* Deut. 25’. There is here a play on words. The first word of the sentence is v'mklah (‘and is become vile, unworthy’); the subject ‘thy brother’ is taken as beginning a new clause, thus giving a sense 'having been made vile, he is thy brother in thy sight’. The following ‘When he is scourged’ ( lakah ) plays on the ‘be vile’ ( kalak ) of the earlier word.
6 i.e. Lev. t8, which in verse 29 speaks of the soul that shall be cut off.
* Is. 42". Cf. Ab. 6“. The more commandments there are to be observed, the more | ample the scope for Israel to acquire merit. 10 Positive and negative.
21 To include positive and negative assertions about things past. See below, 3*, when the 1 actual subject of the tractate is resumed.
12 Lev. s2. See below, 2*. The two are: if a man eats of Hallowed Things or if he enters the Temple in a state of forgetfulness that he is unclean.
12 To include the two additional states of forgetfulness that he is eating Hallowed Things or that he has entered the Temple. 14 See Shab. 1*.
appearances of leprosy signs* are of two kinds, which are, indeed, four.
2. Whensoever2 there was knowledge [of his uncleanness] in the beginning and knowledge in the end, but unconsciousness3 in the meantime, a man is liable to a Rising and Falling Offering.4 If there was knowledge in the beginning but no knowledge in the end, the goat whose blood is sprinkled within5 [the Holy of Holies] and the Day of Atonement suspend judgement, until his trespass is known to him, and then shall he bring a Rising and Falling Offering.
3. If there was no knowledge in the beginning but there was knowledge in the end, atonement is made by the goat whose blood is sprinkled outside [on the Altar in the Temple Court], and by the Day of Atonement, for it is written, Beside the sin-offering of atonement;6 as one makes atonement so does the other make atonement; as the [sprinkling] within makes atonement only for a matter whereof there was knowledge [in the beginning], so the [sprinkling] outside makes atonement only for a matter whereof there was knowledge [in the end].
4. If there was no knowledge either in the beginning or in the end, the he-goats [offered as Sin-offerings] at the [three] Feasts and at the New Moons make atonement.7 So R. Judah. R. Simeon says: The goats [offered] at the [three] Feasts make atonement, but not those [offered] at the New Moons. For what do the goats [offered] at the New Moons make atonement? For a clean person who ate what was unclean. R. Meirsays: All goats [offered as Sin-offerings, whether at the three Feasts or at the New Moons] alike make atonement for uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its Hallowed Things. R. Simeon used to say: The goats [offered] at the New Moons make atonement for the clean that ate what was unclean, and those [offered] at the [three] Feasts make atonement if there was no knowledge either in the beginning or in the end, and that [offered] on the Day of Atonement makes atonement if there was no knowledge in the beginning but knowledge in the end. They said to him: Can it be that one may be offered at a time appointed for the other? He answered: They may be offered so. They said to him: But since their atonement is not every time alike, how may one be offered at a time appointed for the other? He answered: They all are brought to make atonement for uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its Hallowed Things.
5. R. Simeon b. Judah says in his name: The goats [offered] at the New Moons make atonement for the clean that ate what was unclean; those [offered] at the [three] Feasts surpass them in that they make atonement both for the clean that ate what was unclean and for [a transgression] where there was no knowledge either in the beginning or in the end; that [offered] on the Day of Atonement surpasses them in that it makes atone¬ ment both for the clean that ate what was unclean, and for [a transgression] where there was no knowledge either in the beginning or in the end; also * See Neg. i*.
* In the act of sin (eating Hallowed Thing* or entering the Temple) committed while unclean.
J Of hi* uncleanness, or of the sanctity of the Hallowed Things or the Temple.
* So called because the value of what is brought in expiation ‘rises’ or ‘falls’, from a lamb to a pair of birds, or the tenth of an ephah of fine flour, according to his means. Sec Lev. 5*' ’• **. s Lev. i6“. Cf. Yom. 5*. 6 Num. 29“.
7 For sins known only to God. See Num. 28“’ **> 2911' **. The three feasts are Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.
FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN for [a transgression] where there was no knowledge in the beginning but there was knowledge in the end. They said to him:1 Can it be2 that one may be offered at a time appointed for the other? He answered: Yea. They said to him: If so, then those of the Day of Atonement could be offered at the New Moons, but how can those of the New Moons be offered on the Day of Atonement to make atonement which does not pertain to it? He answered: They all are brought to make atonement for uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its Hallowed Things.
6. For uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its Hallowed Things through wantonness,3 atonement is made by the goat whose blood is sprinkled within [the Holy of Holies] and by the Day of Atonement; for all other transgressions spoken of in the Law, venial or grave, wanton or un¬ witting, conscious or unconscious, sins of omission or of commission, sins punishable by Extirpation or by death at the hands of the court, the scapegoat4 makes atonement.
7. [It makes atonement] alike whether they are Israelites, priests, or the Anointed Priest.* Wherein do Israelites differ from priests and the Anointed Priest? Only in that the blood of the bullock6 makes atonement for the priests for uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its Hallowed Things. R. Simeon says: As the blood of the goat that is sprinkled within [the Holy of Holies] makes atonement for the Israelites, so does the blood of the bullock make atonement for the priests; and as the confession of sin recited over the scapegoat7 makes atonement for the Israelites, so does the confession of sin recited over the bullock8 make atonement for the priests.
2. 1. ‘ Knowledge of uncleanness is of two kinds, which are, indeed, four.’9 If a man contracted uncleanness and knew it, and the uncleanness was then forgotten of him though he was mindful of the holiness [of what he ate], or if the holiness [of what he ate] was forgotten of him though he was mindful of his uncleanness; or if both were forgotten of him, and he thereafter ate what was holy and did not know [that he committed transgression], but! after he had eaten he knew it, then he is liable to a Rising and Falling Offering. If he contracted uncleanness and knew it, and the uncleanness was then forgotten of him though he was mindful of [the holiness of] the Temple, or if [the holiness of] the Temple was forgotten of him though he was mindful of the uncleanness, or if both were forgotten of him, and he entered the Temple and did not know [that he committed transgression] but after he came out he knew it, then he is liable to a Rising and Falling Offering.
2. It is all one whether a man enters into the Temple Court10 or into any space that has been added to the Temple Court, since they may not add to the [Holy] City or to the courts of the Temple save by the decision of a king, a prophet, Urim and Thummim and a Sanhedrin of one and seventy [judges]11 and with the bringing of two Thank-offerings and with singing.12 2 Some texts read: ‘Did he’ or ‘Did the Rabbi also say’. ‘Rabbi’ refers here to R. Simeon (b. Yohai) in whose name R. Simeon b. Judah had spoken.
J But without having been warned. After warning scourging (Makk. 3*) is incurred.
* Lev. i6l>. Cf. Yom. 6*®. s The High Priest. 6 Lev. 16*.
7 Lev. i6M. See Yom. 4*. 8 See Yom. 3*. » See above, i1.
*2 Cf. Neh. u”, where the expression ‘two great companies that gave thanks' can be rendered ‘two great Thank-offerings’.
The court goes along with the two Thank-offerings behind them1 and all Israel following after. The innermost2 [Thank-offering] is consumed [by the priests] and the outermost is burnt. If any addition is made not after this fashion, and a man [that was unclean] entered thither, he is not thereby culpable.
3. If a man contracted uncleanness in the Temple Court, and the un¬ cleanness was forgotten of him, though he was mindful that he was in the Temple; or if the Temple was forgotten of him though he was mindful of his uncleanness; or if both were forgotten of him, and he prostrated himself or stayed time enough to prostrate himself, or if he went out by the longer way,3 he is liable [to a Rising and Falling Offering]; but if by the shorter way, he is exempt. This is the positive command4 concerning the Temple, through the transgression of which [if a court gave a wrongful decision] the congregation does not become liable [to a Sin-offering].5 * 4. What is the positive command concerning the menstruant, through the transgression of which they become liable r If a man had connexion with her when she was clean, and she [then] said to him, ‘I am become un¬ clean’, and he forthwith withdrew, he is [still] liable, since he derives benefit as well by his egress as by his ingress.
