17 Tishrei 5781

(1) The words of Koheleth son of David, king in Jerusalem. (2) Utter futility!—said Koheleth— Utter futility! All is futile! (3) What real value is there for a man In all the gains he makes beneath the sun? (4) One generation goes, another comes, But the earth remains the same forever. (5) The sun rises, and the sun sets— And glides back to where it rises. (6) Southward blowing, Turning northward, Ever turning blows the wind; On its rounds the wind returns. (7) All streams flow into the sea, Yet the sea is never full; To the place [from] which they flow The streams flow back again. (8) All such things are wearisome: No man can ever state them; The eye never has enough of seeing, Nor the ear enough of hearing. (9) Only that shall happen Which has happened, Only that occur Which has occurred; There is nothing new Beneath the sun! (10) Sometimes there is a phenomenon of which they say, “Look, this one is new!”—it occurred long since, in ages that went by before us. (11) The earlier ones are not remembered; so too those that will occur later will no more be remembered than those that will occur at the very end. (12) I, Koheleth, was king in Jerusalem over Israel. (13) I set my mind to study and to probe with wisdom all that happens under the sun.—An unhappy business, that, which God gave men to be concerned with! (14) I observed all the happenings beneath the sun, and I found that all is futile and pursuit of wind: (15) A twisted thing that cannot be made straight, A lack that cannot be made good. (16) I said to myself: “Here I have grown richer and wiser than any that ruled before me over Jerusalem, and my mind has zealously absorbed wisdom and learning.” (17) And so I set my mind to appraise wisdom and to appraise madness and folly. And I learned—that this too was pursuit of wind: (18) For as wisdom grows, vexation grows; To increase learning is to increase heartache. (1) I said to myself, “Come, I will treat you to merriment. Taste mirth!” That too, I found, was futile. (2) Of revelry I said, “It’s mad!” Of merriment, “What good is that?” (3) I ventured to tempt my flesh with wine, and to grasp folly, while letting my mind direct with wisdom, to the end that I might learn which of the two was better for men to practice in their few days of life under heaven. (4) I multiplied my possessions. I built myself houses and I planted vineyards. (5) I laid out gardens and groves, in which I planted every kind of fruit tree. (6) I constructed pools of water, enough to irrigate a forest shooting up with trees. (7) I bought male and female slaves, and I acquired stewards. I also acquired more cattle, both herds and flocks, than all who were before me in Jerusalem. (8) I further amassed silver and gold and treasures of kings and provinces; and I got myself male and female singers, as well as the luxuries of commoners—coffers and coffers of them. (9) Thus, I gained more wealth than anyone before me in Jerusalem. In addition, my wisdom remained with me: (10) I withheld from my eyes nothing they asked for, and denied myself no enjoyment; rather, I got enjoyment out of all my wealth. And that was all I got out of my wealth. (11) Then my thoughts turned to all the fortune my hands had built up, to the wealth I had acquired and won—and oh, it was all futile and pursuit of wind; there was no real value under the sun! (12) For what will the man be like who will succeed the one who is ruling over what was built up long ago? My thoughts also turned to appraising wisdom and madness and folly. (13) I found that Wisdom is superior to folly As light is superior to darkness; (14) A wise man has his eyes in his head, Whereas a fool walks in darkness. But I also realized that the same fate awaits them both. (15) So I reflected: “The fate of the fool is also destined for me; to what advantage, then, have I been wise?” And I came to the conclusion that that too was futile, (16) because the wise man, just like the fool, is not remembered forever; for, as the succeeding days roll by, both are forgotten. Alas, the wise man dies, just like the fool! (17) And so I loathed life. For I was distressed by all that goes on under the sun, because everything is futile and pursuit of wind. (18) So, too, I loathed all the wealth that I was gaining under the sun. For I shall leave it to the man who will succeed me— (19) and who knows whether he will be wise or foolish?—and he will control all the wealth that I gained by toil and wisdom under the sun. That too is futile. (20) And so I came to view with despair all the gains I had made under the sun. (21) For sometimes a person whose fortune was made with wisdom, knowledge, and skill must hand it on to be the portion of somebody who did not toil for it. That too is futile, and a grave evil. (22) For what does a man get for all the toiling and worrying he does under the sun? (23) All his days his thoughts are grief and heartache, and even at night his mind has no respite. That too is futile! (24) There is nothing worthwhile for a man but to eat and drink and afford himself enjoyment with his means. And even that, I noted, comes from God. (25) For who eats and who enjoys but myself? (26) To the man, namely, who pleases Him He has given the wisdom and shrewdness to enjoy himself; and to him who displeases, He has given the urge to gather and amass—only for handing on to one who is pleasing to God. That too is futile and pursuit of wind. (1) A season is set for everything, a time for every experience under heaven: (2) A time for being born and a time for dying, A time for planting and a time for uprooting the planted; (3) A time for slaying and a time for healing, A time for tearing down and a time for building up; (4) A time for weeping and a time for laughing, A time for wailing and a time for dancing; (5) A time for throwing stones and a time for gathering stones, A time for embracing and a time for shunning embraces; (6) A time for seeking and a time for losing, A time for keeping and a time for discarding; (7) A time for ripping and a time for sewing, A time for silence and a time for speaking; (8) A time for loving and a time for hating; A time for war and a time for peace. (9) What value, then, can the man of affairs get from what he earns? (10) I have observed the business that God gave man to be concerned with: (11) He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also puts eternity in their mind, but without man ever guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass. (12) Thus I realized that the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to enjoy themselves and do what is good in their lifetime; (13) also, that whenever a man does eat and drink and get enjoyment out of all his wealth, it is a gift of God. (14) I realized, too, that whatever God has brought to pass will recur evermore: Nothing can be added to it And nothing taken from it— and God has brought to pass that men revere Him. (15) What is occurring occurred long since, And what is to occur occurred long since: and God seeks the pursued. (16) And, indeed, I have observed under the sun: Alongside justice there is wickedness, Alongside righteousness there is wickedness. (17) I mused: “God will doom both righteous and wicked, for there is a time for every experience and for every happening.” (18) So I decided, as regards men, to dissociate them [from] the divine beings and to face the fact that they are beasts. (19) For in respect of the fate of man and the fate of beast, they have one and the same fate: as the one dies so dies the other, and both have the same lifebreath; man has no superiority over beast, since both amount to nothing. (20) Both go to the same place; both came from dust and both return to dust. (21) Who knows if a man’s lifebreath does rise upward and if a beast’s breath does sink down into the earth? (22) I saw that there is nothing better for man than to enjoy his possessions, since that is his portion. For who can enable him to see what will happen afterward? (1) I further observed all the oppression that goes on under the sun: the tears of the oppressed, with none to comfort them; and the power of their oppressors—with none to comfort them. (2) Then I accounted those who died long since more fortunate than those who are still living; (3) and happier than either are those who have not yet come into being and have never witnessed the miseries that go on under the sun. (4) I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other—another futility and pursuit of wind! (5) [True,] The fool folds his hands together And has to eat his own flesh. (6) [But no less truly,] Better is a handful of gratification Than two fistfuls of labor which is pursuit of wind. (7) And I have noted this further futility under the sun: (8) the case of the man who is alone, with no companion, who has neither son nor brother; yet he amasses wealth without limit, and his eye is never sated with riches. For whom, now, is he amassing it while denying himself enjoyment? That too is a futility and an unhappy business. (9) Two are better off than one, in that they have greater benefit from their earnings. (10) For should they fall, one can raise the other; but woe betide him who is alone and falls with no companion to raise