MISHNAH: Gentiles cannot take a vow as nazir¹ is restricted to Jews.. Women and slaves² can take a vow as nazir. A man’s power is restricted for his wives more than for his slaves since he can force his slave³ but he cannot force his wife. His power is restricted for his slaves more than for his wives since he can dissolve his wife’s vows⁴ Chapters 10,11. but not his slave’s vows⁵. If he dissolved his wife’s, they are eternally dissolved. If he dissolved his slave’s, once the slave gains his freedom he has to fulfill his nezirut. If [the slave]⁶ against his master’s wishes. is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meïr says, he cannot drink⁷, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.

footnotes: ¹ As explained in the Halakhah, Gentiles may vow under Jewish law. Only the special vow of nazir ² Who had been circumcised and become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. When manumitted, such a slave will be a full member of the Jewish community. While still in servile status, he is obligated to follow all rules imposed on women. ³ If the slave makes any vow which inconveniences his master, the latter can veto the execution of the vow as long as the slave is under his authority. ⁴ Nedarim ⁵ If the master vetoed the implementation of his slave’s vow, that vow becomes dormant but not cancelled. Once the master’s authority is lifted, the vow is automatically activated, as explained in the next sentence. ⁶ Who made a vow of nazir ⁷ Wine. Similarly, R. Meїr will hold that the slave may not defile himself for the dead without specific instruction by his master.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. ⁸ 7(2); Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”⁹? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here¹⁰ 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.¹¹ 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply.

footnotes: ⁸ Sifra Emor Parašah ⁹ “Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained. ¹⁰ Num. ¹¹ Num.

There¹² 1:2., we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate¹³ 27:1–8, where “evaluation” amounts are specified to be offered to the Sanctuary for persons of specified age and sex. According to R. Meïr, a Jew may vow to pay a Gentile’s evaluation but a Gentile cannot make such a vow. According to R. Jehudah, a Gentile may vow to pay a Jew’s valuation but a Jew cannot offer to pay the Gentile’s evaluation.; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows¹⁴.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir¹⁵ 27:2) and a vow of nazir (Num. 6:2) are completely parallel. It is to be assumed that the rules derived from the texts are also parallel; if a Gentile can cause an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can cause an obligation of nazir; if a Gentile can be the object of an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can be the object of an obligation of nazir.? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir]¹⁶? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir¹⁷. Would he listen to him¹⁸? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt¹⁹.. How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir]¹⁶? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir¹⁷. Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir, a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir¹⁸. But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.²⁰” What did you exclude from him²¹, the question arises whether in general the power of Gentiles to make vows is equal to that of Jews or not.? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate”²² 30:3; Sifry zuṭa 30:2. Since a Gentile is not subject to biblical laws other than those given to Adam and Noah, he cannot be held responsible if he “desecrates his word,” i. e., does not keep his vow., a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage²³, Introduction and Chapter 9., Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage²⁴ 1:2, Notes 33 ff.. Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved²⁵. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances²⁶ 9:2. He ordered the lady’s vow to be dissolved to give her peace of mind, not because it would have been necessary.. And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim. Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years²⁷ 105b, as tannaïtic text. The story would make Laban live more than 300 years..

footnotes: ¹² Mishnah ‘Arakhin ¹³ This refers to Lev. ¹⁴ Both Jew and Gentile may make a vow to pay to the Sanctuary the amount another person would fetch were he to be sold on the slave market. ¹⁵ The texts used to introduce a vow of evaluation (Lev. ¹⁶ The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa. ¹⁷ Tentative answer. ¹⁸ Rejection of the tentative answer. ¹⁹ The Gentile may well vow to the Jew’s obligatory sacrifices since by biblical law, Gentiles’ sacrifices are accepted. But this does not make the Gentile a nazir ¹⁶ The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa. ¹⁷ Tentative answer. ¹⁸ Rejection of the tentative answer. ²⁰ Since the Gentile’s vow is invalid, so is the Jew’s. ²¹ This now is R. Jeremiah’s real question. Since it was shown that the power to evaluate is not related to the power to vow for nazir ²² Num. ²³ An Elder can annul the vow; cf. Tractate Nedarim ²⁴ Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they cannot profit from the Law. He will hold that Gentiles, whose informal marriages have biblical sanction, never can be divorced; cf. Qiddušin ²⁵ Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they do not need the Law. He will hold that since Gentiles are not under the biblical obligation of formal marriage, they never need a divorce but can validly terminate a companionship through unilateral action by either one of the parties. ²⁶ Which is forbidden to Jews, Mishnah Nedarim ²⁷ Babli Sanhedrin

