aggai

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the colleagues did know neither what חֲלוֹגְלוּגוֹת ,סֵירוּגִין, means nor “who is superior, in wisdom or in years?” They said, let us go and ask in the house of Rebbi. They went to ask; a slave girl from the house of Rebbi came out and told them, enter in pairs. Each one said, that one should enter before me. They started to enter one by one. She said to them, why do you enter in סֵירוּגִין? One rabbi was carrying purslain; it fell from him. She said to him, Rabbi, your חֲלוֹגְלוּגוֹת are dispersed. She said to her, bring a broom; she brought a willow-broom.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. A man stood up to translate while leaning on a pillar. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given in trembling and fear so we have to treat it in trembling and fear. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw Huna standing up translating without putting up another person in his stead. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given by an agent, so we have to treat it by an agent. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi went and turned it into a question, I was standing between the Eternal and you at that time to tell you the Eternal’s word. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw a teacher delivering the translation from a book. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; matters which were said orally orally, matters which were said in writing in writing.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. A man stood up to translate while leaning on a pillar. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given in trembling and fear so we have to treat it in trembling and fear. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw Huna standing up translating without putting up another person in his stead. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given by an agent, so we have to treat it by an agent. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi went and turned it into a question, I was standing between the Eternal and you at that time to tell you the Eternal’s word. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw a teacher delivering the translation from a book. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; matters which were said orally orally, matters which were said in writing in writing.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; words, the words all, like all;; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in his face. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a crowded holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing Israel. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practices and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever.

Behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, etc. This is one of six verses which Rebbi was reading and crying. Implore the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, etc. Hate evil and love goodness, etc. He shall put dust in his mouth, etc. For all deeds, etc. Samuel said to Saul, why did you irritate me, etc. He said to him, you should not have angered your Creator by me. You made me your idol. Do you not know that just as the worshipper is punished, the worshipped is punished? Not only this but I was thinking that this was the Day of Judgment and I was afraid. And is that not an inference de minore ad majus, if Samuel, the teacher of the Prophets, about whom it is written, all of Israel knew, from Dan to Beer Sheva, etc., was afraid of the Day of Judgment, so we so much more? And this behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, even matters which are not sinful are written for everybody on his writing tablet. And who tells to a person? The breath of his mouth. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes. The Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes, those Sepphoreans, “chaos” is darkness and murkiness.

Behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, etc. This is one of six verses which Rebbi was reading and crying. Implore the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, etc. Hate evil and love goodness, etc. He shall put dust in his mouth, etc. For all deeds, etc. Samuel said to Saul, why did you irritate me, etc. He said to him, you should not have angered your Creator by me. You made me your idol. Do you not know that just as the worshipper is punished, the worshipped is punished? Not only this but I was thinking that this was the Day of Judgment and I was afraid. And is that not an inference de minore ad majus, if Samuel, the teacher of the Prophets, about whom it is written, all of Israel knew, from Dan to Beer Sheva, etc., was afraid of the Day of Judgment, so we so much more? And this behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind, even matters which are not sinful are written for everybody on his writing tablet. And who tells to a person? The breath of his mouth. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes. The Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Jabes, those Sepphoreans, “chaos” is darkness and murkiness.

It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment from place to place. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Collecting bones {is} what it means. It was stated: There is no information about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: <what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners,> what is said in the row. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis <of Caesarea> are saying, eulogies.

It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment from place to place. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Collecting bones {is} what it means. It was stated: There is no information about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: <what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners,> what is said in the row. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis <of Caesarea> are saying, eulogies.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what was stated: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

