Introduction to Mishnah

(1) Shammai says: All women are judged [impure] from the time [they discover that their period has begun]; Hillel says: From the time of [one] examination [to the next] examination, even if [that spans] many days. But the Sages say: Not like the words of [Shammai] and not like the words of [Hillel]; rather, [she is judged impure] from the [day preceding the discovery] if this is less than [the span] between the last examination and the current examination; [she is judged impure] from [the span] between the last examination and the current examination if this is less than [a day preceding the discovery]. [For] all women who have regular periods, the usual onset time of her period is sufficient [to be judged impure]. Using cloth [to clean herself after sexual relations] is considered an examination, and [this act] lessens [either] the preceding day's span or [the span] between the last examination and the current examination.

(2) Shammai says: [Dough] greater than a kav [a measure] [is obligated] in [the law of] challah [setting aside a portion of dough for the priests]. Hillel says: From two kabbim. The Sages say: Not like the words of [Shammai] and not like the words of [Hillel]; rather, one and a half kav is obligated in challah. After they made the measures larger they said: Five quarters are obligated. Rabbi Yossi says: Five are not obligated; five and more are obligated.

(3) Hillel says: A full hin [a measure equal to three kabin] of drawn water renders a ritual bath unfit. One is obligated to transmit [oral traditions] in the language of his master [which explains why Hillel talks of hin and not kav units]. Shammai says: Nine kabin. But the Sages said: Not like the words of [Hillel] and not like the words of [Shammai], until two water drawers came from the dung gate in Jerusalem and testified in the names of Shama'ya and Avtalion: Three logim [a measure equal to a quarter of a hin] of drawn water render a ritual bath unfit; and the Sages upheld [Shama'ya and Avtalion's] words.

(4) Why are the opinions of Hillel and Shammai recorded [only] to be nullified? To teach the generations that one should not be insistent in his/her opinions, for the fathers of the world were not insistent in their opinions.

(5) And why do we record the words of an individual among the many, when the law is [according to] the words of the many? Because if the court sees [fit] the words of the individual, it may rely on them. But a court is not able to nullify the words of a fellow court unless they are greater in wisdom and number [than the fellow court]. If they are greater in wisdom but not number, or in number but not in wisdom, they are not able to nullify its words until they become greater in wisdom and number.

(6) Rabbi Yehudah said: "If so, why do we record the words of an individual among the majority [only] to be nullified? For if a person says "Thus I have received [the law]," another will say to him "You heard it according to the words of So-and-So."

(1) All meat is forbidden to cook with milk, except for the meat of fish and locusts. And it is forbidden to place it with cheese on the table, except for the meat of fish and locusts. One who vows [to abstain] from meat, is permitted to [eat] fish and locusts. "A bird may go on with cheese on the table, but is not eaten," in the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says, "It does not go and it is not eaten." Said Rabbi Yose, "This is [one] of the lenient rulings of Beit Shammai and stringent rulings of Beit Hillel." About which table were they speaking? About a table on which one eats. But for a table where one sets dishes on it, one puts this next to this and does not worry.

(2) A person may bundle meat and cheese in one napkin, a long as they do not touch one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Two lodgers [may] eat on one table - this one [eating meat] and this one cheese, and we are not troubled."

(3) A drop of milk which fell on a piece [of meat], if there is enough of it to give flavor into that piece, it is forbidden. [If] one stirred the pot, if there is enough of it to give flavor to the [contents] of that pot, it is forbidden. The udder: one tears it open and removes its milk. [If] one did not tear it, one does not transgress through it. The heart: one tears it and removes its blood. [If] one did not tear it, one does not transgress through it. One who places a bird with cheese on the table does not transgress on a negative precept.

