Jerusalem Talmud Gittin Chapter 5

הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית וּבַעַל חוֹב בַּבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִּיבּוּרִית. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אַף כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית כול׳. קַל וַחוֹמֶר לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר פַּפַּי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְהֶכְשֵׁר נְזָקִין. הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. שׁוֹר רְעֵהוּ וְלֹא שׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אִם לְנִיזְקֵי גוּפוֹ. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. נְזָקִין לְהֶדְיוֹט וְאֵין נְזָקִין לְגָבוֹהַּ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עָלַי מֵאָה מְנָה לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְהָלַךְ שׁוֹרוֹ וְהִזִּיק. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. יֵעָשֶׂה בַעַל חוֹב וְיִגְבֶּה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית. קַל וַחוֹמֶר לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק נִגָּבִין מִן הַמְשׁוּעֲבָדִין. נִיחָא נֶזֶק. חֲצִי נֶזֶק לֹא מִגּוּפוֹ הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר בְשׁוֹר תָּם שֶׁהִזִּיק וְהָלַךְ הַבַּעַל וּמְכָרוֹ. כְּבָר נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד גּוּפוֹ לְבַעַל הַנֶּזֶק. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָמְרִין. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁזְּקָפָן עָלָיו מִלְוֶה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תִגָּבֶה אֶלָּא בְּבֵינוֹנִית. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ נֶזֶק גּוֹבֶה בָּעִידִית. שָׂדֵהוּ פְּרָט לִמְשׁוּעֲבָד. כַּרְמוֹ פְּרָט לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁהִזִּיק וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנִּינָן. הִקְדִּישׁ תִּשְׁעִים מְנָה וְהָיָה חוֹבוֹ מֵאָה מְנָה. אִם בְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִזִּיק. הָדָא הִיא דְּתַנִינָן. שׁוֹר רְעֵהוּ וְלֹא שׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשׁוֹר שֶׁלְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁרָעָה לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֶה הֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲנָן בָּעִנָן קַרְקַע הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ תּוֹךְ שְׁדֶה הֶדְיוֹט. אֶלָּא כֵן. אֲנָן קַיָימִין בָּאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עָלַי מֵאָה מְנָה לָהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְהָלַךְ הוּא וְהִזִּיק. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. אִילּוּ נְזָקִין וּמִלְוֶה בָּעֵדִים הַנְּזָקִין קוֹדְמִין. וָכָא קוֹדֵם הַנֶּזֶק לָהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. כַּרְמוֹ פְּרָט לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. שָׂדֵהוּ פְּרָט לִמְטַלְטְלִין. כַּרְמוֹ פְּרָט לָרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק. שָׂדֵהוּ פְּרָט לִמְטַלְטְלִין. בָּהֶן דְּלָא בָעֵי מְטַלְטְלִין מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהָכָא כְהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קַרְקַע. מְנַיִין שֶׁאִם רָצָה לִיתֵּן כֶּסֶף. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו. מַה בְּעִית מֵימַר קַרְקַע עִיקָּר. אִי נֵימַר כֶּסֶף עִיקָּר. וְיַחֲלִיטוּ לוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וָאֲנָן חֲמֵיי רַבָּנִן מַחֲלִטִין לוֹ קַרְקָעוֹת. כַּרְמוֹ פְּרָט לָרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי נִיסָא. בְּשֶׁחָפַר אָבִיו בּוֹר וְהִזִּיק בְּחַיֵי אָבִיו וְנָפְלוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו. הָיָיתִי אוֹמֵר. יִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסִים לְאוֹתוֹ נֶזֶק. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. כַּרְמוֹ. פְּרָט לָרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק. מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ. שֶׁלַּמַּזִּיק. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר. מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטָב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁלַּנִּיזָק. קַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. נִיזּוֹק. וְאַתְּ אָמַר כֵּן. אֶלָּא בֵּית דִּין רוֹאִין אֵי זֶהוּ שָׂדֵהוּ יָפָה לִפְנֵי הַנִּיזּוּק וְשָׁמָה לָהּ כַמּוֹהָ. כְּהָדָא דְּתַנֵּי. יָכוֹל אִם אָכְלָה מִן הָעִדִּית שָׁמִין לוֹ מִן הָעִידִּית. מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית שָׁמִין לוֹ מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. עִידִית שֶׁבַּזִּיבּוּרִית טָבָא סַגִּין. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצָאת מַשְׁבִּיחַ אֶת הַנִּיזָּק. רוֹאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כְּאִילּוּ מְלֵיאָה עִידִּית וְשָׁמִין לוֹ מִן הָעִידִית. וְזִיבּוּרִית שָׁמִין לוֹ מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית. נִמצָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִן הָעִידִּית עַל הָעִידִּית וּמִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית עַל הַזִּיבּוּרִית. מְנַיִין לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָא הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית. לֵיתָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אִיתָה מִן הַתַּקָּנָה. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָמְרוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית. מִפְּנֵי הַגַּזְלָנִין. שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם אוֹמֵר. מַה בְיָדִי גֶּזֶל מַה בְיָדִי מַזִּיק. לְמָחָר רוֹאִין בֵּית דִּין שָׂדֶה יָפָה שֶׁלִּי וְנוֹטְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלְּפָנַיי. וְסוֹמְכִים אוֹתָהּ לַמִּקְרָא. מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם. עַד כְּדוֹן קַרְקַעוֹ. מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ לָמַד מִקַּרְקָעוֹ. מַה קַרְקָעוֹ בָּעִידִּית אַף מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ בָּעִידִּית. וּבַעַלֵי חוֹב בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם רוֹאֶה אֶת שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ יָפָה וּמַלְוֶה אוֹתוֹ מָעוֹת וְעוֹקֵף וְנוֹטְלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יָשׁוּמוּ לוֹ אֶלָּא בַּזִּיבּוּרִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לִנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם. שֶׁלְּמָחָר הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִלְווֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי סִימַאי. וְהָאִישׁ. זֶה שָׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס הַמַּלְוֶה הוּא מוֹצִיא אֶת הַיָּפֶה. וְאִם נִכְנַס הַלֹּוֶה הוּא מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרָע. הָּא כֵיצַד. שָׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין נִכְנַס וּמוֹצִיא אֶת הַבֵּינוֹנִית. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס הַמַּלְוֶה. דִּכְתִיב וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּה נוֹשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא אֵלֶיךָ אֶת הָעֲבוֹט הַחוּצָה. עַד כְּדוֹן מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ. קַרְקָעוֹ לָמַד מִמַּשְׁכּוֹנוֹ. מַה מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ בַּבֵּינוֹנִית אַף קַרְקָעוֹ בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְתָא. מִלְוֶה שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית בּוֹ כַּפְרָנוּת אֵינָהּ נִשְׁמֶטֶת. כַּפְרָנוּת שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוֶה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. אַף לְמִידַּת הַדִּין כֵּן הִיא. מִלְוֶה שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית כַּפְרָנוּת גּוֹבֶה. כַּפְרָנוּת שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא עִידִּית גּוֹבֶה בָּעִידִּית. בֵּינוֹנִית גּוֹבֶה בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. זִיבּוּרִית גּוֹבֶה בַּזִּיבּוּרִית. עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית. הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית. הַנִּיזָּקִין וּבַעַלֵי חוֹב שָׁמִין לָהֶן בַּבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִיבּוּרִית. הָיְתָה עִידִּית שֶׁלּוֹ יָפָה מִשֶּׁלְּכָל אָדָם עִידִּית הִיא. בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ יָפָה מִשֶּׁל כָל אָדָם בֵּינוֹנִית הִיא. זִיבּוּרִית שֶׁלּוֹ יָפָה מִשֶּׁל כָל אָדָם זִיבּוּרִית הִיא. הָיְתָה עִידִּית שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלְּכָל אָדָם. רִבִּי זֵירָא וְרִבִּי אִילָא בָּעֵי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית. הַנִּיזָּקִין וּבַעַלֵי חוֹב שָׁמִין לָהֶן בַּבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִיבּוּרִית. וּכְמַה דְּאַתּ בָּעֵי עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית נִיזָּקִין דּוֹחִין לְבַעֲלֵי חוֹב בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית יִדְחוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין לְבַעֲלֵי חוֹב בַּזִּיבּוֹרִית. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית וּמְכָרָהּ וּכְבַר נִדְחוּ לְבַעֲלֵי חוֹב לְגְבוֹת בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִּיבּוּרִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְנָה מָאתַיִם. אֲבַל כְּתוּבַּת אֶלֶף דֵּינָר גּוֹבָה בַּבֵּינוֹנִית. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ כְתוּבַּת אֶלֶף דֵּינָר אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא מִן הִזִּיבּוּרִית. וְאַתְיָין אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא כְּאִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ גּוֹבָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעֲלָהּ גּוֹבָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנָה. רִבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְתוּבַּת מְנָה מָאתַיִם. אֲבַל הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף דֵּינָר גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. אָתָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילּוּ כְתוּבָּה שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר אֵינוֹ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא עַד עֶשׂרִים וְחָמֵש שָׁנָה. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו וְכָתַב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא אִיבְּדָה כְתוּבָתָהּ. רַב אָמַר. בְּמוֹכֵר עַל יָדָהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בִּמְחַלֵּק לְפָנֶיהָ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה אָמַר מִקּוּלֵּי כְּתוּבָה שָׁנוּ כָָּאן. וְתַנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. מִקּוּלֵּי כְּתוּבָה שָׁנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּכְתוּבַּת מְנָה מָאתַיִם. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר מִקּוּלֵּי כְּתוּבָה שָׁנוּ.