5. R. Eliezer says: a creeping thing and it be hidden from him;7 because the creeping thing is forgotten of him he becomes liable, but he does not become liable because the Temple is forgotten of him. R. Akiba says: And it be hidden from him and he be unclean; because the uncleanness is forgotten of him he becomes liable, but he does not become liable because the Temple is forgotten of him. R. Ishmael says: Shall be hidden...shall be hidden: [it is said] twice,8 to show that he becomes liable both because the uncleanness is forgotten of him and because the Temple is forgotten of him.
3. 1. ‘Oaths are of two kinds, which are, indeed, four’;9 [namely,] ‘I swear that I will eat’, or ‘that I will not eat’; or ‘that I have eaten’, or ‘that I have not eaten’. [If a man said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat’, and he ate aught soever, he is culpable.10 So R. Akiba. They said to R. Akiba: But where have we found that a man is culpable that eats aught soever [of what is unclean],11 and that, therefore, this one, too, is culpable?12 R. Akiba an¬ swered: But where [else] have we found that a man must bring an offering if he does but speak, and that, therefore, this man, too, if he does but speak must bring an offering?13 [If a man said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat’, and he ate and drank, he is liable only on one count; but if he said, ‘I swear that I will not eat and that I will not drink’, and he ate and drank, he is liable on two counts.
2. [If he said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat’, and he then ate wheaten 1 Such is the literal rendering. Gem. 1 5b on the ground of Neh. 12” argues that it means that the court followed after the Thank-offerings. 1 That nearest the court.
4 In that the unclean person is bidden to go out the shortest way. Cf. Num. 5*.
* See Hor. a4. The congregation need not bring the bullock for a Sin-offering aa pre¬ scribed in Lev.
4 If the court gave a wrongful decision. 7 Lev. 5*. * Lev. 5*' *.
• See above, 1.
10 And must bring the offerings prescribed in Lev. 5*®.
11 Where not ‘aught soever’ but 'an olive’s bulk’ must be eaten to render him unclean.
12 They maintain that, by analogy with the other law, he breaks his oath only if he eats an olive’s bulk.
I} i.e. there can be no analogy possible between this and another law.
412 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN bread and bread of barley and bread of spelt, he is liable only on one count; [but if he said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat wheaten bread or bread of barley or bread of spelt’, and he ate [them all], he is liable on each count.
3. [If he said,] ‘I swear that I will not drink’, and he drank many liquids, he is liable only on one count; [but if he said,] ‘I swear that I will not drink wine or oil or honey’, and he drank [them all], he is liable on each count.
4. [If he said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat’, and he ate foods which are not fit for eating, or drank liquids which are not fit for drinking, he is not culpable. [If he said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat’, and he ate carrion or terefah, or forbidden beasts or creeping things,1 he is culpable; but R. Simeon declares him not culpable. If he said, ‘ Konam 2 be the use I have of my wife if I have eaten to-day!’ and he had eaten carrion or terefah or forbidden beasts or creeping things, his wife is forbidden to him.
5. It is all one whether the things [whereof he swears] belong to him or whether they belong to others, or whether there is in them aught material or whether there is in them naught material. Thus [it is all one] whether he said, ‘I swear that I will give this to such a man’, or ‘that I will not give it’, or ‘that I have given it’, or ‘that I have not given it’; or ‘that I will sleep’, or ‘that I will not sleep’, or ‘that I have slept’, or ‘that I have not slept’; or ‘that I will throw a stone into the sea’, or ‘that I will not throw it’, or ‘that I have thrown it’, or ‘that I have not thrown it’. R. Ishmael says: He becomes liable only by reason of [an oath that concerns] the future, for it is written, To do evil or to do good? R. Akiba said to him: If so, I may take oaths that concern only the doing of evil or the doing of good! but whence [do we learn that we may take oaths that concern] matters other than the doing of evil or the doing of good? He answered: From the extension4 in the Scripture. He said to him: If the Scripture has extended [the meaning of the law] in this sense, it has extended it also in the other sense.5 6. If a man had sworn to set a commandment at naught but did not set it at naught, he is not culpable. If [he had sworn] to fulfil a commandment but did not fulfil it, he is not culpable. According to R. Judah b. Bathyra it might be inferred that he should be culpable. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If a man becomes culpable by reason of oaths that concern a matter of free choice (whereto he was not adjured from mount Sinai), how much more does he become culpable by reason of oaths that concern a commandment (whereto he was adjured from mount Sinai)! They said to him: No! as thou arguest about an oath that concerns a matter of free choice (in which Nay or Yea are alike lawful), wouldst thou argue also about an oath that concerns a commandment (in which Nay or Yea are not alike lawful)? — so6 that if a man had sworn to set it at naught and did not set it at naught, he is not culpable.