(4) [A mixture of] the meat of a permitted animal with the milk of a permitted animal is forbidden to cook and forbidden from benefit. [A mixture of] the meat of a permitted animal with the milk of a prohibited animal, [or] [a mixture] of the meat of a prohibited animal with the milk of a permitted animal is permissible to cook and permissible for benefit. Rabbi Akiva says, "Wild animals and birds are not [forbidden in mixtures with milk] from the Torah, as it says, 'You may not cook a kid in its mother's milk,' three times. It exempts the wild animal, the bird, and the prohibited domesticated animal." Rabbi Yose HaGelili says, "It is stated, 'You may not eat any nevelah [an improperly slaughtered animal of a permitted species],' (Deuteronomy 14:21) and it is stated, 'You may not cook a kid in its mother's milk,' (Ibid.). That which [may become] forbidden as nevelah is forbidden to cook with milk. A bird, which [may become] forbidden as a nevelah, one might think that it should be forbidden to cook with milk, [but] the Torah says, "In its mother's milk." This excludes a bird, which does not have mother's milk.

(5) [Milk in] the stomach of [an animal slaughtered] by a non-Jew and of a nevelah is forbidden. One who curdles [milk] in the skin of the stomach of a valid animal, if it [the stomach] has [a sufficient amount] to give flavor, it [the milk] is forbidden. A valid animal which nursed from a terefah [an animal with a mortal condition such that it would die within one year], [the milk in] its stomach is forbidden. A terefah which nursed from a valid animal, [the milk in] its stomach is permitted since it is collected in its insides.

(6) The stringency of chelev [fats around the stomach, intestines, and kidneys of some animals which are forbidden for eating] over blood and the stringency of blood over chelev: the stringency of chelev is that one may commit me'ilah [misuse of consecrated property] with it, and one is liable for it [under the laws] of piggul [a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to the intention of the officiating priest, while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time], notar [a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to being left unconsumed until after the time limit for its consumption], and impurity, which is not the case with blood. The stringency of blood is that [the prohibition of eating] blood applies to a domesticated animal, a wild animal, and a bird, whether permitted or prohibited, while [the prohibition of eating] chelev only applies to permitted, domesticated animals.

(1) [There are] four categories of damages: The ox, the pit, the grazer, and the fire. The [characteristics] of the ox are not similar to the [characteristics] of the grazer. And the [characteristics] of the grazer are not similar to the [characteristics] of the ox. Nor are either of these, which have a living spirit, similar to the fire, which has no living spirit. Nor are any of these, which move and do damage, similar to the pit, which does not move and does damage. What is common among them is that they do damage, and the responsibility for their supervision is upon you. And when they do damage, the damager must pay from the best of the land.

(4) Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger. What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and guardian).

(1) In which cases is a foot [considered] warned about breaking caused by normal walking? An animal is [considered] warned to walk normally and to break [things]. If it kicks or pebbles are scattered from under its feet and and it breaks vessels, [the owner] pays half the damage. If it stepped on a vessel and broke it, and [then] it fell on a vessel and broke it, for the first [vessel] he pays full damage, and for the last [vessel] he pays half the damage. Chickens are [considered] warned to walk normally and to break. If a bucket was tied to its foot, or if it hopped and broke vessels, he pays half the damage.

(2) In what way is the category of "tooth" presumed to be dangerous? It is expected to eat what is fit for it. An animal is presumed to eat fruits and vegetables. If it eats clothing or utensils [various items], the owner must pay half the damages. In what context is this true? - in the domain of the damaged. However, if it happened in the public domain, the owner would be exempt; except, that is, for the amount of money the owner has now saved in feed cost for the animal, which he should pay back to the damaged party. When is this true? - If the animal ate in the middle of the street, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back. But if the animal ate from the side of the street, then the owner must pay full damages. If the animal ate from the entrance of a store, then only that which the owner saved in food-costs need be paid back. But if the animal ate from the store itself, then the owner must pay full damages.

