Aligned sentence by sentence
, , .
[The opening words belong to the close of the previous chapter's commentary.] They lie in ambush only for the one who incites a private individual. All these utterances, when one addresses them to a single individual, make the speaker an inciter; but if he addresses them to a community he is not a seducer unless he speaks to them in the language of the plural and says to them, "Let us go and worship idolatry," in accordance with what Scripture says in describing him: "Let us go and serve [other gods]" (Deuteronomy 13:7).
[]
Mishnah 11
, , .
His statement "exempt" means exempt but forbidden, like the exemptions of the Sabbath, and he incurs lashes.
. .
*Chapter Eight.*
[]
Mishnah 1
. , , .
Their euphemism for the pubic hair is "the lower beard"—this being clean language. You should know that these "two hairs" appear only after thirteen years and one day; and whatever is younger than this age is termed a minor, in whom the two hairs are not a [legal] sign but a mere mole. We have explained this matter several times in [tractate] Yevamot.
, , , .
Whenever three months have elapsed after the appearance of the two hairs, he can no longer be made a "stubborn and rebellious son," even if the lower beard has not yet grown—for Scripture says "a son" and not "a father" (Deuteronomy 21:18). After three months he is capable of having a child, since from the moment he produces the two hairs a woman may conceive from him, and within three months her pregnancy becomes manifest. Because during this period he is capable of being a father, he cannot be made a "stubborn and rebellious son."
.
Likewise, once the lower beard has grown, he has [in effect] judged himself, and he cannot be made a "stubborn and rebellious son"—even if it grew immediately in the wake of the appearance of the two hairs.
[]
Mishnah 2
, . .
"Tartemar" is half a maneh. Among its conditions also is that the meat be cooked yet not [fully] cooked, and the wine mixed yet not [fully] mixed.
, . , , , . .
As for his statement "something that is a religious duty"—[this holds] even for a duty of rabbinic origin, such as consoling mourners. And likewise "something that is a transgression," such as his eating on a day of public fast—for Scripture says "he does not obey our voice" (Deuteronomy 21:20), [implying] that in this deed of his there must be nothing other than defiance of his parents alone, not defiance of the [divine] Law. And the law is not according to R. Yose.
[]
Mishnah 3
, , , .
R. Yose means by his statement that he steals from the money set aside for the meal prepared for his father and his mother, or from their property—if his mother has property over which the father has no authority, this being where someone gives it to her as property "on condition that her husband have no authority over it," which is valid.
. .
Among its conditions also is that he himself buy with that stolen money meat and wine cheaply and eat it, in the manner we have described. And the law is not according to R. Yose son of R. Yehuda.
[]
Mishnah 4
, . , , .
"Fit for his father" means that she resemble [his mother] in appearance, in stature, and in voice, in accordance with the words "his father and his mother" (Deuteronomy 21:18). As for his statement "and they warn him before three": he means that he is warned and flogged before three—for a warning before two is like any [other] warning.
. .
And it is a principle of ours that, once a person's sentence has been pronounced, he is [legally] "a slain man" and may be killed wherever he is found. And the law is not according to R. Yehuda.
[]
Mishnah 5
, , , .
"He is judged on account of his end" means that the Torah has testified that one who, at the age of youth and within this defined limit, is given to such gluttony, will in the end inevitably resort to plundering property and shedding blood in order to obtain money with which to do what he is accustomed to do. So God commanded that he be cut off beforehand, and that he be put to death before he kills.
[]
Mishnah 6
, . , .
Likewise, the one who comes by tunneling is known to be intent, should the householder confront him to defend his property, on killing him; therefore his own killing is permitted. There is no difference between one who comes by tunneling and one who comes by way of a courtyard, by way of a roof, or by way of an enclosure—Scripture merely spoke of the most common case.
, .
It has already been clarified in [tractate] Ketubot and elsewhere that it is a principle of ours that "a man does not die and [also] pay." Therefore, regarding the one who comes by tunneling: if he broke a jar at the time of his entry, with no witnesses present—he whose blood is licit, this being [the sense of] "he has no blood" (Exodus 22:1)—then he is exempt from [paying] the value of the jar;
, , .
but if he broke it while leaving, [the homeowner] having already declined [to act] where killing him is not permitted, or if there were witnesses present—he of whom Scripture says "he has blood" (Exodus 22:2)—then he is liable for the value of the jar.
[]
Mishnah 7
, , , .
All those who are liable to excision and those who are liable to judicial death penalties on account of forbidden unions—they may be saved [from sin] at the cost of their lives. He mentioned only these three because they are more readily derived than the others. For we derived [the principle of] rescue from the words of God regarding the betrothed maiden, "there is none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:27)—implying that if she has a savior, he may save her by any means by which he is able to save her, even by killing this assailant of hers.
. . , , .
We derived [the case of] the male [in homosexual assault] from the betrothed maiden, since it is written "but to the young person you shall do nothing" (Deuteronomy 22:26). And we derived [the case of] the murderer from it as well, from the words "for as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, [so is this matter]" (Deuteronomy 22:26). And we derived from it [the cases of] those liable to excision and to judicial death penalties from the words "[a matter of] mortal sin" (Deuteronomy 22:26): from "sin" we derive those liable to excision, and from "mortal" those liable to judicial death penalties.
, , , , ,
All this concerns forbidden unions; but as for other transgressions, such as one who eats forbidden fat or blood, or a sorcerer and the like, it is beyond dispute that they may not be saved at the cost of their lives. He had need to mention the Sabbath and idolatry, even though these are not among the forbidden unions, on account of the gravity of these two sins and their being foundational to the whole of our Law—for by transgressing against them a person becomes no longer of Israel but like a gentile in all his affairs, as we explained in the fifth chapter of Eruvin. It might therefore have occurred to the mind that one may be saved at the cost of their lives in these two matters as well, as some of the Sages hold; so he informed us that the matter is not [so].