4 Referring to an exegetical method introduced by Nahum of Gimzo (latter half of the first century) by which certain conjunctions and particles had the effect of ‘limitation’, and excluded interpretations and applications of some verse in the written Law which were excluded by the Oral Law; while certain other conjunctions and particles had the effect of ‘extension’, and admitted additional interpretations and wider applications of the written Law, such as had become permissible by the Oral Law. In the present case it is said (Lev. 54) ‘ Whatsoever it be that a man shall swear’, thus ‘extending’ the sense of the pre¬ ceding clause ‘to do evil or to do good’. Cf. p. 82, n. 1.
s To include the past also, and not (as R. Ishmael held) the future only.
(> Some texts omit the following sentence.
7. [If he said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat this loaf! I swear that I will not eat it! I swear that I will not eat it!’1 and he ate it, he is liable only on one count. Such is reckoned ‘a rash oath’,2 for which a man is liable to Stripes if he uttered it wantonly, but, if unwittingly, to a Rising and Falling Offering. For ‘a vain oath’, if it is uttered wantonly, a man is liable to Stripes, but if unwittingly, he is not culpable.
8. What is accounted ‘a vain oath’? If, to wit, he swore that a thing well known to men was something different: if he said of a pillar of stone that it was of gold, or of a man that he was a woman, or of a woman that she was a man; or if he swore a thing that was not possible, [to wit, ‘I swear that] I saw a camel flying in the air’, or ‘that I saw a serpent as thick as the beam of an olive-press’. If a man said to witnesses, ‘Come and bear witness of me’, [but they said,] ‘We swear that we will not bear witness of thee’, or if a man swore to set a commandment at naught, [to wit,] that he would not build a Sukkah i or carry a Luiab 4 or put on phylacteries,5 this is accounted ‘a vain oath’, for which, if it is uttered wantonly, a man is liable to Stripes, but if unwittingly, he is not culpable.
9. [If a man said,] ‘I swear that I will eat this loaf! I swear that I will not eat it!’ the first is ‘a rash oath’ and the second ‘a vain oath’. If he ate it, he has transgressed by reason of ‘a vain oath’; if he did not eat it he has transgressed by reason of ‘a rash oath’.
10. [The law about] ‘a rash oath’ applies6 to men or to women, to them that are not kinsfolk or to them that are kinsfolk,7 to them that are qualified [to bear witness] or to them that are not qualified,8 and [whether uttered] before a court or not before a court; but it must be uttered out of a man’s own mouth.9 If [he uttered it] wantonly he is liable to Stripes, and if unwittingly to a Rising and Falling Offering.
11. [The law about] ‘a vain oath’ applies to men or to women, to them that are not kinsfolk or to them that are kinsfolk, to them that are qualified [to bear witness] or to them that are not qualified, and [whether uttered] before a court or not before a court; but it must be uttered out of a man’s own mouth. If [he uttered it] wantonly he is liable to Stripes, and if unwittingly he is exempt. For either kind of oath, if a man was adjured at the mouth of others, he may still be liable; thus if he said, ‘I have not eaten to-day’, or ‘I have not put on phylacteries to-day’, [and another said to him,] ‘I adjure thee’, and he said, ‘Amen!’ he is liable.
