3. R. Simeon11 reports three opinions in which the School of Shammai follow the more lenient and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. According to the School of Shammai the book of Ecclesiastes12 does not render the hands unclean. And the School of Hillel say: It renders the hands unclean. According to the School of Shammai Sin-offering water13 which has fulfilled its purpose is clean; and the School of Hillel declare it unclean. The School of Shammai declare black cummin14 insusceptible to uncleanness; and the School of Hillel declare it susceptible. So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes.
4. R. Eliezer reports two opinions in which the School of Shammai follow the more lenient and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. According to the School of Shammai the blood15 of a woman that has not yet immersed herself after childbirth is like to her spittle or her urine. And the School of Hillel say: [It conveys uncleanness] whether it is wet or dried up. But they agree that if a woman gave birth while she had a flux, it renders unclean whether [the blood was] wet or dried up.
1 Fully fashioned with its shell hard. 1 Nidd. 43. 3 Shebi. 42. ♦ Cf. Kel. z64.
10 Pes. 8s. 11 Variant: Ishmael.
12 Cf. Yad. 36. According to the School of Shammai it is not canonical Scripture.
FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN 5. If1 two of four brothers married two sisters, and the two that married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already married them they must put them away. R. Eliezer says: According to the School of Shammai they may continue the marriage; but according to the School of Hillel they must put them away.
6. Akabya b. Mahalaleel testified to four opinions. They answered: Akabya, retract these four opinions that thou hast given and we will make thee Father of the Court2 in Israel. He said to them: Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I be made a godless man before God even for an hour; for they shall not say of me, He retracted for the sake of office. He declared unclean the residuary hair [in a leprosy sign],3 and also the yellow blood;4 but the Sages declare them clean. If the hair5 of a blemished Firstling fell out and one put it in a wall-niche, and afterward slaughtered the beast, he used to permit the hair [to be used]; but the Sages forbid it. He said: They do not give a proselyte or a freed bondwoman to drink of the water of bitterness].6 And the Sages say: They give her to drink. They said to him: It happened to Karkemith, a freed bondwoman that was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Abtalion7 gave her to drink. He replied: Only in show did they make her to drink. Whereupon they laid him under a ban; and he died while he was yet under the ban, and the court stoned his coffin. R. Judah said: God forbid that it should be Akabya that was put under the ban!— for the Temple Court was never shut against the face of any man in Israel so wise and sin-fearing as Akabya b. Mahalaleel. But whom did they put under a ban? Eleazar b. Enoch, because he threw doubt on [the teaching of the Sages concerning] the cleansing of hands.8 And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin; whence we learn that if any man is put under a ban and dies while yet under the ban, his coffin must be stoned.
7. In the hour that he9 died he said to his son, ‘My son, retract the four opinions which I gave’. He answered, ‘Why didst not thou retract?’ He said to him, ‘I heard them from a majority, and they also heard their opinions from a majority. I continued steadfast to the tradition that I had heard and they continued steadfast to the decision that they had heard. But thou hast heard [a decision] both from the mouth of an individual and [a contrary decision] from the mouth of the majority. It is better to leave the opinion of the individual and to hold to the opinion of the majority’. He answered, ‘Father, commend me to thy fellow Sages’. He said to him, ‘I commend thee not’. He answered, ‘Perchance thou hast found in me some cause for complaint?’ He said to him, ‘No, but thine own deeds will bring thee near [to them], or thine own deeds will remove thee far [from them] ’.
6. 1. R. Judah b. Baba testified of five things: that they may [at times] instruct women married while minors to exercise right of Refusal;10 that they may suffer a woman to marry again11 following the testimony of but one witness; that a cock was stoned12 in Jerusalem because it killed a man; 1 Yeb. 3*. 2 Second to the President. See Hag. 23.
6 See Num. 5lz£f: 'Speak to the children of Israel’. 7 See above, i°.
8 As taught in Yad. 33. * Akabya. 10 See Yeb. 13’®.
11 See Yeb. 167. See below, 85. 12 Cf. Ex. 2128.
that wine forty days old could be poured out as a libation on the Altar, and that the morning Daily Whole-offering was offered at the fourth hour.