²⁸ 11:1, Notes 23–25. Why can he not force his wife? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he hasto dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. He should not be able to force his slave! There is a difference, “because his God’s crown is on his head²⁹ 6:7.,” a person who has no other master. This excludes the slave who has another master³⁰. If he comes to protest his master’s word, one says to him: this is practice³¹, obey your master’s orders! If his master pushed him and he became impure, does he have to bring a sacrifice of impurity? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure³². The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.? You say, he brings a sacrifice of impurity; could he bring here a sacrifice of impurity? Does he annul? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure? You say, he annuls; could he here annul³³?

footnotes: ²⁸ The argument about the wife’s vow is from Nedarim ²⁹ Num. ³⁰ The master has the power to force the slave to disregard the vow. The slave in obeying his master does not commit any sin. ³¹ He has to follow his master’s command. ³² If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir ³³ Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.

The following is obvious: If he became impure and then was manumitted, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. When is that, if his master forced him or if his master did not force him³⁴? If you say that he forced him, how can be bring a sacrifice of impurity³⁵? If you say he did not force him, should he not count for his master as long as he still is in the latter’s power³⁶ for a specified period, he should be able to count that period as long as he did not violate its terms by his own will.? Rebbi Yose said, we are dealing with the case that his master forced him. You should not say that because he was manumitted, the nezirut in impurity was lifted from him³⁷, the days he was impure because of his master’s command are counted. The rules of nezirut of free men apply to him only from the moment of his manumission.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that he counts nezirut in impurity³⁸..

footnotes: ³⁴ What was the cause of the slave’s impurity? ³⁵ It was shown in the preceding paragraph that no sacrifice is due. ³⁶ If the slave made a vow of nazir ³⁷ Even if the slave was manumitted during his nezirut ³⁸ This is explained somewhat more fully in the Tosephta (6:6): “If [the slave] became impure and was manumitted, he counts from the time he became impure.” In contrast to the free person, the 7 days he counts for his purification by means of the ashes of the Red Cow are counted as days of nezirut

³⁹“Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut⁴⁰. [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths⁴¹.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped⁴² is the same as the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow, and both have status of “practice”, i. e., have quasi-biblical status as part of Judaism as organized by Ezra and his contemporaries, in the absence of a special practice exempting the slave, the latter should be held liable for infractions of his vow even if he was forced. But if the power of the slave to vow as nazir be rabbinical, then there can be no biblical punishment for infraction. On this R. Mana notes that quasi-biblical status is not biblical status, and biblical punishment for non-biblical infractions (Deut. 25:4) is impossible. Therefore, the question is rephrased: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is biblical but the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow is only from practice, should the slave not be subject to prosecution for infringing his vow? The question is not to be taken seriously; it rather points out a logical inconsistency between the rule which allows the slave to become a nazir and the rule which allows the master to override, but not abolish, that vow..

footnotes: ³⁹ Tosephta 6:6; Babli 62b. ⁴⁰ Without having any influence on the status of the vow. ⁴¹ Since the slave is not his own master, he has no power to forbid anything to himself by vow or oath (explanation of the Babli, 62b). ⁴² The question of R. Mana shows that two sentences have to be switched. Instead of נזירתו תורה one has to read נזירותו הלכה and vice-versa.The first version of the argument of R. Jeremiah goes as follows: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir

If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects⁴³ has three aspects: Growing hair, abstention from the fruit of the vine, and avoidance of the impurity of the dead. If the master objected to one aspect, does he reject the others automatically?? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence⁴⁴. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.

footnotes: ⁴³ Nezirut ⁴⁴ Therefore, R. Meїr must hold that objection to one aspect does not imply anything for the others, while R. Yose holds that an objection to one aspect is interpreted as objection to all of them unless specified otherwise by the master.

