16 (16) and he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Yisra᾽el, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting, that remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

(17) And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, until he comes out, and have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Yisra᾽el.

(18) And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

(19) And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Yisra᾽el.

(20) And when he has made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat:

(21) and Aharon shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Yisra᾽el, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness:

22 (16) And thou shalt be profaned by thyself in the sight of the nations, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.

(17) And the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

(18) Son of man, the house of Yisra᾽el is to me become dross: all of them, brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.

(19) Therefore thus says the Lord God; Because you are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Yerushalayim.

(20) As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in my anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you.

(21) And I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and you shall be melted in the midst of it.

26 (3) A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.

(4) Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest thou become like him thyself.

(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

(6) He that sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet, and drinks in damage.

(7) Like the legs of a lame man which hang useless, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

(8) As one who binds a stone in a sling, so is he that gives honour to a fool.

1. In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

2. With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male. With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.

3. In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.

4. With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father’s lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.

5. With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.

6. With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support. If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

7. With regard to one who divides his property between various recipients by means of verbal instruction, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of one who is healthy and in the case of one who is dangerously ill, the halakha is as follows: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, by a deed of transfer, or by taking possession of it. And that which does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed. Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands, as he cannot write, and the Sages instituted that he can effect the transaction verbally lest the inability to do so exacerbate his condition. But a verbal instruction does not stand if stated on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat, the Sages stated that his verbal instruction is sufficient, even though writing is prohibited. One can infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can perform the act of acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult, who is able to perform the act of acquisition himself.

8. A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son’s inheriting his father’s property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father’s heirs receive half of his property and the son’s creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father’s heirs.

9. If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract. Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.

10. If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?

The mishna teaches: And if she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that since it is praiseworthy for her to enhance the property on behalf of the orphans, as people will say: See how she toils for the orphans, she relinquishes her right to the profits and they should divide them equally. The mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of one who marries a woman to his eldest son and arranges the wedding feast in a house that he designated for the purpose of the wedding canopy and the wedding feast, the son acquires the house as a gift. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha specifically in the case of the eldest son, and specifically if he is marrying a virgin, and specifically when this woman is his first wife, and specifically when the father married him off first among his sons. When all these conditions exist, it is presumed that the father has a particular fondness toward the son, due to which he gave him the house.

The Gemara clarifies the details of this halakha: It is obvious that if his father designated a house for the son’s nuptials and there is an upper story above the house, the son acquired the house, but he did not acquire the upper story. If he designated a house for the son, and there is a portico [ve’akhsadra] in front of the house, what is the halakha? If there were two houses, one within the other, and the inner one was designated for the son’s nuptials, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These questions shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If his father designated a house and furniture for his son’s nuptials, the son acquired the furniture, but he did not acquire the house. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is referring to a case where his father’s storeroom was placed there. It is clear that just as his father did not intend to give him the storeroom, neither did he intend to give him the house. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even if there is only a dovecote in the house that belongs to the father, the son does not acquire the house. Rav Yehuda and Rav Pappi say: Even if there is only a pot [atzitza] of small fried fish, the son does not acquire the house. Mar Zutra married off his son, and hung a sandal in the house, to indicate that he did not intend to give the house as a gift. Rav Ashi married off his son, and hung a jug [ashisha] of oil in the house.

Mar Zutra says: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a halakha without any explanation of their process, i.e., they instituted these enactments despite the fact that the mechanism by which they function is unclear: One is this halakha with regard to the son acquiring the house designated for his nuptials. Another is that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes a deed granting all of his property to his wife renders her only a steward of his property, i.e., he intends only to put her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. Another is that which Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person acquires it, without need of witnesses or a formal act of acquisition.

And behold that the desire placed in the heart of man is the root of all of his actions. Therefore, if he refines the desire - instead of all the limbs serving it, he will draw them after the intellect. So they will accompany him and serve him; and all of his actions will be proper, as it is stated (Proverbs 21:8), "but he is pure and straight in his actions." (And it appears to me that he is understanding, "but he is pure," [as] meaning to say, that he is pure from desire; "and straight in his actions," [as] all of his actions are assumed to be refined and straight. And that is something that can be learned from its [context], as its opposite is written after it - "The desire of the wicked is set upon evil" [Proverbs 21:10].) And it is [also] stated (Proverbs 13:19), "Desire niheyeh is sweet to the spirit." Niheyeh [here] is like broken, as [its usage in] (Daniel 8:27), "I was broken (niheyeti), and languished." It is stating that when a man breaks his desire - even for things that are permissible - it renders his spirit successful. So this trait is sweet to it. For the intellect raises its hand and is victorious. "But to turn away from evil is abhorrent to the stupid" (Proverbs 21:8): The stupid, who do not break their desire but rather always pursue the desires of people - when their desire confronts them [to do a] sin or any bad thing, they will not veer from it. And they are called stupid because of [their] pursuit of pleasures - as it is stated (Proverbs 21:20), "and a stupid man will swallow them." And it is stated (Isaiah 5:11-12), "Ah, those who chase liquor from early in the morning, etc. Who have lyre and lute, etc.; but who never give a thought to the plan of the Lord, etc." And it is [also] stated (Proverbs 13:25), "but the belly of the wicked is empty." And it is [further] stated (Malachi 2:3), "and I will strew dung upon your faces, the dung of your festivals." And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 151b), "These are people for which all their days are like festivals." And it states (Proverbs 18:1), "He who isolates himself pursues his desires; he disdains all competence." Its explanation is, one who seeks to go after his desire and his will, will be isolated from any friend or countryman. As admirers and companions will distance themselves them from him, since the desires and measures of people are [all] different - the will of this one is not like the will of that one. However if he will follow the path of the intellect, many friends will join themselves to him and his admirers will be many. And they said regarding ethics, one who [insists] upon his measures will have many [against] him. And it is possible to explain, "He who isolates himself pursues his desires," about this matter itself: A man is isolated from every brother and friend, by the desire that he seeks. And since he seeks to go after his will - because of that, his companions distance themselves from him. [It is] like the matter [of], "but a poor man loses his friend" (Proverbs 19:4). "He disdains all competence": One who follows his desires will not only sin in one thing. Rather he will disdain every thing in the Torah, since he will transgress all of it - like the wording (of Proverbs 20:3), "but every fool disdains."

And there is another benefit to his breaking his physical desire: That if his desire asks him for something wicked and sinful, he will say to his heart, "Look, I do not fulfill my desire with the permissible; so how could I reach my hand out for the forbidden?"

And you will also find [another] big and great benefit in breaking desire: For he will reveal his true heart and goodly desire for repentance. As he is disgusted by the nature that caused him to sin. And through this, he will become acceptable to God, may He be blessed, and find favor in His eyes. And it is accordingly written (Psalms 51:19), "True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit; God, You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart." The contrite spirit is a lowly and submissive spirit; and a broken heart is [speaking] about the breaking of physical desire - for desire is placed into the heart, as it is stated (Psalms 21:3), "You have granted him the desire of his heart." And this verse (51:19) is stated in the psalm of repentance. And from its stating, "You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart," we learn that a penitent becomes acceptable to God, through the breaking of his physical desire, and that this is from the principles of repentance. And it is also stated about the matter of repentance (Isaiah 57:15), "reviving the spirits of the lowly, reviving the hearts of the contrite."