2. R. Joshua and R. Nehunya b. Elinathan of Kefar ha-Babli testified that [the smallest] member of a corpse is unclean,1 concerning which R. Eliezer says: They have taught this only of a member of a living being.2 They said to him: Is it not an inference from the less to the greater? — if a member severed from a living being (who is clean) is unclean, how much more then should a member severed from a corpse (which is unclean) be unclean! He answered: They have taught this only of a member from a living being. Another answer3 is: The uncleanness of living beings is greater than the uncleanness of corpses, since a living being conveys un¬ cleanness by lying and sitting to whatsoever is beneath him so that these convey uncleanness both to men and to garments,4 and [he also conveys] wt<?<Wu/-uncleanness5 to what is above him so that these convey uncleanness to foodstuffs and liquids, uncleanness which a corpse does not convey.
3. If an olive’s bulk of flesh was severed from a member of a living being, R. Eliezer declares it unclean, but R. Joshua and R. Nehunya declare it clean. If a barleycorn’s bulk of bone was severed from a living being, R. Nehunya declares it unclean, but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua declare it clean. They said to R. Eliezer: What hast thou seen that thou dost declare unclean an olive’s bulk of flesh severed from a member of a living being? He said to them: We find that a member from a living being is reckoned as like to a whole corpse;6 therefore as, with the corpse, an olive’s bulk of flesh severed from it is unclean, so, too, with a member of a living being, an olive’s bulk of flesh severed from it must be unclean. They said to him: No! as thou declarest unclean an olive’s bulk of flesh severed from a corpse (whereof thou declarest unclean a barleycorn’s bulk of bone that is severed from it), wouldest thou also declare unclean an olive’s bulk of flesh severed from the member of a living being (whereof thou hast de¬ clared clean an olive’s bulk of bone that is severed from it)? They said to R. Nehunya: What hast thou seen that thou declarest unclean a barley¬ corn’s bulk of bone severed from the member of a living being? He an¬ swered: We find that a member from a living being is reckoned as like to a ■whole corpse; therefore as, wfith the corpse, a barleycorn’s bulk of bone that is severed from it is unclean, so, too, with a member from a living body, a barleycorn’s bulk of bone that is severed from it must be unclean. They said to him: No! as thou declarest unclean a barleycorn’s bulk of bone severed from the corpse (whereof thou hast declared unclean an olive’s bulk of flesh that is severed from it), wouldest thou also declare unclean a barleycorn’s bulk of bone severed from the member of a living being (whereof thou hast declared clean an olive’s bulk of flesh that is severed from it)? They said to R. Eliezer: What hast thou seen that thou dost follow different rules? — either pronounce both unclean or both clean. He answered: The uncleanness of flesh is greater than the uncleanness of bones, since [the uncleanness of] flesh applies both to carcases and creeping things, which is not so with [the uncleanness of] bones. Another answer is: A member bearing its proper flesh7 conveys uncleanness by contact, by 1 And conveys uncleanness by ‘overshadowing’. See Ohol. 21.
4 See Lev. i5,ff. On the subject here treated see Zab. 46; cf. Par, iolff.
434 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN carrying and by overshadowing; if aught of the flesh is lacking it is [still] unclean, but if any bone is lacking, it is clean. They said to R. Nehunya: What hast thou seen that thou dost follow different rules? — either declare both unclean or both clean. He answered: The uncleanness of bones is greater than the uncleanness of flesh, since flesh severed from a living being is clean, and a member severed from it, while in its natural state,1 is unclean. Another saying is: An olive’s bulk of flesh renders unclean by contact, carrying, and overshadowing; and the greater part of the bones [of a corpse] conveys uncleanness by contact, carrying, and overshadowing; but if the flesh lacks aught, it is clean, while if the greater part of the bones lacks aught, although it is clean, in that it does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing, it yet conveys uncleanness by contact and carrying. Another saying is: When the entire flesh of a corpse is less than an olive’s bulk, it is clean, but the greater part of a corpse’s bulk and members, although they are not a quarter-fozi in all, are unclean. They said to R. Joshua: What hast thou seen that thou dost declare both clean? He answered: No! as thou arguest of a corpse to which there apply the terms ‘greater part’, ‘quarter’, and ‘corpse-dust’,2 wouldest thou also argue of a living being to which do not apply the terms ‘greater part’, ‘quarter’, and ‘corpse-dust’?
7. i. R. Joshua and R. Zadok testified that if the redemption[-lamb] for the firstborn of an ass died,3 the priest has no more claim therein, whereas R. Eliezer says: The owner is still answerable for it, as [in like case he is answerable for] the five selas, [the redemption price] for a [firstborn] son. But the Sages say: He is not answerable for it as [in like case he is not answerable for] the redemption price of Second Tithe.
