Eduyot 7

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:

R. Yehoshua and R. Tzaddok testified about the redemption (lamb) [which one set aside for the redemption of the firstling of an ass], which (lamb) died, that the Cohein has no claim in it. For R. Eliezer says: He (the owner) is liable to restore it, as [he is liable to restore (if they were lost)] the five selaim for [the redemption of his (first-born) son.] And the sages say: He is not liable to restore it, but it is like the (lost) redemption (money) for the second tithe, [which the Torah required him (to spend on food) to eat in Jerusalem — but he has lost it! The rationale of R. Eliezer: We find that the Torah compared the redemption of the firstling of an ass to (that of) the first-born son of a man, it being written (Exodus 34:20): "And the firstling of an ass shall you redeem with a lamb … All the first-born of your sons shall you redeem." And the sages say: It is written (Numbers 18:15): "But redeem shall you redeem the first-born of the man, and the first-born of the unclean beast (an ass) shall you redeem" — I have likened it (to a man) for purposes of redemption, and not for other things.]

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

R. Tzaddok testified about the brine of unclean locusts that it is clean. For an earlier Mishnah (taught): Unclean locusts which were pickled with clean locusts do not invalidate their brine. [They were lenient in respect to unclean locusts not to forbid their admixture, for they have no blood, but only a kind of moistness. This was the first Mishnah. And the testimony of R. Tzaddok added to this Mishnah to say that it is clean. Not only does it not forbid its admixture, but it itself is clean.]

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

R. Tzaddok testified — that they are kosher — about running waters [zochalin viz. (Deuteronomy 32:24): "zochalei afar" ("the 'crawlers' in the dust"), which, halachically, are equivalent to a well, which purifies with any amount of running water, and which are kosher for the consecration of the waters of the sin-offering (the red heifer) and for the immersion of zavim], which (zochalin) (intermixed with and) "outnumbered" the notfim ["dripping waters," like rain water, which, halachically, is like a mikveh, which purifies, with forty sa'ah and in an eshboren (a water collection pit), and which are unfit for the consecration of the waters of the sin-offering, not being "living waters," and likewise, for the immersion of zavim — When the running waters have mixed with the dripping waters and "outnumbered" the dripping waters, they are halachically like running waters and are kosher for the consecration of the waters of purification (of the red heifer) and for the immersion of zavim, and they cleanse, as running waters do, with any amount.] It (such an "outnumbering") once occurred in Biryath Hapilya, and they brought it to the attention of the sages, who pronounced them (the waters) kosher.

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

R. Tzaddok testified — that they are kosher — about zochalin which were made to jet through the leaf of a nut [i.e., the outer shell of a nut, the green shell. If, when it was moist, he made it like a tube through which the zochalim would run and jet outside of it, the jetted waters are halachically zochalim, and they are kosher for the waters of purification (the red heifer), and the immersion of zavim. And we do not say that since they entered through this shell, which acts as a receptacle through which they are jetted out, they are not halachically zochalin — for that shell is not considered a vessel.] This once happened in Ahalya, and it came before the lishkath hagazith (the seat of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem), and they ruled it kosher.

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:

R. Yehoshua and R. Yakim Ish Hadar testified about the [earthen] pitcher of the (ashes of) purification (of the red heifer), which was placed upon a sheretz (a creeping thing), that it [i.e., what it contains, (the ashes)] is tamei. [The pitcher itself does not become tamei, for an earthenware vessel does not contract tumah from the outside. Still, the ashes are tamei, it being written (Numbers 19:9): "And he shall place it outside the encampment in a clean place." [(For R. Eliezer had ruled it clean, holding that since the vessel containing it was clean, it could be called "a clean place." The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.)] R. Papiyas testified about one who resumed two [unqualified] Naziritisms [and every unqualified Naziritism lasts for thirty days] that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second on the sixtieth day. [For ab initio, he should shave on the thirty-first day, so that his Naziritism be thirty whole days; but if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has satisfied his Naziritism for we say that "part of the day is like the whole day." And if he shaves on the fifty-ninth day, he has satisfied (his Naziritism), for the thirtieth day is reckoned as part of the counting (for the second Naziritism). [That is, the thirtieth day of the first Naziritism counts for both reckonings. And since the thirtieth day of the first Naziritism is counted also as (the first day of) the second Naziritism, it is found that the thirty days of the second Naziritism end on the fifty-ninth day.]

