abun

HALAKHAH: “No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥalîṣah,” etc. How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meїr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meїr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks”. “Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: There Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. It must be that Rebbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous [text]. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Abba and Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rebbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rebbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That means, if no diagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], practice does not follow the anonymous [opinion]. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to the [anonymous] Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous [text].

There, we have stated: “All women become impure in the outer cavity.” What is the outer cavity? Rebbi Joḥanan said, up to the place which is seen when girls sit down to urinate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, but in all impurities particular to her, she becomes impure only up to the place of teeth. Rebbi Zakkai stated: Up to the place of teeth, and from between the teeth to the inside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: The entire genitals are called “outer cavity”.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow.” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable, since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating.

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man.” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage! What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave, the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood, it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.

HALAKHAH: “A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply,” etc. The House of Shammai say two males, since “Gershom and Eliezer” are mentioned for Moses. The House of Hillel say a male and a female the way the world was created, as it is said “male and female He created them.” Rebbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female”. If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah about the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel. Sons of sons are counted as sons, sons of daughters are not counted as sons. The son’s son and the daughter’s daughter count; the son’s daughter and the daughter’s son do not count. A she-ram, a castrate, and those who cannot have children are not counted.

“If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israel, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.” In what do they differ? Rebbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of [the rabbis], Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rebbi Zakkai: Rebbi Alexander sent to ask [about] the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rebbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women: Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified.

Rebbi Abun asked: Should not heave be forbidden to the mourner by an inference de minore ad majus? Since tithe, which is permitted to outsiders, is forbidden to the mourner, should not heave, which is forbidden to outsiders, be forbidden to the mourner? No. If you said it about tithe which needs an enclosure, what can you say about heave which does not need an enclosure? Therefore, since each of them has an aspect missing in the other, they cannot teach an inference from one to the other.

HALAKHAH: “Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe”, he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose! The verse says, “the lowly”. What comes between his heels. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile. And not only if [a testicle] is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody [born] with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch”. Rebbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rebbi Immi said, certainly Rebbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for making the case clear.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use the principle of gezerah šawah. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Here also the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meїr. As Rebbi Meїr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi [Eleazar] ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth and further.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said the argument is about the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron the priest and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

“A male nine years and one day old makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest.” In the opinion of R. Joḥanan who will explain this for allotments it is understandable; since he acquires by allotment he makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who must explain this for a marriage, she should also be free from levirate or ḥalîṣah, as we have stated: “If he married a woman, that one is free from levirate or ḥalîṣah.” Rebbi Abin said, following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it comes following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated so: If a male nine years and one day old up to twelve years and one day old grew two pubic hairs, they are warts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, they are indicators [of puberty]. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they were still there at the time of indicators.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

An eight months’ child is like a stone and one does not move him on the Sabbath, but his mother lies down beside him and nurses him. Rebbi Yose asked: May one push aside the Sabbath for babies that are in doubt? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is fine. How you take it, if he is a nine months’ child, he must be circumcised. If he is an eight months’ child, it is as if he cut flesh without need. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos asked, who permitted to cut flesh without need?

HALAKHAH: Is the degree of acquisition of one equal to that of the other? What does he do? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: He marries the deaf-mute and divorces her; the underage girl has to wait until she can perform ḥalîṣah.” Why can she not perform ḥalîṣah immediately? She cannot because of Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Meїr said that one does not perform levirate or ḥalîṣah with an underage girl, since she might be found to be a she-ram. If he sleeps with the underage girl, he has to divorce her, and the deaf-mute is permanently forbidden. If he transgressed and had intercourse with the deaf-mute, he divorces her and she became permitted.” This follows what Rebbi Hila said, in order to fix her status. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: What means, “in order to fix her status”? As you say there, he should perform ḥalîṣah for the aspect that was acquired in her and marry her co-wife; could he not perform ḥalîṣah for the aspect that was acquired in the underage girl and marry the deaf-mute? He said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We never find two sisters-in-law of whom one performs ḥalîṣah and one is married in levirate. Do we find two sisters-in-law of whom one performs ḥalîṣah and one is divorced? He said to him, that happens. That is what we have stated there: “If he ‘bespoke’ one and performed ḥalîṣah with the other, the first one needs a bill of divorce”.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Hillel say, we heard only,” etc. The House of Shammai said to them: Is there not harvest the entire year? How is that? At the end of barley harvest starts wheat harvest. At the end of wheat harvest starts grape harvest. At the end of grape harvest starts olive harvest. That means, there is some harvest the year round. They accepted this argument. And why the grain harvest? Rebbi Mana said, because there accidents are frequent, for the sun only hits a person’s head at grain harvest time. That is what is written: “The child grew and some day it went to his father, to the harvesters. He said to his father, ‘my head, my head’; who said to the servant, ‘carry him to his mother’. He carried him and brought him to his mother where he sat on her knees until noontime, when he died.” But the rabbis say, because snakes are abundant. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “You shielded my head at the day of kissing,” at the day summer and winter are kissing. Another explanation: “At the day of weaponry,” that is Gog’s weaponry. Another explanation, on a day when two worlds kiss one another, when this world leaves and the future world enters.