MISHNAH: If a nazir was informed that he was impure after he had shaved⁴⁵ and has reverted to profane status. and it was a known impurity he cancels⁴⁶., but if it was impurity of the abyss⁴⁷ he does not cancel. If it was before he shaved, he cancels in any case. How is that? If he went to immerse himself in a cave⁴⁸ in a cave. It seems that in the Judean and Galilean hills practically all miqwaot were in caves. where a corpse was floating at the entrance, he is impure⁴⁹. If it was found buried in the ground and he went there to refresh himself⁵⁰, he is pure, but to purify himself from the impurity of the dead he is impure⁵¹ since the presumptive state of the impure is impure and the presumptive state of the pure is pure, for it is not unsubstantiated⁵².

footnotes: ⁴⁵ After he had finished his nezirut ⁴⁶ He has to repeat the entire period of nezirut ⁴⁷ If the source of impurity was only detected after he had shaved in purity. ⁴⁸ A miqweh ⁴⁹ Even if there is a doubt whether the corpse already was there when he immersed himself, or if the corpse was there whether it floated outside the cave (when it would have transmitted impurity only by touch) or was inside (where the cave created the impurity of a “tent” and everybody under the “tent” became impure.) ⁵⁰ And did not take sufficient care about his purity. ⁵¹ In any case of probable impurity caused by a buried corpse one continues in the prior state. ⁵² Since his prior state is known but his actual state in doubt, the certainly known is preferred to the doubtful.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved”⁵³ which returns the nazir to normal life is shaving.? Rebbi Eliezer! But for the rabbis it would be before the blood was sprinkled for him⁵⁴. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “The nazir shall shave the hair of his crowned head.⁵⁵ shall shave his crowned head at the door of the Tent of Meeting, take the hair of his crowned head and put it in the fire under the well-being sacrifice.”” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair.

footnotes: ⁵³ That the final act of nezirut ⁵⁴ Mishnah 6:13: The Sages say that a person who became impure after one kind of sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar for him can bring his remaining sacrifices after he was purified but does not have to start anew. ⁵⁵ This is a telescoped version of Num: 6:18: “The nazir

If he completed his nezirut but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a possible case of a grave in the abyss, he cancels. If he designated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a grave in the abyss⁵⁶ to free the person from repeating in case of a possible impurity from a hidden source?? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? Whether he shaved or did not shave following Rebbi Eliezer, or whether it happened before or after blood was sprinkled according to the rabbis⁵⁷!

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Can designating the sacrifices be considered as liquidation of the status of nazir ⁵⁷ The Mishnah makes it quite clear that only shaving (according to R. Eliezer) or sprinkling of blood (according to the rabbis) is counted; dedicating the sacrifices does not mean anything in this respect.

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.⁵⁸ 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14 of Nisan.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open⁵⁹ 7:7. In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. The addition “for you” seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 81b. What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9: “If a person dies suddenly on him”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open:.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Num. ⁵⁹ This and the following paragraphs are copied from Pesaḥim

So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

⁶⁰ 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶². 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity⁶³, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss64, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.” The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover. The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹ became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case⁷⁰. If somebody is officiating⁷¹ text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷² 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸ 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14 of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴ 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other⁷⁵ 80b..

footnotes: ⁶⁰ While the text in Pesaḥim ⁶¹ The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim ⁶² About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex ⁶³ A single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people. ⁶⁵ This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable. ⁶⁶ This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim ⁶⁷ This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography. ⁶⁸ The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim ⁶⁹ But if the impure nazir ⁷⁰ Halakhah 6:8, Note 198. ⁷¹ The Nazir ⁷² The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁷³ The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim ⁵⁸ Num. ⁷⁴ Num. ⁷⁵ Babli Pesaḥim

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles⁷⁶ 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 63b and Pesaḥim 81b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, a “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevasses, it does not create a grave of the abyss⁷⁷.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss⁷⁸). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded⁷⁹ 15:1,5,6; Halakhah 7:3, Note 164). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust⁸⁰. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.⁸¹ 15:5; quoted in the Babli Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded⁸². Come and see: If he [filled]⁸³, required by the text. In Nazir, “covered”. it with mats it is not disregarded⁸⁴, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded⁸⁵. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic⁸⁶. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets⁸⁷ text, reading רַקּ. The Nazir text reads ריק, which cannot be רִיק “emptiness”, nor רֵיק “empty”, nor רוֹק “spittle”..