MISHNAH: For tort victims one estimates with best quality land, for a creditor with average quality, and for a woman’s ketubah with lowest quality. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (New York 1966), the name is R. Meїr. says, also for a woman’s ketubah with average quality. HALAKHAH: “For tort victims one estimates with best quality land,” etc. “By an inference de minore ad maius , for Temple property 14, also quoted by the Babli, 48b . .” Rebbi Abba bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Yose, where do we hold? If to qualify as damages, is that not what we stated “his neighbor’s ox. 21:35 ; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3 . The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a . ” but not the ox of Temple property? If for bodily damages, is that not what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A private person can claim damages but not the Temple? But we must deal with one who said, I obligate myself to give 100 minas to the Temple, 49a, s. v. שור , and in the Constantinople edition of the Yerushalmi. If one accepts the text as it stands, one has to explain that the person making the vow thought that he could pay his vow in cash, but before he could do this, he had to pay damages and now he is short of cash. If one does not read the clause, then there is a straightforward statement that debts to the Temple in all cases are privileged like debts for damages (a statement considered and rejected by the Babli, 49a ). The interpretation of the Babli, that damages inflicted on Temple property always must be paid in full, is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. when his ox went and did damage. You should not say, [the Temple] is a creditor and should collect from average quality land. Therefore, it was necessary to say that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land, by an inference de minore ad maius , for Temple property.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Full and partial damages are collected from encumbered property.” One understands full damages. 21:36 requires the owner of an animal with a history of causing damages to pay all damages in full. If the animal’s owner cannot pay cash, the Mishnah decrees that the damages be liquidated by the best available land, even if mortgaged. . Are partial damages not collected from the animal’s body. 21:35 requires the damages inflicted by an animal which never before had caused damage to be paid from proceeds of a sale of the animal itself. ? Rebbi Yose said, explain it when it was a docile ox which did damage and then his owner went and sold it. Its body already was encumbered to the injured party is not mortgaged land but the animal causing the damage, which can be repossessed by the owner of the damaged property from a buyer of the agressive animal. . The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he converted it a loan. into a loan. Then it should be foreclosed only by average quality land! Since the debt originated in a damage claim, he may collect from best quality. “His field. 22:4 : “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate. ”, except if it was mortgaged field” excludes third-party interests. . “His vineyard”, except Temple property. Where do we hold? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated 6:2: “If somebody dedicated his property to the Temple while he owed a ketubah to his wife or a debt to a creditor, neither the woman nor the creditor can collect from the Temple; but the redeemer redeems on condition to pay the ketubah to the woman or the debt to the creditor. If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the redeemer] adds another denar and redeems these properties on condition to pay the debt to the creditor.” In order to combine two conflicting principles, viz., that vows cannot be used to escape obligations towards third parties, and that Temple obligations override all others, it is decreed that the Temple has to put the dedicated properties up for sale but collects only for the amount by which the value of the properties exceeds the obligation, with the third party buyer accepting the obligation to pay off the liens on the property. (It has to be a third party buyer since the person making the dedication would have to add another 25% to the redemption amount, Lev . 27:19 .) Claims for damages have to be handled in the same way. : “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “ ‘His neighbor’s ox. 21:35 ; Mishnah Baba Qama 4:3 . The rules of damages do not apply to Temple property, not for damages inflicted by Temple animals nor damages done to them. Quoted in the Babli, 49a . ’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rebbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must hold about one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard”, except Temple property. “His field,” except movables. “His vineyard,” except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession. “ ‘His field,’ except movables.” About those who did not claim movables from the start. Is this different from what we stated: There is not only real estate; from where if he wanted to pay money? The verse says: “Money he shall return to its owner. 21:33 , speaking of somebody digging a hole in the public domain which then causes injury to another person’s animal. This damage has to be paid in money (or, in the Babli’s interpretation, in money’s worth). In the Babli, Baba Qama 7a , 14b , money is legal tender to liquidate all debts. The Yerushalmi gives the injured party the right to claim real estate in those cases in which the verse prescribed payment in real estate. .” What did you mean to say that real estate is primary? Or should we say that money is primary? Then it should be irrevocably given to [the claimant] from the start! Do we not see rabbis who irrevocably give him real estate! “ ‘His vineyard,’ except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Nisa: If his father dug a cistern which caused injury during his father’s lifetime. Property fell to him after his father’s death. I might say that this property should be encumbered for that damage; therefore, it was necessary to say “his vineyard” to except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession. “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,. 22:4 : “If a person destroys a field or a vineyard through animals by sending his livestock to graze on another’s field, the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall give in payment.” This is the basis of the Mishnah requiring that damages be paid with best quality real estate. ” i. e., the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rebbi Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 296; the interpretation of R. Ismael is quoted anonymously in Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai , ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 196, together with the interpretation given later to the opinion of R. Aqiba. . Rebbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”, of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rebbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so? But the court see what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality [produce] and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rebbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. , quoted in the Babli, 49b , in the name of R. Simeon (in some sources, R. Simeon ben Eleazar.) A similar, anonymous, text is in Tosephta Ketubot 12:2 . “Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers. That a man should say, why should I have robbed [land] in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’ ” So far his real estate. His pledge was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate [is taken] from the best quality, also his pledge [is taken] from the best. ” ‘For creditors, average quality,’ because of tricksters. That a man should not see a desirable field in his neighbor’s hand, lend him money, and contrives to take it from him. Then one should estimate only from the least quality! Rebbi Jehudah said, that is correct; but not to lock the door before people needing to borrow. For tomorrow he may need to borrow and does not find [a lender.]” Rebbi Simai preached: “And the man,. 24:11 , about a creditor taking a pledge, quoted in full later in the paragraph. ” that is the agent of the court. 276 seems to read וְהָאִישׁ as “ ‘and any man’, to include the agent of the court” since the verse obviously refers to the creditor. . For if the creditor enters, he removes the best. If the borrower enters, he removes the worst. How is this? The agent of the court enters and removes from average quality. Rebbi Ismael says, it is a word from the Torah that the creditor should enter, for it is written: “The man whose creditor you are should bring the pledge out for you.” That is, his pledge. His real estate was inferred from his pledge. Since his pledge [is taken] from average quality, also his real estate [is taken] from average quality. 10:2, explained there in Notes 75–77 , variant readings noted ש . The Mishnah notes that court judgments are not subject to the rules of the Sabbatical. This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality. If there is only best quality, one collects from the best quality, [only] average quality one collects from average quality, [only] worst quality one collects from worst quality. Best and average, torts are assessed from best quality, creditors and a woman’s ketubah from average. Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. If his best quality was like everybody’s best quality, it is best quality. If his average quality was like everybody’s average quality, it is average quality. If his worst quality was like everybody’s worst quality, it is worst quality, quoted as such in the Babli, Baba Qama 7b . One can foreclose only existing property; the only question which arises is how to classify claims if there are properties of two different qualities but claims for all three. The Babli formulates this as: Do the notions of best, average, and worst refer to the available land or are these general notions used by realtors to classify properties? . If his best quality was like everybody’s average? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila asked: Let us hear from the following: Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. But just as you need in the case that you have best and average quality, torts push creditors to the average, so in this case, of average and worst quality, should not torts push creditors to the worst quality are universal, not referring to the debtor. ? Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he had best quality which he sold, and the creditors were already pushed to average quality 8a . As Rashi explains, the loan was taken when there was best quality land; then automatically the average quality land was pledged to the creditor. When later the best quality land was sold, the pledge was not removed. When then a claim for torts was entered, it only could be additional to the existing lien. (The Babli lists three other possible explanations, all agreeing that in a normal case in which only two qualities of real estate are available, the better one is declared best, reserved for the satisfaction of tort claims.) . “For a woman’s ketubah with lowest quality.” 12:5 (Notes 54–59 ) and one in Peah 3:9 (Notes 182–189 ). Rebbi Jeremiah said, they taught only for a ketubah of a mina or 200 [ zuz ], but a ketubah of a thousand denar she collects from average quality. Rebbi Yose said, even a ketubah of a thousand denar she collects only from lowest quality. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement: “While she lives in her father’s house, she always can collect her ketubah ; if she lives in her husband’s house, she can collect her ketubah for 25 years.” 12:5 . Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One stated this only for the ketubah of a mina or 200 [ zuz ]. But a ketubah of 1’000 denar she collects forever. Rebbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a ketubah of 1’000 denar she can collect only up to 25 years. It turns out that Rebbi Yose follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jeremiah Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. As we have stated there 3:9. : “If somebody signs over his property to his sons and signs over some real estate to his wife, she loses her claim to ketubah .” Rav said, if he sells through her, “if he lets them acquire through her agency.” One has to assume that this is meant here also. . Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah . Rebbi Abba said, the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina or two hundred, but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand denar they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah .

אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִין בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וַאֲפִילוּ הֵן זִיבּוּרִית. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין קְטַנִּים אֶלָּא בִשְׁטָר שֶׁהָרִיבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אַף לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. מִפְּנֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. מָאן חָשׁ לִמְזוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. בַּמִּגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. מַאי כְדוֹן. מִפְּנֵי חֵינָה. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹפְצִין הַכֹּל עָלֶיהָ לִישָּׂאֶנָּה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אַף לִגְזֵילָה וְלַנִּיזָקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן. לִגְזֵילָה מִן הָדָא. אִם יִהְיֶה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֲחֵרָיוּת חַיָיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. לַנִּיזָקִין מִן הָדָא. וְאֵין נִפְרָעִין מִן הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלַּיְּתוֹמִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לַנִּזָּקִין אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית. וְהָתַנֵּי. עָמַד הַבֶּן תַּחַת הָאָב. הַנִיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בָּעִידִּית וּבַעֲלֵי הַחוֹב בַּבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבָּת אִשָּׁה בַּזִיבּוּרִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כָּאן בְּיָתוֹם גָּדוֹל כָּאן בְּיָתוֹם קָטָן.

