>, a man would not [as we say] 'leave on one side permitted [food] and eat forbidden.'<a id="k37b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; When such a man came before Rab, he said to him, Have you had a <i>prosbul</i> and lost it? This is a case for opening thy mouth for the dumb.<a id="k37b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; We have learnt [in opposition to this]: 'Similarly if a creditor produces a bond for a debt without a <i>prosbul</i>, he cannot recover payment'?<a id="k37b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, since it has been taught: If a man produces a bond for a debt [after the seventh year] he must show a <i>prosbul</i> with it. The Sages, however, say that this is not necessary.<a id="k37b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SHOULD A [NON-JEWISH] SLAVE [OF A JEW] BE CARRIED OFF BY ROBBERS AND RANSOMED [BY A THIRD PARTY],<a id="k37b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [HE IS RANSOMED] AS A SLAVE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, BUT IF [HE IS RANSOMED] AS A FREE MAN HE DOES NOT GO BACK TO SLAVERY. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. With what case are we here dealing? Shall we say that the ransom was effected before [the owner of the slave] had given up hopes [of recovering him]? If so, even if [he is ransomed] as a free man, why should he not go back to slavery?<a id="k37b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say then it was after the owner had given up hopes of recovering him? Then even if [he is ransomed] as a slave, why should he go back to slavery?<a id="k37b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye said: The case indeed is one in which [the master] has not yet given up hopes. If then [he is ransomed] as a slave he goes back to slavery to his first master. If [he is ransomed] as a free man, he is no longer enslaved either to the first master or to the second; to the second, because he ransomed him as a free man, to the first because [if people know that he is to go back to slavery] perhaps they will refrain from ransoming him.<a id="k37b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, [since] he holds that, as it is a religious duty to ransom free men, so it is a religious duty to ransom slaves.<a id="k37b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said that the case dealt with is indeed where [the owner] has given up hopes of recovery. If then [he is ransomed] as a slave, he becomes enslaved to the second master. If he [is ransomed] as a free man, he becomes enslaved neither to the first master nor to the second; not to the second, because he ransomed him as a free man, and not to the first either, because he has given up hopes of recovering him. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, adopting in this the view [also] held by Hezekiah, who said: Why was it laid down that in either case he should go back to slavery? So that slaves should not go and throw themselves into the hands of robber bands and so liberate themselves from their masters.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [against Raba from the following]: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said to them, Just as it is a religious duty to redeem free men, so it is a religious duty to redeem slaves. Now if we adopt the view of Abaye that the case dealt with is where [the owner] has not yet given up hope of recovery &mdash; we understand why Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, 'Just as etc.'<a id="k37b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view of Raba, that the case is one where [the owner] has given up hope, why, 'just as'? [Rabban Simeon's reason] is the dictum of Hezekiah! &mdash; To which Raba can reply; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel was not certain to what the Rabbis were referring, and he argued with them thus: If you are speaking of the case where [the owner] has not yet given up hope, then I say 'just as [etc.]': and if you speak of the case where he has given up hope, then I apply the dictum of Hezekiah.
</p><p>
	Now on the view of Raba that the case referred to is where [the owner] has given up hope and that the slave [if ransomed as a slave becomes enslaved] to the second master, [we have to ask], from whom does the second master acquire him? [You must say], From the brigands. Is the brigand himself his rightful owner? &mdash; Yes; he was his owner in respect of his labour. For Resh Lakish has said; How do we know that one heathen can own another in respect of his labour? &mdash; It says, Moreover of the strangers that shall sojourn among you, of them shall ye acquire.<a id="k37b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [This indicates that] you may acquire from them,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k38a_1:" And still less from an Israelite, so how can they acquire at all?"
,k38a_2:" So that if he escapes he becomes free without a deed of emancipation."
,k38a_3:" This is based on the verse, And if a stranger or sojourner with thee be waxen rich etc. Lev. XXV, 47."
,k38a_4:" [Lit., 'money.' Lev. XXV, 47. from which we learn that a heathen may acquire an Israelite as slave, speaks expressly of 'purchase money', v. verse 51.]"
,k38a_5:" This word seems here to have the double meaning of 'presumptive title' (supposing that the original owner has given up hopes of recovering him), and 'act of possession,' e.g., making the slave serve him. The question thus remains. &mdash; Was the brigand the rightful owner?"
,k38a_6:" Israel were forbidden to occupy the territory of Ammon and Moab (Deut. II, 9, 19). Sihon had taken some of the land of Moab (Num. XXI, 26), and this the Israelites were permitted to conquer from him and occupy. (Cf. Jud. XI, 15 ff.). This shows that a heathen can acquire ownership by act of possession."
,k38a_7:" Num. XXI, 1. The lesson is derived from the fact that the Israelites taken by the king of Arad are called 'captives'."
,k38a_8:" V. B.B. 173a."
,k38a_9:" V. <i>infra</i> 74a and notes."
,k38a_10:" V. Sanh. 31a."
,k38a_11:" That in any case the slave returns to slavery."
,k38a_12:" That even if we ransomed her for freedom, she must again become a slave."
,k38a_13:" Which is equivalent to giving up hope of recovery."
,k38a_14:" Ex. XII, 44."
,k38a_15:" Palmyra."
,k38a_16:" The Jewish authorities in the district."
,k38a_17:" I.e., if the heathen was willing to surrender her for a ransom."
,k38a_18:" They could redeem her back into slavery."
,k38a_19:" Because it would become generally known that she was the slave of a Jew."
,k38a_20:" And therefore the slaves also."
,k38a_21:" Cf. <i>infra</i> 42a. "
}

txt:
<p>
but they cannot acquire from you nor can they acquire from one another. Shall I then say that they cannot acquire one another? [What do you mean by saying,] Shall I say that they cannot acquire one another? Have you not just said that they cannot acquire from one another?<a id="k38a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What it means is this: They cannot acquire [slaves] from one another as far as their person is concerned.<a id="k38a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall I say also that they cannot acquire them for [their] labour? You may conclude [that this is not so] by an argument <i>a fortiori</i>. A heathen may acquire an Israelite [for his labour];<a id="k38a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; surely then all the more so another heathen. But may I not say that such acquisition can only be by purchase,<a id="k38a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not by <i>hazakah</i>?<a id="k38a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: The territory of Ammon and Moab became purified [for acquisition by the Israelites] through [the occupation of] Sihon.<a id="k38a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; We have satisfied ourselves that a heathen [can acquire] a heathen [by act of possession]. How do we know that a heathen [can acquire] an Israelite [in the same way]? &mdash; From the text, And he took some of them captive.<a id="k38a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave who escapes from prison becomes a free man, and what is more, his master may be compelled to make out a deed of emancipation for him. We have learnt: RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, IN EITHER CASE HE RETURNS TO SLAVERY, and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah has stated in the name of R. Johanan that wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel records a statement in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with him, except in the matters of the surety,<a id="k38a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; of Sidon,<a id="k38a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the latter proof.<a id="k38a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now on the view of Abaye [that the Mishnah speaks of the case where the master has not yet given up hope of recovering], there is no conflict [between the two statements of R. Johanan], since he makes the latter<a id="k38a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; refer to [the period] before [the master has] given up hope and the former [to the period] after he has given up hope. But on the view of Raba that [the latter also] refers to [the period] after [the master] has given up hope, there is a conflict, is there not, between the two statements of R. Johanan? &mdash; Raba can reply: What is R. Simeon's reason? The statement of Hezekiah [that the slave may give himself up to raiders]. But this does not apply to one who escapes; seeing that he risks his life [to do so], is it likely that he will throw himself into the hands of raiders?
</p><p>
	A female slave of Mar Samuel was carried off [by raiders]. Some [Israelites] ransomed her as a slave and sent her to him, along with a message saying, We hold with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,<a id="k38a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but even if you hold with the Rabbis [you may accept her], because we have ransomed her as a slave. They thought that he had not yet given up hope [of recovering her], but this was not correct, as he had given up hope [of recovering her], and Samuel not only refrained from making her a slave again but he did not even require her to obtain a deed of emancipation. In this he followed his own maxim that 'if a man declares his slave common property,<a id="k38a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he becomes a free man and does not require a deed of emancipation, since it says, Every man's servant that is bought for money.'<a id="k38a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Does this mean the servant of a man and not of a woman? No; it means that a slave over whom his master still has control is called a slave, but a slave over whom his master has no control is not called a slave.
</p><p>
	A female slave of R. Abba b. Zutra was carried off by raiders. A certain [heathen] from Tarmud<a id="k38a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; ransomed her in order to marry her. They<a id="k38a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; sent a message to him [R. Abba] saying, If you wish to act well, send her a deed of emancipation. What was the point of this message? If they were able to redeem her,<a id="k38a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; why did they want a deed of emancipation?<a id="k38a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If they were not able to ransom her, of what good would a deed of emancipation be? &mdash; The fact was that it was possible to ransom her, and if he sent them a deed of emancipation, they would club together and [find the money] to ransom her. Or if you like I can say that they were not [at first] able to ransom her, but if the master would send her a deed of emancipation she would go down in the esteem of the heathen<a id="k38a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and he would consent to her ransom. But has not a Master said that the heathen like the cattle<a id="k38a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of Israel better than their [own] wives? &mdash; This is their real sentiment, but they think it beneath their dignity to show it.
</p><p>
	There was a certain female slave in Pumbeditha who was used by men for immoral purposes &mdash; Abaye said: Were it not that Rab Judah has said in the name of Samuel that whoever emancipates his [heathen] slave breaks a positive precept, I would compel her master to make out a deed of emancipation for her. Rabina said; In such a case, Rab Judah would agree [that this is proper], in order to check immorality. And would not Abaye [act in the same way] to prevent immorality, seeing that R. Hanina b. Kattina has reported in the name of R. Isaac that the master of a certain woman who was half slave and half free<a id="k38a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k38b_1:" Being forbidden to the one as a Jewess and to the other as a slave."
,k38b_2:" Lev. XXV, 46."
,k38b_3:" And if so, what need to explain his action on the around that where a religious duty is to be performed the rule does not apply?"
,k38b_4:" Instead of in the daytime. So Rashi. According to others, however, 'used to dine on Friday afternoon.' This, as Rashi points out, was actually forbidden, because it prevented a man entering on the Sabbath with a good appetite."
,k38b_5:" I.e., devote to the Sanctuary."
,k38b_6:" Since it cannot be used either for a sacrifice or for repairing the Temple."
,k38b_7:" Deut. XIV, 2."
,k38b_8:" Made in the name of Rab, that a slave who is sanctified becomes free."
,k38b_9:" Because their persons are not acquired by the Sanctuary."
,k38b_10:" This shows that the slave's money value is sanctified."
,k38b_11:" v. Kid. 23b."
,k38b_12:" Hence Rabbi also holds that the money value is sanctified."
,k38b_13:" Lev. XXVII, 28."
,k38b_14:" As this objection is from the Scripture, it cannot he answered like the last."
,k38b_15:" And he does not mention sanctification."
,k38b_16:" Lit., 'What have they to do'. If the slaves are not sanctified."
,k38b_17:" And he remains the slave of his master. This is in opposition to Rab. "
}

txt:
<p>
was compelled by the <i>Beth din</i> to emancipate her, the reason being, as R. Nahman b. Isaac stated, that they used her for immoral purposes? &mdash; Can you compare the two cases? In this latter case, the woman [if not emancipated] is not qualified to marry either a slave or a free man;<a id="k38b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other case, it is possible for the master to appoint her his slave, and he will look after her.
</p><p>
	The text above stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Whoever emancipates his heathen slave breaks a positive precept, since it is written, They shall be your bondmen for ever.<a id="k38b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised [against this from the following]: 'On one occasion R. Eliezer came into the synagogue and did not find [the quorum of] ten there, and he immediately emancipated his slave to make up the ten'? &mdash; Where a religious duty [has to be performed], the rule does not apply.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'They shall be your bondmen for ever': This is optional. Such is the opinion of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, holds that it is an obligation. Now perhaps R. Eliezer held with the one who says that it is optional?<a id="k38b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Do not imagine such a thing, since it has been taught distinctly: R. Eliezer says that it is obligatory.
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: For these three offences men become impoverished: for emancipating their [heathen] slaves, for inspecting their property on Sabbath, and for taking their main Sabbath meal at the hour when the discourse is given in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. For so R. Hiyya b. Abba related in the name of R. Johanan, that there were two families in Jerusalem, one of which used to take its main meal on Sabbath [at the hour of the discourse] and the other on the eve of Sabbath,<a id="k38b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and both of them became extinct.
</p><p>
	Rabbah said in the name of Rab; If a man sanctifies his slave, he becomes a free man. What is the reason? Because he does not sanctify<a id="k38b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; his body,<a id="k38b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; nor does he say that he is sanctified in respect of his money value. What he must mean, therefore, is that he is to become a member of the 'holy people'.<a id="k38b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph, however, reported Rab as saying; If a man declares his slave common property he becomes a free man. The one who applies this rule where the slave is sanctified would apply it all the more where he is declared common property; but he who applies it where the slave is declared common property, would not necessarily apply it where he is sanctified, because the master may have been referring to his money value.
</p><p>
	The question was asked: [Does a slave who is thus liberated] require a deed of emancipation or not? &mdash; Come and hear: R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of Rab; Both the one and the other become free men, and they require deeds of emancipation. Rabbah said: I raise an objection against my own statement<a id="k38b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from the following: 'If a man sanctifies his property and some slaves are included in it, the treasurers [of the Sanctuary] are not allowed to emancipate them,<a id="k38b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but they must sell them to others,<a id="k38b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and these others are allowed to emancipate them. Rabbi says: My view is that the slave can pay his own purchase price<a id="k38b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and liberate hiniself,<a id="k38b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; because the treasurer in that case as it were sells him to himself'? &mdash; Do you seek to confute Rab from the Mishnah? Rab is himself [considered] a Tanna and is allowed to differ.
</p><p>
	Come and hear [an objection to Rabbah]: 'Notwithstanding no devoted thing&nbsp;&hellip; whether of man etc. [shall be redeemed];<a id="k38b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; these are his Canaanitish men-servants and maid-servants'?<a id="k38b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are presuming in this case that he says, [I vow] their money value.<a id="k38b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so, cannot I say the same in the other case also? &mdash; If that were so, what of the words 'the treasurers are not allowed to liberate them'? Why are the treasurers mentioned?<a id="k38b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And further: 'But they can sell them to others, and these others are allowed to liberate them.' Why are 'others' mentioned? And again: 'Rabbi says: My view is that he may pay his own purchase price and so liberate himself, because the treasurer in that case as it were sells him to himself.' Now if only his money value is devoted, what is the point of the words, 'because as it were he sells him to himself'?
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man sanctifies his slave, he [the slave] may go on supporting himself from his own labour, because only his money value has been sanctified!<a id="k38b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k39a_1:" Lit., 'a man does not utter his words idly'. Even though, taken in their literal sense, his words are meaningless. So here, if he declares his slave sanctified, since the person of the slave cannot be sanctified, we take it to mean that his money value is sanctified in the first instance, v, 'Ar. 5a."
,k39a_2:" Because, since he cannot sanctify himself, we suppose the man to mean that he sanctifies his money value."
,k39a_3:" Who say that the words 'I sanctify So-and-so' actually mean, 'I sanctify the purchase price of his person,' I.e. the price which he may fetch when sold as a slave."
,k39a_4:" Surely the freeman cannot be sold as slave."
,k39a_5:" As to the rule where one sanctifies his slave."
,k39a_6:" Sanh. 15a"
,k39a_7:" The technical word for applying holy things to secular purposes."
,k39a_8:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k39a_9:" For his money value, contrary to the opinion of Rab."
,k39a_10:" <i>Me'ilah</i> could not be committed against fixed property; v. Me'i, 18b."
,k39a_11:" As to whether hair that is ripe for cutting is to be regarded as cut."
,k39a_12:" I.e., though still attached to the soil, they are subject to the rule of movable and not of fixed property."
,k39a_13:" That he was not responsible for the other five,"
,k39a_14:" In the case of landed property, an oath was not required of the defendant who admitted part of the claim; v. Shebu. 42b."
,k39a_15:" That something ready to be done is regarded as already done."
,k39a_16:" That if a man declares his slave common property, he goes free."
,k39a_17:" And if so, why was he so surprised?"
,k39a_18:" He merely reported Rab's ruling as reported by R. Joseph and not the whole of it as reported by R. Hiyya b. Abin, <i>supra</i> 38b."
,k39a_19:" Lit., 'plunder'."
,k39a_20:" If a proselyte dies without (Jewish) issue, any Israelite may seize his property and become his heir."
,k39a_21:" I.e., they are allowed to marry Jewesses."
,k39a_22:" Kid. 232."
,k39a_23:" Which is required according to R. Johanan."
,k39a_24:" I.e., becomes free to marry again."
,k39a_25:" That the slaves whom he leaves behind should become free."
,k39a_26:" Lev. XXV, 46."
,k39a_27:" Because the sons never have been his owners."
,k39a_28:" To enable him to marry either a slave woman or a Jewess; having been declared common property he is deemed partly free, yet he needs a deed of emancipation to complete his freedom, which deed however cannot be made out for him by the heirs, since they have never been his owners. V. <i>infra</i> 402."
,k39a_29:" That the grown-up slaves become free, but not the child-slaves. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of R. Meir, who holds that when a man says a thing he must mean something by it<a id="k39a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; That this view is probably correct is shown by the succeeding clause: Similarly if a man sanctifies himself he maintains himself from his own labour, since he has sanctified only his money value. Now if you say that this follows R. Meir, there is no difficulty.<a id="k39a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say it follows the Rabbis,<a id="k39a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; we can indeed understand [the rule] in reference to the slave, because he has a purchase price, but has the man himself a purchase price?<a id="k39a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	May we say that the same difference<a id="k39a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is found between Tannaim [in the following passage]:<a id="k39a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man sanctifies his slave, then making use of him does not constitute <i>me'ilah</i> [trespass].<a id="k39a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Use of his hair constitutes trespass.<a id="k39a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now is not the point at issue between the two authorities this, that one holds that the slave is sanctified and the other that he is not? &mdash; Do you really think so? Why then the expressions, 'constitutes trespass' and 'does not constitute trespass'? It should be, 'he is sanctified' and 'he is not sanctified'? No. Both hold that he is sanctified,<a id="k39a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the point at issue here is that the one puts him in the same class with fixed property and the other with movable property.<a id="k39a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so, while they differ with regard to his hair should they not differ with regard to his whole body? &mdash; The truth is, both hold that a slave is in the same category as fixed property, and they differ here in respect of his hair which is ready for cutting, the one holding that such hair is regarded as already cut, and the other that it is not.
</p><p>
	Shall we say that the difference between these Tannaim<a id="k39a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is the same as the difference between these other Tannaim, as we have learnt: R. Meir says, There are certain things which both are and are not in the same category as fixed property,<a id="k39a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages do not agree with him. For instance, if a man says, I entrusted to you ten vines laden with fruit, and the other says, There were only five, R. Meir requires him to take an oath,<a id="k39a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages say that anything attached to the soil is in the same category as the soil.<a id="k39a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And [commenting on this] R. Jose son of R. Haninah said that the practical difference between them arose in the case of grapes which were ripe for gathering, R. Meir holding that they were regarded as already gathered and the Rabbis that they were not so regarded? &mdash; You may even say that R. Meir [does not differ in the case of the hair]. For R. Meir would apply this principle<a id="k39a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; only to the case of grapes which would spoil by being left, but not to hair which improves the longer it is left.
</p><p>
	When R. Hiyya b. Joseph went up [to Palestine], he reported this dictum<a id="k39a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of Rab to R. Johanan. Said the latter: Did Rab really say that? But did not R. Johanan himself say the same?<a id="k39a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Has not 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but he requires a deed of emancipation? &mdash; What R. Johanan meant was, Did Rab really take the same view as I [take]? Others report that [R. Hiyya] did not give him the whole of Rab's statement,<a id="k39a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and he said to him, And did not Rab say that he requires a deed of emancipation? In this R. Johanan would be consistent, since 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but he requires a deed of emancipation.
</p><p>
	The text above [stated]: 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but requires a deed of emancipation.' R. Abba raised the following objection against 'Ulla: 'If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites seize<a id="k39a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; his property,<a id="k39a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; if there are slaves included in it, whether grown up or not grown up, they become their own masters as free men. Abba Saul. however, says that the grown-ups become their own masters as free men<a id="k39a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but the minors become the property of whoever first seizes them.'<a id="k39a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Now who has written a deed of emancipation for these?<a id="k39a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla replied: This Rabbi seems to imagine that people do not study the law. But what after all is the reason [why the slaves require no deed of emancipation]? &mdash; R. Nahman replied: 'Ulla was of opinion that the slave of a proselyte comes under the same rule as his wife. Just as his wife is liberated<a id="k39a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [after his death] without a Get, so his slave is liberated without a deed of emancipation. But if that is so, the same rule<a id="k39a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; should apply to an Israelite? &mdash; Scripture says, And ye shall make them (Canaanitish slaves) an inheritance for your children after you to hold for a possession.<a id="k39a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, then if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, the slave should also [not require a deed of emancipation].<a id="k39a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it then that Amemar has said that if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave?<a id="k39a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This saying] of Amemar is indeed a difficulty.
</p><p>
	R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The <i>halachah</i> follows Abba Saul.<a id="k39a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera asked R. Jacob b. Idi:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k39b_1:" This is equivalent to saying, 'I declare him common property."
,k39b_2:" To enable him to marry, cf. n. 5."
,k39b_3:" V. <i>Infra</i> 41b."
,k39b_4:" Even if the husband declared her common property."
,k39b_5:" Viz., the prohibition of marrying."
,k39b_6:" Hence Rabbi must have been speaking of grown-up slaves who can acquire their own persons (v. <i>supra</i>) and, as soon as they are declared common property by the owner, cease to be his possession. In their case, the deed affects only a prohibition in that it permits them to marry a Jewess. In the case of minors, however, upon whose persons the owner still retains his claim even after having declared them common property, the deed affects money matters, and to such a deed Rabbi was not referring, it not being like that of the woman. Consequently the prohibition of marrying does not apply to children."
,k39b_7:" Who is liberated by the death of his master."
,k39b_8:" <i>Supra</i> 38b. This shows that money payment is also effective."
,k39b_9:" Of the man who declares his slave common property."
,k39b_10:" Hence there is no-one from whom the slave can purchase his freedom and his only remedy is through a document."
,k39b_11:" The reference is to a female slave who is half emancipated and betrothed to a Hebrew slave. The question under discussion is, if some other person has intercourse with her after she has been redeemed by a money payment but before she has received a deed of emancipation, is he to suffer the death penalty for having violated a free woman who is betrothed, or is he merely to bring a guilt-offering in accordance with the rule laid down in Lev. XIX, 20."
,k39b_12:" Lev. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k39b_13:" Lit., 'the whole section is closely linked with.'"
,k39b_14:" The verse runs: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed nor freedom given her, they shall be punished, they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. The words 'not at all redeemed' (lit., 'redeemed she was not redeemed') are interpreted to mean, 'she was redeemed and yet not redeemed,' i.e., redeemed with money but not with a document."
,k39b_15:" As much as to say, she has not the status of a free woman until she receives her deed of emancipation."
,k39b_16:" In which R. Nahman decided that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Simeon."
,k39b_17:" His intention was to transfer her to herself by means of a <i>kinyan</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) of which the cap was the symbol."
,k39b_18:" That a deed is necessary in such a case to enable her to marry an Israelite."
,k39b_19:" And the rule is that to make the <i>kinyan</i> valid, the article must belong to the transferee, v. B.M. 47b."
,k39b_20:" The mention of R. Ashi in this connection is very strange. "
}

txt:
<p>
Did you actually hear this [from R. Joshua], or do you infer it [from something he said]? &mdash; Infer it from what? [he replied]. &mdash; From the following statement of R. Joshua b. Levi: 'They put the following question to Rabbi: If a man says, I give up hope of recovering my slave So-and-so,<a id="k39b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; what [is the status of the latter]? Rabbi said to them, In my view he has no remedy<a id="k39b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; save through a deed [of emancipation].' Referring to this R. Johanan said: What was Rabbi's reason? He laid stress on the occurrence of the word 'to her' [in the Scripture] in connection both with a slave and a wife,<a id="k39b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and drew the lesson that just as a woman requires a document [a Get] [to enable her to marry],<a id="k39b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so does a slave [who has been declared public property]. Now, [continued R. Zera] I assume that you draw [from Rabbi's statement the inference that] just as the woman [is released (by the deed) from] a ritual prohibition<a id="k39b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and not a monetary obligation, so the slave [is one who is released from] a ritual prohibition and not [from] a monetary obligation.<a id="k39b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [R. Jacob replied:] Suppose I have only made an inference, what [difference does it make]? &mdash; He replied: On the contrary, you can draw just the opposite inference: Just as the woman can be either a grown-up or a child, so the slave<a id="k39b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; can be either a grown-up or a child. [R. Jacob then] said to him: I heard it distinctly [from R. Joshua b. Levi].
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba, however, said in the name of R. Johanan that the <i>halachah</i> does not follow Abba Saul. Said R. Zera to R. Hiyya b. Abba: Did you actually hear this [from R. Johanan], or do you infer it [from something you heard]? &mdash; Infer it from what? [he said.] &mdash; From the following statement of R. Joshua b. Levi: 'The following question was put to Rabbi: If a man says, I give up hope of recovering my slave So-and-so, what [is the status of the latter]? Rabbi said to them: In my view he has no remedy save through a deed of emancipation. Referring to this R. Johanan said: What was Rabbi's reason? He laid stress on the occurrence in the Scripture of the words 'to her' in connection [both with a slave] and with a wife, drawing the lesson that just as a [divorced] wife requires a document [to enable her to marry], so does a slave [who has been declared public property].' Now [continued R. Zera], I assume that you draw from Rabbi's statement the inference that just as the wife may be either grown-up or not grown-up, so the slave may be either grown-up or not grown-up. [R. Hiyya replied:] Suppose I have only made an inference, what [difference does it make]? &mdash; He replied: On the contrary, you can draw just the opposite inference: just as the woman is [released from] a ritual prohibition and not a monetary obligation, so the slave is one who is [released from] a ritual prohibition and not a monetary obligation. R. Hiyya then said: I heard it distinctly [from R. Johanan].
</p><p>
	The Master said: '[Rabbi] said to them, In my view he has no remedy save through a deed of emancipation.' But has it not been taught: 'Rabbi says, The slave can also offer his own purchase price and so liberate himself, because the treasurer [of the sanctuary] as it were sells him to himself'?<a id="k39b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What he meant was this: [A liberated slave can become enabled to marry] either by ransoming himself or by obtaining a deed of emancipation; and in this case<a id="k39b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the ownership has ceased.<a id="k39b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi thus rejects the view of the following Tanna. It has been taught, namely: R. Simeon says in the name of R. Akiba, May we presume that money payment completes her emancipation in the same way as a deed completes her emancipation?<a id="k39b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [This cannot be,] since it says, and she be not at all redeemed.<a id="k39b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The keywords of the whole section<a id="k39b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are because she was not free.<a id="k39b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that a document completes her emancipation, but not a money payment.<a id="k39b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> [in this matter] follows R. Simeon, and R. Joseph b. Hama said in the name of R. Johanan that the <i>halachah</i> does not follow R. Simeon. R. Nahman b. Isaac once came across Raba b. She'ilta as he was standing at the entrance of the synagogue, and said to him, Does the <i>halachah</i> follow R. Simeon or does it not? &mdash; He replied, I say that it does not, but the Rabbis who have come from Mahuza report that R. Zera said in the name of R. Nahman that it does. When I was in Sura I came across R. Hiyya b. Abin and said to him, Tell me now what were the essential facts of the case.<a id="k39b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to me: There was a certain female slave whose master was at the point of death. So she came crying to him and saying, How long am I to go on being a slave? He thereupon took his cap and threw it to her saying, Go and acquire this and acquire yourself with it.<a id="k39b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; The case was brought before R. Nahman and he said, His action was null and void. Those who were present thought that R. Nahman's reason for his decision was that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Simeon,<a id="k39b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but this is not correct; his reason was that the man used an article belonging to the transferor.<a id="k39b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Ahithai said in the name of R. Hamnuna the Elder, who said it in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said it in the name of R. Huna who said it in the name of R. Hamnuna: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Simeon. This, however, is not correct; the <i>halachah</i> does not follow R. Simeon.
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in the name of R. Hanina who said it in the name of R. Ashi;<a id="k39b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi said, If a slave marries a free woman in the presence of his master,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k40a_1:" Because we assume that if the master had not emancipated him he would not allow him to do this."
,k40a_2:" That Rabbi said this."
,k40a_3:" 'Behold thou art betrothed to me.'"
,k40a_4:" Because we do not assume that he has emancipated her. The Sages here would include Rabbi."
,k40a_5:" <i>Infra</i>."
,k40a_6:" As in this case there can be no doubt that he has emancipated him."
,k40a_7:" Viz., his marrying his female slave before making out for her a deed of emancipation."
,k40a_8:" Where, however, he says merely 'Be betrothed' it is assumed that he had emancipated her already."
,k40a_9:" The master would not have conferred upon him this dignity had he not already emancipated him."
,k40a_10:" I.e., the expression, 'do not use her as a slave,' only means that they should not make her work too hard, not that she should be freed."
,k40a_11:" Even to the point of emancipating her."
,k40a_12:" To enable him to marry either a free woman or a slave. [According to Tosaf., however, he may still marry a slave. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k40a_13:" To marry a Jewess, which remains in force until the slave obtains a deed of emancipation."
,k40a_14:" Whether sanctified or declared common property. V. <i>supra</i> 38b, 39a."
,k40a_15:" Viz., that the heirs can be compelled to write a deed of emancipation, though they could claim to no ownership of the body of the slave in view of the father's instructions. V. <i>supra</i>."
,k40a_16:" As shown by R. Ammi and R. Assi <i>supra</i>."
,k40a_17:" According to whose version of R. Johanan's ruling, the heirs can use their own judgment."
,k40a_18:" To make them eligible for marrying Jewesses."
,k40a_19:" And so here, though the first masters declared them free as far as they were concerned, the heirs can nevertheless write them a deed of emancipation."
,k40a_20:" Lit., 'cause me to lose him', i.e., to allow him to purchase the other half of himself from me."
,k40a_21:" Obad. I, 15."
,k40a_22:" Lit., 'is attracted to'. "
}