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Tosephta Zabim ⁷⁷ In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body. ⁷⁸ Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Pesaḥim ⁷⁹ This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no “tent” and the impurity entends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut ⁸⁰ Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta. ⁸¹ Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut ⁸² Straw covered with mats is not considered filling. ⁸³ Reading from Pesaḥim ⁸⁴ Filling the “tent” with mats creates “broken impurity”. ⁸⁵ If the floor is covered with mats, anything below the mats is disregarded concerning impurity. ⁸⁶ No ruling is available in this case. ⁸⁷ This translation is tentative, it follows the Pesaḥim

⁸⁸ 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 81b.“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world⁸⁹? And is the permanence of the living not like living⁹⁰ 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”.? Explain that he was found compressed⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Tosephta Zabim ⁸⁹ He might know of the grave even if we do not. ⁹⁰ Cf. Giṭṭin ⁹¹ Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”⁹² 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 80b. Therefore, not a carcass⁹³. Would it not be a conclusion de minore ad majus? Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat⁹⁴, does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified. A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other..

footnotes: ⁹² Tosephta Zabim ⁹³ Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity. ⁹⁴ This argument, equally found in Pesaḥim

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Piqa asked Rebbi: So far in a cave that had a ceiling⁹⁵. Even in a cave without ceiling⁹⁶? Does Bar Piqa think that if there is a doubt regarding floating impurity, it is pure? Rebbi told him, Bar Piqa remains in his stupidity: No case of doubt regarding floating impurity is declared pure except a reptile⁹⁷; but a corpse is like something fixed in place. As it was stated⁹⁸ 5:6–7 and in the Babli, 63b–64a.: “Anything thrown⁹⁹ is pure in case of a doubt except an olive-sized piece from a corpse, [and] also those covers¹⁰⁰ which induce impurity on bottom and top.”

footnotes: ⁹⁵ This refers to the Mishnah about the person who immersed himself in water in a cave in which a corpse was later found. ⁹⁶ Is he impure only because of the “tent” impurity induced by the ceiling of the cave or is he impure since he might have touched the corpse without noticing? A “cave without ceiling” seems to be a pond. ⁹⁷ Or any similar impurity which is removed by immersion in water without delay or further ceremony. ⁹⁸ The meaning of this baraita, formulated differently, is found in Tosephta Ṭaharot ⁹⁹ An impure item thrown over a person and it is not clear whether he or she was touched by the item or not. ¹⁰⁰ Those whose impurity is generated by their bodies (Note 93) who cause original impurity to what is below (the couch or seat) and above (the clothing) their persons.

Does this¹⁰¹, that he has to shave, do we have to read the Mishnah as equating this impurity to those mentioned in Chapter Seven for which the nazir does not have to shave? not disagree with Rebbi Joshia, since Rebbi Joshia said¹⁰², if impurity is hidden in the ground below the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here on the side, there on place¹⁰³. Rebbi Ezra said in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Even if you say in both cases on the side, in both cases on place. What means “impure”? Impure and he does not shave¹⁰⁴, has to shave.”?

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Since the Mishnah states that he is impure but not, speaking of a nazir ¹⁰² Chapter 7:3, Note 176. ¹⁰³ The Mishnah deals with a doubt of impurity; R. Joshia speaks of “squeezed impurity”, which is certain. ¹⁰⁴ The Mishnah has to be read as meaning: “He is impure and, if a nazir

MISHNAH: If somebody finds¹⁰⁶ a corpse in original position, lying as usual¹⁰⁷, he takes him and his surroundings¹⁰⁸. If he finds two, he takes them and their surroundings. If he finds three¹⁰⁹ and between one and the next is a distance of between four and eight cubits, enough for the bier and the people who bury¹¹⁰, that is a cemetery¹¹¹. He has to check on both sides for another 20 cubits. If he finds a grave at the end of 20 cubits, he has to check another 20 cubits since it is obvious that if this were a new burial ground, one would have taken him and his surroundings there¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Ploughing his field or excavating his property, he finds a grave unknown to him. ¹⁰⁷ The position of the bones is that usual in Jewish burials. ¹⁰⁸ He can remove the bones and the earth that will have absorbed the decaying flesh. The Mishnah assumes that no sarcophagus was used. ¹⁰⁹ Three parallel graves. ¹¹⁰ It is forbidden to step on a grave while burying another person. Therefore, a Jewish cemetery must allow enough space that burials can take place which do not desecrate prior graves. ¹¹¹ It is forbidden to remove the graves or to use the ground for other purposes. ¹¹² If a series of graves was found which conform to the rules of a cemetery, it must be a cemetery since otherwise the bones would have been removed.