2. R. Zadok testified that the brine4 made from unclean locusts is clean; whereas the First Mishnah [taught]: If unclean locusts have been pickled with clean locusts they do not render their brine unfit.
3. R. Zadok testified5 that if flowing water was more than the dripping water [with which it was mingled], it was still valid [as flowing water]. Such a case happened at Birath-ha-Piliyya, and when the case came before the Sages they declared it valid.
4. R. Zadok testified that if flowing water was led through [a channel made from] foliage of nuts,6 it remains valid. Such a case happened at Ahaliyya, and when the case came before the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone7 they pronounced it valid.
5. R. Joshua and R. Yakim of Haddar testified that if8 the jar containing [the ashes of] the Sin-offering was set on top of a creeping thing, it became unclean, whereas R. Eliezer declared it clean. R. Papiasg testified that if a man vowed two Nazirite-vows and cut off his hair after the first spell on the thirtieth day, he should cut off his hair after the second spell on the sixtieth day, but if he cut off his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has ful¬ filled his obligation, since the thirtieth day can be reckoned to him among the number [of days for the second Nazirite-vow].
6. R. Joshua and R. Papias testified10 that the young of a Peace-offering could be offered as a Peace-offering, whereas R. Eliezer says: The young of 1 With its proper complement of flesh, bones, and sinews. 1 Ohol. 21.
a Peace-offering may not be offered as a Peace-offering. But the Sages say: It may be so offered. R. Papias said: I testify that we had a heifer that was a Peace-offering; we consumed it at Passover and we consumed its young as a Peace-offering at the following feast [of Pentecost].
7. They testified that the baking-boards1 of bakers are susceptible to uncleanness, whereas R. Eliezer declared them insusceptible. They testified that if a baking-oven2 was cut up into rings and sand put between each ring, it still remains susceptible to uncleanness, whereas R. Eliezer declared it insusceptible. They testified that the year could be declared a leap-year3 any time during Adar; whereas it had been taught: Only until Purim. They testified that the year could be declared a leap-year condition¬ ally. Once Rabban Gamaliel went to have authority given him from the governor in Syria, and he was long in returning; so they declared the year a leap-year on the condition that Rabban Gamaliel should approve; and when he returned he said, ‘I approve’; and so the year was reckoned a leap- year.
8. Menahem b. Signai testified that the rim around the boiler4 belonging to olive-seethers is susceptible to uncleanness, but that belonging to dyers is not susceptible; whereas they used to teach to the contrary.
9. R. Nehunya b. Gudgada testified5 of a woman that was a deaf-mute and that was given in marriage by her father [while yet a minor], that she could be put away by a bill of divorce; and that a minor, an Israelite’s daughter that was married to a priest, could eat of Heave-offering; and that if she died her husband could inherit from her; and that if a man built a stolen beam into a structure he need only repay its value; and that a Sin- offering that was stolen property, if this was not known to many, could [still] effect atonement — as a precaution for the benefit of the Altar.
8. 1. R. Joshua b. Bathyra testified that the blood6 of carcases was clean. R. Simeon b. Bathyra testified that if an unclean person touched but a part of the ashes of the Sin-offering,7 he renders the whole unclean. R. Akiba added that if one that had immersed himself [because of uncleanness] the self-same day8 touched but a part of the fine flour, the incense, the frankin¬ cense, and the charcoal,9 he renders the whole unfit.
2. R. Judah b. Baba10 and R. Judah the Priest testified of the daughter of an Israelite that was a minor and married to a priest, that she could eat of Heave-offering11 after she had entered the bride-chamber, even though there had not been consummation. R. Jose the Priest and R. Zechariah b. ha-Kazzab testified of a young girl that was left as a pledge is Ashkelon, and the members of her family12 kept her far from them, although she had witnesses that testified that she had not gone aside in secret [with any man] and been defiled.13 The Sages said to them: If ye believe that she was left as a pledge believe also that she had not gone aside in secret and been de¬ filed; but if ye do not believe that she had not gone aside in secret and been defiled do not believe that she was left as a pledge.