MISHNAH: One does not collect from encumbered property as long as there is free property, even if the latter is of lowest quality. One may collect from orphans’ property only from the lowest quality. HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. 9:8 , explained in Notes 187–197 . The variant readings (including a parallel text in Šebuot 5:5) are given in Ketubot . Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah . Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת וְלִשְׁבָח קַרְקָעוֹת וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִיצְבָּה. גָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִלֵּוִי. לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן גּוֹבֶה אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּלֵוִי. עָמַד לֵוִי וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ. לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַשְּׁבָח מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם מִקְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְשִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אֲבָל אִם קָדַם שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמִקְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן אֲפִילוּ מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן. אַף בַּאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת כָּךְ הִיא עָבְדָא. אַפִּיק אַרְבָּעָה דֵינָרִין וְהוּא שְׁבַח אֲשִׁתָּא. לֵוִי גָבֵי אַרְבַּעְתֵּי דֵינָרַיָיא מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן וְגָבֵי תְּרֵין אוֹחְרָנַיָיא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אֵין לָךְ יוֹרֶד בִּרְשׁוּת וְיָדוֹ לְתַחְתּוֹנָה אֶצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אֵין לָךְ יוֹרֶד בִּרְשׁוּת וְיָדוֹ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה אֶצֶל רְאוּבֵן. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי וְהָלַךְ לֵוִי וּנְתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה לִיהוּדָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִיהוּדָה. יְהוּדָה לֹא אָזִיל גַּבֵּי לֵוִי דְּהִיא מַתָּנָה. לֵוִי אָזַל גַּבֵּי רְאוּבֵן דְּהִיא מְכִירָה. וְלֹא מַתָּנָה יְהַבְתִּינָּהּ. יְכִיל הוּא מֵימַר לֵיהּ. בְּעִי הֲוֵינָא מִיתַּן לֵיהּ וִישַׁלֵּם לִי טִיבוּ. רְאוּבֵן גָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּנְתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה לְלֵוִי וְהָלַךְ לֵוִי וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִיהוּדָה. יְהוּדָה אָזַל גַּבֵּי לֵוִי דְּהוּא מְכָרָהּ. לֵוִי לֹא אָזַיל גַּבֵּי רְאוּבֵן דְּהִיא מַתָּנָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין. אֵין שִׁיעְבּוּד לְמַתָּנָה. רְאוּבֵן גָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי. וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִכְתּוֹב טָרְפּוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת. דְּמָאן הִיא. רַב הוּנָא וְחִיָיה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב. חַד אָמַר. אִם כָּתַב שְׁטָר טָרְפּוֹ. שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן. וְאִם לָאו. שֶׁלְּלֵוִי הִיא. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. הִיא כָתַב הִיא לֹא כָתַב שֶׁלְּלֵוִי הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא דִּרְאוּבֵן. דִּיכִיל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ. מִילָּה דְּלָא דִידִי זְבָנִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא דְלֵוִי. דִּרְאוּבֵן יְכִיל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ. הַאי דְלָא קוֹמֵיךְ אָקוּם לִזְבִינֵיהּ טָבִי אַתְּ. מָהוּ לִגְבוֹת פַּרְנָסָה מִן הַמְשׁוּעֲבָדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא גָבֵי. מָאן גָּבֵי. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי אִילָא גָבֵיי. רִבִּי יָסָא אִיתְפְּקַד מְדַל דְּיַתְמִין וַהֲווּ תַמָּן בְּעַיָין פַּרְנָסָה. אָעִיל עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְקוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. לֹא מוּטָּב שֶׁיִּתְפַּרְנְסוּ מִן שֶׁלַּאֲבִיהֶן וְלֹא מִן הַצְּדָקָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר. רִבִּי. אִילּוּ יָבוֹאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אֵין רַבּוֹתֵינוּ נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וְאָנוּ עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. אֲנָא יְהִיב. וְאִי קָמוּן יַתְמִין וְעָרְרִין אֲנָא יְהִיב לוֹן. אֲפִילוּ כֵן קָמוּן וְעָרְרוֹן. גְּזַר דִּין נְפַק. צִיפּוֹר בַּת אַבְשָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי סִימוֹן וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא. אֲנָא וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ גָּבִינוּ לָהּ מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין כְּמִנְהַג מְקוֹמָהּ. רַב הֲוָה כְתִיב לְרִבִּי עַבְּרוֹן עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה רַבָּה. וָהֲוָה רִבִּי חִיָיה כְתִיב בֵּינֵי שִׁיטַּיָיא. עָמְדוּ הַיְּתוֹמִין וּמָכְרוּ. גּוֹבִין מִן הַפַּרְנָסָה וְאֵין גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְזוֹנוֹת. עָמְדוּ וְשִׁיעְבְּדוּ. הַשִׁיעְבּוּד הַזֶּה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָהוּ. תַּנָּא לֵוִי. אֶחָד שִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב וְאֶחָד שִׁיעְבּוּד הַבֵּן גּוֹבִין מִן הַפַּרְנָסָה וְאֵין גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. לֵית כָּאן בְּשִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב אֶלָּא בְשִׁיעְבּוּד הַבֵּן. אִם בְּשִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב. אִם בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. נִישְּׂאוּ הַבָּנוֹת אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מֵהֶן. רִבִּי בָּא כְדִידֵיהּ וְרִבִּי יוּדָה כְדִידֵיהּ. דְּאַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חַגַּיי. אֲפִילוּ מֵתוּ אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מֵהֶן. בְּנֵי בָנִים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵין בְּנֵי בָנִים כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה הֲווֹן יָתְבִין. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. הִיא בְּנֵי בָנִים שֶׁכָּאן הִיא בְּנֵי בָנִים שֶׁלְּהַלָּן. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּנֵי בָנִים קָפְצָה עֲלֵיהֶן יְרוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מְנָה לְאַבָּא בְּיָדָךְ אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִׁים דֵּינָרִין. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִיב אֲבֵידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. תַּקָּנָה תִיקְּנוּ בוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִיקְּנוּ בַּמְצִיאָה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַמּוֹצֵא מְצִיאָה לֹא יִשְׁבַּע מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִין מָצָאתָ לִי. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים מָצָאתִי לָךְ וְהֶחֱזִרְתִּי לָךְ אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. לֹא הֶחֱזַרְתָּה לִי אֶלָּא אַחַת. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. רִבִּי פְּדָת בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּזֶה תִקְּנוּ. אֲבָל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הִיא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. יָכוֹל אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים מָצָאתָ לִי. וְהוּא אָמַר. לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא אֶחָד. יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ מָצָא אֲבֵידָה וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ. פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כִיחֵשׁ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. עוֹמֵד הָיִיתִי בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגִּי וּרְאִיתִיךָ מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים קְשׁוּרִים. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים קְשׁוּרִים מַשַׁכְתָּ לִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא מָשַׁכְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. עוֹמֵד הָיִיתִי עַל אַבָּא בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ וְטָעַנְךָ מְנָה וְהוֹדֵיתָה לוֹ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא הוֹדֵיתִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ.

