# snc

lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k174a_1:" Lit., 'whether this or this, payment from them shall not be exacted', neither from the guarantor not from the kabbelan."
,k174a_2:" Lit., 'like him'."
,k174a_3:" The law just quoted from our Mishnah. Payment, contrary to the ruling of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, may be exacted from a kabbelan, though the debtor has property."
,k174a_4:" V. Git. 74a."
,k174a_5:" V. Sanh. 31a"
,k174a_6:" [H], security. Since the expression of lending was used the guarantor has thereby intimated that the <I>other shall be the borrower</I>. He has consequently to pay only in the case where the debtor has no property of his own."
,k174a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k174a_8:" [H] 'acceptance'. By using the expression give and not lend he thereby gave the order and thus he makes himself in form the principal debtor. Consequently, whether the debtor possesses property or not, payment may be exacted from the kabbelan."
,k174a_9:" A sum of money."
,k174a_10:" I.e., the expression of lending was used together with that of kabbelanuth and the expression of give with that of guarantee."
,k174a_11:" V. note 10."
,k174a_12:" The expressions of 'lending' and 'giving', are of no consequence where the term denoting 'guarantee' or 'acceptance' was specifically mentioned."
,k174a_13:" Cf. p. 765, notes 8 and 10 <i>supra</i>. Since both expressions wore used, lending and guarantee."
,k174a_14:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. note 10. Since the expression of 'giving' was used twice; much more so if the expressions of giving and kabbelanuth were used."
,k174a_15:" Lit., 'it'."
,k174a_16:" Lit., 'caused him to go down'."
,k174a_17:" He re-transferred the property to the borrower."
,k174a_18:" Lit., 'for us'."
,k174a_19:" Similarly, in the case of seizure of property (a person's surety), the debtor must be sued first before his possessions may be approached."
,k174a_20:" I.e., guarantor to a loan incurred by their father."
,k174a_21:" And after paying he desired compensation by the orphans. [So Rashb. Cur. edd. read 'before he informed them'. Had he, that is to say, informed them first and paid on their instructions, he would have been able to recoup himself. V. Yad Ramah.]"
,k174a_22:" Minors under thirteen years of age."
,k174a_23:" The guarantor who discharged their father's debt and has thus become, so to speak, the creditor, cannot exact payment from them."
,k174a_24:" The reason why the orphans need not refund the guarantor is not that given by R. Papa, since orphans also are subject to the performance of such a commandment as that of paying their Father's debts (cf. 'Ar. 22a)."
,k174a_25:" The father of the orphans."
,k174a_26:" The creditor."
,k174a_27:" As a security for his loan. The guarantor, consequently, should not have repaid the debt before obtaining the return of the valuables. Since he overlooked this, he has himself to blame, and there is no obligation on the part of the orphans to indemnify him. He may, however, sue them when they obtain their majority. "
}

txt:
<p>
RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF THE BORROWER HAS PROPERTY, PAYMENT MAY BE EXACTED neither from the one nor from the other.<a id="k174a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel taught in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with his ruling<a id="k174a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; except [in the cases of] 'guarantor',<a id="k174a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'zidon'<a id="k174a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the 'latter proof'.<a id="k174a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: [Should one say], 'Lend him [a sum of money] and I [shall be] guarantor'. 'Lend him and I [shall] repay [you]', 'Lend him and I [shall be] liable [for the loan]', [or] 'Lend him and I [shall] give [it back to you]' &mdash; all these are expressions of guarantee.<a id="k174a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [If, however, one said], 'Give him [a sum of money] and I [shall be] kabbelan'.<a id="k174a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Give him and I shall repay [you]', 'Give him and I [shall be] liable [for the loan]', [or] 'Give him and I [shall] give [it back to you]' &mdash; all these are expressions of kabbelanuth.<a id="k174a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: What [is the law if one said], 'Lend him<a id="k174a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and I [shall be] kabbelan'<a id="k174a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [or], 'Give him and I [shall be] guarantor'?<a id="k174a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Isaac replied: The expression of guarantee [has the force of a] guarantee; the expression of kabbelanuth<a id="k174a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; I [has the force of] acceptance.<a id="k174a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: All of these are expressions of kabbelanuth, except [that] of 'Lend him [a sum of money] and I [shall be] guarantor'.<a id="k174a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: All of these are expressions of 'guarantee', except that of 'Give him and I [shall] give [it back to you]'.<a id="k174a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: Father said thus: [If one said,] 'Give him [a sum of money] and I [shall] give [it back to you]', the creditor has no claim whatsoever against the borrower. The law,<a id="k174a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; however, is not [so]; [for] a debtor cannot escape from the creditor unless [the guarantor] had taken [the money] with [his own] hand [from the creditor] and delivered [it to the borrower].
</p><p>
	A certain judge once allowed a creditor to take possession<a id="k174a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of the property of the debtor before [that] debtor had been sued. [The matter having been brought to his notice,] R. Hanin the son of R. Yeba removed him.<a id="k174a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: Who [would have been so] wise [as] to do such a thing if not R. Hanin the son of R. Yeba! He holds the opinion that a man's possessions are his surety, and we have learnt, IF [A MAN] LENDS [MONEY] TO ANOTHER ON A GUARANTOR'S SECURITY, HE MUST NOT EXACT PAYMENT FROM THE GUARANTOR, and this<a id="k174a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; has been established [to mean that] the guarantor may not be called upon first.<a id="k174a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain guarantor of orphans<a id="k174a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; once paid the creditor before the orphans were sued.<a id="k174a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Papa: The repayment [of a verbal loan to] a creditor is a commandment, and orphans<a id="k174a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; are not subject to the performance of commandments.<a id="k174a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Huna son of R. Joshua said:<a id="k174a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; It may be assumed [that] he<a id="k174a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; deposited with him<a id="k174a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [some] bundles [of valuables].<a id="k174a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k174b_1:" R. Papa and R. Huna. Whatever the reason, the guarantor is not entitled to exact payment from the orphans!"
,k174b_2:" While dying he stated that he had not deposited any valuables with the creditor."
,k174b_3:" Lit., 'or also'."
,k174b_4:" for refusing to obey an order of the court for the payment of the debt."
,k174b_5:" In both these cases it is obvious that the debtor had not entrusted the creditor with any valuables as a security for the loan. Hence, according to R. Huna, the orphans, whose duty it is to discharge their father's debts, must indemnify the guarantor. According to R. Papa. however, they are not obliged to pay even in such cases."
,k174b_6:" Lit., 'from there'."
,k174b_7:" That the guarantor who discharged the debt of such a debtor is entitled to exact payment from the orphans; since, in such a case, it is certain that no valuables were deposited by the debtor with the creditor."
,k174b_8:" Lit., 'from under whose hand goes out'."
,k174b_9:" Which ho received from the creditor on payment of the debt incurred by the father of the orphans."
,k174b_10:" from the orphans, while they are still minors; since it is possible that he never repaid the loan, but accidentally found the bond which the creditor may have lost. When, however, the orphans obtain their majority they may be sued by the guarantor who, on taking the required oath, must be duly compensated."
,k174b_11:" Lit., 'written in it'."
,k174b_12:" The creditor."
,k174b_13:" The amount of the debt."
,k174b_14:" The guarantor."
,k174b_15:" In this case it is certain that the bond was not found by him but that it was delivered to him by the creditor."
,k174b_16:" That the guarantor may exact payment from the orphans where the receipt for the debt is entered on the bond."
,k174b_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 767. n. 7."
,k174b_18:" Who holds that orphans are not obliged to discharge the debts of their father."
,k174b_19:" Why should the orphans be made to indemnify the guarantor?"
,k174b_20:" Cf. BaH, a.l."
,k174b_21:" The creditor."
,k174b_22:" Lit., 'and wrote'."
,k174b_23:" I.e., he has given him a receipt for the amount received."
,k174b_24:" In order that the guarantor may become the legal possessor of the bond. The amount now due to him can no longer be regarded as a verbal loan but as one secured by a written bond. R. Papa exempts orphans from the payment of a verbal loan only, but not from that which is secured by a bond. The payment of such a bond on the part of the orphans is obligatory."
,k174b_25:" Whose father was the debtor."
,k174b_26:" When the claim of the guarantor for compensation from the orphans was submitted to him for decision."
,k174b_27:" [A suburb of Nehardea, v. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. 265 ff.]"
,k174b_28:" V. <i>supra</i> 174a (end), and notes."
,k174b_29:" Lit., 'these words',"
,k174b_30:" Who knows the law that before calling upon the guarantor to pay, the creditor must first approach the debtor. Hence it is possible that valuables might have been deposited with him by the debtor."
,k174b_31:" V. <i>supra</i> 173b."
,k174b_32:" As the debtor well knows that the gentile would, in any case, exact payment from the guarantor, who would not entrust him with any valuables which would only enable the gentile to collect the debt twice."
,k174b_33:" R. Ashi."
,k174b_34:" V. p. 768, n. 15."
,k174b_35:" The guarantor."
,k174b_36:" Knowing full well that the creditor would exact payment from him. Hence, he cannot recoup himself from the orphans while they are still minors. Cf. p. 767. n. 15 end."
,k174b_37:" Lit., 'and the thing was pressing him'."
,k174b_38:" And thus come into the possession of some money."
,k174b_39:" Lit., 'divorce'."
,k174b_40:" The divorce could be arranged in the presence of witnesses out of court where no one would compel the husband to vow that he would derive no further benefit from his wife."
,k174b_41:" R. Huna."
,k174b_42:" Who is forbidden to marry a divorced woman."
,k174b_43:" B.K. 92a, Hul. 105b."
,k174b_44:" That R. Huna should be so advised."
,k174b_45:" V. <i>supra</i> 137a. How then could he have contemplated giving such advice to R. Huna."
,k174b_46:" R. Huna's father."
,k174b_47:" Rashal. Lit., 'established for us', v. <i>infra</i>."
,k174b_48:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k174b_49:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k174b_50:" Since R. Huna was poor, he could not have been the possessor of any property. His father, consequently, though a kabbelan, could not have become liable for the payment of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k174b_51:" At the time his father undertook to be kabbelan."
,k174b_52:" Even where the son is destitute."
,k174b_53:" Lit., 'words'."
,k174b_54:" The reason is given <i>infra</i>."
,k174b_55:" The guarantor."
,k174b_56:" Since no one would guarantee a loan where it is known that the debtor has no means wherewith to meet his obligations. A guarantee in such a case must not, therefore, be taken seriously."
,k174b_57:" V. BaH and Rashal, a.l."
,k174b_58:" Whether the debtor, has or has no property."
,k174b_59:" The guarantor."
,k174b_60:" By his guarantee he was helping to bring about the marriage of the parties. A guarantee in a matrimonial affair is not to be taken seriously as pledging actual payment, but as a mere expression of confidence in the honesty and integrity of the party concerned."
,k174b_61:" Who, it is assumed, always prefers married life to spinsterhood."
,k174b_62:" It is certain that even if she had known that her <i>kethubah</i> would not be paid, she would still have consented to the marriage. In the case of a loan, however, it is clear that had it not been for the guarantee, given by the guarantor, the creditor would not have risked his money. In the latter case, therefore, the guarantor is liable."
,k174b_63:" Lit., 'in my hand'."
,k174b_64:" Hence, his statement is accepted, and the <i>maneh</i> he mentioned is to be paid to the creditor named."
,k174b_65:" To deprive them of their due in favour of a stranger."
,k174b_66:" Though ho clearly admitted liability."
,k174b_67:" Lit., not to satisfy'. i.e., a person is in the habit of concealing the wealth of his children in order to ward off envy. "
}

txt:
<p>
What [is the practical difference] between them?<a id="k174b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The difference] between them is [the case] where the debtor admitted [liability],<a id="k174b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or<a id="k174b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; where he was placed under the ban<a id="k174b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and died [while still] under the ban.<a id="k174b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [A message] was sent from Palestine:<a id="k174b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [Where one] was placed under a ban<a id="k174b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and died under the ban, the law is in accordance with [the view of] R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.<a id="k174b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: A guarantor who produced<a id="k174b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a bond of indebtedness<a id="k174b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot exact payment.<a id="k174b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it contains the entry,<a id="k174b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I<a id="k174b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; received<a id="k174b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; from you' he<a id="k174b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; may exact payment.<a id="k174b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now], according to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua one can well understand [this law]<a id="k174b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to be applicable in the case where the debtor had admitted [liability].<a id="k174b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; According to R. Papa.<a id="k174b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; however, there is a difficulty!<a id="k174b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is different; since<a id="k174b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k174b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; took the trouble to write<a id="k174b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; for him, 'I received,'<a id="k174b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for this [very object].<a id="k174b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain guarantor to a gentile once paid the gentile before he sued the orphans.<a id="k174b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi:<a id="k174b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus said Abimi of Hagronia<a id="k174b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Raba: Even according to him who said [that the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor was] to be taken into consideration,<a id="k174b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; this is only applicable to<a id="k174b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; an Israelite,<a id="k174b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in the case of] a Gentile, since he [invariably] goes [for payment] to the guarantor<a id="k174b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor] need not be taken into consideration.<a id="k174b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [The other]<a id="k174b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; said unto him: On the contrary; even according to him who said that [the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor] need not be taken into consideration, this is only applicable to<a id="k174b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; an Israelite, but [in the case of] gentiles, since their judges [invariably] go to the guarantor, [it may be taken for granted] that had not [the debtor] deposited with him<a id="k174b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [some] bundles [of valuables] at the outset, he would not have accepted [any responsibility whatsoever].<a id="k174b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND SO SAID R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: WHERE [A MAN] IS GUARANTOR FOR A WOMAN IN [RESPECT OF] HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> ETC. Moses b. Azri was guarantor for the <i>kethubah</i> of his daughter-in-law. Now his son, R. Huna, was a scholar but in poor circumstances.<a id="k174b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: Is there no one who would go and advise R. Huna to divorce his wife, so that she might go and collect her <i>kethubah</i> from his father, and then re-marry her?<a id="k174b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But,' said Raba to him, 'have we [not] learned that [the husband] MUST VOW TO DERIVE NO [FURTHER] BENEFIT FROM HER?' 'Does everyone who divorces [his wife]', said Abaye to him, 'do it<a id="k174b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; at a court of law?'<a id="k174b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Finally, [however], it was discovered that he<a id="k174b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; was a priest.<a id="k174b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; 'This is just what people say', exclaimed Abaye, 'poverty follows the poor'.<a id="k174b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Could Abaye have said such a thing?<a id="k174b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Abaye had said, 'Who is a cunning rogue? He who counsels to sell an estate, in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel'!<a id="k174b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The case of] one's son is different, and [the case of] a scholar is [also] different. But, surely, he<a id="k174b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [was only] a guarantor, and a guarantor for a <i>kethubah</i>, it has been definitely established,<a id="k174b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is not responsible for payment? &mdash; He was a kabbelan.<a id="k174b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; This [reply] would be quite correct according to him who said that, though the husband had no property, a kabbelan for a <i>kethubah</i> is responsible for payment; what, however, can be replied according to him who said [that] he is responsible for payment [only] where the [husband]<a id="k174b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; has [property], but is not responsible for payment where the husband has not?<a id="k174b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish, I might say: [R. Huna] did have property<a id="k174b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; but it was struck with blast. And if you prefer, I might Say: A father in the case of his son always undertakes responsibility,<a id="k174b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was stated: A guarantor for a <i>kethubah</i> is, in the opinion<a id="k174b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; of all, not responsible for payment;<a id="k174b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; a kabbelan for a creditor is, in the opinion of all, responsible for payment; [in the case, however, of] a kabbelan for a <i>kethubah</i> or a guarantor for a creditor, there is a dispute. [One] Master holds that he<a id="k174b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; is responsible only where the debtor has property, but if he has none, he is not responsible;<a id="k174b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [other] Master holds that he<a id="k174b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; is responsible whether [the debtor] has, or has not any property. And the law [is that a guarantor] is responsible for payment in all<a id="k174b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; [cases],<a id="k174b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; with the exception of a guarantor for a <i>kethubah</i> who is not responsible for payment even though the husband possessed property. What is the reason? &mdash; He<a id="k174b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; was [merely] performing a religious act<a id="k174b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the woman]<a id="k174b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; had lost nothing.<a id="k174b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: If a dying man consecrated all his property and then stated 'I owe<a id="k174b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>maneh</i> to X', he is believed, because it is known that no one would form a conspiracy against sacred property.<a id="k174b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman demurred: Would a person form a conspiracy against his children<a id="k174b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet both Rab and Samuel stated that if a dying man said, 'I owe a <i>maneh</i> to X', if he [specifically] added, 'Give [it to him]', it is to be given, but if he did not [specifically] say, 'Give', it is not to be given,<a id="k174b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; from this it clearly follows [that] a person is wont to disclaim wealth for<a id="k174b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; his children;
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k175a_1:" In the case of consecrated property."
,k175a_2:" Consequently, it might be rightly assumed that his admission of indebtedness to a creditor amounted to no more than a desire to conceal his wealth. How then could R. Huna state that the sum specified must be paid to the creditor?"
,k175a_3:" And the dying man <I>only confirmed it</I>. Had there been no bond, but a verbal admission only, R. Huna would not have authorised payment to the alleged creditor."
,k175a_4:" And this is the reason why the creditor must not be paid if the dying man did not add, 'Give'?"
,k175a_5:" Of the debtor."
,k175a_6:" Lit., 'these and those'. The statement of R. Huna, on the one hand, and that of Rab and Samuel on the other."
,k175a_7:" As to the question why in the case dealt with by Rab and Samuel it was necessary for the instruction, 'Give', to be added."
,k175a_8:" By the Court."
,k175a_9:" In the latter case."
,k175a_10:" And the sum is to be paid to the creditor though his bond had no authentication."
,k175a_11:" Hence the possibility of his desire to conceal his children's wealth must be taken into consideration, and the sum must not be paid in the absence Of an authentication in court."
,k175a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 435. n. 27."
,k175a_13:" The dying man."
,k175a_14:" Lit., 'cut off the thing'."
,k175a_15:" Why, then, did Rabbah give a decision which is directly opposed to such logical reasoning?"
,k175a_16:" Lit., 'it was said'."
,k175a_17:" Lit., 'I paid'."
,k175a_18:" The fact that ho had already repaid that debt."
,k175a_19:" His use of the definite order, 'Give', implies that he was absolutely certain that the debt had not been discharged."
,k175a_20:" As is the case with a man in good health (cf. Sanh. 29a), otherwise he can subsequently deny all liability, pleading that his admission was a mere jest."
,k175a_21:" For his order of the text, of. BaH and Rashal, a.l."
,k175a_22:" I.e., a bond. In the case of a pots in in good health such an order is essential to the validity of the creditor's claim (cf. <i>supra</i> 40a)."
,k175a_23:" Lit., 'after he enquired he returned and solved it'."
,k175a_24:" Hence there is no need to add, 'Be my witnesses', or, 'Write out a bond'."
,k175a_25:" Even though the clause pledging security had not been entered (v. B.M. 15b, and cf. <i>supra</i> 157a)."
,k175a_26:" Which was mortgaged subsequent to the date of the loan, and certainly from property in possession of the debtor."
,k175a_27:" Lit., 'by the hands of'."
,k175a_28:" And no bond was written."
,k175a_29:" Cf. BaH, a.l. "
}

txt:
<p>
[could it not then be said] here<a id="k175a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; also [that] a person is wont to disclaim wealth for himself!<a id="k175a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna gave his ruling there<a id="k175a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; only when [the creditor] was in possession of a bond of indebtedness.<a id="k175a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does this] imply that Rab and Samuel [deal with a case] where the [creditor] is not in possession of a bond?<a id="k175a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [Why, then,] is [the <i>maneh</i>] to be given [where the dying man] said 'Give'? [This, surely,] is [only] a verbal loan, and both Rab and Samuel stated [that] a verbal loan may be recovered neither from the heirs nor from the buyers!<a id="k175a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Nahman, both<a id="k175a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [are cases] where [the creditor] is in possession of a bond, but<a id="k175a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; there is no contradiction. The one [is a case of a bond] that was authenticated;<a id="k175a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the other where it was not authenticated. [Consequently,<a id="k175a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; if] he said, 'Give,' he [thereby] confirmed<a id="k175a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the bond. [If, however], he did not say, 'Give,' he did not confirm<a id="k175a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the bond.
</p><p>
	Rabbah stated: If a dying man said, 'I owe a <i>maneh</i> to X', and the orphans stated, 'We have paid it'< they are believed. [If, however, he said,] 'Give a <i>maneh</i> to X', and the orphans stated, 'We have paid it', they are not believed. Topsy-turvy!<a id="k175a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does not] the reverse stand to reason? If he<a id="k175a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'Give a maneh', since their father had given a definite order,<a id="k175a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be [justly] assumed that they discharged [the debt]; [if, however, he said.] 'I owe a <i>maneh</i> to X', since their father did not give a definite order, it ought to be assumed that they did not discharge it!<a id="k175a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If, however, [such a statement] was made, it was made<a id="k175a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in the following terms: If a dying man said, 'I owe a <i>maneh</i> to X', and the orphans declared, 'Our father subsequently told us that he paid',<a id="k175a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; they are believed. What is the reason? He might have [subsequently] recalled it<a id="k175a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to his mind. [If, however, he said,] 'Give a <i>maneh</i> to X', and his orphans declared, 'Our father subsequently told us that he paid',<a id="k175a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; they are not believed; for had it been the case that he paid it, he would not have used [the word], 'Give'.<a id="k175a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba inquired: What [is the law where] a dying man admitted [a debt]? Is it necessary [for him] to say [also] 'Be you my witnesses,<a id="k175a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it not necessary to say, 'Be you my witnesses'? [Is it assumed that] a man<a id="k175a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; might jest in the hour of his death or that a man does not jest in the hour of his death? Is it necessary [for him] to say. 'Write',<a id="k175a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it not necessary to say, 'Write'? &mdash; After having raised these questions, he answered them himself:<a id="k175a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; No one jests in the hour of [his] death, and the words of a dying man are regarded [legally] as written and delivered.<a id="k175a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN LENT [MONEY] TO AN OTHER ON [THE SECURITY OF] A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS,<a id="k175a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY COLLECT [THE DEBT] FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY.<a id="k175a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF, HOWEVER, THE LOAN WAS MADE] BEFORE<a id="k175a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; WITNESSES,<a id="k175a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; HE<a id="k175a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY RECOVER [HIS DEBT] FROM FREE PROPERTY [ONLY].
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k175b_1:" The debtor's."
,k175b_2:" And no other evidence."
,k175b_3:" Mortgaged property may be seized only where the creditor can produce a bond duly signed by qualified witnesses. Y. Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k175b_4:" Lit., 'which goes out'."
,k175b_5:" But not from property he sold. Since the signatures of the witnesses do not appear below the guarantee, the guarantor's undertaking can have no more force than a verbal promise, or a loan that has not been secured by a bond, in which case no mortgaged property is pledged to the creditor."
,k175b_6:" Lit., 'one'."
,k175b_7:" I.e., using violence against him."
,k175b_8:" Such a guarantee was offered for the sole purpose of rescuing the debtor from the creditor's violence. It cannot be regarded as a serious guarantee to discharge the debt, since the debt was incurred prior to the guarantee."
,k175b_9:" Lit., 'laws of monies' or 'property'."
,k175b_10:" Cf. BaH, a.l."
,k175b_11:" Lit., 'serve', as a disciple to his master."
,k175b_12:" Cf. Deut. XXIV, 11. Every debt carries with it a pledge of the debtor's property in favour of the creditor."
,k175b_13:" Who might not be aware of the existence of the loan and would thus purchase property which might at any time be taken away from them."
,k175b_14:" That the interests of the buyers are to be safeguarded."
,k175b_15:" Cf. n. 6."
,k175b_16:" Lit., 'there', a loan secured by a bond."
,k175b_17:" A loan that has been secured by a bond and made or acknowledged in the presence of witnesses receives due publicity, and intending buyers are well aware of its existence."
,k175b_18:" V. B.M. 114b."
,k175b_19:" No man would consent to lend any money if no land security were available."
,k175b_20:" Lit., 'it has no voice'."
,k175b_21:" Lit., 'say so', that the hypothecary obligation involved by debts is not Biblical."
,k175b_22:" By sons, in payment of a debt that was due to their deceased father."
,k175b_23:" The firstborn son."
,k175b_24:" Because Biblically land is deemed to have been in their father's virtual possession, and a firstborn son is entitled to a double share in all that his father possessed. Cf. Deut. XXI, 17."
,k175b_25:" V. <i>supra</i> 124b; B.K. 43a. At any rate, in view of this statement of Rabbah's, the debtor's land is Biblically deemed to be in the creditor's virtual possession; how then could ho say here that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical?"
,k175b_26:" And thus Rabbah's view here would be that the pledging of property is Biblical, in agreement with his statement, <i>supra</i> 124b, that a firstborn receive a double portion where land was collected, and 'Ulla's view would be that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical."
,k175b_27:" Lit., 'his right'."
,k175b_28:" Of the lands of the debtor. And this is deduced from a Biblical text (v. B.K. 8a). which proves that, according to 'Ulla, the debtor's landed property is pledged to the creditor Biblically."
,k175b_29:" Who, as reported <i>supra</i> 124b, stated that a firstborn son takes a double portion in a loan."
,k175b_30:" But maintains that, consistent with his view here that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical, a firstborn son does not receive a double portion in a loan that was due to his deceased father, whether money or land was collected."
,k175b_31:" Of the debtor."
,k175b_32:" Though the dates of their purchases were later than the date of the loan."
,k175b_33:" V. p. 775, n. 24."
,k175b_34:" Cf. p. 775, n. 15."
,k175b_35:" Since it is the fault of the digger of the pit that the ox had fallen upon him."
,k175b_36:" Through the fall."
,k175b_37:" The liability to compensation is, surely, of no greater legal force than that of a verbal loan (since no bond can be produced in support of it), and yet it has been said that it may be recovered from heirs; how, then, could Rab and Samuel state that heirs are not liable to repay a verbal loan incurred by their father?"
,k175b_38:" That heirs are to pay compensation for their father's liability."
,k175b_39:" Who was digging the pit."
,k175b_40:" And was ordered to pay compensation. An order made by a court has the same legal force as that of a loan that is secured by a written bond."
,k175b_41:" A dead man could not appear before a court!"
,k175b_42:" The infliction of injuries from which one dies may be described as 'killing'. A man injured, though fatally, may be able to appear before a court."
,k175b_43:" 'Ar. 7a."
,k175b_44:" In the pit. How could it be said that he appeared before a court."
,k175b_45:" Just before he died. "
}

txt:
<p>
[IF A PERSON] PRODUCED AGAINST ANOTHER HIS<a id="k175b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; NOTE-OF-HAND<a id="k175b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [SHOWING] THAT [THE LATTER] OWES HIM [A SUM OF MONEY], HE MAY RECOVER [IT] FROM HIS FREE PROPERTY.<a id="k175b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF THE GUARANTEE AND SIGNATURE OF] A GUARANTOR APPEAR<a id="k175b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; BELOW THE SIGNATURES TO BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS, [THE CREDITOR] MAY RECOVER [HIS DEBT] FROM [THE GUARANTOR'S] FREE PROPERTY.<a id="k175b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; SUCH A CASE ONCE CAME BEFORE R. ISHMAEL, WHO DECIDED THAT [THE DEBT MAY] BE RECOVERED FROM [THE GUARANTOR'S] FREE PROPERTY. BEN NANNUS [HOWEVER] SAID TO HIM, '[THE DEBT MAY] BE REPLIED NEITHER FROM SOLD PROPERTY NOR FROM FREE PROPERTY.' 'WHY?' THE OTHER ASKED HIM. BEHOLD', HE REPLIED TO HIM, 'THIS IS JUST AS IF A CREDITOR] WERE [IN THE ACT (IF] THROTTLING A DEBTOR<a id="k175b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE STREET,<a id="k175b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS FRIEND FOUND HIM AND SAID, "LEAVE HIM ALONE AND<a id="k175b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; WILL PAY YOU", HE WOULD [CERTAINLY] BE EXEMPT [FROM LIABILITY], SINCE THE LOAN WAS NOT MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM.<a id="k175b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT WHAT MANNER OF GUARANTOR, HOWEVER, IS LIABLE [TO REFUND A DEBT]? [IF THE GUARANTOR SAID], "LEND HIM [A SUM OF MONEY] AND I WILL REPAY [IT] TO YOU", HE IS LIABLE, SINCE THE LOAN WAS MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM.
</p><p>
	R. ISHMAEL FURTHER STATED: HE WHO WOULD BE WISE SHOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS,<a id="k175b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THERE IS NO BRANCH IN THE TORAH MORE COMPREHENSIVE<a id="k175b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; THAN THEY, AND THEY ARE LIKE A WELLING FOUNTAIN. AND HE THAT WOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS LET HIM WAIT<a id="k175b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; UPON SIMEON BEN NANNUS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. 'Ullah said: [According to] the word of the Torah, either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from mortgaged property. What is the reason? &mdash; The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical.<a id="k175b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then has it been said [that] a verbal loan may be collected from free property only? &mdash; On account of [possible] loss to the buyers.<a id="k175b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k175b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same law should apply] also [to] a loan [that is secured] by a bond!<a id="k175b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [In this case]<a id="k175b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; they have brought the loss upon themselves.<a id="k175b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah, however, said: [According to] the word of the Torah either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from free property only. What is the reason? &mdash; The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical.<a id="k175b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then has it been said that a loan [secured] by a bond may be recovered from sold property? &mdash; In order that doors may not be locked in the face of borrowers.<a id="k175b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, [the same law should apply] also [to] a verbal loan! &mdash; In that case the loan is not [sufficiently] known.<a id="k175b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Did Rabbah, however, give such [a ruling]?<a id="k175b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, Rabbah said: If land was collected<a id="k175b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k175b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; receives [a double portion,<a id="k175b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but] if money was collected, he does not, and R. Nahman said: If money was collected he has [a double portion]!<a id="k175b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be suggested that [the statement] of Rabbah should be transposed to 'Ulla and that of 'Ulla to Rabbah,<a id="k175b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; surely [it may be pointed out] 'Ulla said: [According to] the word of the Torah a creditor is to receive<a id="k175b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; of the worst!<a id="k175b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah [only] stated the reason of the Palestinians,<a id="k175b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; but he himself does not share [their view].<a id="k175b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Both Rab and Samuel stated: A verbal loan may be recovered neither from the heirs<a id="k175b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; nor from the buyer.<a id="k175b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical.
</p><p>
	Both R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: A verbal loan may be recovered either from the heirs<a id="k175b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; or from the buyers.<a id="k175b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical. An objection was raised: If [a man] was digging a pit in a public domain and an ox falls upon him and kills him, [the owner of the ox] is exempt.<a id="k175b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, if the ox dies,<a id="k175b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [compensation for] its value must be paid to its owner by the heirs of the owner of the pit!<a id="k175b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Elai replied in the name of Rab: [This law<a id="k175b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable to the case only] where he<a id="k175b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; appeared before [a court of] law.<a id="k175b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, it was stated that <I>it killed</I> him!<a id="k175b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: [This is a case] where he was fatally injured.<a id="k175b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Nahman, surely. said that a tanna<a id="k175b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; recited [the statement as follows]: It killed and buried him!<a id="k175b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That [is a case] where judges sat at the mouth of the Pit and convicted him.<a id="k175b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k162a_1:" Lit., '(people) do not learn from the last line'. Witnesses do not as a rule take care to write their signatures immediately below the text of the deed, and usually leave some space between their signatures and the text. As this space might be used by the unscrupulous for the insertion, in his own interests, of an unauthorised line, it has been provided that nothing essential that has not already appeared in the text of the deed may appear in its last line. Consequently, should this line ever contain a vital point not recorded in the text, it would immediately be detected as spurious."
,k162a_2:" Lit., 'to'."
,k162a_3:" Lit., 'write'. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; R. Amram said: Because the last line cannot be taken as a determining factor.<a id="k162a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Nahman to R. Amram: Whence do<a id="k162a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; you [derive] this? [The other] replied to him: Because it was taught, If the [signatures of the] witnesses were removed two lines from the text, [the deed] is invalid; [if only] one line, [it is] valid. Why are two lines different [from one line]? Because one might commit forgery and add<a id="k162a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [some unauthorised matter]! [In the case of] one line also [might not one] commit forgery and add<a id="k162a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [some spurious matter]? Must we not then conclude [that] the last line cannot be taken as a determining factor'? This proves it.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k162b_1:" If a space sufficient for the writing of a line and a half was left between the text and the witnesses' signatures."
,k162b_2:" Cf. BaH, a.l."
,k162b_3:" <i>Supra</i> 162a."
,k162b_4:" Since the deduction from the first part is in contradiction to that of the second, the Baraitha can be used as a guide only for that which it actually teaches."
,k162b_5:" Lit., 'what becomes about it'."
,k162b_6:" I.e., a line and a half."
,k162b_7:" Tosef. Git. VII."
,k162b_8:" Cf. Rashb. a.l. Current edd., 'four and (or) five witnesses &hellip; and one of them was found to be a relative etc.'"
,k162b_9:" Though the signatures of the disqualified witnesses are entirely ignored, the space, nevertheless, on which their signatures are written, even if it extends to two lines between the text and the signatures of the qualified witnesses, is not regarded as a blank to disqualify the deed."
,k162b_10:" The blank space of two lines between the text of a deed and the signatures of the witnesses."
,k162b_11:" Git. 87b."
,k162b_12:" Lit., 'be not astonished'."
,k162b_13:" That a blank of two lines renders the deed invalid, while disqualified signatures. though ignored, and though covering the space of two lines, do not."
,k162b_14:" Corresponding to a blank in a deed."
,k162b_15:" If the tabernacle has only three walls, and the air space of three handbreadths in the roof runs across the entire length or breadth of the tabernacle intercepting one or two of the walls, so that the tabernacle is, as it were, short of the prescribed minimum number of walls. (Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k162b_16:" The roof of the festive tabernacle must consist of twigs or any other suitable materials which grow from the ground and are not subject to Levitical defilement."
,k162b_17:" Suk. 17a."
,k162b_18:" In respect of the law that a blank space of two lines between the text of a deed and the signatures of the witnesses renders the deed invalid. "
}

txt:
<p>
	The question was raised: What [is the ruling in the case of] a line and a half?<a id="k162b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: 'If the [signatures of the] witnesses were removed two lines from the text,<a id="k162b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [the deed] is invalid',<a id="k162b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [from which it may be inferred that if they were removed] a line and a half only [the deed] is valid. Explain, [however], the first clause: '[If only] one line, [it is] valid'<a id="k162b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [from which it follows] that only [if the interval was] one line is [the deed] valid but [if it was] a line and a half [the deed] is invalid! From this, then, no deduction can be made.<a id="k162b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What about an answer to the question?<a id="k162b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear what has been taught: [If] the [signatures of the] witnesses were removed two lines from the text, [the deed] is invalid; [if] less than this<a id="k162b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is] valid.<a id="k162b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[If] four or five witnesses have signed on a deed, and the first two were found to be relatives or [such as are in any other way] disqualified,<a id="k162b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the evidence may be confirmed by the remaining witnesses.<a id="k162b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [This] affords support to [the view of] Hezekiah; for Hezekiah said, '[If] it<a id="k162b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was filled with [the signatures of] relatives, [the deed] is valid',<a id="k162b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And there is nothing strange<a id="k162b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [in this law],<a id="k162b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for [while] air [space]<a id="k162b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; renders the festive tabernacle ritually unfit when [that space measures only] three [handbreadths],<a id="k162b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; unfit roofing<a id="k162b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; renders [it] ritually unfit [only] when [that roofing measures] four [handbreadths].<a id="k162b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [Do] the 'two lines' which were mentioned<a id="k162b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k161a_1:" Any writing on the spot erased is invalid.<table align=\"right\" border=\"1\"><tr><td><img src=\"bababathra_161-1.gif\" width=\"227\" height=\"397\"></td></tr></table><br>"
,k161a_2:" Because it is possible that the formula, 'firm and established', had been erased from its original position and re-written after the spurious matter that had been inserted in its place. Since an erasure of the formula would, thus, invalidate the added matter, there is no cause to apprehend any forgery, though the witnesses sign on the external side of the deed."
,k161a_3:" Lit., 'they only said'."
,k161a_4:" At the end of the original text of the deed."
,k161a_5:" Or more."
,k161a_6:" And, since the signatures cover the entire extent of the writing, the end of the deed is clearly indicated; and the formula, 'firm and established', is not required at the foot of the deed."
,k161a_7:" On the lower part of the deed which is left unfolded."
,k161a_8:" On the back of the additional written matter."
,k161a_9:" Added extra witnesses over and above the prescribed number of three."
,k161a_10:" To give the matter greater publicity."
,k161a_11:" R. Hisda."
,k161a_12:" Rami b. Hama."
,k161a_13:" According to R. Jeremiah."
,k161a_14:" I.e., in horizontal lines on the reverse of the deed, corresponding to the lines on the obverse, the first signature corresponding to the first line of the deed, the second to the second, and so on. If that were the case, spurious matter could certainly be added."
,k161a_15:" They begin their signatures at the bottom of the reverse, on the back of the last line of the obverse, and proceed vertically upwards, witness after witness, towards the top line. Since the first signature commences at the foot of the deed, any matter below it (not having a signature on the reverse) would be easily detected as spurious."
,k161a_16:" Written on its back."
,k161a_17:" The proper form of a signature was, 'X son of Y, witness'. The algebraic symbols are represented in the Talmud by the Biblical characters, Jacob and his son Reuben."
,k161a_18:" Git. 87b."
,k161a_19:" So that by cutting off the last horizontal line of in the deed, 'Reuben son of' which is written vertically on the other side is cut off with it.<table align=\"right\" border=\"1\"><tr><td><img src=\"bababathra_161-2.gif\" width=\"300\" height=\"142\"></td></tr></table><br>"
,k161a_20:" Above the last line and across the back of the second line (from the bottom) of the text; and this, i.e., the name only of the father of the witness, would remain on the deed were the last line to be cut off. [(V. fig. 1, cf. Fischer <i>loc. cit</i>.)]. According to the description of the Yad Ramah, the signatures appear thus (v. fig. 2)."
,k161a_21:" The court mistaking the name of the father for the name of a witness, regarding 'Jacob' as the name of the witness."
,k161a_22:" Git. l.c."
,k161a_23:" In such a case, the name of a witness without the name of his father is invalid. Hence, should one line of the deed be cut off leaving the name of the witness's father only on the remaining portion of the deed, the signature would be invalid. "
}

txt:
<p>
an erasure [however] is inadmissible<a id="k161a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; although it had been confirmed.<a id="k161a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [The law,] however, [that] an erasure invalid only applies<a id="k161a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the case where it occurs] in the position [of the formula] 'firm and established'<a id="k161a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and [occupies the] same space as 'firm and established'.<a id="k161a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to R. Jeremiah b. Abba, however, who stated, '[On] the back of the writing and corresponding to [all] the written part, on the external [side of the deed]',<a id="k161a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is [there no cause] to apprehend that he might write on the inside<a id="k161a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; whatever he wished and induce additional witnesses to sign on the outside;<a id="k161a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and might say, 'I did it<a id="k161a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to increase the number of witnesses'?<a id="k161a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k161a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; replied to him:<a id="k161a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Do you think [that] witnesses<a id="k161a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; sign in the [same] order [as the lines of the deed],<a id="k161a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; they sign [vertically] from bottom to top?<a id="k161a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But is [there no reason] to apprehend [that some] unfavourable condition might occur in the last line [of the deed] and he would cut off that last line, and [though] with it he would [also] cut off [the name of the witness] 'Reuben',<a id="k161a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [the deed] would [yet] remain valid through [the remaining part of the signature], 'son of Jacob witness';<a id="k161a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; as we learnt: [The signature]. 'son of X, witness', is valid?<a id="k161a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The witness] writes, 'Reuben son of', across one line,<a id="k161a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and, 'Jacob. witness', above it.<a id="k161a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Is [there no reason, however,] to apprehend that [though] he might cut off, 'Reuben son of', [the deed] would [yet] remain valid through [the remaining portion of the signatures]. 'Jacob, witness';<a id="k161a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; as we learnt: [a signature], 'X, witness' is valid?<a id="k161a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The word], 'witness' is not written.<a id="k161a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you wish it may be said [that a witness], in fact, does write [after his signature], 'witness', [but this is a case] where it is known that the signature
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k161b_1:" Hence no court would assume Jacob himself to be the witness."
,k161b_2:" Using the name of his father rather than his own, as a mark of respect."
,k161b_3:" The name of his father."
,k161b_4:" As an arbitrary combination of letters in lieu of his full name. Such a symbol or mark is as legitimate in deeds as one's proper signature."
,k161b_5:" Instead of his and his father's full name. This symbol has this become his recognised and legally valid signature."
,k161b_6:" One letter of his name."
,k161b_7:" Current editions, 'Raba'."
,k161b_8:" Others, 'ship'. Now, since these scholars used symbols in lieu of their proper signatures, is it not possible that a witness might use the letters forming the name of his father as a symbol for his signature?"
,k161b_9:" All this series of difficult and forced explanations."
,k161b_10:" Written vertically across the back of the deed, whether from top to bottom or from bottom to top."
,k161b_11:" On the upper and lower edge of the document."
,k161b_12:" I.e., the first letters and last letters of all the signatures must begin and end respectively with the same top and bottom lines of the deed."
,k161b_13:" Hence there is nothing to apprehend. Should one add any spurious matter, it would be detected by the fact that the back of it would protrude below the signatures. Should one cut off a line, the initial or final sections of all the signatures also would thereby be lopped off."
,k161b_14:" In legal documents; other than the formula, 'firm and established', which must not be erased, cf. <i>supra</i> 161a."
,k161b_15:" At the conclusion of the text of the deed before the formula, 'firm etc.', all erasures must be enumerated. Current edd.: He is required to write, 'and this is their confirmation'. 'And this', is to be deleted. (Cf. Rashb.). V. however Tosaf, s.v. [H] for a justification of the text."
,k161b_16:" Of the deed."
,k161b_17:" I.e., no fact, condition or qualification that has not already appeared in the text of the deed may be contained in the last line. The approved formula for the last line is, 'And we took symbolic possession from X son of Y in accordance with all that is written and specified above etc.' "
}