Does the document prove? Do we not have to believe what she says? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, one does not suspect him to vilify her in the eyes of Heaven; he is suspect to vilify her in the eyes of the court. Since he knows that if he were to come [and object, his objection] would not be accepted, he has [the bill of divorce] signed by witnesses in good standing. And here, since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful.

Does the document prove? Do we not have to believe what she says? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, one does not suspect him to vilify her in the eyes of Heaven; he is suspect to vilify her in the eyes of the court. Since he knows that if he were to come [and object, his objection] would not be accepted, he has [the bill of divorce] signed by witnesses in good standing. And here, since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful.

“If one witness says,” etc. “If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave.” Because he said that after she had remarried. Therefore if [the second witness came] before she remarried, if she remarried she has to leave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages [are], whether he testified after she remarried or before she remarried, she should not remarry, but if she remarried she shall not leave. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, one says to him, “you are not he.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, think of it, if he is a famous person like Immi? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is there nobody who would look like Rebbi Immi? There came a case before the rabbis there. They said to him, “you are not he.” Abba bar Abba got up and whispered in his ear saying, by your life, give her a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rav’s students got up and beat him. Somebody said, the whip is burning and the footstool is burning. Samuel said, I was there, no whip was burning and no footstool was burning, but my father was hit and got up. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said to him, yes, it is sure that she is permitted to you but you should know that the child of this man is a bastard before Heaven. Rebbi Ze‘ira was praising him because he made the situation clear.

Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.) A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

HALAKHAH: [(He robbed one of five people). Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah deals with the case that she was betrothed by a document. But if he was betrothed by money, everybody agrees that he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.]

HALAKHAH: “One testifies by the light of a candle.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jonathan taught me, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There, we have stated: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if the saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rebbi Abun said, damaging spirits are as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.

There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as less than three people passed by. If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared [the bill] valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on [the bill]? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name. Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry?” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: “If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing. Or is it to be treated like the following: “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

May he declare his jealousy with respect to two men together? Rebbi Yudan said, that is in dispute. He who says that he may declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, [says] that he may declare his jealousy with respect to two men together. Rebbi Yose asked: May he declare his jealousy with respect to a hundred men? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him: If he said to her, do not enter the synagogue, she enters.

It was stated: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

It is written: “They came to the vineyards in direction of Timna.” Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this teaches you that his father and mother were showing him the vineyards in direction of Timna sown in several kinds and saying to him: My son, just as their vineyards are sown with several kinds so their daughters are sown with several kinds. “And his father and mother did not know that this was from the Eternal, that he was looking for a pretext from the Philistines.” Rebbi Eleazar said, In seven places it is written: “Do not contract marriage with them.” Rebbi Abun said, to prohibit seven peoples. And here, it says so? Rebbi Isaac said, “if he scoffs about the scoffers.”

There, said by Rebbi Jonah: “Halica, into two parts. Tragos, into three. Tisana, into four.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked: From there on, is it coarse flour? One does not have to sift out the fine flour from in between.

From where did they learn rollover of oaths? From the suspected wife: “The woman shall say, Amen, Amen”; Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir? Nevertheless one rolls over.

How could one state this Mishnah? Not the rabbis nor Rebbi Aqiba! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house [follows] the rabbis against Rebbi Aqiba. He who says that she is forbidden to her house [follows] Rebbi Aqiba against the rabbis. Rebbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a Cohen, and they permitted her to her house. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave? It already preceded.