him! (11) Further, when two lie together they are warm; but how can he who is alone get warm? (12) Also, if one attacks, two can stand up to him. A threefold cord is not readily broken! (13) Better a poor but wise youth than an old but foolish king who no longer has the sense to heed warnings. (14) For the former can emerge from a dungeon to become king; while the latter, even if born to kingship, can become a pauper. (15) [However,] I reflected about all the living who walk under the sun with that youthful successor who steps into his place. (16) Unnumbered are the multitudes of all those who preceded them; and later generations will not acclaim him either. For that too is futile and pursuit of wind. (17) Be not overeager to go to the House of God: more acceptable is obedience than the offering of fools, for they know nothing [but] to do wrong. (1) Keep your mouth from being rash, and let not your throat be quick to bring forth speech before God. For God is in heaven and you are on earth; that is why your words should be few. (2) Just as dreams come with much brooding, so does foolish utterance come with much speech. (3) When you make a vow to God, do not delay to fulfill it. For He has no pleasure in fools; what you vow, fulfill. (4) It is better not to vow at all than to vow and not fulfill. (5) Don’t let your mouth bring you into disfavor, and don’t plead before the messenger that it was an error, -but fear God; else God may be angered by your talk and destroy your possessions. (6) For much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk. (7) If you see in a province oppression of the poor and suppression of right and justice, don’t wonder at the fact; for one high official is protected by a higher one, and both of them by still higher ones. (8) Thus the greatest advantage in all the land is his: he controls a field that is cultivated. (9) A lover of money never has his fill of money, nor a lover of wealth his fill of income. That too is futile. (10) As his substance increases, so do those who consume it; what, then, does the success of its owner amount to but feasting his eyes? (11) A worker’s sleep is sweet, whether he has much or little to eat; but the rich man’s abundance doesn’t let him sleep. (12) Here is a grave evil I have observed under the sun: riches hoarded by their owner to his misfortune, (13) in that those riches are lost in some unlucky venture; and if he begets a son, he has nothing in hand. (14) Another grave evil is this: He must depart just as he came. As he came out of his mother’s womb, so must he depart at last, naked as he came. He can take nothing of his wealth to carry with him. (15) So what is the good of his toiling for the wind? (16) Besides, all his days he eats in darkness, with much vexation and grief and anger. (17) Only this, I have found, is a real good: that one should eat and drink and get pleasure with all the gains he makes under the sun, during the numbered days of life that God has given him; for that is his portion. (18) Also, whenever a man is given riches and property by God, and is also permitted by Him to enjoy them and to take his portion and get pleasure for his gains—that is a gift of God. (19) For [such a man] will not brood much over the days of his life, because God keeps him busy enjoying himself. (1) There is an evil I have observed under the sun, and a grave one it is for man: (2) that God sometimes grants a man riches, property, and wealth, so that he does not want for anything his appetite may crave, but God does not permit him to enjoy it; instead, a stranger will enjoy it. That is futility and a grievous ill. (3) Even if a man should beget a hundred children and live many years—no matter how many the days of his years may come to, if his gullet is not sated through his wealth, I say: The stillbirth, though it was not even accorded a burial, is more fortunate than he. (4) Though it comes into futility and departs into darkness, and its very name is covered with darkness, (5) though it has never seen or experienced the sun, it is better off than he— (6) yes, even if the other lived a thousand years twice over but never had his fill of enjoyment! For are not both of them bound for the same place? (7) All of man’s earning is for the sake of his mouth, yet his gullet is not sated. (8) What advantage then has the wise man over the fool, what advantage has the pauper who knows how to get on in life? (9) Is the feasting of the eyes more important than the pursuit of desire? That, too, is futility and pursuit of wind. (10) Whatever happens, it was designated long ago and it was known that it would happen; as for man, he cannot contend with what is stronger than he. (11) Often, much talk means much futility. How does it benefit a man? (12) Who can possibly know what is best for a man to do in life—the few days of his fleeting life? For who can tell him what the future holds for him under the sun? (1) A good name is better than fragrant oil, and the day of death than the day of birth. (2) It is better to go to a house of mourning than to a house of feasting; for that is the end of every man, and a living one should take it to heart. (3) Vexation is better than revelry; for though the face be sad, the heart may be glad. (4) Wise men are drawn to a house of mourning, and fools to a house of merrymaking. (5) It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof than to listen to the praise of fools. (6) For the levity of the fool is like the crackling of nettles under a kettle. But that too is illusory; (7) for cheating may rob the wise man of reason and destroy the prudence of the cautious. (8) The end of a matter is better than the beginning of it. Better a patient spirit than a haughty spirit. (9) Don’t let your spirit be quickly vexed, for vexation abides in the breasts of fools. (10) Don’t say, “How has it happened that former times were better than these?” For it is not wise of you to ask that question. (11) Wisdom is as good as a patrimony, and even better, for those who behold the sun. (12) For to be in the shelter of wisdom is to be also in the shelter of money, and the advantage of intelligence is that wisdom preserves the life of him who possesses it. (13) Consider God’s doing! Who can straighten what He has twisted? (14) So in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune, reflect: The one no less than the other was God’s doing; consequently, man may find no fault with Him. (15) In my own brief span of life, I have seen both these things: sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness. (16) So don’t overdo goodness and don’t act the wise man to excess, or you may be dumfounded. (17) Don’t overdo wickedness and don’t be a fool, or you may die before your time. (18) It is best that you grasp the one without letting go of the other, for one who fears God will do his duty by both. (19) Wisdom is more of a stronghold to a wise man than ten magnates that a city may contain. (20) For there is not one good man on earth who does what is best and doesn’t err. (21) Finally, don’t pay attention to everything that is said, so that you may not hear your slave reviling you; (22) for well you remember the many times that you yourself have reviled others. (23) All this I tested with wisdom. I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me. (24) [The secret of] what happens is elusive and deep, deep down; who can discover it? (25) I put my mind to studying, exploring, and seeking wisdom and the reason of things, and to studying wickedness, stupidity, madness, and folly. (26) Now, I find woman more bitter than death; she is all traps, her hands are fetters and her heart is snares. He who is pleasing to God escapes her, and he who is displeasing is caught by her. (27) See, this is what I found, said Koheleth, item by item in my search for the reason of things. (28) As for what I sought further but did not find, I found only one human being in a thousand, and the one I found among so many was never a woman. (29) But, see, this I did find: God made men plain, but they have engaged in too much reasoning. (1) Who is like the wise man, and who knows the meaning of the adage: “A man’s wisdom lights up his face, So that his deep discontent is dissembled”? (2) I do! “Obey the king’s orders—and don’t rush into uttering an oath by God.” (3) Leave his presence; do not tarry in a dangerous situation, for he can do anything he pleases; (4) inasmuch as a king’s command is authoritative, and none can say to him, “What are you doing?” (5) One who obeys orders will not suffer from the dangerous situation. A wise man, however, will bear in mind that there is a time of doom. (6) For there is a time for every experience, including the doom; for a man’s calamity overwhelms him. (7) Indeed, he does not know what is to happen; even when it is on the point of happening, who can tell him? (8) No man has authority over the lifebreath—to hold back the lifebreath; there is no authority over the day of death. There is no mustering out from that war; wickedness is powerless to save its owner. (9) All these things I observed; I noted all that went on under the sun, while men still had authority over men to treat them unjustly. (10) And then I saw scoundrels coming from