txt:
<p>
is not that of Jacob.<a id="k161b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it not possible [that] be signed on behalf of his father?<a id="k161b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No one gives up his own name and uses as his signature the name of his father. Might he not have used it<a id="k161b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; as a mere mark?<a id="k161b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; For, surely, Rab drew a fish;<a id="k161b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina drew a palm-branch;<a id="k161b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda a Samek.<a id="k161b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hoshaia, an Ayin,<a id="k161b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah<a id="k161b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; son of R. Huna, a mast!<a id="k161b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No one would be so impertinent [as] to make of the name of his father a [mere] symbol.
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra said: What is the need for all this!<a id="k161b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Any folded [deed the signature of] whose witnesses<a id="k161b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; do not terminate<a id="k161b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with the same line [on the deed],<a id="k161b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is an invalid [document].<a id="k161b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan: All erasures<a id="k161b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; require confirmation;<a id="k161b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the last line<a id="k161b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; must contain a repetition of the subject matter of the deed.<a id="k161b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason?
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k170a_1:" The production of the deed is, therefore, useless and the title to the land must rest entirely on the evidence of 'undisturbed possession'."
,k170a_2:" That according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel 'letters' are not acquired by delivery."
,k170a_3:" Rabbah, who said <i>supra</i> that according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel 'letters' are acquired by delivery."
,k170a_4:" I.e., 'I do not mind differing from Rabbah'."
,k170a_5:" Lit., 'R. Simeon etc' on R. Simeon etc.' V. <i>supra</i> notes 9 and 10."
,k170a_6:" Lit., 'in what are we engaged'."
,k170a_7:" The witnesses who signed an ordinary deed."
,k170a_8:" Of one of the litigants."
,k170a_9:" Of the letter of divorce to the woman."
,k170a_10:" Lit., 'cut', the matrimonial relationship between husband and wife (v. Git. 9b). The signatures of the witnesses on the document, which are required 'for the sake of the social order' (cf. ibid. 86a). do not in any way affect the legal and final separation between husband and wife, which is entirely dependent on the presence of suitable witnesses at the time of the delivery of the document. Similarly in the case of a deed of purchase and sale, Rabbi regards the document as valid irrespective of the signatures or the qualification of the witnesses. Hence he maintains that the tight of ownership may be established even where one of the witnesses is a relative or is in any other way disqualified."
,k170a_11:" Lit., 'witnesses of the signature'."
,k170a_12:" Git. 21b. Cf. note 5. As in the case of a letter of divorce the validity of the document is entirely dependent on the witnesses whose signatures are appended to it so in the case of a deed of purchase or sale, unless the witnesses who signed it are eligible, the document is invalid. Hence R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains that, where one of the witnesses was found to be disqualified for any reason whatsoever, the entire deed is invalid, and right of ownership must be determined by the result of the evidence of witnesses on the statutory period of undisturbed possession of the land, on the part of the present holder."
,k170a_13:" Git. 10b. Though a letter of divorce on which no signatures at all appear is valid (the witnesses to the delivery effecting the legal and final separations), where disqualified witnesses are signed on it, thereby causing an irregularity in the document itself, the deed is invalid. Similarly, in the case of the deed of purchase under discussion, how could R. Simeon b. Gamaliel regard it as valid when, owing to the disqualification of one of the witnesses, an internal irregularity arises in the deed itself!"
,k170a_14:" Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k170a_15:" The deed produced as evidence of the holder's tight of ownership. <i>supra</i> 169b, end."
,k170a_16:" Lit., 'written in it'. [Read with Ms.M., 'If they dealt with the evidence, etc.']"
,k170a_17:" I.e., one of the witnesses was found to be disqualified."
,k170a_18:" Cf. p. 743. n. 5."
,k170a_19:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 6."
,k170a_20:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 5."
,k170a_21:" E.g. a seller."
,k170a_22:" And he only disputes its validity. In the case under discussion, e.g., he might plead that he did not deliver the deed to the other party, as the sale never took place, but he lost the document and the other found it."
,k170a_23:" Consequently, in the present case since the seller admits the writing of the deed and only disputes the buyer's claim, the latter's word is accepted and there is no need to hear witnesses on the question of undisturbed possession."
,k170a_24:" Judgement, therefore, cannot be given in favour of the buyer on the strength of the deed alone; and his claim must be based on the evidence of undisturbed possession which is given by qualified witnesses. Cf. 154a; B.M. 7b; 72b."
,k170a_25:" B.M. 7a."
,k170a_26:" Creditor anti debtor."
,k170a_27:" [Some texts: 'It sits yours'; v D.S.B M. 7a.]"
,k170a_28:" Since the original validity of the deed is thus established, the creditor is entitled to judgment in his favour."
,k170a_29:" Lit., 'the words of'."
,k170a_30:" Creditor and debtor."
,k170a_31:" The amount of the debt, the debtor repaying only a half of the claim."
,k170a_32:" Lit., 'is there not'."
,k170a_33:" B.M. 2a. As the cloth in that case is divided so here the amount of the debt should be divided. Why, then, did Rabbi say that the entire amount of the debt was to be repaid to the creditor?"
,k170a_34:" Legally endorsed by a court of law."
,k170a_35:" Creditor and debtor."
,k170a_36:" The amount of the debt; as the cloth is divided between the two who claim to have found it. The creditor is entitled to his half by virtue of the endorsed deed; the debtor also is entitled to his half by virtue of his holding on to the deed jointly with the creditor."
,k170a_37:" Cf. previous note. Thus it follows that Rabbi does not, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel does require independent attestation. How, then, could it have been assumed <i>supra</i> that their respective opinions were directly the opposite?"
,k170a_38:" One or other of the two reported statements, so that Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel should hold respectively the same opinions in both cases."
,k170a_39:" OF Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k170a_40:" The Baraitha. <i>supra</i> 169b."
,k170a_41:" In the case where one of two pleas is essential, and the other superfluous. According to Rabbi both pleas must be proved since they were both advanced together. Hence it is necessary for the buyer (<i>supra</i> 169b) to prove the validity of the deed though, had he based his claim on the tight of undisturbed possession only, there would have been no need for him to produce any deed at all, no one being expected to preserve a deed after three years which is the statutory period of undisturbed possession. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, holds that the superfluous plea is altogether disregarded. Hence it is sufficient for the buyer to prove undisturbed possession to secure judgement in his favour."
,k170a_42:" Lit., 'who lends to his friend with'."
,k170a_43:" Lit., 'to pay him'. V. Shebu. 41b, Ket. 18a."
,k170a_44:" Rab."
,k170a_45:" Cf. Rashal, a.l."
,k170a_46:" Who maintains that where a superfluous plea was advanced together with one which is essential, the former is altogether disregarded. Here, then, since it is not necessary to repay a loan in the presence of witnesses, why should it be necessary to bring the witnesses that were needlessly mentioned? "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds [that] 'letters' are not acquired by delivery<a id="k170a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabbi holds [that] 'letters' are acquired by delivery.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to him: If so,<a id="k170a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [this would present] a disagreement with the Master!<a id="k170a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [The other] replied to him, 'Then let there be disagreement!'<a id="k170a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I mean to say to you this', said [Abaye] to him, '[that] the Baraitha cannot be [well] explained except on the lines which the Master had laid down; and since [that is] so, [there would emerge] a contradiction between one statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the other statement of his!'<a id="k170a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But, said Abaye, here it is a case<a id="k170a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; where one of them<a id="k170a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was found to be a relative<a id="k170a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or [otherwise] disqualified; and they differ on the [same principle that underlies the] dispute of R. Meir and R. Eleazar. Rabbi holds the [same] View as R. Eleazar who maintains [that] the witnesses to the delivery<a id="k170a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; effect the legal separation;<a id="k170a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is of the [same] opinion as R. Meir who maintains [that] the witnesses who signed<a id="k170a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [the letter of divorce] are the main factor in the legal separation.<a id="k170a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But, surely. R. Abba had said: R. Eleazar agrees that [a deed] is invalid if the irregularity is internal!<a id="k170a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said Rabina, all agree<a id="k170a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the deed] is invalid if it<a id="k170a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; contains the entry.<a id="k170a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'we have dealt with the evidence of the witnesses and their evidence was found to be irregular'.<a id="k170a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with [the law laid down by] R. Abba; they only differ in [the case of] a deed which bears no [signatures of] witnesses at all [in] which [case] Rabbi holds the [same] view as R. Eleazar who maintains [that] the witnesses to the delivery effect the legal separation;<a id="k170a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the [same] view as R. Meir who maintains [that] the witnesses who signed the deed<a id="k170a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; effect the final separation.<a id="k170a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If you prefer, however, I might say, [that] they differ on [the question whether in the case] where a person<a id="k170a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; admitted that he wrote a deed,<a id="k170a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [independent legal] attestation is required. For Rabbi holds [that where a person] admitted that he wrote a deed, no [independent] attestation is required;<a id="k170a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds [that independent] attestation is required.<a id="k170a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Did] we [not], however, hear [that] they hold contrary [views]? for it was taught:<a id="k170a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Where two men<a id="k170a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; cling to a deed, the creditor pleading. 'It is mine, I dropped it, and you found it', and the borrower pleading. 'It is<a id="k170a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [indeed] yours but I have paid you'. the [validity of the] deed is established by those who signed it.<a id="k170a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; So<a id="k170a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Let them<a id="k170a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; divide it.<a id="k170a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; And when this was discussed [the following] question was raised: Does not Rabbi accept<a id="k170a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; what we have learnt: Where two [men] hold a cloth, one pleading, 'I found it' and the other [also] pleading, 'I found it', the one must take an oath that he possesses in it no less than a half and the other must take an oath that he possesses in it no less than a half and they divide [it]?<a id="k170a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba in the name of R. Nahman replied: In [the case of] an attested<a id="k170a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [deed] no one disputes [the law] that they<a id="k170a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; must divide;<a id="k170a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ only in [the case of a deed] which has not been attested, [since] Rabbi holds the opinion [that where one] admitted that he wrote a deed [independent] attestation is required, and [consequently] if [the creditor is able to] secure its attestation he collects a half, and if not [the deed is regarded as] a mere potsherd; while Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the opinion [that where one] admits that he wrote [a deed] no [independent] attestation is required and they divide!<a id="k170a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse.<a id="k170a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If you prefer, however, it may be said [that] there is really no [need] to reverse [the reported opinions],<a id="k170a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; but the dispute here<a id="k170a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; is on [the question of] proving [all one's pleas];<a id="k170a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; such as [the case] of R. Isaac b. Joseph [who] claimed [a sum of] money from R. Abba. [When] he came before R. Isaac Nappaha. [R. Abba] pleaded. 'I repaid to you in the presence of X and Y'. 'Let X and Y come', said R. Isaac to him, 'and let them give [their] evidence'. 'If they will not come', said [R. Abba] to him, 'am I not to be believed? Surely we have it as an established law [that] a loan made in the presence<a id="k170a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; of witnesses need not be repaid<a id="k170a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of witnesses!' 'In this [case', R. Isaac] replied to him, 'I am of the same opinion as [that in] the reported statement of the Master.<a id="k170a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Abba in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah in the name of Rab said: Where one said to another, 'I paid you [your debt] in the presence of X and Y', it is necessary that X and Y should come and give evidence. 'But surely', said [R. Abba] to him,<a id="k170a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel;<a id="k170a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; and even Rabbi
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k170b_1:" Lit., 'said'."
,k170b_2:" Legally however, Rabbi admits, this is not necessary (R. Gersh.)"
,k170b_3:" Lit., 'say'."
,k170b_4:" I.e., R. Isaac holds the same opinion as Rabbi. Had not R. Abba mentioned witnesses his word alone would have been accepted. Since, however, he did mention witnesses, he must prove his statement or lose his case. [R. Gersh. 'I also require it merely to prove your plea, without however affecting the issue should you fail to bring the witnesses.']"
,k170b_5:" Lit., 'who'."
,k170b_6:" For one in which the balance if the debt is entered, while the original deed is to be destroyed."
,k170b_7:" The creditor."
,k170b_8:" For the sum received; and delivered to the debtor."
,k170b_9:" Lit., 'keep his receipt from the mice'. It is more equitable for the creditor to exchange the bond than for the debtor to be encumbered with the necessity of taking care of a receipt the loss of which might involve him in a claim for the repayment of the full loan."
,k170b_10:" The writing of a receipt instead of changing the original deed."
,k170b_11:" Lit., 'for him'."
,k170b_12:" Lit., 'of this'."
,k170b_13:" Lit., 'for him'."
,k170b_14:" for the balance of the debt."
,k170b_15:" Lit., 'from the first time'."
,k170b_16:" Cited <i>infra</i> 171a."
,k170b_17:" His ruling; and would have admitted the <i>halachah</i> to be in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah. Since the original date is entered in the new bond, the creditor is involved in no loss or disadvantage whatsoever, and there should, therefore, be no difference whether the court or witnesses change the deed. "
}

txt:
<p>
disagreed<a id="k170b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; only in respect of proving [one's statement]!'<a id="k170b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I also', replied [R. Isaac] to him, 'require<a id="k170b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [the evidence of your witnesses] in order to prove [your plea]'.<a id="k170b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A PERSON<a id="k170b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; REPAID PART (OF HIS DEBT, R. JUDAH SAID, HE SHALL EXCHANGE [HIS BOND FOR ANOTHER].<a id="k170b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOSE SAID: HE<a id="k170b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; SHALL WRITE A QUITTANCE.<a id="k170b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: THUS, THIS [DEBTOR] WOULD HAVE TO GUARD HIS QUITTANCE FROM MICE!<a id="k170b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID R. JOSE TO HIM: SUCH [A COURSE]<a id="k170b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IS BETTER FOR THE CREDITOR<a id="k170b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS<a id="k170b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; RIGHTS MUST NOT BE IMPAIRED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna said in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> is neither in accordance with R. Judah nor in accordance with R. Jose; but [only] a court of law [has the authority to] tear up the deed and to write for the creditor<a id="k170b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; another deed<a id="k170b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; entering the original date.<a id="k170b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Nahman to R. Huna, and others say [that] R. Jeremiah b. Abba said to R. Huna: Had Rab heard that Baraitha<a id="k170b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; wherein it was taught, 'Witnesses may tear up a deed and write 'for [the creditor]; another deed entering the original date', he would have withdrawn.<a id="k170b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He said unto him: He heard it and he did not withdraw.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k163a_1:" I.e., the space occupied by the written lines."
,k163a_2:" And that if space enough for the written lines only was left, the deed is valid."
,k163a_3:" V. p. 707. n. 26."
,k163a_4:" Current edd., 'one line without its space', is to be deleted. (CF. Rashb. and BaH, a.l.)."
,k163a_5:" No forgery could in such a case be committed with impunity. Whether the two lines would be inserted <I>without the proper space between them</I> or whether intervening space would be obtained by the use of a <I>smaller hand</I>, the forgery would be easily detected. Why, then, should a deed containing such a narrow blank space be invalid?"
,k163a_6:" CF. p. 707, n. 15."
,k163a_7:" The characters in the handwriting of ordinary witnesses ate larger than those of a skilled scribe, and naturally occupy more space."
,k163a_8:" Lit., 'and forge'. A forgery would be carried out in the secrecy of one's house and the unskilled writer would naturally draw big characters."
,k163a_9:" Is implied by the limit of 'two lines'."
,k163a_10:" [H] <I>to thee, to thee</I>, (or perhaps [H] <I>get thee out</I>, a clause from Gen. XII, 1). There must be sufficient space for allowing of the writing, in each of the two lines, of letters which extend upwards ([H]) and downwards ([H]) without their touching each other. These letters, furthermore, are to be in the larger kind of character as reported above in the name of Hezekiah. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k163a_11:" Two between the lines (for the [H] of the upper, and the [H] of the lower line), one above the upper line for the [H], and one space below the lower line for the [H]. Thus: [H]"
,k163a_12:" [H]."
,k163a_13:" Lit., 'from above'."
,k163a_14:" [H]."
,k163a_15:" Lit., from below'."
,k163a_16:" Since mention is only made of a [H] in the upper, and a [H] in the lower line."
,k163a_17:" One above the upper line for the letters which, like a [H], extend upwards; another below the second line for the letters which like [H], extend downwards; and a third between the two written lines for the letters that run both downwards and upwards. Should a [H] happen to come below a [H], one could easily move the letter forward or backward to avoid coalescence."
,k163a_18:" [H] contains two letters which extend downwards and one which runs upwards."
,k163a_19:" Regarding the limit to two lines of the blank space allowed below the text of a deed."
,k163a_20:" Confirmation by a court at the foot of a document."
,k163a_21:" That between the signatures and the attestation of the court."
,k163a_22:" And the attestation at the foot would be regarded as a confirmation of the entire deed inclusive of the spurious additions and signatures."
,k163a_23:" I.e., more blank space than the 'two lines' maximum is allowed not in all cases but only in that particular case."
,k163a_24:" So that nothing could be entered on that space. Aruk reads [H] ([H] <I>to dot with ink</I>); cur. edit. [H] ([H] <I>to blot, smear</I>)."
,k163a_25:" Why, then, was the blank space in this case restricted to the minimum of two lines?"
,k163a_26:" Lit., 'signed'."
,k163a_27:" Not the text; and this would invalidate the deed (cf. Git. 87a). Hence, no dotted ink marks are permissible between the text of a deed and the signatures of the witnesses."
,k163a_28:" V. p. 709. n. 10."
,k163a_29:" And it would, therefore, be obvious that the attestation referred to the text of the deed. In the case of witnesses, however, such an assumption is not warranted, since not every witness knows the law and it is possible to assume that the holder of the deed had found some witnesses who consented to confirm with their signatures that a blank space was dotted with ink marks."
,k163a_30:" If an unlimited blank space be allowed between the signatures of the witnesses and the attestation of the court."
,k163a_31:" On the spot erased."
,k163a_32:" Without their knowledge."
,k163a_33:" Lit., 'it'."
,k163a_34:" V. <i>infra</i> 163b seq."
,k163a_35:" If the signatures are known. In the case, therefore, where an attestation of a court appears at the foot of the deed, the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses would be taken for granted; and since, according to Rab, the fact that the deed is written on an erasure is no disqualification of its legality, the forgery would never be detected. How, then, could Rab state that the two lines limit does not apply to the space between the signatures of the witnesses and the attestation of the court? "
}

txt:
<p>
[include] themselves<a id="k163a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the space between them or, perhaps, themselves [only] and not the space between them? &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It stands to reason that they and the space between them [were meant];<a id="k163a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for if it could be assumed [that only] they<a id="k163a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [were meant] and not the space between them, of what use<a id="k163a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [is such a narrow space]?<a id="k163a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it follows [that] they and the space between them [were meant]. This proves it.
</p><p>
	R. Sabbathai said in the name of Hezekiah: The 'two lines' that were mentioned<a id="k163a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [are such as are] in the handwriting of the witnesses, not [in] the handwriting of the scribe.<a id="k163a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Because whoever [desires to] commit forgery does not go to a scribe to get it done.<a id="k163a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And how much [space]?<a id="k163a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Isaac b. Eleazar said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] Lak Lak<a id="k163a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; above one another. This shows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and four [intervening] spaces.<a id="k163a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Ammi in the name of 'Ulla said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] a Lamed<a id="k163a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in the upper.<a id="k163a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and a [final] Kaph<a id="k163a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in the lower [line].<a id="k163a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [from this]<a id="k163a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it clearly follows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and three [intervening] spaces.<a id="k163a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abbahu said: As [much] for instance [as is necessary for the writing of] Baruk b. Levi<a id="k163a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in one line; [for] he holds the opinion [that the limit is] one [written] line and two [intervening] spaces.
</p><p>
	Rab said: What has been taught<a id="k163a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is only applicable [to the space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text; but between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the legal attestation,<a id="k163a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; even if [the blank space is] wider, [the deed] is valid. Why [is the limit] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text different [from the other]?<a id="k163a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Because, the witnesses having signed, [the holder of the deed] might commit forgery by entering [on it] whatever he desires! [In the case of the blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation too, [could not] forgery be committed by entering whatever one desired and attaching the signature of witnesses?<a id="k163a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [In the case]<a id="k163a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; where [the blank space] is dotted with ink marks.<a id="k163a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, one [could] also dot with ink marks [any blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the [text of the] deed!<a id="k163a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might be assumed [that] the witnesses had confirmed<a id="k163a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the dotted [portion].<a id="k163a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [In the case of dotted ink marks] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation, [would it not] also be assumed [that] the court had confirmed<a id="k163a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the dotted portion? &mdash; A court does not confirm an ink dotted [space].<a id="k163a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Is [there no reason] to apprehend<a id="k163a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; that the upper [portion of the deed], might be [entirely] cut off, the ink dots erased, any [terms] desired entered,<a id="k163a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and the signatures of witnesses [also] might be attached<a id="k163a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [and yet the deed would be regarded as valid], since Rab stated that a deed the text<a id="k163a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure<a id="k163a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is legally valid?<a id="k163a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k163b_1:" The legality of a deed, the text and signatures on which are written on an erasure."
,k163b_2:" No difficulty arises, since it may be claimed that, in the opinion of Rab, a deed on an erasure is invalid."
,k163b_3:" In reply to the difficulty raised. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k163b_4:" Rab."
,k163b_5:" Where the text of the deed and its witnesses are written on an erasure though an attestation of a court also appears on it."
,k163b_6:" As the personal evidence of the witnesses, or that of those who knew their signatures, is thus required, a forgery on the lines suggested would, of course, be detected."
,k163b_7:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 709. n. 3."
,k163b_8:" V. l.c., n. 4."
,k163b_9:" And even though that space is dotted with ink marks (Rashb.)."
,k163b_10:" That between the text and the witnesses."
,k163b_11:" Lit., 'it'."
,k163b_12:" R. Johanan."
,k163b_13:" Because, as stated <i>supra</i> 162a, the last line cannot be taken as the determining factor."
,k163b_14:" I.e., all the Original text of the deed would be cut away, leaving only the two lines' blank space above the signatures and, on one of these, a forged text and signatures would be written."
,k163b_15:" Arranged for signatures of witnesses in more than one line."
,k163b_16:" The genuine witnesses, though appearing in the second line, would not invalidate the deed, since the first line contains the text and witnesses, while for confirmation of the deed, the holder would not make use of the signatures of the fictitious witnesses in the first line but of those of the genuine witnesses in the second line."
,k163b_17:" Where the text of a deed and the signatures of its witnesses appear in one and the same line, and these are followed by other witnesses in the next line."
,k163b_18:" Lit., 'from'."
,k163b_19:" Since the signatures of the witnesses in the first line, being fictitious, could not be attested, the forgery would be exposed."
,k163b_20:" <i>Supra</i> 163a. "
}

txt:
<p>
According to R. Kahana who reported it<a id="k163b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Samuel, this is quite right;<a id="k163b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Tabyumi. however, who reported it<a id="k163b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Rab, what is there to be said?<a id="k163b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k163b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that in any such case<a id="k163b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [a deed] is not confirmed by the attestation of the court that [may appear] on it but by the witnesses on it.<a id="k163b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan, however, said: What has been taught<a id="k163b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is only applicable [to the space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text; but between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the legal attestation<a id="k163b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; even [if the blank space is limited to] one line<a id="k163b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [the deed is] invalid. Why [is the limit] between the witnesses and the attestation different [from the other]?<a id="k163b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Because the upper [portion of the deed] might be cut off and the text<a id="k163b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [of a new deed] and its witnesses might be written on the one line, and he<a id="k163b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that a deed the text and the witnesses of which appear on one line is valid! If so, [in the case of a space] between the witnesses and the text also, might not the upper [portion of the deed] be cut off and, the witnesses having signed, anything one desires might be entered? &mdash; He holds the opinion [that] a deed the text<a id="k163b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; of which appears on one line and its witnesses on another is invalid.<a id="k163b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But is [there no reason] to apprehend that the text and the witnesses might be written in one line<a id="k163b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the holder of the deed might] plead, 'I did this<a id="k163b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to increase the number of witnesses'?<a id="k163b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k163b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the opinion [that] in any such case<a id="k163b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; a deed is not confirmed by<a id="k163b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the witnesses that [appear] below but by<a id="k163b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the witnesses who [appear] above.<a id="k163b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Reverting to the above] text. 'Rab stated [that] a deed the text and [the signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure is valid.'<a id="k163b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k169a_1:" Because it is possible that the original deed was returned by the buyer to the seller who has thereby (in accordance with the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel which follows) again acquired the land he sold."
,k169a_2:" Similarly, in the case of a sale, it is possible that the deed of sale was returned, and the land was, thereby, re-transferred from the buyer to the seller. Cf. previous note."
,k169a_3:" Why must the security be excluded from the duplicate."
,k169a_4:" Of the seller of that field."
,k169a_5:" The buyer for whom a duplicate deed was written."
,k169a_6:" Lit., 'that', the buyer from whom the field has been taken by the creditor and for whom a duplicate deed was written. V. previous note."
,k169a_7:" The duplicate."
,k169a_8:" Who bought from the same seller after the date of the sale in question and whose purchased lands are consequently included in the security of the first sale."
,k169a_9:" The buyer. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k169a_10:" With whom he would form a conspiracy to defraud subsequent buyers."
,k169a_11:" Or 'allow me a period of peace'."
,k169a_12:" Lit., 'in it', i.e., till the whole affair of the seizure be forgotten."
,k169a_13:" For the debt for which the creditor was already reimbursed by his first seizure."
,k169a_14:" After the creditor had staged a second seizure."
,k169a_15:" I.e., the original one which was alleged to have been lost."
,k169a_16:" He and the creditor sharing the spoils of the fraud between them. Hence the provision that no duplicates are to be written even in the case of deeds of sale and purchase."
,k169a_17:" When he seized the property from the buyer the first time."
,k169a_18:" Lit., 'it'."
,k169a_19:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to seize'), a document issued by a court of law to a creditor (to whom the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debt), authorising him to trace the debtor's property (including any land sold after the date of his loan), for the purpose of eventually seizing it in payment of his debt."
,k169a_20:" Lit., 'in which it is not written'."
,k169a_21:" Had it been made legal, one could have used both documents, each at a different court in a different town."
,k169a_22:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to tread'), an authorisation (following that of the <I>tirpa</I>) which a court issues to a creditor, after he had traced the debtor's property (cf. n. 1). to seize it (to 'tread' on) for the purpose of having it offered for public sale and his receiving the proceeds or the land itself at the price valued."
,k169a_23:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to appraise', 'value'), a record of the valuation of the seized property, which is delivered by the court to the creditor as evidence of the value at which it was assessed for him. Since a debtor may at any time repay the amount at which the land had been assessed, such a record is necessary to enable the creditor to receive the sum due to him."
,k169a_24:" Cf. n. 3. How then could it happen that a bond of indebtedness should not be torn up by the time the creditor had already taken possession of the property?"
,k169a_25:" Lit., 'not necessary (but)'."
,k169a_26:" Lit., 'when he comes from the power of his fathers', i.e., the reason why a duplicate of a deed of purchase and sale is not issued, is not, as has been assumed, because a creditor might conspire to obtain double payment; but to provide against an heir who might prove by witnesses that a buyer had purchased a field from a seller who had robbed it from his father and in consequence of this proof it would be returned to him, while the buyer would be given a certificate authorising him to seize the property which anyone may have purchased from the same seller after the date of his purchase. <I>Such a buyer, were he allowed a duplicate of his deed of purchase</I>, could form a conspiracy with the heir by asking him to wait for a certain period, until he had been firmly established in the ownership of the field which he seized by virtue of one of the two copies of the deed and, after the whole affair had been forgotten, to claim again that field so that the buyer could, with the aid of the second of his two copies of the deed, seize the lands of other subsequent buyers. Hence R. Safra's ruling that no two deeds may be written in respect of one field."
,k169a_27:" In giving a reason why R. Safra forbids the issue of two deeds of purchase in respect of the same field."
,k169a_28:" The buyer who, as has been stated above, might form a conspiracy with a creditor to defraud subsequent buyers by means of the duplicate of his deed of purchase."
,k169a_29:" Lit., 'in this land and I will be established in it'."
,k169a_30:" R. Safra's law."
,k169a_31:" The buyer."
,k169a_32:" Why, then, the necessity for postponing the seizure of the second field to a later date."
,k169a_33:" And his conspiracy might thereby be more likely to be discovered."
,k169a_34:" One containing the clause pledging the seller's lands."
,k169a_35:" Spoken of in the Baraitha (<i>supra</i> 168b, end), who pleads that he lost his deed and requests that a duplicate be given to him in its stead."
,k169a_36:" In order to protect him against being called upon by the production of two deeds, to pay the buyer twice."
,k169a_37:" Lit., 'that will go out with'."
,k169a_38:" That in the duplicate. Should the buyer ever present the first deed, the seller could prove its invalidity by the production of his quittance."
,k169a_39:" I.e., a debtor cannot be compelled to repay a loan unless his bond is returned to him. He is not obliged to become the keeper of a quittance. Cf. Mishnah 170b, <i>infra</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Deeds of purchase and sale also [must] not be re-written.<a id="k169a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; for thus said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Where a person made a gift to his friend and [the latter] returned the deed to him, his gift [also is, thereby] returned.<a id="k169a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages say: His gift is valid.
</p><p>
	The Master had said, 'with the exception of its land security'; what is the reason?<a id="k169a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Safra replied: Because two deeds may not be written In respect of the same field in case a creditor<a id="k169a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; might go and seize [the field] of this [person]<a id="k169a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the latter]<a id="k169a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; would go and produce one [deed]<a id="k169a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and seize [thereby the lands of subsequent] buyers.<a id="k169a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k169a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; would [then] say to the creditor.<a id="k169a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wait<a id="k169a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; until I am firmly established in the possession of this field<a id="k169a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and then come and seize it<a id="k169a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; from me. He would [then]<a id="k169a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; produce the other [deed]<a id="k169a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and [thereby] rob other buyers [also].<a id="k169a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Since, however, the creditor's bond was torn,<a id="k169a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; whereby would he again seize [any] land?<a id="k169a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be said [that this might refer to a case] where it was not torn; surely, [it may be pointed out,] R. Nahman stated: Any <I>tirpa</I><a id="k169a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; which does not contain<a id="k169a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [the declaration], 'we have torn up the creditor's bond of indebtedness', Is not a [legal] <I>tirpa</I>;<a id="k169a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and any <I>adrakta</I><a id="k169a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; which does contain [the entry]<a id="k169a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'we have torn up the <I>tirpa</I> is not a [legal] <I>adrakta</I>;<a id="k169a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; I and any shuma<a id="k169a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in which [the statement]. 'We have torn up the <I>adrakta</I>' is not entered<a id="k169a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is not a [legal] shuma!<a id="k169a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The precaution was] necessary [in the case] only<a id="k169a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; where one asserts a claim by virtue of his paternal rights.<a id="k169a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Why [should it be necessary]<a id="k169a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for him<a id="k169a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; to say to the creditor, 'Wait until I am firmly established in the possession of this land'?<a id="k169a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; This<a id="k169a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [surely], could be derived [from the fact] that since he<a id="k169a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; holds two deeds he [can] seize [once] and [immediately] seize again!<a id="k169a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If [he were to do] so [he would have had too] many litigants against him.<a id="k169a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [why] should [not] a proper deed<a id="k169a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; be written for that [man],<a id="k169a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; while, for the seller,<a id="k169a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [the following quittance might] be written out: 'All deeds that [may] be produced against this land are invalid except the one bearing<a id="k169a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; this date'?<a id="k169a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis recited this before R. Papa &mdash; and others say, before R. Ashi &mdash; [and suggested that] this proves [that] no quittance is [ever] to be written.<a id="k169a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k169b_1:" In the case where a bond of indebtedness was lost by a creditor."
,k169b_2:" for the debtor on paying his debt."
,k169b_3:" And on the strength of it provide the buyer with a duplicate."
,k169b_4:" Of the seller."
,k169b_5:" Who bought his land from the debtor subsequent to the date of the loan."
,k169b_6:" That buyer."
,k169b_7:" The first buyer, wore he able to secure a duplicate deed on a plea of having lost the original, would, thereby, be placed in a position to form a conspiracy with the creditor to defraud subsequent buyers."
,k169b_8:" I.e., the seller, to claim compensation for the lands seized; and he would, naturally, tell them about the quittance wherewith they could to &mdash; claim the lands of which they were robbed by the first buyer."
,k169b_9:" The first buyer."
,k169b_10:" Lit., 'also'."
,k169b_11:" Such a buyer could not advance any claim for compensation against the seller. Hence he would never learn of the existence of the quittance."
,k169b_12:" That provision is made against the possibility of seizing lands from buyers who are unaware of the existence of a quittance."
,k169b_13:" I.e., why then is a quittance permitted, where a bond of indebtedness was lost? Surely it is possible that the buyers might not be aware of the existence of such a quittance."
,k169b_14:" The case of a loan."
,k169b_15:" The subsequent buyers whose lands the first buyer comes to seize."
,k169b_16:" Lit., 'him'."
,k169b_17:" Hence they would not part with their fields before ascertaining the position from the seller, (i.e. the debtor) and so would learn of the existence of the quittance."
,k169b_18:" That of a deed of sale and purchase."
,k169b_19:" And would, therefore, allow the first buyer to take possession of their lands in the hope that, in due course, the seller might compensate him and arrange for the return to them of their property. They are not, therefore, in a hurry to go to the seller. When they ultimately learn of the existence of a quittance a considerable time has already elapsed and they lose the fruits which the first buyer had consumed in the meantime."
,k169b_20:" Which enables the holder to establish his claim upon his land and yet prevents him from seizing that of others."
,k169b_21:" That the previous owner (the seller) shall not be able to deprive him, of it by the assertion that he had never sold it to him."
,k169b_22:" R. Nahman's requirement specifically to enter in the deed that it does not provide any security."
,k169b_23:" from any deed."
,k169b_24:" And is regarded as entered though the scribe had omitted it. V. B.M. 14a."
,k169b_25:" Why the deed does not entitle the holder to claim compensation from the seller's lands."
,k169b_26:" 'This deed is not etc.'."
,k169b_27:" Lit., 'because he wrote for him thus'."
,k169b_28:" Lit., 'not written for him, thus'."
,k169b_29:" The holder of the deed."
,k169b_30:" Lit., and what'."
,k169b_31:" Lit., 'that pledging is not written in it'."
,k169b_32:" He failed to arrange for the seller to pledge his landed property for the field he bought."
,k169b_33:" To complain against the unsatisfactory terms of the purchase."
,k169b_34:" Lit., to him', the man who acted on behalf of the woman."
,k169b_35:" By spending her money on unsecured property."
,k169b_36:" The seller."
,k169b_37:" So that in case the land is ever taken away from her by a creditor of the seller or by previous buyers she will he entitled to compensation from the agent."
,k169b_38:" Since the gift is conveyed to the donee by means of a deed."
,k169b_39:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k169b_40:" Hence it returns to the donor as soon as the deed is returned to him."
,k169b_41:" That the donee can retain ownership of the gifts so long only as the deed remains with him."
,k169b_42:" A deed."
,k169b_43:" Heb., <i>mesirah</i>, v. <i>supra</i> 76a (q.v. for notes), and <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k169b_44:" The Sages."
,k169b_45:" Lit., 'who comes to be judged', i.e., to respond to a claim that a plot of land which he Occupies is not his."
,k169b_46:" Of purchase, which X, the person who sold the land to him, received from Y, from whom he in turn bought it; pleading that, though his own name does not appear in it, he acquired ownership of the land by the act of delivery which X had performed when he handed the deed to him. [So Rashb. R. Gersh. and Rashi (Sanh. 23b) take it simply to refer to the deed of purchase which the buyer claims to have received from the seller.]"
,k169b_47:" <i>Hazakah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). Witnesses testify that he occupied the land during the statutory period of three years required for establishing his title to it."
,k169b_48:" From Palestine to Babylon. "
}

txt:
<p>
He, [however,] said to them: Elsewhere<a id="k169b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; a quittance is to be written,<a id="k169b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the reason why it is not written] in this case<a id="k169b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is because the creditor<a id="k169b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; might call upon, and take [the field] away from the buyer<a id="k169b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and he<a id="k169b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; would call upon, and seize [the fields of subsequent] buyers, while [these] buyers [would] have no quittance [to show].<a id="k169b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; After all, however, [would] not the buyers [ultimately] return to the owner of the land?<a id="k169b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the meantime he<a id="k169b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [would be] plucking and eating the fruit, or else,<a id="k169b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [he<a id="k169b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; might seize the land] from one who has purchased [it] without security.<a id="k169b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k169b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same should apply to] bonds of indebtedness also!<a id="k169b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In that case<a id="k169b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; where the claim is money they<a id="k169b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; assume [that] the debtor might have satisfied the claim<a id="k169b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; with money.<a id="k169b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; In this case<a id="k169b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [however] where the claim is for land, they well know that one who claims land would not be satisfied with money.<a id="k169b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master had said, 'With the omission of [the clause] pledging [property]'. How [is such a deed]<a id="k169b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; to be written? &mdash; R. Nahman said: It is written as follows: 'This deed is not for the purpose of collecting thereby either from sold, or from free property but for that of establishing the land in the possession of the buyer'.<a id="k169b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rafram said: This<a id="k169b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; proves [that the omission<a id="k169b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of the clause] pledging property [is regarded as the] scribe's error,<a id="k169b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [since] the reason [given<a id="k169b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; was] because such an entry<a id="k169b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; was actually included<a id="k169b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but, [it follows], had it not been included<a id="k169b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k169b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [could have] claimed [his compensation from the seller's lands].<a id="k169b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: [The omission of the clause] pledging property [is] not [regarded as] the scribe's error; and the meaning of<a id="k169b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 'with the omission [of the clause] pledging property' is that no such clause is entered in the deed.<a id="k169b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain woman once gave to a man money [wherewith] to buy for her [a plot of] land. He went [and] bought for her [the land] without [providing for the] security<a id="k169b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of its tenure. She came before R. Nahman<a id="k169b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [who] said to the agent.<a id="k169b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; '[The woman has the right to declare]. "I sent you to improve [my position]; not to make [it] worse".<a id="k169b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Go [then], buy it [yourself] from him<a id="k169b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; without security and then sell it [to the woman] with due security of tenure'.<a id="k169b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said; Where a person made a gift to his friend and [the latter] returned the deed to him, his gift [also is, thereby] returned. But the Sages said: His gift is valid.' What is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's reason? &mdash; R. Assi said: [Because] it<a id="k169b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is just as if [the donor] had said to the donee.<a id="k169b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; 'This field is given to you for so long [a period] as the deed [remains] in your possession'.<a id="k169b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah demurred; If so,<a id="k169b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same law should apply] also [to the case where] it<a id="k169b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; was stolen or lost! &mdash; But, said Rabbah, they differ on [the question whether] 'letters'<a id="k169b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [may] be acquired by delivery.<a id="k169b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the opinion [that] 'letters' are acquired by delivery while the Rabbis<a id="k169b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; hold the opinion [that] 'letters' may not be acquired by delivery.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Where a person appears in court<a id="k169b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; with a deed<a id="k169b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; and with [evidence of] undisturbed possession<a id="k169b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; judgment is given [on the basis of] the deed; [these are] the words of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: [Judgment is given] on [the basis of his] undisturbed possession. On what [principle] do they differ? &mdash; When R. Dimi came<a id="k169b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; he said: They differ on [the question whether] 'letters' may be acquired by delivery.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k164a_1:" Lit., 'thou wilt say'."
,k164a_2:" And, consequently, while leaving the signatures on the first erasure, the text above them could be erased again. and on this second erasure a forged text might be substituted for the original!"
,k164a_3:" The forgery would be discovered by comparing the signatures which appear on a first erasure with the text appearing on a repeated erasure."
,k164a_4:" I.e., on the lower section (corresponding to the place of the witnesses) of a paper which has been once erased from top to bottom."
,k164a_5:" The ink poured."
,k164a_6:" And thus the witnesses, not suspecting that the section where they append their signatures had been erased twice, whereas the upper section only once, would be signing on a double erasure."
,k164a_7:" Lit., 'to that'."
,k164a_8:" from the upper section, and a forged text substituted."
,k164a_9:" Lit., 'this and this is'."
,k164a_10:" Lit., 'erased twice'; and since both text and signatures would thus appear on the same kind of erasure, the court would not be able to detect the forgery."
,k164a_11:" Lit., 'it was erased'."
,k164a_12:" They would, consequently, be able to satisfy themselves that the upper and lower sections of the erasure were exactly alike."
,k164a_13:" Lit., 'it'."
,k164a_14:" I.e., on which nothing has ever before been written."
,k164a_15:" Lit., 'write'."
,k164a_16:" Which, as has been said, is valid! Since this would facilitate forgery, why were witnesses allowed to sign on an erasure?"
,k164a_17:" The witnesses."
,k164a_18:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k164a_19:" Their signatures."
,k164a_20:" And the erasure would raise no suspicion since the witnesses also are signed on an erasure."
,k164a_21:" The formula, 'We witnesses etc.'"
,k164a_22:" Lit., between witness and witness'. Consequently it cannot be cut off without cutting away with it one of the signatures; and should it be erased, it would leave a doubly erased spot which could be easily distinguished from that of the signatures which appear on what was erased only once."
,k164a_23:" Lit., 'it'."
,k164a_24:" Because it is possible that the original had been erased and a forged text had been substituted for it."
,k164a_25:" Lit., 'here'."
,k164a_26:" The text being written on an erasure."
,k164a_27:" And substitute a forged text for the original."
,k164a_28:" Lit., 'these words', that it is possible to distinguish between the two kinds of erasure."
,k164a_29:" Since the two kinds of erasure appear side by side, on the same document, the contrast between them would be noticed."
,k164a_30:" Between a first, and second erasure."
,k164a_31:" The contrast on the document being not that between two kinds of erasure but between an erasure and clean paper."
,k164a_32:" Lit., 'another'."
,k164a_33:" With the erasure on the deed. The comparison would determine whether the writing on the deed was erased once or twice."
,k164a_34:" One of them may be thicker than the other and would not show up the erasure as well as the other."
,k164a_35:" Provisionally, until it had been ascertained whether the text was, or was not a forgery."
,k164a_36:" With the erasure on which the text of the deed is written. CF. <i>supra</i> note 11."
,k164a_37:" When the difference between the old, and the new erasure would disappear and comparison could be made between the erasures on the two sections of the deed."
,k164a_38:" Which might not think of comparing erasures and, relying on the clear signatures of the witnesses, could accept the validity of the deed. (R. Gersh.) Which might not be aware of the fact that an old erasure differs in appearance from a new one and would, consequently, accept a forged document as genuine (Rashb., cf. BaH, a.l.). Hence it was ordained that any deed the text of which appears on an erasure and the signatures of its witnesses on a clean section of the paper is invalid."
,k164a_39:" That a folded deed may be turned into a plain one. "
}