MISHNAH: One cannot collect for usufruct, for improvement of the land, or for sustenance of the wife and the daughters that after the husband’s death his widow and unmarried daughters be sustained by the estate ( Ketubot 4:11–12 ). While the ketubah itself is a mortgage lien on all real estate acquired by the husband, the additional conditions cannot be foreclosed as a mortgage. from incumbered property, for the public good. HALAKHAH: “One does not collect from encumbered property,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, because they have no fixed amount. If [Reuben] robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Simeon came and foreclosed it from Levi; then Levi collects from Reuben’s encumbered property and Simeon collects the usufruct from Levi’s free property. If Levi in the meantime improved [the property], Levi collects the capital from Reuben’s encumbered property and the improvement from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if a third party’s buying preceded the improvement by this one. But if the improvement by this one preceded a third party’s buying, Levi can collect the capital even from Simeon’s encumbered property. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: With usufruct one proceeds in the same way 14b , where the situation described here is alluded to. . If he spent four denars and the improvement is worth six, Levi collects four denars from Reuben’s encumbered property and another two from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: Since he did not enter with permission, his hand is weak against Simeon 15:3, Note 71 .) . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: Since he entered with permission, his hand is strong against Reuben. , #96). The text is practically identical with that of the ms. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi; Levi went and gave it to Jehudah as a gift. Then Simeon foreclosed it from Jehudah. Jehudah has no regress on Levi since it was a gift. Levi has regress on Reuben since it was a sale. Did he not give it away as a gift? He can say to him, it was my intention to give it to him so he would return me favors. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and gave it to Levi as a gift; Levi sold it to Jehudah. Jehudah has regress on Levi since he sold it; Levi has no regress on Reuben since it was a gift; as Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: No easement is created by a gift. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, and he did not have time to write the foreclosure document before he died: whose is it but before he could write the sales contract, he died. That is the case about which Samuel asked Rav in (Babli) Baba Meṣi‘a (15b), viz., if it turns out that the field was not his, but he went and bought it from the original owners, what are the rules? He told him, the first (the robber) sold to the second (the buyer) any present and future rights to the parcel.… And this is the explanation of this text according to my understanding: Reuben had robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi who did not realize that it was robbed. Afterwards, Reuben bought the parcel from Simeon, but Simeon had not yet written the sales contract when Reuben died: who is the owner? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav: One says if the document was first, if the sale was completed before he died, the sale was final and Reuben did not transfer [the field] to Levi; this shows that Reuben did not intend to leave the field in Levi’s hands, ostensibly to leave it to his heirs. He does not spell this out since the sales document was not yet written. The other one said, there is no difference between written and not written, he wants the field to be Levi’s since he did not dispose of the field in a will. (The same Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav disagree in the Babli Baba Meṣi‘a (16a) about the time available to the robber to act to protect his credit.) Rebbi Mana has a different explanation: He says that in any case the field belongs to Reuben, following Rami bar Ḥama (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a ) who said that Levi’s contract was not worth the paper it was written on. But Rebbi Yose bar Abun is of the opposite opinion, since Levi can tell him, is the field not now before you that you can turn the sale into a valid one. This follows Rava (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a ) who told Rami bar Ḥama that Levi acquired the property by the trust he put in Reuben. But following your reading, since you read טרפו with ט, it is possible that this refers to a foreclosure document which Levi obtained against the robber after he had lost the field to Simeon, and that is the same disagreement we find there (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a ); how long does a person have credit, Rav says until the start of court proceedings, Ḥiyya bar Rav says, until the foreclosure document was signed, and Rav Papa said, until the public sale.” ? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya the son of Rav: One said, if he wrote the foreclosure document, it is Reuben’s, if not, it is Levi’s. The other one said, whether he wrote or did not write, it belongs to Levi. Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that it does not belong to Reuben since he can say to him, I sold you something which was not mine. Rebbi Yose said, it is not reasonable that it should not be Levi’s, since Reuben can tell him, is this not before you? You are good to confirm the sale. Can one collect dowry from encumbered property; cf. Ketubot 6:6 . ? 6:6 (30d 1.59), explained there in Notes 93–97 . Variant readings are noted כ . Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Ila collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan [girls] who asked for dowry. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans would get up and complained, I would give it to them. They stood up and complained. . A judgment was rendered (6:6, Note 98 ) it is only asserted that a judgment was given following R. Ḥanina. for Ṣippor bat Absalom. Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: I and our teachers collected for her from movables obligations; cf. Ketubot 6:4, Note 67 . , following the custom of her place. Rav wrote to Rebbi, who transferred it to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya wrote between the lines. If the orphans sold against the rules are to be satisfied by real estate, any sale while some of the obligations are still open is against the rules. , one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance 6:6 . Since this claim exists even during the father’s lifetime, it has precedence over the widow’s claim to sustenance which starts only at her husband’s death. . If they accepted a lien. I do not know what this lien is 69a , the question from the start was about a mortgage the heirs took out on real estate of their inheritance. . Levi stated: Both for a lien made by the father and for a lien made by the son, one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance 69a . . Rebbi Abba said, there is no mention of a lien made by the father, only a lien made by the son. If one cannot collect during the father’s lifetime 4:6 . , not so much less after the father’s death? Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the daughters are married, the widow is sustained by them 51a , the question never arises since the claims of the widow and the daughters are accorded equal status; this rule is quoted in Yebamot 15:3 (14d 1.68), Ketubot 4:8 (29a 1.25). . Rebbi Abba follows his own [opinion] and Rebbi Jehudah 51a , the question never arises since the claims of the widow and the daughters are accorded equal status; this rule is quoted in Yebamot 15:3 (14d 1.68), Ketubot 4:8 (29a 1.25). follows his own [opinion]. For the sister of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaggai: Even if they died, the widow is sustained by them. 4:8, Notes 200–201 . Variant readings are given there. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rebbi Samuel, son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to them, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren. There 6:1. The subject is the biblical oath imposed on a person who denies an obligation ( Ex . 22:8 ). The rabbinic interpretation of the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there is a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses and no documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due. , we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse 5:22 , speaking of the sacrifice required of the person who swears falsely in the situation described in Ex . 22:8 . says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it. 22:8 . ,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

יְתוֹמִים שֶׁסָּמְכוּ אֶצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁמִּינָּה לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי הַיְּתוֹמִים יִשָּׁבֵעַ מִינָּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. יְתוֹמִים שֶׁסָּמְכוּ אֶצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כול׳. אַתֶּם פְּרָט לְשׁוּתָפִין. אַתֶּם פְּרָט לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. אַתֶּם פְּרָט לְתוֹרֵם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. אַתֶּם פְּרָט לְשׁוּתָפִין. וְהָתַנִּינָן הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁתָּרְמוּ. אֶלָּא כָּאן בִּתְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה כָּאן בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. כְּלוּם לָמְדוּ תְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה לֹא מִתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. אֶלָּא כָּאן לַהֲלָכָה כָּאן לְמַעֲשֶׂה. אַתֶּם פְּרָט לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. וְהָתַנְיָא יְתוֹמִים שֶׁסָּמְכוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁמִּינֶּה לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין. כָּאן לְאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין לְעוֹלָם כָּאן לְאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין לְשָׁעָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם בְּאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין לְעוֹלָם. וְדָא דְתַנֵּי. מוֹכֵר הוּא עֲבָדִים אֲבָל לֹא קַרְקָעוֹת. אֶלָּא כָן בְּיָתוֹם גָּדוֹל כָּאן בְּיָתוֹם קָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס לִיתוֹמִין לְחוֹב לָהֶן אֶלָּא לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶן. וְאִם חָבוּ חָבוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף אֵין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן בֵּין לְזַכּוֹת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא בְשׁוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יֵלֵךְ וְיַזִּיק. הִזִּיק. מִשֶּׁל מִי הֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשֶּׁל יְתוֹמִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה אָמַר. מִשֶּׁל אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס. וַאֲפִילוּ דְּלָא יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֵּן לֵית מִילְּתֵיהּ אֲמַר כֵּן. לֹא. דְּהוּא אָמַר לַּבְּסוֹף. אִם חָבוּ חָבוּ. אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִבָּחֵן. שֶׁמִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִבָּחֵן. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. אֶפִּטְרֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִין יִשָּׁבֵעַ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. שֶׁמִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. דִּיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. טָבוֹת הֲוֵינָא עֲבִידְנָא לָךְ. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין. וַאֲפִילוּ דְּיִסְבּוֹר כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל בָּעֵי הוּא בַּר נַשׁ מִיתַּן מְהֵימָן וּמִיקְרַיָיה מְהֵימָן. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. אֲפִילוּ דְּיִסְבּוֹר כְּרַבָּנִין אָדָם מַבְרִיחַ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְאֵין אָדָם מַבְרִיחַ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

MISHNAH: If orphans rely on a property owner or if their father appointed a guardian 1:5, Note 82 . for them; these are obligated to tithe their produce. A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around. HALAKHAH: “If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” 1:1, explained in Notes 61–69 . Variants are denoted by ת . ( Num . 18:28 ) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state ( Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan. 4:5 (4b 1.50). Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit not for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them 1:5 : If an animal of an irresponsible person (a minor, an insane, or a deaf-and-dumb person) did damage, the court has to appoint a guardian to take care of the matter. This seems to imply that one appoints guardians for underage orphans who are defendants in a damage suit. ” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage. If it did do damage, from whom does one take payment? Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the orphans. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, from the guardian. And even if Rebbi Joḥanan never taught this, does not his word imply it since he said if in the end they are detrimental, they are detrimental? A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for usually he is not checked out. If he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for usually he was checked out. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around; a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for he is like one who is paid; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for for he can say to him, I am doing this as a favor to you. It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Abba Shaul. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow the rabbis? Even if he holds with Abba Shaul, a person acts as a trustee. v . הלכה ) quotes a slightly different text: בעי אינש מיתן זוזי “a person would be ready to pay money”. in order to be declared trustworthy. Does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina [follow] Abba Shaul? Even if he holds with the rabbis, a person is apt to slip away from an oath but not from payments.

הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ אִם שׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר וְאִם מֵזִיד חַיָיב. הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּיגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ מְזִידִים חַיָיבִין. רִבִּי יוּדָן לֹא נָחַת לְבֵית וַועֲדָא. קָם עִם רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה חַדְתִּין יֵומְרוּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַמְטַמֵּא אֵינוֹ כְעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מִן הָדָא תְּרוּמָה וְנִיטְמֵאת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת מֵאֵילֶיהָ וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. דְּהִיא מַתְנִיתָא. דָּן אֶת הַדִּין. זִיכֶּה אֶת הַחַיָיב וְחִיֵיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי. טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא. דָּמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַב. בְּמַגִּיעוֹ לְיָדוֹ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּמַגִּיעוֹ לְיָדוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֵּרִבִּי אוֹמֵר. בַּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִלוּ בְּמֵזִיד יְהֵא פָטוּר. לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חַיָיב. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹדִיעַ. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּדִין הָיָה אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹגֵג שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ פָּטוּר. מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן הָדָא. הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ בְּשׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר בְּמֵזִיד חַיָיב. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּמִשּׁוּם קְנָס. מִתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַנּוֹתֵן עוֹל עַל גַבֵּי פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם וְחַיָיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין. הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא תְרוּמָה וּכְסָבוּר שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּיגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ מְזִידִין חַיָיבִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם כְּסָבוּר כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין. וְיֵשׁ פִּיגּוּל בְּחוּלִין. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּיוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶן שֶׁהֵן קוֹדֶשׁ. וְסָבוּר לוֹמַר שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְפַגֵּל בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְהָכָא בְּיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא תְרוּמָה וְסָבוּר לוֹמַר מוּתָּר לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַב. וְהוּא שֶׁעִירֵב. נִּיסֵּךְ וְעִירְבְּבָהּ. בַּתְּחִילָּה וְהוּא חַיָיב מִיתָה וְלִבְּסוֹף בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַצְּלוֹחִית. כַּתְּחִילָּה הוּא חַיָיב מִיתָה וְלִבְּסוֹף בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. בַּתְּחִילָּה הוּא חַיָיב מִיתָה וְלִבְּסוֹף בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ בְּשׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר. בְמֵזִיד חַיָיב. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִשּׁוּם קְנָס.