the Holy Site and being brought to burial, while such as had acted righteously were forgotten in the city. And here is another frustration: (11) the fact that the sentence imposed for evil deeds is not executed swiftly, which is why men are emboldened to do evil— (12) the fact that a sinner may do evil a hundred times and his [punishment] still be delayed. For although I am aware that “It will be well with those who revere God since they revere Him, (13) and it will not be well with the scoundrel, and he will not live long, because he does not revere God”— (14) here is a frustration that occurs in the world: sometimes an upright man is requited according to the conduct of the scoundrel; and sometimes the scoundrel is requited according to the conduct of the upright. I say all that is frustration. (15) I therefore praised enjoyment. For the only good a man can have under the sun is to eat and drink and enjoy himself. That much can accompany him, in exchange for his wealth, through the days of life that God has granted him under the sun. (16) For I have set my mind to learn wisdom and to observe the business that goes on in the world—even to the extent of going without sleep day and night— (17) and I have observed all that God brings to pass. Indeed, man cannot guess the events that occur under the sun. For man tries strenuously, but fails to guess them; and even if a sage should think to discover them he would not be able to guess them. (1) For all this I noted, and I ascertained all this: that the actions of even the righteous and the wise are determined by God. Even love! Even hate! Man knows none of these in advance— (2) none! For the same fate is in store for all: for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths. (3) That is the sad thing about all that goes on under the sun: that the same fate is in store for all. (Not only that, but men’s hearts are full of sadness, and their minds of madness, while they live; and then—to the dead!) (4) For he who is reckoned among the living has something to look forward to—even a live dog is better than a dead lion— (5) since the living know they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more recompense, for even the memory of them has died. (6) Their loves, their hates, their jealousies have long since perished; and they have no more share till the end of time in all that goes on under the sun. (7) Go, eat your bread in gladness, and drink your wine in joy; for your action was long ago approved by God. (8) Let your clothes always be freshly washed, and your head never lack ointment. (9) Enjoy happiness with a woman you love all the fleeting days of life that have been granted to you under the sun—all your fleeting days. For that alone is what you can get out of life and out of the means you acquire under the sun. (10) Whatever it is in your power to do, do with all your might. For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no wisdom in Sheol, where you are going. (11) I have further observed under the sun that The race is not won by the swift, Nor the battle by the valiant; Nor is bread won by the wise, Nor wealth by the intelligent, Nor favor by the learned. For the time of mischance comes to all. (12) And a man cannot even know his time. As fishes are enmeshed in a fatal net, and as birds are trapped in a snare, so men are caught at the time of calamity, when it comes upon them without warning. (13) This thing too I observed under the sun about wisdom, and it affected me profoundly. (14) There was a little city, with few men in it; and to it came a great king, who invested it and built mighty siege works against it. (15) Present in the city was a poor wise man who might have saved it with his wisdom, but nobody thought of that poor man. (16) So I observed: Wisdom is better than valor; but A poor man’s wisdom is scorned, And his words are not heeded. (17) Words spoken softly by wise men are heeded sooner than those shouted by a lord in folly. (18) Wisdom is more valuable than weapons of war, but a single error destroys much of value. (1) Dead flies turn the perfumer’s ointment fetid and putrid; so a little folly outweighs massive wisdom. (2) A wise man’s mind tends toward the right hand, a fool’s toward the left. (3) A fool’s mind is also wanting when he travels, and he lets everybody know he is a fool. (4) If the wrath of a lord flares up against you, don’t give up your post; for when wrath abates, grave offenses are pardoned. (5) Here is an evil I have seen under the sun as great as an error committed by a ruler: (6) Folly was placed on lofty heights, while rich men sat in low estate. (7) I have seen slaves on horseback, and nobles walking on the ground like slaves. (8) He who digs a pit will fall into it; he who breaches a stone fence will be bitten by a snake. (9) He who quarries stones will be hurt by them; he who splits wood will be harmed by it. (10) If the ax has become dull and he has not whetted the edge, he must exert more strength. Thus the advantage of a skill [depends on the exercise of] prudence. (11) If the snake bites because no spell was uttered, no advantage is gained by the trained charmer. (12) A wise man’s talk brings him favor, but a fool’s lips are his undoing. (13) His talk begins as silliness and ends as disastrous madness. (14) Yet the fool talks and talks! A man cannot know what will happen; who can tell him what the future holds? (15) A fool’s exertions tire him out, for he doesn’t know how to get to a town. (16) Alas for you, O land whose king is a lackey and whose ministers dine in the morning! (17) Happy are you, O land whose king is a master and whose ministers dine at the proper time—with restraint, not with guzzling! (18) Through slothfulness the ceiling sags, Through lazy hands the house caves in. (19) They make a banquet for revelry; wine makes life merry, and money answers every need. (20) Don’t revile a king even among your intimates. Don’t revile a rich man even in your bedchamber; For a bird of the air may carry the utterance, And a winged creature may report the word. (1) Send your bread forth upon the waters; for after many days you will find it. (2) Distribute portions to seven or even to eight, for you cannot know what misfortune may occur on earth. (3) If the clouds are filled, they will pour down rain on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, the tree will stay where it falls. (4) If one watches the wind, he will never sow; and if one observes the clouds, he will never reap. (5) Just as you do not know how the lifebreath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who causes all things to happen. (6) Sow your seed in the morning, and don’t hold back your hand in the evening, since you don’t know which is going to succeed, the one or the other, or if both are equally good. (7) How sweet is the light, what a delight for the eyes to behold the sun! (8) Even if a man lives many years, let him enjoy himself in all of them, remembering how many the days of darkness are going to be. The only future is nothingness! (9) O youth, enjoy yourself while you are young! Let your heart lead you to enjoyment in the days of your youth. Follow the desires of your heart and the glances of your eyes—but know well that God will call you to account for all such things— (10) and banish care from your mind, and pluck sorrow out of your flesh! For youth and black hair are fleeting. (1) So appreciate your vigor in the days of your youth, before those days of sorrow come and those years arrive of which you will say, “I have no pleasure in them”; (2) before sun and light and moon and stars grow dark, and the clouds come back again after the rain: (3) When the guards of the house become shaky, And the men of valor are bent, And the maids that grind, grown few, are idle, And the ladies that peer through the windows grow dim, (4) And the doors to the street are shut— With the noise of the hand mill growing fainter, And the song of the bird growing feebler, And all the strains of music dying down; (5) When one is afraid of heights And there is terror on the road.— For the almond tree may blossom, The grasshopper be burdened, And the caper bush may bud again; But man sets out for his eternal abode, With mourners all around in the street.— (6) Before the silver cord snaps And the golden bowl crashes, The jar is shattered at the spring, And the jug is smashed at the cistern. (7) And the dust returns to the ground As it was, And the lifebreath returns to God Who bestowed it. (8) Utter futility—said Koheleth— All is futile! (9) A further word: Because Koheleth was a sage, he continued to instruct the people. He listened to and tested the soundness of many maxims. (10) Koheleth sought to discover useful sayings and recorded genuinely truthful sayings. (11) The sayings of the wise are like goads, like nails fixed in prodding sticks. They were given by one Shepherd. (12) A further word: Against them, my son, be warned! The making of many books is without limit And much study is a wearying of the flesh. (13) The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind: (14) that God will call every creature to account for everything unknown, be it good or bad. The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind.