txt:
<p>
he automatically becomes a free man.<a id="k40a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Johanan to him: Are you really sure of that?<a id="k40a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What I have learnt is, if a man writes a deed of betrothal<a id="k40a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for his female slave, R. Meir says that she becomes betrothed and the Sages say that she is not betrothed.<a id="k40a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The explanation is similar to that given by Rabbah son of R. Shilah, who said [in an analogous case], 'When his master puts the phylacteries on him.'<a id="k40a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; So here, the slave becomes free when the master actually gives him a wife.<a id="k40a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But is it possible that there can be an action involving a breach of the law which a man would not allow to be done on behalf of his slave but would perform on his own behalf?<a id="k40a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said; We are assuming here that in giving her the deed of betrothal] he says, Become free with this and be betrothed with this.<a id="k40a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir held that this expression ['be betrothed'] includes emancipation, and the Rabbis held that it does not include emancipation.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a servant puts on phylacteries in the presence of his master, he becomes a free man. An objection was raised; 'If his master borrows [money] from his slave, or if his master appoints him administrator of his affairs, or if he puts on phylacteries in the presence of his master, or if he reads three verses in his presence in the synagogue, he does not [thereby] become a free man'? &mdash; Rabbah son of R. Shila explained that [R. Joshua b. Levi was speaking of the case] where his master [himself] put the phylacteries on him.<a id="k40a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported [the following ruling] in the name of R. Johanan: If a man when on the point of death says, I do not want my female slave So-and-so to be used as a slave after my death, the heirs can be compelled to make out for her a deed of emancipation. R. Ammi and R. Assi [expostulated with him] saying, Do you not admit that her children will be slaves?<a id="k40a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man when on the point of death says, My female slave So-and-so has given me great satisfaction, let something be done to satisfy her, the heirs may be compelled to satisfy her.<a id="k40a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason is that it is a religious duty to carry out the wishes of the deceased.
</p><p>
	Amemar said: If a man declares his slave common property, nothing can be done for the slave.<a id="k40a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Why so? Because he no longer possesses his body, but he is still bound by the prohibition,<a id="k40a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and this he cannot transfer to him. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But has not 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan and R. Hiyya b. Abin in the name of Rab, In either case<a id="k40a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; he becomes a free man and requires a deed of emancipation? &mdash; He replied: He requires one, but nothing can be done for him.
</p><p>
	According to another version, Amemar said: If a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave. Why so? Because he no longer owns his body, but he is still bound by the prohibition, and this he cannot bequeath to his son. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But when R. Dimi came he reported a ruling of R. Johanan [which conflicts with this]?<a id="k40a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Dimi's statement was erroneous.<a id="k40a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Where, he rejoined, was the error? That the man did not say distinctly that the slave should be emancipated? But if he had done so, then they would have had to write her a deed of emancipation, [would they not]? &mdash; Said Amemar: I hold with R. Samuel b. Judah.<a id="k40a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain settlement of slaves was sold [by their Jewish masters] to heathens. When the second masters died, they applied to Rabina,<a id="k40a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and he said to them, Go and find the sons of your first masters, and they will write you out deeds of emancipation. The Rabbis expostulated with Rabina, saying, Has not Amemar laid down that if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave? &mdash; He replied: I adopt the view of R. Dimi. But, they said to him, R. Dimi's statement was erroneous! &mdash; He replied: What was the mistake? That the man did not say distinctly that the slave should be emancipated. But if he had said so, the heirs would have had to emancipate her, [would they not]?<a id="k40a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The law is as stated by Rabina.
</p><p>
	A certain slave was owned by two men [in partnership], and one of them emancipated his half. The other thereupon thought to himself: If the Rabbis hear of this, they will force me to give him up.<a id="k40a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; So he went and transferred him to his son who was still under age. R. Joseph the son of Raba submitted the case to R. Papa. He sent him back answer: As he has done so it shall be done to him; his dealing shall return upon his own head.<a id="k40a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; We all know that a child is fond of<a id="k40a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; money. We shall therefore appoint for him a guardian,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k40b_1:" A minor could not be compelled to emancipate his slaves, nor could his guardian do so for him. On the other hand, a minor was competent to sell movables. Hence if the slave could induce him to sell to him his half, well and good, and the function of the guardian was only to see that he obtained a fair price. According to Tosaf., the deed is made out in the name of the guardian. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k40b_2:" Along with the deed of emancipation in which these words are written."
,k40b_3:" Because this is only a promise that he will liberate him subsequently by means of another deed."
,k40b_4:" But if it is merely a verbal declaration, the master can retract."
,k40b_5:" <i>Var. lec</i>.; Rabbi."
,k40b_6:" Without the slave's knowledge. In such a case the slave would be liberated on the principle that a benefit may be conferred on a man without his knowledge."
,k40b_7:" Who puts it on one side till the 'coming of Elijah', i.e., till the truth of matter is ascertained."
,k40b_8:" We accept the disclaimer of the man who is alleged to have received the gift, but not of his son, as witnesses may still be found to prove that the gift was actually made."
,k40b_9:" [H] [G]."
,k40b_10:" Lit., 'for the better ordering of the world'."
,k40b_11:" The whole of this Mishnah is explained in the Gemara."
,k40b_12:" If a man pledges an animal as security and then devotes it for a sacrifice."
,k40b_13:" If a man borrows from a Gentile on the security of leaven and the Passover intervenes, rendering the leaven forbidden for use."
,k40b_14:" V. B.K. 90a. "
}

txt:
<p>
and [the slave] will rattle some coins before the child, and [the guardian] will write out a deed of emancipation for the slave in his name.<a id="k40b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If a man says, 'I have made my slave So-and-so free', 'he is hereby declared free', 'I declare him free,' then he becomes a free man. [If he says,] 'I shall make him free,' Rabbi says that he acquires possession [of himself],<a id="k40b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages say that he does not.<a id="k40b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan explained that in every case we suppose a deed to have been made out.<a id="k40b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If a man says, 'I have given such-and-such a field to So-and-so'; 'It is presented to So-and-so'; 'I declare it to be his,' then it is his. If he says, 'I shall give it to So-and-so,' R. Meir<a id="k40b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; says that he acquires ownership of it, but the Sages say that he does not acquire ownership. R. Johanan explained that in every case we suppose a deed to have been given.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If a man says, 'I have made my slave So-and-so free,' and the slave says, 'You have not freed me', we take into account the possibility that he has presented him a deed of emancipation through a third party.<a id="k40b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, the master says, 'I have written and given to him,' and he says, 'He has not written for me nor given to me,' this is a case where the admission of the litigant is worth the evidence of a hundred witnesses. If a man says, 'I have given such-and-such a field to So-and-so', and the latter says, 'He has not given it to me,' we take into account the possibility that he may have presented it to him through a third party. If he says, 'I have written [a deed] and presented it to him,' and the other says, 'He has not written nor presented to me,' then in that case the admission of the litigant is worth the evidence of a hundred witnesses. [In such a case] who is entitled to the produce? &mdash; R. Hisda says the donor is entitled to the produce, whereas Rabbah says that the produce is entrusted to a third party.<a id="k40b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no conflict between the two rulings; the one applies to the father, the other to the son.<a id="k40b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN MAKES HIS SLAVE SECURITY<a id="k40b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [FOR A DEBT] TO ANOTHER MAN AND HE EMANCIPATES HIM, IN STRICT JUSTICE THE SLAVE IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANYTHING, BUT TO PREVENT ABUSES<a id="k40b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MASTER IS COMPELLED TO EMANCIPATE HIM. AND HE GIVES A BOND FOR HIS PURCHASE PRICE. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT GIVE A BOND BUT HE EMANCIPATES HIM.<a id="k40b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. IF A MAN MAKES HIS SLAVE SECURITY FOR A DEBT AND HE EMANCIPATES HIM. Who emancipates him? &mdash; Rab says, his first master. In strict justice the slave is then not liable for anything to his second master, according to the dictum of Raba, that 'sanctification,<a id="k40b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; leaven,<a id="k40b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and emancipation release from a creditor's lien.'<a id="k40b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; To prevent abuses, however, [that is to say, for fear] lest he should find him in the street
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k41a_1:" And so defame his children."
,k41a_2:" To compensate him for the loss of his security."
,k41a_3:" R. Simeon."
,k41a_4:" V. B.K. 33b."
,k41a_5:" I.e., lest he should marry a Jewess while in this state."
,k41a_6:" In so far as this is in excess of the debt."
,k41a_7:" Here, the emancipation of the slave, v. <i>infra</i> 53a."
,k41a_8:" R. Simeon."
,k41a_9:" Therefore the second has to give no bond, but the slave must do so in return for the benefit he has received in being emancipated."
,k41a_10:" And the Mishnah says, 'His master is compelled'."
,k41a_11:" Seeing that he was not his master, how could he be said to emancipate him?"
,k41a_12:" So called on account of his beauty (v. n. 7) Rash. Nid. 19b."
,k41a_13:" A play on the word shapir, which means 'beautiful', 'commendable', as also does na'eh."
,k41a_14:" For this reason he cannot recover from any other property."
,k41a_15:" I.e., the debtor can sell this field and let the creditors recover from the rest of his property."
,k41a_16:" And for this reason the husband specially made this field responsible, so that she should not have to go to law with the purchasers of his other fields, not knowing which had bought first and which last."
,k41a_17:" Explained in the Gemara; v. n. 9 and p. 178, n. 9."
,k41a_18:" Lit., 'serves his master one day and himself one day'."
,k41a_19:" And so an Israelite. "
}

txt:
<p>
and say to him 'you are my slave,'<a id="k41a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; his second master is compelled to emancipate him, the slave giving him a bond for his purchase price.<a id="k41a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that it is not the slave but the one who emancipates him who has to give a bond. In regard to what point do the two authorities join issue? &mdash; In regard to the person who injures an object pledged as security to another, one<a id="k41a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; holding that he is liable [to make it good] and the other that he is not liable.<a id="k41a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It has also been stated [elsewhere]: On the question of the man who injures an object which has been pledged as security to another, we find a difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	'Ulla explains [as follows]: Who emancipates him? His second master. In strict justice the slave is still not liable for the performance of religious precepts [incumbent on free men only]. To prevent abuses,<a id="k41a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; however &mdash; since he has been reported to be free &mdash; his first master is compelled to liberate him, and he [the servant] gives him a bond for his purchase price.<a id="k41a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that he does not give the bond, but the one who emancipates him gives the bond. On what point do the two authorities join issue? &mdash; On the question of damage which is not recognisable,<a id="k41a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the one<a id="k41a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; holding [that in the eye of the law] this is genuine damage and the other that it is not.<a id="k41a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why did not 'Ulla accept the explanation of Rab? &mdash; He will say to you, Can you call the second his master?<a id="k41a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did not Rab adopt the explanation of 'Ulla? &mdash; He will say to you, Do you call the second the one who emancipates him?<a id="k41a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man makes a field of his security [for a debt] to another, and it is flooded by a river, Ammi Shapir Na'eh<a id="k41a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; says in the name of R. Johanan that he cannot recover his debt from the remaining property of the debtor. The father of Samuel, however, says that he can recover from the remainder of his property. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Because he is Ammi Shapir Na'eh he makes pronouncements which are not commendable.<a id="k41a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But we must explain his reported ruling to refer to the case where the debtor has said to the creditor: 'You shall not be able to recover save from this'.<a id="k41a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught to the same effect: If a man makes a field of his security for a debt to another and it is flooded by a river, [the creditor] may recover from the remainder of his property. If, however, he said to him, 'You shall not be able to recover save from this', he cannot recover from the remainder of his property. Another [Baraitha] taught: If a man makes his field security for a debt to his creditor or for a woman's <i>kethubah</i>, they may recover from the remainder of his property.<a id="k41a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that [while] a creditor may so recover a woman cannot recover from the remainder, because it is not seemly for a woman to keep on coming to court.<a id="k41a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF FREE<a id="k41a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; WORKS FOR HIS MASTER AND FOR HIMSELF ALTERNATE DAYS.<a id="k41a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS WAS THE RULING OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI SAID: YOU HAVE MADE MATTERS RIGHT FOR THE MASTER BUT NOT FOR THE SLAVE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MARRY A FEMALE SLAVE BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY HALF FREE.<a id="k41a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k41b_1:" And so not an Israelite."
,k41b_2:" Lit., 'shall he abstain'."
,k41b_3:" Isa. XLV, 18."
,k41b_4:" Lit., 'for the better ordering of the world'."
,k41b_5:" He says 'I emancipate half of you'."
,k41b_6:" Lev. XIX, 20."
,k41b_7:" Applying the word 'redeemed' to emancipation for money payment and freedom' to emancipation by deed and drawing an analogy (hekkesh) between the two."
,k41b_8:" As derived <i>infra</i> from the same verse."
,k41b_9:" Nor freedom given to her (lah) (Lev. XIX, 20), and And he write for her (lah) (Deut. XXIV, 1). The inference is drawn on the strength of the hermeneutical rule called <i>gezerah shawah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k41b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k41b_11:" Because the inference in this case is either based on a redundancy in the text or else on a very ancient tradition."
,k41b_12:" That there is no half-liberation by means of a deed."
,k41b_13:" Lit., 'speaking in the language of human beings.' i.e., using the words 'redeemed she was not redeemed,' to mean simply, 'she was not at all redeemed,' so that we cannot learn from these words that half-emancipation can be obtained by money payment."
,k41b_14:" Who said that the Rabbis do not admit half-emancipation even with money payment."
,k41b_15:" Lit., 'to show the strength of Rabbi'. Namely, even to the extent of ignoring the <i>gezerah shawah</i> which points in the other direction."
,k41b_16:" Even to the extent of ignoring the analogy which points in the other direction."
,k41b_17:" Here, the permission of the slave to emancipate half of himself, whereas the strength of the Rabbis' conviction leads them to prohibit him."
,k41b_18:" That a slave can be half emancipated."
,k41b_19:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k41b_20:" Because there is no half-liberation by a deed for a wife."
,k41b_21:" I.e., after the first half of his statement, that Rabbi dues nut admit half emancipation with a deed, had been refuted, but he had defended the other half, that the Rabbis did not admit it for money."
,k41b_22:" Who also said, according to the revised opinion, that half-emancipation could be effected either with a deed or with money."
,k41b_23:" Who said that according tithe Rabbis there is no half-emancipation by deed."
,k41b_24:" Which states that money effects half-emancipation."
,k41b_25:" Which states that even a deed effects half-emancipation."
,k41b_26:" And not the Rabbis who do not admit half-emancipation by deed."
,k41b_27:" Rabbi holding that the slave obtains half-emancipation in both cases."
,k41b_28:" According to whom the Rabbis hold that there is no half-emancipation whether by money or by deed. "
}

txt:
<p>
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MARRY A FREE WOMAN BECAUSE HE IS HALF A SLAVE.<a id="k41b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; SHALL HE THEN REMAIN UNMARRIED?<a id="k41b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT WAS NOT THE WORLD ONLY MADE TO BE POPULATED, AS IT SAYS, HE CREATED IT NOT A WASTE, HE FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED?<a id="k41b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; TO PREVENT ABUSES,<a id="k41b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; THEREFORE, HIS MASTER IS COMPELLED TO LIBERATE HIM AND HE GIVES HIM A BOND FOR HALF HIS PURCHASE PRICE. BETH HILLEL THEREUPON RETRACTED [THEIR OPINION AND] RULED LIKE BETH SHAMMAI.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: If a man emancipates half his slave,<a id="k41b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi says that the latter becomes his own master to that extent, and the Rabbis say that he does not. Rabbah says: The dispute [between them relates only to the case] where [the master has made out] a deed of emancipation. Rabbi holds, [since it says] And she be not at all redeemed nor freedom given her,<a id="k41b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; we apply the same rule to a deed as to money.<a id="k41b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as with money the slave can acquire either the half or the whole of himself,<a id="k41b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; so with a deed, he can acquire either the half or the whole of himself. The Rabbis, however, base their ruling on the occurrence of the word 'to her' [in connection both with a female slave] and with a [divorced] wife.<a id="k41b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as a wife cannot be divorced by halves, so a slave cannot acquire himself by halves. With money, however, both agree that he can so acquire himself. May we say that the point at issue between them [Rabbi and the Rabbis] is this, that [where a ruling may be based either on an analogy or a <i>gezerah shawah</i>]<a id="k41b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; one holds that preference is to be given to the analogy and the latter to the <i>gezerah shawah</i>? &mdash; No; both agree that preference is to be given to the <i>gezerah shawah</i>,<a id="k41b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but there is a special reason [for not doing so here, because the validity of the <i>gezerah shawah</i>] may be questioned thus: [This rule<a id="k41b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; may well apply to] a woman since she cannot be liberated by money, but how infer from her to a slave who is liberated by money?
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said that [the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis is where] the half-emancipation is made for money payment. Rabbi holds that the words 'redeeming she is not redeemed' indicate that she is [half] redeemed but not [wholly] redeemed, whereas the Rabbis hold that the Torah was here using an ordinary form of speech.<a id="k41b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Where, however, [the half-emancipation is made by] a deed, both [according to R. Joseph] agree that the slave does not acquire [that half of himself].
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [from the following]: if a man emancipates half his slave with a deed, Rabbi says that the slave acquires that half of himself, while the Rabbis say that he does not acquire it. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? &mdash; It is. [And I infer from this Baraitha] that Rabbi and the Rabbis differ only where the emancipation is effected by a deed, but where it is effected by money payment they do not differ; in which case there will be a double refutation of R. Joseph?<a id="k41b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Joseph may reply: [What the Baraitha shows is] that they differ in regard to a deed, and this applies also to money payment; and the reason why their difference is mentioned only in regard to a deed is to show to what lengths Rabbi is prepared to go.<a id="k41b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should not their difference be mentioned with reference to money payment to show to what lengths the Rabbis are prepared to go?<a id="k41b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It prefers [to note] the strength [of this conviction] where it leads to a permission.<a id="k41b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'And redeemed': I might take this to mean 'entirely [redeemed]', therefore it says, 'she was not redeemed'. If 'she was not redeemed,' I might think it means 'not at all'? Therefore it says, 'And redeemed'. How then do we explain? She is redeemed and yet not redeemed, with money or with the equivalent of money. I only know so far that this is the case<a id="k41b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; with money [payment]; how do know that it is so with a deed? It says, 'And redeemed she was not redeemed, nor was her freedom given to her,' and in another place it says, And he shall write for her a bill of divorcement.<a id="k41b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as there the woman is liberated by a deed, so here. I only know so far that a half-emancipation [can be effected] by money or a full one<a id="k41b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; by a deed. How do I know that a half-emancipation [can be effected] by a deed? It says, 'And redeemed she be not redeemed or her freedom be not given to her.' The deed is here put on the same footing as money payment, [whence I conclude that] just as with money either a half or a full emancipation [can be effected], so with a deed. Now there is no difficulty here if we accept the view of R. Joseph after he was refuted:<a id="k41b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; this [Baraitha] agrees with Rabbi.<a id="k41b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view of Rabbah<a id="k41b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; we must say that the first half<a id="k41b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; agrees with all and the second<a id="k41b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; only with Rabbi?<a id="k41b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To which Rabbah replies: That is so: the first half agrees with all and the second is according to Rabbi [only]. R. Ashi said: It follows Rabbi [throughout].<a id="k41b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But then, what of the Mishnah, which says, ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF FREE? This presents no difficulty on the view of Rabbah, because he can suppose it to refer to [one who has been emancipated] by money payment, and it represents the view of all, but on the view of R. Joseph<a id="k41b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; are we to say that it represents the view of Rabbi and not of the Rabbis? &mdash; Rabina replied:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k42a_1:" And even the Rabbis would admit that one of them can liberate the half belonging to him, since, as far as he is concerned, this is a complete liberation, analogous to that if a wife."
,k42a_2:" At the same time as or just before he liberates him."
,k42a_3:" By means of two deeds which he gives to a messenger on their behalf at the same time, so that each is entitled to a half."
,k42a_4:" I.e., each emancipates the half of the other which he has acquired."
,k42a_5:" Who says that a slave is emancipated by halves."
,k42a_6:" In which case even the Rabbis admit that they acquire ownership, because, as they are both liberated at once, they emerge completely from his ownership."
,k42a_7:" In which case they do not emerge from his ownership, even if he presented both of the deeds at the same moment, because it is possible that he assigns the same half of his property to both, and so half of each of them is still left enslaved."
,k42a_8:" In which case they are not liberated, just as two women cannot become divorced with one Get."
,k42a_9:" Because two slaves cannot be emancipated with one deed."
,k42a_10:" Because they do not emerge completely from the ownership of the master."
,k42a_11:" In both cases the whole being assigned to both."
,k42a_12:" R. Ashi seeks to reconcile the two authorities cited above."
,k42a_13:" In the deed they are designated as slaves, hence it is to be assumed that it was not his intention to liberate them but merely to make them a present of his property, which, however, as slaves they are not competent to acquire."
,k42a_14:" Since we do not know which fraction was excepted, the slave acquires no land, and since he acquires no land he does not acquire himself, since we cannot divide the assignment of himself from the assignment of the land, v. <i>supra</i> p. 30."
,k42a_15:" R. Simeon holds that we can in this case divide the assignments, but we do not know whether the ten-thousandth part does not refer to the slave himself."
,k42a_16:" Lit., 'acquire'."
,k42a_17:" The so-called 'damage' (nezek), the depreciation in his money value."
,k42a_18:" Of thirty pieces of silver, according to Ex. XXI, 32. "
}

txt:
<p>
The Mishnah [according to R. Joseph] is speaking of a slave belonging to two partners.<a id="k42a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah says: The dispute [between Rabbi and the Rabbis] concerns the case where [the master] liberates the half of the slave and keeps the other half, but if he liberates one half and sells the other half or makes a gift of it to someone<a id="k42a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; since, the slave emerges completely from his ownership, both Rabbi and the Rabbis would agree that he acquires [the half of himself]. Said Abaye to him: And do they not differ even [where the master parts] with the whole? Has not one [authority] taught: 'If a man assigns in writing his property to two of his slaves,<a id="k42a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; they acquire ownership and emancipate one another,'<a id="k42a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; while it has been taught by another, If a man says, 'All my property is made over to my slaves So-and-so and So-and-so', they do not acquire ownership even of themselves? Now are we not to say that the one [authority]<a id="k42a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; concurs with Rabbi and the other with the Rabbis? &mdash; No; both concur with the Rabbis, [only] the one [refers to the case] where [the man] assigned the whole [of his property to both slaves],<a id="k42a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other [refers to the case] where he says half [to one and] half [to the other].<a id="k42a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But the second clause goes on: 'If he says, half [to one] and half [to the other] they do not acquire ownership.' Does not this show that the first clause refers to the case where he says 'the whole'? &mdash; This second clause explains the first, [thus:] 'They do not acquire ownership even of themselves. When is this so? If, for instance, he says, half [to one] and half [to the other].' This supposition is reasonable, since if we assume the first clause [to refer to the case] where he says 'the whole', seeing that where he says 'the whole they do not acquire ownership, is it necessary [to tell us that they do not do so] where he says 'half and half'? &mdash; This is not a conclusive argument. [It may be that] the second clause was put in to make clear [the reference in] the first: lest you might think that the first clause [refers to] where he said half [to one] and half [to the other], leaving us to infer that where he said 'the whole' they acquire ownership, he adds in the second clause, 'where he says half and half,' which shows that the first clause [speaks of the case] where he says 'the whole,' and even so they do not acquire ownership. Or if you like I can say that there is no contradiction, as the one authority is speaking of one document<a id="k42a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other of two documents. [If he is speaking of] one document, what is the point of 'half [to one] and half [to the other]'? Even if he said, '[Let each take] the whole,' they do not acquire ownership?<a id="k42a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This in fact is what he does say, [as what he means is:] 'They do not acquire even themselves. When do we say this? [When he makes out] only one deed. If, however, [he makes out] two deeds, they do acquire ownership. And if he says half [to one] and half [to the other], even with two deeds they do not acquire ownership.'<a id="k42a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If you like again I can say that there is no contradiction; in the one case [the two deeds] are given at one and the same time, in the other case one after the other.<a id="k42a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [If that is so], I can understand why the second does not acquire ownership, because the first has already become his owner; but why does not the first acquire both himself and the other? No; the best [solutions are] those which were given first. R. Ashi said:<a id="k42a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The case is different there, because he calls them 'my slaves'.<a id="k42a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rafram to R. Ashi: perhaps he means, 'who were my slaves'? Have we not learnt: If a man assigns in writing all his property to his slave, the latter becomes free; if he excepts a piece of land however small, he does not become free.<a id="k42a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon says: He becomes free in all cases unless the master says, 'The whole of my property is assigned to my slave So-and-so except one ten-thousandth part thereof'?<a id="k42a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the reason for this is that he added these words, otherwise he would be free.<a id="k42a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But [it may be asked], why, seeing that he calls him 'my slave'? Obviously he means, 'who was hitherto my slave'; so here he means, 'who were hitherto my slaves'.
</p><p>
	[If a slave who is half-emancipated] is gored by an ox, if it is on a day on which he belongs to the master, the [compensation<a id="k42a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; goes] to the master, if on the day when be belongs to himself, it goes to himself. If that is so, then on his master's day he should be allowed to marry a slave-woman and on his own day a free woman? &mdash; We do not apply this principle where a religious prohibition is involved.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If [an ox] kills one who is half a slave and half free, the owner gives half the fine<a id="k42a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to his master
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k42b_1:" Due to him as a free man, according to Ex. XXI, 30."
,k42b_2:" The Gemara discusses later what heirs a slave can have."
,k42b_3:" I.e., the slave himself."
,k42b_4:" And the division of days no longer applies here."
,k42b_5:" For which the owner of the ox, according to the first passage cited above, pays to the master or to the slave, as the case may be."
,k42b_6:" The larger incapacitation is his depreciation in money value were he to be sold immediately on his injury as slave, technically known as 'nezek' (damage). The smaller incapacitation is the money which, even with his injured hand, he could earn as a watcher in a cucumber field if he were not confined to his bed."
,k42b_7:" That is to say, for the money which he loses through not being able to follow his usual occupation, and not his depreciation in money value, v. B.K. 86a."
,k42b_8:" And not for the kind of compensation mentioned by Raba, which comes only under the head of 'incapacitation'."
,k42b_9:" That on his master's day the money goes to the master and on his own day to himself."
,k42b_10:" Who is liable also for incapacitation. The wording of the first passage will thus have to be amended."
,k42b_11:" And not a Mishnah or Baraitha."
,k42b_12:" Belonging to the classes mentioned above (sanctified, declared common properly, and half free) whose master can be forced to emancipate him but who still requires a deed of emancipation."
,k42b_13:" Ex. XXI, 32."
,k42b_14:" The reference is to the ruling given by Beth Hillel after they had been convinced by Beth Shammai that the master of a half-free slave could be forced to emancipate him, <i>supra</i> 43b."
,k42b_15:" When Beth Hillel said that he could not be forced, and was therefore still master in the full sense of the term. This, however, is not the <i>halachah</i>."
,k42b_16:" As being now a free man, v. Ex. XXI, 26. It is being, however, assumed at the present stage that the slave still needs a deed to complete his emancipation."
,k42b_17:" We must say therefore that as soon as the tooth is knocked out he is no longer a slave, though he has not yet received a deed of emancipation. Hence we infer that a fine need not be paid for him either if he is killed by a goring ox."
,k42b_18:" The Rabbis enumerated twenty-four maimings for the infliction of which by the master the slave obtained his freedom. V. Kid. 242, b."
,k42b_19:" Who precisely these were is not recorded."
,k42b_20:" Ex. XXI, 26, 27."
,k42b_21:" In Kid. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k42b_22:" And not on a par with an express statement of the Torah."
,k42b_23:" Lev. XXII, 11."
,k42b_24:" [Or 'reported'. The passage quoted is actually a Mishnah. This is apparently another example of a ruling of a Tannaitic teaching reported by an Amora which found subsequently its way into the Mishnah, cf. Hoffmann, D. Die Erste Mishnah, pp. 156ff.]"
,k42b_25:" One as a priest and the other as the slave of a priest."
,k42b_26:" The Rabbis ordained that a priest's slave should not collect the <i>terumah</i> from the threshing floor unless his master was with him, for fear that he might himself claim to be a priest."
,k42b_27:" And yet until the deed of emancipation is given the one of them who was a slave could eat the <i>terumah</i>."
,k42b_28:" Who can ascertain the truth of matter."
,k42b_29:" I.e., he sells only his right to receive the thirty <i>shekels</i>, should the slave be gored to death."
,k42b_30:" On the question whether it is possible to transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist."
,k42b_31:" Lit., 'that has not come into the world'. "
}

txt:
<p>
and half the ransom<a id="k42b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to his heirs.<a id="k42b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Why [should this be so]? Let us say that on his master's day [the money goes] to his master and on his own day to himself? &mdash; The case is different here, because the principal<a id="k42b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is consumed &mdash; 4 What sort of case is it then in which the principal is not consumed?<a id="k42b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If, for instance, [the ox] wounded him on his hand, causing it to shrivel, but so that it will eventually be healed. This answer is satisfactory if we accept the view of Abaye, who said that he is compensated [in such circumstances] both for the larger incapacitation and the smaller incapacitation.<a id="k42b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view of Raba who said that he is only compensated for his incapacitation from day to day,<a id="k42b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be objected that] we are dealing with an ox, and an ox [makes the master liable] only for payment of damage?<a id="k42b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say [that this rule<a id="k42b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only] when the blow is given by a man,<a id="k42b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and if you like I can say that the passage above is only an expression of opinion,<a id="k42b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is one with which Raba does not hold.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If an [emancipated] slave<a id="k42b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; has not yet received his deed of emancipation, is a fine to be paid for him or not [if he is killed by a goring ox]? Thirty <i>shekels</i> of silver he shall give to his master<a id="k42b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said the All-Merciful, and this [man] is not his master; or do I say that since the slave is still short of a deed of emancipation, we do call him a master? &mdash; Come and hear: If an ox kills one who is half a slave and half free, the owner gives half the fine to the master and half the ransom to the slave's heirs. Now this is so, is it not, on the basis even of the later teaching?<a id="k42b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; only on the basis of the earlier teaching.<a id="k42b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man knocks out a tooth of his slave and also blinds him of an eye, the slave is liberated on account of the tooth and receives compensation for the eye.<a id="k42b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If now you say that a fine must be paid for him and the fine belongs to his master, seeing that when others injure him they pay the master, when the master himself injures him is he to pay to the slave?<a id="k42b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Perhaps this passage agrees with the authority who says that he does not need a deed of emancipation, since it has been taught: For all these [maimings]<a id="k42b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; a slave is liberated; he requires, however, a deed of emancipation from his master. R. Meir says he does not require one; R. Eliezer says he does require one; R. Tarfon says he does not require one; R. Akiba says he does require one. Those who determine [the issue] in the presence of the Sages<a id="k42b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; say: The opinion of R. Tarfon is to be preferred in the case of a tooth and an eye, because the Torah [itself] conferred on him [his freedom in this case];<a id="k42b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but the opinion of R. Akiba in the case of the other members, because [the liberation] in that case is a fine imposed by the Sages [on the master]. A fine, you call it? They deduce it from the text of the Scripture!<a id="k42b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Let us say, therefore, because it is a deduction of the Sages.<a id="k42b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If a [liberated] slave [of a priest] is still short of a deed of emancipation, may he eat <i>terumah</i> or not? The All-Merciful has laid down that [<i>terumah</i> may be eaten] by [one who is] the purchase of his [the priest's] money,<a id="k42b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and this one is no longer 'the purchase of his money'; or perhaps since he is short of a deed of emancipation do we still call him 'the purchase of his money'? &mdash; Come and hear: R. Mesharsheya has said:<a id="k42b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If the child of a priestess has become interchanged with the child of her female slave, both may eat <i>terumah</i><a id="k42b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and must take their portion together from the threshing floor.<a id="k42b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; When the changelings grow up, they emancipate one another.<a id="k42b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Are these two cases parallel? In the latter case, should Elijah<a id="k42b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; come and declare one of them to be a slave, we should call him 'the purchase of his money'; but in the other case he is not the 'purchase of his money' at all.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If a man sells his slave in respect of the fine only,<a id="k42b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; he sold or not sold? The question is pertinent whether we adopt the view of R. Meir or whether we adopt that of the Rabbis.<a id="k42b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; It is a question for R. Meir, [since we may say that] when R. Meir laid down that a man can transfer something which does not yet exist,<a id="k42b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [he was thinking] for instance of the fruit of a date tree which is expected to come into existence later, but in this case who can tell if the slave will actually be gored? And even if he is gored, how can we tell that the owner of the ox will pay?
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k43a_1:" The rule was that if a man admitted in the <i>Beth din</i> that he was liable to a fine before the evidence was brought against him, he was quit, v. B.K. 74b."
,k43a_2:" This passage is a midrashic exposition of the verse, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he shall eat of it (the <i>terumah</i>); and such as are born in his house, they shall eat of his bread. Lev. XXII, 11."
,k43a_3:" E.g., through being diseased or incapacitated."
,k43a_4:" And if so, how can we speak of 'he purchase of his money' who is worth nothing?"
,k43a_5:" Lit., 'torn' (<i>terefah</i>): a name properly applied to animals which owing to certain disablements, e.g. the loss of certain limbs or the piercing of certain membranes, could not possibly live more than twelve months. A fine had not to be paid in respect of such a one."
,k43a_6:" And therefore still has a money value."
,k43a_7:" So that he is fit for nothing."
,k43a_8:" Meaning, If I desire, I shall take a second wife, v. Kid. 72."
,k43a_9:" Viz., for that part of him which is slave, and therefore she is not affianced."
,k43a_10:" Since he should have affianced the whole of her, as a woman cannot have two husbands, v. Kid. ibid."
,k43a_11:" And therefore she is affianced."
,k43a_12:" I.e., unable to live more than twelve months. V. <i>supra</i>, note 2."
,k43a_13:" Since he is as dead and has no heirs to whom to transmit it, as he cannot legally affiance a free woman."
,k43a_14:" Lit., 'caused an Amora to stand by him'; the so-called 'Amora' or 'Meturgeman' who received the heads of the discourse from the Rabbi and then expatiated on them to the public."
,k43a_15:" Isa. III, 6 (E.V. 'Let this ruin be under thy hand'). The term 'stumbling-block' is here applied to the Torah."
,k43a_16:" Lit., 'been tripped up over them.' Rabbah b. R. Huna was referring to himself and acknowledging his mistake."
,k43a_17:" I.e., the woman referred to in Lev. XIX, 20, by the words [H] (E.V. 'bondwoman betrothed to a man')."
,k43a_18:" Ker. 11a."
,k43a_19:" Ibid."
,k43a_20:" The word being used loosely and not in its strict legal sense which does not apply to a bondwoman."
,k43a_21:" Reuben's brother. "
}