3. R. Joshua and R. Judah b. Bathyra testified that the widow of one 11 Lev. 22". 12 Who were priests.
17 And so ineligible for marriage with a priest; Lev. 21'.
FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN which belonged to an Isah1 * family was eligible for marriage with a priest; [and] that the members of an Isah family are qualified to bear testimony as to which [of themselves] is unclean or clean,- and which must be put away and which may be brought near.3 Rabban Simeon b.4 Gamaliel said: We accept your testimony, but what shall we do, for Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai decreed that courts may not be set up concerning this. The priests would hearken to you in what concerns putting away but not in what concerns bringing near.
4. R.s Jose b. Joezer of Zereda testified that the Ayil-locust6 is clean,7 and that the liquid [that flows] in the shambles [in the Temple] is not susceptible to uncleanness; and that he that touches8 * * a corpse becomes unclean. And they called him ‘Jose the Permitter’.
;. R. Akiba testified0 in the name of Nehemiah of Beth Deli that a woman is permitted to marry again on the evidence of [but] one witness. 0 R. Joshua testified concerning bones that were once found in the wood¬ shed [of the Temple] that they were unclean;11 the Sages said: They may be collected bone by bone12 and all13 continue clean.
6. R. Eliezer said: 1 have heard a tradition that while they were building the Temple they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the court¬ yards, but they built [the walls of] the Temple14 * outside!S [the curtains], and [the walls of] the courtyards they built within [the curtains]. R. Joshua said: I have heard a tradition that they may offer sacrifices although there is no Temple, and eat the Most Holy Things although there are no curtains, and the Lesser Holy Things and the Second Tithe although there is no wall; 16 since its first dedication17 availed both for its own time and for the time to come.
7. R. Joshua said: I have received as a tradition from Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a Halakah given to Moses from Sinai,18 that Elijah will not come to declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or to bring nigh, but to remove afar those [families] that were brought nigh by violence and to bring nigh those [families] that were removed afar by violence.19 The family of Beth Zerepha was in the land beyond Jordan and Ben Zion removed it afar by force. And yet another [family] was there, and Ben Zion brought it nigh by force. The like of these Elijah will come to declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or to bring nigh. R. Judah says: To bring nigh but not to remove afar. R. Simeon says: To bring agreement where there is matter for dispute. And the Sages say: Neither to remove afar nor to bring high, but to make 1 A family claiming to be of Israelitish stock but which was suspected of admixture with doubtful stock. Cf. Kidd. 4'. i Legitimate or bastard.
3 i.e. whether marriage of any of them with a priest was invalid or valid.
4 Some texts omit ‘Simeon b.’
s Some texts omit ‘Rabbi’. Cf. Ab. i4. Joezer's testimony is recorded in Aramaic.
8 Only he and not also what he in turn touches; or it may mean that he is unclean only if t is not in doubt that he touched the corpse. 7 Cf. Yeb. 16’.
10 Who reports the husband's death.
1 1 Many texts omit this phrase. The meaning can only be: ‘they were recognized as human bones.’
11 i.e. there is no need to anticipate the presence of other graves there. Cf. Ohol. 165.
13 Men and utensils; none needs to undergo immersion.
14 The structure itself. To separate the builders from the Sanctuary.
16 See p. 406, nn. to, 11. 17 Bv Solomon.
>* See Peah z‘; Yad. 45 Cf. Ab. i>.
,'1 i.e. be will make no change in the Law but only make an end of injustice.
peace in the world, as it is written, Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet...and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers.'
ABODAH ZARAH (‘IDOLATRY’) 1. 1. For three days before the festivals of the gentiles it is forbidden to have business with them — to lend to them or to borrow from them, to lend them money or to borrow money from them, to repay them or to be repaid by them. R. Judah says: One may take repayment from them since this grieves him. They said to him: Although it now grieves him he will after¬ ward rejoice.
2. R. Ishmael says: For three days before their festivals and for three days after them it is forbidden [to have any business with them]. But the Sages say: Before their festivals it is forbidden, but after their festivals it is not forbidden.
3. And these are the festivals of the gentiles: the Calends,2 the Saturnalia,3 the commemoration of empire,4 the anniversaries5 of kings, and the dav of [their] birth and the day of [their] death. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where burning has place at the death [rites] there is idolatry; where burning has no place there is no idolatry. But on the day when a mar. shaves off his beard and his lock of hair,6 or the day w'hen he returns from a voyage, or the day when he comes out of prison, or when a gentile makes a wedding-feast for his son, [business with them is] forbidden only on that day and with that man.