(1) All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

(2) One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

(3) One cannot substitute limbs [of hullin] for [dedicated] embryos; Or embryos [of hullin] for [dedicated] limbs; Or embryos and limbs [of hullin] for whole [dedicated animals]; Or whole [animals of hullin] for them. Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them. Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt offering),” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place!

(4) [Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion. [Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion. Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.

(5) Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water]. A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard. Nor can terumah be made after terumah. A substitute cannot make another substitute. The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute.

(6) Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10). A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute. One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said: Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned? In order to make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs.

(1) There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

(2) A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too [the rules concerning] the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and [a hatat] whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation.

(3) In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

(1) The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them:The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Sukkot].

(2) The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread. The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned.

(3) If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the [male] animal itself is offered as an olah. If one sets aside a female [animal] for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham [in its place], its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without [waiting for] a blemish. The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money. An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement [through another animal] goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.

(4) But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

(5) The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

(1) The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.

(2) If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first [animal] is found, it is left to die. If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.

(3) If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

(4) If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.

(1) How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah. [If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. [If he said:] if it is a male, let it be an olah, and if a female [let it be] a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a male and a female, the male is offered as an olah and the female is offered as a shelamim.

(2) If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin. If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin. If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.

(3) If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand. But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.

(4) [If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.

(5) [If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute. [If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].

(6) [If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

(1) All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.

(2) What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.

(3) What is meant by the “price of a dog”?If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog. And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar]. An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four. Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.

(4) If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.

(5) With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.

(1) There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar.Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

(2) There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar.Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things, The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

(3) Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

(4) And the following are things which must be buried:A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, [the miscarriage] must be buried. A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, [the placenta] must be buried. An ox which was condemned to be stoned. The heifer whose neck was broken. The birds [brought in connection with the purification] of one with skin disease (metzora). The hair of a nazirite. The first-born of a donkey. [A mixture of] meat [cooked] in milk. And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court [is also burned].

(5) And the following are to be burned:Chametz on Pesah is burned; Unclean terumah; Orlah; Kilayim (mixed seeds) in the vineyard--that which it is customary to burn is to be burned and that which it is customary to bury is to be buried. We may kindle with the bread and oil of [unclean] terumah.

(6) All dedicated animals which were slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned. An asham offered by one in doubt [as to whether he has transgressed] is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried. A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer. All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.

(2) Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.

(3) The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed.