txt:
<p>
Perhaps he will confess and release himself.<a id="k43a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; It is also a question for the Rabbis, [since we may say that] when the Rabbis said that a man cannot transfer something which does not yet exist, they were thinking for instance of the fruit of a date tree which at this moment at any rate does not exist, but in this case the ox exists and the slave exists. What [is the answer]? &mdash; R. Abba said: Come and hear: Such as are born in his house.<a id="k43a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the point of these words? If the 'purchase of his money' can eat [<i>terumah</i>] how much more so one born in the house? If that were so, I should say, Just as the 'purchase of his money' must be one who has a money value, so the one 'born in his house' must have a money value. How then should I know that even one who has no money value<a id="k43a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [may eat the <i>terumah</i>]? Because it says, 'such as are born in the house': in all circumstances. I might still maintain that one who is born in the house may eat whether he has a money value or not, but the purchase of his money' may eat only if he has a money value, but if he has no money value he may not eat. Therefore it says, 'The purchase of his money and one born in his house'. Just as one born in the house may eat whether he has a money value or not, so the purchase of his money may eat whether he has a money value or not. Now if you say that a slave who is sold by his master in respect of the fine only is actually sold, [the question can be asked], Is there a slave who is not worth selling for his fine?<a id="k43a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Yes, there is the one who has not long to live.<a id="k43a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But he is still capable of waiting on him?<a id="k43a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We suppose him also to be loathsome or covered with boils.<a id="k43a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If one who is half a slave and half free affiances a free woman, how do we decide? Should you point out that if a son of Israel says to a daughter of Israel, 'Be affianced to half of me,'<a id="k43a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; she is affianced, [I may reply that this is so] because she is qualified for the whole of him, but this one is not qualified for the whole of him.<a id="k43a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If again you point out that when an Israelite affiances half a woman she is not affianced,<a id="k43a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [I may reply that this is so] because he left something over from his acquisition, but the slave leaves nothing over from his acquisition.<a id="k43a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What [are we to say]? &mdash; Come and hear: If an [ox] kills one who is half a slave and half free, the owner gives half the fine to the master and half the ransom to the heirs of the slave. Now if you say that his betrothal is null and void, whence come heirs to him? &mdash; R. Adda b. Ahabah said: [We speak of the case] where [the ox] made him <i>terefah</i>,<a id="k43a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and by 'heirs' is meant himself. Raba said: There are two objections to this answer. One is that it distinctly says 'heirs', and further [the sum paid] is a 'ransom', and Resh Lakish has laid down that a 'ransom' is only paid after death! &mdash; No, said Raba: [what we must say is that] he ought to receive the ransom, but he does not.<a id="k43a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Just as, if one affiance's half a woman, she is not affianced, so if a woman who is half a slave and half free is affianced, her betrothal is no betrothal. Rabbah son of R. Huna stated in a discourse: Just as if a man affiances half a woman she is not affianced, so if a woman who is half a slave and half free is affianced, she is not really betrothed. Said R. Hisda to him: Are the two cases similar? In the one [the man] leaves something over from his acquisition, in the other he leaves nothing over from his acquisition. Rabbah son of R. Huna thereupon called upon a public orator,<a id="k43a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; who discoursed as follows: 'This stumbling-block is under thy hand.<a id="k43a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; A man does not fully understand the words of the Torah until he has come to grief over them.<a id="k43a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Although they have said that if a man affiances half a woman she is not affianced, yet if one who is half a slave and half free is affianced, her betrothal is a genuine one. What is the reason [for the difference]? In the one case he leaves something over from his acquisition, in the other case he leaves nothing over from his acquisition.' R. Shesheth, however, said: Just as if a man affiances half a woman she is not affianced, so if a woman who is half a slave and half free is affianced, her betrothal is no genuine one. If someone should whisper to you [the teaching], 'Who is the designated bondwoman?<a id="k43a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; The one who being half bondwoman and half free is betrothed to a Hebrew slave,'<a id="k43a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows that she is capable of being betrothed, say to him, Go to R. Ishmael who says that [the Torah here speaks] of a Canaanitish bondwoman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave.<a id="k43a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now is a Canaanitish bondwoman capable of being betrothed? We say therefore that by 'betrothed' R. Ishmael means 'allocated'.<a id="k43a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; So here too 'betrothed' means 'allocated'. 
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: If [a woman] half slave and half free is affianced to Reuben and then emancipated and then affianced to Simeon<a id="k43a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and both of them [Reuben and Simeon] die, she may contract a levirate marriage with Levi
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k43b_1:" According to Yeb. 31b, if a woman's husband dies without issue and his brother makes formal declaration betrothing her but dies before marrying her, a second brother may not marry her but must give her <i>halizah</i>."
,k43b_2:" If we suppose that a woman half slave and half free can be affianced, she was affianced to Reuben, and could not afterwards be affianced to Simeon. If again we suppose that such a woman cannot be affianced, she was not affianced to Reuben at all and therefore could be affianced to Simeon. In either case she was only affianced to one."
,k43b_3:" Even if we regard it as effective, because the emancipation makes her as it were a new creature."
,k43b_4:" So that if a man now has intercourse with her he is punishable with death and is not merely condemned to bring a guilt-offering, as laid down in Lev. XIX, 21."
,k43b_5:" Ibid. 20."
,k43b_6:" This cannot be, seeing that, as a bondwoman, she was never properly affianced."
,k43b_7:" And then you can infer from the text that if she was freed they are to be put to death (if she thereafter commits adultery)."
,k43b_8:" And it is the betrothal of the second which is effective and not of the first."
,k43b_9:" Gen. I, 28. This shows that marriage is as much incumbent on the woman as on the man."
,k43b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> 382."
,k43b_11:" If he escapes from his new master or if his first master is ordered by the <i>Beth din</i> to redeem him. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k43b_12:" In order to marry an Israelitish woman."
,k43b_13:" Prob. [G] 'sale'."
,k43b_14:" Prob. [G] lit., 'law', 'custom', i.e., what the law or custom requires. v. Jast. [Buchler REJ, XLVIII, p. 32ff., brilliantly connects the words with the [G] = 'enjoyment of possession', an act conferring 'ownership'.]"
,k43b_15:" Hung round the neck of a slave to show to whom he belongs. Al. 'bracelet', 'seal'."
,k43b_16:" I.e., Israelites who lease land in Eretz Israel from heathens for a fixed proportion of the produce."
,k43b_17:" Who lease land for a fixed payment in kind."
,k43b_18:" Because in each case the land still belongs to the heathen proprietor, and this action does not signify Jewish ownership."
,k43b_19:" Viz., the time within which the heathen should have paid his debt."
,k43b_20:" Lit., 'there is a contradiction from \"time\" to \"time\"'. In the case of the field the expiry of the time does not remove it from the ownership of the first proprietor, in the case of the slave it does."
,k43b_21:" In the case of the slave the body itself is sold at the expiry of the time (if the debt is not paid), and since the master transgressed a regulation of the Sages by selling his slave to a heathen they penalised him by cancelling his ownership even before the expiry of the time. But the field itself is not sold (to the Israelite) if the loan is not repaid at the expiry of the time, only the increment, and therefore it does not become liable to tithe. "
}

txt:
<p>
, and we do not place her in the category of the widow of two husbands.<a id="k43b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; For whichever way you take it, if the affiancing of Reuben was effective then the affiancing of Simeon was not effective, and if the affiancing of Simeon was effective then the affiancing of Reuben was not effective.<a id="k43b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If [a woman] who is half slave and half free was affianced to Reuben and then emancipated and became affianced to Simeon, R. Joseph said in the name of R. Nahman that [by means of the emancipation] the affiancing of the first is nullified,<a id="k43b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Zera said in the name of R. Nahman that it was consummated.<a id="k43b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Zera: My view is the more probable since it is written, They shall not be put to death for she us not freed;<a id="k43b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that if she has been freed they are to be put to death. Said Abaye to him: And on the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who said that [the verse speaks] of a Canaanitish bondwoman who is affianced to a Hebrew slave, are we to say that in this case also if she has been freed they are to be put to death?<a id="k43b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; What of course you have to assume in that case is that after she was freed she became affianced again.<a id="k43b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Here too then we speak of a case where she was freed and became affianced again.<a id="k43b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Kattina said: There was an actual case of a woman who was half slave and half free whose master they compelled to liberate her. Whose authority did they follow? &mdash; That of R. Johanan b. Baroka, who said: In reference to both of them [man and woman] the verse says. And God blessed then and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply etc.<a id="k43b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: This is not so; [the reason was that] they used her for immoral purposes.<a id="k43b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SELLS HIS SLAVE TO A HEATHEN OR OUTSIDE THE LAND [OF ISRAEL] HE GAINS HIS FREEDOM.<a id="k43b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis have taught: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he gains his freedom, but he [still] requires a deed of emancipation<a id="k43b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; from his first master. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: This is the rule if he did not make out a deed of oni.<a id="k43b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he made out a deed of oni for him, this constitutes his emancipation. What is meant by oni? &mdash; R. Shesheth said: If he writes in it to this effect, viz., 'If you run away from him, I have no claim on you.'
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man borrows money from a heathen giving his slave as pledge, so soon as the heathen has fixed' to him his nimus, he gains his freedom [if he escapes]. What is meant by 'his nimus'?<a id="k43b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna b. Judah said: It means, his collar.<a id="k43b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth raised an objection [against this explanation from the following]: Metayers,<a id="k43b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; tenants,<a id="k43b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and hereditary metayers, and a heathen who has mortgaged his field to an Israelite, even though he did fix to him a nimus, are not liable to tithe.'<a id="k43b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If now you assume that nimus means a chain, can a chain be applied to a field? No, said R. Shesheth; what it means is a time limit.<a id="k43b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Then the time limit has two opposite effects?<a id="k43b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction; in the one case [of the slave] we suppose the period to have terminated, in the other not. In the case of a slave whose period has expired do we need to be told [that he gains his freedom]? &mdash; No. Both refer to the case where the period has not expired, and still there is no contradiction, [since in] the one case the body [is transferred and in] the other only the increment.<a id="k43b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k44a_1:" At the expiry of the time. In the case of the field which the heathen offers to pledge to the Israelite, so long as the Israelite does not actually take it in pledge he may eat of the produce without giving tithe, because the field still belongs to the heathen. But if the Israelite offers to pledge the slave to the heathen and the latter has not yet taken him in pledge, should the slave escape the Sages forbade the Jew from claiming him as a punishment for offering to pledge him to a heathen (Rashi)."
,k44a_2:" Usually taken as = sicarius, brigands who infested Judea after the revolt of Bar Cochba. More probably a corruption of [G] the Imperial fiscus in Judea. V. <i>infra</i> p. 252, n. 2."
,k44a_3:" Lit., 'and for his debt, no'."
,k44a_4:" Which shows that this is regarded as a kind of sale, and the seller is therefore penalised."
,k44a_5:" [This apparently means a debt payable by instalments, with the condition of forfeiture on missing one payment, distraint on account is which was reckoned as misappropriation. V. <i>infra</i> p. 272.]"
,k44a_6:" [By making him after all quit of the debt, therefore he is liable to give tithe. But in the case of the slave where the cancellation of the master's ownership is merely a punitive measure for transgressing the Rabbinic regulation, no such penalty can be inflicted where the slave was taken against his will.]"
,k44a_7:" Apparently, forced labour exacted by the Government or bandits."
,k44a_8:" I.e., do we regard this as a breach of the regulation of the Rabbis and penalise him?"
,k44a_9:" I.e., he sells him to marry to a Canaanitish bond woman."
,k44a_10:" Lit., 'save for the precepts'."
,k44a_11:" A heathen who settles in the land of Israel on condition of abstaining from idolatry, but without adopting the Jewish religion."
,k44a_12:" Heb. [H] Lit., 'a changed (Israelite.)' a Jew who neglects the practices without discarding the beliefs of Judaism."
,k44a_13:" Because they kept certain of the commandments."
,k44a_14:" Lit., 'your mekilta' (measure) a record of halachahs made by R. Zerika for his private use."
,k44a_15:" For the signatures to be confirmed, although as a rule the Rabbis depreciated resulting to heathen courts."
,k44a_16:" Which answers the question propounded to R. Ammi."
,k44a_17:" By the knowledge that he can keep the money."
,k44a_18:" A.Z. 15. This shows that the 'hundred' mentioned in the case of a slave is a hyperbole."
,k44a_19:" And the same should apply to a slave."
,k44a_20:" Because this is all the advantage that one who sells an ox has over one who sells a slave."
,k44a_21:" To impose a particularly heavy fine."
,k44a_22:" And so disqualifies it for being brought as a sacrifice. and thus enables himself to consume it as common flesh. "
}

txt:
<p>
Or if you like I can say that it refers to the case where he borrowed on condition that he should pledge and he did not pledge.<a id="k44a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If [a heathen] seizes the slave [of a Jew] on account of money owing to him, or if he is taken by the sicaricon,<a id="k44a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he does not become free [if he escapes]. Is this really the rule if he is seized on account of debt?<a id="k44a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [If so,] it would seem to conflict with the following: 'If the king's officers seize the corn in a man's granary, if it is on account of a debt due from him he must give tithe for it,<a id="k44a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it is on account of anparuth,<a id="k44a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not under obligation to give tithe?' &mdash; There the case is different, because they confer some advantage on him.<a id="k44a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: 'Rab said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang<a id="k44a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he becomes free [if he escapes]!' &mdash; There the reason is that he ought to have persuaded him to take something else, and he did not do so.
</p><p>
	The text above [stated]: 'Rab said that if a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free. What was he to do? &mdash; He should have persuaded him to take something else and he did not do so.' R. Jeremiah raised the question: Suppose he sold him for thirty days,<a id="k44a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; how do we decide? &mdash; Come and hear: Rab said, 'If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free'. &mdash; That refers to a heathen' parhang who is not likely to return. If he sells him [for all purposes] except for work,<a id="k44a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for all purposes] save where a breach of the Jewish law is involved,<a id="k44a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for work at all times] save on Sabbaths and festivals, how [do we decide]? If he sells him to a resident alien<a id="k44a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or non-observant Israelite,<a id="k44a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; how [do we decide]? [If] to a Cuthean, how [do we decide]? &mdash; One of these questions at any rate may be definitely answered &mdash; A resident alien is on the same footing as a heathen. As for a Cuthean and a nonobservant Israelite, some say he is [on the same footing] as a heathen, and some [that he is on the same footing] as an Israelite.<a id="k44a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A question was asked of R. Ammi: If a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to procure his return through the agency either of an Israelite or Gentile court, is he at liberty to receive payment for him [if offered]? &mdash; Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zerika: Go outside and look through your notes.<a id="k44a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; He went out, looked, and found that it was taught: If a man sells his house [in the land of Israel] to a heathen, the money paid for it is forbidden. If, however, a heathen forcibly takes a house of an Israelite, and the latter is unable to recover it either in a heathen or a Jewish court, he may accept payment for it and he may make out a deed for it and present it in heathen courts,<a id="k44a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; since this is like rescuing [money] from their hands.<a id="k44a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps this applies only to a house, because since [a man] cannot do without a house he will not be induced<a id="k44a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to sell it, but since [a man] can do without a slave, shall we say that [if we make this rule] he may be induced to sell? &mdash; R. Ammi sent back answer; From me, Ammi son of Nathan, the rule is issued to all Israel that if a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to recover him either in a Jewish or a heathen court, [his master] is permitted to accept payment for him, and he may make out a deed and present it in heathen courts, because this is like rescuing [money] from their hands.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he can be penalised [by having to ransom him for] as much as a hundred times his value. Is the expression 'a hundred' here used exactly or loosely? &mdash; Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as ten times its value.<a id="k44a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps the rule for a slave is different, because every day he is kept away from religious observances. According: to another version R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he may be penalised by having to ransom him for as much as ten times his value. Is the expression 'ten' here used exactly or loosely? Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as a hundred times its value.<a id="k44a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The rule for a slave is different, because he is not restored to him. The reason then why in the case of an animal [the penalty is so high] is because it is returned to him. If so, the excess penalty should be the bare value of the animal?<a id="k44a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact the real reason is [that for a man to sell] a slave is unusual, and the Rabbis did not prescribe for unusual cases.<a id="k44a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Assi: If a man sells his slave and then dies, is there ground for penalising his son after him? It is true you can point [to the rule that] if a priest mutilates the ear of a firstling<a id="k44a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and then dies, his son is penalised after him; but this may be because he has broken a rule based on the Torah, whereas here we are dealing with a rule of the Rabbis.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k44b_1:" Work, the neglect or postponement of which would involve definite loss, was allowed to be done on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles. If, however, a man deliberately brought a piece of work before the festival into such a condition that it would be spoilt if not finished during the festival, he was not allowed to finish it."
,k44b_2:" Where the dead man did do a forbidden act."
,k44b_3:" In she hands of the son, who therefore has to redeem the slave."
,k44b_4:" For manuring purposes."
,k44b_5:" Sheb. IV, 2."
,k44b_6:" Such as rendering stuff ritually unclean."
,k44b_7:" Because we presume that the Antiochian lives or is going to live in Eretz Israel."
,k44b_8:" A town in Eretz Israel, on the border of Syria."
,k44b_9:" But his real home is abroad, and therefore the slave sold to him becomes free."
,k44b_10:" As that part of her dowry known as the 'property of the iron flock,' (Zon barzel, v. Glos) which the husband took over from her at a fixed valuation which was to be returned to her in case of his death or a divorce."
,k44b_11:" Are they regarded as sold abroad or not?"
,k44b_12:" In case if a divorce, there is a difference of opinion among the authorities whether she has the right to claim the return of the original property, or whether he has the right to make her the money payment stipulated, v. Yeb. 66b."
,k44b_13:" And therefore are not sold, and so may safely be taken to Babylon."
,k44b_14:" In this case, the labour of the slaves."
,k44b_15:" And he is regarded as having purchased them from the wife, and therefore they may not be taken to Babylon."
,k44b_16:" I.e., complete ownership of the slaves, since if he dies or divorces her, they are returned to her."
,k44b_17:" Of his own free will."
,k44b_18:" The Biblical Aram Zoba, which was conquered by King David, but was not regarded as an integral part of Eretz Israel."
,k44b_19:" By leaving Eretz Israel."
,k44b_20:" And the slave followed him on that assumption."
,k44b_21:" Keth. 110b. The rule is there laid down that a master cannot force his slave to leave Eretz Israel with him."
,k44b_22:" Of his own free will."
,k44b_23:" Even though the slave accompanied him voluntarily."
,k44b_24:" Of a slave sold abroad."
,k44b_25:" In accordance with the law of the Jubilee, Lev. XXV, 10, 12."
,k44b_26:" These are the two things told by Samuel to R. 'Anan."
,k44b_27:" The emphasis is on the 'us'."
,k44b_28:" For otherwise he ought to obtain his deed of emancipation from the first master. "
}

txt:
<p>
If again you point [to the rule] that if a man prepares to do work during the half-festival<a id="k44b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and then dies, his son is not penalised after him, the reason may be because he did not actually do anything forbidden. What do we say here?<a id="k44b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Did the Rabbis penalise only the man but he no longer exists, or did they penalise his money and this does exist?<a id="k44b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: [The answer is to be found in] what you have already learnt: 'If a field has been cleared of thorns in the seventh year it can be sown on the expiration of the seventh year. If it has been manured or if cattle have been turned out<a id="k44b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; there in the seventh year, it must not be sown at the expiration of the seventh year';<a id="k44b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and [commenting on this] R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: We lay down that if he manured it and then died, his son may sow it. From this [we may infer] that the Rabbis penalised him but not his son.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We have it on tradition that if a man renders unclean stuff belonging to another which he desired to keep ritually clean, and then dies, [the Rabbis] have not penalised his son after him. What is the reason? Damage which is not perceptible<a id="k44b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is not legally counted as damage [according to the Torah], and the penalty for it is Rabbinical in origin, and the Rabbis penalised the man who does the damage, but they did not penalise his son. 
</p><p>
	OR ABROAD. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man sells his slave abroad, he becomes free but he requires a deed of emancipation from his second master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Sometimes he becomes free and sometimes he does not become free. For instance, if the master says, I have sold my slave So-and-so to So-and-so an Antiochian, he does not become free.<a id="k44b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If he says, To an Antiochian in Antioch, he does become free'. But has it not been taught: '[If a man says,] I have sold him to an Antiochian, he becomes free, but if he says, to an Antiochian living in Lydda,<a id="k44b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he does not become free'? &mdash; There is no contradiction: in the one case we suppose he has a house in Eretz Israel, in the other that he has only a place of stay in Eretz Israel.<a id="k44b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah put the question: If a Babylonian [Jew] marries a woman from Eretz Yisrael and she brings him in<a id="k44b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; male and female slaves and his intention is to return [to Babylon], what is the rule?<a id="k44b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; We have to ask this whether we accept the view that the husband has the right, or whether we accept the view that the wife has the right.<a id="k44b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; We have to ask it on the view that the wife has the right. Shall we say that since she has the right they are regarded as hers,<a id="k44b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps since they are made over to him as far as the increment<a id="k44b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is concerned they are regarded as his?<a id="k44b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The question has equally to be asked on the view that the husband has the right. Seeing that he has the right, are they to be regarded as his, or since he does not acquire the body<a id="k44b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are they still regarded as hers? &mdash; This must stand over.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu said: R. Johanan taught me, If a servant accompanies<a id="k44b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; his master to Syria<a id="k44b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and his master sells him there, he becomes free. But R. Hiyya teaches that he loses his right?<a id="k44b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no contradiction: in the one case we presume that his master intended to return,<a id="k44b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other that he did not intend to return, as it has been taught: 'A slave must leave Eretz Israel with his master for Syria&nbsp;&hellip; Must leave, you say? Assuredly he need not leave, seeing that we have learnt, 'Not all may take out.'<a id="k44b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; What [you mean is]: 'if a slave accompanies his master<a id="k44b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; from Eretz Israel to Syria and his master sells him there, if it was his master's intention to return he is compelled to emancipate him,<a id="k44b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it was not his intention to return, he is not compelled.'
</p><p>
	R. 'Anan said: I was told by Mar Samuel two things, one in relation to this point,<a id="k44b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and one in relation to the statement, If a man sells his field in the Jubilee year, Rab says that it is sold but must be immediately returned,<a id="k44b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Samuel says that it is not sold in the first instance. In one case [he said] the purchase money is returned and in the other case it is not returned,<a id="k44b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and I do not know which is which. Said R. Joseph: Let us see.<a id="k44b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Since it is stated in the Baraitha that if a man sells his slave abroad he becomes free and requires a deed of emancipation from his second master, we infer that the second master became his legal owner and that the purchase money is not to be returned,<a id="k44b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and therefore that when Samuel said in the other case [of the field] that the field is not sold in the first instance, the money is returned.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k45a_1:" About the slave, to enable him to solve the question himself."
,k45a_2:" An action in itself null and void."
,k45a_3:" Who buys the slave."
,k45a_4:" Viz., in the hands of the purchaser."
,k45a_5:" Ex. XXIII, 33."
,k45a_6:" Deut. XXIII, 16."
,k45a_7:" Which shows that heathens who do not practise idolatry are allowed to dwell in the land."
,k45a_8:" Another reading is. 'From his god'. The meaning is in either case the same."
,k45a_9:" In which case he is not to be delivered to his master."
,k45a_10:" And from that moment he is compelled to free him."
,k45a_11:" The passage in brackets is omitted in some texts."
,k45a_12:" Deut. XXII, 3."
,k45a_13:" Who was a greater authority."
,k45a_14:" And the Samaritans had more regard for the Written Law than for the Rabbis."
,k45a_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 34a. The meaning is: If we did not know you for a pious man who would not deceive us."
,k45a_16:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. I.e., so that the captors should not demand excessive ransoms."
,k45a_17:" Lest captors might put their captives in chains and otherwise maltreat them."
,k45a_18:" Lit., 'for the good of the captives'. And not of captives in general."
,k45a_19:" This shows that if an individual is willing to pay more he may do so, and the reason is because of the burden imposed on the community."
,k45a_20:" In this case the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel does not apply, and according to him the captive may be helped to escape."
,k45a_21:" Without scalding their hands, apparently on account of their piety."
,k45a_22:" Eccl. VII, 28."
,k45a_23:" Who apparently are righteous."
,k45a_24:" E.g., in the verse, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled (Cant. V, 2)."
,k45a_25:" Lit., 'the ferry'."
,k45a_26:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> "
}

txt:
<p>
Rab 'Anan, however, was not acquainted with this Baraitha,<a id="k45a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and as to Samuel's dictum, how could he infer from it that, the field not being sold, the money was to be returned? Perhaps, though the field was not sold, the money was to be regarded as a gift, on the analogy of a man who affiances his sister, in regard to which it has been stated. 'If a man affiances his sister,<a id="k45a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab says that the [betrothal] money is to be returned, while Samuel says that it is to be regarded as a gift'.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Why should you want us to penalise the purchaser?<a id="k45a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Let us penalise the vendor! &mdash; He replied. It is not the mouse that is the thief but the hole. If there were no mouse, he retorted, how should the hole come by it? &mdash; It is only reasonable that where the forbidden stuff is found,<a id="k45a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; there we should impose the penalty.
</p><p>
	A certain slave escaped from abroad to Eretz Israel and was pursued by his master. The [latter eventually] came before R. Ammi, who said to him, Let him make you out a bond for his value, and you must make out a deed of emancipation for him; otherwise I will make you forfeit him in accordance with the view of R. Ahi son of R. Josiah. For it has been taught: '[It is written], They shall not dwell in thy land lest they make thee sin against me, etc.<a id="k45a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall I say that the text speaks of a heathen who has undertaken not to practise idolatry? [This cannot be, because] it is written, Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.<a id="k45a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; What is to be done with him? He shall dwell with thee etc.'<a id="k45a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Josiah found it difficult to accept this explanation, because instead of 'from his master' it should be 'from his father'.<a id="k45a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore R. Josiah explained the verse to speak of a man who sells his slave abroad. R. Ahi son of R. Josiah in turn found it difficult [to accept this explanation], because instead of 'which is escaped unto thee' it should be 'which is escaped from thee.' R. Ahi son of R. Josiah therefore explained the verse to speak of a slave who escapes from abroad to Eretz Israel.<a id="k45a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant': Rabbi says that the verse is speaking of a man who buys a slave on the understanding that he will emancipate him.<a id="k45a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; How are we to understand this? &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He makes out a deed in these terms: 'When I buy you, you shall be regarded as having been your own master [retrospectively] from now.
</p><p>

    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E48"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	<a name="T138"></a>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/chapt03.html#T138"><FONT size="-1">Dilling discussion of text</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">