If he has nothing to eat, he cannot work on the first and second days. On the third day he works in privacy; but they said, a curse should come over his neighbors who forced him to this. Bar Qappara said, also on the third day he should not work anything. Bar Qappara follows his own opinion, since bar Qappara said the force of mourning is only up to three days. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: For three days the soul hovers over the body, thinking that she will return to it. When she sees that the looks of his face change, she abandons it and leaves. After three days the belly breaks open in front of his face and says to it, here [you have] what you robbed, and you wronged, and put into me. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joshia brought it from here: I shall scatter excrement on your faces, even excrement of your holidays. At that moment, but his body will hurt him and his soul mourn for him. His sharecroppers, and his tenants, and his contractors do work; his agricultural workers, and his mariners, and his camel drivers do not work. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, if he had a cow associated in town, she works. Rebbi Yose said to him, this you are saying about one under contract; therefore not to start.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Sages visited Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos to ask him about the daughter’s co-wife. They said to him, are you the one who permits co-wives? He said to them, what did you hear? Dosa ben Hyrkanos? They said to him, ben Hyrkanos. He said to them, my brother Jonathan is exceedingly sharpminded and of the students of the House of Shammai. Be careful with him, he has three hundred arguments about the daughter’s co-wife. They went to him. He sent and wrote to him, be careful because the Sages of Israel will visit you. They came and he placed them before him. He lectured but they did not understand, repeatedly. They started to get drowsy. He said to them, why are you getting drowsy? He started pelting them with pebbles. But some people said, they entered in one door and left in three. He sent to say to him, why did you send to me, the people want to learn and you said to me, these are the Sages of Israel? They came to him and said to him, what do you say in the matter? He said, on this stone sat the prophet Ḥaggai and testified to three things: On the daughter’s co-wife that she can be married into priesthood, on Ammon and Moab that they tithe for the poor in a Sabbatical year, and on proselytes of Palmyra that they are acceptable to marry into the congregation. He said, lift my eyelids so I can see the Sages of Israel. He saw Rebbi Joshua and said to him: “To whom will one teach knowledge?” I remember that his mother brought his crib to the Synagogue that his ears should cling to the words of the Torah. [He saw] Rebbi Aqiba, and said to him: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry.” I know of him that he is a man strong in Torah. He saw Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and said to him: “I was a youth but became an elder.” I know of him that he is the tenth generation from Ezra and their eyes are similar. Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Tarphon also was with them and he addressed him as he did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah.

Both the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon agree to the following. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. According to Rebbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them? If he slept with the second one. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he had “bespoken”. Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita contradict Rav? “A person’s stepson’s wife is permitted to him but the latter’s daughter is forbidden.” Is his stepdaughter not forbidden to him? The stepson is the corresponding male but his wife is permitted!

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rebbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come. They brought him in order to be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant for our God”. He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them”. And it is written: “For he will divert your son from after Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.

HALAKHAH: “Of three brothers,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, not only if he divorced and after that married, but even if he married and after that divorced. That is what we had stated: “Of all of these, if they died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted.”

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: Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves may eat, his slaves may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat! Rebbi Josia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Not that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rebbi Yose said, this means that [the fetus] does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

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.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled. Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples”. A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of [Rebbi] Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,” not from those who dwell in your land.

“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female? Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters.

HALAKHAH: “A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there, “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully. Then they should fine her with respect to the second [husband] but not with respect to the first! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did we not state: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him? But it must follow Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted. Did Rebbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated, “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first.

Would it not be reasonable that she should be permitted if she remarried with permission, forbidden if she remarried without permission? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that the court made their decision like intentional [relations between] man and woman, if she remarried without permission like erroneous [relations between] man and woman. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “free” here but “obligated”. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: should it not be an act of instruction? When they instructed that it is permitted to sleep with an [otherwise] married woman. Is that not uprooting a principle? When they instructed that she is forbidden for five years, from then on permitted. Then it should be so if she misbehaved! Misbehaving is like eating fat or blood. When they instructed that fat is permitted and [she ate] blood.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”? He said to him, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover”, we would have said, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. (Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incests prohibitions.) Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him, and you say so? Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joshua, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! And you say so? Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Joshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age. If not, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Suknin in the name of Rebbi Levi: During the first three days, the soul hovers over the body because she thinks that she will return to it. Once she sees that the splendor of his face changes after three days, she abandons him and goes away. After three days, the belly breaks open in his face and says to him, there is what you have robbed and extorted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joshia brings it from that verse: “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment, “but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”

“It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered.” It was stated: They wanted to cut sponges and found that banker in Acco. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not reasonable that one allows time for him as for a torn animal? He answered him, that is my opinion also.