4. 1. [The law about] ‘an oath of testimony’10 applies to men but not to women, to them that are not kinsfolk but not to them that are kinsfolk, to them that are qualified [to bear witness] but not to them that are not quali¬ fied, and it applies only to them that are fit" to bear witness; and [it applies whether uttered] before a court or not before a court; but it must be uttered out of a man’s own mouth. If [he was adjured] at the mouth of others, he is not liable until he has denied his knowledge before a court.
1 Some texts omit the last repetition. - Cf. Lev. 5'. J App. I. 42.
* They are liable to penalty for non-fulfilment.
1 e.g. if he swore to give something to a certain person and he did not fulfil his oath, he is culpable whether the person was near of kin to him or not. * See Sanh. 3*.
* It is not enough if he confirms another's words: yet if he confirms the other’s words by replying ‘Amen’, it is as though the oath was uttered from his own mouth. See the following paragraph.
Lev. 5l.
11 This excludes a king (Sanh. 2J) and those mentioned in Sanh. 3*.
414 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Whether [he swore] out of his own mouth or [was adjured] at the mouth of others, a man is not liable until he has denied his knowledge before a court.
2. [If they swore falsely] they are liable whether they swore wantonly or in error if they wantonly denied their knowledge, but they are not liable if they denied it in error. And to what are they liable if they had sworn wantonly? To a Rising and Falling Offering.
3. Of what kind is ‘an oath of testimony’? If a man said to two others, ‘Come and testify of me’, [and they said,] ‘We swear that we know of no testimony concerning thee’; [or if they said,] ‘We know of no testimony concerningthee’, [and he said,] ‘I adjure you’, and they said, ‘Amen!’ they are liable [if they swore falsely]. If he had adjured them five times outside the court, and they came to the court and confessed [that they knew of testi¬ mony concerning him], they incur no penalty; but if they denied it they are liable on each count. If he adjured them five times before the court and they denied [their knowledge], they are liable only on one count. R. Simeon said: What is the reason? Because they cannot again confess [their know- ledge].
4. If they both denied at the same time, they are both liable, but if one denied and then the other, the first is liable and the second exempt. If one denied and the other confessed, he that denied is liable. If there were two pairs of witnesses and the first pair denied and then the second, both pairs are liable, since the testimony could be sustained by either of the two pairs.
5. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you that ye come and testify of me that in the hand of such-a-one there is a deposit and a loan and plunder and lost property of mine’, [and they said,] ‘We swear that we know of no testimony concerning thee’, they are liable only on one count. [But if they said,] ‘We swear that we do not know that in the hand of such-a-one there is a deposit and a loan and plunder and lost property of thine’, they are liable on each count. [If he said,] ‘I adjure you that ye come and testify of me that 1 have, in the hand of such-a-one, a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt’, [and they said,] ‘We swear that we know of no testimony concerning thee’, they are liable only on one count; [but if they said,] ‘We swear that we know of no testimony concerning thee that thou hast, in the hand of such-a-one, a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt’, they are liable on each count.
6. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you that ye come and testify of me that against such-a-one I have a claim for damages, or half-damages, to twofold restitution or fourfold or fivefold restitution’,1 or ‘that such-a-one violated my daughter’, or ‘that such-a-one seduced my daughter’, or ‘that my son struck me’,2 or ‘that my fellow on the Day of Atonement3 wounded me,’ or ‘set fire to my heaped corn’, these are liable.
7. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you that ye come and testify of me that I, a priest or a levite, am not the son of a divorced woman4 or the son of a woman that had performed haltizati;5 or ‘that such-a-one, a priest, or a levite, is not the son of a divorced woman, or the son of a woman that had per¬ formed hatitzah\ or ‘that such-a-one violated his daughter’ or ‘that he seduced his daughter’, or ‘that my son wounded me’6 or ‘that my fellow 1 Since no death-penalty is involved (Sanh. 1 11) there can be payment for damage.
3 Though this is punishable by Extirpation (Ker. i*) damages are still payable. See B.K. 7’.
6 The penalty is death, hence no evidence as to damage is needed.
on the Sabbath1 wounded me’ or ‘set fire to my heaped com’, these are exempt.
8. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you that ye come and testify of me that such- a-one promised to give me 200 zuz and he did not give it to me’, they are exempt, since they are liable only in what concerns a claim for property that is like to a deposit.2 9. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you that, when ye know of testimony con¬ cerning me, ye come and testify of me’, they are exempt, since the oath preceded the testimony.
10. If a man stood in the synagogue and said, ‘I adjure you that, if ye know of testimony concerning me, ye come and testify of me’, they are exempt unless3 he shall direct himself to some among them in particular.
11. If he had said to two others, ‘I adjure you, O such-a-one and such- a-one, that, if ye know of testimony concerning me, ye come and testify of me’, [and they said,] ‘We swear that we know of no testimony concerning thee’, and they knew of testimony concerning him but from the mouth of another witness, or if one of them was a kinsman or not qualified [to be a witness], they are exempt.
12. If a man had sent his slave [to adjure the witnesses], or if he that was sued said to them, ‘I adjure you that, if ye know of testimony con¬ cerning him, ye come and testify of him’, they are exempt; [they are not liable] unless they hear [the adjuration] from the mouth of the claimant.
13. [If a man said,] ‘I adjure you’, or ‘I command you’, or ‘I bind you’, they are liable. [But if he said,] ‘By heaven and by earth’, they are exempt. [If he adjured them] ‘by Alef-Daleth ’4 or ‘by Yod-He’s or ‘by Shaddai’ or ‘by Sabaoth’ or ‘by the Merciful and Gracious’ or ‘by him that is long- suffering and of great kindness’,6 or by any substituted name,7 they are liable. If a man cursed [God]8 by any of these he is liable. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: He is exempt. If a man cursed his father or his mother9 by any of these names, he is liable. So R. Meir. But the Sages declare him exempt. If a man cursed himself10 or his fellow by any of them, he trans¬ gresses a negative command.11 [If he said,] ‘God smite thee’ or ‘Thus may God smite thee’,12 this is the ‘adjuration’ that is written in the Law.13 [If a man said,] ‘May he not smite thee’ or ‘May he bless thee’ or ‘May he do well with thee’,14 R. Meir declares him liable; but the Sages declare him exempt.
5. 1. [The law about] a 'deposit-oath 1,5 applies to men or to women, to them that are not kinsfolk and to them that are kinsfolk, to them that are qualified [to bear witness] and to them that are not qualified, and [it applies whether uttered] before a court or not before a court; but it must be uttered out of a man’s own mouth; if [he was adjured] at the mouth of others, a man is not liable unless he withholds the truth before a court. So R. Meir. But * As in the esses cited in Lev. 6*. 3 Some texts omit the following clause.
* The first two letters of ‘Adonai’, the Lord.
s The first two letters of die Sacred Name, YHWH, ‘Jehovah’.
* Cf. Ex. 34*; Ps. 103*. 7 Or, ‘by one of the attributes of God’.
* The blasphemer. See Sanh. 7*. * Sanh. 7*.
11 Cf. Lev. 1914. If it is forbidden to curse the deaf, how much more the hearing!
11 ‘If thou come not to testify of me!’
•i i.e. the adjuration intended by Lev. 5'.
'♦ ‘If thou come to testify of me!'
FOURTH DIVISION: NEZ1KIN the Sages say: Whether [he swore] out of his own mouth or [was adjured] at the mouth of others, so soon as he has denied his knowledge he becomes liable. He is liable whether he swore wantonly or in error if he had spoken wantonly concerning the deposit,1 but not if he had spoken in error con¬ cerning it. To what is he liable [if he swore] wantonly? A Guilt-offering costing [two] shekels in silver.2 2. Of what kind is a ‘deposit-oath’? If one man said to another, ‘Give me my deposit which thou hast’, [and the other said], ‘I swear that I have naught of thine’, or if he said, ‘I have naught of thine’ [and the first said,] ‘I adjure thee’, and he said, ‘Amen!’ he is liable. If he adjured him five times whether before a court or not before a court, and he denied it, he is liable on each count. R. Simeon said: What is the reason? Because he can [after each denial] retract and admit [that he has the deposit].