1. A boil or a burn may become unclean in a week and by two signs: by white hair or by a spreading. What is a "boil"? An injury received from wood, stone, peat, or the waters of Tiberias, of from any other object whose heat is not due to fire is a boil. What exactly is a "burn"? A burn caused by a live coal, hot embers, or any object whose heat is due to fire is a burning.

2. A boil and a burn do not combine, nor do they spread from one to the other, nor do they spread from there to the skin of the flesh, nor does [a nega] on the skin of the flesh spread to them. If they were festering they are clean. If they formed a scale as thick as garlic peel, such is the scar of the boil that is spoken of in the Torah. If they were subsequently healed, even though there was a mark in their place, they are regarded as the skin of the flesh.

3. They asked R. Eliezer: "[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?" He replied: "He should be isolated." They said to him: "Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?" He replied, "It is possible that it will contract and then spread again." They said to him, "But what about when its only the size of a split bean?' He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, "Can I teach something about this?" He replied, "If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead." He said, "Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: "You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages."

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: For what reason does the Torah say that a menstruating woman is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband for seven days? It is because if a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too accustomed to her, and would eventually be repulsed by her. Therefore, the Torah says that a menstruating woman shall be ritually impure for seven days, during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, so that when she becomes pure again she will be dear to her husband as at the time when she entered the wedding canopy with him.

§ The students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For what reason is it the norm that a man pursues a woman for marriage, but a woman does not pursue a man? Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing a parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what? Certainly the owner of the lost item searches for his item; the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost.

And the students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: For what reason does a man engage in intercourse facing down, and a woman engage in intercourse facing up toward the man? Rabbi Dostai answered them: This man faces the place from which he was created, i.e., the earth, and that woman faces the place from which she was created, namely man.

And the students also inquired: For what reason is a man who is angry likely to accept appeasement, but a woman is not as likely to accept appeasement? Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is because this man behaves like the place from which he was created, i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, and that woman behaves like the place from which she was created, i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.

The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: For what reason is a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant? He answered: This man is similar to the place from which he was created, the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, and that woman is similar to the place from which she was created, a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is that it is stated in Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: “For sweet is your voice, and your countenance is beautiful” (Song of Songs 2:14).

One who traps something from a species which it is its way to be trapped is liable – for example wild animals, birds and fish. And that is when he traps them into a place that does not lack [complete] trapping. How is this? For example, [if] he chased after a gazelle until he made it go into a house, a garden or a courtyard and he closed [the gate] in front of it; or shooed a bird until he made it go into a closet and closed [the door] in front of it; or scooped fish from the water into a pail of water – he is surely liable. But if he shooed a bird into a house and closed [the door] in front of it; or went after a fish and removed it from the sea into a pool of water; or chased after a gazelle until it entered a broad hall and he closed [the door] in front of it – he is surely exempt, for this is not compete trapping. As if he wants to take it, he will need to chase after it and trap it from there. Hence, one who traps a lion is not liable until he makes it go into its cage in which it is held.

Any space in which if he runs he can reach the wild animal with one dive, or the walls of which are sufficiently close to each other that their shade will overlap in the middle, is surely a small space. So if he ran after a gazelle or that which is similar to it [so that it went] into it, he is liable. But one who runs after a wild animal or bird [so that it goes] into a space that is bigger than this is exempt.

It is the same, whether with the eight swarming animals mentioned in the Torah or with the other repugnant creatures and creeping things the species of which is trapped – one who traps from one of them is liable, as he intended to trap and he trapped. [This is] whether [this is done] for a need or not for a need or to play with them – as [one is even] liable for forbidden work that is not needed for itself. One who traps a sleeping or blind [creature] is liable.

The ninth section: One who honors evildoers in a way of peace. However he does not speak well about the evildoer and does not act to honor him in a way in which people will think that he is honoring him because he is honorable and precious in his eyes. Rather he only shows him respect in the way that people honor the rich, in the way of dignification; and with the hope of benefit, since their path has been successful - and not because of the grace of his arrangement. Nevertheless there is a sin and guilt in this thing. If it is permitted to honor the rich, it is not so with the evildoers - as it is stated (Job 40:11-12), “see every proud man and bring him low. See every proud man and humble him, and bring down the evildoers where they stand.” Nevertheless this section is permitted in the case of worry about something - lest the evildoer injure him and cause him a loss, at the time when the evildoer is strong and his time is brazen; and we do not have the ability to humble him, and to put him him down [with our soldiers]. Hence it is permitted to honor him in the way we honor very intimidating people out of fear and terror, by rising for them, noting them and that which is similar to these. However, one should not praise him, nor speak well about him to people. And likewise did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Sotah 41b), “It is permissible to flatter evildoers in this world.”