HALAKHAH: What means “lying as usual”? His legs straight and his hands over his heart. But if he found him compressed, I am saying that a heap fell on him and killed him. But did we not state: “If he found two with their heads beside their legs, he takes them and their surroundings?”¹¹³ They wanted to say, what means “compressed”? Their heads beside their legs¹¹⁴. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, like fried fish, the head of one near the tail of the other and vice versa¹¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Babli 65a. ¹¹⁴ A Gentile way of burial. ¹¹⁵ The head of one corpse between the legs of another is not a form of burial but a sign of an accident.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: In a statement you say, “he collects every single bone and everything is pure¹¹⁶ 16:5: “If one removes a grave from his field, he collects every single bone and everything is pure.” In contrast, the Mishnah here requires that a certain amount of earth also be removed.;” and here, you say so? He answered him, say what comes afterwards: “If he prepared it from the start as a grave, it has surroundings.¹¹⁷ (when the bones are finally removed). This is the case considered in the Mishnah here, since one speaks of graves parallel to one another, i. e., intended as temporary graves.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Mishnah Ahilut ¹¹⁷ Statement of R. Simeon in the same Mishnah. From a cistern used to bury stillbirths or crime victims (incomplete corpses which have no claim to “surroundings”) one can remove all bones and it is pure. But if he prepared the cistern from the start as a temporary grave, it has surroundings

How much is the surrounding of a grave? One shaves off three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates¹¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ In the Babli, 65a, this is a little more explicit: In virgin soil, one takes three finger-breadths. In loose soil, one takes as much as one recognizes that the decomposing flesh penetrated.

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation¹¹⁹. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent¹²⁰ 47b.. ¹²¹ 16:9; Tractate Śemaḥot 14; Babli Sanhedrin 47b. To this one may add the versions in Maimonides Ṭum’at Mēt 9:5–6 which is essentially identical with the Yerushalmi and the text there of Ravad, which in general follows the Babli. Tractate Śemaḥot does not give an opinion about impurity; otherwise it follows the Babli. The three texts, Yerushalmi (Y), Babli (B), and Tosephta (T) state that if the grave found accidentally be removed the place is impure (Y), pure (BT); its use is forbidden (YT), permitted (B). The place of a known grave after removal is pure (YT), impure (B); its use is permitted (YT), forbidden (B). The place of a grave removed because of a danger to the public is impure (YT), pure (B); its use is forbidden (YBT) except that Ravad reads here “permitted” in the Babli, a reading contradicting all our other sources for the Babli.“It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure¹²² and forbidden for use¹²³. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use¹²⁴. A grave which endangers the public¹²⁵ is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia¹²⁶ that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it¹²⁷. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed¹ 14.¹²⁹,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits¹³⁰, this is part of the statement of the baraita: If a grave is between two parallel rows of houses and the empty space in between is at least the size of a standard field, a bet se’ah, it cannot be removed. If the difference is less, it may be removed. The bet se’ah is defined as 5’000 square cubits (cf. Peah 2:1, Note 31), its edge length is √5000 = 70.71… cubits. This length is the general standard for defining a “built-up area.” As long as no two buildings are separated by more than 70.7 cubits, they are part of the same urban area, e. g., for defining the area of free mobility on the Sabbath. Therefore, an empty strip less than 70.7 cubits wide is not open space but a built-up area.. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ¹³¹. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה.¹³² ¹²⁸ 14.“All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them¹³³. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley¹³⁴.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Since the Mishnah permits removal of any grave which was found accidentally, it must permit the removal of a “corpse of obligation” once it is no longer remembered. ¹²⁰ R. Ze‘ira holds that graves of unattended people are such a rarity that their locations remain known over a very long time. If the owner of a parcel finds there a grave of whose existence he was not informed by its prior owner, either it was an illegitimate burial (which may be removed since “nobody can fulfill his obligations with his neighbor’s money”) or it was a burial with consent of the prior owner done on condition that it might later be removed and the prior owner was under the mistaken impression that it already had been removed. The same interpretation is given in the Babli Sanhedrin ¹²¹ Tosephta Ahilut ¹²² In the interpretation of Maimonides, the place is only impure as long as not all earth, including 3 finger-breadths of virgin soil, has been removed. This interpretation shows clearly that he reads here “impure”; there can be no emendation of the text. ¹²³ Since a grave is forbidden for any use by biblical law, a removal cannot change the character of the ground. ¹²⁴ Since the Tosephta shows that the text here cannot be amended, the only explanation is that a known grave may be removed only if either it was established illegally as a criminal act which cannot deprive the owner of the lawful use of his property, or it was intended as a temporary grave exempt from the biblical rules (Note 120). ¹²⁵ A grave in a public road is considered a danger to the public. ¹²⁶ The locality has not been determined; it might designate any place located on a hill (عقبة). ¹²⁷ If the grave predated the building of the access road to a village, the road should have avoided the place of the grave; it has to be rerouted. But if the grave was dug in an existing public road, it is illegal, not considered a grave, nor protected by the rules. ¹ A similar text is in Tractate Śemaḥot ¹²⁹ Since it will be a public obstacle. ¹³⁰ In Śemaḥot ¹³¹ Any point within the right angle is accessible from the outside and is considered part of an open field. ¹³² Since the break in the left hand stroke of the letter ה is a relatively late development, it would be better to designate the shape of the village as ח. In old texts, the left stroke of ח is flush with the end of the horizontal stroke and ends a little higher; the one of ה is slightly to the right of the end of the horizontal stroke and ends exactly at the horizontal stroke. The meaning is that if the grave is between two rows of houses at a distance less than 70.7 cubits, it is within a built-up area where it does not belong. ¹²⁸ A similar text is in Tractate Śemaḥot ¹³³ Which is extraordinary since within the urban area of Jerusalem no grave could be tolerated, seeing that a grave is a “squeezed impurity” (Note 79) which causes “tent” impurity to anybody stepping over it and disables him from entering the Temple Mount. ¹³⁴ If the graves were open to the outside, the impurity was not “squeezed” and there was no induced “tent” impurity over them.