	A slave of R. Hisda's escaped to the Cutheans. He sent word to them that they should return him. They quoted to him in return the verse, 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant'.<a id="k45a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; (He quoted to them in return, So thou shalt do with his ass and so thou shalt do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's.<a id="k45a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But, they retorted, it is written, 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant'?) He sent to them to say: That refers to a slave who escapes from abroad to Eretz Israel, as explained by R. Ahi son of R. Josiah. Why did he quote to them the interpretation of R. Ahi son of R. Josiah [and not rather that of Rabbi]?<a id="k45a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because this accords more with the literal meaning of the verse.<a id="k45a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye lost an ass among Cutheans. He sent to them saying, Send it back to me. They sent to him saying, Give us a mark of identification. He sent word to then, that its belly was white. They sent him back word: Were you not Nahmani,<a id="k45a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; we would not send it to you. Have not all asses white bellies?
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. CAPTIVES SHOULD NOT BE REDEEMED FOR MORE THAN THEIR VALUE, TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k45a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; CAPTIVES SHOULD NOT BE HELPED TO ESCAPE, TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k45a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS [THAT THE REASON IS] TO PREVENT THE ILL-TREATMENT OF FELLOW CAPTIVES.<a id="k45a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was raised: Does this prevention of abuses relate to the burden which may be imposed on the community or to the possibility that the activities [of the bandits] may be stimulated? &mdash; Come and hear: Levi b. Darga ransomed his daughter for thirteen thousand <i>denarii</i> of gold.<a id="k45a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: But are you sure that he acted with the consent of the Sages? perhaps he acted against the will of the Sages.
</p><p>
	CAPTIVES SHOULD NOT BE HELPED TO ESCAPE, TO PREVENT ABUSES. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, THE REASON IS TO PREVENT THE ILL-TREATMENT OF FELLOW CAPTIVES. What practical difference does it make which reason we adopt? &mdash; The difference arises where there is only one captive.<a id="k45a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The daughters of R. Nahman used to stir a cauldron with their hands when it was boiling hot.<a id="k45a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. 'Ilish was puzzled about it. It is written [he said], One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I not found:<a id="k45a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and here are the daughters of R. Nahman!<a id="k45a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; A misfortune happened to them and they were carried away captive, and he also with them. One day a man was sitting next to him who understood the language of birds. A raven came and called to him, and R. 'Ilish said to him, What does it say? It says, he replied, "'Ilish, run away, 'Ilish, run away". He said, The raven is a false bird, and I do not trust it. Then a dove came and called. He again asked, What does it say? It says, the man replied, "'Ilish, run away, 'Ilish run, away." Said ['Ilish]: The community of Israel is likened to a dove;<a id="k45a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; this shows that a miracle will be performed for me. He then [said to himself], I will go and see the daughters of R. Nahman; if they have retained their virtue, I will bring them back. Said he to himself: Women talk over their business in the privy. He overheard them saying, These men are [our] husbands just as the Nehardeans [were] our husbands. Let us tell our captors to remove us to a distance from here, so that our husbands may not come and hear [where we are] and ransom us. R. 'Ilish then rose and fled, along with the other man. A miracle was performed for him, and he got across the river,<a id="k45a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but the other man was caught and put to death. When the daughters of R. Nahman came back, he said, They stirred the cauldron by witchcraft.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. NEITHER SHOULD SCROLLS OF THE LAW, PHYLACTERIES AND MEZUZOTH<a id="k45a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; BE BOUGHT FROM HEATHENS AT MORE THAN THEIR VALUE,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k45b_1:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. Viz., so that an excessive price should not be demanded."
,k45b_2:" A question on which a difference of opinion is expressed lower down."
,k45b_3:" Apparently this name is applied here to a heathen bigot or fanatic, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k45b_4:" So that the scroll was written for an idolatrous purpose."
,k45b_5:" In some texts this word is omitted."
,k45b_6:" The Cutheans (Samaritans) kept certain of the commandments, but were not regarded as genuine proselytes."
,k45b_7:" Heb. [H]. V. <i>supra</i> p. 190, n. 9."
,k45b_8:" Deut. VI, 8, 9."
,k45b_9:" Tosef. A.Z. III."
,k45b_10:" Lit., 'for its own name,' which of course could not be done by a heathen."
,k45b_11:" V. Sanh. 48b."
,k45b_12:" He knew that they must be written for the specific purpose."
,k45b_13:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 199, n. 1."
,k45b_14:" Of the other heathens."
,k45b_15:" I.e., we are not particular to this amount."
,k45b_16:" Half a <i>denar</i>."
,k45b_17:" Even if the scandal proves to be unfounded. The reasons for this and the following rules are discussed in the Gemara."
,k45b_18:" A habit of which he may disapprove, even though the vow may be annulled."
,k45b_19:" R. Judah was of opinion that vows made publicly could not be annulled."
,k45b_20:" [I.e., one which can be remitted only by a Sage after due investigation by him of the circumstances in which the vow was made, (cf. <i>supra</i> 35b) and which the husband could not annul on his own account.]"
,k45b_21:" [R. Eliezer differs from R. Meir, and holds that a man may not remarry his wife if he divorces her for a vow which does not require the investigation of a Sage, and since he is forbidden in this case, he is forbidden in the other also.]"
,k45b_22:" A species of vow. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k45b_23:" The bearing of this on the subject in hand is discussed in the Gemara."
,k45b_24:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. The Gemara discusses which part of the Mishnah these words refer to. "
}

txt:
<p>
TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k45b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>

    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E48"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	  <a name="T140"></a>
	    <A href="../dilling/chapt03.html#T140"><FONT size="-1">Dilling discusses highlighted text</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">

	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Budia said to R. Ashi: [The Mishnah says that] they must not be bought at more than their value, but [presumably] they may be bought at their value. This would show that a scroll of the Law which is found in the possession of a heathen may be read?<a id="k45b_2"><sup>2 </sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Perhaps it can be bought to be stored away. R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">a scroll of the Law which has been written by a Min<a id="k45b_3"><sup>3 </sup></a>&nbsp; should be burnt</font>, and one written by a heathen should be stored away. One that is found in the possession of a Min should be stored away; one that is found in the possession of a heathen according to some should be stored away and according to others may be read. With regard to a scroll of the Law which has been written by a heathen, it has been taught by one authority that it should be burnt, and it has been taught by another authority that it should be stored away, and it has been taught by another authority that it may be read. There is, however, no contradiction. The view that it should be burnt follows R. Eliezer, who said that the intention of the heathen is normally idolatrous;<a id="k45b_4"><sup>4 </sup></a>&nbsp; the view that it should be stored away follows the Tanna of the following passage: For R. Hamnuna the son of Raba of Pashrunia learnt that a scroll of the Law, phylacteries and mezuzoth written by a Min,<a id="k45b_5"><sup>5 </sup></a>&nbsp; an informer, a heathen, a slave, a woman, a minor, a Cuthean<a id="k45b_6"><sup>6 </sup></a>&nbsp; and an irreligious Jew<a id="k45b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; are disqualified, since it says. And thou shalt bid them&nbsp;&hellip; and thou shalt write them,<a id="k45b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; which indicates that those who are subject to 'bind' may 'write', but those who do not 'bind' may not 'write'. The statement that such a scroll may be read follows the Tanna [of the following passage] where it has been taught: Scrolls of the Law may be bought from heathens in all places, provided only that they are written in the prescribed manner. A case arose of a heathen in Sidon who used to write scrolls of the Law, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel permitted them to be bought from him.<a id="k45b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel requires the tanning of the parchment to have been for the specific purpose,<a id="k45b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; will he not require the writing to have been for the specific purpose? For it has been taught: If a man overlays the phylacteries with gold or covers them with the skin of an unclean animal, they are disqualified; [if with] the skin of a clean animal, they are fit for use, even though he did not tan it for the specific purpose. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Even if covered with the skin of a clean animal they are disqualified unless it has been tanned for the specific purpose!<a id="k45b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah b. Samuel explained that [the heathen of Sidon was] a proselyte who had reverted to his previous errors.<a id="k45b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is worse, for he is a Min?<a id="k45b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: It means one who reverted to his old religion out of fear.<a id="k45b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'The price offered may exceed their value to the extent of a tropaic.'<a id="k45b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; How much is a tropaic? &mdash; R. Shesheth says: An aster.<a id="k45b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An Arab woman brought a bag of phylacteries to Abaye. Let me have them, he said, at a couple of dates for a pair. She became furious and took them and threw them into the river. Said Abaye: I should not have made them look so cheap to her as all that.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN DIVORCES HIS WIFE BECAUSE OF ILL FAME, HE MUST NOT REMARRY HER.<a id="k45b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; IF BECAUSE SHE MAKES A VOW,<a id="k45b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST NOT REMARRY HER. R. JUDAH SAYS: [IF HE DIVORCES HER] FOR VOWS WHICH SHE MADE PUBLICLY, HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER, BUT IF FOR VOWS WHICH SHE DID NOT MAKE PUBLICLY, HE MAY REMARRY HER.<a id="k45b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. MEIR SAYS, [IF HE DIVORCES HER] FOR A VOW WHICH REQUIRES THE INVESTIGATION OF A SAGE,<a id="k45b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER, BUT IF FOR ONE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INVESTIGATION OF A SAGE, HE MAY REMARRY HER.<a id="k45b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELIEZER SAYS THAT ONE WAS ONLY FORBIDDEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER. R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: A CASE HAPPENED IN SIDON OF A MAN WHO SAID TO HIS WIFE, KONAM,<a id="k45b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF I DO NOT DIVORCE YOU, AND HE DID DIVORCE HER,<a id="k45b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE SAGES PERMITTED HIM TO REMARRY HER &mdash; ALL THIS TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k45b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: The rule [that he must not remarry her] applies only if he says to her, 'I am divorcing you on account of your evil name',
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k46a_1:" [I.e., attacking the validity of the second marriage, which the woman might contract, and the legitimacy of the ensuing offspring by saying that if he had known that the charge against her was false, or that the vow could have been annulled, he would not have divorced her. V. <i>infra</i>.]"
,k46a_2:" By saying that he gave the Get under a misapprehension. But if he cannot remarry her, he has no motive to do so."
,k46a_3:" And therefore there is no reason why we should forbid him to remarry her."
,k46a_4:" Since the possibility of their being divorced in this way will act as a deterrent."
,k46a_5:" But even if he does not, he still may not remarry her, this being her punishment."
,k46a_6:" As having been given under a misunderstanding."
,k46a_7:" And if in spite of this he divorces her, he shows that he is not fond of her, and cannot subsequently say that the Get was given under a misapprehension."
,k46a_8:" As explained p. 201, n. 7."
,k46a_9:" Because such a vow cannot be annulled and the woman is punished for making it."
,k46a_10:" R. Judah holds that the reason why he must not remarry her is to prevent the women becoming too prone to vows, and this reason does not apply if the vow in question is one that can be annulled."
,k46a_11:" Josh. IX, 18. The reference is to the Gibeonites who were spared although belonging to the 'seven nations'. Had the oath not been given in public, a way could have been found to annul it, since it was given under a misapprehension."
,k46a_12:" Who hold that vows made publicly may be annulled."
,k46a_13:" Josh. IX. 9."
,k46a_14:" Since the princes had sworn to them by the Lord, ibid."
,k46a_15:" [H], lit., 'many'."
,k46a_16:" In the verse, And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days (Lev. XV, 25), 'many' denoting there 'three', v. Nid. 73a."
,k46a_17:" Num. XIV, 27: How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, where the reference is to ten of the twelve spies, v. Sanh. 2a."
,k46a_18:" V. <i>infra</i> n. 6."
,k46a_19:" To be questioned about her vow. R. Meir was of opinion that the reason of the prohibition was to prevent the husband from making mischief subsequently, and this he could do only if the vow was one which he could not annul but which a Sage could remit."
,k46a_20:" And therefore by rights we should not prohibit remarrying if the divorce was given on the ground of a vow of this kind, since the husband cannot afterwards make mischief. R. Eleazar, however, holds that if the vow is one which the husband could have annulled (though he did not know it at the time), he can make mischief, and we do prohibit the remarriage, and since we prohibit in this case we prohibit also in the other."
,k46a_21:" Hitherto the Mishnah has spoken of vows made by the wife, and R. Jose gives an instance of a vow made by a husband. "
}

txt:
<p>
'I am divorcing you on account of your vow'. His view was that the reason [why he must not remarry her] was to prevent [him making] mischief subsequently.<a id="k46a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If he uses these words to her he can make mischief for her,<a id="k46a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not, he cannot make mischief for her.<a id="k46a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Some there are who report: R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: He has to say to her, 'Understand that I am divorcing you on account of your evil name'; 'I am divorcing you on account of your vowing'. His view was that the reason [why he must not remarry her] is to prevent the daughters of Israel from becoming dissolute or too prone to vows;<a id="k46a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he is required to address her thus.<a id="k46a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	There is a teaching in support of the first version and a teaching in support of the second version. It has been taught in support of the first version: R. Meir says: Why has it been laid down that if a man divorces his wife on account of ill fame or on account of a vow he must not remarry her? For fear that she may go and marry another and then it may be discovered that the charge against her was unfounded and he will say, Had I known this was the case, I would not have divorced her even for a hundred <i>manehs</i>, and so the Get becomes retrospective]y void<a id="k46a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and her children [from the second husband] illegitimate. Therefore they say to him [when he comes to give the divorce], Know that a man who divorces his wife on account of ill fame must not remarry her, or [if he divorces her] on account of a vow he must not remarry her.<a id="k46a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught in support of the second version: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose says: Why has it been laid down that if a man divorces his wife on account of a scandal he should not remarry her, or on account of a vow that he should not remarry her? In order that the daughters of Israel should not become dissolute or too prone to vows.<a id="k46a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore they tell him: Say to her, Understand that I am divorcing you on account of your ill fame, I am divorcing you on account of a vow.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAYS: IF HE DIVORCES HER FOR VOWS WHICH SHE MADE PUBLICLY, HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER,<a id="k46a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF FOR A VOW WHICH SHE DID NOT MAKE PUBLICLY, HE MAY REMARRY HER.<a id="k46a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the reason of R. Judah [for holding that a vow made publicly may not be annulled]? Because the Scripture says, And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them.<a id="k46a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And what do the Rabbis<a id="k46a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [make of this verse]? &mdash; [They reply:] Did the oath there become binding upon them at all? Since they [the Gibeonites] said, We are come from a far country,<a id="k46a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas they had not come from one, the oath was never binding; and the reason why the Israelites did not slay them was because [this would have impaired] the sanctity of God's name.<a id="k46a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How many form a 'public'?<a id="k46a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman says, three, R. Isaac says, ten. R. Nahman says three, [interpreting] 'days' [to mean] two and 'many' three.<a id="k46a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac says ten, because the Scripture calls ten a 'congregation'.<a id="k46a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. MEIR SAYS, EVERY VOW THAT REQUIRES etc. It has been taught: 'R. Eleazar says: A vow requiring [investigation] was made a ground for prohibition only on account of a vow which does not require [investigation].<a id="k46a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the point at issue [between R. Meir and R. Eleazar]? &mdash; R. Meir held that a man does not mind the indignity of his wife appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k46a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Eleazar held that a man is averse to subjecting his wife to the indignity of appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>.<a id="k46a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID, A CASE HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. What has preceded that this should be given as an illustration?<a id="k46a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a lacuna, and the Mishnah should run thus: 'These rules apply only in the case where the wife vowed, but if he vowed he may remarry, and R. Jose son of R. Judah adduced a case which happened in Sidon of a man who said to his wife, Konam if I shall not divorce you, and he did divorce her, and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, to prevent abuses.'
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k46b_1:" The effect of a konam is to declare something forbidden to him who utters it in the same way as sanctified stuff. (Konam is probably derived from Aramaic kenom 'self', 'person' and is thus the object of an elliptical sentence, 'I pledge (myself) my person with So-and-so (that I will, or will not, do this or that)'; v. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions p. 34; and Ned. 2a.)"
,k46b_2:" In the periods when the high places were forbidden, i.e., when the Temple stood."
,k46b_3:" Instead of seeking absolution from a wise man."
,k46b_4:" The prohibition to remarry."
,k46b_5:" [H] lit., 'ramlike', manlike, v. Keth. 11a."
,k46b_6:" For fear that she may marry another and bear him children and the first husband may then say that he only divorced her with the intention of remarrying her if she should become capable of bearing, and so throw suspicion on the validity of the Get. But if he knows from the outset that he cannot remarry her, he will not do this."
,k46b_7:" As this danger is too remote to need providing against."
,k46b_8:" Which she did not receive on divorce, v. Keth. 100b."
,k46b_9:" Lit., 'your silence is better than your speech'."
,k46b_10:" Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 45b."
,k46b_11:" In the first clause of our Mishnah."
,k46b_12:" In the second clause of our Mishnah."
,k46b_13:" In the earlier Mishnah."
,k46b_14:" That a man does not like his wife to be brought before the <i>Beth din</i>. Hence in this case he cannot say, 'if I had known etc.' and there is no likelihood of his making trouble if she marries another."
,k46b_15:" That the husband will be fully cognisant of the kind of vow which he can annul, and so in this case also there is no likelihood of his making trouble. Where, however, there is a possibility of his making trouble, R. Judah will agree that we have to provide against it."
,k46b_16:" They seem to contradict themselves as much as R. Judah."
,k46b_17:" I.e., expressed both positively and negatively. V. <i>infra</i>, 75a."
,k46b_18:" I.e., he did not say 'I divorce you because you are barren, and if you are not barren this is no Get', so that the condition has no effect upon the Get."
,k46b_19:" [A frontier town on the South-western border of Babylon. (Obermeyer. <i>op. cit</i>. p. 334)]-"
,k46b_20:" [H] A tribe of cannibals (Rashi). [Or 'ludarii' [ludi], people who arrange and hire men for gladiatorial contests to kill off with the finishing stroke the enraged beasts; v. Graetz, Geschichte, IV, p. 238, and Krauss, AT, I. p. 701.] "
}

txt:
<p>
What konam<a id="k46b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was there here? &mdash; R. Huna said: We suppose he said, Every species of produce shall be forbidden to me if I do not divorce you.
</p><p>
	AND THEY PERMITTED HIM TO REMARRY HER. This surely is self-evident? &mdash; You might think that we should prohibit him on account of the dictum of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: To make a vow is like building a high place<a id="k46b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and to keep it<a id="k46b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is like bringing an offering thereon. Therefore we are told [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	TO PREVENT ABUSES. What prevention of abuses is there here? &mdash; R. Shesheth said that the words refer to the earlier clauses [of the Mishnah]:<a id="k46b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said that they refer indeed to the last clause, and the meaning is, There was no ground for forbidding this on the score of preventing abuses.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN DIVORCES HIS WIFE BECAUSE [HE FINDS HER] TO BE INCAPABLE OF BEARING,<a id="k46b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAYS HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER,<a id="k46b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE MAY REMARRY HER.<a id="k46b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND AND THEN DEMANDS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST,<a id="k46b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAYS, HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER.<a id="k46b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. This would seem to show that R. Judah takes into account the possibility of mischief-making and the Rabbis do not take it into account. But we have found the opposite opinions ascribed to them, as we have learnt: If a man divorces his wife on account of ill fame or on account of a vow she has made, he must not remarry her. R. Judah says: If the vow was made publicly, he may not remarry her, but if it was not made publicly he may remarry her.<a id="k46b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; This seems to show that the Rabbis take account of the possibility of mischief-making and R. Judah does not take account of it? &mdash; Samuel said: Reverse the names.<a id="k46b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the Mishnah goes on to say, IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND, AND THEN DEMANDS HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER, we can conclude that R. Judah does take into account the possibility of mischief making? &mdash; Reverse the names here also.<a id="k46b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said. There is no need to reverse, since R. Judah in that<a id="k46b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; case concurs both with R. Meir and with R. Eleazar. In the case [of a vow] which requires [the investigation of a Sage] he concurs with R. Eleazar,<a id="k46b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and in the case [of a vow] which does not require [investigation] he concurs with R. Meir.<a id="k46b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Is there a contradiction between the statements of R. Judah and no contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis?<a id="k46b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Raba; Between the statements of R. Judah there is no contradiction, as has been explained. Between the statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction. For who are the Sages [here]? R. Meir, who said that we require the condition to be duplicated,<a id="k46b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and here we are dealing with a case where he did not duplicate his condition.<a id="k46b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN, HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED. HIS CHILDREN, HOWEVER, ARE TO BE REDEEMED AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Assi said: This rule applies only if he sold himself a second and a third time. Certain [Jews of] Bemekse<a id="k46b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; borrowed money from heathens, and when they were unable to pay the latter seized them for slaves. They appealed to R. Huna, who said: What can I do, seeing that we have learnt IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED? R. Abba thereupon said to him: You have taught us, Master, that this applies only if he has so sold himself a second and a third time. R. Huna replied: These men do this habitually.
</p><p>
	A certain man sold himself to the Lydians<a id="k46b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and then appealed to R. Ammi saying,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k47a_1:" [R. Ammi to the scholars present. The word 'to him' in current editions is to be deleted, v. BaH.]"
,k47a_2:" By learning the ways of the heathen, of which there was not so much danger when their father was alive."
,k47a_3:" Lit., 'nebelah and terefah', i.e., meat from an animal not killed according to the Jewish rite or disqualified on account of some physical defect. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k47a_4:" Lit., 'for desire' to satisfy the appetite."
,k47a_5:" In his early years Simeon b. Lakish was a brigand."
,k47a_6:" Lit., 'his blood'. [Aruch 'that his blood may be sweet'. By fulfilling his wishes they will enjoy his blood without remorse]."
,k47a_7:" It was one of the characteristics of Resh Lakish that he never made provision for the morrow."
,k47a_8:" It was his custom to lie on his stomach. Cf. Zeb. 5."
,k47a_9:" A small measure."
,k47a_10:" Ps. XLIX, 11."
,k47a_11:" This is the rendering of Rashi. According to another reading, which Tosaf. considers preferable, we should translate 'Anyone who buys it from him has to bring the firstfruits etc.'"
,k47a_12:" I.e., to deter people from selling their land to heathens, or to stimulate them to redeem it if they have sold it."
,k47a_13:" Lev. XXV, 23."
,k47a_14:" That is to say, it remains holy even in the hand of the heathen, and tithe must be brought from it."
,k47a_15:" Ps. CXV, 16."
,k47a_16:" Deut. XIV, 23."
,k47a_17:" Ps. XXIV, 1."
,k47a_18:" R. Eleazar."
,k47a_19:" [The obligation for tithing comes into force only after the crop has been finally turned into corn (v. Ma'as I, 6); and according to Rabbah the verse exempts only such corn as has been at that time in the ownership of the non-Jew. Where, however, a Jew had been responsible for the final process as owner, there is liability although the crop grew in soil belonging to a non-Jew, because a non-Jew cannot own property in Eretz Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation to tithe.]"
,k47a_20:" <i>Pe'ah</i> IV, 9."
,k47a_21:" Ipso facto, even without any declaration on the part of the owner, v. Lev. XIX. 9, 10."
,k47a_22:" Which would show that normally a field sold to a heathen is still subject to tithe."
,k47a_23:" [Consequently should a Jew buy these gleanings from the non-Jew, he will have to give tithes unless the original owner had declared them common property.]"
,k47a_24:" Should another Jew buy the produce from the heathen and turn it into grain."
,k47a_25:" The rule was that produce became liable for tithe as soon as it was a third grown. R.H. 12."
,k47a_26:" Which would show that normally a field sold to a heathen is not subject to tithe."
,k47a_27:" King David. V. <i>supra</i> p. 25, n. 3."
,k47a_28:" [And ownership of a field in Syria by a heathen does release the produce from the tithing obligation, which is there merely of rabbinic origin.] "
}

txt:
<p>
Redeem me. So he said:<a id="k47a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; We have learnt, IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED, BUT HIS CHILDREN ARE TO BE REDEEMED AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, to prevent their going astray.<a id="k47a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; All the more so then here, where there is a danger of their being killed. The Rabbis said to R. Assi: This man is a non-observant Israelite, who has been seen eating non-Jewish meat.<a id="k47a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to them: possibly he did so because he wanted<a id="k47a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [meat, and could get no other]? They said: There have been times when he had the choice of permitted and forbidden meat and he left the former and took the latter. He thereupon said to the man: Be off; they will not let me ransom you.
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish<a id="k47a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; once sold himself to the Lydians. He took with him a bag with a stone in it, because, he said, it is a known fact that on the last day they grant any request [of the man they are about to kill] in order that he may forgive them his murder.<a id="k47a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; On the last day they said to him, What would you like? He replied: I want you to let me tie your arms and seat you in a row and give each one of you a blow and a half with my bottle. He bound them and seated them, and gave each of them a blow with his bag which stunned him. [One of them] ground his teeth at him. Are you laughing at me? he said. I have still half a bag left for you. So he killed them all and made off. As he was once seated [on the ground] eating and drinking,<a id="k47a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; his daughter said, Don't you want something to recline on? He replied: Daughter, my belly is my cushion.<a id="k47a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; At his death he left a <i>kab</i><a id="k47a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; of saffron, and he applied to himself the verse, And they shall leave to others their substance.<a id="k47a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SELLS HIS FIELD TO A HEATHEN, HE HAS TO BUY [YEARLY] THE FIRSTFRUITS FROM HIM AND BRING THEM TO JERUSALEM,<a id="k47a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k47a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rabbah said: Although a heathen cannot own property in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe, since it says, For mine is the land,<a id="k47a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; as much as to say, mine is the sanctity of the land,<a id="k47a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; yet a heathen can own land in the Land of Israel so fully as to have the right of digging in it pits, ditches and caves, as it says, The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth he gave to the sons of man.<a id="k47a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar, however, said: Although a heathen can own land so fully in the land of Israel as to release it from the obligation of tithe, since it says, [The tithe of] thy corn,<a id="k47a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies, 'and not the corn of the heathen,' yet a heathen cannot own land in the Land of Israel so fully as to have the right of digging in it pits, ditches and caves, since it says, The earth is the Lord's.<a id="k47a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the point at issue between them? &mdash; One<a id="k47a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that [we interpret the word 'thy corn'] to mean 'thy corn and not the corn of the heathen' and the other holds that we interpret it to mean, 'thy storing and not the storing of the heathen.'<a id="k47a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: Whence do I derive my view? Because we have learnt: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner belonging to a heathen are subject to tithe unless he has declared them common property.<a id="k47a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; How are we to understand this? Are we to say that the field belongs to an Israelite and the produce has been gathered by a heathen? If so, what is the meaning of 'unless he declared them common property,' seeing that they are already such?<a id="k47a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; We must therefore say that the field belongs to a heathen and an Israelite has gathered the produce, and the reason why he has to give no tithe from them is because he declared them common property, but otherwise he would be liable!<a id="k47a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is not conclusive. I may still hold that [the field spoken of] belongs to an Israelite and that a heathen has gathered the produce; and as for your argument that it is already declared common property, granted that it is such in the eyes of the Israelite, is it such in the eyes of the heathen?<a id="k47a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If an Israelite bought a field from a heathen before the produce was a third grown and sold it back to him after it was a third grown, it is subject to tithe,<a id="k47a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; because it was so already<a id="k47a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [before he sold it back]. The reason is [is it not] because it was so already, but otherwise it would not be subject?<a id="k47a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are dealing here with a field in Syria, and [the author of this dictum] took the view that the annexation of an individual<a id="k47a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is not legally counted as annexation.<a id="k47a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: 'If an Israelite and a heathen buy a field in partnership.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k47b_1:" <i>Tebel</i> is produce from which tithe and other dues have not yet been separated. Hullin is produce which may be consumed without scruple by laymen."
,k47b_2:" Even if they each take the produce of a separate half of the field."
,k47b_3:" Tosef. Ter. II."
,k47b_4:" Lit., 'there is bererah', (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). I.e., we suppose that the part which the heathen took eventually was intended for him from the beginning."
,k47b_5:" Which refutes Rabbah."
,k47b_6:" I.e., according to the Torah, the heathen is the legal owner, and therefore tithe need not be brought, which refutes Rabbah."
,k47b_7:" V. Deut. XXVI, 1-11."
,k47b_8:" So that they should be impelled to buy the fields back."
,k47b_9:" I.e., on the understanding that the purchaser is to acquire the produce for a certain number of years but not to become owner of the soil."
,k47b_10:" Because the recital contains the words the fruit of the ground which thou, O Lord, hast given me, which could be said with propriety only by the owner of the soil."
,k47b_11:" As appears later, the difference here between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish in respect to firstfruits refers to the time when the law of Jubilee was no longer in force, i.e., after the tribes of Reuben and Gad were carried off by Sennacherib (v. 2 Kings XV, 29) till the rebuilding of the Second Temple."
,k47b_12:" Deut. XXVI, 11."
,k47b_13:" From the so-called 'property of mulug' (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) which belonged to the wife but of which the husband had the management and usufruct. 'House' here as in many cases is taken by the Rabbis as equivalent to 'wife'."
,k47b_14:" Why the firstfruits are brought by one who does not own the soil."
,k47b_15:" The Torah has made a special exception in the case of the wife's produce."
,k47b_16:" I.e., R. Johanan takes the case of the wife as being not exceptional but typical."
,k47b_17:" Presumably because his relation to the field is still that of purchaser."
,k47b_18:" Deut. XXVI, 2 and 10."
,k47b_19:" This is implied in the text, which thou shalt bring (ibid) cf. verse 10."
,k47b_20:" And here the husband having in the interval been transformed from a purchaser into an heir is in a way no longer the same person. "
}

txt:
<p>
<i>tebel</i> and hullin<a id="k47b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; are inextricably mixed up in it.<a id="k47b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that the part belonging to the heathen is exempt [from tithe], and the part belonging to the Israelite is subject to it'.<a id="k47b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now [are we not to say that] the extent of their difference consists in this, that the one authority [R. Simeon] holds that a distinction can be made retrospectively,<a id="k47b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other holds that no distinction can be made retrospectively, but both are agreed that a heathen can own land in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe?<a id="k47b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here too we are dealing with land in Syria, and [R. Simeon] took the view that the annexation of an individual is not legally regarded as annexation. R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Come and hear. IF ONE SELLS HIS FIELD TO A HEATHEN, HE MUST BUY FROM HIM THE FIRSTFRUITS AND TAKE THEM TO JERUSALEM, TO PREVENT ABUSES. That is to say, the reason is to prevent abuses, but the Torah itself does not prescribe this?<a id="k47b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi replied: There were two regulations. At first they [the sellers of the fields] used to bring the firstfruits as enjoined in the Torah. When [the Sages] saw that they made the recital [over them]<a id="k47b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and still sold [fields], being under the impression that the fields still retained their holiness, they ordained that [the firstfruits] should not be brought. When they saw that those who were short of money still sold and the fields remained in the hands of the heathen, they ordained that they should be brought.<a id="k47b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man sells his field in respect of the produce only,<a id="k47b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan says that [the purchaser] brings the firstfruits and makes the recital [over them],<a id="k47b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while Resh Lakish says that he brings them but makes no recital.<a id="k47b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan who says that he brings and recites is of the opinion that the possession of the increment is equivalent to possession of the [parent] body, while Resh Lakish who says that he brings without reciting is of opinion that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body.<a id="k47b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following]: [And thou shalt rejoice in all the good which the Lord hath given to thee] and to thy house:<a id="k47b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; this teaches that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife<a id="k47b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and makes the recital! &mdash; Resh Lakish rejoined: There is a special reason there,<a id="k47b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; because the text says 'his house'.<a id="k47b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another report, Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan [by quoting to him]: 'And to thy house:' this shows that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife and makes the recital. This, [continued Resh Lakish,] is the rule in the case of the wife, because the text says and to thy house, but in other cases not! &mdash; R. Johanan replied: I derive my reason also from the same verse.<a id="k47b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; He [then] raised an objection [from the following]: 'If while he was on the road bringing the firstfruits of his wife he heard that his wife had died, he brings them and makes the recital,' which means, [I take it], that if she did not die he does not make the recital?<a id="k47b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, [he replied]; the rule is the same even if she did not die, but it had to be stated also in regard to the case of her dying, [for this reason]. It might have occurred to us that [in this case] we should as a precaution prohibit [the husband from reciting] on account of the ruling of R. Jose b. Hanina who laid down that if a man gathered his grapes and commissioned another man to bring them [to Jerusalem] and the person commissioned died on the way, he [himself] brings them but does not make the recital, because it says, and thou shalt take&nbsp;&hellip;<a id="k47b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and thou shalt bring,<a id="k47b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that the taking and the bringing must be performed by the same person.<a id="k47b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; We are therefore told [that we do not take this precaution].
</p><p>
	R. Johanan and Resh Lakish are herein true to their own principles, as stated elsewhere: If a man sells his field
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k49a_1:" I.e., the quality of the field paid by the defendant as damages need not exceed the best quality of the claimant's estate. Hence in this case, he can claim only the worst of the defendant's."
,k49a_2:" Who therefore has to pay out of his best."
,k49a_3:" If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. Ex. XXII, 4."
,k49a_4:" Of the best of his own field shall he make restitution. Ibid."
,k49a_5:" Of 'field' 'field'. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49a_6:" That we assess on the estate of the claimant."
,k49a_7:" Even though this is much better than the best of the claimant."
,k49a_8:" Ex. XXI, 35."
,k49a_9:" For the damage to which there is no liability."
,k49a_10:" As laid down in our Mishnah."
,k49a_11:" As stated <i>supra</i>."
,k49a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49a_13:" B.K. 37b, q.v. for notes."
,k49a_14:" And where the claimant's best equals the defendant's worst, the latter will perhaps suffice according to all opinions."
,k49a_15:" In the Baraitha quoted <i>supra</i> 48b."
,k49a_16:" I.e., R. Akiba differed from R. Ishmael only in the second part of his statement, regarding the Sanctuary, but not the first."
,k49a_17:" Which indicates that the interpretation of the verse (Ex. XXII, 4) is the point at issue."
,k49a_18:" [As according to the view requiring full payment in all cases, the quality of the payment for damage done to sacred property may be higher than that paid for damage done to ordinary property, and in fact nothing less than the very best of the defendant's estate would suffice.] "
}