(1) How do witnesses become [given the punishment due to] zomemin [scheming witnesses]? [If witnesses said,] "We testify that such and such man [who was thought to be Kohen] is the son of a divorced woman" or "the son of a chalutzah [a women to whom levirate marriage has been declined]," we do not say that [as punishment, each scheming witness] is designated as the son of a divorced woman or the son of a chalutzah in their place [the falsely accused]. Rather, [each scheming witness] is given forty lashes. [If witnesses said,] "We testify that such and such man is liable to be exiled [to an Ir Miklat, City of Refuge, for accidentally killing somebody]," we do not say that [each scheming witness] should be exiled in their place [the falsely accused]. Rather, [each scheming witness] is given forty lashes. [If witnesses said,] "We testify that such and such man divorced his wife and has not given her her Ketubah [the sum promised in the event of death or divorce]"; since in either way, he [the accused], will eventually give her, her Ketubah [because he will die or they will get divorced], we [therefore] assess how much a man would pay for this woman's Ketubah, given the chance that were she widowed or divorced [she would receive the money], whereas if she dies [before her husband] he inherits her [property, including the sum of the Ketubah]. [If witnesses said,] "We testify that such and such a man owes his fellow one thousand zuz [specific unit of weight] to be repaid within thirty days," and he [the accused] says [he must repay his loan] within ten years, we assess how much one would be willing to pay to have in his hand one thousand zuz, [evaluating the difference] between [that quantity when the loan] is to be repaid within thirty days and [that quantity when the loan] is to be repaid within ten years.

(2) [Witnesses who say,] "We testify that such and such a man owes his fellow two hundred zuz" and are found to be zomemin, receive lashes and must pay [the amount they testified about], for the Biblical verse that brings upon them [the witnesses] lashes does brings upon them [the requirement to make] restitution. [This is]the view of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, whoever makes restitution does not receive lashes.

(3) [Witnesses who say,] "We testify that such and such a man is liable [for a prohibition incurred] forty lashes" and are found to be zomemin, receive eighty lashes, [forty] on account of [the verse,] "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor," (Exodus 20:12), and [forty] on account of "Then shall you do unto him, as he had purposed to do." (Deuteronomy 19:19) [This is] the view of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, they only receive forty lashes. Monetary [compensation] may be divided up, but lashes cannot be divided up. How so? If they testified that one owed his fellow two hundred zuz and were found to be zomemin, they may divide between themselves [the sum they owe to the one they conspired against]. But if they testified that he was liable [for a prohibition incurring] forty lashes and were found to be zomemin, each one of them incurres forty lashes.