Subtract four million square cubits of the extended boundary for the area of the open space, which is a thousand cubits by a thousand cubits on each side, and an additional four million square cubits from the corners, a thousand cubits by a thousand cubits in each corner, which are connected to the open space. How much is the sum total? It is eight million square cubits. The Gemara asks: According to this calculation, the eight million square cubits of open space are one-third of the total area of the extended boundary, which is twenty-four million square cubits. The Gemara answers as it answered above: Do you think that this halakha was stated with regard to a square city? It was stated with regard to a round city. How much larger is the area of a square than the area of a circle? It is one quarter of the area of the circle. Subtract one quarter from the eight million square cubits of open space, and six million square cubits are left; and six is precisely one quarter of twenty-four. Ravina said: What is the meaning of the statement that the open space is one quarter? It is one quarter of the boundary. This halakha was indeed stated with regard to a square city. However, there is open space only along the sides of the city but not at its corners. Accordingly, a city that is two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits has a total extended boundary of thirty-two million square cubits, of which eight million square cubits, two thousand cubits by one thousand cubits on each side, is open space. The open space is thus one quarter of the total. Rav Ashi said the opposite: What is the meaning of the statement that the open space is one quarter of the total extended boundary? One quarter of the corners. Open space is granted only in the corners, and not along the sides. Accordingly, the open space is one thousand cubits by a thousand cubits in each corner, for a total of four million square cubits. The total extended boundary in each corner is two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits, or four million square cubits per corner, which equals a grand total of sixteen million square cubits. Consequently, the open space is one quarter of the total extended boundary. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Isn’t it written in the verse: “And the open spaces of the cities, that you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits around” (Numbers 35:4)? The verse indicates that the city is provided with open space on all sides and not merely at its corners Rav Ashi responded: What is the meaning of around? Around at the corners, i.e., an open space of this size is provided at each corner. As, if you do not say so, that the area of the corners is also called around, with regard to the burnt-offering, as it is written: “And they shall sprinkle the blood around upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:5), here, too, will you say that the blood must be sprinkled literally “around” the altar on all sides? The blood is sprinkled only upon the corners of the altar. Rather, what is the meaning of around? Around the corners, i.e., the mitzva is to sprinkle the blood at the corners, and this is considered sprinkling blood “around upon the altar.” Here too, with regard to the open space of the cities of the Levites, what is the meaning of around? Around the corners. The Gemara returns to its previous statement that the open space around a city of the Levites is one quarter of the total extended boundary when the city is round. It questions this statement based upon the mishna’s ruling that the boundaries of a city are always delineated as a square. Rav Ḥavivi from Meḥoza said to Rav Ashi: But aren’t there the protrusions of the corners? How can there be a thousand cubits of open space on each side; when the city is squared, the corners of the square protrude into the open space, thus reducing its area? Rav Ashi replied: We are dealing with a circular city. Rav Ḥavivi responded: But haven’t they squared the city? Rav Ashi responded: Say that we say the following: We view the city as if it were squared. Do we actually add houses and square it? Although for the purpose of calculating the extended boundary we view the city as a square, in actuality the uninhabited sections are part of the open space. Rav Ḥanilai from Meḥoza said to Rav Ashi: Now, how much larger is the area of a square than the area of a circle? One quarter. Therefore, if we calculate how much area a circular city with a diameter of two thousand cubits gains when it is squared, does it add up to these eight hundred cubits mentioned above? The extra area added is only 667 minus one-third cubits. Rav Ashi said to him: This statement applies only to a circle enclosed within a square, as the area of a circle is three-quarters the area of the square around it. However, with regard to the additional diagonal [alakhsona] space added in the corners of the square, more is required. As the Master said: Every cubit in the side of a square is one and two-fifths cubits in its diagonal. Based on this rule, the calculation is exact. MISHNA: One allocates a karpef to every city, i.e., the measure of a karpef, which is slightly more than seventy cubits, is added to every city, and the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit are measured from there; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They spoke of the addition of a karpef only with regard to the space between two adjacent cities. How so? If this city has seventy cubits and a remainder vacant on one side, and that city has seventy cubits and a remainder vacant on the adjacent side, and the two areas of seventy-plus cubits overlap, the karpef combines the two cities into one. And likewise, in the case of three villages that are arranged as a triangle, if there are only 141⅓ cubits separating between the two outer villages, the middle village combines the three villages into one. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that a karpef is added to a city, derived? Rava said: As the verse states: “And the open spaces of the cities, that you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits around. And you shall measure from outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:4–5). The Torah says: Provide a certain vacant space outside the city, and only afterward measure the two thousand cubits. We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: They spoke of the addition of a karpef only with regard to the space between two adjacent cities. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav Huna said: One allocates a karpef to this city and a karpef to that city, so that the two cities together are granted a total of slightly more than 141 cubits. Ḥiyya bar Rav said: One allocates only one common karpef to the two of them. The Gemara raises possible proofs for each opinion. We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: They spoke of the addition of a karpef only with regard to the space between two adjacent cities. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, as it states that one karpef is allocated rather than two. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you in response to this difficulty: What is meant here by a karpef ? It means the principle of a karpef. In actuality, one allocates a karpef to this city and a karpef to that city. The Gemara comments: So, too, it is reasonable to explain the mishna in the following manner: From the fact that it teaches in the latter clause: If this city has seventy cubits and a remainder vacant on one side, and that city has seventy cubits and a remainder vacant on the adjacent side, and the two areas of seventy-plus cubits overlap, the karpef combines the two cities into one. This indicates that an area of seventy cubits and a remainder is added to each city. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this mishna is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav, that two adjacent cities are granted only one karpef. The Gemara answers that Ḥiyya bar Rav could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one allocates a karpef to each city. The Gemara continues to ask: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t we already learn in the first clause: One allocates a karpef to each city; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir? What need is there to mention Rabbi Meir’s opinion again? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to mention his opinion again, as, if we had learned his opinion only from that first clause, I might have said that one allocates one karpef for one city and also one karpef for two cities. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that for two cities, one allocates two karpef areas. And conversely, if the mishna had taught us this law only here, with regard to two cities, one might have said that only in that case is each city granted a separate karpef, because a smaller space between the two adjacent cities would be too crowded for the use of both cities. But there, with regard to one city, where the area of the city itself is not too crowded for the use of its residents, one might say that it is not given any karpef whatsoever. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to teach both clauses. The Gemara tries again to adduce proof from the mishna, in which we learned: And likewise, in the case of three villages that are aligned in a row, if there is only 141⅓ cubits separating between the two outer ones, the middle village combines the three villages into one. At this point the Gemara understands that the mishna here is dealing with three villages arranged in a straight line. Therefore, it makes the following inference: The reason that the three villages are considered as one is only because there is a middle village, but were there no middle village, they would not be considered as one. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna. According to Rav Huna, the two villages should be considered as one even without the middle village, due to the double karpef. The Gemara rejects this argument: Rav Huna could have said to you: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba said that Rav Idi said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: It does not mean that the villages are actually aligned in a row of three villages in a straight line. Rather, even if the middle village is off to one side and the outer villages are more than two karpef lengths apart, we see their spacing and make the following assessment: Any case where, if the middle village were placed between the other two so that they were three villages aligned in a row, there would be only a distance of 141⅓ cubits between one and the other, then the middle village turns the three villages into one. According to this explanation, the mishna can be understood even as a support for the opinion of Rav Huna. With regard to this case, Rava said to Abaye: How much distance can there be between an outer village and the middle one, if the latter is still to combine the three villages into one? Abaye said to him: Two thousand cubits. Rava replied: Wasn’t it you yourself who said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said: The Shabbat limit of a bow-shaped city is measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the city, even if the distance between the center of the string and the center of the bow is more than two thousand cubits. Why shouldn’t the three villages in this case be considered a single village also, even if they are separated by more than two thousand cubits? Abaye rejected the comparison: How can you compare? There, in the case of the bow-shaped city, there are houses that combine the city into a single unit, whereas here, there are no houses linking the outer villages. Therefore, if two villages are separated by more than two thousand cubits, the measure of the Shabbat limit, they cannot be considered a single entity. And Rava said to Abaye: How much distance can there be between one outer village and the other outer village? Abaye expressed surprise at this question: How much distance can there be between them? What is the practical difference to you? Any case where, if the middle village were placed between them, there would be only a distance of 141⅓ cubits between one and the other, the middle village turns the three villages into one. Therefore, the critical detail is not the distance between the outer villages but the size of the middle village. Rava continued his line of questioning: Is this true even if the distance between the two outer villages is four thousand cubits? Abaye said to him: Yes. Rava asked: Didn’t Rav Huna say the following with regard to a city shaped like a bow: If the distance between its two ends is less than four thousand cubits, one measures the Shabbat limit from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow; and if not, one measures the Shabbat limit from the bow itself? This indicates that even if there is an uninterrupted string of houses linking the two ends of the city, if the two ends are separated by more than four thousand cubits, the distance is too great for it to be considered a single city. Abaye said to him: There, in the case of the bow-shaped city, there is no room to say: Fill it in, as there is nothing with which to fill in the empty space between the two ends of the city. However, here, in the case of the villages, there is room to say: Fill it in, as the middle village is seen as though it were projected between the two outer villages, and therefore all three combine into a single village. Rav Safra said to Rava: With regard to the people of the city of Akistefon, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of the city of Ardeshir, and the people of Ardeshir, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of Akistefon, as though the two settlements were a single city; isn’t there the Tigris River, which separates them by more than 141⅓ cubits? How can two cities that are separated by more than two karpef-lengths be considered a single entity? Rava went out and showed Rav Safra the foundations of a wall of one of the cities, which were submerged in the Tigris River at a distance of seventy cubits and a remainder from the other city. In other words, the two cities were in fact linked through the remnants of a wall submerged in the river. MISHNA: One may measure a Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, no less and no more, as will be explained in the Gemara. And one may measure the limit only at the level of one’s heart, i.e., whoever comes to measure the limit must hold the rope next to his chest. If one was measuring the limit and he reached a canyon or a fence, the height of the fence and the depth of the canyon are not counted toward the two thousand cubits; rather, he spans it and then resumes his measurement. Two people hold the two ends of the rope straight across the canyon or the fence, and the distance is measured as though the area were completely flat. If one reached a hill, he does not measure its height; rather, he spans the hill as if it were not there and then resumes his measurement,