txt:
<p>
that the case here considered is one where the best of the claimant is equal [in quality] to the worst of the defendant, in which case R. Ishmael held that we assess on the land of the claimant,<a id="k49a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Akiba held that we assess on the land of the defendant.<a id="k49a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What is R. Ishmael's reason? &mdash; The word 'field' occurs both in the earlier<a id="k49a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the later<a id="k49a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; clause; just as in the earlier clause it refers to the field of the claimant, so in the later it refers to the field of the claimant. R. Akiba, on the other hand, held that the words, from the best of his field he shall make restitution mean, from the best of him who makes restitution. What does R. Ishmael say to this? &mdash; [He says that] the <i>gezerah shawah</i><a id="k49a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; has its lesson and the text has its lesson. The lesson of the <i>gezerah shawah</i> is what we have said.<a id="k49a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The lesson of the text is that if the defendant has high grade and low grade land and his low grade land is not equal to the best of the claimant, he pays him from the best.<a id="k49a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Akiba says: The whole purpose of the text is to allow compensation for damage to be recovered from the best property of the defendant; and all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary.' What is the meaning of 'all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary'? Are we to say that [this rule applies] where our ox has gored the ox of the Sanctuary? [This cannot be, because] the Divine Law says, [if one man's ox hurt] the ox of one's neighbour,<a id="k49a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but not an ox of the Sanctuary.<a id="k49a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say then that what is meant is that if a man says, 'I take upon myself to give a <i>maneh</i> for the repair of the Temple,' the treasurer can come and collect it from the best [of his land]? Surely he is in no better position than a creditor, and a creditor has a right to collect only from the medium property!<a id="k49a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you contend that R. Akiba holds that a creditor can collect from the best like a [claimant for] damages, we may still object, how can you draw an analogy from a [private] creditor, who is at an advantage in that he can claim compensation for damages, to the Sanctuary, which has no right [ever] to claim compensation for damages?<a id="k49a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; I may still say that [these words refer to the case where] our ox gored the ox of the Sanctuary, for R. Akiba held the same view as R. Simeon b. Menasya, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Menasya says: If an ox of the Sanctuary gores an ox of a layman, there is no liability, but if the ox of a layman gores an ox of the sanctuary, whether it was <i>tam</i><a id="k49a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or <i>mu'ad</i>,<a id="k49a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the owner has to pay compensation in full.<a id="k49a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, why should you say that R. Akiba and R. Ishmael differ [as to what is to be done] when the best of the claimant is equal to the worst of the defendant? Perhaps in that case both agree that we assess on the land of the claimant,<a id="k49a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and their dispute here<a id="k49a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is the same as that between R. Simeon b. Menasya and the Rabbis, R. Akiba adopting the same view as R. Simeon b. Menasya and R. Ishmael adopting the view of the Rabbis?<a id="k49a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If that were the case, why should R. Akiba have said 'The whole purpose of the text etc.,'<a id="k49a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and again, what means 'All the more so in the case of the Sanctuary'?<a id="k49a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And besides, R. Ashi has told us,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k49b_1:" Ex. XXII, 4."
,k49b_2:" For all this section v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 21-24."
,k49b_3:" And not R. Ishmael, as we have been presuming hitherto."
,k49b_4:" E.g., that of 'he shall not multiply wives to himself,' B.M. 115a."
,k49b_5:" Although the rule laid down in the earlier derives from the Torah and not merely from the Rabbis."
,k49b_6:" [H], i.e. who appropriate forcibly but offer payment, in contradistinction from [H], who plunder without compensating the owner; v. B.K. 62a.]"
,k49b_7:" Lit., 'jump', 'come forward'."
,k49b_8:" This being a fresh point, not a reason why the <i>Kethubah</i> is to be paid out of the worst land."
,k49b_9:" Lit., 'come and hear'."
,k49b_10:" After the death of the husband."
,k49b_11:" In case of divorce."
,k49b_12:" Lit., 'for the sake of favour.' This would more naturally mean, that she should find favour in the eyes of the men, and so indeed it is taken by R. Hananel. V. Tosaf. s.v."
,k49b_13:" With whom he joins issue on this point."
,k49b_14:" Viz., compensation for damage from the best property and debts from the second best, as they would have been by the son himself had he been alive."
,k49b_15:" Viz., by the father if the son dies without having paid."
,k49b_16:" Viz., from the lowest grade property, as it would be by orphans. In ordinary cases, however, a husband, according to R. Aba b. Jacob, pays the <i>Kethubah</i> from medium property."
,k49b_17:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k49b_18:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The meaning is that he entered into an agreement with his daughter-in-law that she could claim either from him or from his son at will."
,k49b_19:" At the time when the debt is contracted."
,k49b_20:" Since no one would guarantee a loan where it is known that the debtor has no means wherewith to repay. A guarantee in such a case cannot therefore be taken seriously. V. B.B. 174b. And the presumption is here that the husband had no effects when the contract was made. (V. Tosaf.)."
,k49b_21:" When the liability was contracted."
,k49b_22:" Lit., 'blighted'."
,k49b_23:" 'Areb., v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49b_24:" Because she has not actually parted with anything. "
}

txt:
<p>
It has been taught expressly: From the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall make restitution:<a id="k49b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; this means the best of the field of the claimant and the best of the vineyard of the claimant. So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, says it means, the best of the field of the defendant and the best of the vineyard of the defendant.<a id="k49b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said: We may maintain after all that the Mishnah follows R. Akiba,<a id="k49b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; who said that according to the Torah we assess on the land of the defendant, and it also follows here R. Simeon whose custom it was to expound the reasons of Scriptural injunctions,<a id="k49b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and its later clause gives the reason for the earlier,<a id="k49b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: Why is compensation for damage assessed on the best property? To pre vent abuses, as it has been taught: R. Simeon said: Why was it laid down that compensation for damages should be paid out of the best land? As a deterrent to those who plunder or take by violence,<a id="k49b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; so that a man should say to himself, Why should I plunder or take by violence, seeing that to-morrow the <i>Beth din</i> will come down<a id="k49b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; on my property and take my best field, basing themselves on what is written in the Torah, 'from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall make restitution'? For that reason they laid down that compensation for damages should be assessed on the best land.
</p><p>
	Why did they lay down that a creditor should recover only from medium land? So that a man, on seeing his neighbour possessed of a fine field or a fine house, should not be tempted to say, I will induce him to borrow money of me so that I can get them on account of my debt. For this reason they laid down that a creditor should recover only from medium land. But if that is so, he should be allowed to recover only from the lowest grade? &mdash; This would be closing the door in the face of borrowers.
</p><p>
	A woman's <i>Kethubah</i> can be collected only from land of the poorest quality. So R. Judah; R. Meir, however, says, from medium land also. R. Simeon said: Why did they lay down that a woman's <i>Kethubah</i> is to be collected from poor land? Because the woman wants to be married more than the man wants to marry. Another explanation is that a woman is put away whether she will or not, but a man puts her away only if he wants to. How is this 'another explanation'?<a id="k49b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [What it means is]: Should you say that just as when the husband divorces the wife the Rabbis provided that she should obtain a <i>Kethubah</i> from him, so when she leaves him they should provide for him a <i>Kethubah</i> from her, then I would point out<a id="k49b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; that a woman is divorced whether she wants to be or not, but a man divorces only if he wants to, since he can always keep her waiting for a Get.
</p><p>
	A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> ONLY FROM LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman said: This is the rule only [where the <i>Kethubah</i> is recovered] from the orphans,<a id="k49b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but from the husband himself it can be demanded out of medium property. If [the Mishnah refers to] orphans, why does it specify a woman's <i>Kethubah</i>, seeing that the same applies to all payments, as we have learnt, 'PAYMENTS FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM LOWEST GRADE LAND.' Are we not [therefore obliged to say] that the Mishnah is referring to the husband himself?<a id="k49b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In point of fact it is to the orphans, and there was a reason for specifying the woman's <i>Kethubah</i>. For I might have thought that the Rabbis granted her a concession in order that she might look more favourably on suitors.<a id="k49b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; We are therefore told [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	Raba said: Come and hear: R. MEIR SAYS, A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> CAN ALSO BE COLLECTED FROM MEDIUM QUALITY LAND. From whom? Shall I say from the orphans? Does R. Meir then not accept [the rule] which we have learnt: PAYMENT FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM THE LOWEST GRADE? We must say therefore that he means, from the husband himself; from which we can infer that in the opinion of the Rabbis<a id="k49b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [payment can be claimed even from the husband] only in poor land. &mdash; No; [R. Meir] indeed [also referred] to orphans, and there is a special reason why [in his opinion] a woman's <i>Kethubah</i> [should be collected even from their medium land], namely, to make her favourably disposed to suitors. Abaye said: Come and hear: COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE IS PAID OUT OF [PROPERTY OF] THE BEST QUALITY, A CREDITOR OUT OF LAND OF MEDIUM QUALITY, AND A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> OUT OF LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. [Collected] from whom? Shall we say, from orphans? If so, why only the woman's <i>Kethubah</i> [from the poorest land]? Why not [all the claims of] others as well? &mdash; R. Aha b. Jacob said: We are dealing here with a case where a man became surety for compensation for damage due from his son, for his son's debt, and for his daughter-in-law's <i>Kethubah</i>. Each item then follows its own rule.<a id="k49b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Compensation and debts which are usually paid in the lifetime [of the person responsible] are paid in this case also as though in the lifetime of the person responsible.<a id="k49b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The woman's <i>Kethubah</i> which is usually paid after the death of the person responsible &mdash; and by whom? by the orphans &mdash; is paid in this case as after the death of the person responsible.<a id="k49b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But cannot this rule be derived from the fact that a surety for a <i>Kethubah</i> is not responsible [for its payment]?<a id="k49b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We speak of a kabbelan [go-between].<a id="k49b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; This solves the problem for one who holds that a kabbelan is responsible even though the borrower has no property,<a id="k49b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but what answer is to be given to one who holds that if the borrower has property he is responsible but if the borrower has no effects he is not responsible?<a id="k49b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say that in this case we suppose [the son to have] had property<a id="k49b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; which was subsequently destroyed,<a id="k49b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or if you like I can say that in respect of his son a man would in all cases regard himself as responsible.
</p><p>
	It has been stated [elsewhere]: With regard to a surety<a id="k49b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for a <i>Kethubah</i>, all authorities are agreed that he does not become responsible.<a id="k49b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k50a_1:" In all circumstances."
,k50a_2:" By enabling a marriage to be consummated."
,k50a_3:" In so far as she does not actually part with anything. For fuller notes on this section v. B.B. (Sonc. ed., p. 770."
,k50a_4:" Referring to the original statement of Mar Zutra, that save in the case of orphans, a <i>Kethubah</i> is collected from medium land."
,k50a_5:" And we therefore interpret the Mishnah to mean that a <i>Kethubah</i> is in all cases collected only from the worst land."
,k50a_6:" That such a stipulation is of no avail where orphans are concerned."
,k50a_7:" That such a stipulation is of no avail."
,k50a_8:" Deut. XXIV, 11."
,k50a_9:" V. B.K. 8a."
,k50a_10:" In virtue of the stipulation."
,k50a_11:" V. <i>infra</i> p. 413, n. 1."
,k50a_12:" In the teaching of R. Abram of Hozae."
,k50a_13:" This refutes Mar Zutra's ruling."
,k50a_14:" Strips of good land adjoining a river reserved for pasturage and therefore liable to be overflowed, and so of less real value than even the worst land. V. Tosaf."
,k50a_15:" This land being so very inferior."
,k50a_16:" This last statement is not part of Raba's statement but explains the reason of R. Eleazar the Nabatean."
,k50a_17:" So that their guardians should exert themselves to dispose of their worst land."
,k50a_18:" Lit., 'so that this should bar the door'."
,k50a_19:" Even if the lender knows that in case of the borrower dying he will only be able to recover from the worst land, whether the orphans are minors or grown up."
,k50a_20:" I.e., with the rule that anyone claiming from orphans a debt contracted by their father, even if he produced a bond, had to take an oath. V. Shebu. 41b."
,k50a_21:" I.e., he cannot be expected to know whether his father had paid the debt or not. "
}

txt:
<p>
With regard to a kabbelan for a debt, all are agreed that he does become responsible.<a id="k50a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; With regard to a surety for a debt and a kabbelan for a <i>Kethubah</i> there is a difference of opinion, some holding that even though [the debtor] had no property they become responsible, and others holding that if he had effects they become responsible, but if he had no effects they do not. The law in all these cases is that even if [the debtor] had no property [the surety or go-between] becomes responsible, save in the case of the surety for a <i>Kethubah</i>, who does not become responsible even if [the husband] has effects. The reason is that he performs a pious action,<a id="k50a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and he does not cause the woman any loss.<a id="k50a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said:<a id="k50a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Let us look at the basis of our regulation. It is that more than the man desires to marry the woman desires to be married. Now if you suppose [that the Mishnah refers] to orphans [when it says that the woman collects from the poorest land], then the reason would be that they are orphans. Is this not a refutation of Mar Zutra? &mdash; It is.<a id="k50a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman said in the name of R. Nahman: If a claim is made from orphans on the strength of a bond [given by their father], even though the best land is mentioned in it, payment can be recovered only from the worst. Abaye said: The proof of this<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is that although a creditor has ordinarily the right to collect from medium land, from orphans he can recover only from the worst land. Said Raba to him: Is this really so?<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; According to Scriptural law, a creditor can claim only from the worst land, as laid down by 'Ulla; for 'Ulla said, 'The Torah has enacted that a creditor should collect from the worst land. For it says Thou shalt stand without, and the man<a id="k50a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. What would a man naturally bring out in such a case? His least valuable articles. Why then did they [the Rabbis] say that a creditor should collect from medium property? So as not to place obstacles in the way of borrowers. Where orphans are concerned, however, they left the law as it was laid down in the Torah.'<a id="k50a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But here, since according to the Torah he can claim from the best land,<a id="k50a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [I should say that] from orphans also he can claim from the best land? How can Raba [maintain this], seeing that Abram [of] Hozae<a id="k50a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; learnt, 'Claims on orphans can be recovered only from their poorest land, even if these are in [compensation] for damage,' and the law that compensation for damage can be claimed from the best is of the Torah? &mdash; We are presuming here<a id="k50a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that the best of the claimant was only equal to the worst of the defendant, and are following R. Ishmael who said that the law of the Torah is that we should assess on the property of the claimant, but to prevent abuses the Rabbis ordained that the assessment should be made on the property of the defendant, and where orphans were concerned [the Rabbis] left the law as laid down in the Torah. Still did not R. Eliezer the Nabatean state that 'payment recoverable from the property of orphans can be claimed only from their worst land, even if it is the best'? Now what is meant by the words, 'even if it is the best'? Does it not mean, 'even if the best is stipulated in the bond'?<a id="k50a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; what is meant by 'the best' here is the strips of the best,<a id="k50a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; even as [mentioned also by] Raba. For Raba said: 'If the damage was done to the worst land, the claimant recovers from the best; if to the strips of the best, he recovers from the medium.'<a id="k50a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Where orphans however were concerned the Rabbis left the law as laid down in the Torah.<a id="k50a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	PAYMENT FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM THE POOREST LAND. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: Are the orphans spoken of here minors, or are grown-ups also included? [That is to say,] were the Rabbis here taking a measure for [the protection of] orphans,<a id="k50a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in which case they meant it to apply only to minor orphans but not to grown-ups, or was their reason that a lender does not ordinarily take into account the risk of the debtor dying and leaving his property to his orphans, so that there is no question of placing obstacles<a id="k50a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in the way of borrowers,<a id="k50a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and [consequently the regulation applies] to grown-ups also? &mdash; Come and hear what Abaye the elder stated, viz., that the orphans spoken of here mean grown-ups, and <i>a fortiori</i> the rule applies to minors. But perhaps this statement [was made] in connection with the administering of an oath,<a id="k50a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; because a grown-up is also like a child in relation to his father's affairs,<a id="k50a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is not [the rule for payment out of] lowest-grade land? The law however is
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k50b_1:" Who bought land from a man after he had contracted a debt to a third party."
,k50b_2:" And recovery can he made from land which has been given away, even if there are free assets available."
,k50b_3:" Tosaf. points out that if the three gifts were equal we should say that he intended the earlier to take precedence, as otherwise he would have said, Give six hundred <i>zuz</i> to So-and-so and So-and-so and So-and-so."
,k50b_4:" Lit., 'and after him.'"
,k50b_5:" V. B.B. 138a."
,k50b_6:" In spite of the fact that a creditor can collect from medium land."
,k50b_7:" Since the last gift was a 'free' asset by comparison with the first."
,k50b_8:" I.e., we do not say in the case of a gift that a creditor cannot collect from the gift when there are free assets available."
,k50b_9:" [The phrase, that is to say, does not mean that he collects only from the last, for where the first was the recipient of medium land and the last poor land, he would certainly be entitled to collect from the first, since the rabbinic regulation does not apply to a gift. What the phrase does mean is that only the last is the ultimate loser because the first can, after all, come on to him for what the creditor has taken from him.]"
,k50b_10:" And only in this case can the first recipient force the creditor to recover first of all from the last."
,k50b_11:" The improvements and crops."
,k50b_12:" Implying that if they were, it would be enforceable. The deed is that given by the robber to the purchaser. V. <i>supra</i> p. 216, n. 3."
,k50b_13:" V. Mishnah Keth. 52b."
,k50b_14:" Relating to the maintenance of wife and daughters."
,k50b_15:" Who here consequently agrees with Resh Lakish."
,k50b_16:" [The exact quantity of the produce to be raised hereafter could not be known when the field was first appropriated, and therefore subsequent purchasers could not be expected to allow a sufficient margin for their indemnification. On this view, they would not be enforceable even if mentioned in the deed.] "
}

txt:
<p>
that the orphans spoken of are grown-ups, and the rule applies <i>a fortiori</i> to minors, whether in connection with an oath or [with payment out of] the worst land.
</p><p>
	PAYMENT CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHEN THERE ARE FREE ASSETS AVAILABLE. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: What is the rule in the case of a gift? Are we to say that this regulation was made for the protection of purchasers<a id="k50b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; against loss and it therefore does not apply to a gift,<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; where there is no question of loss to purchasers, or do we say this even in the case of a gift for if the recipient did not derive some benefit from it it would not have been given to him and therefore his loss is on the same footing as the loss of the purchaser? &mdash; [In reply] Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Come and hear 'If a dying man says, Give two hundred <i>zuz</i> to So-and-so, three hundred to So-and-so, and four hundred to So-and-so, we do not say that one who is mentioned earlier in the deed has a superior title to one who is mentioned later.<a id="k50b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor [after his death], the claimant can collect from all of them. If, however, he said, Give two hundred <i>zuz</i> to So-and-so and then<a id="k50b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to So-and-so and then to So-and-so, we do say that whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed has the better title. Consequently if a bond is produced against the donor, the claimant collects first from the last recipient; if he has not enough, he comes on to the one before him, and if he has not enough, to the one before him;'<a id="k50b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and even though [so it would appear] the first was given medium land and the last poor land, [the claimant] has to collect from the poor before the medium.<a id="k50b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows, [does it not], that the Rabbis meant their regulation to apply to a gift also?<a id="k50b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Not necessarily, as] we may here be speaking of the payment of debts [and not of a gift].<a id="k50b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But the man said 'give'? &mdash; He meant, 'Give in payment of my debt.' If so, we can see whose bond is prior? &mdash; We assume there is no bond. But [the passage quoted] says, 'Whoever is mentioned earlier in the deed'? &mdash; This means, the deed containing his instructions. Or if you like I can say the reference is also to a gift, and still there is no difficulty, since the words 'he collects from the last' mean, 'only the last [of the three] is the ultimate loser.'<a id="k50b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you like again I can say that the gifts of all were equal.<a id="k50b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	INDEMNIFICATION FOR PRODUCE CONSUMED CANNOT BE ENFORCED etc. What is the reason? &mdash; 'Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: Because these<a id="k50b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; were not mentioned [in the deed of sale].<a id="k50b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abba to 'Ulla: But what of the maintenance of a woman and her daughters which is taken as written<a id="k50b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? &mdash; He replied: The regulation<a id="k50b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; was so framed from the outset they are taken as written so far as concerns free assets but not so far as concerns property on which there is a lien. R. Assi also stated in the name of R. Johanan<a id="k50b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the reason is] because they were not mentioned in the deed. Said R. Zera to R. Assi: But what of the maintenance of wife and daughters which also is taken as written and yet [the Mishnah] states that it is not enforceable? &mdash; He replied. The regulation was so framed from the outset: they are taken as written where free assets are concerned, but not where there is a lien on the property. R. Hanina, however, said: [The reason is] because they are not of a definite [amount].<a id="k50b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: In order [that a debt may be enforceable from property on which there is a lien] does R. Hanina require that it should be both definite and written down,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k51a_1:" The rule was that an orphan daughter was entitled to a tenth of her father's property on becoming of age or marrying, apart from her maintenance up to that time."
,k51a_2:" Because she now becomes joint heiress to the whole property."
,k51a_3:" I.e. from anyone who should have bought property from the brother."
,k51a_4:" If she can recover from others, how can we ask her to give up what is already in her hands?"
,k51a_5:" Hence we may still maintain that R. Hanina requires both written and definite."
,k51a_6:" The case is one in which a woman with a daughter marries a man with the stipulation that he will maintain her daughter for a definite period, and within the period he divorces her and she marries another man with the same stipulation. Each husband has then to give the full allowance for the daughter's maintenance according to stipulation, v. Keth. 101b."
,k51a_7:" Which this woman bore to them."
,k51a_8:" The woman's daughter."
,k51a_9:" Because the term of years was definite, although there was no written contract. This contradicts 'Ulla."
,k51a_10:" A <i>Kinyan</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Which would naturally he recorded in writing."
,k51a_11:" And afterwards made the agreement along with the transfer. Hence the transfer cannot be the reason."
,k51a_12:" The rule that an unmarried orphan daughter is entitled to maintenance, v. Keth. 52b."
,k51a_13:" An thus the transfer is after all the reason."
,k51a_14:" In settlement of her maintenance dues, and this is why the transfer does not apply to her."
,k51a_15:" I.e., one who bought a second field from the robber on which the first purchaser wishes to distrain."
,k51a_16:" And no-one would buy land if he was afraid it might be claimed on account of obligations not recorded in writing."
,k51a_17:" Why introduce here this consideration?"
,k51a_18:" This alone is sufficient to debar enforcement from mortgaged property, which shows that R. Jose holds that even if they were written they would not be enforceable."
,k51a_19:" Hence in the case of the purses the claimant could be positive, but not in the case of the oxen, and the oath is administered only if the claimant is positive."
,k51a_20:" That he has restored one of them, since he has admitted part of the charge, which was that he found two. There is another reading (preferred by Tosaf.) 'It has also been taught to the same effect, (If a man says,) 'You found two oxen together' and the other says, 'I only found one,' he does not take an oath. If the first says, 'You found two purses tied together' and the other says. 'I did, and I gave you back one of them,' he has to take an oath.' V. p. 281, n. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
or is it sufficient that it should be definite even without being written down? &mdash; Come and hear: It has been stated: If a man dies and leaves two daughters and a son, and if the first [daughter] took her tenth of the property<a id="k51a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; before the son died but the second had not time to take her tenth before the son died, R. Johanan says that the second has forfeited [her tenth].<a id="k51a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina remarked to him: The [Rabbis] went even further than this by laying down that payment may be enforced for [marriage] provision<a id="k51a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; though not for maintenance, and how can you say then that the second forfeits her tenth?<a id="k51a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Now [marriage] provision is a definite sum but it is not written down, and we see [that R. Hanina says that] it is enforceable? &mdash; There is a special reason in the case of [marriage] provision; it gets talked about and therefore it is as good as written.<a id="k51a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna b. Manoah raised an objection [from the following]: 'If [both husbands] died,<a id="k51a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the daughters<a id="k51a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; are maintained from free assets, but she<a id="k51a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is maintained [also] from mortgaged property, because she is in the position of a creditor'?<a id="k51a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We presume that in this case there was a formal transfer.<a id="k51a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, then the daughters<a id="k51a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; also should draw on mortgaged property]? &mdash; We presume that the transfer was made on behalf of the one but not of the others. On what ground do you decide thus? &mdash; Because the daughter of his wife who was already born at the time of the transfer can benefit from the transfer, but his own daughter who was not yet born at the time of the transfer cannot benefit from it. But are we not to assume that both had already been born at the time of the transfer, [and if you ask how can this be, I answer,] supposing he had divorced her and then taken her back?<a id="k51a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; what we must say is that his own daughter who is entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i><a id="k51a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; derives no benefit from the transfer, whereas his wife's daughter who is not entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i> does derive benefit from the transfer.<a id="k51a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Is then his own daughter to be in an inferior position? &mdash; No; since his daughter is entitled to maintenance on the strength of the stipulation of the <i>Beth din</i>, we presume that [at his death] he gave her a purse of money.<a id="k51a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: R. Nathan says: When [does this rule about consumable produce etc. apply]? When the purchase of the second<a id="k51a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; preceded the betterment of the first. But if the betterment of the first preceded the purchase of the second, [the former] can recover from property on which there is a lien. We see therefore that the reason is because he did not improve the field first [and not because the produce is not mentioned in the deed or is not a definite sum]? &mdash; This is a point on which Tannaim also differed, as it has been taught: Indemnification for produce consumed and for betterment of land and [outlay] for maintenance of widow and daughters cannot be enforced from property on which there is a lien, to prevent abuses, since they are not written in any deed.<a id="k51a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: What prevention of abuses is there here,<a id="k51a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; seeing that they are not definite?<a id="k51a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. R. Isaac said: [If a man says to another], 'You found two purses tied together,' and the other says, 'I found only one,' he can be forced to swear, [If he says,] 'You found two oxen tied together,' and the other says. 'There was only one,' he cannot be forced to swear. Why this difference? Because oxen can get loose from one another, but purses cannot.<a id="k51a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he says.] 'You found two oxen tied together,' and the other says. 'I did find, and I restored to you one of them,' he has to take an oath.<a id="k51a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Does then R. Isaac not accept the rule that A FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH, TO PREVENT ABUSES?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k51b_1:" Shebu. 42a; Keth. 18a."
,k51b_2:" Which he calls 'his own plea'."
,k51b_3:" Shebu. 38b."
,k51b_4:" V. Ex. XXII, 10."
,k51b_5:" Hence when he acknowledges part, he is not trusted in regard to the rest."
,k51b_6:" Hence we are willing to trust his oath."
,k51b_7:" Against whom no claim is brought in the first instance."
,k51b_8:" Because he acts spontaneously. For fuller notes on this passage v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 258-9, and B.M. pp. 8 and 9. [R. Eliezer b. Jacob will accordingly also accept the ruling of the Mishnah that no data are required of a restorer of a lost article. Consequently he cannot be in agreement with R. Isaac, who in turn will have to fall back on the Baraitha cited above for his sole support. This argument leads Tosaf. to give preference to the reading cited <i>supra</i> p. 230, n. 1.] "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; He adopted the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, There are times when a man has to take an oath on account of his own plea. For instance: If a man says, 'Your father lent me a <i>maneh</i> and I returned him half of it,' he has to take an oath, this being the kind of person who has to take an oath on account of his own plea. The Sages, however, say that he is on the same footing as one who restores a lost article, and he is exempt [from an oath].<a id="k51b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But does R. Eliezer b. Jacob not hold that one who restores a lost article is exempt? &mdash; Rab said: [He speaks of a case] where the claim is made by a minor.<a id="k51b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Does any weight attach to the claim of a minor, seeing that we have learnt, 'An oath is not administered on the claim of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor'?<a id="k51b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; By 'minor' R. Eliezer means here a grown-up, and the reason why he calls him 'minor' is because in respect of the affairs of his father he is no better than a minor. If that is the case, why does he say, 'on account of his own plea'? It is the plea of someone else? &mdash; He means, the plea of someone else and his own admission. But all charges can be called 'the plea of someone else and his own admission'? &mdash; The truth is that they [R. Eliezer and the Rabbis] differ over the point raised by Rabbah; for Rabbah said: Why did the Torah lay down that one who admits part of the charge against him should take an oath [that he is not liable for the rest]?<a id="k51b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The presumption is that a man will not be brazen enough in the presence of his creditor [to deny a debt outright]. Now this man would like to deny the whole, and the reason why he does not deny the whole is because he is not brazen enough.<a id="k51b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; On the other hand, he would also like to admit the whole, and the reason why he does not do so is to gain time, as he thinks to himself, When I have money I will pay him.<a id="k51b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The All-Merciful therefore said: Impose an oath on him, so that he will admit the whole. Now R. Eliezer was of opinion that whether he is dealing with [the lender] himself or with his son, [the debtor] would not be brazen enough [to deny the debt outright], and therefore in neither case is he like one who restores a lost article.<a id="k51b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis, however, were of opinion that he would not be brazen enough [to deny the debt to the creditor] himself but he would to his son. Hence since he is not so brazen, he is regarded as one restoring a lost article.<a id="k51b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k52a_1:" That he is not retaining any of their property."
,k52a_2:" All these rules are also 'to prevent abuses'."
,k52a_3:" Num. XVIII, 28, speaking of the tithe given by the levite to the priest."
,k52a_4:" I.e., not one partner for another."
,k52a_5:" Since they are not the owners of the produce."
,k52a_6:" And therefore the tithing can wait."
,k52a_7:" Because otherwise it could not be eaten."
,k52a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k52a_9:" Used with the palm branch on Tabernacles. This word is omitted in some readings."
,k52a_10:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k52a_11:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k52a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k52a_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k52a_14:" Because perhaps their plans will go wrong and they will cause loss to the orphans."
,k52a_15:" V. 'Ar. 30a."
,k52a_16:" And so what appears to be a good bargain may result in loss."
,k52a_17:" As their title to the fields may be disputed."
,k52a_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 38b."
,k52a_19:" Lit., 'they showed him'."
,k52a_20:" Lit., 'words of dreams neither cause to ascend or descend."
,k52a_21:" Meaning himself."
,k52a_22:" Hence buying cattle was equivalent to buying land."
,k52a_23:" Which shows that such a householder is on the same footing as a guardian, who has the right to sell cattle."
,k52a_24:" And this should warrant the cancellation of the sale."
,k52a_25:" Hence the transaction could still be cancelled."
,k52a_26:" As a sign of transference of ownership. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Meshikah</i>."
,k52a_27:" And the orphans can retract."
,k52a_28:" I.e., the purchasers could not withdraw even if the vendor was a layman (v. B.M. 44a), still less then in this case."
,k52a_29:" Lit., 'They made pull to orphans' i.e., the orphans 'pulled' the produce they purchased."
,k52a_30:" I.e., the vendors could not withdraw even if the purchaser was a layman, still less here."
,k52a_31:" And the orphans could pay the lower price and keep the wine."
,k52a_32:" And even a layman could withdraw in such a case."
,k52a_33:" And the vendors should not be able to retract. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ORPHANS BOARD WITH A HOUSEHOLDER OR IF THEIR FATHER APPOINTED A GUARDIAN FOR THEM, IT IS HIS DUTY TO TITHE THEIR PRODUCE. A GUARDIAN WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE FATHER OF THE ORPHANS IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH [WHEN THEY COME OF AGE],<a id="k52a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE WAS APPOINTED BY THE <I>BETH DIN</I> HE NEED NOT TAKE AN OATH. ABBA SAUL, SAYS THAT THE RULE IS THE REVERSE.<a id="k52a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A contradiction was pointed out [between this Mishnah and the following]: [Thus] ye [also shall offer]:<a id="k52a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [that means to say,] you and not partners,<a id="k52a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; you and not metayers,<a id="k52a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; you and not guardians, you and not one who tithes from property not his own! &mdash; R. Hisda replied: There is no contradiction; in the one case the produce referred to is meant for consumption, in the other for storing.<a id="k52a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; So it has been taught: 'Guardians set aside <i>terumah</i> and tithe [from the produce of their wards] which is meant for consumption<a id="k52a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and not for storing. They can also sell on their behalf cattle, slaves, male and female, houses, fields and vineyards in order to purchase food with the money but not to put it aside. They can also sell for them produce, wine, oil and flour, to purchase [other] food with the money but not to set it aside. They can make for them a lulab<a id="k52a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and willow,<a id="k52a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>sukkah</i><a id="k52a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and fringes and anything else involving a defined outlay (this includes a <i>shofar</i>),<a id="k52a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and they can buy for them a scroll of the Law, phylacteries and mezuzoth<a id="k52a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and anything involving a defined outlay (which includes a megillah).<a id="k52a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; They cannot, however, undertake on their behalf to give charity or to redeem captives or to do anything involving an unspecified outlay (which includes comforting mourners). Guardians are not allowed to enter into lawsuits concerning the property of orphans, or to entail obligations on it or to secure benefit for it.' Why can they not secure benefit? &mdash; It means, to entail obligations for the purpose of procuring benefits for the property of orphans.<a id="k52a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The guardians are not at liberty to sell a distant [field] of their wards in order to redeem one that is near by<a id="k52a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or to sell in a bad [year] with the idea of redeeming in a good one,<a id="k52a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; since there is a risk that the crops may be struck with blight.<a id="k52a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The guardians are not at liberty to sell fields and buy slaves with the proceeds, but they can sell slaves and buy fields with the proceeds. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that they may not even sell slaves and buy fields, since there is a risk that they will not be left in peaceable possession.<a id="k52a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; The guardians are not empowered to emancipate slaves; they may, however, sell them to others who can emancipate them. Rabbi says: I maintain that the slave may pay his own purchase money and become free, since then the owner as it were sells him to himself.<a id="k52a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; The guardian must give an account of his guardianship at its close. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that this is not necessary. Women, slaves and minors should not be made guardians: if, however, the father of the orphans chooses to appoint one, he is at liberty to do so.'
</p><p>
	There was a certain guardian in the neighbourhood of R. Meir who was selling land and buying slaves [with the proceeds], but R. Meir forbade him. A voice said to him<a id="k52a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in a dream, 'l want to destroy, and will you build'? Even so, however, he paid no heed, saying, Dreams are of no effect either one way or the other.<a id="k52a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	There were two men who, being egged on by Satan, quarrelled with one another every Friday afternoon. R. Meir once came to that place and stopped them from quarrelling there Friday afternoons. When he had finally made peace between them, he heard Satan say: Alas for this man<a id="k52a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; whom R. Meir has driven from his house!
</p><p>
	A certain guardian in the neighbourhood of R. Joshua b. Levi was selling land and buying cattle with the proceeds. [The Rabbi] said nothing to him, being of the same mind as R. Jose, as it has been taught: R. Jose said: All my life I have never called my wife my wife nor my ox my ox but my wife my house and my ox my field.<a id="k52a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Certain orphans who boarded with an old woman had a cow which she took and sold. Their relatives appealed to R. Nahman saying, What business had she to sell it? He said to them: We learnt: IF ORPHANS BOARD WITH A HOUSEHOLDER.<a id="k52a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [But, they said, the cow] is now worth more<a id="k52a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [than she sold it for]. [He replied,] It has become more valuable in the possession of the purchaser. But, they said, they have not yet received the money. If so, he replied, we can apply the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi following Samuel. For R. Hanilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel that the property of orphans is on the same footing as that of the Sanctuary, and is not transferred save on the payment of money.<a id="k52a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The wine of Rabbana 'Ukba the orphan was 'pulled'<a id="k52a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [by purchasers who bought it at] four <i>zuz</i> [the cask]. The price [of wine] subsequently rose, so that it was worth six <i>zuz</i>. The case was brought before R. Nahman who said: Here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi applies; for R. Hanilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel that the property of orphans is on the same footing as that of the Sanctuary, and is not transferred save through money payment.<a id="k52a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If purchasers have 'pulled'<a id="k52a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the produce of orphans [without paying], and [the price subsequently] rises, the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi applies.<a id="k52a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the price] falls, then surely a layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<a id="k52a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If vendors have sold produce to orphans by 'pulling',<a id="k52a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the price subsequently] rose, then we say that the layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<a id="k52a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the price] falls, the students were inclined to think that here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<a id="k52a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said to them: This would be detrimental to them, since they may one day require produce and no-one will sell to them unless they pay money down. If the orphans give money for produce [without taking delivery] and [the price] subsequently falls, then we say that a layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<a id="k52a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; If it rises, the students were inclined to think that the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<a id="k52a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Shisha b. Idi said to them: This might be detrimental to them,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k52b_1:" I.e., suppose the produce was accidentally burnt, the orphans could not say that they were not yet the owners of it and demand their money back, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 282, n. 7."
,k52b_2:" And delivery could not be demanded even from a layman in such a case; the sale can accordingly be cancelled."
,k52b_3:" And the purchasers should not be able to retract."
,k52b_4:" It was usual to give thirty days' notice of the sale of property."
,k52b_5:" V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 620, n. 4."
,k52b_6:" Lit., 'he clothes and covers'."
,k52b_7:" Lit., 'that his words should be heard'."
,k52b_8:" E.g., by cutting down trees."
,k52b_9:" [Read with Trani [H] not [H] of cur. edd.]"
,k52b_10:" Lit., 'the son of the West'."
,k52b_11:" I.e., what proof have you that he received a fee?"
,k52b_12:" Whether <i>terumah</i> or ordinary food."
,k52b_13:" Thus rendering them forbidden to a layman."
,k52b_14:" The meaning of this is discussed <i>infra</i>."
,k52b_15:" Unclean <i>terumah</i> could not be eaten and could be used by the priests only for feeding cattle or for fuel. Non-sacred food also if unclean was rejected by the stricter sort (Perushim). Food mixed with <i>terumah</i> became prohibited to a layman and therefore had to be sold to a priest at a loss. Wine poured out in libation was forbidden. Hence in all these cases loss was involved."
,k52b_16:" I.e., stirring it with his hand as preparatory to pouring it out."
,k52b_17:" Which was sufficient to make it prohibited."
,k52b_18:" Viz., the death penalty; and the rule is that a lighter penalty is not inflicted when a heavier one is involved for the same offence."
,k52b_19:" I.e., the defendant has become liable for the payment of the wine in the capacity of a robber even before he commenced to commit the capital offence of idolatrous libations, and since the civil liability is neither for the same act nor for the same moment which occasions the liability for capital punishment, each liability stands. "
}