txt:
<p>
If, however, it is objected<a id="k164a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [that, since the writing on the document had been] erased [once, it might] be erased again,<a id="k164a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied that anything which] has been erased once is not like [that which] has been erased twice.<a id="k164a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But [is there no cause] to apprehend that ink might first be poured on the place of the witnesses,<a id="k164a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and this<a id="k164a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; would be erased,<a id="k164a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; so that when the text<a id="k164a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is subsequently erased<a id="k164a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the lower and the upper sections would represent<a id="k164a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; a repeated erasure?<a id="k164a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: Rab is of the opinion [that] Witnesses [must] not sign on an erasure unless the erasure was made<a id="k164a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in their presence.<a id="k164a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: [A deed] the text<a id="k164a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [of which is written] on [clean] paper<a id="k164a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and its witnesses on an erasure is valid. Is [there no cause] to apprehend that [the text] might be erased, and any [terms] one desires substituted,<a id="k164a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and [thus] there would result [a deed] the text<a id="k164a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and witnesses of which [appear] on an erasure?<a id="k164a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They<a id="k164a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; write as follows:<a id="k164a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'We witnesses signed on an erasure and the text is written on paper'. Where, [however], do they write [this]? If below,<a id="k164a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [surely] one [can] cut it off! If above,<a id="k164a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; one [can] erase it!<a id="k164a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; They write [it]<a id="k164a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; between the signatures.<a id="k164a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, explain the second clause: [A deed] the text<a id="k164a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [of which appears] on an erasure and its witnesses on [clean] paper is invalid.<a id="k164a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Why, [it may be asked,] should it be invalid? Let them in this case<a id="k164a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; also write thus: 'We witnesses signed on paper and the text [is written] on an erasure'. Would you now also reply [that as the writing] was [once] erased,<a id="k164a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; one might again erase it?<a id="k164a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, you said [that] what was erased once is not like that which was erased twice! &mdash; This<a id="k164a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [has been said in the case only] where the witnesses are signed on an erasure.<a id="k164a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Where, [however], the witnesses are not signed on an erasure but on [clean] paper [the difference<a id="k164a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; can] not be detected.<a id="k164a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; But let any<a id="k164a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; scroll be brought, [on which some writing could] be erased, and compared!<a id="k164a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The erasure on one scroll is not [always] like the erasure on another scroll.<a id="k164a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Let, then, the signatures of the witnesses be accepted by the court,<a id="k164a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and be erased and compared!<a id="k164a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hoshaia replied: An erasure of one day's [standing] is not like an erasure of two days [standing]. Let it stand [for some time]!<a id="k164a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: Precaution had to be taken [to provide] against an erring court.<a id="k164a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL SAID: A FOLDED [DEED] ETC. Rabbi raised an objection against the statement<a id="k164a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel:
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k164b_1:" Lit., 'this'."
,k164b_2:" Lit., 'he reigned a year'."
,k164b_3:" Lit., 'a year'."
,k164b_4:" Lit., 'two'."
,k164b_5:" Deeds were dated according to the year of the reigning sovereign, folded deeds were post-dated by adding one year to the reign of the ruling king. Hence the same date (e.g. 'the fourth year of King X') on a plain and a folded deed would represent a difference of a full year. [The extra year was probably obtained by reckoning the period elapsing between the day of the king's accession to the throne and the end of the civil year as a full year. Cf. R.H. 2b: 'If a king ascends the throne on the 29th Adar, as soon as 1st Nisan comes, it is counted for him as one year.' This practice in vogue among Persians and Babylonians was adopted by the Romans after the days of Trajan, when the years of emperors were counted from 10th December. V. Fischer, L., <I>Jahrb. d. Jud. Lit. Gesel</I>. IX, 67ff; and Bornstein, <I>Sokolow's</I> [H] 184 ff.]"
,k164b_6:" Lit., 'from him'."
,k164b_7:" Between the date on the folded deed and the corresponding date on a plain deed, i.e., during the one year's interval."
,k164b_8:" Lit., 'and say to him: give me my deed'."
,k164b_9:" Lit., 'its time'."
,k164b_10:" The creditor."
,k164b_11:" I.e., <I>after</I> the date of the receipt. By converting the folded, into a plain deed, its date is moved a full year forward, and the receipt is thus made to appear as having been given prior to the loan. The creditor is, consequently, in a position to assert that the receipt was given for a <I>previous</I> loan, and to claim payment for the loan recorded on the deed. How, then, in view of such possible fraud, could R. Hanina allow the conversion of a folded, into a plain deed?"
,k164b_12:" If the creditor cannot produce and return the deed he is not entitled to the re-payment of his debt."
,k164b_13:" Lit., 'that came'."
,k164b_14:" A year later than the current year."
,k164b_15:" Lit., 'two'."
,k164b_16:" Lit., 'three'."
,k164b_17:" This shows that Rabbi did not know that folded deeds were dated a year later than ordinary ones. How, then, could he raise the objection against R. Hanina, <i>supra</i>, which shows that he knew that the dating of one kind of deed was different from that of the other?"
,k164b_18:" And it was then that he, raised the objection."
,k164b_19:" Lit., 'written'."
,k164b_20:" Not specifying which year."
,k164b_21:" Cf. [G]."
,k164b_22:" Lit., 'when archon stood in his archonship'; and that year is to be regarded as the date of the document. If such a deed relates to a loan, the creditor is entitled to seize any of the creditor's lands that were sold or mortgaged after that date."
,k164b_23:" Lit., 'that his reign was long'."
,k164b_24:" [G] (born a second time), 'second term in office', iterum consul; the deed, since the title of 'archon' was used in it, must have been written in his first year of office."
,k164b_25:" And thus assumed the title of 'archon', a second time. Since there may have been a difference of some years between the first and second archonship, and since the deed may have been written in the second, how could R. Hanina decide that the year of the first archonship was to be regarded as the date of the deed?"
,k164b_26:" If no period has been specified the term is thirty days."
,k164b_27:" [G] acc. of [G], 'one'."
,k164b_28:" Of thirty days. Cf. previous note but one."
,k164b_29:" Each of thirty days."
,k164b_30:" Cf. [G] 'for the third time'."
,k164b_31:" Cf. [G] 'for the fourth time'."
,k164b_32:" Cf. [G] 'for the fifth time'."
,k164b_33:" Tosef. <i>Nazir</i>, I, <i>Nazir</i> 8b."
,k164b_34:" Cf. p. 715. n. 12, and the previous three notes but one."
,k164b_35:" Cf. Lev. XIV, 34ff."
,k164b_36:" Lit., 'whence these words', that a four-cornered house only is subject to the laws mentioned."
,k164b_37:" Lev. XIV, 37. The plur. is used where the sing. would have been more appropriate."
,k164b_38:" The plural, <I>walls</I>, signifies a minimum of two."
,k164b_39:" Ibid. v. 39."
,k164b_40:" Lit., 'behold here'."
,k164b_41:" I.e., four cornered. Cf. <i>supra</i>, II. 11."
,k164b_42:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 160b."
,k164b_43:" Rabbi probably believed R. Simeon to have written the deed, well knowing that he opposed the issue of folded deeds which were a constant source of errors."
,k164b_44:" The tailor or a surname."
,k164b_45:" He should not have given the name of the writer but should have been content with disclaiming his own responsibility for the writing."
,k164b_46:" R. Simeon."
,k164b_47:" Rabbi's."
,k164b_48:" [Thus R. Gersh. The expression [H] is, however, taken to denote (a) an exposition of a Biblical section (Rappaport, <I>Erek millin</I> s.v. [H]) or, (b) a reading of Biblical verses with due regard to the divisions between then, (Friedmann. Hakedem, I, 120)]"
,k164b_49:" Lit., 'there', in the case of the deed which incurred Rabbi's displeasure."
,k164b_50:" In connection with the Book of Psalms which elicited Rabbi's praise."
,k164b_51:" Lit., 'good'."
,k164b_52:" Lit., 'he comes'."
,k164b_53:" Lit., 'evil'. By pointing to a person's good actions or qualities attention is inevitably directed to his bad actions and qualities also."
,k164b_54:" Lit., 'every'."
,k164b_55:" Usually applied to unchaste or immoral thoughts."
,k164b_56:" [H] 'contemplation. Or speculation in prayer'. Hence either (a: as elsewhere), <I>'devotion</I> in prayer' (cf. <i>Pe'ah</i>, I); Or (b: as here). 'speculation on the <I>result</I> of prayer', <I>'expectation of the immediate grant</I> of one's request'. The offence lies in the presumption of the claim that God must answer prayer of any kind whatsoever; v. Abrahams, I., <I>Pharisaism and Gospels,</I> II, 78ff."
,k164b_57:" [H] Lit., 'evil speech'."
,k164b_58:" Surely it is quite possible to avoid slandering one's fellows! "
}

txt:
<p>
Surely. the date of the one<a id="k164b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [deed] is not like that of the other;<a id="k164b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [for in the case of] a Plain [deed], the first completed year of a king's reign<a id="k164b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is counted as his first,<a id="k164b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] the second completed year<a id="k164b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; as his second;<a id="k164b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [while in the case of] a folded [one], the first year of a king's reign<a id="k164b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is counted as his second,<a id="k164b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the second as his third;<a id="k164b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and sometimes [it may happen] that [a person] might borrow money from another<a id="k164b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; on a folded [deed] and, in the meantime,<a id="k164b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he might obtain funds and repay him, but [when] requesting the return of his deed,<a id="k164b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the creditor] might reply to him, 'I lost it', and would write out for him [instead], a receipt; and when the time of its payment<a id="k164b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; arrived, he<a id="k164b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; might convert it [into] a plain [deed] and say to him, 'You borrowed from me now'!<a id="k164b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He holds the view that a receipt is not written.<a id="k164b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Was Rabbi, however, familiar with [the dating of] a folded [deed]? Surely, once a certain folded [deed] was brought<a id="k164b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; before Rabbi who remarked, 'This is post-dated',<a id="k164b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and Zonin said to him, 'Such is the practice of this nation: [If a king] reigned a [full] year they count it as his second year;<a id="k164b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [if] two [years], they count them as his third<a id="k164b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [year]'!<a id="k164b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; After he heard it from Zonin he knew it.<a id="k164b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In a certain [plain] deed there occurred the [following] date:<a id="k164b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'In the year<a id="k164b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of the archon<a id="k164b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; X'. Said R. Hanina: Let enquiry be made when [that] archon assumed office.<a id="k164b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Might he [not on that date] have been in office for some years?<a id="k164b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hoshaia replied, 'Such is the practice of this nation: [In the] first year they call him, "archon", [in the] second they call him, digon.'<a id="k164b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it not possible that he was deposed and re-appointed?<a id="k164b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: [In] such [a case] he is designated, 'archon-digon'.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [In the case where a person said.] 'I am to be a nazarite',<a id="k164b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Symmachus said, [if he added], hena<a id="k164b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [he must observe] one [term];<a id="k164b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [if he added], digon [he must observe] two terms;<a id="k164b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; trigon,<a id="k164b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; three [terms];<a id="k164b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; tetragon,<a id="k164b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; four [terms]; pentagon,<a id="k164b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; five [terms].<a id="k164b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A circular, two cornered, three cornered, and five cornered<a id="k164b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; house is not subject to uncleanness from [house] plagues;<a id="k164b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; a four-cornered house is subject to uncleanness from [such] plagues. Whence is this inferred?<a id="k164b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; for our Rabbis taught: Above it is said, [instead of] 'wall', walls,<a id="k164b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [signifying] two;<a id="k164b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; below<a id="k164b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [also]. [instead of] 'wall', it is said, walls,<a id="k164b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [which similarly signifies] two, thus making a total of<a id="k164b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; four [walls].<a id="k164b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A folded [deed] was once brought before Rabbi who remarked, 'There is no date on this [deed]'. [Thereupon], R. Simeon son of Rabbi said to Rabbi, 'It might be hidden between its folds'. [On] ripping [the seams] open he saw it.<a id="k164b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi turned round [and] looked at him with displeasure.<a id="k164b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I did not write it', [said the other]. 'R. Judah Hayyata<a id="k164b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; wrote it'. Keep away from talebearing',<a id="k164b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; [Rabbi] called to him.
</p><p>
	Once he<a id="k164b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; was sitting in his<a id="k164b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; presence when he finished a section of the Book of Psalms.<a id="k164b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; 'How correct is this writing'? said Rabbi. 'I did not write it', replied the other, 'Judah Hayyata wrote it'. 'Keep away from tale-bearing'. [Rabbi] called to him. In the first case<a id="k164b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; one can well understand [Rabbi's exhortation, since] there was slander; what tale-bearing, however, was there here?<a id="k164b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Owing to [the teaching] of R. Dimi; for R. Dimi, brother of R. Safra, taught: A man should never speak in praise<a id="k164b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of his friend, because by praise of him he brings about<a id="k164b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; his blame.<a id="k164b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Amram said in the name of Rab: [There are] three transgressions which no man escapes for a single<a id="k164b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; day: Sinful thought,<a id="k164b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; calculation on [the results of] prayer,<a id="k164b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; and slander.<a id="k164b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Slander'? [How] could one imagine [such a thing]!<a id="k164b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k168a_1:" Lit., 'since he said, he cannot say again'. Ket. 18b, Sanh. 44b, Mak. 3a."
,k168a_2:" Hence R. Jeremiah's first statement may be assumed to have been made under a misapprehension, while his second statement, made after due consideration, is accepted."
,k168a_3:" For a <I>kethubah</I>."
,k168a_4:" But another woman whose name happened to be the same as hers."
,k168a_5:" Lit., 'indeed'."
,k168a_6:" Lit., 'said to her'."
,k168a_7:" Lit., 'he took note'. Hence R. Jeremiah's statement is to be accepted."
,k168a_8:" Lit., 'goes'."
,k168a_9:" Heb. Am-ha-arez, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k168a_10:" Since he does not observe and recognise women."
,k168a_11:" Deut. XXIV, 3."
,k168a_12:" Lit., 'that we do not do so', that the husband is made to pay the fee"
,k168a_13:" The payment of the fee."
,k168a_14:" By refusing, or delaying the payment of the scribe's fee, as the scribe would hardly part with the deed before his fee had been paid, the husband is able to postpone also the paying of the <I>kethubah</I> which does not become due until after the divorce had taken place. (Cf. R. Gersh., a.l.). Furthermore, the husband, in order to avoid payment, might desert her altogether and she would thus remain separated from him and prevented from ever marrying again. (Rashb.)."
,k168a_15:" That the borrower, in whose interest the loan is made, must pay the fee of the scribe."
,k168a_16:" [H] a loan for trading purposes the profits of which are shared by the borrower and lender, (v. <i>supra</i> 70b). Though the latter also benefits from the profits, the fee, as in the case of any ordinary loan, must be paid by the borrower."
,k168a_17:" That the buyer is to pay the scribe's fee."
,k168a_18:" Though the seller may be more anxious to sell than the other to buy, the latter, as is the case with an ordinary buyer, must pay for the preparation of the deed."
,k168a_19:" That the bridegroom is to pay the fee."
,k168a_20:" It is a source of deep satisfaction for one to be able to secure a scholar for a son-in-law. This, however, is no reason why the bridegroom, though a scholar, should not pay the fees that are paid by other bridegrooms."
,k168a_21:" Though the tenant would for a year or two, while the land is to lie fallow, derive no benefit from the purchase, he has nevertheless, like an ordinary buyer, to pay the fee"
,k168a_22:" V., <i>supra</i> p. 729. n. 8."
,k168a_23:" In Babylon."
,k168a_24:" Of the litigants. Those were recorded by the court scribes, and the decision of the judges was based on the pleas thus recorded."
,k168a_25:" Lit., 'this'."
,k168a_26:" Lit., 'One'. An agreement was then signed in which the names of the litigants and the respective arbitrators they have chosen were duly entered."
,k168a_27:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 62, n. 3."
,k168a_28:" The first Tanna."
,k168a_29:" Hence if one of the litigants demands a separate copy of the document for himself for which he offers to pay, and expects the other to pay for another copy, he, acting in the 'character of Sodom', is forced by the court to content himself with one common document towards the cost of which both parties contribute in equal shares."
,k168a_30:" R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k168a_31:" Consequently he maintains that a separate copy of the document may be prepared for each of the litigants if one of them so desires it. Now, since the principle of exercising force against a 'Sodomite character' has been disputed elsewhere, why should it be re-argued here again?"
,k168a_32:" Lit., 'that all the world'."
,k168a_33:" Against the use of force in this case."
,k168a_34:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k168a_35:" Since a common document might lead to new arguments and quarrels. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's view is that, in such a case, it is better to allow separate copies for each of the litigants if one of them had expressed a desire to have a copy of his own."
,k168a_36:" Lit., 'from here and until'."
,k168a_37:" The creditor."
,k168a_38:" The trustee."
,k168a_39:" To the creditor, who can consequently claim the payment of the full debt."
,k168a_40:" On what principle."
,k168a_41:" [H] (lit.. 'reliance'), an undertaking to pay or to forfeit something without receiving for it sufficient consideration, which is dependent on the non-fulfilment of a certain condition given by a person <I>in the hope</I> (<I>reliance</I>) that he would be able to fulfil the condition and would not in consequence have to carry out the undertaking."
,k168a_42:" Though the undertaking to pay the full debt was given in the hope and expectation that it would never have to be carried out, it is nevertheless legally binding, since the condition on which it was dependent was not in fact fulfilled."
,k168a_43:" It is obvious that the borrower never intended to pay the full debt after he had already paid an instalment. His undertaking to pay the full debt if the balance were not paid by a certain date must have been in the nature of an expression of good faith, in his desire to show that it was his earnest hope and intention to pay the balance before that date arrived."
,k168a_44:" Relating to the laws of <i>asmakta</i>."
,k168a_45:" Lit., 'a first, and second time'."
,k168a_46:" Lit., 'causes to stand concerning it'."
,k168a_47:" Who remember the contents of the bond. "
}

txt:
<p>
'Once a statement has been made it cannot be withdrawn',<a id="k168a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not the nature of a scholar to take particular note [of a woman's face].<a id="k168a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain receipt<a id="k168a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; on which the signature of R. Jeremiah b. Abba appeared [was produced, but the woman] said to him, 'It was not I'.<a id="k168a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I am sure',<a id="k168a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he insisted,<a id="k168a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'it was you'. Said Abaye: Although a scholar is not in the habit of taking note [of a woman's appearance], when [however] he does take notice he is relied upon.<a id="k168a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: A scholar who desires<a id="k168a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to betroth a woman should take with him a layman<a id="k168a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [so that another woman] might [not] be substituted for her [who would be taken away] from him.<a id="k168a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND THE HUSBAND PAYS THE FEE etc. What is the reason? &mdash; Because Scripture says: And he shall write&nbsp;&hellip; and give.<a id="k168a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And why is this not done<a id="k168a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; at the present time? &mdash; The Rabbis have imposed it<a id="k168a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; upon the woman to order that he might not cause her [undue] delay.<a id="k168a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A BOND MAY BE WRITTEN FOR A BORROWER THOUGH THE LENDER IS NOT PRESENT etc. [Is not this] obvious?<a id="k168a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This<a id="k168a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; would] not [have been] required [except] in [the case of a loan for] merchandise on shares.<a id="k168a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A DEED [OF SALE] MAYBE WRITTEN FOR THE SELLER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BUYER etc. [Is not this] obvious?<a id="k168a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This would] not [have been] required [except in the case] where one sells his field on account of its inferiority.<a id="k168a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	DEEDS OF BETROTHAL AND MARRIAGE ARE NOT WRITTEN etc. [Is this not] obvious?<a id="k168a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This would] not [have been] required [except for the fact] that even a scholar [has to pay the fee] though it is a satisfaction to his father-in-law to bring him into his family.<a id="k168a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A CONTRACT OF TENANCY ON SHARES OR ON A FIXED RENTAL IS NOT WRITTEN etc. [Is not this] obvious? &mdash; [It would] not [have been] required [except for the case] where [the land is to lie] fallow.<a id="k168a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	DEEDS OF ARBITRATION&nbsp;&hellip; ARE NOT WRITTEN EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOTH PARTIES etc. What [is meant by] <I>shetare berurin</I>?<a id="k168a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here<a id="k168a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; it was explained [as] 'records of the pleas'.<a id="k168a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah b. Abba explained: One<a id="k168a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the litigants] chooses one and the other chooses another.<a id="k168a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: TWO [DEEDS] MAY BE WRITTEN FOR THE TWO PARTIES, ONE FOR EACH. May it be suggested [that] they are in dispute on [the principle of] exercising force against a Sodomite character;<a id="k168a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for [one] Master<a id="k168a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion [that] force is exercised<a id="k168a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [other] Master<a id="k168a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that force is not exercised!<a id="k168a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; both<a id="k168a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [agree that] force is exercised, but the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel here<a id="k168a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; is this: Because [one can] say to the other,<a id="k168a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I do not like your rights to be at the side of my rights, for you appear to me as a lurking lion'.<a id="k168a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE] WHERE [A PERSON] PAID A PART OF HIS DEBT AND THE BOND WAS DEPOSITED WITH A THIRD PARTY TO WHOM [THE BORROWER SAID]. 'IF I WILL NOT PAY YOU [THE BALANCE] BETWEEN NOW AND<a id="k168a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; A CERTAIN DATE, GIVE HIM<a id="k168a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS BOND', [AND] THE DATE ARRIVED AND HE DID NOT PAY, R. JOSE SAID: HE<a id="k168a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; SHALL GIVE [IT];<a id="k168a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID, HE SHALL NOT GIVE [IT].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Wherein<a id="k168a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [lies] the difference between them? &mdash; R. Jose holds [that] <i>asmakta</i><a id="k168a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; conveys possession.<a id="k168a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Judah holds [that] an <i>asmakta</i> does not convey possession.<a id="k168a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name of Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is according to R. Jose. When [such cases]<a id="k168a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; came before R Ammi, he said: 'Since R. Johanan has taught us again and again<a id="k168a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] the <i>halachah</i> is according to R. Jose, what can I do?' The <i>halachah</i>, however, is not according to R. Jose.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN'S BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS WAS EFFACED, HE MUST SECURE<a id="k168a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; WITNESSES,<a id="k168a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; AND APPEAR BEFORE A COURT OF LAW WHERE HE IS SUPPLIED WITH [THE FOLLOWING] ATTESTATION: 'THE BOND OF X SON OF Y WAS FADED ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k168b_1:" A Faded bond. Cf. our Mishnah."
,k168b_2:" from the property which the borrower may possess or from that which he sold after the date of the original deed."
,k168b_3:" If the formula, 'we have dealt with the evidence of the witness etc.. Is not entered."
,k168b_4:" As to the contents of the bond such as date, sum, etc."
,k168b_5:" Lit., 'its tracing'."
,k168b_6:" [H] The 'specific element' of a deed (opp. [H] 'formal element'). viz., date and amount. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 699. n. 9.) So called because by virtue of it the creditor may <I>seize</I> ([H]) even the sold lands of the creditor (R. Gersh.). [Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. III, 352. Connects it with [H] 'exposed', 'blank', hence the blank part of the deed which has to be filled in.]"
,k168b_7:" [During the long drawn out Roman-Persian war (338-363), Shapur II invited certain warring Arab tribes to help him in this struggle against the Romans. V. Funk, S., <I>Die Juden in Babylonian</I>, II. 41.]"
,k168b_8:" Lit., 'their owners', of the seized lands, who were compelled by the Arabs to hand over also their deeds."
,k168b_9:" Lit., another deed on it'."
,k168b_10:" And use it as proof of ownership if they should succeed in recovering their lands from the Arabs. [V. Obermeyer. <i>op. cit</i>. 235.]"
,k168b_11:" <i>Infra</i> 169a. A buyer who purchased a field the sale of which has been secured by the seller's landed property might, if a creditor of the seller should ever seize that field for his debt, secure double compensation from the lands of subsequent buyers by the production in turn of one of the two deeds."
,k168b_12:" Persisting in their demand."
,k168b_13:" Lit., 'it'."
,k168b_14:" Lit., 'its'."
,k168b_15:" They, not knowing that the duplicates were of no legal value, would cease troubling the Master, while no loss to subsequent buyers, (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1) could possibly be involved (v. <i>supra</i> 164a)."
,k168b_16:" R. Aha understood Abaye to have instructed his scribe (a) to copy the deeds on clean paper; (b) to erase the text, and (c), to copy the deeds again on these erasures."
,k168b_17:" The first copy. v. previous note (a)."
,k168b_18:" Of what avail, then, was Abaye's device seeing that they could erase the second text whilst preserving the tracing of the first text?"
,k168b_19:" A copy of the original. v. n. 6 (a)."
,k168b_20:" These were (a) to be written; (b) erased; and on the erasure thus produced, a duplicate of the deed was to be written. Should, in such a case, the original letters re-appear they would signify nothing and the deed would remain invalid."
,k168b_21:" And there are no witnesses to testify that the deed was really lost."
,k168b_22:" Because this evidence merely proves that the creditor is entitled to the rights of one such bond. It does not prove, however, that he lost his bond. Hence no second one in lieu of the first may be written for him, since he might make use of the two and thus reimburse himself twice."
,k168b_23:" Lit., 'in what (case) are the words said'."
,k168b_24:" Because the creditor might thereby collect his debt twice. Even if no security on the borrower's lands were to be entered, it could still be collected from his 'free' property."
,k168b_25:" As will be explained, <i>infra</i> 169b. "
}

txt:
<p>
AND A AND B [WERE SIGNED ON IT AS] ITS WITNESSES.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: What is the form of its<a id="k168b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; attestation? &mdash; 'We, X, Y and Z, being in a session of three, A son of B produced before us a faded bond on such and such a date, and C and D [were signed as] Its witnesses'. And if the attestation contains [the following]. 'We have dealt with the evidence of the witnesses and their evidence was found to agree', [the creditor] collects [his debt]<a id="k168b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and is not required to produce [any additional] proof; but if not,<a id="k168b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he is required to produce proof.<a id="k168b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [A bond] intentionally torn is invalid; if torn accidentally, it is valid. [In case] it was effaced or obliterated, if the tracing<a id="k168b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the letters] is distinguishable it is valid. How is one to understand 'intentionally torn' and how, 'torn accidentally'? Rab Judah said: 'Intentionally torn' [means] a tear made by a court of law; 'torn accidentally', a tear which [was] not made by a court of law. How is 'a tear made by a court of law' to be understood? &mdash; Rab Judah said: [If it was made at] the place of the witnesses, the place of the date and the place of the amount.<a id="k168b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: [If it runs] lengthwise and crosswise.
</p><p>
	Certain Arabs who came to Pumbeditha were seizing by force the lands of the inhabitants.<a id="k168b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The owners<a id="k168b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; came to Abaye [and] said to him: 'Will the Master examine our deeds and write for us duplicates<a id="k168b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; so that, in case one is forcibly taken away. we shall [still] hold one in our possession'?<a id="k168b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to them: 'What can I do for you. when R. Safra said: Two deeds [may] not be written in respect of the same field [since a person] might [thereby] seize and seize again'.<a id="k168b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [As] they were troubling him,<a id="k168b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; be said to his scribe, 'Go [and] write for them the text<a id="k168b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the deeds] on an erasure and [let] the<a id="k168b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; witnesses [sign] on [clean] paper, [and thus produce duplicate deeds], which [are] invalid.<a id="k168b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Aha b. Manyumi to Abaye;<a id="k168b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Might it not happen that the [original] tracing<a id="k168b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; would be distinguishable, and [concerning such a case, surely,] it was taught: [A deed that] was effaced or obliterated, if its tracing is distinguishable. [is] valid!<a id="k168b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied to him: Did I say a proper deed [shall be written]?<a id="k168b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; What I said was mere [letters of the] alphabet.<a id="k168b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Should [a creditor] come and say, 'I lost my bond of indebtedness',<a id="k168b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; the bond [may not] be rewritten for him although witnesses stated, 'We wrote, signed and delivered [such a deed] to him'.<a id="k168b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This, [however], applies only to the case<a id="k168b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of bonds of indebtedness<a id="k168b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in the case of] deeds of purchase and sale [a deed], with the omission<a id="k168b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; of [the clause] pledging [property may] be [re]written.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k167a_1:" Any sum of a hundred and ninety-two <I>perutoth</I>, or any multiple of it, is entered respectively as a <I>zuz</I> or <I>zuzim</I>. Had the loan amounted to six hundred <I>perutoth</I> and a <I>zuz</I>, this would have been entered as 'four <I>zuzim</I> and twenty-four <I>perutoth</I>.'"
,k167a_2:" Lit., 'thou saidst'."
,k167a_3:" R. Han. deletes, 'six&nbsp;&hellip; <I>zuz</I>'."
,k167a_4:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 723. n. 10. Hence, he may claim the smaller sum only."
,k167a_5:" In certain circumstances it is necessary for one of the witnesses of a deed that he does not attest his signature in person but enables the court to see a signature of his on a separate scroll for the purpose of comparison with, and confirmation of his signature on the deed. Cf., Keth. 21a."
,k167a_6:" Lit., 'him'."
,k167a_7:" Lit., 'his'."
,k167a_8:" Real estate which the borrower has neither sold nor mortgaged."
,k167a_9:" <i>Infra</i>, 175b."
,k167a_10:" Heb. <I>Bazbina</I> or <I>Bazbana</I>, Pers. <I>bazwan</I>, <I>bazban</I>."
,k167a_11:" Lit., 'show'."
,k167a_12:" From Abaye."
,k167a_13:" His possession of Abaye's signature, he contended, would enable him to check the signature on any authorisation that might be presented to him."
,k167a_14:" Lit., 'he showed'."
,k167a_15:" The scroll; so that the signature might appear lower and a margin be left above it."
,k167a_16:" Abaye."
,k167a_17:" V. previous paragraph."
,k167a_18:" Lit., 'and write'. The Hebrew units from three to ten can easily be increased by the addition of [H], <I>in</I>, [H], <I>three</I> would thus become [H], <I>thirty</I>; [H], <I>four</I>, [H], <I>forty</I>; and so on."
,k167a_19:" Should forgery be committed on the number at the end of the line, this would be detected by the number that appeared in the middle of the lowest of these lines, which is always taken as the determining factor. V, our Mishnah, 165b."
,k167a_20:" Of a sale."
,k167a_21:" Lit., 'written'."
,k167a_22:" The deed read: 'I sold to N.N. in my garden a third of (lit., 'in') my orchard,' [H]."
,k167a_23:" Lit., 'he went'."
,k167a_24:" In the word [H], thus changing the [H] into a [H]."
,k167a_25:" Lit., 'made'."
,k167a_26:" Heb., ufardisa, [H] 'and an orchard'. The text was thus made to read, 'in my garden a third and an (viz.. all the) orchard'; and on the strength of this altered text the buyer claimed not only a portion of the field but also the entire orchard."
,k167a_27:" Lit., 'What is the reason (why) the world was widened for this <I>waw</I>'."
,k167a_28:" Lit. 'he bound him'."
,k167a_29:" [H], brothers'. The deed stated that the buyer had acquired the portion of the two brothers only. that belonging to any other brother not being included in the sale."
,k167a_30:" <I>Ahi</I>, [H]."
,k167a_31:" Lit., 'he went (and) wrote'."
,k167a_32:" The word, 'brothers', [H] in the deed."
,k167a_33:" [H], signifying, 'and Ahi'. On the basis of this text the buyer claimed to have acquired the portion of the third brother Ahi also."
,k167a_34:" To claim Ahi's share."
,k167a_35:" Lit., 'what is the reason (why) the world is so much compressed for this Waw'."
,k167a_36:" V. p. 727. n. 25."
,k167a_37:" The holder of the deed."
,k167a_38:" That the signatures were forged."
,k167a_39:" When forging his signature."
,k167a_40:" Which vibrates at the least touch and causes the hand to shake."
,k167a_41:" Standing on a hose causes all one's limbs to shake."
,k167a_42:" Lit., with him'. Since the grant or refusal of a divorce is entirely dependent on the desire of the husband, he may be entrusted with the keeping of the document until such time as he may decide to hand it over to his wife."
,k167a_43:" For the amount of a woman's <I>kethubah</I>."
,k167a_44:" The receipt is of advantage to the husband and, since a privilege may be obtained on behalf of a person in his absence, may be written, at the request of the wife, though the husband is absent. The wife takes charge of the receipt and delivers it to him when she had received the payments due to her."
,k167a_45:" The Gemara explains this, <i>infra</i>."
,k167a_46:" For the writing of the letter of divorce and the receipt. "
}

txt:
<p>
and converted into <I>zuzim</I>.<a id="k167a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What, [then could the entry] mean?<a id="k167a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [Either] "six hundred <I>istira</I> and a <I>zuz</I>" [or] "six hundred <I>zuz</I> and a <I>zuz</I>";<a id="k167a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] the holder of the bond [must always be] at a disadvantage.'<a id="k167a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: One who is required to present his signature at a court of law<a id="k167a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not present it at the foot of the scroll [because] a stranger might find it and write [above the signature] that he [has a] claim [of] money upon him; and we learnt [that a person], who produced against another<a id="k167a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [a bond in] the latter's<a id="k167a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; handwriting [showing] that he owes him [a debt], may collect [it] from his free<a id="k167a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; property.<a id="k167a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A collector of bridge tolls<a id="k167a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; once came before Abaye [and] said to him, 'Will the Master give<a id="k167a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; me his signature so that when the Rabbis come [and] present to me [an authorisation]<a id="k167a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; I will allow them to pass without [payment of] the toll'.<a id="k167a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; He was writing it down<a id="k167a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; for him at the top of a scroll. As [the other] was pulling it,<a id="k167a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k167a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him,'The Rabbis have long ago anticipated you'.<a id="k167a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: [Numbers] from three to ten [should] not be written at the end of a line, [because] forgery might be committed by adding letters to them;<a id="k167a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and if this occurred, the sentence should be repeated two [or] three times, [since] it [would then] be impossible that [the numbers] should not [once] occur in the middle of a line.<a id="k167a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In a certain [deed]<a id="k167a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; it was entered,<a id="k167a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'a third of an orchard'.<a id="k167a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [The buyer] subsequently<a id="k167a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; erased the top, and the base of the Beth<a id="k167a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and converted<a id="k167a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [the second word] into, 'and an orchard'.<a id="k167a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [When] he appeared before Abaye [the latter] said to him, 'Why has the <i>Waw</i> so much space round about it?'<a id="k167a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Having been placed under arrest<a id="k167a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he confessed.
</p><p>
	In a certain [deed] there was entered, 'the portion of Reuben and Simeon, brothers'.<a id="k167a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; They had a brother whose name was 'Brothers';<a id="k167a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the buyer] added to<a id="k167a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; it<a id="k167a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>Waw</i> and converted [the word into], 'and Brothers'.<a id="k167a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [When] he came before Abaye<a id="k167a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [the latter] said to him. 'Why is there so little space round the Waw'.<a id="k167a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; He was placed under arrest<a id="k167a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and he confessed.
</p><p>
	A certain deed bore the signatures of Raba and R. Aha b. Adda. He<a id="k167a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; came before Raba [who] said to him, '[This] signature is mine; never, however, have I signed before R. Aha b. Adda!' He was placed under arrest<a id="k167a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and he confessed.<a id="k167a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Said [Raba] to him, 'I can well understand how you forged my [signature], but how [could] you manage [that] of R. Aba b. Adda whose hand trembles?' 'I put my hand',<a id="k167a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the other replied, 'on a rope-bridge'.<a id="k167a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say [that] he stood on a hose and wrote.<a id="k167a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A LETTER OF DIVORCE [MAY] BE WRITTEN FOR A HUSBAND THOUGH HIS WIFE IS NOT PRESENT,<a id="k167a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A RECEIPT<a id="k167a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [MAY BE WRITTEN] FOR A WIFE THOUGH HER HUSBAND IS NOT PRESENT,<a id="k167a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; PROVIDED THEY ARE KNOWN.<a id="k167a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FEE<a id="k167a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; IS PAID BY THE HUSBAND.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k167b_1:" Lit., 'with him'."
,k167b_2:" For the writing of the document."
,k167b_3:" Lit., 'though the buyer is not with him'."
,k167b_4:" V. p. 728. n. 13."
,k167b_5:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 14."
,k167b_6:" Agreements between the parties on the amounts promised. Cf. Keth. 102b."
,k167b_7:" <I>Kethubah</I> contracts."
,k167b_8:" The tenant giving the landowner an agreed portion of the crops."
,k167b_9:" A certain fixed amount irrespective of the yield of the land."
,k167b_10:" Lit., 'the receiver', i.e., 'he who undertook the work'."
,k167b_11:" Heb. <I>Shetare berurin</I>, [H] V. Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k167b_12:" For the preparation of the <I>shetare berurin</I>."
,k167b_13:" By the witnesses."
,k167b_14:" Lit., 'to this for himself and to&nbsp;&hellip; himself'."
,k167b_15:" To the scribe and witnesses."
,k167b_16:" So that a false name might not be given, and the document presented to the wife of the man bearing that name. The woman would then on producing the letter of divorce be able to collect the <I>kethubah</I> from her husband, even though she did not produce a written <I>kethubah</I>. Cf. Keth. 89b."
,k167b_17:" She might give the name of a woman who has been divorced and has not received what was due to her as her <I>kethubah</I>, and present the document to the man who would use it as proof that he discharged his obligation to his divorced wife."
,k167b_18:" Lit., 'sat', i.e., delivering, or listening to lectures and discussing them."
,k167b_19:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k167b_20:" I.e., obtain a scribe and witnesses to write it for him."
,k167b_21:" Lit., 'go and bring'."
,k167b_22:" Whose name might be identical with his own."
,k167b_23:" Lit., 'go (and) write'."
,k167b_24:" Lit., 'who is not hers'."
,k167b_25:" Whose wife might bear the same name as hers."
,k167b_26:" Must be known."
,k167b_27:" Even where the names of the parties are known."
,k167b_28:" I.e., husbands and wives bearing respectively the same names."
,k167b_29:" I.e., instruct a scribe and witnesses to write it for him."
,k167b_30:" Lit., 'and go (and) bring'."
,k167b_31:" If one of them divorces his wife the other must be present."
,k167b_32:" According to the Tanna of our Mishnah who requires the names of the parties to be known in order to guard against the possibility of the use of the document by the wrong party."
,k167b_33:" In his adopted name."
,k167b_34:" Whose real name is Joseph b. Simeon: and the woman would thus be able to prove that she had been divorced."
,k167b_35:" That the name by which he is known is not his real name. No one, it is assumed, would venture to go under a false name for so long a period, for fear of being discovered."
,k167b_36:" How are the scribe and witnesses to decide whether the name submitted to them is the genuine one?"
,k167b_37:" The persons preparing the letter of divorce."
,k167b_38:" Suddenly, unexpectedly."
,k167b_39:" One would not respond, it is assumed, to a name which is not really his."
,k167b_40:" And would, therefore, respond when called by his false name. The genuineness of a name cannot consequently be determined unless a person was known by that name for a sufficiently long period."
,k167b_41:" Lit., 'that woman, on whose behalf the receipt was written."
,k167b_42:" Who authorised the writing of the receipt."
,k167b_43:" The other witnesses who signed the document with him."
,k167b_44:" Judging by her voice which was different from that which he heard at the time he signed the receipt."
,k167b_45:" With which opinion R. Jeremiah, after consideration, concurred. "
}