What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rebbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but he did not accept it

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.

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.

“A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked.” For it is written, “you shall stone him,” not his garment. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written: “You shall stone them with stones,” does that mean “them but not their garments”? How is that? A man is not greatly degraded by this, so he is stoned naked, but a woman who would be greatly degraded by it cannot be stoned naked.

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?

There, they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar.

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rebbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rebbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, why does one read “ “tithing you shall tithe,”, “when you will have finished tithing,”? Because Israel went from the Sabbatical year to the eighth, not to have them forget tithes. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does he not to make havdalah? He said to him, one already said havdalah on New Year’s Day.

HALAKHAH: “The priest anointed for war,” etc. Why the priest anointed for war? Because it is written “he shall speak”? But about the reading of the Šema‘ it is written: “You shall speak about them,” and it may be recited in any language. But because it is written there “saying”. But for the declaration of tithes it is written “saying” and it may be recited in any language! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “the Levitic Cohanim shall come close;” since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language, so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who says, these are expressions of additions. Following Rebbi Ismael who says, these are double expressions? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “Moses shall come close to the mist”, since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language, so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language.

Would it not be reasonable that “the commanders should take charge at the head of the people” and then “the Cohen shall come close”? He who directs them should inform them! The text is not in the correct order. At the border, you say that the policeman hears from the Cohen the text and communicates it to the people in any language. But at the battle order (they provide water and food and repair the roads). Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, since at the border the policeman hears from the Cohen the text and communicates it to the people in any language, should it not be the same with the battle order? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected, is it reasonable that “when the policemen finished talking to the people,” after that “the Cohen shall come close and speak to the people”? He said to him, since you say, the text is not in the correct order, you cannot infer anything.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. But Rav said, it is forbidden to sign a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. Does this contradict what they say in the name of Rav, the witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust? One word of Rav contradicts a word of Rav! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rav did not say it is forbidden to sign but it is forbidden to keep. As the following, “if evil is in your hand, remove it,” that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust, “do not let injustice dwell in your house,” that is a document of indebtedness which was paid.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.

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.

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.

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: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel] a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel] a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

From where comes this? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

“And her burial.” It was stated: If the husband refused to bury her, the father buries her and recovers his expenses in court. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father and also a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. It was stated: At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

“And her burial.” It was stated: If the husband refused to bury her, the father buries her and recovers his expenses in court. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father and also a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. It was stated: At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

“And her burial.” It was stated: If the husband refused to bury her, the father buries her and recovers his expenses in court. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father and also a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, a third party. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial and for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. It was stated: At a place where it is customary to eulogize, one eulogizes.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: For any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah. If it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate. As the following: A woman came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor give a fixed price? She said, no. Did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Do not turn yourself into an pleader,” that one shall not disclose the judgment to a party? He knew her to be honest.

“She nurses her baby.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, is says only “her baby,” therefore not twins. Why does it say “her baby”? As it was stated: “A man cannot force his wife to nurse another man’s child, nor can a woman force her husband to let her nurse another woman’s child. If she made a vow not to nurse her baby, the House of Shammai say that one removes the breast nipple from his mouth, but the House of Hillel say, one forces her. If she was divorced, one cannot force her if [the baby] is not used to her, but if he is used to her one forces her and pays her wages to nurse her baby.” How old is the baby if he can be presumed to know her? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Three months. But Rebbi Ze‘ira was staring at him. He asked him, why are you staring at me? Should I say to you following Samuel, since Samuel said, three days? Samuel follows his opinion, since Samuel said, I recognized the midwives who delivered me. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, I recognized the circumciser who circumcised me. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I recognized the women who kept my mother company.

For whom is it needed? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

One understands a proselyte. A minor? Can a minor divorce? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained it following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her when he regained sight or became sane mentally. And here, if he slept with her after he reached adulthood.