There, it was stated: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel] bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of, offering of.” Since “offering of” mentioned there is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten, so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba) said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil”. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry”. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance, remembrance”. “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

“If she said ‘I am impure’ after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed over the ashes.” This proves that the suspected wife’s offering is holy before the scroll is written. Rebbi Yose said, there is more: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, her offering is holy once she is on her way. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, our Mishnah states this: “Or if her husband had sexual relations with her on the road.”

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

There, we have stated: “A she-ram, an old woman, or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,” [this refers to] one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow [married to] the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed? There is a difference, since it is written: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.” There, we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city”, etc. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said, 2000 cubits the domain of the levitic cities. Deduct from them 1000 cubits open space, there results one quarter open space and the remainder fields. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: A quarter of 1000113. Rebbi Isaac said, even if you say a quarter from every side, it is a quarter. He who wants to make a square from four amphoras needs sixteen. Rebbi Mana estimated it from a brick, Rebbi Abin estimated it from a strip, Rebbi Oshaiah estimated it from a dish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, 50 by 50 form a bet se’ah; 100 by 100 are four bet se’ah. As it happened to the Resh Galuta when it was imposed on him to fill a hall of 40 by 40 cubits with wheat. He came to Rav Huna who said to him, negotiate that they should take from you 20 by 20 now and 20 by 20 later; you will earn half.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure”, [you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”], about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness! Rebbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure”, you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”, about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness!

Why does the verse say: “and the half of it”? This teaches that a minority was on Mount Gerizim and a majority on Mount Ebal. Why? Because the tribe of Levi was not completely there. For if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: If the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would not have been equal. Why? Since already 24’000 had fallen at Shiṭṭim from the tribe of Simeon. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Why? Because from the tribes of Reuben and Gad only 40’000 front line troops came there.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥisda said, they had great difficulty; elsewhere you say that one goes to the Torah, and here you say, one brings the Torah to him? But because they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora over there? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the seed of David is immersed there one treats him in the ancestral way.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: “A slain one”, not one in convulsions; “a slain one”, not one in death-throes. If one saw him in convulsions and after some time he came back and did not find him, I say that a miracle occurred and he survived. If one saw him in death-throes here and then found him at another place, one measures from the place where he was found. “Which the Eternal, your God, is giving to you,” this excludes places outside the Land. “To inherit it,” this excludes Jerusalem which belongs to all tribes, and following Rebbi Ismael. For Rebbi Ismael said, any “comings” which were said in the Torah mean after fourteen years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they distributed. Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Abun said, we may say that all these fourteen years they were not breaking the neck, for it is written “if there be found,” not in a time when they are frequent. And all these fourteen years they were frequent.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke, so for the “yoke” said for the cow we have to treat all work as a yoke. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional, so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables, also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable? The verse says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf. Then it also says “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?

The place where it falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits. Rebbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits. Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Pakora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

At less than three years and one day of age, Rebbi Yose in the name of [Rav] Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: What is this like? One makes a dimple in the flesh which straightens out by itself. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Like one who muddies a source which becomes clear again. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: Younger than that, it is as if one puts a finger on an eye. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise her hymen does not repair itself.

It was stated: “And for a widow 200.” It was stated: “This order applies both to a widow of an Israel and a widow of a Cohen”. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the daughter of a Cohen should collect, for her tribe collects. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should not collect; is it not sufficient that she rose to the priesthood that you say, she should collect? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the other way. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should collect for she rose to the priesthood; the daughter of a Cohen should not collect for she stepped down from the priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, in both cases they demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. There, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it.

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rav Ḥana said, one learns from a corrected scroll, like those who say, Issi’s scribe. From letters it is problematic. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only from three documents in the hands of three people.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman said, I was married,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses came after she remarried, she should not leave. Rav Ḥuna and Rebbi Ḥanina both say, not only after she remarried but even after the court authorized her to remarry. As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was married but I am divorced, and he permitted her. After she left, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod? He said, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, there were two cases. In one case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Lod? In the other case, they said to him, are not her witnesses at Caesarea? And so it was!He said to them, so I am saying: Should she wait even if her witnesses are at קסוסנון?