(3) On that very day they said: What is the status [of the lands] of Ammon and Moav on the Seventh [the Sabbatical year of agrarian rest]? Rabbi Tarphon decreed: [those residing in those lands must pay] tithes for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria decreed: [they must bring] ma'aser sheini [the second tithe of produce, which must be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there]. Rabbi Yishmael said, "Elazar ben Azaria, the onus is upon you to prove your assertion, for you rule stringently, and anyone who rules more stringently, the onus is upon him to bring proof!" Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said to him, "Yishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the regular order of the years [with regard to the series indicating which tithes one is obligated to bring each year], but my brother Tarphon has deviated, therefore the onus to bring proof rests upon him!" Rabbi Tarphon responded, "Egypt is outside of the land [of Israel], and Ammon and Moav are outside of the land [of Israel]; just as Egypt [has a requirement that its inhabitants pay] tithes for the poor during the Seventh [the Sabbatical year], so too Ammon and Moav [should require their inhabitant to likewise pay] tithes for the poor during the Seventh." Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria responded, "Babylon is outside of the land [of Israel], and Ammon and Moav are outside of the land [of Israel]; just as Babylon [pays] ma'aser sheni during the Seventh, so too Ammon and Moav [should likewise pay] ma'aser sheini during the Seventh." Rabbi Tarphon said, "Egypt, being near [to the land of Israel], was made [to require the payment of] tithes for the poor, so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the Seventh; so too Ammon and Moav, which are near [the land of Israel], are made [to require the payment of] tithes for the poor, so that the poor of Israel may be supported by them during the Seventh." Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said to him, "You thereby are like one who provides them with increased money, yet truly only loses souls! Would you defraud the heavens from sending down neither dew nor rain, as it is said (Malachi 3:8), 'Shall a man defraud God? For you have defrauded Me. Yet you say: Through what have we defrauded You? Through tithes and terumah.'" Rabbi Yehoshua said, "I will thereby respond as to my brother Tarphon [i.e. expanding on his reasoning], although not regarding the [specific] matter of which he spoke: [the decree regarding the status of] Egypt is a new enactment, [whereas that regarding] Babylon is an old enactment, and the matter in question before us is a new enactment; let a conclusion regarding a new enactment be drawn from a new enactment, and do not let a conclusion regarding a new enactment be drawn from an old enactment! [Moreover, the decree regarding the status of] Egypt is an enactment of the elders, [whereas that regarding] Babylon is an enactment of the prophets, and the matter in question before us is an enactment of the elders; let a conclusion regarding an enactment of the elders be drawn from an enactment of the elders, and do not let a conclusion regarding an enactment of the elders be drawn from an enactment of the prophets!" They [the Sages] voted and concluded: [The lands of] Ammon and Moav must tithe the tithes for the poor during the Seventh. When Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit came to Rabbi Eliezer in Lod, he said to him, "What innovative idea was there among you in the Beit Midrash today?" He said to him, "They voted and concluded that Ammon and Moav must tithe the tithes for the poor during the Seventh." Rabbi Eliezer wept and exclaimed, (Psalms 25:14) "'The secrets of the Lord are for those who fear Him, and His covenant to be made known to them!' Go forth and tell them, 'Think nothing of your vote! I have a received tradition from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his rabbi, and his rabbi from his rabbi, up to the law of Moshe from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab tithe the tithes for the poor during the Seventh.'"

(4) On that very day, Yehuda, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the Beit Midrash, and said to them, "What is my status with regard to whether I can enter [via marriage] into the congregation [of Israel]?" Rabban Gamliel said to him, "You are prohibited." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "You are permitted." Rabban Gamliel said to him, "The verse says, (Deuteronomy 23:4) 'An Ammonite and a Moavite may not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation,' and so forth." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "And are the Ammonites or Moavites still [dwelling] in their own place? Sancheriv, king of Assyria, already arose and blended all the nations, as the verse says, (Isaiah 10:13) 'I have removed the borders of nations, and I have plundered their treasures, and like a great warrior laid low the inhabitants.'" Rabban Gamliel said to him, "The verse [also] states, (Jeremiah 49:6) 'And afterwards I shall return the captives of the children of Ammon,' and they are already returned." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "The verse [also] states, (Amos 9:14) 'And I shall return the captives of my nation Israel,' [and Judah], and they are not yet returned." They [the Sages, subsequently] permitted him [the Ammonite convert] to enter into the congregation.

(5) The [Aramaic] translations which are in [the books of] Ezra and Daniel render the hands impure. [Aramaic] translations written in Hebrew, and Hebrew written in translation or in [ancient] Hebrew characters, do not render the hands impure. They [i.e. sacred Scriptures] never render impurity, unless they are written in Assyrian [i.e. square] characters, on parchment, and with ink.

(6) The Sadducees say: We denounce you, Pharisees! For you say that holy Scriptures render the hands impure, but the books of Homer [literally: Hameiras, i.e. secular books] do not render the hands impure. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said "And is this alone all we have [to object to] over Pharisees? For they also say that the bones of a donkey are pure, but the bones of Yochanan the high priest are impure." They [the Sadducees] said to him, "In accordance with their love is their impurity, so that one does not fashion the bones of his father or his mother into spoons." He said to them, "So too regarding the sacred Scriptures; in accordance with their love is their impurity; and the books Homer, which are not beloved, do not render the hands impure."