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:

R. Yehoshua and R. Papyas testified about the offspring of a shelamim (peace-offering) that it is sacrificed as a shelamim. For R. Eliezer says that the offspring of a shelamim is not sacrificed as a shelamim, [but it is placed into the stable (and left there) until it dies — a decree; for if you say that the offspring of a shelamim has amendment (by being sacrificed), he will come to delay the (sacrifice of the) mother until she gives birth, and raise flocks of offspring and come to shear (their wool) and work them]. And the sages say (that the offspring of a shelamim) is sacrificed. R. Papyas said: I testify that we had a cow for a shelamim (sacrifice), which we ate on Pesach, and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Shavuoth. For if he waited until Succoth he would be in transgression of the positive commandment, viz. (Deuteronomy 12: 5-6): "…and you shall come there… and you shall bring there," the implication being that the first festival that you come there (after the vow), bring there all the vows binding upon you. (However, he is not in transgression of [Ibid. 23:22]: "…you shall not delay to pay it" until three festivals have passed.)]

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 that the aruchoth [(the long, flat, wooden ranging boards of bakers on which they range loaves of bread for baking), "a (aleph) ruchoth" ("boards") like "a (ayin) ruchoth" ("ranged")] are tamei [susceptible, rabbinically, of acquiring tumah. For though, according to the Torah, flat boards are not thus susceptible, the Rabbis decreed that they are (viz. Kelim, Chapter II)]. For R. Eliezer ruled them clean, [holding that they are not considered vessels at all, not even like flat wooden vessels. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]

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

Menachem b. Signai testified about the rim of the vat of the boilers of olives that it is tamei; and of dyers, that it is tahor. For there were those that said the opposite. [The olive boilers and the dyers used to have large vats on whose rims they placed a border of clay to contain the water when it boiled over. That (i.e., the rim) of the olive boilers was tamei because that addition was needed for the vessel and was used; and the Torah stated in respect to an oven or a stove (Leviticus 11:31): "They shall be unclean to you" — "to you," to all that you need; that is, the thing in the vessel that you need and use — it is that which is susceptible of tumah. ("and of dyers, that it is tahor":) The dyers do not make use of that addition, for they are afraid that it will spoil their dye.]

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:

R. Yochanan b. Gudgeda testified that a deaf-mute whose father married her is given a divorce. [Even though she was a bona-fide married woman, her father having accepted her betrothal when she was a minor, still, she is given a get, and she receives her get when she is a deaf-mute, even though her consent is lacking. For a woman can be divorced perforce, so that her consent is not required.]; and (he testified) that the minor daughter of an Israelite [an orphan, whose marriage is rabinically (and not Scripturally) sanctioned] eats terumah [rabbinically mandated terumah, this not being decreed against by reason of (the possibility of her coming to eat) Scripturally mandated terumah]; and that if she died, her husband inherits her; and that if one built a beam that he had stolen into a building, monetary reimbursements is sufficient, [for the good of the penitent; for if he were required to raze his building and return the beam itself, he would be deterred from repenting.]; and that a stolen sin-offering which was not known to the public [as being stolen] atones [and another need not be brought], for "the good of the altar," [that the Cohanim not be distressed by (the thought of) having eaten chullin (non-consecrated food) from (an animal) slaughtered in the azarah (the Temple court) and the altar be "deserted," the Cohanim refraining from performing the (sacrificial) service.]