One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of amoral people who wanted to start up with me. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A complaint needs at least two [plaintiffs]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, how do we hold? If they elevated him on the testimony of one person, they should demote him on the testimony of one person. If they elevated him on the testimony of two persons, even if there are many [opposed] they should not demote him! Rebbi Ḥuna said, it follows the rabbis there. But following the rabbis here and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob, just as one elevates him on the testimony of two persons, one demotes him on the testimony of two persons.

It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as we have stated: “The following adolescent girls can claim a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:18) “They shall punish him,” flogging; (Deut. 22:19) “and they shall fine him”, money. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech; therefore, nothing can be inferred. Another explanation: one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he [eats] fat in error but is intentional about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice? So here, he is flogged and he pays. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

HALAKHAH: “About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her, so Rebbi Eleazar said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her. Then also for a seduced one? Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she remitted it to him. Can anybody remit anthing that does not belong to him? Explain it for an orphan; as it was stated in the House of Rebbi thus: The orphan, Rebbi Eleazar said that the rapist has to pay her but the seducer does not. Can anybody remit something which is not in his possession? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ura: The fine is not due from the first moment on. As we have stated there: “If she came to court before her father died, [the payments due] belong to her father and if the father died they belong to the brothers.” If you say that the fine is due from the first moment, it would belong to the brothers from the first moment! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah deals with shame and diminution of value. As Rebbi Mana said, how is it? The rapist is obligated for everything and the seducer is free from everything. Rebbi Abin said, [Rebbi] Shammai asked: What does it mean that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not? The rapist has to pay everything but the seducer is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine. That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Or, the rapist is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine but the seducer is free from everything? That is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr) learned from the calumniator. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour but the fine is only at the end; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira).

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth”. Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth. Assi said, “they spread the cloth”, the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place, and the husband hired them to testify falsely. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned’? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them. If the father brought two groups of witnesses. One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned, and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas, but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.”

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth”. Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth. Assi said, “they spread the cloth”, the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place, and the husband hired them to testify falsely. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned’? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them. If the father brought two groups of witnesses. One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned, and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas, but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.”

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth”. Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth. Assi said, “they spread the cloth”, the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place, and the husband hired them to testify falsely. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned’? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them. If the father brought two groups of witnesses. One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned, and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas, but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu].

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu].

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu].

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if he speaks about somebody who is a legal heir, his statements are valid, but about somebody who is not a legal heir, his statements are invalid.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ben Beroqa spoke only about a son among sons or a (daughter) son among daughters, not about a daughter and brother or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was a case and Rebbi decided following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did they say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the reason? He asked Nathan the Babylonian, why did the Sages say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Are you not the one who stated “shall inherit”? (He said to him, you stated “shall take”; he came to him). He said to him, there is no “shall inherit” but “shall take”. When he came to his father, he said to him: you disadvantaged Nathan the Bablylonian; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is what he told him: I made an error in what I taught you; there is no “shall take” but “shall inherit”. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is one of the leniencies of the ketubah stipulations. In general, a person can transfer rights only by a document; here even verbally. In general, a person cannot transfer rights to somebody not yet existing; here to the non-existing. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how the rabbis can compare ketubah to inheritance, for inheritance is a biblical law but ketubah is from their words; how can one argue this? Even if you say that ketubah is a biblical law, do they not agree that the stipulations of the ketubah are from their words?

HALAKHAH: ““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support. If they married, they lost their dowries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah. But did we not state: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her [a dowry of] 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim. Explain it that she had received partial payment. Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple [brother], this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture. There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.

““And you shall dwell in my house”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he slept with her when she still was in her father’s house, did he then activate all ketubah stipulations or is that only by definitive marriage? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If she renounced her ketubah, what is the situation? She renounced her rights but not those of her children.

““And you shall dwell in my house”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he slept with her when she still was in her father’s house, did he then activate all ketubah stipulations or is that only by definitive marriage? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If she renounced her ketubah, what is the situation? She renounced her rights but not those of her children.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons,” but only if it is a first marriage. This follows what Rebbi Ḥanania said: If somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired the house, but only if it is a first marriage. Rebbi Hoshaia said, she acquired movables but did not acquire the house. Do they disagree? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it that his father used it for storage. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is needed in case what was stored was borrowed from the market. Rebbi Abbahu said, if he said it is loaned, he did not acquire it. There came a case before Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun and he instructed following Rebbi Abbahu. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, essentialy this has no basis but the rabbis build and add to it!