(7) The Sadducees say: We denounce you, Pharisees, for you declare pure the stream [which flows when a liquid is poured from a clean vessel into an unclean one]! The Pharisees say: We denounce you, Sadducees, for you declare pure a channel of water which flows from a cemetery! The Sadducees say: We denounce you, Pharisees, for you say, if my ox or my donkey cause any damage, I am liable [to compensate], but if my manservant or maidservant cause any damage, I am exempt [from compensating]! Just as with regard to my ox and my donkey, with which I am not obligated to perform any mitzvot, and I am thereby [still] liable [to compensate] for damages, does it not follow with regard to my manservant or maidservant, with whom I am obligated to perform mitzvot, that I should be liable [to compensate] for damages [which they cause]?! They [the Pharisees] said to them, "No. If [i.e. just because] you stated this [law] with regard to my ox or my donkey, which do not have cognitive capabilities, would you say this with regard to my manservant or maidservant who do have cognitive capabilities?!" For [if that logical leap is made], if I offend [one of] them, he may go and set fire to another's [grain] pile, and I will be liable to pay for damages!"

(8) A Galilean Sadducee said, "I denounce you, Pharisees, for you inscribe [the name of] the sovereign alongside [the name of] Moshe on a bill of divorce! The Pharisees say: We denounce you, Galilean Sadducee, for you inscribe [the name of] the sovereign alongside the [Divine] Name on the [same] page! And not only that, but you inscribe [the name of] the sovereign on the top, and the [Divine] Name on the bottom, as the verse states, (Exodus 5:2) "And Pharaoh said, 'Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to release Israel?'" And what did he says when he was smitten by [by the plagues]? (Exodus 9:11) "The Lord is the Righteous One."

(5) [A female] is always under the authority of her father until she is enters into the authority of her husband through marriage. If the father transferred her to the emissaries of the husband, she is under the authority of the husband. If the father went with the husband's emissaries, or if the father's emissaries went with the husband's emissaries, she is [still] under the father's authority. If the father's emissaries transferred her to the husband's emissaries, she is under the authority of her husband.

(6) The father is not obligated to provide food for his daughter; [as] this textual interpretation [of the following clause in the ketubah] was offered by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah before the Sages in Kerem BeYavneh: "'The sons will inherit, and the daughters will be provided with food.' Just as the sons do not inherit until after the father's death, so too the daughters are not provided with food until after the father's death."

(7) If [the husband] has not signed a ketubah for her, a virgin [bride] receives 200 dinar [a specific unit of money], and a widow [receives] a maneh [100 dinar], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court. If he has signed over to her a field worth 100 zuz [a synonym for a dinar], instead of the 200 zuz, [even if] he did not write the words, "All my other possessions are pledged for your ketubah," he is [nevertheless] obligated, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

(8) If he did not write in her ketubah, "If you are captured I will ransom you, and will take you back as a wife;" or, with regard to the wife of a kohen, "and will bring you back to your land [your father's home]," he is obligated [nevertheless], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

(9) If she was taken captive, he is obligated to ransom her. And if he says, "Here is her document of divorce, and [the amount of] her ketubah, let her ransom herself [at her own expense]," he is not allowed [to do so]. If she gets injured, he is obligated to [pay for] her [to be] healed. [However, if] he says, "Here is her document of divorce, and [the amount of] her ketubah, let her heal herself [at her own expense]," he is allowed [to do so].

(10) If he did not write [in her ketubah], "The male children that you will have with me shall inherit the amount of your ketubah over and above their equal shares [of inheritance] with their brethren," he is, [nonetheless], obligated [in that condition], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

(11) If he did not write [in her ketubah], "The female children that you will have with me shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, until they are betrothed by men," he is, [nonetheless] obligated, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

(12) [If he did not write in her ketubah], "You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, as long as you remain a widow in my house," he is, [nonetheless], obligated is [nevertheless] in force, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court. [The above] is what the men of Jerusalem would write [in their ketubot]. The men of the Galilee would write like the men of Jerusalem. [however,] the men of Judea would write "[You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property] until the heirs want to give you [the amount of] your ketubah." Therefore, if the heirs want, they [may] give her [the amount of] her ketubah, and dismiss her.