txt:
<p>
A BOND MAY BE WRITTEN FOR A BORROWER THOUGH THE LENDER IS NOT PRESENT.<a id="k167b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IT [MUST] NOT, HOWEVER, BE WRITTEN FOR THE LENDER UNLESS THE BORROWER IS WITH HIM. THE FEE<a id="k167b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS PAID BY THE BORROWER. A DEED [OF SALE] MAY BE WRITTEN FOR THE SELLER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BUYER.<a id="k167b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; IT [MUST] NOT BE WRITTEN, HOWEVER, FOR THE BUYER UNLESS THE SELLER IS PRESENT.<a id="k167b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FEE<a id="k167b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; IS TO BE PAID BY THE BUYER. DEEDS OF BETROTHAL<a id="k167b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MARRIAGE<a id="k167b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE NOT TO BE WRITTEN EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, AND THE FEE IS PAID BY THE BRIDE GROOM. A CONTRACT OF TENANCY ON SHARES<a id="k167b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; OR ON A FIXED RENTAL<a id="k167b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IS NOT WRITTEN EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOTH PARTIES, AND THE FEE IS PAID BY THE TENANT.<a id="k167b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; DEEDS OF ARBITRATION<a id="k167b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL [OTHER] JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS ARE NOT WRITTEN EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOTH PARTIES, AND BOTH PAY THE FEE.<a id="k167b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID; TWO [DEEDS] MAY BE WRITTEN<a id="k167b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THE TWO PARTIES, ONE FOR EACH.<a id="k167b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What [is meant by] PROVIDED THEY ARE KNOWN? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Provided the name of the man is known<a id="k167b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the case of] a letter of divorce,<a id="k167b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and the name of the woman in [the case of] a receipt.<a id="k167b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Safra and R. Aha b. Huna and R. Huna b. Hinena sat [together] and Abaye [also] was sitting with then, and, while they were in session,<a id="k167b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they raised [the following] question: [Why is] the name of the man required<a id="k167b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [to be known] in [the case of] a letter of divorce, [and] not the name of the woman; [and] the name of the woman [and] not that of the man in [the case of] a receipt? [Surely] there is reason to fear that one might write<a id="k167b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; a letter of divorce and give<a id="k167b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; it to the wife of another person;<a id="k167b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and sometimes a woman might procure the writing<a id="k167b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of a receipt and give it to a strange<a id="k167b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; man!<a id="k167b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye said to them: Thus said Rab, 'The name of the man<a id="k167b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; in [the case of] a letter of divorce, and the same law [applies] to the name of the woman; the name of the woman<a id="k167b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; in [the case of] a receipt and the same law [applies] to the name of the man'.
</p><p>
	But is [there no reason] to apprehend<a id="k167b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [that there might be a case] of two [persons of the name of] Joseph b. Simeon<a id="k167b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; living in the same town [and that one of them] might write<a id="k167b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; a letter of divorce and deliver<a id="k167b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it to the other's wife? &mdash; R. Aha b. Huna said to them: Thus said Rab: Two [persons of the name of] Joseph son of Simeon who live in one town, must not divorce their wives except in the presence of each other.<a id="k167b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Is [there no reason], however, to apprehend<a id="k167b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; that [a person] might go to another town and make his name [there] known as Joseph b. Simeon and [then] would write<a id="k167b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; a letter of divorce<a id="k167b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and carry it to the wife of that person?<a id="k167b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna b. Hinena said to them: Thus said Rab; Provided one's name was known in a town [for] thirty days, he need not be suspected.<a id="k167b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [is the law where one's name] is not known?<a id="k167b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said, Where they<a id="k167b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; call him<a id="k167b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and he answers.<a id="k167b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid said, 'A deceiver is vigilant in his deceit'.<a id="k167b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain receipt [was produced] on which the signature of R. Jeremiah b. Abba appeared. The woman,<a id="k167b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [however], came before him [and] said to him, 'It was not I',<a id="k167b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I also said to them'.<a id="k167b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [R. Jeremiah] replied, '[that] it was not she';<a id="k167b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but they<a id="k167b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; told me, 'She has grown old and her voice has become rough'.<a id="k167b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: Although the Rabbis said,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k165a_1:" Lit., 'dust', i.e., not actual, but hinted, Or implied slander. (Cf. 'Ar. 15b)."
,k165a_2:" In trade or industry one commits robbery directly or indirectly by withholding due profits. Full price of labour or full value for money."
,k165a_3:" Surely he does. Wherein then, does R. Simeon b. Gamaliel differ from him?"
,k165a_4:" Or, 'Abaye' (Rashal)."
,k165a_5:" Lit., 'in the place'."
,k165a_6:" Since the instruction was for the preparation of a deed in accordance with the usage of the country, the scribe's deviation tenders the deed legally invalid."
,k165a_7:" When the scribe did not carry out instructions but did not at the same time also deviate from the established local practice."
,k165a_8:" The first Tanna."
,k165a_9:" Since the scribe did not carry out instructions, the deed is invalid."
,k165a_10:" Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k165a_11:" Lit., 'he shows him a place', i.e., the instruction was not meant to imply a request for a plain deed only. It was a mere intimation that a plain deed also would be acceptable; but no objection to a folded deed was ever intended. Hence, since it is the usage of the place to write either plain, or folded deeds, the document is legally valid."
,k165a_12:" Where a person was instructed to perform a mission in a certain manner and he carried it out in a more acceptable manner."
,k165a_13:" Cf. previous note but one."
,k165a_14:" Kid. 48b. The case of a man who (through an agent) said to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed to me by a silver denar' and tendered instead a gold <i>denar</i>."
,k165a_15:" Lit., 'from'."
,k165a_16:" Git. 65a."
,k165a_17:" That the document be received at a certain place."
,k165a_18:" To any other place. She objects to having her divorce discussed in any other place but the one she mentioned."
,k165a_19:" Whither she would trouble him to go. Beyond that place he would not be expected to go, but she would, nevertheless, be grateful if he did."
,k165a_20:" V. Rashal, a.l."
,k165a_21:" Surely, the evidence of one witnesses is never sufficient to tender a document valid."
,k165a_22:" Lit., 'it was not required (but)'."
,k165a_23:" Lit., 'one witness in writing'."
,k165a_24:" Lit., 'and one witness by (word of) mouth'."
,k165a_25:" Cf. n. 5."
,k165a_26:" Who maintains that in such a case the deed is invalid."
,k165a_27:" Lit., 'as if to say'."
,k165a_28:" That Abaye's view is not accepted. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; But the fine shades<a id="k165a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of slander [were meant].
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Most [people are guilty] of robbery,<a id="k165a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; a minority of lewdness, and all of slander. 'Of slander'? [How] could one imagine [such a thing]! &mdash; But the fine shades of slander<a id="k165a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [were meant].
</p><p>
	RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: ALL DEPENDS ON THE USAGE OF THE COUNTRY. And does not the first Tanna hold [the principle of the] 'usage of the country'?<a id="k165a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi<a id="k165a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: Where<a id="k165a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the custom [to use] plain [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a plain deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one], the objection [is valid].<a id="k165a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [Where it] is the custom [to use] folded [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a folded deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a plain [one, legal] objection [may be raised.<a id="k165a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Their dispute relates to a place where [both] plain and folded [deeds] are in use, and he said to [the scribe], 'Prepare for me a plain [deed],' and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one]. [In such a case],<a id="k165a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [one] master<a id="k165a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion [that legal] objection [may be raised]<a id="k165a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the other] master<a id="k165a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation.<a id="k165a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Simeon and R. Eleazar are of the opinion [that, in such a case,<a id="k165a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the instruction] is [regarded as] a mere intimation.<a id="k165a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [As to] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, [proof may be brought from] what has [just] been said. [As to] R. Simeon? &mdash; Because we learnt: R. Simeon said, If his mistake was in her favour, she is betrothed.<a id="k165a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [As to] R. Eleazar? &mdash; Because we learnt: If a woman said [to an agent] 'Receive a bill of divorce on my behalf at<a id="k165a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; such and such a place', and he received it on her behalf at a different place [the divorce is] invalid; but R. Eleazar considers it valid.<a id="k165a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [for one] master is of the opinion [that by her instruction<a id="k165a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she expressed her] objection.<a id="k165a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; while [the other] master holds the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation to him of the place.<a id="k165a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS etc.<a id="k165a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; One can well understand why it was necessary [to state]. A FOLDED [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES is invalid; [since] it might have been imagined [that] because elsewhere [such evidence is] valid, it is valid here also, it [was necessary] to teach us that it is invalid. [In the case] however, [of] A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS, [is not this] obvious?<a id="k165a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: This was required<a id="k165a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [for the following]. That even [where, in addition to] the signature of one witness,<a id="k165a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; there is also the oral evidence of another<a id="k165a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [the deed is invalid].
</p><p>
	Amemar [once] declared [a deed] valid on the signature of one witness<a id="k165a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and the oral evidence of another.<a id="k165a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi to Amemar: And what [about] the [view] of Abaye?<a id="k165a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [The other] replied to him: I did not hear [of it], that is to say<a id="k165a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not share his view. But, [if so],<a id="k165a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the difficulty
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k165b_1:" Why should it be necessary to teach that a deed is invalid if it bears the signature of one witness only? Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k165b_2:" Our Mishnah."
,k165b_3:" Lit., 'there'."
,k165b_4:" Cf. Deut. XIX, 15."
,k165b_5:" Lit., 'here'."
,k165b_6:" The Rabbis, that is to say, have imposed Biblical restrictions on the folded deed. Consequently, it is invalid if it contains the signatures of two witnesses only. Should such a document be a bond, the creditor would not be entitled to collect his debt from sold or mortgaged lands. Should it be a bill of divorce, the divorce would be illegal."
,k165b_7:" That the written, and oral evidence respectively of two witnesses is combined."
,k165b_8:" Lit., 'thou shalt know'."
,k165b_9:" Lit., 'friends', 'colleagues'."
,k165b_10:" Cut. edd. add. [H], 'from there', i.e., Palestine. This is to be deleted with some MSS. as the entire incident occurred in Babylon. Cf. Weiss, Dot, III, 108."
,k165b_11:" After he had been excluded from the College. V. <i>supra</i> 23b."
,k165b_12:" Lit.. 'one witness in writing'."
,k165b_13:" Lit., 'and one witness by (word of) mouth'."
,k165b_14:" To form complete legal evidence as if they had both signed the deed."
,k165b_15:" I.e., his opponent. v. <i>supra</i> 32a."
,k165b_16:" As defined ibid."
,k165b_17:" Lit., 'in writing'."
,k165b_18:" Who, in opposition to the view of the first Tanna, regards such evidence as valid."
,k165b_19:" Lit., 'thus the opinion of your disciple inclines'."
,k165b_20:" R. Ashi."
,k165b_21:" Amemar."
,k165b_22:" The version of the enquiry sent to R. Jeremiah."
,k165b_23:" And, consequently. no objection from It. Jeremiah's reply could be raised against Abaye's view that the written and oral evidence of two witnesses cannot be combined."
,k165b_24:" Lit., this'."
,k165b_25:" Lit., 'one'."
,k165b_26:" I.e., his opponent. V. <i>supra</i> 32a, Sanh. 30a."
,k165b_27:" Given by each of the two witnesses at a different time."
,k165b_28:" Who allows the evidence even if each of the witnesses appeared before the court on a different day."
,k165b_29:" Cf. <i>supra</i>, p. 720. n. 11."
,k165b_30:" V. p. 720. n. 16."
,k165b_31:" [MSS. 'And again they gave evidence at another court', v. R. Gersh.]"
,k165b_32:" To form a court where, owing to death or some other cause, neither of the two or three courts could obtain a quorum."
,k165b_33:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k165b_34:" Cf., p. 720. n. 18."
,k165b_35:" Cf., <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 11."
,k165b_36:" After the witnesses had attested their signatures. A court before whom signatures arc attested must consist of three judges."
,k165b_37:" Lit., 'sitting'."
,k165b_38:" Judges."
,k165b_39:" In order that the signatures of two judges only shall not appear as a contradiction of the first sentence of the attestation, we were&nbsp;&hellip; three'."
,k165b_40:" And, consequently, 'and one is now no more' may be omitted."
,k165b_41:" Cf. <i>supra</i>. 720, n. 11."
,k165b_42:" His modesty, and clear thinking and decision."
,k165b_43:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 3."
,k165b_44:" A <I>sela'</I> containing four <i>zuz</i>, the amount of the <I>sela'</I>s should have been not twenty but five and twenty."
,k165b_45:" Lit., 'he has not but'."
,k165b_46:" I.e., eighty <i>zuz</i>. The holder of the deed being the claimant and the other being in the possession of the sum claimed, the former cannot obtain payment unless he produces satisfactory proof that the higher figure in the bond is the correct one. If he cannot do so, it is assumed that the zuzim borrowed were of an inferior quality five of which (instead of the usual four) amount to a sela."
,k165b_47:" The creditor."
,k165b_48:" A hundred <i>zuz</i>. Though, usually, thirty sela are a hundred and twenty <i>zuz</i>, it is assumed (cf. n. 3), that the <I>sela'</I>s were of an inferior quality, each of which was worth only three and a third <i>zuz</i>."
,k165b_49:" Cf.[G], a Persian gold, or silver coin."
,k165b_50:" In the upper section of the bond."
,k165b_51:" Hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k165b_52:" Near the conclusion of the bond where the principal items are briefly repeated."
,k165b_53:" <i>Zuz</i>."
,k165b_54:" Lit., 'all goes after the lowest'."
,k165b_55:" That the entry in the lower section is always regarded as more reliable."
,k165b_56:" Lit., 'learned'."
,k165b_57:" Cur. edd. 'he said', is to be deleted. V. BaH, a.l."
,k165b_58:" I.e., if a bond contains an entry that 'silver' was lent and no amount is specified."
,k165b_59:" 'Silver for denarii', implies that the loan consisted of silver which was worth two gold <i>denarii</i>. V. Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k165b_60:" Lit., 'say'."
,k165b_61:" Lit., 'written'."
,k165b_62:" Lit., 'men do not make'."
,k165b_63:" Cf., p. 722. n. 25."
,k165b_64:" Cf. <i>supra</i>. note 1."
,k165b_65:" Lit., 'do not pass'. "
}

txt:
<p>
in our Mishnah<a id="k165b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [remains]! &mdash; It<a id="k165b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches us this: That two [witnesses] on a folded [deed are] like one witness on a plain [one]; as in the latter<a id="k165b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the defect is Biblical,<a id="k165b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so also in the former<a id="k165b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the defect is Biblical.<a id="k165b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [This]<a id="k165b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; can be proved.<a id="k165b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for the members of the College<a id="k165b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; sent<a id="k165b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah:<a id="k165b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [In the case of witnesses] one of whom had signed<a id="k165b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the deed] and the other [confirmed the contents] orally,<a id="k165b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are they combined?<a id="k165b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; According to the first Tanna of R. Joshua b. Korha,<a id="k165b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the question does not arise because, [according to him, independent evidence<a id="k165b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of two can] not be combined even [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed,<a id="k165b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or the two [gave] oral [evidence]. The question, however, arises according to R. Joshua b. Korha.<a id="k165b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Is the [independent evidence] combined only [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed<a id="k165b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or where the two [gave] oral [evidence], but [in the case where] one witness signed<a id="k165b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and one [testified] orally, [their evidence] is not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [the following reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the opinion<a id="k165b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the witnesses] may be [regarded as] combined.
</p><p>
	He<a id="k165b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; said unto him:<a id="k165b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; We learned it<a id="k165b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; thus:<a id="k165b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for the members of the College sent [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah: [In the case of] two [witnesses] who gave evidence, one at one court<a id="k165b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other<a id="k165b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; at another court,<a id="k165b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may [one] court come to the other and [thus cause the evidence to be] combined? According to the first Tanna of R. Nathan<a id="k165b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the question does not arise, since, [according to him, such evidence<a id="k165b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; can] not be combined even where [it was given before] one court. The question, however, arises according to R. Nathan.<a id="k165b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Is [the evidence] combined only [where it was given] at one court, but [if] at two courts [it is] not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? And he sent to them [his reply]; I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me, but your disciple is inclined to the opinion<a id="k165b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; that [the witnesses may] be [regarded as] combined.
</p><p>
	Mar b. Hiyya said: This was [the enquiry] addressed to him: [In the case where] two gave evidence at one<a id="k165b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; court, and then they gave evidence at another<a id="k165b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; court,<a id="k165b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; may one [member] of either court come [to the other court] and combine?<a id="k165b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; According to [the view] of R. Nathan,<a id="k165b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; the question does not arise, [for] since witnesses may be combined, is there [any] need [to say that] judges [may be combined]? The question, however, arises according to the first Tanna of R. Nathan.<a id="k165b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is it] witnesses only that are not combined but judges are, or is there, perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view<a id="k165b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; that they may be combined.
</p><p>
	Rabina said; Such was [the enquiry] sent to him: [Where] three [judges] sat down to confirm a deed, and one of them died,<a id="k165b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [is it] necessary to write; 'We were in a session<a id="k165b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; of three<a id="k165b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and one is [now] no more,<a id="k165b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k165b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view<a id="k165b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; that it is necessary to write, 'We were in a session of three<a id="k165b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and one is [now] no more'. And on account of this<a id="k165b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah was re-admitted to the College.<a id="k165b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [WHEN] IN [A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS] IT IS WRITTEN. 'A HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I> WHICH ARE TWENTY<a id="k165b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>SELA'</I> [THE CREDITOR] RECEIVES ONLY<a id="k165b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; TWENTY [<I>SELA'</I>].<a id="k165b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF THE ENTRY WAS]. 'A HUNDRED [<I>ZUZ</I>] WHICH ARE THIRTY [<I>SELA'</I>]' HE<a id="k165b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; RECEIVES ONLY<a id="k165b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; A <I>MANEH</I>.<a id="k165b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF THE ENTRY READS], SILVER <I>ZUZ</I> IN WHICH ARE&nbsp;&hellip; AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF THE ENTRY READS]. 'SILVER SELA'S WHICH ARE&hellip;', AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF], 'DARICS<a id="k165b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; WHICH ARE &hellip; AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT IS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF] ABOVE<a id="k165b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k165b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; IS WRITTEN AND BELOW<a id="k165b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; TWO HUNDRED,<a id="k165b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; [OR IF] TWO HUNDRED<a id="k165b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; [ARE WRITTEN] ABOVE AND A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k165b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; BELOW, ONE IS ALWAYS TO BE GUIDED BY THE LOWER ENTRY.<a id="k165b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SO,<a id="k165b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; WHY SHOULD THE UPPER [PORTION AT ALL] BE WRITTEN? &mdash; IN CASE A LETTER IN THE LOWER [SECTION] BE RUBBED OFF IT MAY BE INFERRED<a id="k165b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE UPPER [PORTION].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k165b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Silver'<a id="k165b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; [signifies]no less than a silver <i>denar</i>. 'Silver denarii' or 'denarii silver' [signifies] no less than two silver <i>denarii</i>. 'Silver for denarii', [signifies] silver for no less than two gold <i>denarii</i>.<a id="k165b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: '"Silver" [signifies] no less than a silver <i>denar</i>.' Might it not signify<a id="k165b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; a bar [of silver]? &mdash; R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where coin was mentioned.<a id="k165b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; Might it not signify<a id="k165b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; small change? &mdash; R. Papa replied: In [the case of] a place where small silver coins are not current.<a id="k165b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'Gold'<a id="k165b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; [signifies] no less than a golden <i>denar</i>. 'Gold denarii' or 'denarii gold' [signifies] no less than two gold <i>denarii</i>. 'Gold for denarii' [signifies] gold of the value of no less than two silver <i>denarii</i>.<a id="k165b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: "gold" [signifies] no less than a gold denar'. Might it not mean<a id="k165b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; a bar [of gold]? &mdash; R. Eleazar replied: [In the case] where coin was mentioned.<a id="k165b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k166a_1:" Lit., 'small change of gold people do not make'."
,k166a_2:" The writer of the bond."
,k166a_3:" Lit., 'the hand of the owner of the bond on the lowest'. And the borrower, being in possession of the sum claimed, has the right of interpreting the bond in terms advantageous to himself."
,k166a_4:" for this reading. v. Rashal, a.l. The printed texts contain the following in round brackets: The first (part) where it was taught 'silver for denarii' (signifies) silver for no less that, two gold <i>denarii</i>, why? I might say (that) he meant a bar of silver for two silver <i>denarii</i>."
,k166a_5:" That the bond is to be interpreted in terms advantageous to the borrower and disadvantageous to the creditor."
,k166a_6:" In the case of (a) the entry. 'silver denarii'; why should this be interpreted to mean 'silver for no less than two gold denarii' (which is in favour of the holder of the bond), and not, 'small silver coins for two silver denarii' (which would be in favour of the borrower)? And, again (b) in the entry. 'gold denarii' or 'denarii gold'; why should that be given the interpretation, 'no less than two gold denarii' (which also is in favour of the creditor) rather than, 'gold of the value of no less than two silver denarii' (which would be in favour of the borrower)?"
,k166a_7:" The latter, being the usual plural form of <i>denar</i>, signifies silver <i>denarii</i>; the former, being the unusual plural of the noun, implies gold <i>denarii</i>. Cf. Rashb., R. Gersh. and Goldschmidt. For a further discussion of the <i>denar</i> v. Zuckermann's Tal. Munz., 19ff; and Smith's Dict. Gk. Rom. Ant., s.v. Denarius."
,k166a_8:" Lit., 'thou sayest'."
,k166a_9:" Cut. edd.: 'it was taught'."
,k166a_10:" Lit., 'there were upon her'."
,k166a_11:" Lit., 'births', i.e., if she miscarried five times and, in each case, it was unknown whether the miscarriage was a human embryo or some other object. In the former case the woman would be liable to bring an offering after the termination of a period of Levitically unclean, and clean days (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 528, n. 1); in the latter case she would not."
,k166a_12:" When it is uncertain whether the discharge occurred during the ordinary course of menstruation (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 528. n. 8). or during the 'eleven days' that intervene between the menstrual periods. In the latter case she is liable to bring an offering (cf. Lev. XV, 25ff); In the former she is exempt."
,k166a_13:" At the conclusion of the 'days of her purifying'."
,k166a_14:" Having, thereby, completed the ceremonial of purification."
,k166a_15:" The other four sacrifices."
,k166a_16:" V. note 4."
,k166a_17:" Lit., 'nests'. Sacrifices after recovery from an issue, (cf. Lev. XV. 29), and, in cases of poverty, also after confinements (ibid. XII, 8), consisted of birds (two turtles or two young pigeons)."
,k166a_18:" Lit., 'stood'."
,k166a_19:" The price had risen owing to the large demand on the part of women who brought separate sacrifices for each confinement."
,k166a_20:" An oath."
,k166a_21:" Dinrin, implying silver <i>denarii</i>, while gold <i>denarii</i> were previously described (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13), as denari. Thus it has been shewn that a distinction was made between the two names, denari and dinrin."
,k166a_22:" Lit., 'he taught'."
,k166a_23:" Lit., 'there were upon her'."
,k166a_24:" The other four sacrifices. "
}

txt:
<p>
Might it not signify small change? &mdash; Small change is not made of gold.<a id="k166a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'"Gold for <i>denarii</i>" [signifies] gold of the value of no less than two silver <I>denarii</I>.' Might he<a id="k166a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; not have meant, broken gold [ware] of [the value of] two gold <i>denarii</i>.? &mdash; Abaye replied: The holder of the bond [must always be] at a disadvantage.<a id="k166a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If<a id="k166a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so,<a id="k166a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same principles should be followed in] the former [cases] also!<a id="k166a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ashi replied: [In the] first [cases] <i>denarii</i> was written; [in the] last, dinrin was written.<a id="k166a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence may it be deduced<a id="k166a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that there is a difference between <i>denarii</i> and dinrin? &mdash; for we learnt:<a id="k166a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman who had<a id="k166a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; five doubtful confinements<a id="k166a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [or] five doubtful issues,<a id="k166a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; brings one offering<a id="k166a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and may<a id="k166a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [subsequently] eat of sacrificial meat. She is not obliged, [however, to bring] the rest.<a id="k166a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] she had<a id="k166a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; five certain confinements [or] five issues, she brings one sacrifice and [may subsequently] eat of sacrificial meat but is [also] obliged to [bring] the rest.<a id="k166a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It once happened that [the price of a pair of] birds<a id="k166a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in Jerusalem had risen<a id="k166a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to gold <i>denarii</i>.<a id="k166a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel exclaimed, '[By] this Temple!<a id="k166a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; I shall not go to rest this night before these [can] be [obtained] for silver denarii'.<a id="k166a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; He entered the <i>Beth din</i> and issued the following instruction:<a id="k166a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A woman who had<a id="k166a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; five certain [child] confinements, [or] five certain issues, brings one sacrifice and may [subsequently] eat of sacrificial meat, and there is no obligation upon her to bring the rest'.<a id="k166a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k166b_1:" Lit., 'stood'."
,k166b_2:" Ker. I, 7."
,k166b_3:" Lit., 'be learned', 'inferred'."
,k166b_4:" Where only the letter <I>Yod</I> is wanting. Should two letters, however, be missing. e.g.. N and I, leaving in the lower section Han or AN, only, they must not be replaced from the upper section."
,k166b_5:" Lit., 'why different'."
,k166b_6:" The two letters."
,k166b_7:" The single letter."
,k166b_8:" A scribe might omit half a name if that consisted of a single letter. He is not likely, however, to omit two letters which in some names represent the greater part of the name. If two letters or more are missing, the person whose name is represented by the remaining letters, not the bearer of the name in the upper section, is entitled to the repayment of the loan. [V. however Tosaf. s.v. [H]]"
,k166b_9:" Heb., [H], 'bowl' or 'cup'. Some read [H] i.e. [H] 'sixty halves'."
,k166b_10:" Of a deed."
,k166b_11:" Heb., [H] (root. 'to fold'), an article of dress, which can be folded. Others, [H] 'hundred halves'. Both <I>sefel</I> and <I>kefel</I>, however, may be arbitrary word combinations taken by R. Papa as an illustration of a slight variation by which one word may differ from another."
,k166b_12:" Lit., 'all goes after the lowest."
,k166b_13:" Lit., 'do we fear'."
,k166b_14:" Which might have blotted out the lower stroke of the <I>kof</I>, and thus changed it into a samek. [In the third and fourth centuries the stem of the <I>kof</I> hung from the roof of the letter and the curve was drawn to it, thus: P.]"
,k166b_15:" Hence, if such a case should be brought before a court, the decision must be in favour of the person who is in possession of the money or article; in accordance with the rule, 'he who claims must produce the proof'."
,k166b_16:" Lit., 'before'."
,k166b_17:" The <I>istira</I> was a silver coin equal to a provincial <I>sela</I> or half a <I>zuz</I>."
,k166b_18:" A <I>perutah</I> was a very small coin of the value of a hundred and ninety-second part of a <I>zuz</I>. Cf. Zuckermann, <i>op. cit</i>., 22f. "
}

txt:
<p>
On that day [the price of a pair of] birds fell<a id="k166b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to a quarter [of a denar'].<a id="k166b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ABOVE IS WRITTEN etc. Our Rabbis taught: The lower [section] may be corrected<a id="k166b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; from the upper [one] where one letter [is missing], but not in [the case of] two letters; for example, HaNaN from HaNaNI<a id="k166b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'ANaN from 'ANaNI.<a id="k166b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason<a id="k166b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; why two letters [must] not [be replaced]? [Because] a name of four letters might occur and these<a id="k166b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; would represent half of the name! If so, [in the case of] one letter also, might [not] a name of two letters occur and this<a id="k166b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; would represent half of the name? &mdash; But this is the reason [for] two letters: A name of three letters might occur, and these would represent the greater part of the name.<a id="k166b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: It is obvious to me [that if] SeFeL<a id="k166b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [appears] in the upper [section].<a id="k166b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and KeFeL<a id="k166b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in the lower [section], the latter is always to be taken as a guide.<a id="k166b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa, [however], inquired what [is the ruling if] KeFeL [appears] above and SeFeL below? May this be attributed<a id="k166b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to a fly,<a id="k166b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? &mdash; This remains undecided.<a id="k166b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In a certain [deed] there was written, 'six hundred and a <I>zuz</I>'. R. Sherabya sent this [enquiry] to<a id="k166b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye: [Is the entry to be interpreted as], 'six hundred <I>istira</I><a id="k166b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and a <I>zuz</I>', or perhaps, [as] 'six hundred perutoth<a id="k166b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and a <I>zuz</I>?' &mdash; He replied to him: 'Dismiss [the question of] perutoth which [could] not [have been] written in the deed, since they are counted up
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k7a_1:" According to another rendering, 'You can bend yourself double'."
,k7a_2:" And therefore I can demand to have the house pulled down and rebuilt."
,k7a_3:" To rebuild the house if it sank."
,k7a_4:" If one undertakes to build a (one-roomed) house without specifying the size. <i>Infra</i> 98b."
,k7a_5:" I.e., not to attribute absurd opinions to him."
,k7a_6:" Which were exceptionally long."
,k7a_7:" Because the new cement does not stick well to the old."
,k7a_8:" And therefore he cannot say that he will have nowhere to live if it is pulled down."
,k7a_9:" [H] [G] a cave, a recess; hence, a sitting room in the shape of a hall; v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]"
,k7a_10:" To allow room for his oxen to turn when working the vineyard."
,k7a_11:" The one who received the more valuable portion giving compensation to the other."
,k7a_12:" By the owner of the verandah, so that he should have the right of keeping it empty."
,k7a_13:" I.e., a piece of ground large enough for the sowing of a <I>kor</I> of seed. A <I>kor</I> = 30 <I>se'ah</I>, and a <I>beth kor</I> (lit.. 'house of a kor') = 75,000 sq. cubits."
,k7a_14:" Half a <I>kor</I>."
,k7a_15:" B.M. 104a."
,k7a_16:" And therefore it must not be interfered with, even at the cost of restricting the other's building rights. "
}

txt:
<p>
'Then let me take it down and rebuild it,' said the first. He replied: 'Meanwhile I have nowhere to live.' Said the first: 'I will hire you a place.' 'I do not want the bother,' he replied. ['But,' said the first,] 'I cannot live in my place.' [To which he replied,] 'You can crawl on your belly<a id="k7a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to get in, and crawl on your belly to get out. Said R. Hama: He had a full right to stop him [rebuilding]. This, however, is the case only if the beams [of the upper room] did not sink lower than ten handbreadths [from the ground], but if they came as low as this, the owner of the lower room can Say: Below ten handbreadths is my property and is not subject to you.<a id="k7a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Further, [the one above was within his rights] only if they had not made an agreement with one another,<a id="k7a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they had made an agreement with one another, then they must take down the house and rebuild it. And if they did make an agreement with one another, how low [must the upper chamber sink before the one below can demand rebuilding]? &mdash; The Rabbis stated in the presence of Rabbah in the name of Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman, who said it in the name of R. Nahman: Till [the lower room fails to answer the requirement laid down for] that of which we have learnt,<a id="k7a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Its height must be equal to half its length and half its breadth [combined]. Said Rabbah to them: Have I not told you not to hang empty bottles<a id="k7a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; on R. Nahman? What R. Nahman said was, 'It must be fit for human habitation'. And how much is this? &mdash; R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: Big enough for one to bring in a bundle [of reeds] of Mahuza<a id="k7a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and turn round with them.
</p><p>
	A certain man began to build a wall facing his neighbour's windows. The latter said to him, 'You are shutting out my light.' Said the first, 'Let me close up your windows here and I will make you others above the level of my wall.' He replied, 'You will damage my wall by so doing.' 'Let me then,' he said, 'take down your wall as far as the place of the windows and then rebuild it, fixing windows in the part above my wall.' He replied, 'A wall of which the lower part is old and the upper part new will not be firm.'<a id="k7a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Then,' he said, 'let me take it all down and build it up from the ground and put windows in it.' He replied, 'A single new wall in a house, the rest of which is old, would not be firm.' He then said, 'Let me take down the whole house and put windows in the new building.' He replied, 'Meanwhile I have no place wherein to live.' 'I will rent a place for you,' said the other. 'I don't want to bother,' said the first. Said R. Hama [on hearing of the case]: He had a perfect right to stop him. Is not this case the same as the other? Why, then, this repetition? &mdash; To tell us [that the owner of the house may exercise his veto] even though he only Uses it for storing straw and wood.<a id="k7a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Two brothers divided [a house which they inherited], the one taking as part of his share a verandah open at one end<a id="k7a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other the front garden. The one who obtained the garden went and built a wall in front of the opening of the verandah. Said the other, 'You are taking away my light.' 'I am building on my own ground,' he replied. Said R. Hama: He was quite within his rights in saying so. Rabina asked R. Ashi: How does this case differ from what was taught: 'If two brothers divide an inheritance, one taking a vineyard and the other a cornfield [adjacent], the owner of the vineyard can claim four cubits in the cornfield,<a id="k7a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; since it was understood that on that condition they divided'? &mdash; He replied: There [the reason is] that they struck a balance with one another.<a id="k7a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What then [said Rabin] do we suppose here? That they did not compensate one another? Are we dealing with idiots, of whom one takes a verandah and the other a garden, and yet no question of compensation is raised? He replied: Granted that compensation was allowed for the bricks, beams, and planks, no allowance was made for the air space.<a id="k7a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But cannot he say, 'At first you let me have a verandah as my share, now you are only letting me have a dark room'? &mdash; R. Shimi b. Ashi said: He let him have something which happened to be called so. Has it not been taught: 'If a man says, I sell you a beth <i>kor</i> of ground,<a id="k7a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it subsequently prove to be only a lethek<a id="k7a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the sale is valid, since he sold him only something designated a beth <i>kor</i>, provided always that the land in question is commonly called a beth <i>kor</i>. [If a man says], I sell you an orchard, even though there are no pomegranates in it, the sale is valid, since he only sold him something designated so, provided the place is commonly called an orchard. [If a man says], I sell you a vineyard, even if there are no vines in it the sale is valid, since he only sold him something designated so, provided always that the place is commonly called a vineyard'?<a id="k7a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Are the cases parallel? There the vendor can say to the purchaser, I sold you [something called by] a certain name; here the one who obtains the verandah can say, I only took this as my share on condition that I should be able to live in it as our father lived.<a id="k7a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k7b_1:" R. Hama was from Nehardea, v. Sanh. 17b."
,k7b_2:" Who was also from Nehardea."
,k7b_3:" I.e., across the other's field to his own field."
,k7b_4:" The right to stop the other from taking away his light."
,k7b_5:" The right to rest a ladder in the other's courtyard in order to climb to his own room, or even to place the ladder in his own courtyard and let it rest against the other's room (v. Tosaf.)."
,k7b_6:" The right to carry water from the river to his own field through the other's; all this notwithstanding the fact that the father was accustomed to do these things."
,k7b_7:" Lit., 'a gate house'."
,k7b_8:" In the main gate."
,k7b_9:" The Gemara discusses which are meant."
,k7b_10:" And become liable to these imposts."
,k7b_11:" [Wherever an incident is related of a 'pious man', either Judah b. Baba or Judah b. Ila'i is meant. (Tem. 16b).]"
,k7b_12:" Because the lodge prevented the cries of poor men from being heard within the courtyard."
,k7b_13:" If the lodge is outside, the poor man can get behind it and it does not prevent his voice from being heard."
,k7b_14:" If there is a door to the lodge, the poor man cannot go through it, and it prevents him from being heard."
,k7b_15:" By means of which the poor man can open it and enter."
,k7b_16:" If the latch is inside the poor man cannot open the door with it, and so cannot make his voice heard."
,k7b_17:" Being somewhat drawn back into private ground."
,k7b_18:" (V. Rashal a.l. and D.S.)"
,k7b_19:" The representatives of the anonymous opinion cited in the Mishnah. Why do they make no such distinction?"
,k7b_20:" Lit., 'Fix nails in it'."
,k7b_21:" According to Tosaf., this means that the poor man at a distance from the wall paid less than the poor man near the wall, and so with the rich, but the rich man at a distance from the wall still paid more than the poor man near."
,k7b_22:" [Judah III, v. Halevy, <I>Doroth</I>, II, 336.]"
,k7b_23:" Ps. CXXXIX, 18."
,k7b_24:" Referred to in the word [H] in the previous verse, which Resh Lakish translates 'friends' (E.V. '<I>thoughts</I>')."
,k7b_25:" Gen. XXII, 17."
,k7b_26:" Cant. VIII, 10. "
}