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

When Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, died they brought him here. They said, where shall we put him? They said, let us put him next to Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder for he is one of them. They said, who might want to bring him there? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I shall go up to put him there. They said to him, you are looking for a pretext, for you are an old man and you want to go to rest there yourself. He said to them, put some string on my feet and when I shall be weak you pull. He went in and found the three arguing. “Jehudah my son, after you, and no more. Ḥizqiah my son, after you, and no more. Joseph ben Israel, after you, and no more.” He [R. Ḥaggai] lifted his eyes to look, it was said to him lower [your eyes], turn around. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder [who said to] his son Jehudah, make space for Rav Ḥuna that he may rest there. But [Rav Ḥuna] did not accept this. They said, since he did not accept that one made space for him, so his descendants will never end. He [R. Ḥaggai] exited from there eighty years old and his years were doubled.

When Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, died they brought him here. They said, where shall we put him? They said, let us put him next to Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder for he is one of them. They said, who might want to bring him there? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I shall go up to put him there. They said to him, you are looking for a pretext, for you are an old man and you want to go to rest there yourself. He said to them, put some string on my feet and when I shall be weak you pull. He went in and found the three arguing. “Jehudah my son, after you, and no more. Ḥizqiah my son, after you, and no more. Joseph ben Israel, after you, and no more.” He [R. Ḥaggai] lifted his eyes to look, it was said to him lower [your eyes], turn around. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder [who said to] his son Jehudah, make space for Rav Ḥuna that he may rest there. But [Rav Ḥuna] did not accept this. They said, since he did not accept that one made space for him, so his descendants will never end. He [R. Ḥaggai] exited from there eighty years old and his years were doubled.

When Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, died they brought him here. They said, where shall we put him? They said, let us put him next to Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder for he is one of them. They said, who might want to bring him there? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I shall go up to put him there. They said to him, you are looking for a pretext, for you are an old man and you want to go to rest there yourself. He said to them, put some string on my feet and when I shall be weak you pull. He went in and found the three arguing. “Jehudah my son, after you, and no more. Ḥizqiah my son, after you, and no more. Joseph ben Israel, after you, and no more.” He [R. Ḥaggai] lifted his eyes to look, it was said to him lower [your eyes], turn around. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder [who said to] his son Jehudah, make space for Rav Ḥuna that he may rest there. But [Rav Ḥuna] did not accept this. They said, since he did not accept that one made space for him, so his descendants will never end. He [R. Ḥaggai] exited from there eighty years old and his years were doubled.

As it was stated: “If somebody went overseas and another person provided for his wife.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, another. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows, and to receive her bill of divorce, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime… He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father or a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial as for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. For sustenance, neither the father nor a third party can recover.

As it was stated: “If somebody went overseas and another person provided for his wife.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, another. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows, and to receive her bill of divorce, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime… He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father or a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial as for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. For sustenance, neither the father nor a third party can recover.

As it was stated: “If somebody went overseas and another person provided for his wife.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, another. Therefore, the father can recover. Rebbi Yose says, neither the father nor a third party can recover. There is a parallel disagreement, as we have stated there: “He has the right to what she finds and to her earnings, to dissolve her vows, and to receive her bill of divorce, but cannot eat usufruct in her lifetime… He is required to pay for her upkeep, her ransom, and her burial.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they said only, the father. Therefore, a third party cannot recover. Rebbi Yose says, both the father or a third party can recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥaggai, both for burial as for upkeep the father can recover, a third party cannot recover. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, for burial both the father and also a third party can recover because it is unthinkable that his wife should be thrown to the dogs. For sustenance, neither the father nor a third party can recover.

Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”

“If the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose. So far for vows she made after she was preliminarily married. Vows she made before she was preliminarily married; if the father died, was his power not voided in favor of the husband? He said to him, is it not true that vows she made before she was preliminarily married already could be dissolved by father and husband? Why do you have to say, if the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband? That means, even vows she made after she was preliminarily married. Vows she made before she was preliminarily married, if the father died, was his power voided in favor of the husband? He said to him, is it not true that vows she made before she was preliminarily married already could be dissolved by father and husband? You say, “if the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the father”! That means, even vows she made after she was preliminarily married, if the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the father!