txt:
<p>
since the sellers would be able to say to them, Your wheat has been burnt in the storehouse.<a id="k52b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If [purchasers] have given money to orphans for produce and [the price] rises [before delivery has been made], then we say that the layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<a id="k52b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the price] falls, then the students thought that here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<a id="k52b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said to them, This might be detrimental to them, for they might sometimes want money, and no-one would give them before they delivered the produce.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: I and R. Kahana signed as witnesses to the deed of sale of the mother of the orphan Ze'ira, who sold some land in order to pay the poll tax without giving public notice.<a id="k52b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; For the Nehardeans have ruled that to raise money for the poll tax, for food and for burial, land may be sold without public notice.<a id="k52b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Amram the dyer was the guardian of [some] orphans. The relatives came to R. Nahman and complained that he was [buying] clothes<a id="k52b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for himself from the property of the orphans. He said: [He dresses so] in order to command more respect.<a id="k52b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [But, they said,] he eats and drinks out of their [money], as he is not a man of means. I would suggest, [he replied], that he had a valuable find. [But, they said,] he is spoiling [their property].<a id="k52b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: Bring evidence that he is spoiling it and I will remove him. For R. Huna our colleague said in the name of Rab: If a guardian spoils the orphans' property we remove him. For it has been stated: 'If a guardian spoils the property, R. Huna says in the name of Rab that we remove him, while the School of R. Shilah say that we do not remove him.' The law, however, is that we remove him.
</p><p>
	A GUARDIAN WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE FATHER OF THE ORPHANS IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. What is the reason? &mdash; If he were not to derive some benefit from this, he would not become a guardian, and he will not be deterred by the requirement of an oath, IF, HOWEVER, THE <I>BETH DIN</I> APPOINTED HIM HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. [The reason is that] he assumes the office only to oblige the <i>Beth din</i>, and if an oath is to be imposed on him he would refuse. ABBA SAUL SAYS THAT THE RULE IS THE REVERSE. What is the reason? &mdash; If the <i>Beth din</i> appoint him he is to take an oath, because for the sake of the benefit he derives from the reputation of being a trustworthy man on whom the <i>Beth din</i> relies he is not deterred by [the prospect of] an oath. [If, however,] the father of the orphans appoints him, he does not take an oath, as it was simply a friendly action between the two, and if you impose an oath on him he would refuse. R. Hanan b. Ammi said in the name of Samuel: The law follows Abba Saul.
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says that both should take an oath, and so is the <i>halachah</i>.<a id="k52b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Tahalifa the Palestinian<a id="k52b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the presence of R. Abbahu: A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath, because he receives a fee. The Rabbi said to him: You have brought a <i>kab</i> and measured it out for him?<a id="k52b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather say, 'because he is like one who receives a fee'.<a id="k52b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE WHO RENDERS UNCLEAN [ANOTHER'S FOODSTUFFS]<a id="k52b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MIXES [<I>TERUMAH</I> WITH THEM]<a id="k52b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MAKES A LIBATION [WITH HIS WINE],<a id="k52b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE DOES SO INADVERTENTLY, IS FREE FROM LIABILITY, BUT IF DELIBERATELY IS LIABLE [TO COMPENSATE HIM].<a id="k52b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been stated: [With regard to the expression] 'MAKES A LIBATION', Rab says that it means literally making a libation<a id="k52b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [to a heathen deity], while Samuel says that it means only mixing [Jewish with heathen wine].<a id="k52b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did the one who says it means mixing not accept the view that it means making a libation? &mdash; He will tell you the latter offence involves a heavier penalty.<a id="k52b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What does the other say [to this]? &mdash; Even as R. Jeremiah. For R. Jeremiah said that he [a robber] acquires possession from the moment he lifts the wine from the ground, whereas he does not become liable to capital punishment until he actually pours out the wine.<a id="k52b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Why does the one who says that it means making a libation not accept the view that it means mixing? &mdash; He will tell you, mixing wine
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k53a_1:" Kenas v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Because the damage done is not visible. This point is discussed <i>infra</i>."
,k53a_2:" But the rule must be stated expressly in each case. Lit., 'we do not derive from Kenas'."
,k53a_3:" I.e., as food for the priest. V. <i>supra</i> p. 236, n. 7."
,k53a_4:" On account of the Perushim. V. p. 236, n. 7."
,k53a_5:" And therefore it was deemed necessary to impose a fine."
,k53a_6:" From which we learn that the lighter penalty stands in this case, v. <i>supra</i> p. 237. n. 4."
,k53a_7:" Surely if there is liability for libation which involves a heavier penalty there must be a penalty for mixing."
,k53a_8:" Because the stuff can still be sold to a priest at no great sacrifice."
,k53a_9:" E.g., here, where the stuff is in exactly the same condition after the offence has been committed as before."
,k53a_10:" And the Torah in the case of damage done by man makes no distinction between innocent and presumptuous, v. B.K. 85b."
,k53a_11:" And so save them from eating <i>terumah</i> etc. unwittingly."
,k53a_12:" Since his whole purpose is to vex him."
,k53a_13:" V. Lev. XIX, 7: And if it (the flesh of the peace-offering) be eaten on the third day, it is an abomination (piggul). The Rabbis derived from the language of the text the rule that the flesh became piggul even if there was merely an intention of eating it on the third day."
,k53a_14:" To the bringer of the sacrifice, who now has to bring a new one."
,k53a_15:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. I.e., this is a Rabbinic, not a Scriptural rule."
,k53a_16:" So that they should tell the owners. Because according to the Torah they are liable. V. <i>supra</i>, n. 2."
,k53a_17:" The 'red heifer': v. Num. XIX. It was forbidden to do any work work with it."
,k53a_18:" V. B.K. 56a. I.e., he is punished by the hands of heaven but not with any earthly punishment."
,k53a_19:" I.e., he had not yet done with it any work for which the earthly court could punish him, but he is punished by heaven for his intention."
,k53a_20:" We assume that the exact weight of the water was known to him. In this case he had done no actual work with the water. "
}

txt:
<p>
is practically the same as mixing <i>terumah</i>. What says the other [to this]? &mdash; [He says that the penalty for this is of the nature of] a fine,<a id="k53a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and we do not base rules for imposing fines on mere inference.<a id="k53a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But those who hold that the imposition of fines can be based on mere inference &mdash; why do they require all the items to be specified? They are all necessary. For if [the Mishnah] had mentioned only one who renders foodstuffs unclean, then, supposing the food was <i>terumah</i>, I would say that the reason [why compensation has to be made] is because he spoils it completely,<a id="k53a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and if the food was non-sacred, because it is forbidden to cause uncleanness to non-sacred food in Eretz Israel,<a id="k53a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but one who mixes ordinary food with <i>terumah</i> I should say need not make compensation. Again, if one who mixes ordinary food with <i>terumah</i> had been mentioned I should say the reason is because this is a common occurrence,<a id="k53a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of one who renders foodstuffs unclean, which is not a common occurrence, I should say the rule does not apply. If again both one who renders unclean and one who mixes had been specified, I should say the reason with them [for requiring compensation] is that no heavier penalty is involved, but I should not apply this rule to one who makes a libation, where a heavier penalty is involved. Therefore we are told [that we apply here] the principle of R. Jeremiah.<a id="k53a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But if we accept [the teaching] learnt by the father of R. Abin, 'At first they said, The one who renders unclean and the one who makes a libation, but later they added also the one who mixes,' why do I require all the items?<a id="k53a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They are still necessary. For if only the one who renders unclean had been mentioned, I should have said that the reason is because no greater penalty is involved, but I should not have applied the rule to one who makes a libation, where a greater penalty is involved. If again the one who makes a libation had been mentioned, I should have said this was because the stuff is spoilt entirely, but I should not have applied the rule to one who renders unclean, where the stuff is not spoilt entirely. If again these two had been mentioned, I should say the reason is because the loss involved is considerable, but I should not apply the rule to one who mixes, where the loss involved is small.<a id="k53a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence all were necessary.
</p><p>
	Hezekiah said: The rule of the Torah is that one who commits these offences whether inadvertently or deliberately is liable to pay compensation. The reason is that damage of which there is no visible sign<a id="k53a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is legally accounted as damage.<a id="k53a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then did the Rabbis lay down that [if one does these things] inadvertently he is not liable? So that they should tell [the victims].<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the reason, then one who does these things presumptuously should also be quit? &mdash; How can you think so? Seeing that he deliberately tries to injure him, will he not certainly tell him?<a id="k53a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said that the rule of the Torah is that whether one commits these offences innocently or deliberately he is not liable, the reason being that damage of which there is no visible sign is not legally accounted damage. Why then did the Rabbis ordain that [one who does them] presumptuously is liable? So that it should not become a common thing for a man to go and render unclean the foodstuffs of his neighbour and say, I have no liability.
</p><p>
	We have learnt: 'If priests render the sacrifice piggul<a id="k53a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in the Sanctuary, if they did so presumptuously they are liable [to make compensation];'<a id="k53a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and in connection therewith it was taught: 'To prevent abuses.'<a id="k53a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you hold that damage which is not visible is legally accounted damage, then it should say, 'if they did so innocently they are not liable, to prevent abuses'?<a id="k53a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This in fact is what is meant: 'If they act presumptuously they are liable; from which we infer that if they acted innocently they are not liable, to prevent abuses.' R. Eleazar [raised the following as] an objection: 'If one does work with the waters of purification and with the heifer of purification,<a id="k53a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he is exempt before the earthly court but liable before the heavenly court.'<a id="k53a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you maintain that damage which is invisible is legally accounted as damage, then he should be liable also before the earthly court? &mdash; He raised the objection and he himself answered it, thus: [The work referred to in the case of] the heifer [was] that he brought it into the stall with the intention of letting it suck and then threshing with it;<a id="k53a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of the water [the work referred to was] that he balanced weights against it.<a id="k53a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But has not Raba said that water of purification
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k53b_1:" Like butchers, who place meat in water to see how far it will rise, and judge the weight accordingly."
,k53b_2:" And so disqualifying it."
,k53b_3:" Lit., 'he diverted his mind'. And since it says, the water shall be to you for a charge, this disqualifies the water, though it does not render him liable to an earthly court."
,k53b_4:" By the Government."
,k53b_5:" Rendering the leaven forbidden for any use, v. Pes. II, 2."
,k53b_6:" And he has no further liability, although the property has meanwhile become worthless, because the robbed article is deemed to have been all the time in the possession of the owner; v. B.K. 96b."
,k53b_7:" [Since there has been a change in the misappropriated goods they passed into the possession of the robber who should therefore have to make full restitution, Tosaf. V. B.K. 91bff. The words 'this man is a robber' are nevertheless difficult, and best left out with MS.M.]"
,k53b_8:" Even though according to strict justice he should not be so penalised."
,k53b_9:" 'The sandal-maker'."
,k53b_10:" B.K. 71a. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 408-9. q.v. for notes."
,k53b_11:" For cooking innocently on the Sabbath he imposes no fine but for defiling foodstuffs he does impose one."
,k53b_12:" Defiling foodstuffs etc. A fine is necessary because people are more careless about Rabbinical ordinances."
,k53b_13:" Breaking the Sabbath."
,k53b_14:" Because the offence is more serious."
,k53b_15:" Which shows that he does impose a fine for breaking a rule of the Torah innocently."
,k53b_16:" Which shows that R. Judah does not impose a fine for innocently breaking a rule of the Torah, so that he also contradicts himself in the same way as R. Meir."
,k53b_17:" Lit., 'on your view'."
,k53b_18:" E.g., for the years of 'uncircumcision' (v. Lev. XIX, 23ff.) Hence they remember if a tree was planted in the Sabbatical year, and if it were allowed to remain they might take it as a precedent, and so it was necessary to impose a fine in this case. "
}

txt:
<p>
against which weights have been balanced is not disqualified? &mdash; There is no contradiction; the one [Raba] speaks of weighing against the water, the other of weighing in it.<a id="k53b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; When he weighs in it he is doing work with it,<a id="k53b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and if damage which is intangible is legally accounted damage he should be punishable also in a human court? &mdash; We must say therefore that both speak of weighing against the water, and still there is no contradiction: the one [R. Eleazar] speaks of where he forgot for the moment [that it was water of purification]<a id="k53b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other of where he did not forget.
</p><p>
	R. Papa raised an objection [from the following]: If a man robbed another of a coin which afterwards was withdrawn from circulation,<a id="k53b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or <i>terumah</i> which became unclean, or leaven and the Passover intervened,<a id="k53b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he can say to him, Here is your property, take it.<a id="k53b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that damage of which there is no visible sign is legally accounted as damage, this [man] is a robber, and ought to pay the value in full?<a id="k53b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a refutation.
</p><p>
	May we say that Tannaim also [differ on this point]? [For it was taught:] If one defiles [another's foodstuffs] or mixes <i>terumah</i> with them or pours a libation from his wine, whether inadvertently or deliberately, he is liable [to make compensation]. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently he is not liable, if deliberately he is liable. Is not the point at issue between them this, that the one authority holds that damage of which there is no visible sign is legally accounted damage, while the other holds that it is not legally accounted damage? &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Both agree that damage of which there is no visible sign is not legally accounted damage, and here the point at issue between them is whether the inadvertent [act] should be penalised on account of the presumptuous one,<a id="k53b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; one holding that the innocent act is penalised on account of the presumptuous one and the other that it is not so penalised.
</p><p>
	A contradiction was now pointed out between two statements of R. Meir, and also between two statements of R. Judah. For it has been taught: 'If one cooks food on Sabbath, if by inadvertence he may eat it, but if deliberately he may not. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If [it was cooked] inadvertently he may eat it after the expiration of Sabbath, but if deliberately he may never eat it. R. Johanan ha-Sandalar<a id="k53b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; says: If [it was cooked] inadvertently it may be eaten after the expiration of the Sabbath by others but not by the one who cooked it, if deliberately it may never be eaten either by him or by others'.<a id="k53b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; One statement of R. Meir seems to contradict another<a id="k53b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and one statement of R. Judah seems to contradict another? &mdash; Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: where he imposes a fine is for [innocently breaking] a regulation of the Rabbis<a id="k53b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but not for [breaking] a rule of the Torah.<a id="k53b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But pouring a libation is forbidden by the Torah, and yet he imposes a fine for doing so [innocently]? &mdash; This is because of the special seriousness of the sin of idolatry. Between the statements of R. Judah there is no contradiction: where he imposes no fine is for [breaking] a rule of the Rabbis, but for [breaking] a rule of the Torah he imposes a fine.<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But pouring a libation is forbidden by the Torah and he imposes no fine for doing so? &mdash; Because of the seriousness of the sin of idolatry people keep clear of it.
</p><p>
	But even in respect of rules of the Torah one statement of R. Meir was contrasted with another. For it has been taught: 'If a man plants a tree on Sabbath, if inadvertently, he may keep it, but if deliberately, it must be uprooted. If in the Sabbatical year, however, whether he plants it inadvertently or deliberately, it must be uprooted. This is the ruling of R. Meir.<a id="k53b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah says: In the Sabbatical year, if inadvertently, he may keep it,<a id="k53b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but if deliberately he must uproot it: [if planted] on Sabbath, whether inadvertently or deliberately, he must uproot it'! &mdash; While you are looking for contradictions,<a id="k53b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; why not point one out in this statement itself? See now: the one [planting on Sabbath] and the other [planting in the Sabbatical year] are both forbidden by the Torah; why then should there be a difference between them? But the reason for that, you must say, is as was taught: Said R. Meir: Why do I say that [if he plants inadvertently] on Sabbath he may keep it and if deliberately he must uproot it, whereas [if he plants] in the Sabbatical year whether inadvertently or deliberately he must uproot it? Because Israel reckon from the Sabbatical year<a id="k53b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k54a_1:" If a tree was planted more than thirty days before the entry of the Sabbatical year, that period was counted as one of the years of 'uncircumcision'. Hence if the thirtieth day before the Sabbatical year fell on a Sabbath, and he planted on it, this would be remembered and might be taken as a precedent. How then can you say that the Jews do not reckon from Sabbaths?"
,k54a_2:" Lit., 'come and hear'."
,k54a_3:" [So that there is a special reason for R. Meir's ruling in the case of planting in the Sabbatical year and it cannot be contrasted with his ruling in the case of cooking on Sabbath.]"
,k54a_4:" And therefore in this particular case he sees no need to impose a fine for unwittingly breaking it."
,k54a_5:" I.e., proselyte."
,k54a_6:" It receives the character of unclean <i>terumah</i>."
,k54a_7:" As a fine, but this does not become <i>terumah</i>; v. Yeb. 90a."
,k54a_8:" Lit., 'may blessing come upon him.'"
,k54a_9:" Unclean <i>terumah</i> could in no circumstances be eaten, but it could only be used as food for cattle or for fuel."
,k54a_10:" Viz., unclean non-sacred food."
,k54a_11:" Or, 'an unknown authority'; v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 3, n. 3."
,k54a_12:" I.e., clean or unclean non-sacred food. Although, as stated <i>supra</i> p. 243 n. 6, the food receives the character of <i>terumah</i>, he nevertheless had the intention to repay him food which he could eat at all times (Rashi)."
,k54a_13:" And therefore if he repaid without knowing that it was unclean he is not penalised by having to pay again."
,k54a_14:" [This proves that R. Meir does not penalise the innocent for the presumptuous where the breach of a rabbinical law is concerned. Here the transgression involved is rabbinical, since according to the Torah he has discharged his liability by repaying the amount he had eaten. V. Yeb. 90a.]"
,k54a_15:" Lit., 'how so'. i.e., can we ascribe this to R. Meir as a general principle, seeing that here there is a special reason, namely that here etc."
,k54a_16:" And the Rabbis ordained that the flesh may not be eaten, though expiration has been made for the bringer of the sacrifice."
,k54a_17:" I.e., the priest."
,k54a_18:" I.e., he desires to do a meritorious action, which is not the case with one who mixes <i>terumah</i> with other food, etc. Hence we do not penalise his error."
,k54a_19:" This was forbidden by the Rabbis but not by the Torah, v. Bezah 36a."
,k54a_20:" For ritual purification. This also was forbidden by the Rabbis on Sabbath; v. Bezah, 18a. "
}

txt:
<p>
, but they do not reckon from Sabbaths. An alternative reason is that Israel are suspect with regard to the Sabbatical year but not with regard to Sabbath. Why give an alternative reason? &mdash; What he meant was this. Should you object that it sometimes happens that the thirtieth day [before the New Year of the Sabbatical year]<a id="k54a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; falls on Sabbath, so that if he plants on that day he has a year [before the New Year], but otherwise not, then I give you an alternative reason that<a id="k54a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Israel are suspect with regard to the Sabbatical year but not with regard to Sabbath.<a id="k54a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Between the statements of R. Judah there is also no contradiction, since in the district of R. Judah the Sabbatical year was regarded as very important.<a id="k54a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; For [when] a certain man there called after another, 'You are a stranger<a id="k54a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and your mother was a stranger,' he retorted, 'I do not eat fruit of the Sabbatical year like you.
</p><p>
	Come and hear [a proof that R. Meir does not impose a fine for innocently breaking a Rabbinical rule]: 'If a layman [inadvertently] ate <i>terumah</i>, even unclean, he must make restitution with [ritually] clean non-sacred food. If he pays unclean non-sacred food, what is the law? Symmachus said in the name of R. Meir that if [he paid it] unknowingly this is accounted restitution,<a id="k54a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but if deliberately it is not so accounted, whereas the Sages said that in either case it is accounted restitution, but he has still to pay clean non-sacred food.'<a id="k54a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; We were puzzled over this to know why [according to Symmachus] his restitution is not complete. Surely he deserves thanks<a id="k54a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for eating something which a priest cannot eat even when he is unclean<a id="k54a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and repaying him with something which he can eat at least when he is unclean!<a id="k54a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon Raba, or as some say Kadi,<a id="k54a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; said that there is a lacuna, and we should read thus: 'If one ate unclean <i>terumah</i>, he repays in anything.<a id="k54a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If he ate clean <i>terumah</i> he repays clean non-sacred food. If he repaid unclean non-sacred food, what is the law? Symmachus said in the name of R. Meir that if [he repaid] without knowing, this is accounted a full restitution, but if deliberately it is not accounted a full restitution, whereas the Sages say that in either case it is full restitution, but he has still to pay him clean non-sacred food.' On this R. Aha son of R. Ika said that [R. Meir and the Sages] differ here on the question whether the innocent [act should be penalised on account of the presumptuous, R. Meir holding that the innocent act is not penalised on account of the presumptuous one<a id="k54a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sages holding that it is!<a id="k54a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Is this reasoning sound?<a id="k54a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Here the man wants to pay, and shall we get up and fine him?
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'If the blood [of a sacrifice] has become unclean and was yet sprinkled on the altar, if it was done without knowing then the sacrifice has been accepted [for the bringer of the sacrifice], but if deliberately, the sacrifice has not been accepted'?<a id="k54a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Meir can reply: Is there any comparison? There the man<a id="k54a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; really desires to make atonement,<a id="k54a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and shall we get up and penalise him?
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'If a man separates tithe on Sabbath,<a id="k54a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; if inadver tently, the food may be eaten, but if deliberately, it may not be eaten'? &mdash; Is there any comparison? There the man is trying to do his duty, and shall we get up and penalise him? Come and hear: 'If a man dips vessels<a id="k54a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; on Sabbath, if inadvertently they may be used, but if deliberately they may not be used'? &mdash; Is there any comparison? There the man is desirous of purifying his vessels, and shall we get up and fine him?
</p><p>
	A contradiction was also pointed out between two statements of R. Judah with regard to rules of the Rabbis. For it has been taught:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k54b_1:" I.e., in the first three years after the planting of the tree. V. Lev. XIX, 23. Certain species of nuts, on account of their particular value, as long as they are whole do not lose their identity in whatever large mass they may happen to become mixed up. When cracked, however, they are treated like ordinary nuts and are neutralized if their proportion to the permitted element is not more than one to one hundred. 'V. <i>'Orlah</i> III, 6-8."
,k54b_2:" Lit., 'they do not rise in the scale', i.e., they are not neutralized, but still retain their identity as something forbidden."
,k54b_3:" I.e., he will mix them purposely and pretend that it was done innocently."
,k54b_4:" Because it still retains its identity as long as it is attached to the soil, and is not merged in the field as a whole."
,k54b_5:" V. <i>'Orlah</i>, I, 6. Which seems to conflict with R. Jose's ruling with regard to the nuts."
,k54b_6:" By planting in it one sapling of 'uncircumcision' without some clear sign. Such a thing being exceptional, we do not impose a special penalty for an offence to which it may accidentally lead."
,k54b_7:" By declaring at the time of bringing the sacrifice that they intended the flesh to be eaten after the prescribed time. V. <i>Supra</i>, p. 239, n. 5."
,k54b_8:" I.e., to provide a fresh sacrifice, since the first owing to their action has not brought expiation."
,k54b_9:" We understand the Baraitha therefore to be speaking of a case where he says this while he is still helping the other; e.g., while the blood is being sprinkled he may say that the killing was piggul. We then believe him because he can still render the sprinkling piggul."
,k54b_10:" Because then we suppose that he merely says this to vex him. But otherwise we do believe him, even if he only says so afterwards. According to Raba we have to translate, 'If a man was helping&nbsp;&hellip; and afterwards said etc.'"
,k54b_11:" Even when he declares if after some time."
,k54b_12:" I.e. his ceremonies in the inner shrine. V. Lev. XVI, 12-17."
,k54b_13:" Ibid. 17."
,k54b_14:" He was heard to say, e.g., that he sprinkles the blood with the intention to burn the fat after the specified time."
,k54b_15:" In which case it would not be piggul."
,k54b_16:" One of two small gateways between the inner part of the Temple (hekal) and the place where the knives were kept. Zeb. 55. He was seen through the pispas to make the piggul declaration whilst sprinkling the blood."
,k54b_17:" Against the dictum of R. Isaac b. Bisna."
,k54b_18:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k54b_19:" Thus leaving the letters of the divine name, YHWH, written however without proper intention."
,k54b_20:" Which would disqualify the scroll. V. <i>supra</i> 20a. "
}