“If she brought”. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought. As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend; workers ascend but do not descend. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl. Rebbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rebbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

“If she brought”. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought. As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend; workers ascend but do not descend. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl. Rebbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rebbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

Following Rebbi Eliezer, how far can he deduct? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion for the husband of a preliminarily married woman, or a sick one, a menstruating woman or one who is waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him when she was having her period, the Torah made her rebel against him! But we must hold that she rebelled against him before she had her period and now she has it. At that moment she would not be able to rebel but you say one writes, therefore one also deducts. From where does one deduct? From the additions to her ketubah. Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, he continues to reduce, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it.” He mentioned only inheritance, which is infrequent. That means he deducts from the additions to he ketubah. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: One writes a bill of rebellion for a preliminarily married woman, but one does not write a bill of rebellion for one who is waiting for her levir. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that one writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married woman or one who is waiting for her levir? There, according to the first Mishnah, here according to the later Mishnah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even if you say according to the later Mishnah, ”the later Court [instituted that] one warns her for four weeks, then she writes a receipt for her ketubah and leaves.”

Rebbi Redipha, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Because he does not make her lose anything. In secret, why does he take? Because of the pain he suffers with her.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody decided on money for his son-in-law and the son-in-law died,” etc. Are these not the things that are acquired by speech? Bar Qappara stated: He promised the dowry on condition there be a marriage. And it is so: If somebody decided on money for his underage daughter, one forces him to give. But not for the adult one? Rebbi Abun said, one forces [the groom] to give a bill of divorce.

If there were two daughters and one son; the first one took a tenth of the estate, but the son died before the second could take her tenth. Rebbi Ḥanina was of the opinion that the second takes a tenth of the estate and the rest they divide equally among themselves. Rebbi Joḥanan told him that in this case there was nothing else to provide for her, but here she may sell from the remainder and provide for herself! Rebbi Tebi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The reason of Rebbi Ḥanina: If she can collect from encumbered real estate, from what lies before her not so much more? Rebbi Joḥanan sticks to his opinion, since Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina [and Rebbi Hila] collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan [girls] who asked to be provided for. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans get up and complain, I would give it to them. Even so, they saw and did not complain. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose: How do you decide in practical cases? He said to him, following Rebbi Ḥanina. And so an actual case was decided following Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Hila: One considers the estate as if it were dry.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ammi bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects,” and this is of the visible defects! Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar his measure is half an ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautyiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addtion, for a man women’s breasts.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.”

HALAKHAH: “He should not say to her ‘here is your ketubah’”, etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ketubah.” In the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband.

Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed three things: That a person should use his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings. And that children have to go to school. Also, he decreed impurity for glass ware. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity for Gentile lands and glass ware; Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ṭabbai? Rebbi Jonah said, Jehudah bar Ṭabbai and Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed on the purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he did not take her in. But if he took her in, nobody can lose his rights by these expressions. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is the word of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He who says that “my hands are removed from this field, my feet are removed from this field,” did not say anything. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a Mishnah imply that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions? Did we not state there: “If somebody was married to two wives when he sold a field and the first one wrote for the buyer: I have no claims on you, the second one can take it away from the buyer’s hands,” this implies, not the first one. He said to him, that text itself implies that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions, but here the second wife cannot take anything away from the first, and why can the first one not take it away from the buyer’s hands? For she writes to him: For any complaint I shall have regarding this field, I shall have nothing against you.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he did not take her in. But if he took her in, nobody can lose his rights by these expressions. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is the word of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He who says that “my hands are removed from this field, my feet are removed from this field,” did not say anything. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a Mishnah imply that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions? Did we not state there: “If somebody was married to two wives when he sold a field and the first one wrote for the buyer: I have no claims on you, the second one can take it away from the buyer’s hands,” this implies, not the first one. He said to him, that text itself implies that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions, but here the second wife cannot take anything away from the first, and why can the first one not take it away from the buyer’s hands? For she writes to him: For any complaint I shall have regarding this field, I shall have nothing against you.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” and she inherited properties afterwards, what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: From his rights you can infer his obligations. If he had not written to her, would it make any difference, would he not receive its yield? That means, from his rights you can infer his obligations. Rebbi Levi bar Ḥaita asked: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties which you shall inherit in the future,” what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence?

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.