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30 day, and something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 31 day. Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rebbi Immi learned this from the Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31 day, for the second on the 61 day.” Rebbi Yose said, there when it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Isaac Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30 day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his eighth day falls on the Sabbath, he shaves Sabbath eve. If you say that they did not permit in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30 day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan had said: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30 day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

There, we have stated: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery, Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct? Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa.

There, we have stated: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery, Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct? Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa.

The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, earlier the courts were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter bones; some said, half a log of blood, a half a log of bones, for nezirut and the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon: They said this as explanation from the mouths of Ḥaggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.

Explanation: Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yose ben Kipper descended to collect there for a colleague when they were slandered. They came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it. They said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith; they answered, we are unpaid trustees. They approached Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it. They took Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it from him. When they returned here, he went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him, why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court, their hats were a cubit wide, they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

Rav wrote to Rebbi, who transferred it to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya wrote between the lines. If the orphans sold against the rules, one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance. If they accepted a lien. I do not know what this lien is. Levi stated: Both for a lien made by the father and for a lien made by the son, one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance. Rebbi Abba said, there is no mention of a lien made by the father, only a lien made by the son. If one cannot collect during the father’s lifetime, not so much less after the father’s death? Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the daughters are married, the widow is sustained by them. Rebbi Abba follows his own [opinion] and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own [opinion]. For the sister of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaggai: Even if they died, the widow is sustained by them.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Is not this disagreement the same as that disagreement, as we have stated there: “If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her the bill of divorce or [some valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient; Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.” Then Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abin, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? [If they thought about] other things but if he still was on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce. But here, even if they are still on the same subject there is disagreement.

May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose: she is forbidden to remarry; I say that a miracle happened to him and he survived.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

Rav said: Judges may sign even if they cannot read, but no witnesses may sign unless they know how to read. He said, such should come over me if I ever acted thus. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Did no Greek document come before Rav that he could confirm it by its signatures? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, is valid.” He explains that they knew how to read but not how to sign; or if they knew both [languages], they could sign in either one of their choice.

The order of sale is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he had no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Yose: A Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew. If he fixed the price before he measured, the proceeds are permitted; if he measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal rate, even if he measured before he fixed the price, it should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me”, then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

A person gave a pledge to another; the other reneged on it. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Hila, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa all three say it was a deal about flax seed and he had given partial payment. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: Either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or ome may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole. Is a woman usually acquired split? Rebbi Ḥaggai and Rebbi Yudan both said, a sale usually may be split, the acquisition of a wife cannot be split.

“If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, he is married.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is not its proceeds. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that one cannot marry preliminary with [the proceeds of] robbery.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

There, we have stated: “A person can impose a condition of his ‘eruv.” So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition of his‘eruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it be in doubt, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a camel-donkey driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ‘eruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since [the first] did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

Explanation: Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yose ben Kipper descended to collect there for the colleagues when they were slandered. They asked but were not given anything. Then they came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it. They said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith; they answered, we are unpaid trustees. They approached Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it. They took Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it from him. When they returned here, he went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him, why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court, their hats were a cubit wide, they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other. If somebody forgave a bond to another person: Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mamal: one said it is forgiven; the other said it is not forgiven unless he handed over the bond.

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rebbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come and be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant to send away all foreign women and those born to them, etc”. He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them,” etc. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

We have stated: “Four main categories of damages.” But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thirteen: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earning power, shame; the unpaid trustee, and the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Say now, what we stated [refers to] responsibility for damages. What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated [refers to] both responsibility for damages and bodily injury. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: How can we state “four main categories”? If everything was said about one bull; let us state “three,” if it was said about three bulls, let us state “five”! But as it is presented in the verse, thus it is presented in the Mishnah.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male or female Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool,” he cannot force her to work any other material. Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel. Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses? They forbade one because of the other.