txt:
<p>
	Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha the sons of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: The Nehardeans<a id="k7b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in this are applying their own principle; for R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel:<a id="k7b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If brothers divide [property which they have inherited], neither has the right of way against the other,<a id="k7b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; nor the right of 'windows'<a id="k7b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; against the other, nor the right of 'ladders'<a id="k7b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; against the other, nor the right of a watercourse<a id="k7b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; against the other; and take good heed of these rulings, because they are firmly established. Raba, however, said that each has these rights against the other.
</p><p>
	There was a bond [inherited] by orphans [from their father] against which a receipt was produced [by the borrower]. R. Hama said: We neither enforce payment on the strength of the bond, nor do we tear it up. 'We neither enforce payment', because a receipt is produced against it, 'nor do we tear it up', because it is possible that when the orphans grow up they will bring evidence invalidating the receipt. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to Rabina: What is the accepted ruling in such a case? &mdash; He replied: In all [the above-mentioned cases] the law follows R. Hama, save only in the matter of the receipt, the reason being that we do not presume the witnesses [who have signed the receipt] to have been guilty of a falsehood. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari, however, said that in this also the law follows R. Hama, since if the receipt were genuine the defendant ought to have produced it in the lifetime of the father, and since he did not do so, the inference is that it was forged. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE [A RESIDENT OF A COURTYARD] MAY BE COMPELLED [BY THE REST] TO [CONTRIBUTE TO] THE BUILDING OF A PORTER'S LODGE<a id="k7b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A DOOR<a id="k7b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THE COURTYARD. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT NOT ALL COURTYARDS REQUIRE A PORTER'S LODGE.<a id="k7b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; HE [A RESIDENT OF A CITY] MAY BE COMPELLED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILDING OF A WALL, FOLDING DOORS AND A CROSS BAR. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT NOT ALL TOWNS REQUIRE A WALL. HOW LONG MUST A MAN RESIDE IN A TOWN TO BE COUNTED AS ONE OF THE TOWNSMEN?<a id="k7b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; TWELVE MONTHS. IF, HOWEVER, HE BUYS A HOUSE THERE, HE IS AT ONCE RECKONED AS ONE OF THE TOWNSMEN.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [TO THE BUILDING OF A PORTER'S LODGE.] This would seem to show that a porter's lodge is an improvement: yet how can this be, seeing that there was a certain pious man<a id="k7b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with whom Elijah used to converse until he made a porter's lodge, after which he did not converse with him any more?<a id="k7b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction; in the one case we suppose the lodge to be inside [the courtyard], in the other outside.<a id="k7b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you like I can say that in both cases we suppose the lodge to be outside, and still there is no difficulty, because in the one case there is a door and in the other there is no door.<a id="k7b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Or again we may suppose that in both cases there is a door, and still there is no difficulty, because in the one case there is a latch<a id="k7b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other there is no latch. Or again I may say that in both cases there is a latch and still there is no difficulty, because in the one case the latch is inside and in the other outside.<a id="k7b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY BE COMPELLED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF A PORTER'S LODGE AND A DOOR. It has been taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel Says: Not all courtyards require a porter's lodge; a courtyard which abuts on the public thoroughfare requires a lodge, but one which does not abut on the public thoroughfare<a id="k7b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; does not require such a lodge. The Rabbis, however, hold that [it does, because] sometimes in a crowd people force their way in.
</p><p>
	HE MAY BE COMPELLED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILDING OF A WALL etc. It was taught:<a id="k7b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that not all cities require a wall; a town adjoining the frontier requires a wall, but a town which does not adjoin the frontier does not require a wall. And the Rabbis?<a id="k7b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [They hold that it does, because] it may happen to be attacked by a roving band. 
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar inquired of R. Johanan: Is the impost [for the wall] levied as a poll tax or according to means? He replied: It is levied according to means; and do you, Eleazar my son, fix this ruling firmly in your mind.<a id="k7b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another version, R. Eleazar asked R. Johanan whether the impost was levied in proportion to the proximity of the resident's house to the wall or to his means. He replied: In proportion to the proximity of his house to the wall:<a id="k7b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and do you, Eleazar my son, fix this ruling firmly in your mind.
</p><p>
	R. Judah the Prince<a id="k7b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; levied the impost for the wall on the Rabbis. Said Resh Lakish: The Rabbis do not require the protection [of a wall], as it is written, If I should count them, they are more In number than the sand.<a id="k7b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Who are these that are counted? Shall I say the righteous,<a id="k7b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and that they are more in number than the sand? Seeing that of the whole of Israel it is written that they shall be like the sand on the sea shore,<a id="k7b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; how can the righteous alone be more than the sand? &mdash; What the verse means, however, is I shall count the deeds of the righteous and they will be more in number than the sand. If then the sand which is the lesser quantity protects [the land] against the sea, how much more must the deeds of the righteous, which are a larger quantity, protect them? When Resh Lakish came before R. Johanan, the latter said to him: Why did you not derive the lesson from this verse, I am a wall and my breasts are like towers,<a id="k7b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; where 'I am a wall' refers to the Torah, and 'my breasts are like towers'
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k8a_1:" Who therefore require no protection."
,k8a_2:" Which as it were walls itself round against heathen influence."
,k8a_3:" [As head of Daraukart where R. Nahman b. Isaac also lived. V. Hyman. <I>Toledoth</I>, II, 471.]"
,k8a_4:" Heb. [H] E.V. 'Yea'."
,k8a_5:" Deut. XXXIII, 3."
,k8a_6:" Allowing them to have dominion over Israel."
,k8a_7:" E.V. 'nestle'."
,k8a_8:" Ibid."
,k8a_9:" Ibid."
,k8a_10:" I.e., the Torah."
,k8a_11:" E.V.'hire."
,k8a_12:" E.V. 'begin' or 'sorrow'. [H] is taken as from [H], 'to break', 'to be exempt', hence 'to be free'."
,k8a_13:" Hos. VIII, 10."
,k8a_14:" That is to say, the word [H] is to be understood as if it were an Aramaic and not a Hebrew word."
,k8a_15:" Hence you transgress against the Prophets in levying a tax on the students of the Torah."
,k8a_16:" E.V. 'tribute, custom, or toll'. Ezra VII, 24."
,k8a_17:" 'Produce tax'. The rabbis are the upholders of the Law, like the priests and Levites; hence to levy imposts on them is to transgress against the Holy Writings."
,k8a_18:" And though other persons may excuse the waste of their money, the trustees of orphans are not allowed to do so."
,k8a_19:" [ [H] lit. 'a drinking vessel', hence by metonymy 'well'.]"
,k8a_20:" I.e., when the inhabitants are not called on to go out en masse to perform the work, but can make a money contribution."
,k8a_21:" Heb. 'am ha-ares, lit., 'people of the land', generally denoting 'the ignorant', 'the boor'."
,k8a_22:" Apparently he was referring to the verse, <I>He giveth to the beast his food, to the young ravens which cry</I> (Ps. CXLVII, 9), and what he meant was: 'As God can feed these, so you can feed me.'"
,k8a_23:" For the Emperor of Rome (Rashi). [Others: <I>Aurum coronarium</I>, a special tax which the Jews had to pay to the Roman Emperor. v. Kohut, <I>Aruch</I>, s.v. [H] On the nature of this tax, v. Juster, <I>Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain</I>, I, 385.]"
,k8a_24:" I.e., that it was only through them that the crown was demanded in the first instance."
,k8a_25:" In a city which is seduced into idolatry. V. Deut, XIV, 12 seq."
,k8a_26:" Like any other individuals who are guilty of idolatry."
,k8a_27:" Like the inhabitants of the doomed city (v. Sanh. 111b). This would show that thirty days' residence is sufficient to enroll a man among the inhabitants of a town."
,k8a_28:" Lit., 'a son of the town'."
,k8a_29:" And the verse in Deut. speaks of inhabitants."
,k8a_30:" Tamhui, a kind of dish wherein food was collected."
,k8a_31:" Kuppah, basket, bag."
,k8a_32:" A horseman whose function it was to ride round the walls to see that they were in proper condition."
,k8a_33:" The superintendent of the town armoury, which was kept near the gate (Rashi). [Krauss, TA. 1,525, renders 'the treasury'.]"
,k8a_34:" [Shapur II, king of Persia, son of King Hormizd; lived (and reigned) 310-379 C.E.] "
}

txt:
<p>
to the students of the Torah?<a id="k8a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Resh Lakish, however, adopts the exposition [of this verse] given [also] by Raba, viz. that 'I am a wall' refers to the community of Israel,<a id="k8a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'my breasts are like towers', to synagogues and houses of study.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. R. Hisda<a id="k8a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; levied a poll tax on the Rabbis. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: You have transgressed against the Law, the prophets, and the Holy Writings. Against the Law, where it says, Although<a id="k8a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he loveth the peoples, all his saints are in thy hand.<a id="k8a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Moses to the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, even at the time when Thou fondlest [other] peoples,<a id="k8a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; let all [Israel's] saints be in Thy hand. [The verse proceeds,] And they are cut<a id="k8a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; at thy feet.<a id="k8a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph learned: These are the students of the Torah who cut their feet in going from town to town and country to country to learn the Torah. He shall receive of thy words:<a id="k8a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; alluding to their discussing the utterances of God.<a id="k8a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; You have transgressed against the Prophets, where it says, Yea, though they study<a id="k8a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; among the nations, now I shall gather them, and a few of them shall be free<a id="k8a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; from the burden of king and princes.<a id="k8a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This verse, 'Ulla has told us, is written [partly] in Aramaic,<a id="k8a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [and is to be expounded thus:] If they all study, I will gather them even now, and if only a few of them study, they [those few] shall be free from the burden of king and princes.<a id="k8a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; You have transgressed against the Holy Writings, as it is written, It shall not be lawful to impose upon them [the priests and Levites etc.] minda, belo, and halak<a id="k8a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rab Judah has explained that minda means the king's tax, belo the poll tax, and halach denotes annona.<a id="k8a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa levied an impost for the digging of a new well on orphans [also]. Said R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi to R. Papa: perhaps no water will be found there?<a id="k8a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: I will collect the money from them in any case. If water is found, well and good, and if not, I will refund them the money. Rab Judah said: All must contribute to the building of doors in the town gates, even orphans; not, however, the Rabbis, [since] they do not require protection. All must contribute to the digging of a well<a id="k8a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [for a public fountain], including the Rabbis. This, however, is only when there is no corvee,<a id="k8a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but when the digging is done by corvee, we do not expect the Rabbis to participate.
</p><p>
	Rabbi once opened his storehouse [of victuals] in a year of scarcity, proclaiming: Let those enter who have studied the Scripture, or the Mishnah, or the Gemara, or the <i>Halachah</i>, or the Aggada; there is no admission, however, for the ignorant.<a id="k8a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jonathan b. Amram pushed his way in and said, 'Master, give me food.' He said to him, 'My son, have you learnt the Scripture?' He replied, 'No.' 'Have you learnt the Mishnah?' 'No.' 'If so,' he said, 'then how can I give you food?' He said to him, 'Feed me as the dog and the raven are fed.'<a id="k8a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; So he gave him some food. After he went away, Rabbi's conscience smote him and he said: Woe is me that I have given my bread to a man without learning! R. Simeon son of Rabbi ventured to say to him: Perhaps it is Jonathan b. Amram your pupil, who all his life has made it a principle not to derive material benefit from the honour paid to the Torah. Inquiries were made and it was found that it was so; whereupon Rabbi said: All may now enter. Rabbi [in first refusing admission to the unlearned] was acting in accordance with his own dictum. For Rabbi said: It is the unlearned who bring misfortune on the world. A typical instance was that of the crown<a id="k8a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for which the inhabitants of Tiberias were called upon to find the money. They came to Rabbi and said to him, 'Let the Rabbis give their share with us.' He refused. 'Then we will run away,' they said. 'You may,' he replied. So half of them [the 'am ha-ares] ran away. Half of the sum demanded was then remitted. The other half then came to Rabbi and asked him that the Rabbis might share with them. He again refused. 'We will run away,' they said. 'You may,' he replied. So they all ran away, leaving only a certain fuller. The money was then demanded of him, and he ran away, and the demand for the crown was then dropped. Thereupon Rabbi said: I see that trouble comes on the world only on account of the unlearned.<a id="k8a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW LONG MUST HE BE IN THE TOWN TO BE COUNTED AS ONE OF THE TOWNSMEN, etc. Does not this conflict with the following: 'If a caravan of asses or camels on its way from one place to another stays there<a id="k8a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; overnight and goes astray with the population, the members of the caravan are condemned to be stoned<a id="k8a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but their property is left untouched; if, however, they have stayed there thirty days, they are condemned to death by the sword and their property is also destroyed'?<a id="k8a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied: There is no contradiction. The one period [twelve months is required], in order to make a man a full member<a id="k8a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; of the town, the other [makes him] only an inhabitant<a id="k8a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; of the town, as it was taught: If a man vows that he will derive no benefit from the men of a certain town, he must derive no benefit from anyone who has resided there twelve months, but he may derive benefit from one who has resided there less then twelve months. If he vows to derive no benefit from the inhabitants of the town, he may derive none from anyone who has resided there thirty days, but he may from one who has resided there less than thirty days.
</p><p>
	But is twelve months' residence required for all imposts? Has it not been taught: '[A man must reside in a town] thirty days to become liable for contributing to the soup kitchen,<a id="k8a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; three months for the charity box,<a id="k8a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; six months for the clothing fund, nine months for the burial fund, and twelve months for contributing to the repair of the town walls'? &mdash; R. Assi replied in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishnah also in specifying the period of twelve months was thinking of the repair of the town walls.
</p><p>
	R. Assi further said in the name of R. Johanan: All are required to contribute to the repair of the town walls, including orphans, but not the Rabbis, because the Rabbis do not require protection. R. Papa said: For the repair of the walls, for the horse-guard<a id="k8a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and for the keeper of the armoury<a id="k8a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; even orphans have to contribute, but the Rabbis [do not, since they] do not require protection. The general principle is that even orphans have to contribute for any public service from which they derive benefit. Rabbah levied a contribution for charity on the orphans of the house of Bar Merion; whereupon Abaye said to him: Has not R. Samuel b. Judah laid down that money for charity is not to be levied on orphans even for the redemption of captives? &mdash; He replied: I collect from them In order to give them a better standing.
</p><p>
	Ifra Hormizd the mother of King Shapur<a id="k8a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; sent a chest of gold coins to R. Joseph, with the request that it should be used for carrying out some really important religious precept. R. Joseph was trying hard to think what such a precept could be, when Abaye said to him: Since R. Samuel b. Judah has laid down that money for charity is not to be levied from orphans even for the redemption of captives, we may conclude
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k8b_1:" Jer. XV, 2."
,k8b_2:" Ps. CXVI, is."
,k8b_3:" Lam. IV, 9."
,k8b_4:" Since the captors can inflict on the captives what suffering they wish."
,k8b_5:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k8b_6:" The collectors having to adjudge the merits of various claimants."
,k8b_7:" Hence if a third had to be found to assist in the distribution, delay might be caused."
,k8b_8:" Tosaf. mentions that in virtue of this rule Rabbenu <i>Tam</i> diverted money collected for charity to the payment of the town guard, since it had been collected on this condition."
,k8b_9:" Lit., 'to remove (those who infringe) their regulations.'"
,k8b_10:" Ex. XXVIII, 5. The emphasis is on 'they', denoting a minimum of two."
,k8b_11:" The gold was brought as a free-will offering, but each of the 'wise men' took what he required without rendering account."
,k8b_12:" As treasurers, although two brothers count only as one person."
,k8b_13:" When the householder may plead that he is busy preparing for Sabbath."
,k8b_14:" Jer. XXX, 20."
,k8b_15:" Dan. XII, 3."
,k8b_16:" Lit., 'true to its own truth', v. Tosaf. s.v. ihs"
,k8b_17:" Ibid."
,k8b_18:" Because they also turn their pupils to righteousness."
,k8b_19:" Lit., 'your faith' or 'trustworthiness'."
,k8b_20:" Judges V, 31."
,k8b_21:" As they are still in sight of one another."
,k8b_22:" So that people should not be able to say that he was appropriating charity funds."
,k8b_23:" For fear the small coins should rust."
,k8b_24:" Lest people should say that they do not give full value."
,k8b_25:" Lest people should say that they take two and only count one."
,k8b_26:" Rabbah."
,k8b_27:" Because they were bought out of the charity funds."
,k8b_28:" <i>Supra</i> p. 37 "
}

txt:
<p>
that the redemption of captives is a religious duty of great importance.
</p><p>
	Raba asked Rabbah b. Mari: Whence is derived the maxim of the Rabbis that the redemption of captives is a religious duty of great importance? &mdash; He replied: From the verse, And it shall come to pass when they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth, then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord, Such as are for death, to death, and such as are for the sword, to the sword, and such as are for famine, to the famine, and such as are for captivity, to captivity:<a id="k8b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and [commenting on this] R. Johanan said: Each punishment mentioned in this verse is more severe than the one before. The sword is worse than death; this I can demonstrate either from Scripture, or, if you prefer, from observation. The proof from observation is that the sword deforms but death does not deform; the proof from Scripture is in the verse, Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints.<a id="k8b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Famine again is harder than the sword; this again can be demonstrated either by observation, the proof being that the one causes [prolonged] suffering but the other not, or, if you prefer, from the Scripture, from the verse, They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger.<a id="k8b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Captivity is harder than all, because it includes the sufferings of all.<a id="k8b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The charity fund is collected by two persons [jointly] and distributed by three. It is collected by two, because any office conferring authority over the community<a id="k8b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; must be filled by at least two persons. It must be distributed by three, on the analogy of money cases<a id="k8b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [which are tried by a <i>Beth din</i> of three]. Food for the soup kitchen is collected by three and distributed by three, since it is distributed as soon as it is collected.<a id="k8b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Food is distributed every day, the charity fund every Friday. The soup kitchen is for all comers, the charity fund for the poor of the town only. The townspeople, however, are at liberty to use the soup kitchen like the charity fund and vice versa, and to apply them to whatever purposes they choose.<a id="k8b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The townspeople are also at liberty to fix weights and measures, prices, and wages, and to inflict penalties for the infringement of their rules.<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said above: 'Any office conferring authority over the community must be filled by at least two persons.' Whence is this rule derived? &mdash; R. Nahman said: Scripture says, And they shall take the gold<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. This shows that they were not to exercise authority over the community, but that they were to be trusted.<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; This supports R. Hanina, for R. Hanina reported [with approval] the fact that Rabbi once appointed two brothers to supervise the charity fund.<a id="k8b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What authority is involved [in collecting for charity]? &mdash; As was stated by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, because the collectors can take a pledge for a charity contribution even on the eve of Sabbath.<a id="k8b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Is that so? Is it not written, I will punish all that oppress them,<a id="k8b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; even, said R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha in the name of Rab, the collectors for charity? &mdash; There is no contradiction. The one [Rab] speaks of a well-to-do man, the other of a man who is not well-to-do; as, for instance, Raba compelled R. Nathan b. Ammi to contribute four hundred <i>zuz</i> for charity.
</p><p>
	[It is written], And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament:<a id="k8b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; this applies to a judge who gives a true verdict on true evidence.<a id="k8b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And they that turn many to righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] as the stars for ever and ever:<a id="k8b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; these are the collectors for charity [<i>zedakah</i>]. In a Baraitha it was taught: They that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: this applies to a judge who gives a true verdict on true evidence and to the collectors for charity: and they that turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever: this applies to the teachers of young children.<a id="k8b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Such as who, for instance? &mdash; Said Rab: To such as R. Samuel b. Shilath. For Rab once found R. Samuel b. Shilath in a garden, whereupon he said to him, 'Have you deserted your post'?<a id="k8b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied, 'I have not seen this garden for thirteen years, and even now my thoughts are with the children.' And what does Scripture say of the Rabbis? &mdash; Rabina answered: They that love him shall be as the sun when he goeth forth in his night.<a id="k8b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The collectors of charity [when collecting] are not permitted to separate from one another, though one may collect at the gate while the other collects at a shop [in the same courtyard].<a id="k8b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If one of them finds money in the street, he should not put it into his purse but into the charity box,<a id="k8b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and when he comes home he should take it out. In the same way, if one of them has lent a man a mina and he pays him in the street, he should not put the money into his own purse but into the charity box, and take it out again when he comes home.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If the collectors [still have money but] no poor to whom to distribute it, they should change the small coins into larger ones<a id="k8b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; with other persons, but not from their own money.<a id="k8b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If the stewards of the soup kitchen [have food over and] no poor to whom to distribute it, they may sell it to others but not to themselves. In counting out money collected for charity, they should not count the coins two at a time,<a id="k8b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but only one at a time.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: At first the Master<a id="k8b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; would not sit on the mats in the synagogue;<a id="k8b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but when he heard that it had been taught that 'the townspeople can apply it to any purpose they choose,'<a id="k8b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he did sit on them. Abaye also said: At first the Master used to keep two purses, one for the poor from outside and one for the poor of the town. When, however, he heard of what Samuel had said to R. Tahalifa b. Abdimi, 'Keep one purse only
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k12a_1:" If ever it comes to be divided."
,k12a_2:" If there is a dead body lying there."
,k12a_3:" Because then it is regarded no longer as a room but as a grave. V. Tosef. Oh. XVIII."
,k12a_4:" If there is a suspicion of uncleanness in the four cubits up the alley-way it is treated as if it occurred in a public place and is deemed clean. Toh. IV, II."
,k12a_5:" I.e., in the district of the first Tanna, less than nine <I>kabs</I> was not reckoned a field worth sowing. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k12a_6:" When the ground is soft, having been already broken up by the first ploughing in the autumn."
,k12a_7:" But something between one and two days, so that the ploughman will not be able to hire oxen to advantage."
,k12a_8:" And therefore again the ploughman will not be able to hire oxen to advantage."
,k12a_9:" Both before and after putting the seed in, and so takes a full day."
,k12a_10:" Abba b. Abbu."
,k12a_11:" Lit., 'words of prophesying'."
,k12a_12:" I.e., were not wise men prophets also before the Temple was destroyed?"
,k12a_13:" Ps. XC, 12. The word [H] in the text (E.V. '<I>that we nay get us</I>') is taken here in the sense of 'prophet'."
,k12a_14:" And here the prophet is compared with the wise man."
,k12a_15:" The first having hit upon the same idea quite independently."
,k12a_16:" And this was why they hit on the same idea. "
}

txt:
<p>
A room that is shut up carries with it four cubits in the courtyard,<a id="k12a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but if the posts [of the door] have been taken down, it does not carry with it four cubits. If a room is shut up it does not render unclean all the space around it,<a id="k12a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if the posts have been taken down it does render unclean all the space around it [to a distance of four cubits].<a id="k12a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: If the people of a town desire to close alley-ways which afford a through way to another town, the inhabitants of the other town can prevent them. Not only is this the case if there is no other way, but even if there is another way they can prevent them, on the ground of the rule laid down by Rab Judah in the name of Rab, that a field path to which the public have established a right of way must not be damaged.
</p><p>
	R. 'Anan said in the name of Samuel: If the residents of alleyways which open out on to the public thoroughfare desire to set up doors at the entrance, the public [who use the thoroughfares] can prevent them. It was thought that this right extended only to a distance of four cubits [from the public thoroughfare], in accordance with what R. Zera said in the name of R. Nahman, that the four cubits [in the alley-way] adjoining the public thoroughfare are on the same footing as the public thoroughfare. This, however, is not the case. For R. Nahman's rule applies only to the matter of uncleanness,<a id="k12a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [in the case of the doors it does not apply because] sometimes people from the street are pushed in by the crowd a good distance.
</p><p>
	A FIELD SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS THERE WILL BE NINE KABS' SPACE TO EACH. There is no difference [between this authority and R. Judah who said nine half-kabs]; each was speaking for his own district.<a id="k12a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the rule in Babylon? &mdash; R. Joseph said: [There must be] a day's ploughing [for each]. What is meant by a day's ploughing? If a day's ploughing in seed time,<a id="k12a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that is not a two full days' ploughing in plough time,<a id="k12a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and if a day's ploughing in plough time, that is not a full day's ploughing in seed time?<a id="k12a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say that a day's ploughing in plough time is meant, and in seed time [it takes a full day] where one ploughs twice,<a id="k12a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or if you like I can say that a day's ploughing in seed time is meant and in plough time [two full days are needed] where the ground is difficult.
</p><p>
	If a trench is divided, R. Nahman said [enough must be left for each party to provide] a day's work in watering the field. If a vineyard, the father<a id="k12a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; of Samuel said that three kabs' space must be left to each. It has been taught to the same effect: If a man says to another, I sell you a portion in a vineyard, Symmachus said, he must not sell him less than three kabs' space. R. Jose, however, said that this is sheer imagination.<a id="k12a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the rule in Babylon? Raba b. Kisna said: Three rows each with twelve vines, enough for a man to hoe round in one day.
</p><p>
	R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet?<a id="k12a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom.<a id="k12a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater?<a id="k12a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: The proof [that prophecy has not been taken from the wise] is that a great man makes a statement, and the same is then reported in the name of another great man.<a id="k12a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: What is there strange in this? Perhaps both were born under one star.<a id="k12a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said Raba; the proof is this, that a great man makes a statement and then the same is reported
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k12b_1:" Who certainly was a much greater man, so that the explanation that they were born under one star will not hold."
,k12b_2:" I.e., he hit on the idea by chance."
,k12b_3:" Hence we must say that his agreement with Moses was due not to chance but to the spirit of prophecy. [This is another way of expressing the belief that revelation did not cease with the extinction of prophecy. V. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, 72ff.]"
,k12b_4:" [A town on the Tigris, South of Bagdad. On the manor of Mahuza, Rostaka di Mahuza, v. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., 172.]"
,k12b_5:" A position previously held by his father. For Matha Mehasia v. p. 10 n. 1."
,k12b_6:" In connection with R. Aha's appointment (Rashi)."
,k12b_7:" Lit., 'a discourse in the kallah'. [Name given to an assembly at which the Law was expounded to scholars, as well as to the half yearly assemblies of the Babylonian Academies. The word has been variously explained as 'bride', because of the declaration of love and loyalty to the Torah, or from 'crown', with reference to the round formation of the sitting accommodation or again [G] = school. On further suggestions, v. Krauss, S., in <I>Poznanski's Memorial Volume</I>, 142ff.]"
,k12b_8:" When he saw that he had lost his chance."
,k12b_9:" [This was fulfilled, v. Yeb. 34b.]"
,k12b_10:" I.e., he finds it hard to make up his mind for one thing."
,k12b_11:" Job XI, 12. E.V. 'Vain man is void of understanding.'"
,k12b_12:" Ex. XXVII, 8."
,k12b_13:" 'Heart' here seems to have the sense of 'mind' or 'understanding'."
,k12b_14:" Lit., 'makes it open-eyed'."
,k12b_15:" I.e., maiden-hearts, Zech. IX, 17."
,k12b_16:" The first-born received a double portion in his father's inheritance, Deut. XXI, 16."
,k12b_17:" A man who marries his brother's widow if he has died without offspring, and who is also entitled to a double portion. The question is, can he claim that the two portions should be contiguous without making compensation to the other brothers?"
,k12b_18:" Deut. XXV, 6: And it shall be that the first.born which she beareth. The Rabbis, however, translate for halachic purposes thus: 'And he (the brother) shall be the first-born; she shall be one capable of bearing'."
,k12b_19:" Lit., 'His being is as a first-born, but his assignment is not as a firstborn'. I.e., he receives a double portion as a first-born, but cannot demand that the two portions shall be contiguous like a first-born."
,k12b_20:" Whom we must suppose to have had only daughters. Rashi, however, translates 'father', though this is not the usual meaning of [H]."
,k12b_21:" I.e., not to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude, refusing to confer a benefit which costs him nothing."
,k12b_22:" According to another reading, 'sisters'. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]"
,k12b_23:" So Rashi. This, however, does some violence to the word [H], and Tosaf. translates: The brothers can even say to him, We value this field like those of Mar Marion's (and demand compensation accordingly)."
,k12b_24:" Left by a father to two sons."
,k12b_25:" And one brother demands the field adjoining land he already possesses."
,k12b_26:" Hence the other brother has a right to insist on having the fields equally divided so that he should have a field by each channel; seeing that each field has a channel, the other brother stands to lose nothing by acceding to the request."
,k12b_27:" And to allow the other to have two fields contiguous to one another."
,k12b_28:" If his two fields are separated, he will want more men to work them, and therefore the fields of the other which are in between will be better guarded. "
}

txt:
<p>
in the name of R. Akiba b. Joseph.<a id="k12b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi: What is there strange in this? perhaps in this matter he was born under the same star. No, said R. Ashi; the proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that the same rule was a <i>halachah</i> communicated to Moses at Mount Sinai. But perhaps the wise man was no better than a blind man groping his way through a window?<a id="k12b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And does he not give reasons [for his opinions]?<a id="k12b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from prophets and given to fools and children. How given to fools? &mdash; The case of Mar son of R. Ashi will illustrate. He was one day standing in the manor of Mahuza<a id="k12b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; when he heard a certain lunatic exclaim: The man who is to be elected head of the Academy in Matha Mehasia<a id="k12b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; signs his name Tabiumi. He said to himself: Who among the Rabbis signs his name Tabiumi? I do. This seems to show that my lucky time has come. So he quickly went to Matha Mehasia. When he arrived, he found that the Rabbis had voted to appoint R. Aha of Difti as their head. When they heard of his arrival, they sent a couple of Rabbis to him to consult him.<a id="k12b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; He detained them with him, and they sent another couple of Rabbis. He detained these also, [and so it went on] until the number reached ten. When ten were assembled, he began to discourse and expound the Oral Law and the Scriptures, [having waited so long] because a public discourse<a id="k12b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [on them] should not be commenced if the audience is less than ten. R. Aha<a id="k12b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; applied to himself the saying: If a man is in disfavour [with Heaven] he does not readily come into favour, and if a man is in favour he does not readily fall into disfavour.
</p><p>
	How has prophecy been given to children? A case in point is that of the daughter of R. Hisda. She was sitting on her father's lap, and in front of him were sitting Raba and Rami b. Hama. He said to her: Which of them would you like? She replied: Both. Whereupon Raba said: And let me be the second.<a id="k12b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Before a man eats and drinks he has two hearts,<a id="k12b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but after he eats and drinks he has only one heart, as it says, A hollow [nabub] man is two-hearted,<a id="k12b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the word nabub occurring also in the text nebub luhoth,<a id="k12b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; which we translate 'hollow with planks'. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: If a man is a wine drinker, even though his heart<a id="k12b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is closed like a virgin, the wine opens<a id="k12b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it, as it is said: New wine shall make open out [yenobeb] the maids.<a id="k12b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: That the portion [of a field assigned to a first-born]<a id="k12b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; as a first-born and the portion assigned to him as an ordinary son should be contiguous goes without saying. What is the rule in the case of a brother-in-law?<a id="k12b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: It is just the same. Why so? Because the Divine Law calls him 'first-born'.<a id="k12b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, said: The text says: And he shall be the first-born: this means that he is regarded as a firstborn, but the assignment is not made to him as to a firstborn.<a id="k12b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man bought a field adjacent to the estate of his father-in-law.<a id="k12b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; When they came to divide the latter's estate, he said: Give me my share next to my own field. Rabbah said: This is a case where a man can be compelled not to act after the manner of Sodom.<a id="k12b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph strongly objected to this, on the ground that the brothers<a id="k12b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; can say to him: We reckon this field as specially valuable like the property of the family of Mar Marion.<a id="k12b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The law follows R. Joseph.
</p><p>
	If there are two fields<a id="k12b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; with two channels [running by them],<a id="k12b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: This is a case where we can apply the rule that a man can be compelled not to act after the manner of Sodom. R. Joseph strongly objected to this on the ground that sometimes one channel may continue running while the other dries up.<a id="k12b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; The law follows R. Joseph. If, however, there are two fields adjoining one channel, R. Joseph says that in such a case we do compel a man not to act after the manner of Sodom.<a id="k12b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye objected to this strongly on the ground that the one [who has two fields in the middle] can say, I want you to have more metayers.<a id="k12b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; The law, however, follows R. Joseph; the increase in the number of metayers is not a matter of consequence.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k27a_1:" 1024 cubits (reckoning 32 square)."
,k27a_2:" As 'Ulla does, by exempting from the obligation of first fruits a tree which is really liable to it."
,k27a_3:" = three quarters of 1024."
,k27a_4:" The area of the circle allowed by the Mishnah for each tree is 833 1/3 cubits. The square in which this is inscribed would (according to the reckoning of the Talmud) have an area of 1111 1/9 cubits. The side of such a square would he 33.3 cubits. Hence the radius of the area from which the tree sucks would be practically 16 2/3 cubits. (Rabbenu <i>Tam</i> proposed to read here 'two-thirds' instead of 'one-half'.)"
,k27a_5:" V. Deut. XXVI. 3ff."
,k27a_6:" Which would show that a tree sucks only from a very narrow space."
,k27a_7:" The rule is that if a man buys three trees in a field he acquires the soil under them unless the contrary is specified. V. <i>infra</i> 81a."
,k27a_8:" [H] V. Lev. XIX, 9."
,k27a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> "
}

txt:
<p>
beth <i>se'ah</i> may be ploughed in virtue of them.' What is the total area of the field? &mdash; Two thousand five hundred cubits. How much is that for each tree? &mdash; Eight hundred and thirty-three and a third. 'Ulla still claims more for his tree!<a id="k27a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [We must suppose that] 'Ulla did not give an exact figure. [Is that so?] We may presume that an authority does not give an exact figure where by so doing he makes the law more stringent. But can I say that he does so where he makes the law less stringent?<a id="k27a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You are assuming that 'Ulla was thinking of a square. In reality he was thinking of a circle. Let us see. The area of a square exceeds that of the [inscribed] circle by a quarter. Hence there remains for [the circle from which 'Ulla's tree sucks] seven hundred and sixty-eight cubits.<a id="k27a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But the space allowed [by the Mishnah] is still half a cubit more [in length]?<a id="k27a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is where 'Ulla was not exact, and he thereby made the law more stringent. Come and hear: 'If a man buys a tree and the soil around, he brings first-fruits from it and makes the declaration.<a id="k27a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; ['Soil' means any quantity,] does it not, however small?<a id="k27a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: it must be sixteen cubits.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man buys two trees in another man's field, he brings first-fruits from them but does not make the declaration. [We infer] from this that if he buys three he does make the declaration. And any quantity of soil is sufficient, is it not?<a id="k27a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; here too it must be sixteen cubits.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Akiba says: 'The smallest piece of landed property is subject to the rule of the corner<a id="k27a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and first-fruits. and a <i>prosbul</i><a id="k27a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k27b_1:" I.e., the same act which confers ownership of the land can confer ownership of the movables also (<I>Pe'ah</I> III, 6)."
,k27b_2:" Which could not be applied to land on which a tree was planted."
,k27b_3:" I.e., right on the border."
,k27b_4:" Even within 16 cubits of the boundary, and we do not say that it sucks from Eretz Yisrael."
,k27b_5:" Lit., 'this one stands by itself and this one stands by itself.'"
,k27b_6:" <i>Supra</i> 25b."
,k27b_7:" From Palestine."
,k27b_8:" Viz., that they should not begrudge one another this liberty."
,k27b_9:" I.e., to allow him to raise his hand to the full height over the plough while holding the whip; or, 'as far as the handle protrudes over the plough' (Jast.)."
,k27b_10:" Because they throw an excessive shade."
,k27b_11:" Because the shade is injurious to such a field."
,k27b_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 121, n. 2."
,k27b_13:" I.e., does he mean that the branches of wild fruit-bearing trees can be cut down plumb in any fields, or that in an irrigated field only the branches of such trees may be cut down plumb, but not of other trees?"
,k27b_14:" And he means that the branches of wild fruit-bearing trees can be cut down plumb anywhere."
,k27b_15:" I.e., besides the sycamore and carob."
,k27b_16:" I.e., seeing that the branches will grow again, why not have the whole tree cut down?"
,k27b_17:" In spite of the fact that the covering will in course of time wear out (v. <i>infra</i> 60a)."
,k27b_18:" Lit., 'first, first.'"
,k27b_19:" The representatives of the anonymous opinion cited first in the Mishnah."
,k27b_20:" Seeing that according to the Rabbis the boughs are to he cut away only enough to allow a camel with its rider to pass under, if a load of flax is higher. how will it go under?"
,k27b_21:" I.e., a camel with its rider."
,k27b_22:" If any part of a dead body is under the tree, the branches form a tent over it, and all who pass under become unclean."
,k27b_23:" I.e., any part of a dead body, which communicates defilement to all who pass beneath it."
,k27b_24:" So that nothing can rest on them. According to another interpretation 'to put scarecrows on the branches' (Jast.). "
}

txt:
<p>
can be made out on the strength of it, and movables can be acquired by means of it'?<a id="k27b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here we are speaking of [the first-fruits of] wheat. This is indicated also by the expression in the Mishnah 'the very smallest'.<a id="k27b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: If a tree is partly in Eretz Yisrael and partly outside of Eretz Yisrael,<a id="k27b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; fruit subject to tithe and fruit not subject to tithe are mixed up in it. This is the opinion of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that that which grows where the obligation extends [i.e., in Eretz Yisrael] is liable and that which grows where the obligation does not extend [i.e.. outside Eretz Yisrael] is not liable.' The difference of opinion between them only consists in this, does it not, that the latter holds that we can decide retrospectively [which fruit belongs to which root] and the former holds that we cannot, but both agree that anything which grows where the obligation does not extend is not liable?<a id="k27b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. We here deal with the case where the roots are divided by a hard rock. If so, what is the reason of Rabbi [for declaring the two kinds to be mixed together]? Because they mix again higher up. Wherein then lies the ground of the difference between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon? &mdash; The former holds that the air mixes the saps [though coming from separate roots], and the latter holds that each remains separate.<a id="k27b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And must the tree be kept sixteen cubits from the boundary and no more? Have we not learnt that 'a tree must be kept a distance of twenty-five cubits from a pit'?<a id="k27b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: Though the roots spread much further, they only exhaust the soil up to a distance of sixteen cubits, no more. When R. Dimi came,<a id="k27b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he reported that Resh Lakish had asked R. Johanan what the ruling was regarding a tree situated within sixteen cubits of the boundary, and he had answered: It is a robber, and first-fruits should not be brought from it. When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Johanan: The rule both for a tree close to the boundary of a neighbour's field, and for one which overhangs [another's field], is that the owner brings first-fruits and makes the declaration, since it was on that condition that Joshua gave Israel possession of the land.<a id="k27b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN'S TREE OVERHANGS HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD. THE LATTER MAY CUT AWAY THE BRANCHES TO A HEIGHT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW HIM TO USE THE OXGOAD OVER THE PLOUGH.<a id="k27b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE TREE IS A CAROB OR SYCAMORE, HE CAN CUT DOWN [ALL THE BRANCHES] PLUMB [WITH THE BOUNDARY].<a id="k27b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE FIELD IS AN IRRIGATED ONE. [THE BRANCHES OF ALL] TREES MAY BE CUT DOWN PLUMB.<a id="k27b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; ABBA SAUL SAYS THAT THE BRANCHES OF ANY WILD FRUIT-BEARING TREE<a id="k27b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; CAN BE CUT DOWN PLUMB.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was raised: Does Abba Saul's statement refer to the first clause in the Mishnah or the second?<a id="k27b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: Abba Saul says, If the field is an irrigated one, the branches of all trees may be cut down plumb, because the shade is injurious to an irrigated field. This shows that his statement refers to the first clause.<a id="k27b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: The language of [his statement as recorded in] our Mishnah also indicates this, since it states ANY WILD FRUIT-BEARING TREE.<a id="k27b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If this refers to the first clause, the word ANY &hellip; [TREE] is in place, but if it refers to the second clause, it should say simply 'wild fruit-bearing trees'. This shows that it refers to the first clause.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A TREE OVERHANGS A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE THE BRANCHES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY TO A HEIGHT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A CAMEL TO PASS UNDERNEATH WITH ITS RIDER. R. JUDAH SAYS, SUFFICIENT FOR A CAMEL LADEN WITH FLAX OR BUNDLES OF VINE-RODS. R. SIMEON SAYS THAT [THE BRANCHES OF] ALL TREES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY PLUMB [WITH THE STREET] TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who is the Tanna [of the Mishnah] who rules that in [making regulations to prevent] damage we consider only conditions as they are at present [and not as they are likely to become in the future]?<a id="k27b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Resh Lakish replied: This ruling is not a unanimous one, and it follows the opinion of R. Eliezer. For we learnt: 'A cavity must not be made under a public thoroughfare, nor pits, ditches, or caves. R. Eliezer says it is permissible if the covering is sufficient to bear a moving cart laden with stones.'<a id="k27b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: You may even say that the Rabbis [of that Mishnah] also concur [with the ruling here]. For there they prohibit because the cover may give way unexpectedly, but here every branch can be cut down as it grows.<a id="k27b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAYS: A CAMEL LADEN WITH FLAX OR BUNDLES OF VINE-RODS. The question was asked: Which is the higher limit, that of R. Judah or that of the Rabbis?<a id="k27b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There can be no doubt that the limit of the Rabbis is higher, for if the limit of R. Judah is higher, how do the Rabbis manage with anything that [still] comes within the limit of R. Judah?<a id="k27b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; You say then that the limit of the Rabbis is higher. How then will R. Judah manage with something which [still] comes within the limit of the Rabbis?<a id="k27b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He [i.e. the rider] can bend down and pass underneath.
</p><p>
	RABBAN SIMEON SAYS: [THE BRANCHES OF] ALL TREES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY PLUMB TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS. A Tanna taught [in connection therewith]: 'Because [they can form] a tent over uncleanness.'<a id="k27b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This is self-evident, since we learnt, TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS? &mdash; If I only had our Mishnah to go by I might say that [what it means is that] a raven may bring uncleanness<a id="k27b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and throw it on the branches, and therefore It is sufficient to thin out the branches.<a id="k27b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Now I know [that this is not sufficient].
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k24a_1:" The vines having enabled it to hop further than it would otherwise be able to do."
,k24a_2:" That 'majority' is the decisive factor."
,k24a_3:" The reference is to a woman who finds on her body blood which may be either the blood of childbirth, and therefore clean, or the blood of an issue and therefore unclean. V. Lev. XV. 25."
,k24a_4:" For an explanation of these terms. v. <i>Niddah</i>, ad init."
,k24a_5:" I.e., although the blood might have come from the 'upper chamber' which is nearer, we yet presume it to have come from the 'source' where there is more blood and whence blood more frequently flows."
,k24a_6:" Reading [H] v. Tosaf."
,k24a_7:" Before due purification, because it is certainly unclean."
,k24a_8:" I.e., if the woman touched the <I>terumah</I> in this unclean state."
,k24a_9:" Since if we decided that the blood belongs to that category to which it is nearest, it would not render the woman liable to a sin-offering nor necessitate the burning of <I>terumah</I>."
,k24a_10:" If there are ten butchers' shops in a town of which nine sell '<I>kosher</I>' meat and the tenth '<I>trefa</I>', then if a piece of meat is found near the one which sells '<I>trefa</I>' meat we still say, on the ground of 'majority', it is '<I>kosher</I>', and this (R. Zera maintains) not only if the town gates are open so that there is a possibility of it having been brought in by Jews from outside, forming a 'majority', but even if they are closed, i.e., even if there is only one 'majority' and not two."
,k24a_11:" In the fact that there is only one 'majority'. viz. that the 'majority' of blood emanates from the source; v. Keth. 15a."
,k24a_12:" [Ihi di-Kira, the modern Hit (v. Obermeyer, <I>Die Landschaft Babylonien</I>, 59ff.). A town in the North of Babylonia which was outside the Jewish settlement.]"
,k24a_13:" And so this barrel is prohibited. because most barrels are from non-Jews."
,k24a_14:" And this barrel is permitted because it is near a Jewish town."
,k24a_15:" Formed by protruding rocks."
,k24a_16:" Formed by melting snows. This is Rashi's explanation. Others render 'bends and inlets', v. Aruch."
,k24a_17:" I.e., had been planted less than three years. V. Lev. XIX. 23."
,k24a_18:" And most wine is from vineyards of more than four years' standing."
,k24a_19:" [ [H] or 'at Be Kufai', a village 4 parasangs west of Bagdad; v. Obermeyer; p. 267.]"
,k24a_20:" As being presumably Jewish and not Gentile wine."
,k24a_21:" Deciding according to 'nearness' and not 'majority'. "
}