4. If there was an idol inside a town it is permitted [to have business with them] outside it; if there was an idol outside, it is permitted [to have business with them] inside. Is it permitted to go in that direction [on the festivals of the gentiles]? If the road leads to that place alone it is forbidden, but if one can go by it to another place it is permitted. If there was an idolatrous festival in a city and some shops therein were adorned and others not adorned — such a case happened in Beth Shean, and the Sages said: Those that are adorned are forbidden and those that are not adorned are permitted.
5. These things it is forbidden to sell to the gentiles:7 fir-cones, white figs with their stalks, frankincense, or a white cock. R. Judah says: One may sell a gentile a white cock among other cocks, or, if it is by itself, cut off its spur and sell it to him, because they do not sacrifice to an idol what is defective. All other things, if [any idolatrous use is] not specified, are permitted to be sold; but if [any idolatrous use is] specified, they are for¬ bidden. R. Meir says: It is forbidden also to sell to gentiles fine dates, or Hazab or Nicolaus dates.
6. Where8 the custom is to sell small cattle to gentiles, they may sell them; where the custom is not to sell them, they may not sell them.6 And 1 Here is meant not the first day of each month but the first day of the year, ‘eight days after the winter solstice’ (Gem. 8a).
1 December 17, ‘eight days before the solstice’ (Gem. 8a).
* Heb. krausis, Kparocns. ‘The day on which Rome seized (world-)sovereignty’ (Gem. 8b).
5 Heb. gemma, ycWoto. But according to Gem. 10a it is not the birth but the accession of the emperors that is commemorated.
4 Which marked a youth’s coming of age.
7 During their festivals, since they sacrifice such things to their gods. * Pes. 4*.
* Some texts add: Let none change the customs, for fear of controversy.
FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN nowhere may they sell them large cattle, calves, or foals, whole or maimed. R. Judah permits a maimed beast [to be sold] and Ben Bathyra permits a horse.
7. None may sell them bears or lions or aught that can do harm1 to the people. None may help them to build a basilica, scaffold, stadium, or judges’ tribunal; but one may help them to build public baths2 or bath¬ houses; yet when they have reached the vaulting where they set up the idol it is forbidden [to help them] to build.
8. None maymake ornaments for an idol: necklaces or ear-rings or finger- rings. R. Eliezer says: If for payment it is permitted.3 None may sell them what is attached to the soil4 but it may be sold after it has been severed. R. Judah says: One may sell it to a gentile on condition that it is severed. None may hire houses to them in the Land of Israel or, needless to say, fields; in Syria houses may be hired to them but not fields; while outside the Land houses may be sold and fields hired to them. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: In the Land of Israel houses may be hired to them but not fields; and in Syria houses may be sold and fields hired to them; while outside the Land either may be sold to them.
9. Howbeit, where they have said ‘to hire’ they spoke not of a dwelling- house, since he might bring in an idol, for it is written, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thine house.* And nowhere may a bath-house be hired to a gentile, since it would be called by the [Israelitish] owner’s name.6 2. 1. Cattle may not be left in the inns of the gentiles since they are suspected of bestiality; nor may a woman remain alone with them since they are suspected of lewdness; nor may a man remain alone with them since they are suspected of shedding blood. The daughter of an Israelite may not assist a gentile woman in childbirth since7 she would be assisting to bring to birth a child for idolatry, but a gentile woman may assist the daughter of an Israelite. The daughter of an Israelite may not suckle the child of a gentile woman, but a gentile woman may suckle the child of the daughter of an Israelite in this one’s domain.
2. [An Israelite] may accept healing from them for his goods but not for his person,8 and in no place may he have his hair cut by them. So R. MeirJ But the Sages say: In the public domain it is permitted, but not if they are: alone.
3. These things that belong to gentiles are forbidden, and it is forbidden to have any benefit at all from them: wine, or the vinegar of gentiles that at first was wine, Hadrianic earthenware,9 and hides pierced at the heart.10 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If the rent was round, the hide is forbidden, but if straight it is permitted. Flesh that is entering in unto an idol is permitted, but what comes forth is forbidden, for it is as the sacrifices 1 Weapons and the like.
1 Reading demoseoth. Variant: bemoseoth, meaning ‘theatres’ or places of public amuse¬ ment. J Some texts omit this first part of the paragraph.
4 No gentile may be suffered to acquire rights over land in the Land of Israel.
6 Therefore when it is heated on the Sabbath the guilt will be ascribed to the Israelite.
7 Some texts omit this clause. * Cf. Ned. 4*.