7ז׳
1 א

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן כְּחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן אֶלָּא כְפִדְיוֹן שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי:

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption (lamb) of a firstborn donkey, that if it died, the priest receives nothing, Whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: the owner must bear the responsibility as with the five selas [in the case] of a [firstborn] son. But the Sages say: he bears no responsibility any more than in the case of the redemption of second tithes.

2 ב

הֵעִיד רַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל צִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים, שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. שֶׁמִּשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים שֶׁנִּכְבְּשׁוּ עִם חֲגָבִים טְהוֹרִים, לֹא פָסְלוּ צִירָן:

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning brine of unclean locusts that it is clean, Whereas the first mishnah [said]: unclean locusts that have been preserved together with clean locusts do not make their brine unfit.

3 ג

הֵעִיד רַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל זוֹחֲלִין שֶׁרַבּוּ עַל הַנּוֹטְפִים, שֶׁהֵם כְּשֵׁרִים. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה בְּבִירַת הַפִּלְיָא, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִכְשִׁירוּהוּ:

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which exceeded in quantity dripping water; that it was valid. There was such a case at Birath Hapilya, and when the case came before the Sages they declared it valid.

4 ד

הֵעִיד רַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל זוֹחֲלִין שֶׁקִּלְּחָן בַּעֲלֵה אֱגוֹז, שֶׁהֵן כְּשֵׁרִים. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה בְאָהֳלְיָא, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, וְהִכְשִׁירוּהוּ:

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which was made to run in a stream through nut-leaves, that it was valid. There was such a case at Ahaliyya, and when the case came before [the Sages in] the Chamber of Hewn Stone they declared it valid.

5 ה

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי יָקִים אִישׁ הֲדַר עַל קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַשֶּׁרֶץ, שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵעִיד רַבִּי פַּפְּיַס עַל מִי שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת, שֶׁאִם גִּלַּח אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים, שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ הַשְּׁנִיָּה יוֹם שִׁשִּׁים. וְאִם גִלַּח יוֹם שִׁשִּׁים חָסֵר אֶחָד, יָצָא, שֶׁיּוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן:

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim, a man of Hadar, testified concerning a jar of ashes of a red heifer which was put over a creeping thing, that they were unclean. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer had pronounced them clean. Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who had vowed two naziriteships, that if he cut his hair after the first one on the thirtieth day, he could cut his hair after the second one on the sixtieth day; and if he cut his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has also fulfilled his duty, for the thirtieth day counts towards the required number.

6 ו

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיַס עַל וָלָד שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים, שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁוְּלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יִקְרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיַס, אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָרָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַפֶּסַח וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג:

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified concerning the offspring of a peace-offering, that it can be brought as a peace-offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of a peace-offering cannot be brought as a peace-offering. But the sages say: it can be brought. Rabbi Papias said: “I testify that we had a cow, which was a peace-offering, and we ate it at Passover, and its offspring we ate as a peace-offering at the [next] festival.

7 ז

הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל אֲרוּכוֹת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים, שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאוֹת. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל תַּנּוּר שֶׁחִתְּכוֹ חֻלְיוֹת וְנָתַן חֹל בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא, שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְּכָל אֲדָר. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עַד הַפּוּרִים. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִים אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנָאי. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָלַךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מֵהֶגְמוֹן בְּסוּרְיָא וְשָׁהָה לָבֹא, וְעִבְּרוּ אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנַאי לִכְשֶׁיִּרְצֶה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וּכְשֶׁבָּא אָמַר רוֹצֶה אָנִי, וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה מְעֻבָּרֶת:

They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated.

8 ח

הֵעִיד מְנַחֵם בֶּן סִגְנַאי עַל מוּסַף הַיּוֹרָה שֶׁל שׁוֹלְקֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִים שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים:

Menahem ben Signai testified concerning the ledge attached to an olive-boiler’s cauldron, that it is [liable to become] impure; and concerning that of dyers, that it is not [liable to become] impure, whereas they used to say the reverse.

9 ט

הֵעִיד רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶן גֻּדְגְּדָא עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֶת דָּמָיו. וְעַל הַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.