txt:
<p>
with a path between vineyards; for though [there is ground for saying that] it came from a distance. [because it is more than fifty cubits from a cote],<a id="k24a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; yet here, since it can only hop, it cannot have come from a distant cote, because a bird will only hop away from the cote so long as it can still see the cote on turning round, but no further.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We too know R. Hanina's rule<a id="k24a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; from the Mishnah. which says: 'If blood<a id="k24a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is found in the 'anteroom'<a id="k24a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and there is any doubt about its character, it is reckoned unclean, because it is presumed to be from the 'source'<a id="k24a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; notwithstanding the fact that there is an 'upper chamber'<a id="k24a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; which is nearer. Said Raba to him: You are speaking of a case where there is 'frequency' as well as 'majority';<a id="k24a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; where there are both 'frequency' and 'majority' no one questions that they carry more weight than 'nearness'.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya taught:<a id="k24a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Blood found in the 'anteroom' renders [the woman] liable [for a sin-offering] if she enters the Sanctuary,<a id="k24a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and <I>terumah</I> must be burnt on its account.<a id="k24a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba remarked: From this statement of R. Hiyya three lessons may be derived. One is [that where we have to choose between] 'majority' and 'nearness', we decide on the ground of 'majority'.<a id="k24a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The second is that the rule of 'majority' derives its warrant from the Scripture. The third is that R. Zera was right when he laid down that [in the case of a piece of meat] we decide on the ground of 'majority' even though the town gates are closed,<a id="k24a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; because the case of the woman here is analogous to the case where the town gates are closed,<a id="k24a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and even so we decide on the ground of 'majority'. But was it not Raba himself who said that where 'majority' and 'frequency' were combined no one questioned that they carried more weight than 'nearness' [whereas here he says that 'majority' itself carries more weight]? &mdash; Raba retracted the objection he then made to Abaye.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a barrel of wine is found floating on the river [Euphrates]. Rab says, if it is opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, the wine is permitted, and if opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are nonjews. the wine is prohibited. Samuel, however, says that even if it is found opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, it is prohibited, because it may be supposed to have come from Hai di-Kira.<a id="k24a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; May we say that the ground on which they join issue is the dictum of R. Hanina [that we follow the 'majority' in preference to 'nearness']. Samuel accepting it<a id="k24a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rab not accepting it?<a id="k24a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: both accept the dictum of R. Hanina. and the ground on which they join issue is this, that in the opinion of Rab. if the barrel had come from Hai di-Kira it would have been sunk or stuck in the bays<a id="k24a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or shallows<a id="k24a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of the river, whereas Samuel thinks that it can have been carried along by the force of the stream.
</p><p>
	A barrel of wine [which had been stolen] was found in a vineyard which was 'uncircumcised',<a id="k24a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabina permitted the wine to be drunk. Shall we say it was because he held with R. Hanina?<a id="k24a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There was a different reason in that case, viz., that if the wine had been stolen from that vineyard it would not have been hidden there. This, however, applies only to wine, but [stolen] grapes might be hidden [in the same vineyard].
</p><p>
	A number of flasks of wine were found between trunks of vines<a id="k24a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [of a Jew] and Raba permitted the wine to be drunk.<a id="k24a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that he did not hold with R. Hanina?<a id="k24a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There was a different reason in that case, viz, that most
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k24b_1:" And therefore the flasks were probably left there by Jews."
,k24b_2:" And so evidently for sale. "
,k24b_3:" To balance the panniers of the baggage asses."
,k24b_4:" Which are very leafy."
,k24b_5:" I.e., trees not usually planted in orchards."
,k24b_6:" Lit., 'He cuts it'. to be taken impersonally, and denoting the townsmen who have to pay the compensation."
,k24b_7:" So as to leave a clear space outside the wall."
,k24b_8:" 'Ar. 33b."
,k24b_9:" Or 'open space'. Cf. Num. XXXV, 4."
,k24b_10:" 'Er. 23b. This shows that vegetables turn ground into a 'field', but trees do not."
,k24b_11:" V. <i>infra</i> 25b."
,k24b_12:" Lit., 'partners'."
,k24b_13:" If therefore compensation is to be given. every resident in the town will wait for some other to make the first move, and the eyesore will remain. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k24b_14:" The former kind being regarded more seriously."
,k24b_15:" V. <i>infra</i> 25b."
,k24b_16:" I.e., in each case the rule where there is a doubt is the same as the rule where there is no doubt whether the tree was there first."
,k24b_17:" I.e., that your tree was there first."
,k24b_18:" On account of the chaff which flies about."
,k24b_19:" This distance being presumably less than fifty cubits. Hence this rule apparently contradicts the preceding clause."
,k24b_20:" V. note I."
,k24b_21:" I.e., where only a small heap is placed which is winnowed by the wind itself without being lifted by a shovel."
,k24b_22:" And the distance required there also is fifty cubits."
,k24b_23:" Because it shows that there is no reason to take the last clause of the Mishnah, despite the phrase to prevent damage being caused', as referring to a threshing-floor which is not fixed (v. Tosaf.). "
}

txt:
<p>
wine-bottlers were Jews.<a id="k24b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And we only say this if the flasks are big ones,<a id="k24b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they are small ones, we may argue that passers-by [non-Jews] let them drop. If, however, there are some big ones with them. we can say that the small ones were [merely] used as ballast.<a id="k24b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. TREES MUST BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF TWENTY-FIVE CUBITS FROM A TOWN; CAROBS AND SYCAMORE TREES<a id="k24b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; FIFTY CUBITS. ABBA SAUL SAYS THAT ALL WILD FRUIT TREES<a id="k24b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF FIFTY CUBITS. IF THE TOWN WAS THERE FIRST, THE TREE IS CUT DOWN<a id="k24b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND NO COMPENSATION IS GIVEN. IF THE TREE WAS THERE FIRST, IT IS CUT DOWN BUT COMPENSATION MUST BE GIVEN. IF THERE IS A DOUBT WHICH WAS FIRST, IT IS CUT DOWN AND NO COMPENSATION IS GIVEN.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [TREES MUST BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE etc.] What is the reason for this regulation? &mdash; 'Ulla says. to preserve the amenities of the town.<a id="k24b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But could we not derive this rule from the regulation<a id="k24b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that suburb<a id="k24b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; must not be turned into cultivated field nor cultivated field into suburb? &mdash; The rule had to be stated here to meet the view of R. Eleazar, who said that cultivated field may be turned into suburb, and suburb may be turned into cultivated field; even on his view trees must not be planted [close to the town], so as not to spoil the amenities of the town. And the Rabbis too who said that a cultivated field may not be turned into suburb nor suburb into cultivated field, meant this to apply only to the sowing of vegetables but not to the planting of trees; yet here they too would prohibit on account of the amenities of the town. What ground have you for saying that there is a difference [in this respect] between vegetables and trees? &mdash; Because it has been taught: 'If an enclosure, big enough to sow more than two se'ahs in, is fenced round for dwelling purposes, then if the greater part of it is sown with vegetables, it is reckoned as a vegetable garden and it is forbidden [to carry in it on Sabbath], but if the greater part of it is planted with trees it is reckoned as a courtyard and it is permissible [to carry in it on Sabbath].<a id="k24b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE TOWN WAS THERE FIRST, THE TREE IS CUT DOWN AND NO COMPENSATION IS GIVEN etc. Why in the analogous case of a pit is it laid down<a id="k24b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that the owner may cut down the tree but must give compensation, whereas here it is cut down without compensation being given? &mdash; R. Kahana said: A pot with two cooks<a id="k24b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is neither hot nor cold.<a id="k24b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But what contradiction is there? perhaps a difference is made between injury to the public and injury to an individual?<a id="k24b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [We must therefore say that] if R. Kahana really made this remark, he meant it to apply to the next clause in the Mishnah: IF THE TREE WAS THERE FIRST, IT IS CUT DOWN BUT COMPENSATION MUST BE GIVEN [Regarding this we may ask.] Why cannot the owner of the tree say: Give me the money first and I will then cut it down? And it was in regard to this that R. Kahana answered: A pot with two cooks is neither hot nor cold.
</p><p>
	IF THERE IS A DOUBT WHICH WAS FIRST, IT IS CUT DOWN WITHOUT COMPENSATION BEING GIVEN. Why in the analogous case of a pit is it laid down that he should not cut down the tree?<a id="k24b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the case of the pit where, if the tree was certainly [there first]. it is not to be cut down, then if there is a doubt we also do not say to him 'Cut it down.' But in this case where even if the tree was certainly there first it has to be cut down, then if there is a doubt we also order him to 'Cut it down.'<a id="k24b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And if the question of compensation arises, we say to him: prove that it is yours<a id="k24b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and you will be paid.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A FIXED THRESHING-FLOOR MUST BE KEPT FIFTY CUBITS FROM A TOWN.<a id="k24b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN SHOULD NOT FIX A THRESHING-FLOOR ON HIS OWN ESTATE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR SPACE ALL ROUND OF FIFTY CUBITS. HE MUST KEEP IT AWAY FROM THE PLANTATION OF HIS NEIGHBOUR AND HIS PLOUGHED FALLOW A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO PREVENT DAMAGE BEING CAUSED.<a id="k24b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why this difference between the beginning and the end [of this Mishnah]?<a id="k24b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye said: The last clause refers to a threshing-floor which is not fixed. What do you mean by a threshing-floor which is not fixed? &mdash; R. Jose said in the name of R. Hanina: One that does not require the use of a winnowing shovel.<a id="k24b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi [however], said: The last clause gives the reason for the first,<a id="k24b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; as much as to say: Why is a fixed threshing-floor kept fifty cubits away from a town? &mdash; To prevent it doing damage.
</p><p>
	An objection [to Abaye's opinion] was raised from the following: 'A fixed threshing-floor must be kept fifty cubits away from a town, and as it must be kept fifty cubits from a town, so it must be kept fifty cubits from a neighbour's cucumber and pumpkin fields, from his plantations and his ploughed fallow, to prevent damage being caused.' This squares with the opinion of R. Ashi, but conflicts with that of Abaye<a id="k24b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [does it not]? &mdash; [This indeed] is a difficulty. We can understand [why the threshing-floor must be kept away] from the cucumber and pumpkin fields, because the dust goes and penetrates into them and dries them up but [why should it be kept away] from the ploughed fallow? &mdash; R. Abba b. Zebid [or it may be R. Abba b. Zutra] replied:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k60a_1:" By building an obstruction in front of it."
,k60a_2:" Presumably he builds the additional rooms for letting purposes."
,k60a_3:" And though he thus obtains additional rooms for letting. he is perfectly within his rights."
,k60a_4:" Num. XXIV, 2."
,k60a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 55a."
,k60a_6:" Because even a door of two cubits entitles him to four cubits in the courtyard."
,k60a_7:" According to Raba, the right to privacy overrides the right to yardspace."
,k60a_8:" Four for each door."
,k60a_9:" Since he would still only have eight cubits yard space."
,k60a_10:" Because if one door is shut the other may still be open."
,k60a_11:" Who can look through the door and the windows."
,k60a_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 27b."
,k60a_13:" Which is private property."
,k60a_14:" These words occur in our texts, but in brackets. "
}

txt:
<p>
For closing a window<a id="k60a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; a right is established immediately [if the action is unchallenged], because a man will not allow his light to be obstructed without protest.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN TAKES A ROOM IN ANOTHER [ADJOINING] COURTYARD, HE SHOULD NOT MAKE AN ENTRANCE TO IT IN A COURTYARD WHICH HE SHARES WITH OTHERS. What is the reason? &mdash; Because he brings too many visitors [through the courtyard].<a id="k60a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Look then at the following clause: HE MAY IF HE PLEASES BUILD AN INNER CHAMBER IN HIS HOUSE AND THEN BUILD AN UPPER CHAMBER OVER HIS HOUSE AND MAKE THE ENTRANCE FROM THE HOUSE. Will not this also bring more people through the courtyard? &mdash; R. Huna said: When it says here [that he builds] a room, It means that he divides one of his rooms into two, and when it says [that he builds] an upper chamber, it means that he makes a balcony.<a id="k60a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IN A COURTYARD WHICH HE SHARES WITH OTHERS A MAN SHOULD NOT OPEN A DOOR FACING ANOTHER PERSON'S DOOR NOR A WINDOW FACING ANOTHER PERSON'S WINDOW. IF IT IS SMALL HE SHOULD NOT ENLARGE IT, AND HE SHOULD NOT TURN ONE INTO TWO. ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET, HOWEVER, HE MAY MAKE A DOOR FACING ANOTHER PERSON'S DOOR AND A WINDOW FACING ANOTHER PERSON'S WINDOW, AND IF IT IS SMALL HE MAY ENLARGE IT OR HE MAY MAKE TWO OUT OF ONE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whence are these rules derived? &mdash; R. Johanan said: From the verse of the Scripture, And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw Israel dwelling according to their tribes.<a id="k60a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This indicates that he saw that the doors of their tents did not exactly face one another, whereupon he exclaimed: Worthy are these that the Divine presence should rest upon them!
</p><p>
	IF IT IS SMALL HE SHOULD NOT ENLARGE IT. Rami b. Hama understood from this that if the door is of four cubits the owner should not make it eight because this would entitle him to eight cubits in the courtyard,<a id="k60a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it is of two cubits he is quite in order in making it four.<a id="k60a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: [This is not so, because] the other can say to him, I can preserve my privacy if you have a small doorway but not if you have a large one.<a id="k60a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE SHOULD NOT TURN ONE DOOR INTO TWO. Rami b. Hama understood from this that if the door is four cubits wide, he should not turn it into two doors of two cubits each, because this would entitle him to eight cubits in the courtyard,<a id="k60a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; hut he would be quite in order in turning a door of eight cubits into two of four cubits each.<a id="k60a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: [This is not so, because] the other can say to him, I can preserve my privacy from you if you have one door, but if you have two doors I cannot.<a id="k60a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET, HOWEVER, HE MAY MAKE A DOOR FACING ANOTHER PERSON'S DOOR. [The reason is] because he can say to him: In any case you have to preserve your privacy from the eyes of the passers-by<a id="k60a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [and therefore you may as well do so from me also].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A CAVITY MUST NOT BE MADE UNDER A PUBLIC PLACE, [TO WIT,] PITS, DITCHES AND CAVES. R. ELIEZER PERMITS THIS PROVIDED [THAT THE SURFACE IS STRONG ENOUGH TO BEAR THE PASSAGE OF A WAGON LOADED WITH STONES. SPARS OR BEAMS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROJECT [FROM THE WALL OF A HOUSE] OVER THE PUBLIC WAY. THE OWNER MAY, HOWEVER, IF HE DESIRES DRAW BACK HIS WALL FROM THE STREET AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO PROJECT. IF A MAN BUYS A COURTYARD IN WHICH ARE SPARS AND BEAMS [PROJECTING], HE HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT TO KEEP THEM THERE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [R. ELIEZER SAYS etc.] Why do the Rabbis forbid this? &mdash; Because the surface may wear thin without being noticed.<a id="k60a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	SPARS AND BEAMS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROJECT etc. R. Ammi had a spar projecting over an alley-way,<a id="k60a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and another man had a spar projecting over a public way. [Some passers-by objected]<a id="k60a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and he was summoned before R. Ammi. He said to him, Go and cut it down. But, said the man, you, Sir, also have a projecting spar? Mine, he replied, projects over an alley-way the residents of which have given me their consent. Yours projects over a street; who is there to surrender the [public's] rights?
</p><p>
	R. Jannai had a tree which overhung the public way, and another man also had a tree overhanging the street. Some passers-by objected and he was summoned before R. Jannai. He said to him:
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k60b_1:" Zeph. II, 1. The English version translates, 'Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together.' Resh Lakish, however, derives it from the word kash, stubble, and translates, 'Remove the stubble from between your own eyes, and afterwards remove it from others.'"
,k60b_2:" I.e., has he not tacitly abandoned his right to the intervening space?"
,k60b_3:" Whom the law follows in this matter, so that, as usually in a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, the law follows the former."
,k60b_4:" In the original width of the street."
,k60b_5:" Since the destruction of the Temple."
,k60b_6:" Which seems to show that where a right has been acquired by prescription, if it once lapses it cannot he resumed."
,k60b_7:" From where, as here, the question is only one of causing damage."
,k60b_8:" Because this makes the hue less bright."
,k60b_9:" [H], which is a valuable preservative for the wall. [For the various suggestions as to the derivation of the word. V. Krauss. <i>op. cit</i>. I, 299.]"
,k60b_10:" In 70 C.E."
,k60b_11:" On the Feast of Tabernacles. v. Suk. IV."
,k60b_12:" This is taken to mean: 'You have laid on yourselves an adjuration (to bring the tithe).'"
,k60b_13:" Malachi, III, 9. It is assumed that the adjuration would not have been effective unless the <I>whole nation</I> had taken part in it; which is taken to show that we do not impose a hardship unless we are sure that the majority can stand it."
,k60b_14:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 219, no. 5."
,k60b_15:" Which was usually removed as a mark of elegance."
,k60b_16:" Ps. CXXXVII, 5, 6."
,k60b_17:" Lit., 'Head of my joy'."
,k60b_18:" Lit., 'ashes from the hearth'."
,k60b_19:" Isa. LXI, 3. The word pe'er is supposed to refer to the phylacteries on the basis of the verse, <I>Bind thy headtire (pe'erka) upon thee</I>. (Ezek. XXIV, 17.)"
,k60b_20:" Isa. LXI, 10."
,k60b_21:" The reference is to the persecution instituted by the Emperor Hadrian after the revolt of Bar Kochba, 135 C.E."
,k60b_22:" [H] I.e., the rite of circumcision. [So Rashb. and Rashi, Sanh. 32b. This term is said to have been adopted by the Jews as a disguise during the Hadrianic persecutions when the rite was prohibited in order to remove any suspicion that they were engaged in a religious observance. Others explain the term as denoting the seven days festivities that followed the birth of a child. V. Bergmann. J., M.G.W.J. 1932, 465ff; and cf. Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. II, 438. The expression 'the week of the daughter', [H] also occurs in Nahmanides' <I>Torath Ha'adam</I>, 35b. This is to be taken as a proof against the usual identification of 'the week of the son' with 'the rite of circumcision', v. Mann J. H.U.C. 1924, p. 325, n. 3.]"
,k60b_23:" [ [H] 'The redemption of the son' (Rashi): or, 'The birth of a son' (R. <i>Tam</i>); Tosaf. B.K. 80a, s.v. [H]]"
,k60b_24:" And therefore we do not tell them this, since in any case they would go on marrying and begetting children. "
}

txt:
<p>
Go away now and come again tomorrow. During the night he sent and had his own tree cut down. On the next day the man came back and he told him to go and cut the tree down. He said: But you, Sir, also have one? He replied: Go and see. If mine is cut down, cut yours down, and if mine is not cut down you need not cut yours down. What was R. Jannai's idea at first [when he kept his tree] and afterwards [when he had it cut down]? &mdash; At first he thought that passers-by were glad of it because they could sit in its shade, but when he saw that they objected to it he had it cut down. Why did he not say to the man, Go and cut yours down and then I will cut down mine? &mdash; In conformity with the maxim of Resh Lakish, who said: [It is written], <I>Hithkosheshu wakoshu</I>:<a id="k60b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; trim yourselves and then trim others.
</p><p>
	HE MAY, HOWEVER, IF HE DESIRES DRAW BACK HIS WALL FROM THE STREET AND ALLOW THEM TO PROJECT. The question was asked: If a man draws back [his wall] and does not at once let any beams project, may he do so subsequently?<a id="k60b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan said that though he has drawn back [the wall] he may still make projecting beams, while Resh Lakish said that once he has drawn back he cannot later make projecting beams. R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain this to you. On the question of projecting beams there is no difference of opinion [between the authorities], and both hold that they are permitted. Where they differ is on the question whether he may restore the walls to their former position, and the above statement should be reversed, [i.e.,] R. Johanan said that he may not go back to the original position and Resh Lakish said that he may. R. Johanan ruled that he may not, In accordance with the dictum of Rab Judah,<a id="k60b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; who said: A path [between two fields] over which the public has established a right of way must not be damaged. Resh Lakish, however, says that he may; we rule thus [in the case of the path] because there is no other space available, but here [in the case of the street] there is still plenty of space available.<a id="k60b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN BUYS A COURTYARD IN WHICH ARE SPARS AND BEAMS PROJECTING, HE HAS A PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT TO KEEP THEM. R. Huna said: If the wall falls down he may build it [as it was before]. An objection was raised [against this from the following]: 'It is not proper to stucco or decorate or paint [our houses at the present time].<a id="k60b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man buys a house which is stuccoed or decorated or painted, he is entitled to keep it so. If it falls down, he should not rebuild it [so]'?<a id="k60b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Where the prohibition is based on religious grounds, the case is different.<a id="k60b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A man should not stucco the front of his house with cement, but if he mixes sand or straw with it he may.<a id="k60b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah Says: A mixture of sand makes the cement stony,<a id="k60b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and therefore its use is forbidden, but straw is permitted.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When the Temple was destroyed for the second time,<a id="k60b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; large numbers in Israel became ascetics, binding themselves neither to eat meat nor to drink wine. R. Joshua got into conversation with them and said to them: My sons, why do you not eat meat nor drink wine? They replied: Shall we eat flesh which used to be brought as an offering on the altar, now that this altar is in abeyance? Shall we drink wine which used to be poured as a libation on the altar, but now no longer? He said to them: If that is so, we should not eat bread either, because the meal offerings have ceased. They said: [That is so, and] we can manage with fruit. We should not eat fruit either, [he said,] because there is no longer an offering of firstfruits. Then we can manage with other fruits [they said]. But, [he said,] we should not drink water, because there is no longer any ceremony of the pouring of water.<a id="k60b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; To this they could find no answer, so he said to them: My sons, come and listen to me. Not to mourn at all is impossible, because the blow has fallen. To mourn overmuch is also impossible, because we do not impose on the community a hardship which the majority cannot endure, as it is written, <I>Ye are cursed with a curse,<a id="k60b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; yet ye rob me</I> [of the tithe], <I>even this whole nation</I>.<a id="k60b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The Sages therefore have ordained thus. A man may stucco his house, but he should leave a little bare. (How much should this be? R. Joseph says, A cubit square; to which R. Hisda adds that it must be by the door.)<a id="k60b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; A man can prepare a full-course banquet, but he should leave out an item or two. (What should this be? R. Papa says: The hors d'oeuvre of salted fish.) A woman can put on all her ornaments, but leave off one or two. (What should this be? Rab said: [Not to remove] the hair on the temple.)<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; For so it says, If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I remember thee not, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.<a id="k60b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'my chief joy'?<a id="k60b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac said: This is symbolised by the burnt ashes<a id="k60b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which we place on the head of a bridegroom. R. Papa asked Abaye: Where should they be placed? [He replied]: Just where the phylactery is worn, as it says, To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give then a garland [pe'er] for ashes [epher].<a id="k60b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Whoever mourns for Zion will be privileged to behold her joy, as it says, Rejoice ye with Jerusalem etc.<a id="k60b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught: R. Ishmael ben Elisha said: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple we should by rights bind ourselves not to eat meat nor drink wine, only we do not lay a hardship on the community unless the majority can endure it. And from the day that a Government has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts<a id="k60b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and does not allow us to enter into the 'week of the son'<a id="k60b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; (according to another version, 'the salvation of the son'),<a id="k60b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously.<a id="k60b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k90a_1:" <i>Hin</i>, (v. <i>loc. cit</i>., n. 8) = a <I>tarkab</I>."
,k90a_2:" <i>Log</i>, v. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 9."
,k90a_3:" Kortob = Sixty-fourth of a <i>log</i>."
,k90a_4:" A third of a <i>se'ah</i>, as one is allowed to make a third of a <i>hin</i>."
,k90a_5:" Lit., 'changed'."
,k90a_6:" Owing to the comparatively small difference between them. (3 &mdash; 2 = 1 <I>kab</I>.)"
,k90a_7:" The difference between a <I>tarkab</I> and a two <I>kab</I>, being one <I>kab</I> = a third of a <I>tarkab</I>."
,k90a_8:" Half a <I>tarkab</I>, equals one and a half <I>kab</I>. The difference between one and a half, and one <I>kab</I> = half a <I>kab</I> = a third of half a <I>tarkab</I>."
,k90a_9:" The difference between half a <I>tarkab</I> (= one and a half <I>kab</I>), and two <I>kab</I>, equals half a <I>kab</I> = a quarter of two <I>kab</I>."
,k90a_10:" The difference between half a toman (=one sixteenth <I>kab</I>) and an <i>'ukla</i> (=one twentieth <I>kab</I>) is only one eightieth of a <I>kab</I> which is a fifth of the half toman, less than a quarter, so that these two measures could, accordingly, certainly be mistaken for one another."
,k90a_11:" Since the difference between these two (a third &mdash; a quarter) is a twelfth of a <i>hin</i>, which is a quarter of the larger measure (1/3 <i>hin</i>)."
,k90a_12:" No precautions, therefore, are necessary in their case."
,k90a_13:" Men. 77a."
,k90a_14:" Traders arriving from other places, finding that the standard of the weights has risen, will raise prices in a still higher proportion."
,k90a_15:" An overcharge of less than a sixth does not entitle any of the parties to cancel the sale. Only the overcharge is to be returned."
,k90a_16:" If the increase in the weights will be more than a sixth, the seller, who did not know of this, and accepted the old price, would be losing more than a sixth and would, therefore, be entitled to cancel the entire sale."
,k90a_17:" Since, in such cases, one may withdraw even when the overcharge was less than a sixth, nothing is gained by limiting the permitted increase in weights to a sixth."
,k90a_18:" A dealer may, in accordance with what has been said before, make a profit of one sixth. When weights are increased by a sixth and a dealer sells at the old price, he does not lose thereby any of his principal, since what he loses by taking the old price and giving the increased weight, he makes up by the profit he gains on selling at a price which is higher by a sixth than his cost price."
,k90a_19:" Ezek. XLV, 12. "
}

txt:
<p>
and an <i>'Ukla</i>. &mdash; How much is an <i>'ukla</i>? &mdash; A fifth of a quarter [of a <I>kab</I>]. In the case of liquid measures one may make a <i>hin</i>,<a id="k90a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <i>hin</i>, a third of a <i>hin</i>, a quarter of a <i>hin</i>, a <i>log</i>,<a id="k90a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <i>log</i>, a quarter [of a <i>log</i>], an eighth [of a <i>log</i>], and an eighth of an eighth [of a <i>log</i>] which is a kortob.<a id="k90a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Why should] one [not be allowed] also to make a two-<I>kab</I> [measure]?<a id="k90a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might be mistaken<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for a <I>tarkab</I>.<a id="k90a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves that people may err by a third;<a id="k90a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] if so, one <I>kab</I> [measure] also should not be made, since it might be mistaken<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for half a <I>tarkab</I>?<a id="k90a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But this is the reason why a two-<I>kab</I> [measure] must not be made; it might be mistaken<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for half a <I>tarkab</I>. This proves that one may err by a quarter;<a id="k90a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] if so, half a toman and an ukla [measures, also,] should not be made?<a id="k90a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa replied: People are familiar with small measures [and are not likely to mistake them for one another]. Should not one be forbidden to make a third of a <i>hin</i> [and] a quarter of a <i>hin</i>?<a id="k90a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since these [measures] were [used] in the Temple, the Rabbis have not enacted any precautionary prohibitions against their use. Let precautionary prohibitions be adopted in the case of the Temple [itself]? &mdash; Priests are careful.<a id="k90a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel said:<a id="k90a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Measures must not be increased [even when all the townspeople have agreed to alter the standards of the measures] by more than a sixth, nor [even by general consent] may [the value of] a coin [be increased by] more than a sixth. And any profits on sales must not exceed one sixth. What is the reason why measures must not be increased by more than a sixth? If it is said, because market prices will rise [above due proportions],<a id="k90a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [then for the same reason one should] not [be allowed to increase] even [by] a sixth! But if [it be said], because of the overcharge,<a id="k90a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so that the entire purchase should not have to be cancelled;<a id="k90a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, Raba said: One may withdraw [from any transaction in which] anything [had been sold] by measure, weight or number, even [if the overcharge was] less than [the legal limit of] overcharge!<a id="k90a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But [if it be said that the reason why no more than a sixth may be added to weights is] that the dealer may not incur any loss;<a id="k90a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [has this law, then, been made, it may be retorted, on the assumption that a dealer] must incur no loss [but also] requires no profit? 'Buy and sell [at no profit] and be called a merchant!' &mdash; But, said R. Hisda: Samuel found a Scriptural text and expounded it. [It is written], <I>And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten and five shekels, shall be your maneh</I>.<a id="k90a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k90b_1:" The <I>maneh</I>, according to Ezekiel, was twenty + twenty-five + ten + five <i>shekels</i>= sixty <i>shekels</i> =two hundred and forty <i>denarii</i> (one <i>shekel</i> =four <i>denarii</i>). But elsewhere it is stated that the <I>maneh</I> contains only twenty-five <i>shekels</i> or sela'im = only a hundred. (Cf. Keth. 10a)."
,k90b_2:" The ordinary <I>maneh</I> contained twenty-five <i>shekels</i>. Having added a sixth <I>milbar</I>, [H] (from outside the quantity) = a fifth milgaw [H] (from inside), the value of the <I>maneh</I> rose to thirty <i>shekels</i>. The holy <i>shekel</i>, being doubled, is, therefore, worth sixty <i>shekels</i> or two hundred and forty <i>denarii</i>."
,k90b_3:" I.e. measures and coins."
,k90b_4:" As the <I>maneh</I> had been increased from twenty-five to thirty <i>shekels</i>, (in the case of the ordinary <i>shekel</i>) and from fifty to sixty <i>shekels</i> (in the case of the holy <i>shekel</i>)."
,k90b_5:" As the increase of the <I>maneh</I> was by no more than a sixth."
,k90b_6:" Lit. 'from the outside'. The quantity is divided into five parts and a sixth is added 'from the outside'. A sixth milbar = a fifth milgaw. Cf. n. 1."
,k90b_7:" [H] [G], Persian <I>Kamij</I>, a measure containing three <I>log</I>. Measure of three kefiza nine <i>log</i>. Others hold that the kefiza contained one <i>log</i> only. and R. Papa's new measure contained, accordingly. three <i>log</i>."
,k90b_8:" A nine-<i>log</i> measure is bigger than half a <I>tarkab</I> (6 <i>log</i>) by a third milbar (a half milgaw). According to the second statement in the previous note, the comparison is between the half-<I>kab</I> (two <i>log</i>) and the kefiza (three 10a), the difference between which is also a third milbar."
,k90b_9:" Not an enlargement of an old one. No mistaken charges would consequently take place."
,k90b_10:" [ [H] or [H] <I>Riz</I> (Obermeyer. <i>op. cit</i>. p. 242. n. 2), a Persian measure, accordingly, Papa's measure.]"
,k90b_11:" The mnemonic consists of key-words or phrases in the teachings of the Rabbis that follow."
,k90b_12:" To sell it later when prices have risen. 'To corner'."
,k90b_13:" Amos VIII, 5."
,k90b_14:" Ibid, v. 7."
,k90b_15:" Lit., 'fruit hoarders like whom?'"
,k90b_16:" Who accumulated fruit and sold them to the poor when prices rose."
,k90b_17:" The prices prevailing immediately after the harvest."
,k90b_18:" I.e., cheap, so that others also might be induced to sell, and thus keep prices down throughout the year."
,k90b_19:" Thus enabling the poor to purchase fruit cheaply when prices were high and beyond their means."
,k90b_20:" I.e., Palestine."
,k90b_21:" If prices are kept down from the very beginning (as Samuel's father helped to do) they remain at a low level throughout the year. If, however, they have once been forced up, some cheaper selling later (as Samuel did) will not easily bring them down."
,k90b_22:" The prohibition is only against hoarding for trading purposes."
,k90b_23:" Tosef. A.Z. V."
,k90b_24:" Lit., 'the land of Israel'."
,k90b_25:" The sixth year of the Septennial period, when produce has to be stored away for the following (Sabbatical) year when no cultivation of the land is allowed, and for the year following it when there will be no yield of produce till its conclusion."
,k90b_26:" I.e., the year beginning with the conclusion of the Sabbatical year. viz. the first year of the next Septennial period. V. previous note."
,k90b_27:" I.e., even the cheapest fruit."
,k90b_28:" V. p. 373, n. 13."
,k90b_29:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>., n. 14."
,k90b_30:" Tosef. A.Z. ibid."
,k90b_31:" V. p. 373. n. 12."
,k90b_32:" Though it had been included in the land of Israel in the time of David. "
}

txt:
<p>
Was the <I>maneh</I> two hundred and forty [<i>denarii</i>].<a id="k90b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But three things are to be inferred from this. It is to be inferred that the holy <I>maneh</I> was doubled;<a id="k90b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it is to be inferred that the [standard of] measures<a id="k90b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may be increased,<a id="k90b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; though that increase must not be more than a sixth;<a id="k90b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is to be inferred that the sixth is to be exclusive.<a id="k90b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa b. Samuel introduced a measure of three kefiza.<a id="k90b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; They said unto him: Did not Samuel say that measures must not be increased by more than a sixth?<a id="k90b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He said unto them: I have introduced a new measure.<a id="k90b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He sent it to Pumbeditha, but they did not adopt it. He sent it to Papunia and they adopted it and named it Roz-Papa.<a id="k90b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic Sign: <I>Hoarders of fruit must not hoard, carry out, profit, twice in eggs. Prayers are offered and not caused to go out</I>.)<a id="k90b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Concerning those who hoard fruit,<a id="k90b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; lend money on usury, reduce the measures and raise prices, Scripture says, <I>Saying: 'When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may set forth corn? Making the ephah small, and the <i>shekel</i> great, and falsifying the balances of deceit</I>.<a id="k90b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And [concerning these] it is [further] written in Scripture, The Lord hath sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their works.<a id="k90b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Who, for instance, may be classed among fruit hoarders?<a id="k90b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan said: [A person], for instance, like Shabbethai the fruit hoarder.<a id="k90b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel's father used to sell fruit during the [prevalence of the] early [market] price[s]<a id="k90b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; at the early price.<a id="k90b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel his son retained the fruit and sold them, when the late [market] prices [were current], at the early [market] price.<a id="k90b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Word was sent from there:<a id="k90b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The father's [action] is better than the son's.' What is the reason? &mdash; Prices that have been eased remain so.<a id="k90b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said: A person may store his own <I>kab</I> [of produce].<a id="k90b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; The same has also been taught [elsewhere]:<a id="k90b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Fruit [and] things which are life's necessities as, for instance, wines, oils and the various kinds of flour, must not be hoarded; but spices, cumin and pepper may. The prohibitions mentioned apply [only] to one buying from the market, but [in the case of him] who brings in [for storage] of his own, [this is] permitted. In Palestine<a id="k90b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; one may store fruit for [the following] three years: The eve of the Sabbatical year,<a id="k90b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the Sabbatical year, and the conclusion of the Sabbatical year.<a id="k90b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; In years of famine one must not hoard even a <I>kab</I> of carobs,<a id="k90b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; because thereby one brings a curse on the market prices. R. Jose b. Hanina said to his attendant Puga: Go, store away for me fruit for [the following] three years: The eve of the Sabbatical year,<a id="k90b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sabbatical year, and the conclusion of the Sabbatical year.<a id="k90b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k90b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; One must not carry out of Palestine<a id="k90b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; fruit [and] things which are life's necessities such as, for instance, wines, oils and the various kinds of flour. R. Judah b. Bathyra permits [it] in [the case of] wine, because [thereby] one diminishes levity. And as it is not permitted to carry away out of the land [of Palestine] into a foreign country, so it is not permitted to carry away out of Palestine<a id="k90b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; to Syria.<a id="k90b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rabbi permits this
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k91a_1:" [H] [G], 'provincial government', 'province'."
,k91a_2:" Tosef. A.Z. ibid."
,k91a_3:" The producer must sell direct to the consumer."
,k91a_4:" R. Judah b. Bathyra who allowed profiting in wine because by raising its price, consumption and consequent levity are diminished."
,k91a_5:" And there was no fear that prices would rise in consequence."
,k91a_6:" Selling for two <i>shekels</i>, for instance, that which was bought for one."
,k91a_7:" 'Twice' means 'selling to two dealers'. This is forbidden because a double profit is thus made, and prices are raised."
,k91a_8:" Lit., 'to sound the alarm', by the institution of intercessory prayers with or without the blowing of the <i>shofar</i>."
,k91a_9:" The falling prices endanger the existence of the trading section of the community."
,k91a_10:" I.e., a drop of 40%."
,k91a_11:" Tosef. ibid."
,k91a_12:" Certain precepts can be performed in Palestine only. One should not, therefore, depart from it unless there is no other alternative."
,k91a_13:" <I>Se'ah</I> of produce."
,k91a_14:" Ruth married Boaz. V. Ruth IV, 13."
,k91a_15:" One of the judges of Israel. Cf. Judg. XII, 8."
,k91a_16:" V. p. 376, n. 5."
,k91a_17:" I.e., Boaz."
,k91a_18:" Ibid. 9."
,k91a_19:" Cf. Ibid. XIII, 2ff."
,k91a_20:" Manoah, before the birth of Samson, had no children to whose wedding feasts he could extend invitations. Cf. Ibid."
,k91a_21:" I.e., children that do not survive you."
,k91a_22:" As Boaz (Ibzan) married Ruth in his later life. Cf. p. 375, n. 6."
,k91a_23:" David, King of Israel, who descended from Boaz and Ruth. Cf. Ruth IV, 21-22."
,k91a_24:" This statement in the name of Rab, which can only be intelligible if it is assumed that Boaz and Ibzan are one and the same person, must be read in conjunction with the previous one, also made in the name of Rab."
,k91a_25:" The mnemonic consists of key words in the following paragraphs."
,k91a_26:" Cf. Ruth IV, 20."
,k91a_27:" [H] <I>Peloni Almoni</I> (Ruth IV, 1), the unnamed kinsman of Naomi."
,k91a_28:" Cf. Ex. VI, 23; Num. X, 14."
,k91a_29:" As evidenced by the tragic end of Elimelech and his sons."
,k91a_30:" [H] 'outside the land'. V. p. 375, n. 4."
,k91a_31:" From Kar, [H] 'lamb', [H] ('Mount of) Nebo'."
,k91a_32:" From Oreb [H] 'raven'."
,k91a_33:" Haman's grandmother was named after an unclean animal (raven, cf. Lev. XI, 15. Deut. XIV, 14); but Abraham's grandmother bore the name of a clean animal. (V. n. 12, <i>supra</i>.)"
,k91a_34:" Lit. 'is the outcome'."
,k91a_35:" Minim (sing. [H]), applied especially to Jew-Christians. Should the <I>minim</I> ask why the names of the mothers of these important figures are not given in the Bible narrative, they can be answered that these had been handed down by oral tradition. [V. Herford, Christianity, p. 326.]"
,k91a_36:" V. II Kings, XVII, 24."
,k91a_37:" [There were two Kuthas situated on a Euphrates' Canal &mdash; The great and the little Kutha. V. Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. 279.]"
,k91a_38:" Abraham's birthplace. Gen. Xl, 31."
,k91a_39:" It was the custom for those who came to offer comfort to mourners to stand in a line. "
}