There¹³⁵ 6:8, detailing the standards for a builder of burial caves., we have stated: “He makes a courtyard¹³⁶ in front of the cave six cubits square as a place for the bier.” And here, he says so¹³⁷? There for a bier standing, here for the width of a turning bier. How far¹³⁸ 3:1.? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Mishnah Baba batra ¹³⁶ A flat space outside the cave. ¹³⁷ Why does the contractor only have to build a space of six cubits square for burial in a cave whereas for burial in the ground one reserves eight cubits on either side? It is to be expected that the minimal standards for a commercial contract are less than those for checking for impurity. ¹³⁸ This has nothing to do with either commercial contracts or impurity; it defines the persons participating in a funeral and exempt from any other duties while the funeral procession is in progress; Mishnah Berakhot

There, we have stated¹³⁹ 5:2.: “If a vineyard is planted with less that four cubits of space, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the plants in the middle as if nonexistent.” ¹⁴⁰ 5:2 (29d 1. 54 ff.), full variant readings and commentary there, Notes 32–40. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan³². The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard³³. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, they form a graveyard; here, they do not form a graveyard. Rebbi Yose said, one cannot compare these. There, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer together, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?”

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Mishnah Kilaim ¹⁴⁰ Kilaim ³² If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir ³³ Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.

How far does one importune him¹⁴²? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten¹⁴³. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten¹⁴⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁴² This refers to the end of Mishnah 3: If there are three parallel graves and one found another grave at the end of 20 cubits, how often does he have to repeat the operation? ¹⁴³ In this version, he has to check 60 cubits. On either side of the graves he has to check at most 20 cubits. If he found a grave, he has to check 10 more cubits, for a total of 2(20+10) = 60 cubits. ¹⁴⁴ This agrees with the original statement. He has to check a maximum of 10+10 = 20 cubits on either side for a total of 40.

MISHNAH: Any person with initially doubtful skin disease is pure as long as he was not declared impure. After he was declared impure, in doubt he is impure¹⁴⁵ 5:4–5.. ¹⁴⁶ 2:2; it is included here only because it is a “not unsubstantiated” case. In seven ways does one check the sufferer from a genital discharge before he becomes impure¹⁴⁷ 15:1–15. After a discharge of semen, a male is impure for the rest of the day (Lev. 15:16). For any other discharge, the first time he is pure. After the second discharge within 24 hours he is impure for seven days. However, if there is a reason to suspect that the discharge was induced by an outside cause, he remains pure since impurity is created by (Lev. 15:2) “flow from his flesh”, not from any outside cause. After the third discharge, he needs purification by a sacrifice.: About eating and drinking¹⁴⁸, carrying a load or jumping¹⁴⁹, sickness, looking, and thought¹⁵⁰. After he becomes impure one does not check him; his accident, doubtful case, and semen are impure since the matter is not unsubstantiated¹⁵¹.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ A sufferer from skin disease is impure only after he was declared impure by a Cohen. Once he is impure, he can regain purity only by a ceremony administered by a Cohen. A Cohen may not declare a person impure unless the impurity is clearly demonstrated; he may not cleanse a person declared impure unless that person is clearly healed. The details are given in Mishnah Nega‘im ¹⁴⁶ The Mishnah is given in great detail in Zavim ¹⁴⁷ The basic source is Lev. ¹⁴⁸ If he ate or drank excessively. ¹⁴⁹ Extraordinary physical exertion, whether professional or for sport. ¹⁵⁰ Looking at women might cause an ejaculation as well as thinking of copulation. ¹⁵¹ Once he is suffering from gonorrhea, any discharge is ascribed to his condition rather than to extraneous influences.