As for a widow from marriage, everyone agrees that this does not exempt the rival wife, as a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. When they disagree, it is in the case of a widow from betrothal. The one who said that it exempts the rival wife holds that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage comes and overrides the prohibition against a High Priest marrying a widow. And the one who said that it does not exempt the rival wife held that a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition, since it is possible to perform ḥalitza. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the rival wife would not be exempt, from the previously cited baraita: If one of those yevamin engaged in intercourse, he acquired her as a wife. This shows that the act of levirate marriage is valid, even when prohibited. If so, in the case of the High Priest and a widow as well, her rival wife should be exempt. This is a conclusive refutation, and that opinion is rejected. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is also a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish and therefore reject his principle? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: When I say that in every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition applying to the same matter, if you can fulfill both of them together without transgressing the prohibition, this is best, and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition, this is applicable only when the mitzva is fulfilled properly; but here, ḥalitza in place of levirate marriage is not considered a proper fulfillment of the mitzva. § Rava said: Where is the prohibition against secondary forbidden relationships hinted at in the Torah? As it is stated at the end of the portion discussing forbidden incestuous relations: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done” (Leviticus 18:27). “These” must be understood to mean the harsh ones, i.e., the severe transgressions. This proves by inference that there are also lesser transgressions that are, as it were, soft ones. And what are those soft ones? They are secondary forbidden relationships. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word “these” [ha’el] is an expression meaning harsh? As it is written: “And the mighty [eilei] of the land he took away” (Ezekiel 17:13). The similarity of these words implies that “these” also has connotations of mighty or harsh. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this statement contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Levi? As Rabbi Levi said: The harshness of the punishment for using dishonest measures is more than the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of forbidden relationships, as with regard to this, forbidden relations, it is stated only: “These [el],” whereas with regard to that, dishonest measures, it is stated: “These [eleh]” with an additional letter heh as a suffix: “For all that do these [eleh] things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 25:16). This implies that the word eleh indicates harshness and not the word el. The Gemara answers: This does not contradict his opinion. The word el has the connotation of harsh, but eleh has the connotation of even harsher than el. The Gemara asks: With regard to forbidden relationships the word eleh is also written: “For whosoever shall do any of these [eleh] abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). If so, why is the punishment for using dishonest measures considered harsher? The Gemara answers: That expression meaning these [eleh] in the context of forbidden relations does not emphasize their severity; rather, it comes to exclude one who uses deception in measures from the penalty of karet. The Gemara asks: Rather, in what way is deception in measurements more severe than forbidden relations? The Gemara answers: Those who engage in forbidden relations have the possibility of repentance. If one engaged in relations with a forbidden relative he can rectify the sin through repentance. In the case of those who deceive the public with dishonest measures, it is not possible to repent fully because, having deceived the general public, they have no way of returning the money. Whereas generally a thief can return stolen property to its rightful owner, one who used dishonest measures with multiple customers has no way to track them all down in order to return the money. Rav Yehuda said that the prohibition of secondary forbidden relationships is learned from here: As it says with regard to King Solomon: “He weighed [izzen] and sought out, and set in order many proverbs” (Ecclesiastes 12:9), and Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: Before Solomon came, the Torah was like a basket [kefifa] without handles [oznayim], until Solomon came and made handles for it. By means of his explanation and proverbs he enabled each person to understand and take hold of the Torah, fulfill its mitzvot, and distance himself from transgressions. Rabbi Oshaya said that the prohibition of secondary forbidden relationships is learned from here: “Avoid it, pass not by it; turn from it, and pass on” (Proverbs 4:15). One must distance oneself from any prohibited act and not pass near a place of forbidden objects or situations. Rav Ashi said a parable: To what is this matter, the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, comparable? It is comparable to a man guarding an orchard; if he guards it from the outside, all of it is guarded. But if he guards it from the inside, only that which is in front of him that he can see is guarded, while that which is behind him is unguarded. The Gemara comments: And this parable of Rav Ashi is a mistake [beduta] and is not accurate. There, in his metaphor, that which is in front of him at least is guarded; here, in the case of forbidden relationships, were it not for the rabbinic decree against secondary forbidden relationships one would eventually encounter and transgress the biblically forbidden relationship itself. Guarding from the outside is not only preferable, it is essential. Rav Kahana said that the prohibition of secondary forbidden relationships is alluded to from here, in the verse stated at the conclusion of the verses discussing the halakhot of forbidden relationships: “Therefore shall you protect [ushmartem] My prized possession [mishmarti], that you do not any of these abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30). This means: Establish a safeguard [mishmeret] for My prized possession. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If the prohibition against secondary forbidden relationships is learned from here then it would be by Torah law, yet the prohibition against secondary forbidden relationships is by rabbinic law. He answered him: The requirement to add an additional safeguard itself is in fact by Torah law, and the Sages interpreted and defined where and when to apply this law. Abaye objected: But isn’t all of the Torah also interpreted by the Sages and yet has the force of Torah law? In that case, why are these laws considered to be rabbinic? Rather, the prohibition of secondary forbidden relationships was decreed by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support but does not indicate a Torah law. § The Sages taught in a baraita: What are the secondary forbidden relationships that were prohibited? His mother’s mother, and his father’s mother, and his father’s father’s wife, and his mother’s father’s wife, and the wife of his father’s maternal half brother, and the wife of his mother’s paternal half brother, and his son’s daughter-in-law, and his daughter’s daughter-in-law. A man is permitted to take his father-in-law’s former wife, provided she is not the mother of his wife, and his stepson’s wife, if the stepson died or divorced her. And he is prohibited from marrying the daughter of his stepson. And it is permitted for one’s stepson to marry the stepfather’s wife or daughter. Due to these rabbinic decrees concerning stepsons, unusual situations might arise. For example: And his stepson’s wife says to him, i.e., her husband’s stepfather, I am permitted to you, but my daughter is forbidden to you, since she is your stepson’s daughter. The Gemara challenges that which is stated in the baraita: His stepson’s daughter is not a secondary relation by rabbinic law. She is forbidden by Torah law, since the daughter of his stepson is the daughter of his wife’s son, as it is written: “You shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter” (Leviticus 18:17). The Gemara answers: This case was included because the baraita wanted to teach the latter clause, which states: His stepson’s wife says to him: I am permitted to you, but my daughter is forbidden to you. And although my daughter is forbidden to you by Torah law, nevertheless the Sages did not issue a decree forbidding me. Therefore, the case of his stepson’s daughter was also taught in the first clause, even though she is forbidden by Torah law and is not a secondary relation. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, that the baraita wished to teach this peculiarity, then why did it not teach: His father-in-law’s wife also says: I am permitted to you and my daughter is forbidden to you, as she is his wife’s sister. The Gemara answers: This matter is conclusive for him. In other words, his stepson’s wife is forever permitted and his stepson’s daughter is always forbidden to him. But as for the matter of his father-in-law’s wife’s daughter, this is not conclusive for him. This ruling is not final and might change, since if his wife dies her sister is permitted to him. Rav said that he received a tradition with regard to secondary forbidden relationships that four women have a conclusion; i.e., the prohibition does not continue to later generations but applies only to those women who were mentioned explicitly. Rav held three of them in his hand; he knew with certainty three of the four categories. They were: The wife of his mother’s paternal half brother, and the wife of his father’s maternal half brother, and his daughter-in-law. And Ze’eiri adds: Also the wife of his mother’s father. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic for remembering who said what is as follows: Ze’eiri adds an extra generation on top of the prohibitions of Rav, i.e., the wife of his mother’s father, which Rav did not mention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not reckon this category mentioned by Ze’eiri to be among those who have a conclusion? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this category might be mistakenly switched with the category of the wife of his father’s father, which does not have a conclusion. With regard to the wife of his father, the prohibition applies equally to the wife of all ancestors in the father’s line. Therefore, according to Rav, the Sages also included the ancestors of the mother’s father’s wife as secondary forbidden relationships. The Gemara asks: And why is Ze’eiri not concerned that the two categories will become confused? The Gemara answers: He is often found there, in his father’s father’s home, and goes there frequently, but here, to his mother’s household, he is not commonly found to go. Since he goes to his father’s home frequently, he knows that his father’s relatives are forbidden to him, and he will not confuse them with his mother’s relatives. Among the women enumerated by Rav is his daughter-in-law. The Gemara asks: Is this relationship not forbidden by Torah law? As it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law” (Leviticus 18:15). The Gemara emends: Say instead his son’s daughter-in-law. The Gemara asks: And does the prohibition against having a relationship with his son’s daughter-in-law indeed have a conclusion? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: His daughter-in-law is a forbidden relation by Torah law, his son’s daughter-in-law is a secondary forbidden relation, and similarly, you say the daughter-in-law of his son and the daughter-in-law of his son’s son until the end of all generations are secondary forbidden relationships. Rather, say instead that Rav was referring to his daughter’s daughter-in-law. As Rav Ḥisda said: I heard this matter from a great man, and who was that great man? It was Rabbi Ami, and he said: They prohibited a daughter-in-law only due to the daughter-in-law. Rav Ḥisda heard this in his youth but did not understand the meaning. The Chaldean astrologers said to me: You will be a teacher. Rav Ḥisda further said: I said to myself: If the astrologers meant that I will become a great man and one who teaches the public, I will certainly be able to reason and understand this matter with my knowledge. If the astrologers meant that I will become the teacher of children, I will ask it of the Sages who come to the synagogue and in that way I will learn the meaning of Rabbi Ami’s teaching. Now I understand the matter on my own. Rabbi Ami meant: They prohibited his daughter’s daughter-in-law only due to his son’s daughter-in-law, to avoid confusion between these daughters-in-law. The rabbinic decree prohibited one’s daughter’s daughter-in-law but did not extend to subsequent generations. Various Sages proceed to give contemporary examples of families where the halakhic status of the daughters-in-law of the sons and the daughters-in-law of the daughters could be confused with each other. Abaye said to Rava: I will explain to you with an example how one might become confused about these daughters-in-law. For example, this would be possible in the case of the daughter-in-law of the house of bar Tzitai, as there the children of the sons and the daughters of the same family lived together, and it was possible to confuse the halakhic status of the sons’ daughters-in-law and the daughters’ daughters-in-law. Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba. Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Mari bar Isak. § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to the wife of one’s mother’s maternal half brother? The Gemara presents the different sides of the question: Both the wife of one’s father’s maternal half brother and the wife of one’s mother’s paternal half brother contain some aspect of a father, and perhaps this is the reason that the Sages enacted a prohibition. That is, they were both forbidden rabbinically to avoid confusion with the case of the wife of one’s father’s paternal half brother, who is forbidden by Torah law. But in the case of the wife of one’s mother’s maternal half brother, where there is no aspect of a father whatsoever, perhaps the Sages did not make a decree? Or perhaps this case is no different? Rav Safra said: She herself, the wife of the mother’s paternal half brother, is forbidden by rabbinic decree, and will we then proceed to issue a decree to prevent violation of a decree? Rava said: Is that to say that all of these rabbinic decrees with regard to secondary relations are not decrees to prevent violation of a decree? For example, his mother is a forbidden relation by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that his mother’s mother is a secondary forbidden relationship. And they decreed that his father’s mother is also a secondary forbidden relationship due to his mother’s mother. And what is the reason? They are all called the house of the grandmother, and therefore people may confuse their halakhic status. Rava continues: Similarly, his father’s wife is a forbidden relation by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that his father’s father’s wife is a secondary forbidden relationship. And they decreed that his mother’s father’s wife is also a secondary forbidden relationship due to his father’s father’s wife. And what is the reason? They are all called the house of the grandfather. Also, the wife of his father’s paternal half brother, his uncle, who is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Leviticus 18:16), is a forbidden relation by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that the wife of his father’s maternal half brother is a secondary forbidden relationship. And they decreed that the wife of his mother’s paternal half brother is also a secondary forbidden relationship due to the wife of his father’s maternal half brother. And what is the reason? It is because they are all called the house of the uncle; it seems that in the realm of forbidden relations the Sages did issue decrees to prevent violation of a decree, and Rav Safra’s claim is incorrect. If so, then what is the halakha in this case of the wife of his mother’s maternal half brother? Come and hear: As when Rav Yehuda bar Sheila came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say this principle: For every female relative who is a forbidden relation by Torah law, the Sages decreed on the wife of the equivalent male relative due to her similarity to a secondary forbidden relationship. And Rava said: Is this really an established principle? Isn’t his mother-in-law a forbidden relation by Torah law, while his father-in-law’s wife is permitted? Also, his mother-in-law’s daughter is a forbidden relation by Torah law, as she is his wife’s sister, yet his mother-in-law’s son’s wife is permitted. His father-in-law’s daughter is a forbidden relation by Torah law, yet the wife of his father-in-law’s son is permitted. His stepdaughter is a forbidden relation by Torah law, yet his stepson’s wife is permitted. His stepdaughter’s daughter, i.e., his wife’s granddaughter, is a forbidden relation, yet the wife of his stepson’s son is permitted. The Gemara continues: If so, what did that statement of Rav Yehuda bar Sheila come to include? Since his principle is not true in every case, it must be intended to include a specific halakha. Does it not come to include the case of the wife of one’s mother’s maternal half brother, since for every female relative who is a forbidden relation by Torah law, such as his mother’s maternal half sister, the Sages decreed on the wife of the equivalent male relative, in this case his mother’s maternal half brother’s wife, due to her similarity to a secondary relation. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to these cases, the wife of his father-in-law or the wife of his mother-in-law’s son, who are permitted, and this case of the wife of a mother’s maternal half brother, who is prohibited? The Gemara answers: This, the wife of a mother’s maternal half brother, is related by a single act of betrothal. One’s mother’s brother is a blood relative, and his wife is therefore a secondary relation. In contrast, these other cases with regard to which the Sages did not issue a decree are related only when there are two acts of betrothal. For example, one’s father-in-law is related to one through one’s marriage to his own wife, and his father in law’s wife is related to him through his father-in-law’s marriage. § Rav Mesharshiyya from Tusneya sent a message to Rav Pappi: Let our Master teach us: What is the halakha with regard to the wife of a father’s father’s brother and the sister of a father’s father? Did the Sages prohibit these as secondary forbidden relations? The Gemara presents the different sides of the dilemma: Since one generation below is a forbidden relation, i.e., a father’s sister and the wife of a father’s paternal brother, who are both forbidden by Torah law, perhaps the Sages also decreed about the women one generation above. Or, perhaps the generations are separate and the women in the generation above are not considered to be forbidden relatives. The Gemara attempts to answer: Come and hear from that baraita cited above, which taught: What are the secondary forbidden relationships that were prohibited? And these women, i.e., the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and the sister of his father’s father were not reckoned among them. This implies that these women are permitted. The Gemara replies that this is not conclusive. Perhaps the tanna of the baraita taught some examples and omitted other examples of secondary forbidden relations; i.e., perhaps the list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? It cannot be that the tanna had an exhaustive list except for one case. He either left out more than one case or he included all possible cases. The Gemara answers: He omitted the list of secondary forbidden relationships that were enumerated by the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, which is listed later. Therefore, this baraita is not conclusive, as the tanna left out many cases. The Gemara states that Ameimar permitted the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and the sister of one’s father’s father. Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi, challenging Ameimar’s statement: I myself saw a list of secondary forbidden relationships written by Mar, son of Rabbana, and it was written there that sixteen women were forbidden. What, is it not that these sixteen must be the eight cases listed in the baraita, and six from the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and these two cases of the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and one’s father’s father’s sister, and this totals sixteen? Rav Ashi defended Ameimar’s opinion: And according to your reasoning, Rav Hillel, that these cases should be included, there are seventeen cases, as there is the additional case of the wife of a mother’s maternal half brother, whose status was resolved earlier, concluding that she is forbidden. If it is as you say, then there should be seventeen cases. The Gemara answers on behalf of Rav Hillel: This is not difficult.