txt:
<p>
from one province [on the border of Palestine and Syria] to [an adjacent] province [in Syria].<a id="k91a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k91a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; In Palestine it is not permitted to make a profit [as middleman]<a id="k91a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in things which are life's necessaries, such as, for instance, wines, oils and the various kinds of flour. It has been said about R. Eleazar b. Azariah that he used to make a profit in wine and oil. In [the case of] wine he held the same opinion as R. Judah;<a id="k91a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in [the case of] oil? &mdash; In the place of R. Eleazar b. Azariah oil was plentiful.<a id="k91a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It is not permitted to make a profit in eggs twice. [As to the meaning of 'twice',] Mari b. Mari said: Rab and Samuel are in dispute. One says: Two for one.<a id="k91a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other says: [Selling] by a dealer to a dealer.<a id="k91a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Public prayers<a id="k91a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; are offered for goods [which have become dangerously<a id="k91a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; cheap], even on the Sabbath. R. Johanan said: For instance linen garments in Babylon and wine and oil in Palestine. R. Joseph said: This [is only so] when [these have become so] cheap that ten are sold at [the price of] six.<a id="k91a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k91a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; It is not permitted to go forth from Palestine<a id="k91a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to a foreign country unless two se'ahs<a id="k91a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are sold for one <i>sela'</i>. R. Simeon said: [This is permitted only] when one cannot find [anything] to buy, but when one is able [to find something] to buy. even if a <i>se'ah</i><a id="k91a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; cost a <i>sela'</i> one must not depart. And so said R. Simeon b. Yohai: Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion were [of the] great men of their generation, and they were [also] leaders of their generation. Why, then, were they punished? Because they left Palestine for a foreign country; for it is written, <I>And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: 'Is this Naomi?'</I> What [is meant by] 'Is this Naomi?' &mdash; R. Isaac said: They said, 'Did you see what befell Naomi who left Palestine for a foreign country?'
</p><p>
	R. Isaac further stated: On the very day, when Ruth the Moabitess came to Palestine, died the wife of Boaz. This is why people say, 'Before a person dies, the master of his house is appointed'.<a id="k91a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said in the name of Rab: Ibzan<a id="k91a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is Boaz. What does he come to teach us [by this statement]? &mdash; The same<a id="k91a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; that Rabbah son of R. Huna [taught elsewhere]. For Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said in the name of Rab: Boaz made for his sons a hundred and twenty wedding feasts, for it is said, And he [Ibzan]<a id="k91a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons; and he judged Israel seven years;<a id="k91a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and in the case of everyone [of these] he made two wedding feasts, one in the house of the father and one in the house of the father-inlaw. To none of them did he invite Manoah,<a id="k91a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [for] he said, 'Whereby will the barren mule repay me?'<a id="k91a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; All these died in his lifetime. It is [in relation to such a case as] this that people say: 'Of what use to you are sixty; the sixty that you beget for your lifetime?<a id="k91a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [Marry] again<a id="k91a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and beget [one] brighter<a id="k91a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; than sixty.'<a id="k91a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic sign: <I>King Abraham, the ten years when he passed away he was exalted alone.</I>)<a id="k91a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rab: Elimelech and Salmon<a id="k91a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and such a one<a id="k91a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and the father of Naomi all were the sons of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab.<a id="k91a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he come to teach us [by this statement]? &mdash; That even the merit of one's ancestors is of no avail<a id="k91a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; when one leaves the land [of Palestine] for a foreign country.<a id="k91a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanan b. Raba further stated in the name of Rab: [The name of] the mother of Abraham [was] Amathlai the daughter of Karnebo;<a id="k91a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the name of] the mother of Haman was Amathlai, the daughter of 'Orabti;<a id="k91a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and your mnemonic [may be], 'unclean [to] unclean, clean [to] clean'.<a id="k91a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; The mother of David was named Nizbeth the daughter of Adael. The mother of Samson [was named] Zlelponith, and his sister, Nashyan. In what [respect] do [these names] matter?<a id="k91a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In respect of a reply to the heretics.<a id="k91a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanan b. Raba further stated in the name of Rab: Abraham our father was imprisoned for ten years. 'Three in Kutha,<a id="k91a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and seven in Kardu. But R. Dimi of Nehardea taught [in the reverse [order]. R. Hisda said: The small side of Kutha<a id="k91a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; is Ur of the Chaldees.<a id="k91a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanan b. Raba further said in the name of Rab: On the day when Abraham our father passed away from the world all the great ones of the nations of the world, stood in a line<a id="k91a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and said: Woe to the world that has lost
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k91b_1:" [G], 'steersman', pilot'."
,k91b_2:" I Chron. XXIX, 11."
,k91b_3:" I.e., a minor headship."
,k91b_4:" This is inferred from the text which in Heb. reads, [H] and which may be rendered as in E.V., <i>supra</i>, as well as, 'through thee is appointed he who is raised as chief over anything'."
,k91b_5:" That the famine (cf. Ruth I, 1) should cease."
,k91b_6:" Isa. LVII, 13. By praying for the delivery of others, one is himself delivered."
,k91b_7:" That one must not leave Palestine."
,k91b_8:" The mnemonic is an aid to the recollection of the statements of R. Johanan that follow."
,k91b_9:" Reason for statement in previous para."
,k91b_10:" Ta'an. 19b."
,k91b_11:" Lit., 'swollen from hunger'."
,k91b_12:" Small coin, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k91b_13:" This probably means that people were so starved that the odour of the bread baked in the east, and presumably wealthier part of the town, had a fatal effect upon them."
,k91b_14:" The heathens."
,k91b_15:" At an unguarded moment they rob him of all he has."
,k91b_16:" Ruth I, 2."
,k91b_17:" I Chron. IV, 22."
,k91b_18:" The assumption here is that they are the same two persons."
,k91b_19:" [H] is taken to be derived from the root [H] 'to give up hope'."
,k91b_20:" [H] from [H] 'to burn'."
,k91b_21:" [H] is derived from the root [H] 'profane'."
,k91b_22:" [H] from [H] 'to destroy'; [H] 'destruction'."
,k91b_23:" I Chron. IV, 22."
,k91b_24:" [H] same root as that of [H] 'and Jokim'."
,k91b_25:" Cf. Josh. IX. 15, 26."
,k91b_26:" Cf. ibid. vv. 4ff. Lied, [H] from the same root as [H] 'Cozeba'."
,k91b_27:" V. p. 378, n. 9."
,k91b_28:" V. p. 378, n. 10."
,k91b_29:" [H] from the same root as [H] and <I>Jashubi'</I>."
,k91b_30:" [H] the second word being the same as the second word in [H] 'and <I>Jashubilehem'</I>."
,k91b_31:" Cf. Dan. VII, 9, 22. The series of events and circumstances, which commenced with the departure of Naomi's family from Palestine and terminated with the birth of David, was pre-ordained by God."
,k91b_32:" I Chron. IV, 23."
,k91b_33:" [H] taken to be from a root similar to that of [H] 'the potters'."
,k91b_34:" Cf. Jer. XXXV, 6ff."
,k91b_35:" [G], the supreme council and highest court of justice in Jewry in Talmudic times."
,k91b_36:" I Kings II, 19."
,k91b_37:" I.e., Ruth the mother of the dynasty of David. Cf. Ruth, IV, 10, 21-22."
,k91b_38:" Lev. XXV, 22."
,k91b_39:" Heb. <I>Salminton</I>, cf. <I>salsamintum</I>."
,k91b_40:" Which had been promised to Israel in the previous section of the verse to last until, but not into, the new harvesting season."
,k91b_41:" There will be no need to have recourse to an early and forced harvesting."
,k91b_42:" 'spoilt' not 'destroyed'. The grain worm destroys, the blast only spoils the crops."
,k91b_43:" Lev. XXVI, 10."
,k91b_44:" Lit., 'whatever is older than the other, is better'."
,k91b_45:" Lit., 'made old'."
,k91b_46:" [H] 'old, very old'. The repetition indicates that any old things, even though not usually stored away, are included."
,k91b_47:" Ibid."
,k91b_48:" 'Ye shall bring forth' implies 'under compulsion'. There will be so much new that no space for the old will remain."
,k91b_49:" Others, 'fish-hash'. "
}

txt:
<p>
its leader and woe to the ship that has lost its pilot.<a id="k91b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<I>And thou art exalted as head above all</I>,<a id="k91b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rab: Even a superintendent of a well<a id="k91b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is appointed in heaven.<a id="k91b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Korhah: God forbid [that Elimelech and his family should be condemned for leaving Palestine]; for had they found even only bran they would not have left [the country]. Why then was punishment inflicted upon them? &mdash; Because they should have begged mercy<a id="k91b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for their generation, and they did not do so; for it is said, <I>When thou criest, let them that thou hast gathered deliver thee</I>.<a id="k91b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: [This]<a id="k91b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; has only been taught [in the case when] money is cheap and fruit is dear, but [when] money is dear, even if four <i>se'ah</i> cost [only] a sela, it is permitted to leave [the country].
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic Sign: <I>Sela, Workman, carob, the lads say</I>.)<a id="k91b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	For<a id="k91b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said:<a id="k91b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; I remember [the time] when four <i>se'ah</i> cost a sela and there were numerous deaths from starvation<a id="k91b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in Tiberias, for want of an isar<a id="k91b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [wherewith to buy bread].
</p><p>
	R. Johanan further stated: I remember [the time] when workmen would not accept work on the east side of the town where workmen died from the odour of the bread.<a id="k91b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan further stated: I remember [the time] when a child would break a carob pod and a line of honey would run down over both his arms. And R. Eleazar said: I remember [a time] when a raven would take [a piece of] flesh, and a line of oil would rundown from the top of the wall to the ground.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan further stated: I remember [the time] when lads and lasses of sixteen and seventeen years of age took walks [together] in the open air and did not sin.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan further stated: I remember [the time] when it has been said in the house of study: 'He that agrees with them<a id="k91b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; falls into their hands; [as to him] who trusts in them, [whatever is] his [becomes] theirs'.<a id="k91b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Why] has it been written, <I>Mahlon and Chilion</I><a id="k91b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [in one place], and <I>Joash and Saraph</I><a id="k91b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in another?<a id="k91b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab and Samuel [explained]. One said: Their names were Mahlon and Chilion, but they were called Joash and Saraph [for this reason]: Joash,<a id="k91b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; because they lost hope in the [messianic] redemption [of Israel;] [and] Saraph,<a id="k91b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; because they were condemned by the Omnipresent to be burned. And the other says: Their names were Joash and Saraph, but they were called Mahlon and Chilion [for this reason]: Mahlon,<a id="k91b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; because they profaned their bodies; and Chilion,<a id="k91b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; because they were condemned by the Omnipresent to destruction.
</p><p>
	There is [a Baraitha] taught in agreement with him who said that their names were Mahlon and Chilion. For it has been taught: What is [the interpretation] of the Biblical text, And Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem; and the things are ancient?<a id="k91b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And Jokim, is Joshua who kept<a id="k91b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; his oath to the men of Gibeon.<a id="k91b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And the men of Cozeba, these are the men of Gibeon who lied to Joshua.<a id="k91b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And Joash and Seraph, these are Mahlon and Chilion. And why were they called Joash and Saraph? &mdash; Joash, because they lost hope<a id="k91b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; in the [Messianic] redemption [of Israel]; Saraph, because they were condemned by the Omnipresent to be burned.<a id="k91b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Who had dominion in Moab, [means], they who married wives of the women of Moab. And Jashubilehem, refers to Ruth the Moabitess who returned<a id="k91b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and kept fast by Bethlehem<a id="k91b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; of Judah. And the things are ancient, [means] these things were said by the Ancient of days.<a id="k91b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<I>These were the potters and those that dwelt among plantations and hedges; there they dwelt occupied in the king's work</I>.<a id="k91b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; These were the potters, refers to the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab who kept<a id="k91b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; the oath of their father.<a id="k91b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Those that dwelt among the plantations, has reference to Solomon who in his kingdom was like a [constantly flourishing] plant. And hedges, refers to the Sanhedrin<a id="k91b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; who fenced in the breaches in Israel. There they dwelt occupied in the king's work, refers to Ruth the Moabitess who saw the kingdom of Solomon, the grandson of her grandson; for it is said: And [Solomon] caused a throne to be set up for the king's mother,'<a id="k91b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Eleazar said, 'to the mother of the dynasty'.<a id="k91b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [It is written], <I>And ye shall eat of the produce, the old store</I>;<a id="k91b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is] without [the necessity for] a preservative.<a id="k91b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; What [is the meaning of] 'without salminton'? &mdash; R. Nahman said: Without the grain worm. And R. Shesheth said: Without blast. A Baraitha has been taught in agreement with [the interpretation] of R. Shesheth, [and] a Baraitha has been taught in agreement with that of R. Nahman. In agreement with that of R. Nahman it has been taught: [It is written], <I>and ye shall eat&nbsp;&hellip; the old store</I>; one might [think that] Israel will be looking out for the new [produce] because the old<a id="k91b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; had been destroyed [by the grain worm], therefore it is expressly said, <I>until her produce came in</I>, that is, until the produce will come [naturally] of itself.<a id="k91b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; In agreement with that of R. Shesheth, it has been taught: [It is written], <I>And ye shall eat of the produce of the old store</I>; one might [think that] Israel will be looking out for the new [produce] because the old was spoilt<a id="k91b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [by the blast], therefore it is expressly said, <I>until her produce come in</I>, [that is] until the produce will come in the natural course.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [It is written], <I>And ye shall eat old store long kept</I>;<a id="k91b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [this] teaches that the older [the produce] the better [it would be].<a id="k91b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [From this] one infers only [concerning] things which are commonly stored away,<a id="k91b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; whence [may one also infer] concerning things which are not commonly stored away?<a id="k91b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is explicitly stated: <I>Old store long kept</I>,<a id="k91b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [which implies] 'in all cases &mdash; [It is written]: <I>And ye shall bring forth the old from before the new</I>;<a id="k91b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [this] teaches that the storehouses would be full of old [produce]. and the threshing-floors of new, and Israel would say: 'How shall we take out one before the other!'<a id="k91b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: All things are better [when] old, except dates, beer and small fishes.<a id="k91b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k89a_1:" Deut. XXVIII, 1, begins with <i>Waw</i>, ([H]) [H]"
,k89a_2:" Ibid. v. 14, ends with Mem, ([H]) [H] (<I>Waw</I> &mdash; Mem, eight letters)."
,k89a_3:" Ibid. v. 15, begins with <i>Waw</i>. [H] V. following note."
,k89a_4:" Ibid. v. 68. ends with He, [H] The section beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet (<I>Waw</I> [H]) and ending with the fifth (He, [H]) includes, therefore, <I>all</I> the alphabet."
,k89a_5:" The mnemonic consists of key words and phrases in the teachings of the Rabbis that follow."
,k89a_6:" Even with the consent of the buyer."
,k89a_7:" Even with the desire of the seller."
,k89a_8:" Deut. XXV, 25. By deviating from the usual practice the buyer, or the seller, may be the means of defrauding, or misleading others."
,k89a_9:" Ibid."
,k89a_10:" Expounded the following verse."
,k89a_11:" Anything of value; i.e., thou wilt be poor."
,k89a_12:" Ibid. v. 14."
,k89a_13:" Ibid. v. 13."
,k89a_14:" I.e., purse."
,k89a_15:" Ibid. v. 15."
,k89a_16:" Heb. [H] cf. [G], 'market commissioner."
,k89a_17:" In order to allow for free and unfettered competition."
,k89a_18:" [H] 'Prince'. Here R. Judah II."
,k89a_19:" [H]"
,k89a_20:" I.e., a sty (Aruch)."
,k89a_21:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k89a_22:" These denominations are essential. Any other weights have to be computed from these."
,k89a_23:" As it is impossible to give the exact weight, the seller would be losing the overweight three times, once with each quarter."
,k89a_24:" [H] the hollow handle in which the tongue of the balance rests."
,k89a_25:" Big scales, for the weighing of heavy things such as iron and copper, which are suspended from the roof of the house."
,k89a_26:" So that the beam may have sufficient space in which to move without knocking against the ceiling and impeding the free movement of the scales."
,k89a_27:" To allow for the free movement of the scales and to prevent their knocking against the ground and their consequent re-bounding, which would interfere with proper weighing."
,k89a_28:" To each end of which the ropes are fastened."
,k89a_29:" To which the scales are attached."
,k89a_30:" The beam's length must be four handbreadths and that of the two ropes four handbreadths each; total twelve."
,k89a_31:" If the length of these were less, the scales would not easily move, and small variations in weights could not be detected."
,k89a_32:" V. p. 361. n. 5."
,k89a_33:" Since the balances of wool and glass-ware dealers, shopkeepers, producers, and goldsmiths have been specifically mentioned, what kind of balance, then, is the one mentioned first? "
}

txt:
<p>
from And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently,<a id="k89a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to to serve them,'<a id="k89a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and cursed them with twenty-two, from But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken,<a id="k89a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; to And no man shall buy you.<a id="k89a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WHERE THE USAGE IS TO MEASURE WITH A&nbsp;&hellip; BIG MEASURE, etc.
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <I>Neither exact weight nor heaped up with market officers and with a pound three and ten </I><smallNEFESH</small><I>, weights, a thick strike, you shall not do, he shall not do</I>.)<a id="k89a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Whence [may it be inferred] that [the measure] must not be levelled<a id="k89a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; where the practice is to heap it up, and [that] it must not be heaped up<a id="k89a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; where the practice is to level it? &mdash; For it has been definitely stated, A perfect&nbsp;&hellip; measure.<a id="k89a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence [may it be inferred] that we are not to listen to one who Says, 'I will level where the practice is to heap up, and reduce the price' or 'I will heap up where they level, and raise the price'? &mdash; For it has been definitely stated, A perfect and just measure thou shalt have.<a id="k89a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Whence [is it to be inferred] that the exact weight must not be given where the practice is to allow overweight, and that overweight must not be allowed where the practice is to give the exact weight? &mdash; For it has been definitely stated, <I>A perfect weight</I>.<a id="k89a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence [may it be inferred] that we are not to listen to one who says, 'I will give the exact weight where the practice is to allow overweight, and reduce the price', or 'I will allow overweight where they give the exact weight, and raise the price'? &mdash; For it has been definitely stated, <I>A perfect and just weight</I>. Rab Judah of Sura said:<a id="k89a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>Thou shalt not have</I> [anything]<a id="k89a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>in thy house</I>;<a id="k89a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; why? &mdash; Because of [thy] <I>diverse measures</I>.<a id="k89a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>Thou shalt not have</I><a id="k89a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [anything] <I>in thy bag</I>;<a id="k89a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; why? &mdash; Because of [thy] <I>diverse weights</I>.<a id="k89a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But [if thou keep] <I>a perfect and just weight, thou shalt have</I><a id="k89a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [possessions]; [if] <I>a perfect and just measure, thou shalt have</I> [wealth].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: <I>Thou shalt have</I>,<a id="k89a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches that market officers<a id="k89a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are appointed to [superintend] measures, but no such officers are appointed for [superintending] prices.<a id="k89a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Those of the Nasi's<a id="k89a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; House appointed market officers to [superintend] both measures and prices. [Thereupon] said Samuel to Karna: Go forth and teach them [the law that] market officers are appointed to [superintend] measures, but no such officers are appointed to [superintend] prices. [But Karna] went forth [and] gave them the [following] exposition: Market officers are appointed to [superintend] both measures and prices. He said unto him: Is your name Karna? Let a horn<a id="k89a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; grow out of your eye. A horn,<a id="k89a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [consequently] grew out of his eye. But whose opinion did he follow? &mdash; That voiced by Rami b. Hama in the name of R. Isaac that market officers are appointed to [superintend] both measures and prices, on account of the impostors.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one asked him for a pound,<a id="k89a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; a pound must be weighed. [If] half a pound, half a pound must be weighed. A quarter of a pound, a quarter of a pound must be weighed. What does this teach us? &mdash; That weights must be provided in these [three] denominations.<a id="k89a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If he ordered from him three quarters of a pound, he shall not tell him, 'Weigh out for me the three quarters of the pound one by one'.<a id="k89a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But a pound weight is laid [on the scale] against a quarter of a pound weight with the meat [on the other scale].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If he ordered from him ten pounds, he shall not say, 'Weigh out for me each [pound] separately and allow overweight [for each].' But all are weighed together and one overweight is allowed for all of them.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The <I>nefesh</I><a id="k89a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; of a balance<a id="k89a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; must be suspended in the air three handbreadths [removed from the roof from which the balance hangs].<a id="k89a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And [the scales must be] three handbreadths above the ground.<a id="k89a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; The beam<a id="k89a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and the ropes<a id="k89a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [must contain a total length of] twelve<a id="k89a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; handbreadths.<a id="k89a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [The balances] of wool-dealers and glass-ware dealers [must] be suspended in the air two handbreadths [from the ceiling] and two handbreadths above the ground. Their beams and ropes [must contain a total of] nine handbreadths [in length]. [The balance] of a shopkeeper and of a producer<a id="k89a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [must] be suspended in the air one handbreadth [from above], and one handbreadth above the ground. The beam and ropes [must be of a total length of] six handbreadths. A gold balance [must] be suspended in the air three fingers from above, and three fingers above the ground. [The length of] its beam and cords I do not know. But what [kind of balance is] that [which has been mentioned] first?<a id="k89a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k89b_1:" Broken pieces of iron, copper and the like, which sometimes weigh as much as a hundred pounds. The size of the beams, ropes etc. are determined by the weight of the articles for which they are used."
,k89b_2:" I.e., scales which are prohibited for commercial use cannot be regarded as 'vessels' subject to the laws of Levitical defilement."
,k89b_3:" Kel. XXIX, 5."
,k89b_4:" The beam of a balance is suspended by a cord, corresponding to nefesh, <i>supra</i>."
,k89b_5:" Requiring a distance of a handbreadth from above in the case of shopkeepers' and producers' balances."
,k89b_6:" What, then, is the purpose of R. Mani's statement?"
,k89b_7:" A fusion of different metals. Others compare the word with [G], tin; perhaps of a special kind."
,k89b_8:" Because the friction caused by constant use reduces their weight."
,k89b_9:" And does not strike well, causing loss to the seller."
,k89b_10:" And penetrates too deeply, causing loss to the buyer."
,k89b_11:" Because a thick one cannot penetrate so well as a thin one. Cf. the following note."
,k89b_12:" Because one might use the thin side when selling, and the thick side when buying."
,k89b_13:" Lit., 'bad'."
,k89b_14:" Lit., 'good'."
,k89b_15:" Kelim XVII, 16."
,k89b_16:" Lit., 'he said it'."
,k89b_17:" Lit., 'from'."
,k89b_18:" Hos. XIV, 10."
,k89b_19:" B.M. 61b."
,k89b_20:" Lev. XIX, 35."
,k89b_21:" When the measuring rope is dry and unyielding."
,k89b_22:" When the rope is moist and capable of extension."
,k89b_23:" Salt reduces the weight. According to others, salt increases weight and the warning is addressed to the buyer."
,k89b_24:" By pouring rapidly from a certain height, foam is generated and, consequently, less liquid enters the measure."
,k89b_25:" [H] the term used for 'measure' in the verse from Lev. XIX, 35 that is here discussed."
,k89b_26:" <I>Hin</I> = twelve <I>log</I>."
,k89b_27:" <I>Log</I> = volume of liquid that fills the space occupied by six eggs."
,k89b_28:" <I>Toman</I> = half a <I>log</I>, or one eighth of a <I>kab</I>. V. BaH, a.l."
,k89b_29:" <I>Ukla</I> is explained in the Gemara."
,k89b_30:" Even if not intended to be used for measuring purposes; since others may use it as a measure, by mistake."
,k89b_31:" By the seal of the recognised authority."
,k89b_32:" By duly appointed officers, [H] Others, 'marked by means of incisions'."
,k89b_33:" When everyone is in a hurry."
,k89b_34:" <i>Se'ah</i> = two <i>Tarkab</i> or six <i>Kab</i>."
,k89b_35:" <i>Tarkab</i> = three <i>kab</i>."
,k89b_36:" <i>Kab</i> = four <i>log</i>."
,k89b_37:" Toman, v. p. 369, n. 10. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Papa said: [A balance used] for heavy pieces of metal.<a id="k89b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mani b. Patish said: The same [restrictions] that have been said [to apply to balances] with reference to their disqualification [for commercial uses] have also been said [to apply to them] with reference to their [liability to] Levitical defilement.<a id="k89b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he come to teach us? [Surely] this has [already] been taught [in the following]:<a id="k89b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The [length of the] cords<a id="k89b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of a shopkeeper's, and of producers' balances [which may be subjected to the laws of Levitical defilement, must be] one handbreadth! [And, since this restriction<a id="k89b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; has specifically been applied to one kind of balance, are not the other kinds of balance to be implied?]<a id="k89b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The statement of R. Mani] is required [on account of the sizes of] the beam and the cords, which have not been mentioned [there].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Weights must not be made either of tin or of lead or of gasitron<a id="k89b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or of any other kinds of metal,<a id="k89b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but they must be made of stone or of glass.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The strike must not be made of a gourd because it is light,<a id="k89b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; nor of metal because it is heavy,<a id="k89b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but it must be made of olive, nut, sycamore, or box wood.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The strike may not be made thick<a id="k89b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; on one side and thin on the other.<a id="k89b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; One may not strike with a single quick movement, for striking in this manner causes loss<a id="k89b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to the seller and benefits<a id="k89b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the buyer. Nor may one strike very slowly because [this] is disadvantageous<a id="k89b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to the buyer and beneficial<a id="k89b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; for the seller. Concerning all these [sharp practices of traders], R. Johanan b. Zakkai said:<a id="k89b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Woe to me if I should speak [of them]; woe to me if I should not speak. Should I speak [of them], knaves might learn [them]; and should I not speak, the knaves might say, 'the scholars are unacquainted with our practices' [and will deceive us still more]. The question was raised: Did he [R. Johanan] speak [of these sharp practices] or not? R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said: He did speak [of them]; and in so doing<a id="k89b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [he based his decision] on<a id="k89b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the following Scriptural text: <I>For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just do walk in them; but transgressors do stumble therein</I>.<a id="k89b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught:<a id="k89b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [It is written], <I>You shall do no unrighteousness in judgments in meteyard, in weight. or in measure.<a id="k89b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; In meteyard</I> relates to the measuring of ground; one should not measure out for one person in the hot<a id="k89b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; season and for another in the rainy<a id="k89b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; season. In weight, [means] that one shall not keep his weights in salt.<a id="k89b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; In measure, that one shall not cause [liquids] to froth.<a id="k89b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; And by inference from minor to major, [the following may be deduced]. If the Torah cared [for proper measure in] a <I>mesurah</I><a id="k89b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; which is one thirty-sixth of a <i>log</i>. how much more [should one be careful to give proper measure in the case] of a <I>hin</I>.<a id="k89b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <I>hin</I>, a third of a <I>hin</I>, a quarter of a <I>hin</I>, a <I>log</I>,<a id="k89b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <I>log</I>, a quarter [of a <I>log</I>], a <I>toman</I>,<a id="k89b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; half a<I> toman<I> and an <I>'ukla</I>!<a id="k89b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A person is forbidden to keep<a id="k89b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; in his house a measure [which is either] smaller or larger [than the nominal capacity] even if [it is used as a] urine tub. R. Papa said: This applies only in [the case of] a place where [measures] are not [officially] marked,<a id="k89b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but where they are [officially] marked [they may be used; for] if [the buyer] sees no mark he does not accept [them] &mdash; And even where they are not marked, this has been said only in the case where they are not supervised,<a id="k89b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they are supervised<a id="k89b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; it does not matter. But this is not [right]; for [the buyer] may sometimes happen [to call] at twilight<a id="k89b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and accidentally accept [the faulty measure]. The same, indeed, has been taught [in the following]: A person must not keep in his house a measure [which is either] smaller or larger [than the nominal capacity], even if [it is used as a] urine tub. But a person may make a <i>se'ah</i>,<a id="k89b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>tarkab</i>,<a id="k89b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <i>tarkab</i>, a <i>kab</i>,<a id="k89b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; half a <i>kab</i>, a quarter [of a <i>kab</i>], a toman,<a id="k89b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; half a toman
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k21a_1:" A High Priest in the decade before the destruction of the Temple."
,k21a_2:" Deut. XI, 19."
,k21a_3:" V. Tosaf."
,k21a_4:" Isa. II, 3."
,k21a_5:" The district under an '<I>Eparchas</I>', which might be either a town or a province."
,k21a_6:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 38."
,k21a_7:" I.e., do not hurt him too much."
,k21a_8:" So that he will listen and gradually become studious."
,k21a_9:" Because all these have a great many visitors who cause a good deal of noise."
,k21a_10:" Instruction by whom does not come within the enactment of Joshua b. Gamala."
,k21a_11:" Heb. <I>sofer</I> [H] generally meaning 'scribe', is here taken to denote 'teacher' (Rashi). Tosaf., however, translates 'townscribe', to whom people come to have their documents written. R. Gershom renders 'hair-dresser', as though the original were [H]"
,k21a_12:" And who therefore has an exceptionally large number of visitors."
,k21a_13:" For fear they may come to harm on the way, but any parent can compel the community of his town to appoint a teacher."
,k21a_14:" Lit., 'reads', viz., the prayers or the Scripture."
,k21a_15:" Having no competitor to fear."
,k21a_16:" I.e., the jealousy of the one who has been replaced will be a stimulus to the other not to disgrace himself."
,k21a_17:" 1 Kings XI, 16. "
}

txt:
<p>
the concluding words refer to school children, from the time of the regulation of Joshua b. Gamala,<a id="k21a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of whom Rab Judah has told us in the name of Rab: Verily the name of that man is to be blessed, to wit Joshua ben Gamala, for but for him the Torah would have been forgotten from Israel. For at first if a child had a father, his father taught him, and if he had no father he did not learn at all. By what [verse of the Scripture] did they guide themselves? &mdash; By the verse, And ye shall teach them to your children.<a id="k21a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; laying the emphasis on the word 'ye'.<a id="k21a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; They then made an ordinance that teachers of children should be appointed in Jerusalem. By what verse did they guide themselves? &mdash; By the verse, For from Zion shall the Torah go forth.<a id="k21a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Even so, however, if a child had a father, the father would take him up to Jerusalem and have him taught there, and if not, he would not go up to learn there. They therefore ordained that teachers should be appointed In each prefecture,<a id="k21a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and that boys should enter school at the age of sixteen or seventeen. [They did so] and if the teacher punished them they used to rebel and leave the school. At length Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed in each district and each town. and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven.
</p><p>
	Rab said to R. Samuel b. Shilath:<a id="k21a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Before the age of six do not accept pupils; from that age you can accept them. and stuff them with Torah like an ox. Rab also said to R. Samuel b. Shilath: When you punish a pupil, only hit him with a shoe latchet.<a id="k21a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The attentive one will read [of himself]. and if one is inattentive. put him next to a diligent one.<a id="k21a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [from the following against the answer of Raba]: 'If a resident in a courtyard desires to become a Mohel. a blood-letter, a tanner, or a teacher of children, the other residents can prevent him?'<a id="k21a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The reference here is to a teacher of nonjewish children.<a id="k21a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If two persons live in a courtyard and one of them desires to become a Mohel, a blood-letter, a tanner, or a teacher of children, the other can prevent him! &mdash; Here too the reference is to a teacher of non-Jewish children.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man has a room in a courtyard which he shares with another, he must not let it either to a Mohel, or bloodletter, or a tanner, or a Jewish teacher<a id="k21a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or a non-Jewish teacher! &mdash; The reference here is to the head teacher of the town [who superintends the others].<a id="k21a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Under the ordinance of Joshua ben Gamala. children are not to be sent [every day to school] from one town to another,<a id="k21a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but they can be compelled to go from one synagogue to another [in the same town]. If, however, there is a river in between, we cannot compel them. But if, again. there is a bridge, we can compel them &mdash; not, however, if it is merely a plank.
</p><p>
	Raba further said: The number of pupils to be assigned to each teacher is twenty-five. If there are fifty, we appoint two teachers. If there are forty, we appoint an assistant, at the expense of the town.
</p><p>
	Raba also said: If we have a teacher who gets on<a id="k21a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; with the children and there is another who can get on better, we do not replace the first by the second, for fear that the second when appointed will become indolent.<a id="k21a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Dimi from Nehardea, however, held that he would exert himself still more if appointed: 'the jealousy of scribes increaseth wisdom.'<a id="k21a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba further said: If there are two teachers of whom one gets on fast but with mistakes and the other slowly but without mistakes, we appoint the one who gets on fast and makes mistakes, since the mistakes correct themselves in time. R. Dimi from Nehardea on the other hand said that we appoint the one who goes slowly but makes no mistakes, for once a mistake is implanted it cannot be eradicated. This can be shown from the Scripture. It is written, For Joab and all Israel remained there until he had cut off every male in Edom.<a id="k21a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; When Joab came before David, the latter said to him:
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k21b_1:" Deut. XXV, 19."
,k21b_2:" [H]"
,k21b_3:" [H]"
,k21b_4:" Jer. XLVIII. 20, The 'negligence' consisted in the fact that his teacher had allowed him when a boy to read zekar without correcting him (v. Tosaf.)."
,k21b_5:" Lit., 'Leave this man that he may abide in the curse.'"
,k21b_6:" Ibid."
,k21b_7:" Lit., 'Are constantly under warning.'"
,k21b_8:" E.g., a slaughterer who made the animal <I>trefa</I>, or a bloodletter who caused the death of his patient, or a scribe who made a mistake in a scroll of the Law."
,k21b_9:" Hence the fisherman who knows where the hole is places bait within the fish's swim, and if another does this he is poaching on the preserves of the first. But this cannot be said of one who sets up an opposition mill,"
,k21b_10:" Viz., that one man must not interfere with another's livelihood."
,k21b_11:" I.e., the Sages just quoted."
,k21b_12:" And therefore I am not interfering with your chances,"
,k21b_13:" And therefore must not set up next to me."
,k21b_14:" I.e., from letting an apartment to."
,k21b_15:" If there is already one in the court."
,k21b_16:" Lit., 'his neighbour'."
,k21b_17:" R. Huna is thus in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k21b_18:" According to the view of the Rabbis just given."
,k21b_19:" Would the Rabbis put him on the same footing as a resident of the same alley or not? "
}

txt:
<p>
Why have you acted thus [i.e. killed only the males]? He replied: Because it is written, Thou shalt blot out the males [zekar] of Amalek.<a id="k21b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said David: But we read, the remembrance [zeker]<a id="k21b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of Amalek? He replied: I was taught to read zekar.<a id="k21b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He [Joab] then went to his teacher and asked: How didst thou teach me to read? He replied: Zeker. Thereupon he drew his sword and threatened to kill him. Why do you do this? asked the other. He replied: Because it is written, Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently.<a id="k21b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to him: Be satisfied that I am cursed.<a id="k21b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; To which Joab rejoined: [It also says]. Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.<a id="k21b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; According to one report he killed him; according to another, he did not kill him.
</p><p>
	Raba further said: A teacher of young children, a vine-dresser, a [ritual] slaughterer, a blood-letter, and a town scribe are all liable to be dismissed immediately<a id="k21b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [if inefficient]. The general principle is that anyone whose mistakes cannot be rectified<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is liable to be dismissed immediately [if he makes one].
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: If a resident of an alley sets up a handmill and another resident of the alley wants to set up one next to him, the first has the right to stop him, because he can say to him, 'You are interfering with my livelihood.' May we say that this view is supported by the following: 'Fishing nets must be kept away from [the hiding-place of] a fish [which has been spotted by another fisherman] the full length of the fish's swim.' And how much is this? Rabbah son of R. Huna says: A <i>parasang</i>?' &mdash; Fishes are different, because they look about [for food].<a id="k21b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabina to Raba: May we say that R. Huna adopts the same principle<a id="k21b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; as R. Judah? For we have learnt: R. Judah says that a shopkeeper should not give presents of parched corn and nuts to children, because he thus entices then, to come back to him. The Sages, however, allow this! &mdash; You may even say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis<a id="k21b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; also. For the ground on which the Rabbis allowed the shopkeeper to do this was because he can say to his rival, Just as I make presents of nuts so you can make presents of almonds;<a id="k21b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case they would agree that the first man can say to the other. 'You are interfering with my livelihood.'<a id="k21b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [against Rab Huna's ruling from the following:] 'A man may open a shop next to another man's shop or a bath next to another man's bath, and the latter cannot object. because he can say to him, I do what I like in my property and you do what you like in yours?' &mdash; On this point there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim, as appears from the following Baraitha: 'The residents of an alley can prevent one another from bringing in<a id="k21b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; a tailor or a tanner or a teacher or any other craftsman,<a id="k21b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but one cannot prevent another<a id="k21b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [from setting up in opposition].' Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that one may prevent another.<a id="k21b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: It is quite clear to me that the resident of one town can prevent the resident of another town [from setting up in opposition in his town] not, however, if he pays taxes to that town &mdash; and that the resident of an alley cannot prevent another resident of the same alley [from setting up in opposition in his alley].<a id="k21b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna the son of R. Joshua then raised the question: Can the resident of one alley prevent the resident of another [from competing with him]?<a id="k21b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This must stand over.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said: R. Huna agrees that a teacher cannot prevent [another teacher from setting up in the same alley], for the reason mentioned,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k13a_1:" <table align=\"right\" border=\"1\"><tr><td><img src=\"bababathra_13.gif\" width=\"112\" height\"225\"></td></tr></table> According to R. Han., we suppose the channel to be on two sides and the river on two sides, v. fig. 1. According to Rashi, however, we suppose the channel and the river to be only on each of two adjacent sides, and in order that each may have the same share both in the river and the channel, the field must be divided into eight strips, v. fig. 2."
,k13a_2:" I.e., either can compel the other to sell his portion, or to buy from him, so that the whole will be in one ownership."
,k13a_3:" The rule would apply equally if neither of the brothers was a first-born, (v. however Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k13a_4:" Being an Israelite."
,k13a_5:" Not being an Israelite."
,k13a_6:" Isa. XLV, 18."
,k13a_7:" Hag. 2a. Only because of Beth Shammai's argument, but not because they recognised any right to say, 'You name' etc."
,k13a_8:" Because as an Israelite, he cannot be sold, like an ordinary slave, for more than six years. "
}

txt:
<p>
If there is a channel on one side and a river on the other, the field is to be divided diagonally.<a id="k13a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A HALL etc. If they are not large enough to leave sufficient space for both after division, what is the ruling? &mdash; Rab Judah says: [One partner] has the right to say [to the other], You name a price [for my share] or let me name a price [for your share].<a id="k13a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman says: He has not the right to say, You name a price or let me name a price Said Raba to R. Nahman: On your view that one has not the right to say to the other, You name a price or let me name a price, how are a first-born and another son<a id="k13a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; to manage to whom their father has left a slave and an unclean animal? &mdash; He replied: What I say is that they work for the one one day and the other two days.
</p><p>
	An objection was brought [against the opinion of Rab Judah from the following]: 'If one is half a slave and half free, he works for his master one day and for himself one day alternately. This is the opinion of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: You have made matters right for his master but not for him. To marry a bondwoman he is not permitted;<a id="k13a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to marry a free woman he is not permitted.<a id="k13a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall he then remain unmarried? And has not the world been created only for propagation, as it is written, He created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited?<a id="k13a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; No; what we do is to compel his master to consent to emancipate him, and we give him a bond for half his value. Beth Hillel hearing this retracted their opinion and adopted the ruling of Beth Shammai'?<a id="k13a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is not quite a case in point, because while the slave can say, 'I will name a price,' he cannot [at any time] say to the master, 'You name a price'.<a id="k13a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: If there are two brothers, one rich and one poor, to whom their father leaves a bath and an olive press, if he made them for renting, then the brothers share the rental, but if he made them for his own use, then the rich brother can say to the poor one,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k13b_1:" <i>Infra</i> 172a."
,k13b_2:" Because he himself has no money with which he might pay it. Hence this too is no proof that one partner has no right to say to the other, 'You name' etc."
,k13b_3:" And an equivalent has to be allowed by the one who obtains it. Hence a partner has the right to say, 'You name' etc."
,k13b_4:" I.e., four cub its."
,k13b_5:" Supposing the courtyard is too small to allow four cubits to each."
,k13b_6:" But R. Simeon may still agree that he can say. 'You name a price etc.'"
,k13b_7:" Prov. XV, 27."
,k13b_8:" That one has a right to say, 'You name a price etc.'"
,k13b_9:" Presumably the two scrolls are not equal in value, and if so how can one force the other to divide unless he can say to him, 'You name a price (for the extra value) or let me name it.'"
,k13b_10:" I.e., the words of the Mishnah, 'even though both agree' refer to the case where there is only one scroll, not where there are two."
,k13b_11:" Who said there is no such right."
,k13b_12:" To decide whether one could force the other to divide them, the one who received the more valuable one giving compensation."
,k13b_13:" Which properly means, 'You buy my portion from me or let me buy yours from you.'"
,k13b_14:" One being deficient without the other."
,k13b_15:" Which shows that the principle, 'You name' etc., extends even to such cases."
,k13b_16:" The Pentateuch."
,k13b_17:" According to the Rabbinical classification, these are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve Minor Prophets."
,k13b_18:" Since all these only form one book."
,k13b_19:" And there is no need to leave a space of four lines."
,k13b_20:" When it is rolled up. "
}