MISHNAH: If someone causes impurity, or dema‘ is profane food mixed with heave, which is forbidden to lay persons and only permitted to priests, who will pay only a fraction of the value. Cf. Demay 1:3, Note 175 . , or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated. If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made [a sacrifice] piggul 19:7 ) is sacrificial meat on the third day after slaughter. The root seems to be preserved in Arabic فجل “to be soft”, as in Aramaic פּוּגְלָא “radish”, i. e., a soft, edible root. Applied to meat, which starts to decompose, probably a better translation would be “to be mushy”. In rabbinic interpretation, the deadly sin is not to eat the meat when it becomes unsanitary but to slaughter and offer the blood to the altar with the idea of eating the sacrifice after its allotted time. Since the blood is only handled by the Cohen, not the person offering the sacrifice, the Cohen could disqualify the sacrifice and inflict a heavy financial loss on the faithful bringing the sacrifice simply by telling him that he handled the sacrifice with the wrong intention. Since this also is an invisible damage, it is clear that some penalties are in order for the public good ( Tosephta 3:8 ). , they have to pay. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator, fromthe following 9:2 . If somebody stole heave and it became impure in his possession, he can hand it back to the owner and tell him, this is yours. But pure heave was food and impure heave can only be used as fuel; the difference in value cannot be claimed in court. : “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah 4:4. The Mishnah is part of R. Yudan’s argument since it states that if a person who is not duly ordained exercizes the function of a rabbi or judge, he is personally responsible for any damage he causes by a wrong decision. In the Babli, 53b , the same argument is made by Rav Papa. : “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘ , or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.. 19 ) provided it never was used for work and never wore a yoke. Putting a yoke on such a cow for the shortest of times robs its owner of an enormous sum of money but, since the damage is not visible, it is not claimable in a human court. This follows the doctrine of R. Joḥanan that damages which cannot be observed on the object cannot be claimed in court. ” So far if he thought that it was profane. If he knew that it was heave but he thought that it was permitted to make it impure? Let ushear from the following: “If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made [a sacrifice] piggul , they have to pay. in the Temple have to pay”, it follows that there must be a scenario in which a Cohen could cause piggul inadvertently. ” Could the Cohen think that it was profane? Is there piggul of profane things? But we must hold that he knew that it was holy but thought that it was permitted to make piggul of sacrifices. And here, if he knew that it was heave but thought that it was permitted to make it impure. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he mixed. If he made a libation and then mixed it, at the start he committed a capital crime and at the end he has to pay 7:1, Notes 19–70 ) and idolatry is a capital crime, it seems difficult to understand why the culprit should pay. The Babli, 52b , notes that the argument is faulty in its understanding of the double penalty clause. The libation and the later mixing are two different acts. Even if there is only a libation, not followed by mixing with other wine, the libation can only be performed after the wine was poured into a vessel and the vessel lifted. Since we are speaking of wine belonging to a person other than the perpetrator, the latter becomes liable for all damages by lifting the vessel, some time before he commits the capital crime. It is clear, therefore, that the Yerushalmi view of the double punishment clause does not allow for splitting one action into separate parts. ? Rebbi Abba objected: Think of it, if he killed somebody and broke the flask, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? Rebbi Yose objected: Think of it, if he set fire to somebody’s grain stack on the Day of Atonement, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay 7:1, Note 62 .) ? “If someone causes anything to become impure, or turn into dema‘ , or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine.

הֵעִיד רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָה עַל הַחַרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה וְאִם מֵתָה בַּעֲלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת דָּמָיו וְעַל הַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. הֵעִיד רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָה כול׳. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בָעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי. נִרְאִין דְּבָרָיו בְּפִיקַּחַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא יּוֹצָא בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. וְחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דַּעַת לֹא תֵצֵא אֶלָּא לְדַעַת. וְלֹא עֵדוּת הִיא. אַף אָבִיו כְּיוֹצֵא בָהּ. וּמוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעֵדוּת. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה סָבַר. בְּפִיקַּחַת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבַר מֵימַר בִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה טַעַם אָמְרוּ. קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל קוֹפְצִין עָלֶיהָ לִישָּׂא מִפְּנֵי חִינָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר קִידּוּשִּׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. נִישֵּׂאת לַכֹּהֵן תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי חִינָּה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ לֹא יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ. רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַסִּי. קְטַנָּה אֵין לָהּ חוּפָּה שֶׁתֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. נִישֵּׂאת לַכֹּהֵן תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. בְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה וּשְׁלָחָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ וְהִגְדִּילָה. מָהוּ שֶׁתֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. עַל גַּב חוּפָּתָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. גָּזַל מָרִישׁ וּבְנָאוֹ בַּבִּירָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. יְקַעְקֵעַ כָּל הַבִּירָה וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. נוֹתֵן לוֹ דָמָיו בְּשָׁוְויוֹ מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁגְּזָלוֹ מְשׁוּפֶּה. אֲבָל אִם גְּזָלוֹ וְשִׁיפָּהוּ דָּמִים הוּא חַיָיב לוֹ. גְּזָלוֹ וְשִׁיפָּהוּ עַל גַּב מְקוֹמוֹ מַהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַיּוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ חוֹרְבָה שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּבְנָיָיהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת שָׁמִין לוֹ וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. בִּיקֵּשׁ לִיטּוֹל עֵצָיו וַאֲבָנָיו אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב בָּעֵי. אִילּוּ הַפּוֹרֵק חֲבִילָתוֹ לְתוֹךְ חוֹרְבָתוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ לִיטְּלָהּ שֶׁמָּא אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מִשּׁוּם יִישׁוּב. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הֲוִינָא סְבַר מֵימַר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בָּאָרֶץ. אֲבָל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא מִשּׁוּם יִישׁוּב. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הִיא בָאָרֶץ הִיא בְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בִּיקֵּשׁ לִיטּוֹל עֵצָיו וַאֲבָנָיו מָהוּ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר בְּתוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִיַּד. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל. בְּדִין הֲוָה אֲפִילוּ [ ] נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים לֹא תְכַפֵּר. לָמָּה אָמְרוּ תְכַפֵּר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שָׁמֵם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בְּדִין הֲוָה דַּאֲפִילוֹ נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים תְּכַפֵּר. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ לֹא תְכַפֵּר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִזְבֵּחַ מְקַבֵּל גְּזֵילוֹת. וְכַמָּה הֵם רַבִּים. רִבִּי גּוֹרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שְׁלֹשָׁה בְנֵי אָדָם. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וַהֲבֵאתֵם גָּזוּל אֶת הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת הַחוֹלֶה. מַּה פִּסֵּחַ וְחוֹלֶה בְּגָלוּי אַף כֹּל בְּגָלוּי.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudguedah testified about a deaf-mute girl, Mishnah 14:3, Notes 20–24 . “Testified” usually means a statement of practice from Temple times accepted by the Jabneh Academy as binding. who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce, and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen 1:2, Note 38 ). , that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house, that [the owner] has to take the value, and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar. HALAKHAH: 14:2, Notes 25–28 . The readings from there are noted י . “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Guedgedah testified,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Immi. His testimony seems reasonable for a hearing woman of sound mind, that she is divorced with or without her acquiescence. But a deaf-mute woman who has no will should not be divorced except with her acquiescence. But is it not testimony “that is an example”. The text here, “his father is the same”, does not make any sense; it indicates that the text in Yebamot is original. ; does one add to a testimony? Rebbi Ḥanania is of the opinion that this refers to a hearing girl who was married off by her father (and mother) and became deaf-and-dumb. Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that this refers to an underage girl who was married off by her father (and mother) and became divorced. Rebbi Joḥanan said, why did they say “an Israel underage girl eats heave,” that all should be eager to marry her for her attractiveness. Rebbi Shammai said, only if she knows how to keep her [valuables given for] preliminary marriage. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave. 5:4, speaking of a girl 3 years and 1 day old, could be used as counter-argument since such a girl, if married off by her father, is married even if mentally handicapped.) ” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for her attractiveness, that means, even if she does not know how to keep her [valuables given for] preliminary marriage 22:11 ). . Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: An underage girl has no definitive marriage to let her eat heave. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave. 5:4. The Mishnah does not say “by definitive marriage ceremony” but “being married to”, i.e., living with her husband. ” Rebbi Abin asked: If she was definitively married but had no intercourse, [the husband] sent her to her father’s house and she grew up, may she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “Based on her earlier definitive marriage., not otherwise attested to, which does not require any additional action to give all her rights to the adult married woman. The Babli ( Yebamot 58a ) quotes dissenting opinions without deciding the matter. ” “If somebody stole a log and used it in building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, for the benefit of repenting sinners 9:1 , Tosephta Baba Qama 10:5 , Babli Giṭṭin 55a . , that he has to pay its full value.” Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? If he stole it planed, but if he stole and planed it himself, he owes him money 9:2 ). . If he stole and planed it on the spot, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following 8:10, Baba Qama 10:6 ,7; Yerushalmi Baba Qama 9:1 (6d 1.28); as an object of controversy Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 101a . : “If somebody appropriates another person’s ruin and rebuilds it without prermission, one appraises it and his hand is weak. If he wants to take his logs and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It was asked in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: If somebody stores his bundle in somebody else’s ruin and wants to take it from there, does one not listen to him? He had not heard that Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of civilisation. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. We would have thought that they disagree only in the Land, but not outside the Land. Since Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, because of civilisation, this implies that there is no difference between the Land and outside the Land. If he wants to take [the value of] his logs and stones, what is the rule? One tells him, wait until he dwells in it. Samuel said, one pays him immediately. Ulla bar Ismael: By law, it should not atone even if it was [not] known in public. Why did they say that it atones? Not to let the altar be deserted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, by law, it should atone even if it was known in public. Why did they say that it does not atone? Not to let the altar accept robberies. How many are “public”? Rebbi Gorion in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Three people. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You brought robbed goods with the lame and the sick.. 1:13 . ” Since lame and sick are obvious, so everything must be obvious.