txt:
<p>
If these nuts [of 'uncircumcision']<a id="k54b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; fell among others and were then broken, whether [the act was done] inadvertently or deliberately they are not merged in the mass.<a id="k54b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the ruling of R. Meir and R. Judah. R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, say that if [it was done] inadvertently they are merged, but if deliberately they are not. Now here is a case where according to the rule of the Torah [the forbidden element] loses its identity [if its proportion is not more than] one to two, and it is the Rabbis who decreed [that the proportion must be less than one to two hundred], and yet R. Judah imposes the line [in the case of innocent transgression]? &mdash; R. Judah there is influenced by the special consideration that [without this penalty] the offender may act with guile.<a id="k54b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; A contradiction was also pointed out between two statements of R. Jose. For we have learnt: If a sapling of 'uncircumcision or of the mixed plants of the vineyard becomes mixed up with other saplings, its fruit should not be gathered,<a id="k54b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but if gathered it becomes merged in two hundred and one times the quantity [of permitted fruit], provided, however, that the gathering was not done with that purpose in view. R. Jose says, Even if it was gathered deliberately, it is merged in two hundred and one times [its own quantity!]<a id="k54b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This is no difficulty] since with reference to this it has been recorded: Raba said: The presumption is that a man does not make his whole vineyard forbidden for the sake of a single sapling.<a id="k54b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; So too when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Johanan: The presumption is that a man will not make his whole vineyard forbidden for the sake of a single sapling.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. PRIESTS WHO MADE THE FLESH IN THE SANCTUARY PIGGUL,<a id="k54b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY DID SO DELIBERATELY ARE LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION.<a id="k54b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: If a man is helping another to prepare ritually clean things, and he says to him, The clean things that I have prepared with you have been defiled, or if he is helping him with sacrifices and he says to him, The sacrifices with which I have been helping you have been rendered piggul, his word is taken. If, however, he says, The clean things which I was assisting you to prepare on such and such a day have become unclean, or the sacrifices with which I was assisting you on such and such a day have been rendered piggul, his word is not taken. Why is the rule different in the first case from that of the second? &mdash; Abaye replied: So long as it is in his power to do [again what he says he has done], his word is taken.<a id="k54b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: [Where we do not believe is] if, for instance, he came across him and said nothing to him and then came across him again and told him.<a id="k54b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another: The clean things which I helped you to prepare on such and such a day have become unclean. He applied to R. Ammi, who said to him: According to the strict letter of the law, you need not believe him. R. Assi observed to him: Rabbi, this is what you say, but R. Johanan has distinctly said in the name of R. Jose: What can I do, seeing that the Torah has declared him credible?<a id="k54b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Where has it declared him credible? &mdash; R. Isaac b. Bisna replied: The proof is from the high priest on the Day of Atonement, since if he says [that his sacrifice<a id="k54b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; was] 'piggul', we believe him. Now how do we know [that he made it 'piggul' when he was doing the service], seeing that it is written, And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting?<a id="k54b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason must therefore be that he is credible. But perhaps this is because we heard him make it 'piggul'?<a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If he were not credible, we could not believe him even if we heard him, since he might have said this after performing the ceremony.<a id="k54b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps it means that we saw him through the pispas?<a id="k54b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is indeed a difficulty.<a id="k54b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man appeared before R. Ammi and said to him: In a scroll of the Law which I have written for So-and-so I have not written the names [of God] with proper intention.<a id="k54b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; He asked him: Who has the scroll? &mdash; He replied: The purchaser. Whereupon he said to him: Your word is good to deprive you of your fee, but it is not good to spoil a scroll of the Law. Said R. Jeremiah to him: Granted that he has lost his fee for the names, is he to lose it for the whole of the scroll? He replied: Yes, because a scroll in which the names of God have not been written with proper intention is not worth anything. But cannot he go over them with a pen and so sanctify them? What authority would allow this? Not, we would say, R. Judah; for we have learnt, 'Suppose the scribe had to write the tetragrammaton, and he intended [instead] to write Yehwdah [Judah]<a id="k54b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and he made a mistake and left out the daleth,<a id="k54b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he can go over it with a pen and sanctify it. So R. Judah. The Sages, however, say that this name is not of the best'? &mdash; You may even say that he is in accord with R. Judah. For R. Judah would allow this only in the case of one mention of the Name, but not throughout a whole scroll, because it would make it look bizarre.
</p><p>
	A certain man came before R. Abbahu saying, I have written a scroll of the Law for So-and-so but did not prepare the parchments for the purpose.<a id="k54b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; He asked him, Who has the scroll? &mdash; He replied, The purchaser. He said to him: Since your word is good to deprive you of your fee, it is also good to spoil the scroll.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k55a_1:" That he would lose only the fee for the names, and he was willing to risk this to annoy the purchaser."
,k55a_2:" V. 'Ed. VII, 9."
,k55a_3:" Although being deaf-mute she is not capable of giving consent, and although her marriage having been contracted by her father is a binding one."
,k55a_4:" Although her marriage is valid only by the rule of the Rabbis and not of the Torah. But she may eat only such as is <i>terumah</i> in Rabbinic law alone, but not what is <i>terumah</i> in Biblical law, which does not recognise her as the priest's wife."
,k55a_5:" Or any other building."
,k55a_6:" Instead of the actual beam being restored. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k55a_7:" [Three persons (v. J. a.l.)]."
,k55a_8:" Lit., 'for the good order of the altar'. This is discussed in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k55a_9:" Not in the wife's presence."
,k55a_10:" Which in this case includes consent."
,k55a_11:" As otherwise R. Johanan b. Gudgada would have stated the rule in reference to such a one."
,k55a_12:" The marriage of a deaf-mute priest to a deaf-mute woman was valid only by Rabbinical rule, and therefore she was not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k55a_13:" <i>Nebelah</i>, v, <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> And according to some authorities the <i>Beth din</i> do not step in to prevent this, v. Yeb. 114a."
,k55a_14:" The marriage, valid in rabbinical law, should be recognised in regard to such <i>terumah</i>."
,k55a_15:" As if they had to destroy the whole building they would not offer to make restitution."
,k55a_16:" Ye'ush. The abandonment by the owner of the hope of recovery."
,k55a_17:" Unless there has also been a change of ownership from the robber to a third party."
,k55a_18:" When they find out that they have eaten from a non-sacred animal that has been killed within the temple precincts, the flesh of which was forbidden, v. B.K. 67a. "
}

txt:
<p>
What is the difference between this case and that of R. Ammi? &mdash; In that case it might be argued that the scribe mistakenly adopted the view of R. Jeremiah,<a id="k55a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but here, since he stakes the whole of his fee and yet comes and tells, we presume that he is telling the truth.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA TESTIFIED<a id="k55a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT A DEAF-MUTE GIRL WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER CAN BE PUT AWAY WITH A GET,<a id="k55a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THAT
</p><p>
	A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE MARRIED TO A PRIEST CAN EAT OF THE <I>TERUMAH</I>,<a id="k55a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THAT IF SHE DIES HER HUSBAND INHERITS HER, AND THAT IF A BEAM WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED IS BUILT INTO A PALACE<a id="k55a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; RESTITUTION FOR IT MAY BE MADE IN MONEY,<a id="k55a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; SO AS NOT TO PUT OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF PENITENTS, AND THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT [KNOWN] TO MANY,<a id="k55a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; MAKES EXPIATION, TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR.<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: From the testimony of R. Johanan b. Gudgada we learn that if a man said to the witnesses [to the Get],<a id="k55a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; See this Get which I am about to give to her [my wife], and then he said to his wife, Take this bond, the divorce is valid. For did not R. Johanan b. Gudgada affirm that the consent of the wife is not necessary? So here we do not require her knowledge.<a id="k55a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely this is obvious? [It required to he stated] because you might have thought that his saying to her 'take this bond' rendered the Get void. [Raba therefore] teaches us that if he had meant to annul it he would have said so to the witnesses, and the reason why he spoke so to the wife was because he was ashamed [to call it a Get].
</p><p>
	THAT A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE. A deaf-mute woman, however, [according to this] cannot eat.<a id="k55a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; As a precaution against a deaf-mute priest giving a deaf-mute woman [<i>terumah</i>] to eat.<a id="k55a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And suppose she does? She would only be like a child eating forbidden meat?<a id="k55a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a precaution against the possibility of a deaf-mute priest giving <i>terumah</i> to a wife in possession of her faculties. But allow him at least to give her <i>terumah</i> which is such only by the rule of the Rabbis?<a id="k55a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a precaution against the risk of her eating <i>terumah</i> which is such according to the Torah.
</p><p>
	AND THAT IF A BEAM WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A PALACE. The Rabbis taught: If a man wrongfully takes a beam and builds it into a palace, Beth Shammai say that he must demolish the whole palace and restore the beam to its owner. Beth Hillel, however, say that the latter can claim only the money value of the beam, so as not to place obstacles in the way of penitents.<a id="k55a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THAT A SIN OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED. 'Ulla said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the [fact is generally] known or not, [the offering] does not make expiation, the reason being that Renunciation<a id="k55a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber].<a id="k55a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] not known the offering is expiatory? &mdash; So that the priests should not be grieved.<a id="k55a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But our Mishnah says TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR? &mdash; He replied to them: When the priests are grieved the altar is not attended to. Rab Judah, however, said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the fact [of its having been wrongfully acquired] is known or not known, the offering is expiatory, the reason being that Renunciation does of itself confer ownership [on the robber].
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k55b_1:" This is not distinctly stated in the Mishnah, but is clearly implied."
,k55b_2:" Because only in this case where the priests eat of the flesh is there any danger of their becoming grieved."
,k55b_3:" Which is wholly burnt,"
,k55b_4:" Viz., 'a sin-offering&nbsp;&hellip; if this is generally known, makes no expiation'."
,k55b_5:" By giving it a bad name."
,k55b_6:" B.K. 68b (Sonc. ed.) p. 395, q.v. for notes."
,k55b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> For killing a sacred animal outside the precincts of the Temple."
,k55b_8:" Because when he dedicated it the animal was not his, and therefore when he killed it it was not sacred."
,k55b_9:" When he dedicated it."
,k55b_10:" If he was declared owner from the time of the theft, then the fleece was grown or the calf was born while the animal was in his possession, and he has not to make restitution for these."
,k55b_11:" This word is usually regarded as being connected with the Latin sicarius, and is explained to mean a Roman soldier who threatened to kill a Jew but let him go on being given some of his property. Jastrow, however, very plausibly suggests that it is a corruption of [G], the Imperial fiscus which after the war of Bar Cochba confiscated and appropriated the property of Jews who had fought against the Romans."
,k55b_12:" The Gemara will explain the meaning of this passage. It is not clear whether only the war of Bethar is meant or the earlier war against Titus as well."
,k55b_13:" V. <i>infra</i> in the Gemara."
,k55b_14:" Because we say that the owner only sold it out of fear, and with a mental reservation."
,k55b_15:" Settled on her by her <i>Kethubah</i>. V. B.B. 49b."
,k55b_16:" Because we assume that she only consented to the sale to oblige her husband."
,k55b_17:" V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7."
,k55b_18:" Lit., 'the <i>Beth din</i> of those who came after them.'"
,k55b_19:" It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value."
,k55b_20:" That a purchase from the sicaricon is valid."
,k55b_21:" [I.e., the heirs could not come and invalidate the sale to the third party. According to J. and Tosef. this rule was instituted in order to promote the settlement of Jews in Judea [H], otherwise Jews would be afraid to purchase fields from the sicaricon for fear that the heirs would come and claim the return of their property.]"
,k55b_22:" As a fine."
,k55b_23:" [Halevy <i>Doroth</i>, I.e., attempts on the basis of Josephus <i>Wars</i> VI, 9, 2; VII, 6; VII, 6.6, to place the three decrees shortly after the year 70 C.E.]"
,k55b_24:" And therefore the purchase of it from the sicaricon by a third party was valid. [The phrase [H] is here used in a loose sense and is not to be taken literally. It signifies that the owner despairs of the field and will make no attempt to recover it. Similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the heirs to those fields that had been seized of those killed in the war, had given up all hope of recovering the fields. Though legally, since there has been no actual transfer, they could by rights reclaim the fields when the opportunity presented itself it was nevertheless ruled that the sale to the third party is valid for the reason stated in n. 3. This removes the contradiction which Solomon Adreth points out in his Hiddushin between our Talmud and the Tosefta.]"
,k55b_25:" And since the original owner had not waived his title, the purchase by a third party was not valid. [And similarly in the case of the heirs of those who are killed after the war, since they do not despair, the law of sicaricon applies. That is, the non-Jew who seized the land is treated as an ordinary robber and his sale of the field to a third party is invalid. The reason of [H] is not applicable in this case since the heir himself will see to it to recover the property. For attempts to solve the problems connected with the subject, v. Elbogen <I>MGWJ</I>. 1925, pp. 349ff. Feist, <I>MGWJ</I>. 71, pp. 138, Gulak, Tarbiz, V, p. 23ff., and Halevy, Doroth, I.e., p. 130e.]"
,k55b_26:" Prov. XXVIII, 14. What follows illustrates the endless misery and mischief caused by hardness of heart."
,k55b_27:" Lit., 'locust and son of locust'. The meaning is that a very trivial cause set in motion the train of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem; and similarly with the slaughter which accompanied and followed the war of Bar Cochba."
,k55b_28:" ['The Mountain of the King'. V. Pseudo-Jonathan, Judges IV, 5, where Mt. Ephraim is rendered by Tur Malka. According to Horowitz, Palestine, p. 240, it denotes the whole mountainous region stretching from the Valley of Jezreel to the south of Judah, including the mountains of Samaria, known also by the Hebrew name Har ha-Melek. (V. also Buchler, JQR, XVI, pp. 180ff.) There is still some uncertainty whence this name was derived. Was it perhaps because this region lay within the great conquests of John Hyrcanus that it was given the name? v. p. 77a n. 3a. The destruction of Tur Malka is placed by Buchler, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 186ff. during the war 66-70]. "
}

txt:
<p>
Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] known it is not expiatory?<a id="k55b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; In order that people should not say that the altar is fed from [the proceeds of] robbery. If we accept 'Ulla's view we quite understand why the Mishnah says 'SIN-OFFERING'.<a id="k55b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if Rab Judah's view is right, why does it say 'SIN-OFFERING'? The same would apply to a burnt-offering also?<a id="k55b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A stronger instance is taken: not only is this the case with a burnt-offering which is entirely [consumed on the altar], but even in the case of a sin-offering where only the fat and blood are put on the altar and the rest is eaten by the priests, even there they applied the rule, in order that people should not say that the altar is fed from robbery.
</p><p>
	We learnt: THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT KNOWN TO MANY, MAKES EXPIATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE LOSS TO THE ALTAR. This raises no difficulty if we accept the view of 'Ulla, but on the view of Rab Judah we ought to have the opposite?<a id="k55b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This in fact is what he means: if [the fact is] not known it is expiatory, but if it is known it is not expiatory, to prevent loss to the altar.<a id="k55b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba raised an objection [from the following]: 'If a man stole [a beast] and sanctified it and then slaughtered and sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not four and fivefold.<a id="k55b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And with reference to this it was taught: If [after dedication] he should kill the animal outside the precincts, his penalty is <i>kareth</i>.'<a id="k55b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that Renunciation does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber], how does <i>kareth</i> come in?<a id="k55b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shezbi replied: It means, the <i>kareth</i> decreed by the Rabbis. They laughed at him: Is there such a thing, [they said,] as <i>kareth</i> decreed by the Rabbis? &mdash; Said Raba to them: When a great man has said something, do not laugh at him; he means, <i>kareth</i> which comes to him through their regulation; for it was the Rabbis who declared it to be in his possession<a id="k55b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; so that he might be liable for it. Raba further said: What I should like to know is this: When the Rabbis declared him to be the owner, did they mean this to apply from the time of stealing or from the time of sanctifying? What practical difference does it make? [It makes a difference] in respect of the fleece and the young;<a id="k55b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the law? &mdash; Raba then [answered his own question] saying: It is reasonable to suppose that it is from the time that he sanctified them, so that a sinner should not profit from his offence.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THERE WAS NO SICARICON<a id="k55b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IN JUDEA FOR THOSE KILLED IN WAR.<a id="k55b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AS FROM [THE TERMINATION OF] THE SLAUGHTER OF THE WAR<a id="k55b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; THERE HAS BEEN SICARICON THERE. HOW DOES THIS RULE APPLY? IF A MAN BUYS A FIELD FROM THE SICARICON AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER, HIS PURCHASE IS VOID,<a id="k55b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND THEN FROM THE SICARICON IT IS VALID. IF A MAN BUYS [A PIECE OF A MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY]<a id="k55b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE HUSBAND AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE WIFE, THE PURCHASE IS VOID,<a id="k55b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE WIFE AND THEN FROM THE HUSBAND IT IS VALID. THIS WAS [THE RULING] OF THE FIRST MISHNAH.<a id="k55b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SUCCEEDING <I>BETH DIN</I>,<a id="k55b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN BUYS PROPERTY FROM THE SICARICON HE HAD TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER [OF THE VALUE].<a id="k55b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; TH<a id="k55b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; S,<a id="k55b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE WHEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BUY IT HIMSELF, BUT IF HE IS HE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION. RABBI ASSEMBLED A <I>BETH DIN</I> AND THEY DECIDED BY VOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SICARICON TWELVE MONTHS, WHOSOEVER FIRST PURCHASED IT ACQUIRED THE TITLE, BUT HE HAD TO GIVE A QUARTER [OF THE PRICE] TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. If there was no sicaricon for those killed in the war is it possible that there should have been after the termination of the war? &mdash; Rab Judah said: It means that the rule of sicaricon was not applied.<a id="k55b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Assi has stated: They [the Roman Government] issued three successive decrees. The first was that whoever did not kill [a Jew on finding him] should himself be put to death. The second was that whoever killed [a Jew] should pay four <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k55b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; The last was that whoever killed a Jew should himself be put to death.<a id="k55b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence in the first two [periods], [the Jew], being in danger of his life, would determine to transfer his property<a id="k55b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the sicaricon] but in the last [period] he would say to himself, Let him take it today; tomorrow I will sue him for it.<a id="k55b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: What is illustrative of the verse, Happy is the man that feareth alway, but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief?<a id="k55b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza;<a id="k55b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; the destruction of Tur Malka<a id="k55b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k56a_1:" Lit., 'a third calf'. (a) Reached a third of its growth, (b) the third-born, (c) in its third year."
,k56a_2:" Lit., 'the humility'."
,k56a_3:" [V. Josephus, Wars, II, 17, 2, who ascribes the beginning of the war to the refusal to accept the offering of the Emperor in 66 C.E.]"
,k56a_4:" Nero himself never came to Palestine,"
,k56a_5:" Ezek., XXV, 14."
,k56a_6:" Lit., 'to wipe his hand'."
,k56a_7:" [This story may be an echo of the legend that Nero who had committed suicide was still alive and that he would return to reign (v. JE. IX, 225).]"
,k56a_8:" [Who ultimately was known as the Caesar; v. Halevy, Doroth. I.e. p. 2.]"
,k56a_9:" It is related in Ta'anith, 19b, that this Nakdimon once prayed that the sun might continue shining (nakad) to enable him to discharge a certain debt he had incurred on behalf of the people, and his prayer was granted."
,k56a_10:" Lit., 'they praised'."
,k56a_11:" Perhaps = palace guards (from biryah). The reference is obviously to the Zealot bands who defended Jerusalem."
,k56a_12:" From the shock."
,k56a_13:" Deut. XXVIII, 57."
,k56a_14:" Ezek. VII, 19."
,k56a_15:" [Lit., Father of the Sicarii.' His real name was Ben Batiah, Ekah Rab, I. The term sicarii here is not to he confused with the sicaricon mentioned in the Mishnah, V. Rosenthal, <I>MGWJ</I>, 1893, p. 58]."
,k56a_16:" Lit. 'there'. "
}

txt:
<p>
He said, I won't. Then let me give you half the cost of the party. No, said the other. Then let me pay for the whole party. He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out. Said the other, Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against then, to the Government. He went and said to the Emperor, The Jews are rebelling against you. He said, How can I tell? He said to him: Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar]. So he sent with him a fine calf.<a id="k56a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; While on the way he made a blemish on its upper lip, or as some say on the white of its eye, in a place where we [Jews] count it a blemish but they do not. The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government. Said R. Zechariah b. Abkulas to them: People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar. They then proposed to kill Bar Kamza so that he should not go and inform against them, but R. Zechariah b. Abkulas said to them, Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death? R. Johanan thereupon remarked: Through the scrupulousness<a id="k56a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Zechariah b. Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.<a id="k56a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	He [the Emperor] sent against them Nero the Caesar.<a id="k56a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; As he was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel.<a id="k56a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the blame on me.<a id="k56a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; So he ran away and became a proselyte, and R. Meir was descended from him.<a id="k56a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	He then sent against them Vespasian the Caesar<a id="k56a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; who came and besieged Jerusalem for three years. There were in it three men of great wealth, Nakdimon b. Gorion, Ben Kalba Shabua' and Ben Zizith Hakeseth. Nakdimon b. Gorion was so called because the sun continued shining for his sake.<a id="k56a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Ben Kalba Shabua 'was so called because one would go into his house hungry as a dog [keleb] and come out full [sabea']. Ben Zizith Hakeseth was so called because his fringes [zizith] used to trail on cushions [keseth]. Others say he derived the name from the fact that his seat [kise] was among those of the nobility of Rome. One of these said to the people of Jerusalem, I will keep them in wheat and barley. A second said, I will keep them in wine, oil and salt. The third said, I will keep them in wood. The Rabbis considered the offer of wood the most generous,<a id="k56a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; since R. Hisda used to hand all his keys to his servant save that of the wood, for R. Hisda used to say, A storehouse of wheat requires sixty stores of wood [for fuel]. These men were in a position to keep the city for twenty-one years.
</p><p>
	The biryoni<a id="k56a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; were then in the city. The Rabbis said to them: Let us go out and make peace with them [the Romans]. They would not let them, but on the contrary said, Let us go out and fight them. The Rabbis said: You will not succeed. They then rose up and burnt the stores of wheat and barley so that a famine ensued. Martha the daughter of Boethius was one of the richest women in Jerusalem. She sent her man-servant out saying, Go and bring me some fine flour. By the time he went it was sold out. He came and told her, There is no fine flour, but there is white [flour]. She then said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went he found the white flour sold out. He came and told her, There is no white flour but there is dark flour. She said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went it was sold out. He returned and said to her, There is no dark flour, but there is barley flour. She said, Go and bring me some. By the time he went this was also sold out. She had taken off her shoes, but she said, I will go out and see if I can find anything to eat. Some dung stuck to her foot and she died.<a id="k56a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai applied to her the verse, The tender and delicate woman among you which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground.<a id="k56a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Some report that she ate a fig left by R. Zadok, and became sick and died. For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed, [and he became so thin that] when he ate anything the food could be seen [as it passed through his throat.] When he wanted to restore himself, they used to bring him a fig, and he used to suck the juice and throw the rest away. When Martha was about to die, she brought out all her gold and silver and threw it in the street, saying, What is the good of this to me, thus giving effect to the verse, They shall cast their silver in the streets.<a id="k56a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abba Sikra<a id="k56a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the head of the biryoni in Jerusalem was the son of the sister of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. [The latter] sent to him saying, Come to visit me privately. When he came he said to him, How long are you going to carry on in this way and kill all the people with starvation? He replied: What can I do? If I say a word to them, they will kill me. He said: Devise some plan for me to escape. Perhaps I shall be able to save a little. He said to him: Pretend to be ill, and let everyone come to inquire about you. Bring something evil smelling and put it by you so that they will say you are dead. Let then your disciples get under your bed, but no others, so that they shall not notice that you are still light, since they know that a living being is lighter than a corpse. He did so, and R. Eliezer went under the bier from one side and R. Joshua from the other. When they reached the door, some men wanted to put a lance through the bier. He said to them: Shall [the Romans] say. They have pierced their Master? They wanted to give it a push. He said to them: Shall they say that they pushed their Master? They opened a town gate for him and he got out.
</p><p>
	When he reached the Romans<a id="k56a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he said, Peace to you, O king, peace to you, O king. He [Vespasian] said: Your life is forfeit on two counts, one because I am not a king and you call me king, and again, if I am a king, why did you not come to me before now? He replied: As for your saying that you are not a king,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k56b_1:" Isa. X, 34."
,k56b_2:" Jer. XXX, 21."
,k56b_3:" Deut. III, 25."
,k56b_4:" So you should have broken down the walls to get rid of the biryoni."
,k56b_5:" lsa. XLIV, 25."
,k56b_6:" So they were waiting for some opportunity to get rid of the biryoni."
,k56b_7:" Prov. XV, 30."
,k56b_8:" Ibid. XVII, 22."
,k56b_9:" I.e., leave to found a seminary at Jabneh (Jamnia)."
,k56b_10:" That the R. Gamaliel dynasty be spared. R. Johanan was particularly solicitous for R. Gamaliel and his family, as they were supposed to be of the house of David."
,k56b_11:" Coarse bran mixed with flour (Rashi)."
,k56b_12:" Deut. XXXII, 37."
,k56b_13:" Euphemism for God."
,k56b_14:" Ps. LXXIV, 4."
,k56b_15:" Ibid. LXXXIX, 9."
,k56b_16:" Lit., 'and hard'."
,k56b_17:" Ex. XV, 11."
,k56b_18:" Eccl. VIII, 10."
,k56b_19:" Lit., 'since it trod, it trod.'"
,k56b_20:" V. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 55, n. 1."
,k56b_21:" Lam. I, 5. "
}

txt:
<p>
in truth you are a king, since if you were not a king Jerusalem would not be delivered into your hand, as it is written, And Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.<a id="k56b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Mighty one' [is an epithet] applied only to a king, as it is written, And their mighty one shall be of themselves<a id="k56b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; etc.; and Lebanon refers to the Sanctuary, as it says, This goodly mountain and Lebanon.<a id="k56b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; As for your question, why if you are a king, I did not come to you till now, the answer is that the biryoni among us did not let me. He said to him; If there is a jar of honey round which a serpent is wound, would they not break the jar to get rid of the serpent?<a id="k56b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He could give no answer. R. Joseph, or as some say R. Akiba, applied to him the verse, [God] turneth wise men backward and maketh their knowledge foolish.<a id="k56b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He ought to have said to him: We take a pair of tongs and grip the snake and kill it, and leave the jar intact.<a id="k56b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	At this point a messenger came to him from Rome saying, Up, for the Emperor is dead, and the notables of Rome have decided to make you head [of the State]. He had just finished putting on one boot. When he tried to put on the other he could not. He tried to take off the first but it would not come off. He said: What is the meaning of this? R. Johanan said to him: Do not worry: the good news has done it, as it says, Good tidings make the bone fat.<a id="k56b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the remedy? Let someone whom you dislike come and pass before you, as it is written, A broken spirit drieth up the bones.<a id="k56b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He did so, and the boot went on. He said to him: Seeing that you are so wise, why did you not come to me till now? He said: Have I not told you? &mdash; He retorted: I too have told you.
</p><p>
	He said; I am now going, and will send someone to take my place. You can, however, make a request of me and I will grant it. He said to him: Give me Jabneh and its Wise Men,<a id="k56b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the family chain of Rabban Gamaliel,<a id="k56b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and physicians to heal R. Zadok. R. Joseph, or some say R. Akiba, applied to him the verse, '[God] turneth wise men backward and maketh their knowledge foolish'. He ought to have said to him; Let them [the Jews] off this time. He, however, thought that so much he would not grant, and so even a little would not be saved.
</p><p>
	How did the physicians heal R. Zadok? The first day they let him drink water in which bran had been soaked; on the next day water in which there had been coarse meal;<a id="k56b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; on the next day water in which there had been flour, so that his stomach expanded little by little.
</p><p>
	Vespasian sent Titus who said, Where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted?<a id="k56b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. He then took a sword and slashed the curtain. Miraculously blood spurted out, and he thought that he had slain himself,<a id="k56b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; as it says, Thine adversaries have roared in the midst of thine assembly, they have set up their ensigns for signs.<a id="k56b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Abba Hanan said: Who is a mighty one like unto thee, O Jah?<a id="k56b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is like Thee, mighty in self-restraint,<a id="k56b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; that Thou didst hear the blaspheming and insults of that wicked man and keep silent? In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught; Who is like thee among the gods [elim]?<a id="k56b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is like thee among the dumb ones [illemim]. Titus further took the curtain and shaped it like a basket and brought all the vessels of the Sanctuary and put them in it, and then put them on board ship to go and triumph with them in his city, as it says, <I>And withal I saw the wicked buried, and they that come to the grave and they that had</I> 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E201"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/201.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 201<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




<I>done right went away from the holy place and were forgotten in the city</I>.<a id="k56b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Read not <I>keburim</I> [buried] but <I>kebuzim</I> [collected]; read not <I>veyishtakehu</I> [and were forgotten] but <I>veyishtabehu [and triumphed]</I>. Some say that <I>keburim</I> [can be retained], because even things that were buried were disclosed to them. A gale sprang up at sea which threatened to wreck him. He said: Apparently the power of the God of these people is only over water. When Pharaoh came He drowned him in water, when Sisera came He drowned him in water. He is also trying to drown me in water. If he is really mighty, let him come up on the dry land and fight with me. A voice went forth from heaven saying; Sinner, son of sinner, descendant of Esau the sinner, I have a tiny creature in my world called a gnat. (Why is it called a tiny creature? Because it has an orifice for taking in but not for excreting.) Go up on the dry land and make war with it. When he landed the gnat came and entered his nose, and it knocked against his brain for seven years. One day as he was passing a blacksmith's it heard the noise of the hammer and stopped. He said; I see there is a remedy. So every day they brought a blacksmith who hammered before him. If he was a non-Jew they gave him four <i>zuz</i>, if he was a Jew they said, It is enough that you see the suffering of your enemy. This went on for thirty days, but then the creature got used to it.<a id="k56b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught: R. Phineas b. 'Aruba said; I was in company with the notables of Rome, and when he died they split open his skull and found there something like a sparrow two sela's in weight. A Tanna taught; Like a young dove two pounds in weight. Abaye said; We have it on record that its beak was of brass and its claws of iron. When he died he said: Burn me and scatter my ashes over the seven seas so that the God of the Jews should not find me and bring me to trial.
</p><p>
	<I>Onkelos</I> son of Kolonikos<a id="k56b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; was <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">the son of Titus's sister. He had a mind to convert himself to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; 'Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said,</font>