txt:
<p>
'Take slaves and let them wash you down in the bath, take olives and make oil from them in the press'?<a id="k13b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There too, the poor brother can say to the other, 'You name a price,' but he cannot say, 'I will name a price.'<a id="k13b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: ANYTHING WHICH IF DIVIDED WILL STILL RETAIN THE SAME NAME IS TO BE DIVIDED, AND IF NOT, A MONEY VALUE HAS TO BE ENTERED FOR IT?<a id="k13b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: If a man says [to his partner], You take the prescribed minimum [in the courtyard]<a id="k13b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and I will take less,<a id="k13b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; his suggestion is adopted. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that his suggestion is not adopted. What are the circumstances? If we take the statement as it stands, what is the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? Therefore we must suppose that there is a lacuna, and it should run thus: If one says, 'You take the standard space, and I will take less,' his suggestion is adopted. If he says, 'You name a price or I will name a price,' his suggestion is also adopted. And in regard to this Rabban Simeon remarks that his suggestion is not adopted. This, however, is not so. The statement is to be taken as it stands, and as to your question, what reason can Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel have, it is because he can say to him [the one who offers to take less], 'If you want me to pay for the extra, I have no money, and if you want to make me a present, I prefer not,<a id="k13b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is written, He that hateth gifts shall live.'<a id="k13b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said to R. Joseph: This opinion of Rab Judah<a id="k13b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; really comes from Samuel, as we have learnt: SCROLLS OF THE SCRIPTURE MAY NOT BE DIVIDED EVEN IF BOTH AGREE, and on this Samuel remarked: This rule was only meant to apply if the whole is in one scroll, but if it is in two scrolls they may divide. Now if you maintain that a man has no right to say, 'You name a price or I will name a price,' why should the rule apply only to one scroll? Why not to two scrolls also?<a id="k13b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shalman explained that Samuel referred to the case where both consent.<a id="k13b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Amemar said: The law is that a partner has the right to say, 'You name a price or let me name a price.' Said R. Ashi to Amemar: What do you make of the statement of R. Nahman?<a id="k13b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: I don't know of it; meaning, I don't hold with it. How could he say this, seeing that Raba b. Hinnena and R. Dimi b. Hinnena were left by their father two bond-women, one of whom knew how to bake and cook and the other to spin and weave, and they came before Raba<a id="k13b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and he said to them: A partner has no right to say, 'You name a price or let me name a price?' &mdash; The case is different there because each of them wanted both the women. So when one said, 'You take one and I will take one', this was not the same as, 'You name a price or let me name a price.'<a id="k13b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of a copy of the Scriptures in two scrolls, where both are required<a id="k13b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet Samuel said: The rule that they must not be divided applies only where there is one scroll, but if there are two, they may be divided? &mdash; This has been explained by R. Shalman to refer to the case where both consent.<a id="k13b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It is permissible to fasten the Torah,<a id="k13b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the prophets, and the Hagiographa together. This is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah, however, says that the Torah, the prophets, and the Hagiographa should each be in a separate scroll; while the Sages say that each book should be separate. Rab Judah said: it is related that Boethus b. Zonin had the eight prophets<a id="k13b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; fastened together at the suggestion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. Others, however, report that he had them each one separate. Rabbi said: On one occasion a copy of the Torah, the prophets, and the Hagiographa all bound up together was brought before us, and we declared them fit and proper.
</p><p>
	Between each book of the Torah there should be left a space of four lines, and so between one Prophet and the next. In the twelve Minor Prophets, however, the space should only be three lines.<a id="k13b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, the scribe finishes one book at the bottom [of a column], he should commence the next at the top [of the next].<a id="k13b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Rabbis taught: If a man desires to fasten the Torah, the Prophets and the Hagiographa together, he may do so. At the beginning he should leave an empty space sufficient for winding round the cylinder, and at the end an empty space sufficient for winding round the whole circumference [of the scroll].<a id="k13b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If he finishes a section at the bottom [of one column], he commences the next at the top [of the next],
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k9a_1:" II Kings XII, 16. According to Tosaf., this is not a proof, because the men of that generatlon were exceptionally righteous."
,k9a_2:" Ibid. Although they had perfect confidence in the workers, the priests before giving them the money first put it in bags and counted it."
,k9a_3:" To see that they are not impostors."
,k9a_4:" Isa. LVIII, 7. E.V. 'deal'."
,k9a_5:" [H] = [H] = 'make plain', 'examine'. In our texts the word is written [H]. V. Tosaf. Shab. 55b, s.v. [H]."
,k9a_6:" Ibid."
,k9a_7:" The word [H] being interpreted as it is read."
,k9a_8:" Such a loaf would contain half a <I>kab</I> of wheat."
,k9a_9:" Three meals being obligatory on the Sabbath."
,k9a_10:" To give him money from the charity fund, v. Tosef. <i>Pe'ah</i>, IV."
,k9a_11:" I.e., something less than a complete meal."
,k9a_12:" Neh. x, 33. If for the repair of the Temple, <i>a fortiori</i> for charity."
,k9a_13:" [H] taken in the sense of 'causing others to do righteousness'."
,k9a_14:" And not righteousness (i.e., charity, or those who give charity) itself."
,k9a_15:" Isa. XXXII, 17."
,k9a_16:" Isa. LVIII, 7."
,k9a_17:" Ibid. The reference is to tax-collectors, [H] (E.V. 'cast out') being connected with root [H] 'to rule', v. <i>infra</i>."
,k9a_18:" Ibid. LX, 17. "
}

txt:
<p>
and stipulate [with the townspeople] that it may be used for both,' he also kept only one purse and made this stipulation. R. Ashi said: I do not even need to stipulate, since whoever comes [to give me money for charity] relies on my judgment, and leaves it to me to give to whom I will.
</p><p>
	There were two butchers who made an agreement with one another that if either killed on the other's day, the skin of his beast should be torn up. One of them actually did kill on the other's day, and the other went and tore up the skin. Those who did so were summoned before Raba, and he condemned them to make restitution. R. Yemar b. Shelemiah thereupon called Raba's attention to [the Baraitha which says] that the towns-people may inflict penalties for breach of their regulations. Raba did not deign to answer him. Said R. Papa: Raba was quite right not to answer him; this regulation holds good only where there is no distinguished man in the town, but where there is a distinguished man, they certainly have not the power to make such stipulations.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The collectors for charity are not required to give an account of the moneys entrusted to them for charity, nor the treasurers of the Sanctuary of the moneys given for holy purposes. There is no actual proof of this [in the Scriptures], but there is a hint of it in the words, They reckoned not with the men into whose hand they delivered the money, to give to them that did the work, for they dealt faithfully.<a id="k9a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: Even if a man has in his house a steward on whom he can rely, he should tie up and count out [any money that he hands to him], as it says, They put in bags and told the money.<a id="k9a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna said: Applicants for food are examined<a id="k9a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but not applicants for clothes. This rule can be based, if you like on Scripture, or if you prefer, on common sense. 'It can be based if you like on common sense', because the one [who has no clothing] is exposed to contempt, but not the other. 'Or if you prefer on Scripture' &mdash; on the verse, Is it not to examine [paros]<a id="k9a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the hungry before giving him thy bread [for so we may translate since] the word paros is written with a sin,<a id="k9a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; as much as to say, 'Examine and then give to him:' whereas later it is written, When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him,<a id="k9a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that is to say, immediately. Rab Judah, however, said that applicants for clothes are to be examined but not applicants for food. This rule can be based if you like on common sense or if you prefer on Scripture. 'If you like on common sense' &mdash; because the one [without food] is actually suffering but not the other. 'Or if you prefer on Scripture' &mdash; because it says, Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, that is, at once<a id="k9a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas later it is written, When thou seest the naked, that is to say, 'When you shall have seen [that he is deserving]'. It has been taught in agreement with Rab Judah: If a man says, 'Clothe me,' he is examined, but if he says, 'Feed me,' he is not examined.
</p><p>
	We have learnt in another place: The minimum to be given to a poor man who is on his way from one place to another is a loaf which costs a pundion when four se'ahs of wheat are sold for a <i>sela'</i>.<a id="k9a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If he stays overnight, he is given his requirements for the night. What is meant by 'requirements for the night'? &mdash; R. Papa said: A bed and a pillow. If he stays over Sabbath, he is given food for three meals.<a id="k9a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A Tanna taught: If he is a beggar who goes from door to door, we pay no attention to him.<a id="k9a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain man who used to beg from door to door came to R. Papa [for money], but he refused him. Said R. Samma the son of R. Yeba to R. Papa: If you do not pay attention to him, no one else will pay attention to him; is he then to die of hunger? But, [replied R. Papa,] has it not been taught, If he is a beggar who goes from door to door, we pay no attention to him? &mdash; He replied: We do not listen to his request for a large gift, but we do listen to his request for a small gift.<a id="k9a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Assi said: A man should never neglect to give the third of a <i>shekel</i> [for charity] in a year, as it says, Also we made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a <i>shekel</i> for the service of the house of our Lord.<a id="k9a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Assi further said: Charity is equivalent to all the other religious precepts combined; as it says, 'Also we made ordinances': it is not written, 'an ordinance', but 'ordinances'.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: He who causes others to do good is greater than the doer, as it says, And the work<a id="k9a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] shall be peace,<a id="k9a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the effect of righteousness quiet and confidence for ever.<a id="k9a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man is deserving, then shalt thou not deal thy bread to the hungry,<a id="k9a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he is not deserving, then thou shalt bring the poor that are cast out to thy house.<a id="k9a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said to the townsfolk of Mahuza: I beg of you, hasten [to the assistance of] one another, so that you may be on good terms with the Government. R. Eleazar further said: When the Temple stood, a man used to bring his <i>shekel</i> and so make atonement. Now that the Temple no longer stands, if they give for charity, well and good, and if not, the heathens will come and take from them forcibly. And even so it will be reckoned to them as if they had given charity, as it is written, [I will make] thine exactors righteousness<a id="k9a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [<i>zedakah</i>].
</p><p>
	Raba said: The following was told me by the suckling
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k9b_1:" R. Shesheth. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k9b_2:" Isa. LIX, 17."
,k9b_3:" Ibid. LXIV, 5."
,k9b_4:" In the seven days after he brings the birds, and before he brings his offering. V. Lev. XIV, 8."
,k9b_5:" As we know because it is written, <I>On the seventh day he shall wash his clothes</I>. (Ibid. 9.)"
,k9b_6:" As it is written, <I>Whosoever shall bear aught of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes</I> (Lev. XI, 25). but it is not said that he renders other persons or garments unclean by his touch."
,k9b_7:" Ibid. 31, 38."
,k9b_8:" Ibid. XXII, 5."
,k9b_9:" Ibid. 4."
,k9b_10:" As the text might have run, 'Whoso toucheth anything unclean, and whose seed goeth etc.' V. Malbim, a.l."
,k9b_11:" This is usually taken to refer to R. Shesheth. R. Hana, however, refers it to R. Ahadboi, whose mother he presumes to have nursed R. Shesheth. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k9b_12:" To induce him to pray that R. Ahadboi should be healed."
,k9b_13:" In regard to the leper. Lit., 'now that the subject has been discussed, whence do we know it?'"
,k9b_14:" I.e., at the end of the seven days. Lev. XIV, 9."
,k9b_15:" I.e., when he first emerges from this into the seven day period. Lev. XIV, 8. The analogy is based on a similarity of expression, <I>Gezerah Shawah</I>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k9b_16:" Deut. IX, 19."
,k9b_17:" Prov. XXI, 14."
,k9b_18:" Isa. LVIII, 7. The six blessings are to be found in the next two verses, Then shall thy light break forth etc."
,k9b_19:" Ib. 10-12."
,k9b_20:" The Hebrew is <i>zedakah</i>, which is taken in the Rabbinical sense of 'charity'."
,k9b_21:" Prov. XXI, 21."
,k9b_22:" I.e., because he gives charity, shall his reward be that he shall obtain charity when he requires it?"
,k9b_23:" Lit., 'to exclude what?'"
,k9b_24:" Jer. XVIII, 23."
,k9b_25:" Possibly '<i>aggadah</i>' has here its original meaning of 'telling', i.e., 'eloquence'."
,k9b_26:" In the verse from Prov. XXI, quoted above. "
}

txt:
<p>
who perverted the way of his mother,<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of R. Eleazar. What is the meaning of the verse, <I>And he put on righteousness as a coat of mail</I>?<a id="k9b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; It tells us that just as in a coat of mail every small scale joins With the others to form one piece of armour, so every little sum given to charity combines with the rest to form a large sum. R. Hanina said: The same lesson may be learnt from here: And all our righteousness is as a polluted garment.<a id="k9b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as in a garment every thread unites with the rest to form a whole garment, so every farthing given to charity unites with the rest to form a large sum.
</p><p>
	Why was he [R. Shesheth] called 'the suckling who perverted the way of his mother'? The reason is this. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked R. Shesheth: Whence do we infer that a leper while he is counting his days [for purification]<a id="k9b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; renders unclean a man [who touches him]? He replied: Since he renders garments unclean,<a id="k9b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he renders a man unclean. But, he said, perhaps this only applies to clothes which he actually wears; for similarly we have the case of the lifting of a carcase which makes the garments unclean but not the man?<a id="k9b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: And whence do we know that a creeping thing makes a man unclean? Is it not from the fact that it makes garments unclean?<a id="k9b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Of the creeping thing it is distinctly written, Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing whereby he may be made unclean.<a id="k9b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; How then, he [R. Shesheth] said, do we know that [human] semen makes a man unclean? Do we not say that because it makes garments unclean, therefore it makes a man unclean? &mdash; He replied: The rule of semen is also distinctly stated, since it is written in connection with it, Or a man [whose seed goeth from him],<a id="k9b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; where [the superfluous phrase 'or a man'] brings under the rule one who touches the seed.<a id="k9b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He [R. Ahadboi] made his objections in a mocking manner which deeply wounded R. Shesheth, and soon after R. Ahadhoi b. Abba lost his speech and forgot his learning. His<a id="k9b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; mother came and wept before him,<a id="k9b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but in spite of all her cries he paid no attention to her. At length she said: Behold these breasts from which you have sucked. Then at last he prayed for him and he was healed.
</p><p>
	But what is the answer to the question that has been raised?<a id="k9b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai says: 'Washing of garments' is mentioned in connection with the period of the leper's counting,<a id="k9b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'washing of garments' is also mentioned in connection with the period of his definite uncleanness.<a id="k9b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as in the latter case he renders any man he touches unclean, so also in the former case.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: A man who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses our Teacher, for of Moses it is written, For I was afraid because of the anger aid the wrath,<a id="k9b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and of one who gives charity [secretly] it is written, A gift in secret subdues anger.<a id="k9b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; In this he [R. Eleazar] differs from R. Isaac, for R. Isaac said that it subdues 'anger' but not 'wrath', since the verse continues, And a present in the bosom fierce wrath, [which we can interpret to mean], 'Though a present is placed in the bosom, yet wrath is still fierce.' According to others, R. Isaac said: A judge who takes a bribe brings fierce wrath upon the world; as it says, And a present etc. R. Isaac also said: He who gives a small coin to a poor man obtains six blessings, and he who addresses to him words of comfort obtains eleven blessings. 'He who gives a small coin to a poor man obtains six blessings' &mdash; as it is written, Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry and bring the poor to thy house etc., when thou seest the naked etc.<a id="k9b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He who addresses to him comforting words obtains eleven blessings', as it is written, If thou draw out thy soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, they shall thy light rise in the darkness and thine obscurity be as the noonday, and the Lord shall guide thee continually and satisfy thy soul in drought &hellip; and they shall build from thee the old waste places and thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations, </I>etc.<a id="k9b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac further said: What is the meaning of the verse, <I>He that followeth after righteousness<a id="k9b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and mercy findeth life, righteousness and honour</I>?<a id="k9b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Because a man has followed after righteousness, shall he find righteousness?<a id="k9b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The purpose of the verse, however, is to teach us that if a man is anxious to give charity, the Holy One, blessed be He, furnishes him money with which to give it. R. Nahman b. Isaac says: The Holy One, blessed be He, sends him men who are fitting recipients of charity, so that he may be rewarded for assisting them. Who then are unfit?<a id="k9b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Such as those mentioned in the exposition of Rabbah, when he said: What is the meaning of the verse, Let them be made to stumble before thee; in the time of thine anger deal thou with them?<a id="k9b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Jeremiah said to the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, even at the time when they conquer their evil inclination and seek to do charity before Thee, cause them to stumble through men who are not fitting recipients, so that they should receive no reward for assisting them.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: He who does charity habitually will have sons wise, wealthy, and versed in the <i>Aggadah</i>.<a id="k9b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wise' as it is written,<a id="k9b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k2a_1:" This word may mean either 'partition' or 'division'. The Gemara discusses which sense is intended here."
,k2a_2:" A yard on to which two or more houses open."
,k2a_3:" I.e., unless they agree otherwise."
,k2a_4:" These are names of various kinds of bricks, and their precise sense is explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k2a_5:" Because a wall of gebil usually was six handbreadths thick."
,k2a_6:" The usual breadth of such a wall being five handbreadths."
,k2a_7:" The usual breadth being four handbreadths."
,k2a_8:" The usual breadth being three handbreadths."
,k2a_9:" At some subsequent time, when the circumstances under which it was put up have been forgotten."
,k2a_10:" Or 'a vegetable garden'."
,k2a_11:" The point of this remark is discussed in the Gemara."
,k2a_12:" In consequence of the rule just given."
,k2a_13:" If there is a fence between a cornfield and a vineyard, the owner of the cornfield may sow right up to the fence, but if there is no fence he must not bring his seeds nearer than four cubits to the vineyard. V. <i>infra</i> 26a. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_i">CHAPTER I</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF JOINT OWNERS AGREE TO MAKE A MEHIZAH<a id="k2a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IN A COURTYARD,<a id="k2a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY SHOULD<a id="k2a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BUILD THE WALL IN THE MIDDLE. IN DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS USUAL TO BUILD OF GEBIL, GAZITH, KEFISIN OR LEBENIM,<a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY MUST USE SUCH MATERIALS, ALL ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF THE DISTRICT. IF GEBIL IS USED, EACH GIVES THREE HANDBREADTHS.<a id="k2a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; IF GAZITH IS USED, EACH GIVES TWO HANDBREADTHS AND A HALF.<a id="k2a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IF KEFISIN ARE USED, EACH GIVES TWO HANDBREADTHS.<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF LEBENIM ARE USED, EACH GIVES A HANDBREADTH AND A HALF.<a id="k2a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THEREFORE IF THE WALL FALLS,<a id="k2a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [IT IS ASSUMED THAT] THE PLACE [IT OCCUPIED] AND THE STONES BELONG TO BOTH. SIMILARLY WITH AN ORCHARD,<a id="k2a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO FENCE OFF, EITHER CAN BE COMPELLED TO DO SO. BUT IN A STRETCH OF CORNFIELDS, IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS USUAL NOT TO FENCE OFF [THE FIELDS]. NEITHER CAN BE COMPELLED. IF, HOWEVER, ONE DESIRES TO MAKE A FENCE, HE MUST WITHDRAW A LITTLE AND BUILD ON HIS OWN GROUND, MAKING A FACING ON THE OUTER SIDE.<a id="k2a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; CONSEQUENTLY,<a id="k2a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE WALL FALLS, THE PLACE AND THE STONES [ARE ASSUMED TO] BELONG TO HIM. IF, HOWEVER, THEY BOTH CONCUR, THEY BUILD THE WALL IN THE MIDDLE AND MAKE A FACING ON BOTH SIDES. CONSEQUENTLY IF THE WALL FALLS, [IT IS ASSUMED THAT] THE PLACE AND THE STONES BELONG TO BOTH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was presumed [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>] that MEHIZAH means a wall, as it has been taught: If the mehiza of a vineyard has been broken down, the owner [of an adjoining cornfield] can require the owner of the vineyard to restore it.<a id="k2a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If it is broken down again. he can again require him to restore it.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k2b_1:" Because that part which is sown near the vineyard is regarded as being sown in the vineyard itself, and therefore when the produce reaches a certain height it becomes forfeit, according to the law in Deut. XXII, 9. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with mingled seeds."
,k2b_2:" To divide the courtyard by means of a wall and not merely by a fence of sticks."
,k2b_3:" Lit., 'the damage of overlooking is not called damage'. The 'overlooking' is the power of either owner to see what the other is doing in his half of the courtyard."
,k2b_4:" Num. XXXI, 43."
,k2b_5:" And not merely a fence of sticks."
,k2b_6:" That mehizah means 'division'."
,k2b_7:" I.e., you who object to mehizah being taken to mean 'division'."
,k2b_8:" By allowing, say. a thin partition of boards which would prevent my looking over into your part."
,k2b_9:" Lit., 'service': the space in his own half which would be taken up by a thick wall."
,k2b_10:" What reason can there be here save to prevent overlooking?"
,k2b_11:" So as not to injure it by casting on it the 'evil eye'; hence this is no proof that overlooking is an injury."
,k2b_12:" Which implies that the reason is the same in the case of an orchard as in the case of a courtyard."
,k2b_13:" That is to say. that the wall in an orchard, if there is to be one, must also be made of these materials."
,k2b_14:" A further objection to the thesis that overlooking is no injury."
,k2b_15:" <i>Infra</i> 5a. This would show that overlooking is an injury."
,k2b_16:" Because the joint owners had already agreed to have a wall."
,k2b_17:" Lit., 'He who asks this, how can he ask it.' the answer being so obvious."
,k2b_18:" And if this is so, then the case of the wall falling is not different from the case of there being no wall, and overlooking is an injury. Consequently the objection from the statement 'If the wall falls in, etc,' is a sensible one."
,k2b_19:" So as to prevent the passers.by looking in, <i>Infra</i> 7a."
,k2b_20:" <i>Infra</i> 11a."
,k2b_21:" And overlooking is not a substantial damage."
,k2b_22:" <i>Infra</i> 22a. The reference is to a wall built by the joint owner of a courtyard opposite his neighbour's windows."
,k2b_23:" Which shows that overlooking even by a private individual is a substantial damage."
,k2b_24:" Because greater privacy is required in a house,"
,k2b_25:" So that he should not be able to look over into the courtyard when using the roof. <i>Infra</i> 6b. "
}

txt:
<p>
If [the owner of the vineyard] neglects the matter and does not restore it, he causes his neighbour's produce to become forfeit<a id="k2b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and is responsible for his loss. [This being so,] the reason [why either can be compelled to join in putting up the wall] is because they both agreed;<a id="k2b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if either did not agree. he cannot be compelled. From this we infer that 'overlooking' is not regarded as a substantial damage.<a id="k2b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But may I not say that MEHIZAH means 'division', as in the verse, And the congregation's half<a id="k2b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [mehezath. lit., 'division']. That being so, since they agreed to make a division, either can compel the other to build a wall,<a id="k2b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from which we infer that overlooking is recognised as a substantial damage! &mdash; If that is the case,<a id="k2b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; why does the Mishnah say. WHO AGREED TO MAKE A DIVISION [MEHIZAH]? It should say, 'who agreed lahazoth [to divide]'? &mdash; You<a id="k2b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; say then that MEHIZAH means a wall. Why then does the Mishnah say. THEY MUST BUILD THE WALL? It should say simply. 'They must build it'? &mdash; If the Mishnah had said 'it', I should have understood that a mere fence of sticks is sufficient. It tells us [therefore that the partition must be a wall].
</p><p>
	THEY MUST BUILD THE WALL IN THE MIDDLE. Surely this is self-evident? &mdash; It had to be stated in view of the case where one of the partners had to persuade the other to agree. You might think that in that case the second can say to the first: When I consented to your request. I was willing to lose part of my air space.<a id="k2b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but not part of my ground space.<a id="k2b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we know [that he cannot say so].
</p><p>
	But is then overlooking no substantial damage? Come and hear: SIMILARLY WITH AN ORCHARD?<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a special reason in the case of an orchard, as we find in a saying of R. Abba; for R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna, who said it in the name of Rab: It is forbidden to a man to stand about in his neighbour's field when the corn In It is In the ear.<a id="k2b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Mishnah says AND SIMILARLY?<a id="k2b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This refers to the gebil and the gazith.<a id="k2b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear:<a id="k2b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If the wall of a courtyard falls in, he [the joint owner] can be compelled to help in rebuilding to a height of four cubits'?<a id="k2b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If it falls, the case is different.<a id="k2b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But what then was the point of the objection?<a id="k2b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it could be said that this statement was required only as an introduction to the next, which runs, 'Above four cubits he is not compelled to help in rebuilding.'<a id="k2b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: [Every resident in a courtyard] can be compelled to assist in building a gateway and a door to the courtyard.<a id="k2b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows, does it not, that overlooking is a substantial damage? Injury inflicted by the public is in a different category. Is then overlooking by a private individual not an injury? Come and hear [this]: 'A courtyard need not be divided [on the demand of one party] unless it is large enough to allow four cubits to each',<a id="k2b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows that if enough space will be left to each, a division can be demanded. Must not that division be made by a wall? &mdash; No; a mere fence of sticks is sufficient.<a id="k2b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: '[A wall built facing] windows, whether above, below, or opposite. [must be kept] four cubits away';<a id="k2b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and in explanation of this it was taught that [if higher] it must be four cubits higher so that one should not be able to peep over and look in, and [if lower] four cubits lower so that one should not be able to stand on it and look in,<a id="k2b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and four cubits away so as not to darken the windows? &mdash; Damage [caused by looking into] a house is different.<a id="k2b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a man's roof adjoins his neighbour's courtyard, he must make a parapet four cubits high'?<a id="k2b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a special reason there, because the owner of the courtyard can say to the owner of the roof, I have fixed times for using my courtyard, but you have no fixed times for using your roof, and I do not know when you may be going up there
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k17a_1:" Ibid. XXIV, 1."
,k17a_2:" Ibid. XXVII, 33."
,k17a_3:" Ibid. XXXIII, 11."
,k17a_4:" [On the evil inclination, v. Porter, F.C., 'The Yezer Hara', A Study in the Jewish doctrine of Sin.]"
,k17a_5:" Which shows that they were completely righteous."
,k17a_6:" Ps. CIX, 22."
,k17a_7:" But they died by a 'kiss'."
,k17a_8:" And therefore they did not lack this final honour."
,k17a_9:" Num. XXXIII, 38; Deut. XXXIV, 5."
,k17a_10:" Num. XX, I, and Deut. XXXIV, 5."
,k17a_11:" If used in connection with a female."
,k17a_12:" I.e., rest in the grave in reliance on that love."
,k17a_13:" Deut. XXXIII, 12. E.V. 'the beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him'."
,k17a_14:" Ps. XVI, 9."
,k17a_15:" In which case we translate, 'may my flesh dwell etc.'"
,k17a_16:" The counsel given by the serpent to Eve, which brought death on all mankind, and not for any sin they themselves committed. [The reference is to physical death only and is thus not to be confused with the doctrine of 'original sin' involving the condemnation of the whole human race to a death that is eternal.]"
,k17a_17:" II Sam. XVII, 25."
,k17a_18:" I Chron. II, 16."
,k17a_19:" For fear of loosening the sides. On the terms [H] (pit), [H] (ditch), [H] (cave), v. B.K. V."
,k17a_20:" A shallow pool for soaking and washing soiled linen."
,k17a_21:" I.e., the side of the pit, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k17a_22:" The refuse from olives which have been pressed for oil."
,k17a_23:" A mud wall which might be injured by the proximity of these articles, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k17a_24:" Ovens were fixed not on the ground but on a sort of platform narrower at the top than the bottom. According to another interpretation we should translate, 'three from the belly of the oven, which means four from the rim,' the ovens being in shape like earthenware jars swelling in the middle; v. Tosaf. "
}

txt:
<p>
of the future world while they were still in this world, to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham [we know] because it is written of him, [The Lord blessed Abraham] in all,<a id="k17a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Isaac, because it is written, [And I ate] of all;<a id="k17a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Jacob, because it is written, [For I have] all.<a id="k17a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Three there were over whom the evil inclination<a id="k17a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; had no dominion, to wit Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, [as we know] because it is written in connection with them, in all, of all, all.<a id="k17a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Some include also David, of whom it is written, My heart is wounded within me.<a id="k17a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other authority? &mdash; He understands him to be referring here to his distress.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Six there were over whom the Angel of Death had no dominion,<a id="k17a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and Miriam. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob we know because it is written in connection with them, in all, of all, all;<a id="k17a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Moses, Aaron and Miriam because it is written in connection with them [that they died] By the mouth of the Lord.<a id="k17a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But the words 'by the month of the Lord' are not used in connection with [the death of] Miriam? &mdash; R. Eleazar said: Miriam also died by a kiss, as we learn from the use of the word 'there' [in connection both with her death] and with that of Moses.<a id="k17a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And why is it not said of her that [she died] by the month of the Lord? &mdash; Because such an expression would be disrespectful.<a id="k17a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: There were seven over whom the worms had no dominion, namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and Benjamin son of Jacob. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [we know] because it is written of them, 'in all, of all, all': Moses, Aaron and Miriam because it is written in connection with them, By the mouth of the Lord. Benjamin son of Jacob, because it is written in connection with him, And to Benjamin he said, The beloved of the Lord, he shall dwell thereon<a id="k17a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in safety.<a id="k17a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Some say that David also [is included], since it is written of him, My flesh also shall dwell [in the grave] in safety.<a id="k17a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The other, however, explains this to mean that he is praying for mercy.<a id="k17a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Four died through the counsel of the serpent,<a id="k17a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; namely, Benjamin son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Kilab the son of David. We know this only from tradition in regard to all of them save Jesse the father of David, in regard to whom it is stated distinctly in the Scripture, as it is written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Isra the Israelite, that went in to Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.<a id="k17a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now was she the daughter of Nahash? Was she not the daughter of Jesse, as It is written, And their [Jesse's sons'] sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?<a id="k17a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What it means therefore is, The daughter of him who died through the counsel of the serpent [nahash].
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ii">CHAPTER II</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN SHOULD NOT DIG A PIT [IN HIS OWN FIELD] CLOSE TO THE PIT OF HIS NEIGHBOUR,<a id="k17a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR A DITCH NOR A CAVE NOR A WATER-CHANNEL NOR A FULLER'S POOL,<a id="k17a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS HE KEEPS THEM AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL<a id="k17a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; AND PLASTERS [THE SIDES]. A MAN SHOULD KEEP OLIVE REFUSE,<a id="k17a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; DUNG, SALT, LIME, AND FLINT STONES AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL<a id="k17a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; OR PLASTER IT OVER. SEEDS, PLOUGH FURROWS, AND URINE SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL. MILL &mdash; STONES SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS AWAY RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. AN OVEN SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE,<a id="k17a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE TOP OF THE BASE.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k17b_1:" We suppose the neighbour's pit to commence three handbreadths from the boundary on his side. Hence if we were to understand the word 'pit' here to mean the hollow of the pit, the other would still be able to dig right up to the boundary. We should therefore have to understand 'pit' to mean 'the side of the pit', and so there is no need to substitute the word 'wall'."
,k17b_2:" Because we understand the Mishnah to mean, 'he must keep the hollow of his pit three handbreadths from the side of the other's pit', i.e., three from the boundary, which are filled by the side of his own pit. This is the explanation of Rashi, and is apparently forced. Tosaf, greatly simplifies the passage by omitting the sentence, 'But still why&nbsp;&hellip; neighbour's pit' (or, alternatively, by inserting it after 'speaking of his wall'). The explanation would then be as follows: Abaye says that he must keep his pit three handbreadths from the side of his neighbour's pit (which presumably comes up to the boundary), and we infer from this that the neighbour also must not dig his pit close up to the boundary; whereas if the word 'pit' had been used, we should not have been able to infer this."
,k17b_3:" E.g., a field requiring irrigation."
,k17b_4:" Lest the roots spread and injure the pit, v. <i>infra</i> 25a."
,k17b_5:" And there is no contradiction between the Mishnah and Abaye and Raba."
,k17b_6:" Who said he may dig so long as there is no pit on the other side."
,k17b_7:" Which implies that, even if there is no pit on the other side, the pit itself must be kept three handbreadths from the boundary to allow space for the wall (i.e. side)."
,k17b_8:" V. p. 3 n. 2."
,k17b_9:" For then certainly each would have to keep three handbreadths away."
,k17b_10:" Lit. 'a rock that comes (to pieces) in the hands.'"
,k17b_11:" Tosef. B.B. I. From this I infer that even if there is no pit on the other side, the first pit has to be kept three handbreadths away, which is contrary to the opinion of Abaye."
,k17b_12:" I.e., the answer being so obvious, what was his idea in asking such a question? "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The Mishnah [in the first sentence] begins by speaking of the neighbour's PIT and finishes by speaking of his WALL. [How is this]? &mdash; Said Abaye [or according to others Rab Judah]: The word WALL must here be understood to mean the wall [i.e. side] of his pit. But still why does not the Mishnah say, 'but he should keep them at least three handbreadths from his neighbour's pit'?<a id="k17b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The use of the word WALL teaches us that the wall of the pit must itself be three handbreadths thick.<a id="k17b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This ruling has a practical bearing on cases of sale, as it was taught: If a man says to another, 'I will sell you a pit and its walls,' the wall must be not less than three handbreadths thick.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man desires to dig a pit close up to the boundary [between his field and his neighbour's]. Abaye says he may do so and Raba says he may not do so. Now in a field where pits would naturally be dug,<a id="k17b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; both agree that he may not dig close up. Where they differ is in the case of a field where pits would not naturally be dug; Abaye says he may dig, because it is not naturally a field for digging pits [and therefore his neighbour is not likely to want to dig one on the other side]. while Raba says he may not dig; because his neighbour can say to him, 'Just as you have altered your mind and want to dig, so I may alter my mind and want to dig.' Others report [this argument as follows]: In the case of a field where pits would not naturally be dug, both [Abaye and Raba] agree that he may dig close up to the boundary. Where they differ is in the case of a field where pits would naturally be dug. Abaye says that in such a field the owner may dig, and would be allowed to dig even by the Rabbis who lay down that a tree must not be planted within twenty-five cubits of a pit;<a id="k17b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for they only rule this because at the time of planting the pit already exists, but here when the man comes to dig the pit there is no pit on the other side. Raba on the other hand says that he may not dig, and would not be allowed to dig even by R. Jose. who laid down that [in all circumstances] the one owner can plant within his property and the other dig within his;<a id="k17b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for he only rules thus because at the time when the former plants there are as yet no roots which could damage the pit, but in this case the owner of the other field can say to the man who wants to dig the pit, 'Every stroke with the spade which you make injures my ground.'
</p><p>
	We learnt: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIG A PIT CLOSE TO THE PIT OF HIS NEIGHBOUR. [From this it appears that] the reason [why he must not dig] is because there is another pit in existence, but if there is not, then he may dig. Now this would be in order if we accept the version [of the argument reported above] according to which Abaye and Raba agree that in a field where pits would not naturally be dug the owner may dig close up to the boundary; we may then interpret the Mishnah to speak of a field where pits would not naturally be dug.<a id="k17b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, we accept the version according to which Abaye and Raba differ in regard to a field where pits would not naturally be dug, then, while the Mishnah is in order according to the ruling of Abaye,<a id="k17b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it presents a difficulty [does it not], according to that of Raba? &mdash; Raba could reply to you: It has already been reported in this connection that Abaye [or it may be Rab Judah] said that the word WALL in the Mishnah means 'the wall of his pit'.<a id="k17b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others report this discussion as follows. [The Mishnah says that a man should not dig a pit close to the pit of his neighbour,] and it has been reported in this connection that Abaye [or it may be Rab Judah] said that WALL here must be explained to mean the wall [side] of his neighbour's pit. Now all will be in order if we accept the version of Abaye and Raba's argument according to which in a field where pits would naturally be dug both agree that he should not dig close to the boundary; for in this case we explain the Mishnah [also] to refer to a field where pits would naturally be dug.<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, we take the version according to which Abaye and Raba differ in regard to a field where pits would naturally be dug, while the Mishnah is in order according to the ruling of Raba, it presents a difficulty [does it not], according to that of Abaye? &mdash; Abaye might reply that the Mishnah speaks of the case where both owners want to dig at the same time.<a id="k17b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If the soil at the boundary is of crumbling rock<a id="k17b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and the one owner wants to dig a pit on his side and the other owner on his side, the one keeps three handbreadths away from the boundary and plasters the sides of his pit, and the other does likewise?'<a id="k17b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Crumbling rock is different. But how could the questioner have raised the question at all?<a id="k17b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The questioner thought that the same law would apply to ordinary soil, but that it was necessary to specify the rule about crumbling rock, as otherwise I might think that, since it is crumbling [i.e. soft] rock, an even greater space was required for it. Now the Baraitha tells us [that it is not so].
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A MAN SHOULD KEEP OLIVE REFUSE, DUNG,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k28a_1:" Heb. <i>hazakah</i>, [H], which combines the meanings of 'holding' or 'occupation', and 'presumed ownership'. What is meant is a title not supported by documents or witnesses, but based on the mere fact of possession. The English legal term Is usucaption'."
,k28a_2:" Lit., 'yielding fruits'."
,k28a_3:" As will be seen later, such possession creates a presumption of ownership only if the possessor pleads at the same time that he came by the object in a lawful manner, e.g., by purchase or gift. If he does not advance this plea, the fact of his years' possession has no legal value."
,k28a_4:" I.e., from any date in one year to a corresponding date three years later. The reason for this regulation is discussed in the Gemara."
,k28a_5:" As explained in what follows."
,k28a_6:" Because some crops are sown in the last three months of the year and some in the first three, and to crop the field at these times is equivalent to possessing it for a year."
,k28a_7:" For R. Akiba's reason, v. <i>infra</i> 362."
,k28a_8:" Lit., 'field of white', so called because the corn casts no shade. (Jast.)"
,k28a_9:" Which is also a kind of non-irrigated field."
,k28a_10:" Even though all three processes are carried out in one year, the idea being that the rightful owner would not permit another to take three crops off his field without protesting."
,k28a_11:" Usha was a town in Upper Galilee near Tiberias. Here, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was established when it left Jabneh, and here too after the war of Bar Cochba a synod was held composed mainly of the pupils of Judah b. Baba. On the question who is meant here by 'those who attended at Usha,' v. <i>infra</i>, p. 141, n. 4."
,k28a_12:" I.e., Why three precisely?"
,k28a_13:" Lit., 'Mu'ad ox' (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). V. Ex. XXI, 29."
,k28a_14:" This is based on the words of the text, from yesterday and the day before,' which, with to-day, make three; v. B.K 23b."
,k28a_15:" Here again. the Hebrew word is <i>hazakah</i>, which here has the meaning of 'presumed character'."
,k28a_16:" Lit., 'innocent', involving the payment of half the damage only. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k28a_17:" Lit., 'testified against' and liable to pay for the damage in full."
,k28a_18:" Lit., 'eaten'."
,k28a_19:" I.e., so completely that he need no longer retain his title-deeds."
,k28a_20:" To pay the full damage."
,k28a_21:" If be can bring no proof of ownership."
,k28a_22:" Lit., 'so now' "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iii">CHAPTER III</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A PRESUMPTIVE TITLE<a id="k28a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; TO HOUSES, PITS, DITCHES AND CAVES, DOVECOTES, BATHS, OLIVE PRESSES, IRRIGATED FIELDS, SLAVES, AND ANYTHING WHICH IS CONTINUALLY PRODUCING<a id="k28a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS [UNCHALLENGED POSSESSION]<a id="k28a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM DAY TO DAY.<a id="k28a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A PRESUMPTIVE TITLE TO A NON-IRRIGATED FIELD IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS' POSSESSION NOT RECKONED FROM DAY TO DAY.<a id="k28a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ISHMAEL SAYS: IT IS SUFFICIENT TO HAVE THREE MONTHS IN THE FIRST YEAR, THREE MONTHS IN THE LAST AND TWELVE IN THE MIDDLE,<a id="k28a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; MAKING EIGHTEEN MONTHS IN ALL. R. AKIBA SAYS: ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS A MONTH IN THE FIRST, A MONTH IN THE LAST, AND TWELVE MONTHS IN THE MIDDLE, MAKING FOURTEEN MONTHS IN ALL.<a id="k28a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ISHMAEL SAYS: THIS REFERS ONLY TO A CORNFIELD,<a id="k28a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IN A FIELD PLANTED WITH TREES,<a id="k28a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN HARVESTS HIS GRAPES, GATHERS IN HIS OLIVES, AND CULLS HIS FIGS, THIS COUNTS AS THREE YEARS.<a id="k28a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Johanan said: I have heard those who attended at Usha<a id="k28a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; reasoning thus: Whence do we derive the rule that a presumptive title is acquired in three years?<a id="k28a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From the 'goring ox'.<a id="k28a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as in the case of the' goring ox', after goring three times<a id="k28a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it passes out of the denomination<a id="k28a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of <i>Tam</i><a id="k28a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; into that of <i>Mu'ad</i>,<a id="k28a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; so after a man has cropped<a id="k28a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; a field for three years it passes [entirely] out of the possession of the seller and is established in the possession of the buyer.<a id="k28a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; It may be objected to this that just as in the case of the goring ox its master does not become liable<a id="k28a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; till the fourth goring, so here the property should not become the fixed possession of the holder<a id="k28a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; till the end of the fourth year? &mdash; How can you compare the two cases.<a id="k28a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; There, as soon as the ox has gored three times, it is regarded as <i>Mu'ad</i>,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