HALAKHAH: “He shall declare him impure¹⁵² 13:2. This is the first case of skin disease treated in Lev.; it stands for all cases..” The certain case he declares impure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his impurity until he is known to be pure. “He shall purify him¹⁵³ 13:23. Sifra Tasria‘ Parashah 4(9); Babli 65b..” The certain case he declares pure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure¹⁵⁴. Forever he is in his purity until he is known to be impure.

footnotes: ¹⁵² Lev. ¹⁵³ Lev. ¹⁵⁴ Read: “pure”.

It is written¹⁵⁵ 15:33, the final verse of the chapter dealing with impurity caused by the human body.: “The unwell woman in her separation and the sufferer from flux in his flux.” Since the menstruating woman may become impure also by accident, so the sufferer from flux may become impure also by accident¹⁵⁶. Then even at his first episode¹⁵⁷? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from the moment he becomes like a menstruating woman¹⁵⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ Lev. ¹⁵⁶ Since the two kinds of impurity are mentioned together. ¹⁵⁷ But the Mishnah declares that outside influences are disregarded only after the sufferer from flux is subject to a week-long impurity. ¹⁵⁸ Whose impurity always extends for seven days.

“His accident,” Rebbi Eleazar said, his real accident. “His doubtful case,” a doubt whether it is flux or ejaculation. Are flux and semen not impure anyhow¹⁵⁹? But one does not consider it for the 24 hour period¹⁶⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ But semen is impure only until sundown after immersion in water. ¹⁶⁰ If the sufferer is impure for seven days and he has an ejaculation, any further discharge within 24 hours of his prior episode of flux is not considered caused by his sexual activity but will cause him to require a sacrifice for his purification.

MISHNAH: If somebody injured another person who was judged dying and then this person’s state improved¹⁶¹. 21:19). but later he died, he is guilty. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, he cannot be prosecuted¹⁶² since it is not unsubstantiated.

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ The injured is no longer critical but did not get out of bed, which would be the biblical criterion preventing a prosecution of the attacker for murder (Ex ¹⁶² If at any moment the victim was judged not critically ill, death could have a cause unrelated to the attack.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁶³ 9:3 (fol. 27a). The first part of our text is almost identical with the text there; the second part is badly garbled and can be understood only from the Sanhedrin text. (ג denotes a Genizah reading.) So¹⁶⁴, in place of מני “who is the author”? is the Mishnah: Rebbi Neḥemia declares him not prosecutable but the Sages declare him guilty since it is not unsubstantiated¹⁶⁵ evidence of guilt, not an argument which prohibits prosecution.. The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation¹⁶⁶ 6; Babli Sanhedrin 78b, Ketubot 33b).; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two¹⁶⁷. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “ ‘If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated¹⁶⁸. 21:19. Both Targum Onqelos and Mekhilta dR. Ismael explain משענת not as “cane” but as “health”. This meaning seems to be understood here..’ Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him¹⁶⁹? But even if he died according to the first estimation he cannot be prosecuted¹⁷⁰.”¹⁷¹ 78a/b, Ketubot 33b; Tosephta Baba qama 9:7; Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 174–175. What is the rabbi’s reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden¹⁷². 21:18..” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden¹⁷³? But if they estimated¹⁷⁴: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die. If they estimated¹⁷⁴: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane.” Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is guilty. But if they did not estimate¹⁷⁴: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die? If they did not estimate¹⁷⁴: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay¹⁷⁵ 7:1, Notes 3–73; Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, a verse is needed to force the potential murderer to pay if his victim survives.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation¹⁷⁶. ¹⁷⁷ (different text in Sanhedrin is in parentheses and italicized): What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay, if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay¹⁷⁸ (does he have to pay?). For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation, if he did not pay one does not order him to pay¹⁷⁸. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves¹⁷⁹. (It proves that the estimate was wrong.) This (A baraita) supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died (die but he lived). From when does he have to pay him (count for him)? From the moment he turns worse¹⁸⁰. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.¹⁸¹ is no support for R. Simeon ben Laqish since R. Yose ben Hanina will agree that the agressor has to pay the victim who is getting better.” (but from the start. That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.) What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died. From when does one have to pay him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.”