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E202"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/202.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 202<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, <I>Her adversaries are become the head</I><a id="k56b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k57a_1:" Deut. XXIII, 7."
,k57a_2:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Because he enticed Israel to go astray</font> after the daughters of Moab. V. <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Sanh. 106a.</font>"
,k57a_3:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">[MS.M. Jesus].</font>"
,k57a_4:" Lit., 'Son of the South'."
,k57a_5:" Ps. LX, 12."
,k57a_6:" Lam. II, 2."
,k57a_7:" V. <i>supra</i>, p. 251, n. 4."
,k57a_8:" [Identified with Kafarabis in Upper Idumea mentioned in Josephus Wars, IV, 9, 9. V. Buchler <i>op. cit</i>. p. 191]."
,k57a_9:" [Identified with Sachlin near Ascalon. Klein, D. ZDPV. 1910, 35.]"
,k57a_10:" [Dikrin, N. of Beth Gubrin (Eleutheropolis); v. EJ. 9, 1132]."
,k57a_11:" Referring to the exaggerated statements about the King's Mountain."
,k57a_12:" E.V. 'glorious', Jer. III, 19; a play on the word [H], which means either 'glorious' or 'deer'."
,k57a_13:" Because after the hind is killed the skin shrinks."
,k57a_14:" [Klein, S. Beitrage, p. 20, n. 1. suggests the reading [H] (<font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Nazarenes</font>) instead of [H] (Egypt). It is thus the Kefar Sekania (Suchnin) in <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Galilee</font> (v. <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">A.Z.</font>, Sonc. ed. <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">p. 85. n. 1</font>) a place with <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Nazarene</font> associations. It was probably to contrast the <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">erstwhile loyalty of the place to the then prevailing defection that the incidents that follow were related].</font>"
,k57a_15:" According to Rabbinic law it is forbidden or a man to live with his wife unless he made out for her a <i>kethubah</i>."
,k57a_16:" 'Shoshbin' 'best men', 'Groomsmen'; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 618, n. 10."
,k57a_17:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">To prove that they had abused his wife.</font>"
,k57a_18:" Isa. LXVI, 10."
,k57a_19:" In Southern Palestine, the centre of the revolt of Bar Cochba."
,k57a_20:" Lam. II, 3."
,k57a_21:" This word is bracketed in the text."
,k57a_22:" [J., reads 'four mils'. The site of Bethar is still uncertain, v. JE. s.v.]."
,k57a_23:" [Rappaport, 'Erech Millin refers this to the Roman devastation of the Jewish quarter in Alexandria in the days of Alexander Tiberius. The Valley of Yadayim ('Hands') is thus the Delta of the Nile. Graetz, Geschichte IV, p. 425 places this in the Bar Cochba war and identifies the Valley with Beth Rimmon Valley.]"
,k57a_24:" Lit., 'gathered the vintage from.' "
}

txt:
<p>

    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="T163"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	<a name="T137"></a>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/chapt03.html#T163"><FONT size="-1">Dilling discussion of highlighted text</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">

What is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He then went and raised Balaam by incantations.</font> He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: <I>Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.</I><a id="k57a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He then asked: What is your punishment?</font> He replied: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">With boiling hot semen.</font><a id="k57a_2"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">2</font></sup></a>&nbsp; He then went and raised by incantations the <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">sinners of Israel</font>.<a id="k57a_3"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">3</font></sup></a>&nbsp; He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">What is your punishment?</font> They replied: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">With boiling hot excrement</font>, since a Master has said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement.</font> Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.
</p><p>

    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	<a name="T602a"></a>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/chapt07.html#T602a"><FONT size="-1">Dilling discussion of highlighted text</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">

	'Through a cock and a hen Tur Malka was destroyed'. How? &mdash; It was the custom that when a bride and bridegroom were being escorted a cock and a hen were carried before them, as if to say, Be fruitful and multiply like fowls. One day a band of Roman soldiers passed by and took the animals from them, so the Jews fell on them and beat them. So they went and reported to the Emperor that the Jews were rebelling, and he marched against them. There came against them one Bar Daroma<a id="k57a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who was able to jump a mile, and slaughtered them. The Emperor took his crown and placed it on the ground, saying, Sovereign of all the world, may it please thee not to deliver me and my kingdom into the hands of one man. Bar Daroma was tripped up by his own utterance, as he said, Hast not thou, O God, cast us off and thou goest not forth, O God, with our hosts.<a id="k57a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But David also said thus? &mdash; David wondered if it could be so. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He went into a privy and a snake came, and he dropped his gut [from fright] and died.</font> The Emperor said: Since a miracle has been wrought for me, I will let them off this time. So he left them alone and went away. They began to dance about and eat and drink and they lit so many lamps that the impress of a seal could be discerned by their light a mile away from the place. Said the Emperor; Are the Jews making merry over me? And he again invaded them. R. Assi said; Three hundred thousand men with drawn swords went in to Tur Malka, and slaughtered for three days and three nights, while on the other side dancing and feasting was going on, and one did not know about the other.
</p><p>
	The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob and hath not pitied.<a id="k57a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Johanan; These are the sixty thousand myriads of cities which King Jannai had in the King's Mountain.<a id="k57a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Judah said in the name of R. Assi: King Jannai had sixty myriads of cities in the King's Mountain, and in each of them was a population as large as that of the Exodus, save in three of them which had double as many. These were Kefar Bish,<a id="k57a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Kefar Shihlayim,<a id="k57a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and Kefar Dikraya.<a id="k57a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [The first was called] Kefar Bish [evil village] because they never gave hospitality to visitors. The second was called Kefar Shihlayim because they made their living from shihlayim [watercress]. Kefar Dikraya [village of males] according to R. Johanan, was so called because women used to bear males first and finally a girl and then no more. 'Ulla said: I have seen that place, and it would not hold even sixty myriads of reeds. A certain Min said to R. Hanina: You tell a lot of 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E203"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/203.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 203<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




lies.<a id="k57a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Palestine is called '<I>land of the deer</i>'.<a id="k57a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as the skin of the hind cannot hold its flesh,<a id="k57a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; so the Land of Israel when it is inhabited can find room but when it is not inhabited it contracts.
</p><p>
	Once when R. Manyumi b. Helkiah and R. Helkiah b. Tobiah and R. Huna b. Hiyya were sitting together they said: If anyone knows anything about <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Kefar Sekania of Egypt</font>,<a id="k57a_14"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">14</font></sup></a>&nbsp; let him say. One of them thereupon said; Once a betrothed couple [from there] were carried off by heathens who married them to one another. The woman said: I beg of you not to touch me, as I have no <I>Kethubah</I><a id="k57a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; from you. So he did not touch her till his dying day. When he died, she said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Mourn for this man who has kept his passions in check more than Joseph</font>, because Joseph was exposed to temptation only a short time, but this man every day. Joseph was not in one bed with the woman but this man was; in Joseph's case she was not his wife, but here she was. The next then began and said: On one occasion forty bushels [of coin] were selling for a <i>denar</i>, and the number went down one, and they investigated and found that a man and his son had had intercourse with a betrothed maiden on the Day of Atonement, so they brought them to the <i>Beth din</i> and they stoned them and the original price was restored. The third then began and said: There was a man who wanted to divorce his wife, but hesitated because she had a big marriage settlement. He accordingly invited his friends<a id="k57a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and gave them a good feast and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">made them drunk and put them all in one bed.</font> He then brought the white of an egg and scattered it among them and brought witnesses<a id="k57a_17"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">17</font></sup></a>&nbsp; and appealed to the <i>Beth din</i>. There was a certain elder there of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, named Baba b. Buta, who said: This is what I have been taught by Shammai the Elder, that the white of an egg contracts when brought near the fire, but semen becomes faint from the fire. They tested it and found that it was so, and they brought the man to the <i>Beth din</i> and flogged him and made him pay her <i>Kethubah</i>. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Since they were so virtuous, why were they punished? &mdash; He replied: Because they did not mourn for Jerusalem, as it is written; Rejoice ye with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all ye that love her, rejoice for joy with her all ye that mourn over her.<a id="k57a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>

    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	<a name="T602"></a>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/chapt07.html#T602"><FONT size="-1">Dilling discussion of highlighted text</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">

	'Through the shaft of a litter Bethar<a id="k57a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; was destroyed.' <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">It was the custom when a boy was born to plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born to plant a pine tree, and when they married, the tree was cut down and a canopy made of the branches.</font> One day the daughter of the Emperor was passing when the shaft of her litter broke, so they lopped some branches off a cedar tree and brought it to her. The Jews thereupon fell upon them and beat them. They reported to the Emperor that the Jews were rebelling, and he marched against them.
</p><p>
	He hath cut off in fierce anger all the horn of Israel.<a id="k57a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera said in the name of R. Abbahu who quoted R. Johanan: These are the eighty [thousand]<a id="k57a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; battle trumpets which assembled in the city of Bethar when it was taken and men, women and children were slain in it until their blood ran into the great sea. Do you think this was near? It was a whole <i>mil</i><a id="k57a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; away. It has been taught: R. Eleazar the Great said: There are two streams in the valley of Yadaim,<a id="k57a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; one running in one direction and one in another, and the Sages estimated that [at that time] they ran with two parts water to one of blood. In a Baraitha it has been taught: For seven years the Gentiles fertilised<a id="k57a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; their vineyards with the blood of Israel without using manure.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k57b_1:" V. II Kings XXV, 8ff."
,k57b_2:" The son of Jehoiada the high priest. V. II Chron. XXIV, 22."
,k57b_3:" Hos. IV, 2."
,k57b_4:" The high court of 71 members."
,k57b_5:" The lesser court of 23 members."
,k57b_6:" One who merely abstains from idolatry but does not keep the commandments."
,k57b_7:" Who accepts all the laws of Judaism with no ulterior motive."
,k57b_8:" The predecessors of Hillel and Shammai. V. Aboth, I."
,k57b_9:" Ezek. XXIV, 8."
,k57b_10:" Gen. XXVII, 22."
,k57b_11:" [Graetz, Geschichte, IV, p. 426, on the basis of parallel passages emends; 'Trajan', the reference being to the massacre of Alexandrian Jews by Trajan as a result of an insurrection. V. Suk. 51b.]"
,k57b_12:" This seems a mistake here for Hadrian. [V. J. Ta'an. IV.]"
,k57b_13:" The remark made above that through malicious speech the Temple was destroyed etc. (Rashi). [Maharsha refers it to the efficacy of the 'voice of Jacob.']"
,k57b_14:" Job V, 21."
,k57b_15:" Apparently this means 'slander'. [According to Maharsba render: 'Thou shalt be protected (find refuge) in the heated contests of the tongue', i.e., prayer'.]"
,k57b_16:" Ps. CXXXVII, 1."
,k57b_17:" Stands for Rome."
,k57b_18:" lbid. 7."
,k57b_19:" Ps. LXVIII, 23."
,k57b_20:" [H] of which [H] is taken as a contraction."
,k57b_21:" Ibid, XLIV, 23."
,k57b_22:" The same story is related of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second book of the Maccabees."
,k57b_23:" Ex. XX, 2."
,k57b_24:" Ibid, 3."
,k57b_25:" Ibid, XXII, 19."
,k57b_26:" Ibid, XX, 5."
,k57b_27:" Deut. VI, 4."
,k57b_28:" Ibid, IV, 39."
,k57b_29:" Deut. XXVI, 17, 18."
,k57b_30:" The seal had engraved on it the image of the king and by stooping down to pick it up he will make it appear as if he is worshipping the image (Rashi)."
,k57b_31:" Lit., 'accept the authority'."
,k57b_32:" Ps. CXIII, 9."
,k57b_33:" For fear that he might accidentally cut his throat."
,k57b_34:" Num. XIX, 14. The meaning in the context is of course quite different. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Hiya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Korhah: An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem told me that in this valley Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard killed two hundred and eleven myriads,<a id="k57b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and in Jerusalem he killed ninety-four myriads on one stone, until their blood went and joined that of Zechariah,<a id="k57b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to fulfil the words, Blood toucheth blood.<a id="k57b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He noticed the blood of Zechariah bubbling up warm, and asked what it was. They said: It is the blood of the sacrifices which has been poured there. He had some blood brought, but it was different from the other. He then said to them: If you tell me [the truth], well and good, but if not, I will tear your flesh with combs of iron. They said: What can we say to you? There was a prophet among us who used to reprove us for our irreligion, and we rose up against him and killed him, and for many years his blood has not rested. He said to them: I will appease him. He brought the great Sanhedrin<a id="k57b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the small Sanhedrin<a id="k57b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and killed them over him, but the blood did not cease. He then slaughtered young men and women, but the blood did not cease. He brought school-children and slaughtered them over it, but the blood did not cease. So he said; Zechariah, Zechariah. I have slain the best of them; do you want me to destroy them all? When he said this to him, it stopped. Straightway Nebuzaradan felt remorse. He said to himself: If such is the penalty for slaying one soul, what will happen to me who have slain such multitudes? So he fled away, and sent a deed to his house disposing of his effects and became a convert. A Tanna taught: Naaman was a resident alien;<a id="k57b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Nebuzaradan was a righteous proselyte;<a id="k57b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; descendants of Haman learnt the Torah in Benai Berak; descendants of Sisera taught children in Jerusalem; descendants of Sennacherib gave public expositions of the Torah. Who were these? Shemaya and Abtalion.<a id="k57b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [Nebuzaradan fulfilled] what is written, I have set her blood upon the bare rock that it should not be covered.<a id="k57b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are the hands of Esau:<a id="k57b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'the voice' here refers to [the cry caused by] the Emperor Hadrian<a id="k57b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; who killed in Alexandria of Egypt sixty myriads on sixty myriads, twice as many as went forth from Egypt. 'The voice of Jacob': this is the cry caused by the Emperor Vespasian<a id="k57b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; who killed in the city of Bethar four hundred thousand myriads, or as some say, four thousand myriads. 'The hands are the hands of Esau:' this is the Government of Rome which has destroyed our House and burnt our Temple and driven us out of our land. Another explanation is [as follows]: 'The voice is the voice of Jacob:' no prayer is effective unless the seed of Jacob has a part in it. 'The hands are the hands of Esau:' no war is successful unless the seed of Esau has a share in it. This is what R. Eleazar said:<a id="k57b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue;<a id="k57b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; this means, thou shalt be protected from the heated contests<a id="k57b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of the tongue.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: What is meant by the verse, By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion?<a id="k57b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; This indicates that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed David the destruction both of the first Temple and of the second Temple. Of the first Temple, as it is written, 'By the rivers of Babylon there we sat, yea we wept'; of the second Temple, as it is written, Remember, O Lord, against the children of Edom<a id="k57b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the day of Jerusalem, who said, rase it, rase it, even unto the foundation thereof.<a id="k57b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, or it may be R. Ammi, or as some say it was taught in a Baraitha; On one occasion four hundred boys and girls were carried off for immoral purposes. They divined what they were wanted for and said to themselves, If we drown in the sea we shall attain the life of the future world. The eldest among them expounded the verse, The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring again from the depths of the sea.<a id="k57b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I will bring again from Bashan,' from between the lions' teeth.<a id="k57b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I will bring again from the depths of the sea,' those who drown in the sea. When the girls heard this they all leaped into the sea. The boys then drew the moral for themselves, saying, If these for whom this is natural act so, shall not we, for whom it is unnatural? They also leaped into the sea. Of them the text says, Yea, for thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.<a id="k57b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah, however, said that this refers to the woman and her seven sons.<a id="k57b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; They brought the first before the Emperor and said to him, Serve the idol. He said to them: It is written in the Law, I am the Lord thy God.<a id="k57b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They then brought the second before the Emperor and said to him, Serve the idol. He replied: It is written in the Torah, Thou shalt have no other gods before me.<a id="k57b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They then brought the next and said to him, Serve the idol. He replied: It is written in the Torah, He that sacrifices unto the gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed.<a id="k57b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They then brought the next before the Emperor saying, Serve the idol. He replied: It is written in the Torah, Thou shalt not bow down to any other god.<a id="k57b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They then brought another and said to him, Serve the idol. He replied: It is written in the Torah, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.<a id="k57b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They then brought the next and said to him, Serve the idol. He replied; It is written in the Torah, Know therefore this day and lay it to thine heart that the Lord He is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is none else.<a id="k57b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; So they led him away and killed him. They brought the next and said to him, Serve the idol. He replied: It is written in the Torah, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day&nbsp;&hellip; and the Lord hath avouched thee this day;<a id="k57b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; we have long ago sworn to the Holy One, blessed be He, that we will not exchange Him for any other god, and He also has sworn to us that He will not change us for any other people. The Emperor said: I will throw down my seal before you and you can stoop down and pick it up,<a id="k57b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; so that they will say of you that you have conformed to the desire<a id="k57b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; of the king. He replied; Fie on thee, Caesar, fie on thee, Caesar; if thine own honour is so important, how much more the honour of the Holy One, blessed be He! They were leading him away to kill him when his mother said: Give him to me that I may kiss him a little. She said to him: My son, go and say to your father Abraham, Thou didst bind one [son to the] altar, but I have bound seven altars. Then she also went up on to a roof and threw herself down and was killed. A voice thereupon came forth from heaven saying, A joyful mother of children.<a id="k57b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: [The verse, 'Yea, for thy sake we are killed all the day long'] can be applied to circumcision, which has been appointed for the eighth [day]. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It can be applied to the students of the Torah who demonstrate the rules of shechitah on themselves; for Raba said: A man can practise anything on himself except shechitah,<a id="k57b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and something else. R. Nahman b. Isaac said that it can be applied to the students who kill themselves for the words of the Torah, in accordance with the saying of R. Simeon b. Lakish; for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The words of the Torah abide only with one who kills himself for them, as it says, This is the Torah, when a man shall die in the tent etc.<a id="k57b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: Forty se'ahs
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k58a_1:" Not counting the straps (Rashi). [Others: 'capsules'; each phylactery box of the head contains four capsules or sections, v Aruch.]"
,k58a_2:" [Rashi assumes that the phylactery of the head consisting as it does of four capsules had a wider base than that of the arm.]"
,k58a_3:" Ps. CXXXVII, 8, 9. The 'dashing against the rock' will be 'measure for measure'."
,k58a_4:" Lam. IV, 2."
,k58a_5:" Deut. XXVIII, 61."
,k58a_6:" Al. 'go on' (Jastrow)."
,k58a_7:" Lam. III, 51."
,k58a_8:" This is obviously a conventional expression for 'very many'."
,k58a_9:" [Perhaps in the year 95, v. Hor. (Sonc. ed.) p. 70, n. 12. Tosef. Hor. II omits Rome."
,k58a_10:" Lit., 'his curly hair arranged in locks."
,k58a_11:" Isa. XLII, 24."
,k58a_12:" Ibid."
,k58a_13:" Lam. I, 16."
,k58a_14:" Heb. 'Pene'."
,k58a_15:" Jer. VI, 26."
,k58a_16:" Mic. II, 2."
,k58a_17:" I.e., one woman marrying two men."
,k58a_18:" To the buyer."
,k58a_19:" By doing a little work on the property."
,k58a_20:" For reimbursing him if his title should prove invalid. "
}

txt:
<p>
of phylactery boxes<a id="k58a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; were found on the heads of the victims of Bethar. R. Jannai son of R. Ishmael said there were three chests each containing forty se'ahs. In a Baraitha it was taught: Forty chests each of three se'ahs. There is, however, no contradiction; the one was referring to the phylactery of the head, the other to that of the arm.<a id="k58a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Assi said; Four <i>kabs</i> of brain were found on one stone. 'Ulla said: Nine <i>kabs</i>. R. Kahana &mdash; or some say Shila b. Mari &mdash; said: Where do we find this in the Scripture? [In the verse], O daughter of Babylon that art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee&nbsp;&hellip; happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.<a id="k58a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It is written]: The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold.<a id="k58a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'comparable to fine gold'? Shall I say it means that they were covered with gold? [This can hardly be] seeing that in the school of R. Shila it was stated that two state weights of fine gold came down into the world, one of which went to Rome and the other to the rest of the world! No: what it means is that they used to eclipse fine gold with their beauty. Before that the notables of the Romans used to keep an amulet set in a ring in front of them when they had sexual intercourse, but now they brought Israelites and tied them to the foot of the bed. One man asked another: Where is that written [in the Scripture]? He replied: Also every sickness and every plague which is not written in the book of this law.<a id="k58a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the other: How far am I from that place? &mdash; He replied: A little,<a id="k58a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a page and a half. Said the other: If I had got so far, I should not have wanted you.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah reported Samuel as saying in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel; What is signified by the verse, Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city?<a id="k58a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Bethar, and in every one were four hundred teachers of children, and each one had under him four hundred pupils,<a id="k58a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and when the enemy entered there they pierced them with their staves, and when the enemy prevailed and captured them, they wrapped them in their scrolls and burnt them with fire.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: R. Joshua b. Hananiah once happened to go to the great city of Rome,<a id="k58a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and he was told there that there was in the prison a child with beautiful eyes and face and curly locks.<a id="k58a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He went and stood at the doorway of the prison and said, Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers?<a id="k58a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The child answered, Is it not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned and in whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient unto his law.<a id="k58a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: I feel sure that this one will be a teacher in Israel. I swear that I will not budge from here before I ransom him, whatever price may be demanded. It is reported that he did not leave the spot before he had ransomed him at a high figure, nor did many days pass before he became a teacher in Israel. Who was he? &mdash; He was R. Ishmael b. Elisha.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It is related that the son and the daughter of R. Ishmael b. Elisha were carried off [and sold to] two masters. Some time after the two met together, and one said, I have a slave the most beautiful in the world. The other said, I have a female slave the most beautiful in the world. They said: Let us marry them to one another and share the children. They put them in the same room. The boy sat in one corner and the girl in another. He said: I am a priest descended from high priests, and shall I marry a bondwoman? She said: I am a priestess descended from high priests, and shall I be married to a slave? So they passed all the night in tears. When the day dawned they recognised one another and fell on one another's necks and bemoaned themselves with tears until their souls departed. For them Jeremiah utters lamentation, For these I am weeping, mine eye, mine eye drops water.<a id="k58a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish said: It is related of a certain woman named Zafenath bath Peniel (she was called Zafenath because all gazed [zofin] at her beauty, and the daughter of Peniel because she was the daughter of the high priest who ministered in the inner shrine)<a id="k58a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; that a brigand abused her a whole night. In the morning he put seven wraps round her and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was exceptionally ugly came and said: Show me her beauty. He said: Fool, if you want to buy her buy, for [I tell you that] there is no other so beautiful in all the world. He said to him: All the same [show her to me]. He took seven wraps off her, and she herself tore off the seventh and rolled in the dust, saying, Sovereign of the universe, if Thou hast not pity on us why hast thou not pity on the sanctity of Thy Name? For her Jeremiah utters lamentation, saying, O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth and wallow thyself in ashes; make thee mourning as for an only son, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.<a id="k58a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It does not say upon thee,' but 'upon us:' the spoiler is come, if one may say so, upon Me and upon thee.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: 'What is signified by the verse, And they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage?<a id="k58a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain man once conceived a desire for the wife of his master, he being a carpenter's apprentice. Once his master wanted to borrow some money from him. He said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. So he sent his wife to him, and she stayed three days with him. He then went to him before her. Where is my wife whom I sent to you? he asked. He replied: I sent her away at once, but I heard that the youngsters played with her on the road. What shall I do? he said. If you listen to my advice, he replied, divorce her. But, he said, she has a large marriage settlement. Said the other: I will lend you money to give her for her <i>Kethubah</i>. So he went and divorced her and the other went and married her. When the time for payment arrived and he was not able to pay him, he said: Come and work off your debt with me. So they used to sit and eat and drink while he waited on them, and tears used to fall from his eyes and drop into their cups. From that hour the doom was sealed; some, however, say that it was for two wicks in one light.<a id="k58a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN BUYS FROM THE SICARICON etc. Rab said: This holds good only where he [the original owner] said to him<a id="k58a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [mere ly]: Go, take possession<a id="k58a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and acquire ownership. If, however, he gave him a written deed, he does acquire title. Samuel said: Even with a written deed he does not acquire title, unless he expressly makes himself responsible.<a id="k58a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k58b_1:" I.e., apparently, even if she gives him a written deed."
,k58b_2:" Without a guarantee of reimbursement."
,k58b_3:" Lit., 'he ate'."
,k58b_4:" Without him protesting."
,k58b_5:" In which case the onus probandi would be on the claimant."
,k58b_6:" I.e., this plea would be valid in the mouth of the first purchaser, and <i>a fortiori</i> in that of the second. Why then was not the rule stated in connection with the first?"
,k58b_7:" On the principle that, to confer usucaption, occupation, even if unchallenged, must be supported by a plea of right. V. B.B. 41a."
,k58b_8:" On the ground that they were not likely to know whether the first had in fact purchased it or not."
,k58b_9:" Lit., 'he who comes'."
,k58b_10:" A debt payable by instalments, v. <i>supra</i> 44a."
,k58b_11:" If he retains it for twelve months and then sells it to a Jew, the purchaser cannot be quit of the original owner by giving him merely a quarter, but he has to return him the whole, since he has never waived his title. [Trani reverses: The original owner has no claim to the field since he could have redeemed it, or in the case of anparuth recovered it at court (v. <i>infra</i>) and therefore it is to be assumed that he waived his right to the field. This interpretation is more in keeping with the reading, 'the rule of sicaricon does not apply', which varies but slightly from that of the Mishnah, whereas in Rashi's interpretation it is taken in a different sense.]"
,k58b_12:" Apparently, as in the case of the sicaricon."
,k58b_13:" Before it can be sold to a Jew."
,k58b_14:" That the purchaser has to restore the land gratis to the original owner."
,k58b_15:" The owners of which had gone away."
,k58b_16:" Who were assessed for the land-tax jointly."
,k58b_17:" I.e., the pro rata share of that field."
,k58b_18:" After one year."
,k58b_19:" For the two years' tax which he had paid in advance."
,k58b_20:" [By making the other owners pay him, just as the purchaser of a field from the sicaricon pays the original owner a quarter; and this is not right, since there is no question of sicaricon here, as no one forced him to pay three years' tax in advance.]"
,k58b_21:" Lit., 'he has put his money on the horn of the deer', an expression used for a risky speculation."
,k58b_22:" [That is, the quarter of the purchase price is repaid to the original owner either in land or in money (v. Tosaf.).]"
,k58b_23:" A quarter of the field bought."
,k58b_24:" I.e., he buys land which is worth four <i>manehs</i> for three <i>manehs</i>. Hence a quarter of the value of the land is equal to a third of the purchase price."
,k58b_25:" I.e., he buys land which is worth five <i>manehs</i> for four <i>manehs</i>. Hence he returns either a fifth of the land which is the equivalent of the quarter of the purchase price, or one <i>maneh</i>."
,k58b_26:" As stated by Rab, and in contradiction of Samuel."
,k58b_27:" I.e., it is a fourth of the total sum paid by the purchaser both to the sicaricon and to the owner. "
}

txt:
<p>
It has been taught in agreement with Samuel: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If a man buys [a married woman's property] from the wife and then buys it again from the husband, his purchase is effective. But if he first buys from the husband and then from the wife the purchase is invalid,<a id="k58b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; unless she expressly makes herself responsible.' Are we to say that this confutes Rab's view? &mdash; Rab can answer you: What is meant by 'making herself responsible'? Giving a written deed.<a id="k58b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If a man bought [property] from the sicaricon and had the use of it<a id="k58b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for three years in the presence of the original owner,<a id="k58b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and then sold it to another, the original owner has no claim against the [second] purchaser. How are we to understand this? If the [second] purchaser pleads, He bought it from you,<a id="k58b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the rule would be the same in the case of the first [purchaser].<a id="k58b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If he does plead, He bought it from you, then the rule does not apply to the second either?<a id="k58b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shesheth said: We do in fact assume that he does not advance this plea, [and yet the rule applies] because in a case like this we [the <i>Beth din</i>] suggest a plea to the heir and suggest a plea to the purchaser;<a id="k58b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the first if he pleads [of his own accord] can acquire a title, but otherwise not.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: 'If [a heathen] seizes the land<a id="k58b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [of an Israelite] on account of a debt or of an anparuth<a id="k58b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this rule of sicaricon does not apply to it;<a id="k58b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [and land seized] on account of anparuth must remain in his hands twelve months.'<a id="k58b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But you just said that the rule of sicaricon does not apply to it? &mdash; What he means is, [Land bought from] the sicaricon itself must remain in his hands twelve months.<a id="k58b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: I have authority for saying that there is no anparuth in Babylonia. But we see that there is? &mdash; You should say, the law of anparuth<a id="k58b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; does not apply in Babylonia. Why so? &mdash; Since there is a Court and yet [the victim] does not go and complain, we presume that he has waived his claim.
</p><p>
	Giddal son of Re'ilai took a field<a id="k58b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; from the owners of a certain stretch<a id="k58b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; on condition of paying the tax on it.<a id="k58b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He paid in advance the money for three years. The first owners eventually<a id="k58b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; came back and said to him: You paid the tax for the first year and have had the produce. Now we will pay and I will have the produce. They appealed to R. Papa, who was minded to make him out a warrant against the owners of the stretch.<a id="k58b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, however, said to R. Papa: This will mean applying the law of sicaricon?<a id="k58b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua; he has risked his money and lost.<a id="k58b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THIS WAS THE FIRST MISHNAH. THE SUCCEEDING <I>BETH DIN</I> RULED THAT ONE WHO BUYS FROM THE SICARICON SHOULD GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER. Rab said: This means either a quarter in land or a quarter In money;<a id="k58b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: It means a quarter in land,<a id="k58b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; which is [equivalent to] a third of the money. What is the ground of their difference? &mdash; One [Samuel] holds that he buys the land for a quarter less than its value,<a id="k58b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other that he buys the land for a fifth less than its value.<a id="k58b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised: 'This was the first Mishnah. The succeeding <i>Beth din</i> laid down that one who purchases from the sicaricon gives to the original owner a fourth, the latter having his choice of taking the payment either in land or in money. When is this the case? So long as he is not himself in a position to buy. But if the original owner is in a position to buy, he has the right of pre-emption. Rabbi assembled a <i>Beth din</i> and they decided by vote that if the property had been in the hands of the sicaricon twelve months the first comer had the right to purchase, but he had to give the original owner either a fourth in land or a fourth in money'?<a id="k58b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi replied: That teaching applies, after the money has come into his hands.<a id="k58b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said:
</P>


