al

And Mary rejoiced and went away unto Elizabeth her kinswoman: and she knocked at the door. And Elizabeth when she heard it cast down the scarlet ( al. the wool) and ran to the door and opened it, and when she saw Mary she blessed her and said: Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? for behold that which is in me leaped and blessed thee. And Mary forgat the mysteries which Gabriel the archangel had told her, and she looked up unto the heaven and said: Who am I, Lord, that all the generations of the earth do bless me?

And Nicodemus rose up and stood before the council, saying: Ye say well. Know ye not, O people of the Lord, the men that came down out of Galilee, that they fear God and are men of substance, hating covetousness, men of peace? And they have told you with an oath, saying : We saw Jesus upon the mount Mamilch with his disciples and that he taught them all things that ye heard of them, and, say they, we saw him taken up into heaven. And no man asked them in what manner he was taken up. For like as the book of the holy scriptures hath taught us that Elias also was taken up into heaven, and Eliseus cried out with a loud voice, and Elias cast his hairy cloak upon Eliseus, and Eliseus cast the cloak upon Jordan and passed over and went unto Jericho. And the sons of the prophets met him and said: Eliseus, where is thy lord Elias? and he said that he was taken up into heaven. And they said unto Eliseus: Hath not a spirit caught him up and cast him upon one of the mountains? but let us take our servants with us and seek after him. And they persuaded Eliseus and he went with them, and they sought him three days and found him not: and they knew that he had been taken up. And now hearken unto me, and let us send into all the coasts ( al. mountains) of Israel and see whether the Christ were not taken up by a spirit and cast upon one of the mountains. And this saying pleased them all: and they sent into all the coasts and sought Jesus and found him not. But they found Joseph in Arimathaea, and no man durst lay hands upon him.

And on the sabbath the ( al. our) teachers and the priests and Levites sat and questioned one another and said: What is this wrath that is come upon us? for we know his father and his mother. Levi the teacher saith: I know that his parents feared God and kept not back their vows and paid tithes three times a year. And when Jesus was born, his parents brought him up unto this place and gave sacrifices and burnt-offerings to God. And [when] the great teacher Symeon took him into his arms and said: Now lettest thou thy servant, Lord, depart in peace for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel. And Symeon blessed them and said unto Mary his mother: I give thee good tidings concerning this child. And Mary said: Good, my lord? And Symeon said to her: Good. Behold, he is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against: and a sword shall pierce through thine own heart also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Annas saith: Set them apart from one another, and let us see if their word agreeth. And they set them apart one from another, and they call Addas first and say unto him: How sawest thou Jesus taken up? Addas saith: While he yet sat upon the Mount Mamilch and taught his disciples, we saw a cloud that overshadowed him and his disciples: and the cloud carried him up into heaven, and his disciples lay (al. prayed, lying) on their faces upon the earth. And they called Phinees the priest, and questioned him also, saying: How sawest thou Jesus taken up? And he spake in like manner. And again they asked Aggaeus, and he also spake in like manner. And the council said: It is contained in the law of Moses: At the mouth of two or three shall every word be established. Abuthem the teacher saith: It is written in the law: Enoch walked with God and is not, because God took him. Jaeirus the teacher said: Also we have heard of the death of the holy Moses and have not seen him; for it is written in the law of the Lord: And Moses died at the mouth of the Lord, and no man knew of his sepulchre unto this day. And Rabbi Levi said: Wherefore was it that Rabbi Symeon said when he saw Jesus: Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel and for a sign spoken against? And Rabbi Isaac said: It is written in the law: Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall go before thee to keep thee in every good way, for my name is named thereon.

And when father Adam that was first created heard this, even that Jesus was baptized in Jordan, he cried out to Seth his son, saying : Declare unto thy sons the patriarchs and the prophets all that thou didst hear from Michael the archangel, when I sent thee unto the gates of paradise that thou mightest entreat God to send thee his angel to give thee the oil of the tree of mercy to anoint my body when I was sick. Then Seth drew near unto the holy patriarchs and prophets, and said: When I, Seth, was praying at the gates of paradise, behold Michael the angel of the Lord appeared unto me, saying: I am sent unto thee from the Lord: it is I that am set over the body of man. And I say unto thee, Seth, vex not thyself with tears, praying and entreating for the oil of the tree of mercy; that thou mayest anoint thy father Adam for the pain of his body: for thou wilt not be able to receive it save in the last days and times, save when five thousand and five hundred ( al. 5,952) years are accomplished: then shall the most beloved Son of God come upon the earth to raise up the body of Adam and the bodies of the dead, and he shall come and be baptized in Jordan. And when he is come forth of the water of Jordan, then shall he anoint with the oil of mercy all that believe on him, and that oil of mercy shall be unto all generations of them that shall be born of water and of the Holy Ghost, unto life eternal. Then shall the most beloved Son of God, even Christ Jesus, come down upon the earth and shall bring in our father Adam into paradise unto the tree of mercy. And when they heard all these things of Seth, all the patriarchs and prophets rejoiced with a great rejoicing.

For there shall be great disturbance throughout all the people, and death. The house of the Lord shall be desolate, and their altars shall be abhorred, so that spiders weave their webs therein. The place of holiness shall be corrupted, the priesthood polluted, distress (agony) shall increase, virtue shall be overcome, joy perish, and gladness depart. In those days evil shall abound: there shall be respecters of persons, hymns shall cease out of the house of the Lord, truth shall be no more, covetousness shall abound among the priests; an upright man ( al. an upright priesthood) shall not be found.

And they came to the sea Al-Ahmar, which is the Sea of Eritrea (i.e. the Red Sea), which was divided by the hand of Moses, and the children of Israel marched in the depths thereof, going up and down.

At the East, AL, El; At the West, IH, Yah; At the South, AGLA, Agla; And at the North ADNI, Adonaï.

ANNOTATION. (Belonging to § 19, foregoing.) 1. Another explanation. “Let waters bring forth abundantly.” In this place, in the Chaldee paraphrase, it is said IRChShVN, which hath a general meaning of movement. As if it should be said: “When his lips, by moving themselves and murmuring, produced the words, like a prayer from a righteous heart and pure mind, the water produced the living soul.” (The meaning is concerning the act of generating life.) 2. And when a man wisheth to utter his prayers rightly before his Lord, and his lips move themselves in this manner, (his invocations) rising upward from him, for the purpose of magnifying the majesty of his Lord unto the place of abundance of the water where the depth of that fountain riseth and floweth forth (that is, understanding emanating from wisdom); then (that fountain floweth forth plentifully, and) spreadeth abroad so as to send down the influx from the Highest, downwards from that place of abundance of water, into the paths singly and conjointly, even unto the last path; in order that her bountiful grace may be derived into all from the highest downwards. 3. Then indeed is such a man held to intertwine the connecting links of (them) all, namely, those connecting links of true and righteous meditation; and all his petitions shall come to pass, whether his petition be made in a place of worship, whether in private prayer. 4. But the petition which a man wisheth to make unto his Lord can ordinarily be propounded in nine ways. 5. Either (1) by the alphabet, or (2) by commemorating the attributes of the most holy and blessed God, merciful and gracious, &c. (according to the passage in Exodus xxxiv. 6, &c.); or (3) by the venerable names of the most holy and blessed God; such are these: AHIH, Eheieh (in respect of the Crown), and IH, Yah (in respect of the Wisdom); IHV, Yod He Vau (in respect of the Understanding); AL, El (in respect of the Majesty); ALHIM, Elohim (in respect of the Severity); IHVH, Yod He Vau He (in respect of the Beauty); TzBAVTh, Tzabaoth (in respect of the Victory and the Glory); ShDI, Shaddai (in respect of the Foundation); and ADNI, Adonaï (in respect of the Kingdom). Or (4) by the ten Sephiroth or numerations, which are: MLKVTh, Malkuth, the Kingdom; ISVD, Yesod, the Foundation; HVD, Hod, the Glory; NTzCh, Netzach, the Victory; ThPARTh, Tiphereth, the Beauty; GBVRH, Geburah, the Severity; ChSD, Chesed, the Benignity; BINH, Binah, the Understanding; ChKMH, Chokhmah, the Wisdom; and KThR, Kether, the Crown. Or (5) by the commemoration of just men, such as are patriarchs, prophets, and kings. Or (6) by those canticles and psalms wherein is the true Qabalah. And (7), above all these, if any one should know how to declare the conformations of his Lord, according as it is honourable to do. Or (8) if he may know how to ascend from that which is below to that which is above. Or (9) those who know also how to derive the influx from the highest downward. And in all these nine ways there is need of very great concentration of attention; because if he doeth not that, it is written concerning him, 1 Sam. ii. 30: “And they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.” 6. Hereto also pertaineth the meditation of the word Amen, AMN! which in itself containeth the two names, IHVH, ADNI, Yod He Vau He Adonaï (the numeration of the former alone, and of these two together yielding the same, 91); of which the one concealeth its goodness and benediction in that treasury which is called HIKL, Ha-yekal, the palace. (Which word by equality of numeration is the same as ADNI, Adonaï; but this name is said to be the palace of Tetragrammaton, because, in the first place it is pronounced by its aid; also, in the second place, it is mingled with it alternately, letter by letter, in this way—IAHDVNHI.) 7. And this is pointed out in that saying, Hab. ii. 20: “But the Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him.” (HIKL, Ha-yekal, “the temple, or palace;” HS, Hes, “keep silence;” and ADNI, Adonai, “Lord;” all have the same numeration—namely, 65.) 8. For which reason our wise men of pious memory have said mystically, that every good thing of a man is in his house; according to that which is written, Num. xii. 7: “He is faithful in all Mine house.” Which is the same as if it were said “in all which is with Me.” 9. But if any man attentively meditateth on the nine divisions of these forms (see § 5, ante), like as it is meet to do; that man is one who honoureth the Name of his Lord, even the Holy Name. And hereunto belongeth that which is written, 1 Sam. ii. 30: “Since those who honour Me will I honour; and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.” I will honour him in this world, that I may preserve him, and provide him with all things of which he hath need, in order that all nations of the earth may see that the Name of the Lord is called upon by him; and that they may fear him. And in the world to come he shall be found worthy to stand in the tabernacle of the righteous. 10. Wherefore such an one seeketh nothing of which he hath need, because he is kept under the special providence of his Lord, and can meditate concerning Him, as it is right to do. 11. But what is to be understood by that passage—“And they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed?” Such an one is that man who can neither institute the union of the Holy Name, nor bind together the links of truth, nor derive the supernals into the position required, nor honour the Name of his Lord. Better were it for that man had he never been created, and much more for that man who doth not attentively meditate when he saith Amen! 12. For which reason, concerning that man especially who moveth his lips (in prayer), with a pure heart (meditating) on those purifying waters, in that passage expressly and clearly written, Gen. i. 26: “And the Elohim said, Let us make man.” As if it were said concerning such a man who knew how to unite image and likeness, as it is right: “And they shall have dominion over the fish of the sea,” &c. Hereunto is the annotation.

“Those thirty and one equal locks, which exist in the first disposition (of the beard) are strong, in order that they may dispose the inferiors according to the number of AL, El.

“What is this AL, El? Mighty and Powerful One.

“And they are all concealed in the commencement of the beard, which representeth strength; and they are included in that (name) AL.

“And notwithstanding is AL Himself disposed towards mercies, because in Him the Ancient of Days is mitigated and included and extended.

“This is that which is written, Isa. ix. 15: ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty One.’ That is, AL, El, such a one who also is mighty, but is rendered mild through the holy beard of the Ancient of Days.

“And an Arcanum is concealed in that place wherein it is written, Mic. vii. 18: ‘What AL, El, like unto Thee?’ Because of the Ancient of Days it is spoken in the form of the configuration of the holy supernal beard.

“And the name of his wife was Mechetabel, MChITBAL,” herein are they mitigated together, and his (Hadar's) wife is named, which is not written concerning any other of them. MChITBAL, Mechetabel (which bears the signification of “as if were made better by the name of Benignity, AL, El, MChI TB AL”), mitigation of the one by the other.

“And the name of his wife was Mechetabel, MChITBAL,” herein are they mitigated together, and his (Hadar's) wife is named, which is not written concerning any other of them. MChITBAL, Mechetabel (which bears the signification of “as if were made better by the name of Benignity, AL, El, MChI TB AL”), mitigation of the one by the other.

It is written, 1 Sam. ii. 3: “Since AL DOVTh, El Daoth, is Tetragrammaton.” Daoth, or of Knowledges (plural), properly speaking, for He acquireth Daoth by inheritance.

Net a my eh Al peepee Now the formation of Adam took place in this wise: On the Sixth Day, which is the Eve of the Sabbath, at the first hour of the day, when quietness was reigning over all the Ranks [of the Angels], and the hosts [of heaven], God said, ‘‘Come ye, let Us make man in Our image, and according to Our likeness.” Now by this word “Us”? He maketh known concerning the Glorious Persons [of the Trinity]. And when the angels heard this utterance, they fell into a state of fear and trembling, and they said to one another, ‘‘ A mighty miracle will be made manifest to us this day [that is to say], the likeness of God, our Maker.” And they saw the right hand of God opened out flat, and stretched out over the whole world; and all creatures were collected in the palm of His right hand. And they saw that He took from the whole mass of the earth one grain of dust, and from the whole nature of water one drop of E32 water, and from all the air which is above one puff of wind, and from the whole nature of fire a little of its heat and warmth. And the angels saw that when these four feeble (or inert) materials were placed in the palm of His right hand, that is to say, cold, and heat, and dryness, and moisture, God formed Adam. Now, for what reason did God make Adam out of these four materials unless it were [to show] that everything which is in the world should be in subordination to him through them? He took a grain from the earth in order that everything in nature which is formed of earth should be subject unto him; and a drop of water in order that everything which is in the seas and rivers should be his; and a puff of air so that all kinds [of creatures] which fly in the air might be given unto him; and the heat of fire so that all the beings that are fiery in nature, and the celestial hosts, might be his helpers. God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness, and when the angels saw Adam’s glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw the image of his face burning with glorious splendour like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal. And when he rose at full length and stood upright in the centre of the earth, he planted his two feet on that spot whereon was set up the Cross of our Redeemer; for Adam was created in Jerusalem. There he was arrayed in the apparel of sovereignty, and there was the crown of glory set upon his head, there was he made king, and priest, and prophet, there did God make him to sit upon his honourable throne, and there did God give him dominion over all creatures and things. And all the wild beasts, and all the cattle, and the feathered fowl were gathered together, and they passed before Adam and he assigned names to them; and they bowed their heads before him; and everything in nature worshipped him, and submitted themselves unto him. And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, “ Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee, and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created.”’ And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshipped Him.

And when the Ark was lifted up from the earth by the mighty strength of the waters, all the children of men, and the wild beasts, and the feathered fowl, and the cattle, and the creeping things, and everything [living] on the face of the earth was drowned. And the waters of the Flood mounted up above all the tops of the high mountains fifteen cubits, according to the measure of the Spirit. And the flood waxed strong, and the waters thereof lifted up the Ark until it reached the skirts [of the mountain] of Paradise. And as the flood had been blessed by Paradise (i.e. had been made holy), it bowed its head, and kissed the skirts of Paradise and turned itself back to destroy the whole earth. And the Ark flew on the wings of the wind over the waters of the flood from east to west, and from north to south, and it marked out [by its path] a cross on the waters. And the Ark flew about for one hundred and fifty days, and it came to rest on the mountains of Kardé (i.e. Ararat, the Jabal al-Judi of the Arabs, near Jazirat ibn ‘Umar) in the seventh month, that is to say, in the First Teshri (October) on the seventeenth day thereof. And God commanded the waters, and they became separated from each other. The celestial waters were taken up, and ascended to their own place above the heavens, whence they came. The waters which had risen up from the earth returned to the lowermost abyss [under the earth]; and those which belonged to the Ocean [which surroundeth the whole world] returned to the innermost parts thereof. And the waters which had been on the earth, and had been assigned to it by the Divine Nod for the needs thereof from the beginning, remained upon it. And the waters diminished little by little until the tenth month, which is Shebat (February), and on the first day thereof the tops of the mountains appeared. And, forty days later, on the tenth day of the month of Adhar (March), Noah opened the east window of the Ark, and sent forth a raven to bring back tidings; and the raven departed and did not return. And after the waters had diminished a little more from the earth, Noah sent forth a dove; and it found no place to rest, and it returned to Noah to the Ark. And after seven days he sent forth another dove, and it returned to him, carrying in its beak an olive leaf. Now the dove figureth for us the Two Covenants. In the First Covenant the spirit which spake by the Prophets did not find a place of rest among that rebellious people (i.e. the Jews); and in the Second Covenant it rested on the peoples through the waters of baptism.

Alén (Elon), who was from Zebulon, ruled them ten years.

20. Akak (Acacius) was of the family of Baboi the Catholicus; he was buried in al-Madain.

37. Mar[i]-aba was buried in al-Madain.

In this seventh and last millennium will the kingdom of the Persians be destroyed. In it will the children of Ishmael go forth from the wilderness of Yathrib (al-Medinah), and they will all come and be gathered together in Gibeah of Ramah, and there shall the fat ones of the kingdom of the Greeks, who destroyed the kingdoms of the Hebrews and the Persians, be destroyed by Ishmael, the wild ass of the desert; for in wrath shall he be sent against the whole earth, against man and beast and trees, and it shall be a merciless chastisement. It is not because God loves them that He has allowed them to enter into the kingdoms of the Christians, but by reason of the iniquity and sin which is wrought by the Christians, the like of which has never been wrought in any one of the former generations. They are mad with drunkenness and anger and shameless lasciviousness; they have intercourse with one another wickedly, a man and his son committing fornication with one woman, the brother with his brother’s wife, male with male, and female with female, contrary to the law of nature and of Scripture, as the blessed Paul has said, ‘ Male with male did work shame, and likewise also the women did work lewdness, and, contrary to nature, had intercourse with one another V Therefore they have brought upon themselves the recompense of punishment which is meet for their error, women as well as men, and hence God will deliver them over to the impurity of the barbarians, that their wives may be polluted by the sons of pollution, and men may be subjected to the yoke of tribute; then shall men sell everything that they have and give it to them, but shall not be able to pay the debt of the tribute, until they give also their children to them into slavery. And the tyrant shall exalt himself until he demands tribute and poll-tax from the dead that lie in the dust, first oppressing the orphans and defrauding the widows. They will have no pity upon the poor, nor will they spare the miserable; they will not relieve the afflicted; they will smite the grey hairs of the aged, despise the wise, and honour fools; they will mock at those who frame laws, and the little shall be esteemed as the great, and the despised as the honourable; their words shall cut like swords, and there is none who shall be able to change the persuasive force of their words. The path of their chastisement shall be from sea to sea, and from east to west, and from north to south, and to the wilderness of Yathrib. In their latter days there shall be great tribulation, old men and old women hungering and thirsting, and tortured in bonds until they account the dead happy. They will rip up the pregnant woman, and tear infants away from their mothers’ bosoms and sell them like beasts, and those that are of no use to them will they dash against the stones. They will slay the priests and deacons in the sanctuary, and they will lie with their wives in the houses of God. They will make clothes for themselves and their wives out of the holy vestments, and they will spread them upon their horses, and work impurity upon them in their beds. They will bring their cattle into the churches and altars, and they will tie up their dogs by the shrines of the saints. In those days the spirit of the righteous and of them that are well versed in signs will be grieved. The feeble will deny the true faith, the holy Cross, and the life-giving mysteries; and without compulsion many will deny Christ, and become rebels and slanderers and boasters, denying the faith. With this chastisement shall the Christians be tried. For at that time the righteous, the humble, the peaceful and the gentle will not be sought after, but liars and slanderers and accusers and disturbers and the obscene and those who are destitute of mercy, and those who scoff at their parents and blaspheme the life-giving mysteries. And the true believers shall come into troubles and persecutions until they despair of their lives. Honour shall be taken away from the priests, and the pastors shall become as the people. When the measure of their (i. e. the Ishmaelites’) victory is full, tribulation will increase, and chastisement will be doubled upon man and beast. And there shall be a great famine, and the dead bodies of men shall lie in the streets and squares without any one to bury them, and (just) reckoning shall vanish and disappear from the earth. And men shall sell their brass and their iron and their clothes, and shall give their sons and their daughters willingly to the heathen. A man shall lie down in the evening and rise in the morning, and shall find at his door two or three exactors and officers to carry off by force; and two or three women shall throw themselves upon one man and say, ‘ We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel, only let us take refuge beneath thy skirts V When men are oppressed and beaten, and hunger and thirst, and are tormented by that bitter chastisement; while the tyrants shall live luxuriously and enjoy themselves, and eat and drink, and boast in the victory they have won, having destroyed nations and peoples, and shall adorn themselves like brides, saying, ‘The Christians have neither a God nor a deliverer;’ then all of a sudden there shall be raised up against them pains like those of a woman in childbirth; and the king of the Greeks shall go forth against them in great wrath, and he shall rouse himself like a man who has shaken offhis wine. He shall go forth against them from the sea of the Cushites, and shall cast the sword and destruction into the wilderness of Yathrib and into the dwelling-place of their fathers. They shall carry off captive their wives and sons and daughters into the service of slavery, and fear of all those round about them shall fall upon them, and they shall all be delivered into the hand of the king of the Greeks, and shall be given over to the sword and to captivity and to slaughter, and their latter subjection shall be one hundred times more severe than their (former) yoke. They shall be in sore tribulation from hunger and thirst and anxiety; they shall be slaves unto those who served them, and bitter shall their slavery be. Then shall the earth which has become desolate of its inhabitants find peace, and the remnant that is left shall return every man to his own land and to the inheritance of his fathers; and men shall increase like locusts upon the earth which was laid waste. Egypt shall be ravaged, Arabia shall be burnt with fire, the land of Hebron shall be laid waste, and the tongue of the sea shall be at peace. All the wrath and anger of the king of the Greeks shall have full course upon those who have denied Christ. And there shall be great peace on earth, the like of which has not been from the creation of the world until its end; for it is the last peace. And there shall be great joy on earth, and men shall dwell in peace and quiet; convents and churches shall be restored, cities shall be built, the priests shall be freed from taxes, and men shall rest from labour and anxiety of heart. They shall eat and drink; there shall be neither pain nor care; and they shall marry wives and beget children during that true peace. Then shall the gates of the north be opened, and the nations shall go forth that were imprisoned there by Alexander the king,

He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. A Ba’al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde’oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition.

The table was ten handbreadths long and five wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two and a half handbreadths were turned up at either side so that its length filled the entire breadth of the table, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: the table was twelve handbreadths long and six wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two handbreadths were turned up at either side; and there was a space of two handbreadths between [the two sets] so that the wind could blow between them. Abba Shaul says: there they used to put the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. They said to him: Has it not already been said, “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7)? He replied, But has it not also been said, “And next unto [al] him shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)?

The table was ten handbreadths long and five wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two and a half handbreadths were turned up at either side so that its length filled the entire breadth of the table, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: the table was twelve handbreadths long and six wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two handbreadths were turned up at either side; and there was a space of two handbreadths between [the two sets] so that the wind could blow between them. Abba Shaul says: there they used to put the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. They said to him: Has it not already been said, “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7)? He replied, But has it not also been said, “And next unto [al] him shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)?

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet: When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.

These need careful attention: al-lĕvāvĕkhā, al-lĕvavkhem, ēśev bĕśādĕkhā, waăvadt̂em mĕh̃ēr̄āh, hakkānāph pĕt́īl, etkhem mēereẓ. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: ăšer nišb̀a’ ădonay.

These need careful attention: al-lĕvāvĕkhā, al-lĕvavkhem, ēśev bĕśādĕkhā, waăvadt̂em mĕh̃ēr̄āh, hakkānāph pĕt́īl, etkhem mēereẓ. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: ăšer nišb̀a’ ădonay.

“The following are the forbidden towns in the district of Tyre: ṡẓt, Al-Baṣa, the source at Ma‘aṣuba, upper and lower Ḥanuta, Bet Badia, the water spring, Hamun, and Mazy.”

Rebbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there [are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “ These are the towns forbidden in district] Susita: Al ‘Awaniš, Eyn Tara‘, the heights of Barin, the spring Ya‘riṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

MISHNAH: Sterile onions and Egyptian beans from which water was withheld thirty days before the New Year are tithed for the past [year] and may be kept in the Sabbatical year; otherwise they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year and are tithed for the coming year. For those from a ba‘al field, if one withheld water for two periods, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say three.

Rebbi Mana said, since he withheld water for thirty days before New Year’s Day, they are as on a ba‘al [field].

The boundaries of the Land of Israel, the domain acquired by the returnees from Babylonia: The road-crossing of Ascalon, the wall of Straton’s Tower, Dor, the wall of Acco, the head of the waters of Gaaton, Gaaton itself, Kabarata and Bet Zenita, the castrum of Galilee, the waterholes of Aita, the best of Yorkata, the wall of Koraim, the corral of Yattir, the brook Beṣal, Bet Ayiṭ, Barshata, great Uleh, the water source of Iyun, the surroundings of Sepanḥah, the fortification of Bar Sangura, the upper cock of Caesarea, Bet Sabbal, Qanat, Reqam of Trachonitis, Zimra which borders on Bostra, Yabboq, Ḥesban, the brook Zered, Yegar Sahaduta, Nimrin, the salt flat of Raziza, Reqam of Geia, the gardens of Ascalon and the main road which leads to the desert.

“ What is the Valley in Galilee? For example, the valley of Genezareth and its companions,” and all similar ones. What is the Mountain in Judea? King’s Mountain. Its Lowlands are the Southern lowlands. Its Valley from En Gedi to Jericho. What is the Mountain in Transjordan? It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, for example Mount Machaerus and Gadara and all similar ones. Its Lowlands, (Jos. 13:17) ‘Ḥesbon and all its towns in the plain, Dibon, Bamot Ba‘al, and Ba‘al Me‘on’ and all similar ones. Its Valley (Jos. 13:27) ‘Bet Haran, Bet Nimra, Sukkot, and Ṣaphon, the remainder of the kingdom of Siḥon’ the Emorite king who ruled in Ḥesbon.” Bet Harim is Bet Ramata, Bet Nimra Bet Nimrin, Sukkot Tar‘ala, Ṣaphon Amato.

“ What is the Valley in Galilee? For example, the valley of Genezareth and its companions,” and all similar ones. What is the Mountain in Judea? King’s Mountain. Its Lowlands are the Southern lowlands. Its Valley from En Gedi to Jericho. What is the Mountain in Transjordan? It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, for example Mount Machaerus and Gadara and all similar ones. Its Lowlands, (Jos. 13:17) ‘Ḥesbon and all its towns in the plain, Dibon, Bamot Ba‘al, and Ba‘al Me‘on’ and all similar ones. Its Valley (Jos. 13:27) ‘Bet Haran, Bet Nimra, Sukkot, and Ṣaphon, the remainder of the kingdom of Siḥon’ the Emorite king who ruled in Ḥesbon.” Bet Harim is Bet Ramata, Bet Nimra Bet Nimrin, Sukkot Tar‘ala, Ṣaphon Amato.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: Lod and Ge-Haḥarašim were walled from the times of Joshua bin Nun. Why did he not say, “and Ono”? Because it is written. But so is Lod and it was mentioned. But because it was stated, “Gamla, Gedor, Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and those similar to them.” But is it not written, The sons of Elpa‘al: Ever, and Misham, and Shemer; he built Ono and Lod and its dependencies? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it was destroyed in the times of the Concubine at Gibea; Elpa‘al rebuilt it. That is what is written, also all existing towns they put to the fire. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Lod and Ono are Ge-Haḥarašim.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: Lod and Ge-Haḥarašim were walled from the times of Joshua bin Nun. Why did he not say, “and Ono”? Because it is written. But so is Lod and it was mentioned. But because it was stated, “Gamla, Gedor, Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and those similar to them.” But is it not written, The sons of Elpa‘al: Ever, and Misham, and Shemer; he built Ono and Lod and its dependencies? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it was destroyed in the times of the Concubine at Gibea; Elpa‘al rebuilt it. That is what is written, also all existing towns they put to the fire. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Lod and Ono are Ge-Haḥarašim.

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever. They are the following: one’s daughter, his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister and his maternat aunt and his wife’s sister, his maternal halfbrother’s wife, the wife of his brother who did not live in his world, and his daughter-in-law.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rebbi Ismael stated: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rebbi Ismael stated: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rebbi Ismael stated: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rebbi Ismael stated: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her qiddushin, the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: “If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes ḥalîṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother.

Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her qiddushin, the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: “If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes ḥalîṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”

The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”

The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”

The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

MISHNAH: All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever. And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted. But you cannot say about his mother-in-law or his mother-in-law’s mother that they were found to be she-rams or that they had repudiated.

HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, did not Rebbi Yose say correctly before he changed his mind? Once a man’s daughter is married without being a she-ram, her co-wife is forbidden. If in addition she is a she-ram, does her co-wife become permitted? He said to him, the she-ram is as if non-existent. If there are two sisters-in-law, one a she-ram and one not a she-ram, if the levir comes and performs ḥalîṣah or has intercourse with the first, did he free her companion of anything? That shows that the she-ram is as if non-existent.

HALAKHAH: “How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women,”, etc. That is the baraita: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

MISHNAH: How are their co-wives permitted if they die? If his daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women was married to his brother who has another wife, if his daughter died and then his brother died her co-wife is permitted. And if a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.

HALAKHAH: “How are their co-wives permitted if they die,” etc. That is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

HALAKHAH: “Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these since they [concern women who] must be married to others”, etc. In what are they more stringent? Here there is extirpation, there is extirpation. Here there is bastardy, there there is bastardy. What is more stringent? That they cannot be married to the brothers without transgression. And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: For all women who may be married to the brothers without transgression, their co-wives are free from ḥalîṣah and levirate.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood but the House of Hillel declare them qualified. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure, these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those.

Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, look how this practice is widespread in Israel! If one upholds the words of the House of Shammai, the child is a bastard following the words of the House of Hillel. If one upholds the words of the House of Hillel, the child is a bastard following the words of the House of Shammai. Come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah but not be admitted to levirate. It was stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if it were so, what would one have done with the earlier co-wives who married?

MISHNAH: In which way “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? There were two brothers, one of them died, then a brother was born to them, and after that the second brother took his brother’s wife in levirate, and died. The first woman leaves as widow of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one because she is her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the second performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

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.

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.

MISHNAH: There were two brothers, one of them died and the second took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If [the second brother] had bespoken [the widow of the first] when he died, the second performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥalîṣah with any one he wants.

MISHNAH: There were two brothers, one of them died and the second took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If [the second brother] had bespoken [the widow of the first] when he died, the second performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥalîṣah with any one he wants.

HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.