footnotes: ¹⁶³ The origin of this and the following paragraphs is in Sanhedrin ¹⁶⁴ Reading כיני as in Sanhedrin ¹⁶⁵ The expression רגלים לדבר “the thing has feet” formulates prima facie ¹⁶⁶ Any “estimation” here is a judicial act. If the physician in charge as an officer of the court considered the victim as critically ill both at the beginning and at the end of treatment, this overrides the fact that for some time the victim was taken off the critical list. The attacker can be jailed only if the victim is in danger of his life and there is the possibility that the case may become one of capital crime (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim ¹⁶⁷ Once the victim was taken off the critical list, it is impossible to convict the attacker of premeditated murder. ¹⁶⁸ Ex ¹⁶⁹ The verse seems to be superfluous (but its continuation, spelling out the financial obligations of the attacker, is not.) ¹⁷⁰ The term “exonerated” is read as “permanently exonerated.” ¹⁷¹ Babli Sanhedrin ¹⁷² Ex ¹⁷³ Otherwise there could not be any monetary claim derived from this paragraph. (There could be a claim under rabbinic rules for insult, etc.) ¹⁷⁴ In Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁴ In Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁴ In Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁴ In Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁵ As a matter of principle, a person convicted of a crime cannot be made to pay since that would constitute multiple punishment (cf. Terumot ¹⁷⁶ If the victim survives, it is proof that the first estimation was wrong; there is no criminal case and the civil case can proceed unhindered. ¹⁷⁷ From here on, the sentences have to be re-ordered as indicated by the text in Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁸ Even if the victim later dies. ¹⁷⁸ Even if the victim later dies. ¹⁷⁹ But for R. Simeon ben Laqish he has to pay for disability from the moment of the injury. ¹⁸⁰ That means, even if he turns worse, since he had to pay from the start by court order. For R. Yose ben Hanina, he never pays once the case has turned into a criminal matter. ¹⁸¹ Then the baraita

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]¹⁸². The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א. It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel¹⁸³. 21:22, speaking of the injury to an innocent bystander, the unintended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for pain and impairment of the victim.,” “if people brawl.¹⁸⁴. 21:18, the paragraph under discussion, about the intended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for medical cost and disability.” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended¹⁸⁵. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]¹⁸². The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א. It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand¹⁸⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁸² Reading of Sanhedrin ¹⁸³ Ex ¹⁸⁴ Ex ¹⁸⁵ In both cases, all four payments are due from the attacker. ¹⁸² Reading of Sanhedrin ¹⁸⁶ Since the attacker has to pay for the operation, he has to pay for the permanent impairment.

MISHNAH: Samuel was a nazir following the words of Rebbi Nahorai, as it is said: “A shaving knife shall not come on his head¹⁸⁷. 1:11..” It is said about Samson “a shaving knife¹⁸⁸. 13:5”, and it is said about Samuel “a shaving knife”. Since “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samson refers to nazir¹⁸⁸. 13:5, so “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samuel refers to nazir. Rebbi Yose said, but fear¹⁸⁹ is only of flesh and blood! Rebbi Nahorai answered him: Was it not said: “Samuel said, how can I go? Will not Saul hear of it and kill me?¹⁹⁰. 16:2.” The fear¹⁹¹ of flesh and blood already was on him.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ 1S ¹⁸⁸ Jud ¹⁸⁸ Jud ¹⁸⁹ Reading מוֹרָא (root ירא) “fear” for מוֹרָה (root possibly مار) “shaving knife”. ¹⁹⁰ 1S ¹⁹¹ In most Mishnah mss., the reading here also is מוֹרָה.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai said: It is written¹⁹². 7:25.: “To all the hills which are to be worked by the harrow the fear of worm¹⁹³ 9:13/14, Note 219.) and snail will not come.” Just as the stalk fears the iron, so the hair fears the iron¹⁹⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁹² Is ¹⁹³ A rock-splitting worm used by King Solomon to quarry the stones for the Temple without iron implements (Soṭah ¹⁹⁴ For him, מוֹרָה also is derived from the root ירא.