לֹא הָיָה סִיקָרִיקִין בִּיהוּדָה בַּהֲרוּגֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. מֵהֲרוּגֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה וְאֵילָךְ יֵשׁ בָּהּ סִיקָרִיקִין. כֵּיצַד. לָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקִין וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִקְחוֹ בָטֵל. מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקִין מִקְחוֹ קַיָים. לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה מִקְחוֹ בָטֵל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ מִקְחוֹ קַיָים. זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלְּאַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח אֲבָל יֵשׁ בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח הֶן קוֹדְמִין לְכָל אָדָם. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הוֹשִיב בֵּית דִּין וְנִמְנוּ שֶׁאִם שָׁהֲתָ בִּפְנֵי הַסִּיקָּרִיקִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לִיקַּח יִקַּח וְנוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ. לֹא הָיָה סִיקָרִיקוֹן בִּיהוּדָה כול׳. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה גָזְרוּ שְׁמָד עַל יְהוּדָה. שֶׁכֵּן מְסוֹרֶת בְּיָדָם מֵאֲבוֹתָם. יְהוּדָה הָרַג אֶת עֵשָׂו. דִּכְתִיב יָדְךָ בְּעוֹרֶף אוֹיְבֶיךָ. וְהָיוּ הוֹלְכִין וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין בָּהֶן וְנוֹטְלִין שָׂדוֹתֵיהֶן וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחֵרִים. וְהָיוּ בַעֲלֵי בָתִּים בָּאִין וְטוֹרְפִין וְהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ חֲלוּטָה בְּיַד סִיקָרִיקוֹן. נִמְנְעוּ מִלִּיקַּח. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא סִיקָרִיקוֹן בִּיהוּדָה. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בַּהֲרוּגֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה לִפְנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. אֲבָל הֲרוּגִים שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגּוּ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה וְהֵילַךְ אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן. וַהֲרוּגִים שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה לֹא כִלְאַחַר הַמִּלְחָמָה הֵן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא סִיקָרִיקוֹן וְגָזַל וְחָמַס. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִכְתּוֹב תָּרְפּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא סִיקָרִיקוֹן לְכָל הָעוֹלָם. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הֲלָכָה לְמֶחֱצָה. גָּלִיל לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן. הַמְטַלְטְלִין אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן. תַּנֵּי. חֲכִירֵי בַּתֵּי אָבוֹת אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן. הַיּוֹרֵד מִשֵּׁם חוֹב וּמִשֵּׁם אֲנָפָרוּת אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן. אֲנָפָרוּת עַצְמָהּ מַמְתֶּנֶת לַבְּעָלִים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. מַכְרִיזִין וְהוֹלְכִין אַרְבַּע שַׁבָּתוֹת לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. פָּתַר לָהּ תְּרֵין פְּתָרִין. נָסְבָהּ מִן חָכוּר וְיֵיבָהּ לְחָכוּר. אָתָא בָּעֵי מִיטְרוֹף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָאו חָכוּר אַתְּ. שְׁבוֹק לִי. וּמָה דְּאַתְּ גְּזִי גְּזִי. נָסְבָהּ מִבַּעַל הַבַיִת וְיֵיבָהּ לְחָכוּר. אָתָא בָעֵי מִיטְרוֹף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה הֲנָיָיה לָךְ דְּאַתְּ מְסִיבְנָא מִינֵּיהּ וְהוּא מְנַסְּבָא מִינָּךְ. אֶלָּא מַה דְאִית לִי בְּחֵיילִי אֲנָא יְהִיב לָךְ. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת. הָיָה שְׁטָר אֶחָד. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי אִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן מִקְחוֹ בָטֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁלָּקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי בֵּיבוֹן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן מִקְחוֹ קַיָים. וְהוּא שֶׁלָּקַח מִן הָאִישׁ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה. וְאֵין כָּל מַה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָאִשָּׁה מְשׁוּעֲבָד לָאִישׁ. לָאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. וְכֵינִי. מָכַר לָרִאשׁוֹן וְחָתְמָה לַשֵּׁינִי לַשְּׁלִישִי וְחָתְמָה גּוֹבָה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. לֹא הִסְפִּיק גּוֹבָה מִשֶׁלְּפָנָיו. לֹא הִסְפִּיק גּוֹבָה מִשֶׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. עֲלָהּ אָמַר רַב. בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ. אֲבָל נְכָסִים שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ פָּרָה פֶרְנוֹן גּוֹבָה מֵאֵי זֶה שֶׁתִּרְצֶה. חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז. הֵן אוֹמְרִים. בְּיָדֵינוּ לִיקַּח. וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר. לָאו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְעוֹלָם הַשָּׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת הַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. רַב אָמַר. אֲנָא הְוִינָא מִמִּינְיָינָא. וְלָאו שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. הוּא רְבִיעַ קַרְקַע הוּא רְבִיעַ מָעוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. קַרְקַע דֵּינָר אַגְרָמָא רְבִיעַ מָעוֹת סְרִימִיסִּין.

MISHNAH: There was no law of siqarii (members of organized crime bands armed with a sica , “curved dagger”, and the rules promulgated to deal with these. A. Gulak [ Siqariqon , Tarbiz 5 (1934) pp. 23–27] objects to the derivation of siqariqon from sicarii since it is inconceivable that Rebbi’s court, in the early years of the third Century C.E. had to deal with the aftermath of the first revolt against the Romans, in the first half of the first Century. He proposes to see in the word a compression of σὺν κήρυκι to *συγκηρυκι “by herold” referring to the public sale of properties confiscated by the government which always was done by publicly announced auction. {While the Babli clearly connects the law of siqariqon with the first revolt against the Romans, the Yerushalmi squarely refers it to the revolt of Bar Kokhba. We know of no general confiscation of Jewish land after the first revolt; after the second there was at least the seizure of all Jewish property in and around Jerusalem. Since both Talmudim emphasize the cordial relations of Rebbi with the administration of the Severan dynasty and Rebbi clearly addressed a current problem, it seems rather that the law refers to a problem arising from a breakdown of internal security. Talmudic law certainly authorizes buying of property confiscated for nonpayment of taxes. Gulak’s interpretation is difficult to square with Mishnah Bikkurim 1:2 .} A forced sale is intrinsically invalid since the seller can hope that in the future, when law and order are re-established, he may have a chance to appeal to a court and regain his property. But if a band of known sicarii give a property owner the choice of selling his land for a pittance or be killed together with his family, one may assume that he willingly gives the land to stay alive. In that situation, the land becomes the siqarii ’s not only in possession but also in ownership, and may be sold by the current owner to any buyer. It is a matter of judgment of the court as to which situation does apply. in Judea for those killed in the war to the first sentences in the Halakhah. S. Lieberman ( Tosefta kiFshutah Giṭṭin p. 844) has noted that the reading “R. Joshua” in Mishnah 7 is clearly a scribal error since Rav, a student of Rebbi, states both in the Yerushalmi (Note 205) and the Babli (58b/59a ) that he himself was a member of the court relaxing the siqariqon rules. Also, the Halakhah never refers to R. Joshua or any of his contemporaries. Therefore, one has to read in the Mishnah, with all sources other than the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi, “Rebbi assembled a court” in the first quarter of the third Century, to deal with the problem of organized crime in his own day. Together with the rules about kidnappings, this shows that the forces of the Roman Empire (at least starting with the Severan dynasty) were barely able to guarantee the external, but not the internal, security of the Empire. The Mishnah states that land taken from Jews during the war can be bought by anybody who has the means, without regard to any prior owner. (In this case, sicarii is a code name for Roman soldiers.) The Babli connects the Mishnah to a long string of tales about the first war against the Romans; this should not be taken as indication that the Mishnah refers to that war. . After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii . How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius , his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius gives a quarter to the original owner. When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else. Rebbi (Joshua) assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius ’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy and give a quarter to the original owner. HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. 1:5 (Notes 196–199 ). Variants are given by כ . In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply applies.” The Yerushalmi text should not be corrected based on Tosephta or Babli. Since one refers to the war of Bar Kokhba and the Hadrianic decrees in its aftermath, it is clear that the situation during and after the war was worse than before the war. One does not speak of a forced sale but of the rights of the heirs of a person who was killed and his land taken by Roman soldiers or civilians. It is clear that there was no sale. Since the greater part of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed in the war or deported as slaves, it made no sense for the organizers of the survivors to take notice of prior ownership. One has to assume that “Judea” means the Judean hills, to exclude the settlements in the plain centered around Lydda. .” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial. “The law of siqariqon always applies in Galilee.” The law of siqariqon does not apply to movables. It was stated: “The law of siqariqon does not apply to foreclosures for a debt and for tenant fees, the fee due by hereditary farmers of government land (cf. Ketubot 10:5, Note 91 ; Tosefta kiFshutah Giṭṭin p. 846). The Babli, 58a , treats ἀναφορά as robbery. It is not clear whether the term was also used for fees payable by hereditary tenants to landlords other than the government. . [A foreclosure for nonpayment of] tenant fees waits twelve months for the owners, a Jewish farmer cannot apply to fill his place before 12 months after his eviction, to give the original tenant time to settle with the government. {The text is confirmed by Sefer haʻIṭṭur II, 68b; the explanation follows S. Lieberman in his commentary to Tosephta 3:11 .} .” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, after twelve months one announces on four consecutive Sabbaths. He explained it in two ways. If he did not sell the property but installed a tenant farmer to produce a continuous stream of income. took it from a tenant and gave it to a tenant and the first wants to foreclose, he says to him, are you not a tenant? Leave it for me and what you cut, you cut are not interested in selling, the original tenant cannot bid for the property. But during the 12 months accorded to him, he can offer the new tenant (who moved in in violation of the 12 months’ rule) not to sue him in rabbinic court, to enter the property under the terms accorded by the siqariqon , and let the new tenant keep any yield he already had reaped. . If he are not interested in selling, exists where the new tenant can arrange with the original owner to stay in place if and when he manages either to buy from the organized crime group or to recoup his title with government help. took it from the owner and gave it to a tenant, the [owner] wants to foreclose, he tells him, what use do you have if you take it from me and he will take it from you, but what I can afford I shall give to you. So far, if there were two contracts of the Mishnah (Napoli) and the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta: “If one bought from a wife and afterwards from her husband, his acquisition is void; from the husband and afterwards from his wife, his acquisition is valid.” S. Lieberman ( Tosefta ki-Fshutah Giṭṭin p. 847) considers this reading as “incomprehensible” and, against his declared intention, does base his text on the Vienna ms. in this case. But it seems that the text can be well understood, since all depends on the legal status of the property, whether it is mortmain or paraphernalia (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1 ). Mortmain is the husband’s property; at the dissolution of the marriage the wife is entitled to receive it or its value back; during the marriage all she has is a mortgage lien on her husband’s properties. Therefore, if she sells mortmain properties, she sells what she does not have; this is invalid. But if the husband sells, she has a right of regress on the property if it should turn out that the estate is insufficient to cover her ketubah claim. A buyer may want to buy insurance against such a possibility by paying the wife for her final assent to the sale. If she receives a consideration for her signature, she cannot claim later that she only signed to please her husband. The Mishnah speaks of paraphernalia property, which is the wife’s and of which the husband only has rights of administration. . If there was one contract? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila both say, certainly the sale is invalid; i. e., if he bought from the wife and then bought from the husband. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Bevon both said, certainly the sale is valid; i. e., if he bought from the husband and then bought from the wife. But is not all the wife’s property administered by the husband? For the yield. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: So it is: If he sold to a first person and she signed, to a second and a third and she signed, she can collect from the last mortgage and his property should be immune to the wife’s claims. . If it is insufficient, she collects from the one before the last. If this is insufficient, she collects from the one before the penultimate. On this, Rav said: For property which she brought him in her ketubah , the value of which is written in the ketubah document and which establishes a mortgage on all the husband’s properties. . But property which she brought to him as paraphernalia, property she inherited or otherwise acquired during the marriage; any sale by the husband is invalid even if the wife signs the sale document after her husband; cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1 . , she collects from any she wants. (The deaf-mute communicates by sign language.) They say, we had the means to buy; the buyer says, no. Rebbi Yose says, the field is always in the possession of the current owner II, 66d “the buyers”. The commentary (Note 176) lists all other authors who copied from there. since the burden of proof is on the claimant. Rav said, I was of the voters. There is no difference between a quarter in real estate or a quarter in money. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, real estate for a denar a γραμμάριον, two obols, a third of a denar’s (or drachma’s) weight. As measures of land, the denar is / 96 and the scruple / 288 of a iugerum of 28’800 Roman square feet. R. Yose ben R. Abun holds that the “quarter” mentioned in the Mishnah is computed from above, a quarter of the total expense which is a third of the price paid to the criminal. The computation from above is that of Samuel in the Babli, 58b . , in money a quarter is a tremis a large coin mentioned in Threni rabba 1(14) as טרימיסיא. .

חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ בִּמְטַלְטְלִין. הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקְחָן מֶקַח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר בִּמְטַלְטְלִין. בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ. שׂוֹכֵר וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר. אַפֳּיוֹטוֹת פַּרִיָיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי רְבוּ גָּבֵי עִיצוּמִין. מוֹדֶה בְּאִילֵּין דִיהָבוּן בְּנֵיהוֹן לְאוּמְנוּתָא דְּאִינּוּן גָּבוֹי עִיצוּמִין מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּי הַבִּרְיוֹת.

MISHNAH: A deaf-mute communicates in sign language, and Ben Bathyra says, in pantomimes 5:10 . Maimonides’s explanation is based on a meaning “to jump” ( Cant . 2:8 ) meaning that the deaf-mute has to bring and handle the object. , referring to movables. Underage children: their buy is a buy and their sale is a sale, referring to movables. HALAKHAH: “Ben Bathyra says, in pantomimes.” He hires and is hired. The artless, small children p. 847) explains אפיוטות, הפיוטות as Greek ἑπτέτης, ἑπταετής, adj., “seven years old”. There is no reason to single out that age. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of their livelihood. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose raises difficulties in collecting forfeits and invalid ( Ketubot 5:5, Note 117 ); the court is reluctant to enforce such a clause. (In modern Hebrew, עִיצוּמִים are labor union actions just short of a strike.) , he agrees that those who give their children to artisans that they collect forfeits because of the livelihood of people.

אֵיּלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר גֶּזֶל גָּמוּר. מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר גֶּזֶל גָּמוּר. הַמְּנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת גֶּזֶל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר גֶּזֶל גָּמוּר. אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בַּלֶּקֶט וּבַשִּׁכְחָה וּבַפֵּיאָה מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָָׁלוֹם. אֵיּלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם כול׳. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אָמַר שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי וגו‘. וְאַחַר כָּךְ וְאֶל כָּל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מִיָימַיי לֹא בֵירַכְתִּי לִפְנֵי כֹהֵן וְלֹא הִינַּחְתִּי לְבָרֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפָנָיו. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. דָּמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. עִיר שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֹּהֲנִים יִשְׂרָאֵל קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי אָחָא וְרִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִיָיה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׂמְלַאי. עִיר שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֹּהֲנִים כּוּלָּן נוֹשְׂאִין אֶת כַּפֵּיהֶן. וּלְמִי הֵן מְבָרְכִין. לַאֲחֵיהֶן שֶׁבַּצָּפוֹן וְשֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם. וּמִי עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן. הַנָּשִׁים וְהַקְּטַנִּים. תַּנֵּי אַבַּיֵּי בַּר בִּנְיָמִן. עַם הָעוֹמֵד אַחֲרֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן בִּכְלָל בְּרָכָה. הָעוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. אֲפִילוּ חוֹמָה שֶׁלְּבַרְזֶל אֵינָה מַפְסֶקֶת. הָעוֹמְדִין מִן הַצְּדָדִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַזּוֹת לְפָנָיו וְהִזָּה לְאַחֲרָיו לְאַחֲרָיו וְהִזָּה לְפָנָיו. הַזָּיָיתוֹ פְסוּלָה. לְפָנָיו וְהִזָּה עַל הַצְּדָדִין הַזָּיָיתוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הָעוֹמֵד מִן הַצְּדָדִין בִּכְלָל בְּרָכָה הֵן. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַחַזָּן יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. אִם הָיָה כֹהֵן אֶחָד. אוֹמֵר. כֹּהֵן. לִשְׁנַיִם. אוֹמֵר כֹּהֲנִים. וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. כֹּהֲנִים. שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא אֶלָּא הַשֵׁבֶט. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. אֵי אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגַלֶּה עֲרָיוֹת וְשׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים וְהוּא מְבָרְכֵנוּ. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וּמִי מְבָרֶכְךָ. לֹא אֲנִי מְבָרֶכְךָ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׂמוּ אֶת שְׁמִי עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרְכֵם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. וּבְדִיּוּר יָשָׁן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. בּוֹר הַקָּרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא אַמַּת הַמַּיִם עוֹבֶרֶת עַל גַּבָּיו. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ מִן הַצַּד. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. דִּרְחִיק וְנִיחָא לְמִישְׁתֵּי קָדִים לֵיהּ דִקְרִיב וְקָשֶׁה לְמִישְׁתֵּי. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן נִיחָא. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. כָּל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶגּוֹז וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ צְרוֹר וְנוֹטְלוֹ. הַמּוֹצִיא בְיָדוֹ כְמוֹצִיא לְאַישְׁפָּה. אֶגּוֹז וְנוֹטְלוֹ צְרוֹר וְזוֹרְקוֹ גְּזֵילוֹ גֶזֶל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. אֶגּוֹז וּצְרוֹר נוֹטְלָן וּמַצְנִיעָן וּמֵבִיאָן לְאַחַר זְמָן גְּזֵילוֹ גֶזֶל גָּמוּר. זוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ אֲבָל לֹא לָאֲחֵרִים. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁזּוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ זוֹכֶה לָאֲחֵרִים. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין מַתָּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ. מַתְּנַת אִישׁ מַתָּנָה וְאֵין מַתְּנַת קָטָן מַתָּנָה. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לְעוֹלָם אֵין גְּזֵילוֹ מחזר עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בְדִין. אֲבָל לְקָרְבַּן וְלִשְׁבוּעָה כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֶה. עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אַף לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא יִזְכֶּה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כְרֵעֵהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. וְיָרְדוּ לָהּ בְּשִׁיטַּת הַפָּעוּטוֹת. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַפָּעוּטוֹת מִקְחָן מִקַּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר בִּמְטַלְטְלִין. וְהָא תַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְזַכֶּה לָהֶן לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן כְּיָדוֹ. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין אָמְרִין. כָּאן בְּתִינוֹק שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַעַת כָּאן בְּתִינוֹק שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַעַת. מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת כול׳. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּאִילֵּין רַבְרְבָתָא. אֲבַל בְּאִילֵּין דַּקִּיקָתָא כְּמָאן דְּאִינּוּן בְּגַו בֵּייתֵיהּ. הֶעָנִי הַמְּנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת מַה שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו גֶּזֶל מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר גֶּזֶל גָּמוּר. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בִּדְאַרְעָא. אֲבָל הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּיָד זָכְתָה לוֹ יָדוֹ. אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בַּלֶּקֶט וּבַשִּׁכְחָה וּבַפֵּיאָה מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. תַּנֵּי. עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. מַעֲמִידִין גַּבָּאֵי גוֹיִם וְגַבָּאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְגוֹבִין מִשֶּׁלְּגוֹיִם וּמִשֶּׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְפָרְנְסִין עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם וַעֲנִיָּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְבַקְּרִין חוֹלֵי גוֹיִם וְחוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְקוֹבְרִין מֵיתֵי גּוֹיִם וּמֵיתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְנַחֲמִין אֲבֵילֵי גּוֹיִם וַאֲבֵילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְכַבְּסִין כְּלֵי גּוֹיִם וּכְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. גִּירְדָּאִי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁלְּגוֹיִם מַהוּ. וּסְבַר מִישְׁרֵי לוֹן מִן הָדָא מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אַבָּא. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיה יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁלְּגוֹיִם אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. אִילְמָלֵא רִבִּי אַבָּא כְּבָר הָיִינוּ בָאִין לְהַתִּיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וּבָרוּךְ שֶׁהִבְדִּילָנוּ מֵהֶן.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace 5:5, Note 90). . One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah , for communal peace. HALAKHAH: “The following was said for communal peace,” etc. The saying of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai implies that it is of the words of the Torah, for Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the Cohanim, the Levites (etc.)” and afterwards “to all the Elders of Israel.. 31:9 . The implication is that in all matters of reading the Torah the Cohanim and Levites have precedence over Israel Elders. In the Babli, 58b , the author of the statement is given as the Amora R. Mattaniah. ” The saying of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies that it is of their words, as Rebbi Joshua said, never did I recite the benediction before a Cohen and I did not allow an Israel to do it before him 28a , the statement is attributed to the wonder-working R. Perida. In Yerushalmi Berakhot 5:5 (9d 1.3), the reference is that R. Joshua ben Levi never let any non-Cohen publicly recite Grace in the presence of a Cohen ( Halakhah 5:5, Notes 163 ,164.) . The saying of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is of their words, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, in a city of only Cohanim, an Israel reads first because of communal peace. 5:5 , explained in Notes 167–175 . The readings of the Leiden ms. are noted by ב , of the Rome ms. by ר , Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children text might allow almost adult children to join their fathers in the priestly blessing. . Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israel. Rav Ḥisda seem preferable since this style of repetition is not usual. said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, lest you say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am not I blessing you? As it was said. 6:27, the verse following the text of the priestly blessing. : “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.” “One puts an eruv in an old house.” Rebbi Abin said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller is removed from it but the owner of the house. Therefore, if there is a new owner in an old house, one may move the location of the eruv . The statement is copied in Eruvin 6, 23d 1.40. . “A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first.” Only if it passes through it. Samuel said, even if it is close by. There, they say what is farther away but easy to drink from precedes one which is close by but difficult to drink from. 4:4, Notes 80–90. Variants are noted מ . Cf. Note 236 . Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written ( Ex . 22:6 ): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not clear, Bulletin des Vereins jüdischer Lehrer und Kantoren der Schweiz 21 (1977), 4–5. unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written ( Ex . 22:6 ): “A man to his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there. : “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state there 4:4. : “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge. “Traps for wild animals, birds,” etc. That is, about large ones. But small ones are as if inside his house. “If a poor person knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, what is under him falls under the category of robbery) is close to the text of the Babli and most Mishnah mss. , for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery.” That means, on the earth. But if he plucks with his hand, his hand acquires for him. 4:6, Notes 76–79 . Variants from there are noted ד ; a (Babylonian spelling) variant from the Venice print by ו. The text there is probably copied from a ms. which underwent fewer changes than the text here. “One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah , for communal peace.” It was stated: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, one appoints overseers of charity from Gentiles and Jews; one provides for the Gentile and Jewish poor, visits Gentile and Jewish sick, buries Gentile and Jewish dead, and consoles Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one washes Gentile and Jewish clothes for the sake of peaceful coexistence.” A weaver asked Rebbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told them, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that the holiday of a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rebbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Abba, we would have come to permit their strange worship; praised be He Who separated us from them.

מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית נָפָה וּכְבָרָה רֵיחַיִים וְתַנּוּר. אֲבָל לֹא תָבוֹר וְלֹא תִטְחוֹן עִמָּהּ. אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר מַשְׁאֶלֶת לְאֵשֵׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וּבוֹרֶרֶת וְטוֹחֶנֶת וּמְרַקֶּדֶת עִמָּהּ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתַּטִּיל מַיִם לֹא תִגַּע בָּהּ שֶׁאֵין מְחַזְּקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה. וְכוּלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וּמַחֲזִיקִים יְדֵי גּוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית אֲבָל לֹא יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ כול׳. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַתְנִיתָא בִסְתָם. הָא בִּפֵירוּשָׁא לֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּסְתָמוֹ לָאו כְּפֵירוּשׁ הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר נָפָה לִסְפּוֹר בָּהּ מָעוֹת. כְּבָרָה לִכְבּוֹר בָּהּ חוֹל. רֵיחַיִם לִטְחוֹן בָּהּ סַמְמָנִין. תַּנּוּר לְהַטְמִין בּוֹ אוּנִּין שֶׁלְּפִשׁתָּן. רִבִּי פִינְחָס בָּעֵי. בְּמַה קָנְסוּ. בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁזּוֹרְעִין וְאוֹכְלִין אוֹ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁזּוֹרְעִין וְלֹא אוֹכְלִין. מַה נָפִיק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ לוֹקֵח מִן הַסִּירְקִי. אָסוּר. וְאִין תֵּימַר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁזּוֹרְעִין וְאוֹכְלִין רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ לוֹקֵח מִן הַסִּירְקִי מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בָּעֵי. עַל כָּל פִּירְקָא אִיתֲמַר אוֹ עַל הָדָא הִילְכְתָא אִיתֲמַר. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן טִיטֹס. מִן מַה דְּתַנִּינָן בְּגִיטִּין אֶלָּא הָדָא אָמְרָה הָדָא הִילְכְּתָא. עַל הָדָא הִילְכְּתָא אִיתֲמַר. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְטוּמְאָה לֹא לָשִׁין וְאֵין עוֹרְכִין עִמּוֹ. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. לֹא בוֹרְרִין וְלֹא טוֹחֲנִין עִמּוֹ. וְהָכָא הוּא אוֹמֵר אָכֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. כָּאן לְחוּלִין כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן נַחְתּוֹם. אִית לְמֵימַר נַחְתּוֹם בִּתְרוּמָה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. כָּאן בְּלוֹתֵת כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹתֵת. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לַחֲבֵרַיָיא. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתַּטִּיל אֶת הַמַּיִם לֹא תִגַּע אֶצְלָהּ. רִבִּי חִיָיה וְרִבִּי אִימִּי חַד אָמַר חֲרוֹש בָּהּ טָבָאוּת וַאֲנָא נָסֵיב לָהּ מִינָךְ בָּתָר שְׁמִיטְתָא. וָחָרָנָה אָמַר. יְיַשֵּׁר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲרוֹשׁ בָּהּ טָבָאוּת וַאֲנָא נָסֵיב לָהּ מִינָךְ בָּתָר שְׁמִיטְתָא. מַה שׁוֹאֲלִין בִשְׁלוֹמָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. יְיַשֵּׁר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר לְגוֹי יְיַשֵּׁר. דֵּלֹמָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַּר פַּפָּא וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן עָבְרִין עַל חַד מֵחוֹרְשֵׁי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתְּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַּר פַּפָּא. לֹא כֵן אִלְפָן רִבִּי. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ הָעוֹבְרִים בִּרְכַּת יי עֲלֵיכֶם. אֵילּוּ אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהֵן כָּלִין וְעוֹבְרִין מִן הָעוֹלָם. לֹא אָמְרוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְכַּת יי עֲלֵיכֶם. מַה יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִין לָהֶן. בֵּרַכְנוּ אֶתְכֶם בְּשֵׁם יי. לֹא דַיֵיכֶם שֶׁכָּל בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁבָּאוֹת לָעוֹלָם בִּזְכוּתֵינוּ הֵן בָּאוֹת. וְלֹא דַיֵיכֶם שֶׁאֵין אַתֵּם אוֹמְרִים לָנוּ בּוֹאוּ וּטְלוּ מִן הַבְּרָכוֹת הַלָּלוּ. אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ פִּיסִּים וְזֵימִיּוֹנוֹת וְגוּלְגָּלִיּוֹת וְאַרְנוֹנִיּוֹת.

MISHNAH: 5:9, Notes 80–98. The variant ms. readings from there are noted ש . The last two paragraphs are also from Ševiʻit 4:3, Notes 50–57. A woman may lend to her neighbor, whom she suspects in matters of the Sabbatical, a coarse sieve 69a . , a fine sieve, grindstones, or an oven 4:6 . , but she should neither cull nor grind with her. The wife of a Fellow may lend to the wife of a vulgar 51a , the question never arises since the claims of the widow and the daughters are accorded equal status; this rule is quoted in Yebamot 15:3 (14d 1.68), Ketubot 4:8 (29a 1.25). a coarse sieve and a fine sieve, she may cull, grind, and sift with her, but she may not touch hers once water has been put in 4:8, Notes 200–201 . Variant readings are given there. because one does not support transgressors 6:1. The subject is the biblical oath imposed on a person who denies an obligation ( Ex . 22:8 ). The rabbinic interpretation of the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there is a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses and no documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due. . All this has only been said for communal peace. One encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical year but not Jews. One greets them for communal peace. HALAKHAH: “A woman may lend to her neighbor,” etc. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? He said to him, I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles. Rebbi Phineas asked: For what did they impose a fine? At a place where they sow and eat or at a place where they sow but do not eat? What is the difference? If one saw him buying from Saracens. for the text that probably was omitted here. It is forbidden; if you say at a place where they sow and eat, if one saw him buying from Saracens it is permitted. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state this Mishnah in Giṭṭin it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah. There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind with him. And here, it says so? Rebbi La said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, one if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in.” 4:3, (Notes 50–57). The paragraph should not be taken as a variant of the text but as a hint to look up the original. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed” For him who says, plough it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them” in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, are you not Jewish? Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us ( Ps . 129:8 ): “The passers-by did not say, the blessing of the Eternal be on you,” these are the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; not only do you not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae .