anan

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

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

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

They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself], brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her, with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her.

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

“How long is ‘touching’? Rebbi Eliezer says, [time needed] to walk around a date palm; Rebbi Joshua says, to mix a cup [of wine]; Ben Azai says, to drink it; Rebbi Aqiba says, [time needed] rolling an egg; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, to sip three rolled eggs one after the other; Rebbi Eleazar ben Phineas says, [time needed] for the weaver to bind a thread; Miniamin says, that she can stretch out her hand and lift a loaf of bread from the basket. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint: ‘For a whoring woman up to a loaf of bread.’” Rebbi Yose said, all these measurements [of time] are after she removes her underpants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, each of them judged by his own experience. But did Ben Azai ever marry? Some want to say, he had an erection. But some want to say, he was married and gave it up. Some want to say, “the secret of the Eternal is for those who fear Him, to inform them about His covenant.”

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Samuel said, one separates from the whoring woman but not from her house. This parallels what Rebbi Joḥanan said: “If a married woman committed adultery, her children are her husband’s since most of the intercourse was with the husband.”

“Absalom beautified himself with his hair.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, it was like a large carob tree. Should I think like a javelin? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It was made like this and like that.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said: ‘His sister stood by from afar’ etc. Therefore, Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said: ‘The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.’ ” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire verse was said in the language of inspiration: “His sister stood by,” “I saw the Eternal standing on the altar.” “His sister,” “say to wisdom: you are my sister.” “From far”, “from far away the Eternal appeared to me.” “To know”, “for the earth will be full of the Eternal’s knowledge.” “What will be done with him”, “because the Eternal will not do anything unless He uncovered His counsel to His servants, the prophets.”

“With him”. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You do it for yourself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: A parable of a king who was marrying off his son. There came a prefect to carry the litter, and they did not admit him. The king said, let him; tomorrow he will marry off his daughter and I can honor him the way he honored me. As it is written: “I shall descend with you to Egypt and I shall bring you up, also ascending.” Why does the verse say, “also ascending”? I shall bring you up and the other tribes also I shall bring up. That teaches that every tribe brought the bones of their ancestor with them.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white” and it says in Egypt “milky white”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads would not be first fruits.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]. “He shall write for her.” “He shall execute for her.” “Or manumission was not given to her.” Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow, the dust of the suspected wife, and the spittle of the sister-in-law. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible. As it was stated: “In the blood”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. 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, her levir shall come to her”, 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! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

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

Ben Azai does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rebbi Joshua in Beqiïn. He asked them, what was new today in the House of Study? They said to him, we all are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them, even so, it is impossible that there not be a new idea every day in the House of Study. Who stayed there over the Sabbath? They said to him, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? “Assemble the people, men, women, and children.” What did he say about this? Since the men come to learn and the women to hear, why do the children come? It must be to give a reward to those who bring them. He said to them, the generation is not orphaned which counts Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them.

“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: “Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

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

“A man can make his son a nazir,” and “a man can shave”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meїr: In twenty-four matters are the House of Shammai lenient while the House of Hillel are restrictive and that is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot make his son a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, a man can make his son a nazir.

HALAKHAH: A woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child],” etc. A man should not marry a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child], but if he did marry her, the verse says about him: “Do not remove the eternal boundaries and do not enter the orphans’ field.” He who marries a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child] has to divorce her and should never retake her, the words of Rebbi Meĩr, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. Does Rebbi Meїr always fine people? Let us hear from the following: “The underage woman who performed ḥalîṣah should repeat ḥalîṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥalîṣah is valid.” Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meїr who said that one does not perform ḥalîṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s wife drinks,” etc. Otherwise, what could we say? She drank and the water had no influence on her; she is pure! I could say, merit suspended for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, really we deal with the case that she drank and the water had no influence on her; that you should not say since the water has no influence on a rape victim, but only on a seduced woman, this one is a rape victim. But a rape victim in the priesthood is like a willing one for an Israel, therefore it is necessary to say that she is permitted to her house. From where that rape disables a married woman in the priesthood? Since in matters of crawling things, which are a trifling matter, He made forced [impurity] equal to intentional [impurity], in the weighty matter of the deviant not so much more? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,” that excludes rape. How do you understand this? He said to him, just as “under your husband” is by consent, so “if you became defiled” is by consent. “She was not raped”, she is forbidden. Therefore, if she was raped, she is permitted. But there is a rape victim which is forbidden for an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started by consent and ended up raped. And there is one who is not a rape victim which is permitted to an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started as a rape victim and ended up consenting. Like that woman who came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was raped. He said to her, but was it not sweet to you in the end? She said to him, if a person dips a finger into honey and puts it into his mouth on the Day of Atonement, does he not feel bad about it and at the end it is sweet? He accepted her.

It was stated, בוא ובה. Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary. Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah, but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

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

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since all your days you explained that Job served the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it was said: “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”; but behold, Joshua, your student’s student deduced that he did it out of love!

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: We do not find that the Omnipresent talked to a woman, except only to Sarah. But is there not written: “To the woman He said: I shall increase,” etc.? Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanin said, through an interpreter. But is there not written: “The Eternal said to her, two peoples are in your womb”? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the Word fell to her. Rebbi Biri said, how many weaver’s shuttles! The Holy One, praise to Him, desires to hear the talk of the just women: “He said no, but you laughed.”

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Syriac language should not be unimportant in your eyes, for it is mentioned in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographs. In the Torah, it is written: “Laban called it the heap of testimony”. In Prophets, it is written: “So you shall say to them.” In Hagiographs, it is written: “The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic.” Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin said, four languages are good for use: The foreign language for song, Latin for war, Syriac for elegies, Hebrew for speech. Some people say, also Assyrian for writing. Assyrian has a script but no language, Hebrew has a language but no script. They chose for them Assyrian script and Hebrew language. Why is its name called אֲשׁוּרִי? Because one is made happy in writing it. Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria.

So far subjects which were stated in general and in detail. Subjects which were stated in general but not in detail? He said to him: So says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon. Anything which was in a set and and left the set to teach, not to teach only about itself did it leave but to teach about the entire set. He said to him: Is that not about a single subject? Perhaps for two subjects? And here, we deal with two different subjects. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, since at the end is written “Amen”, it is as if everything were one subject.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: It was written on the stones of the dwelling place, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, it was written on the stones of the altar. He who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, every day the peoples of the world were sending their stenographers and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. He who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, were they not only for a short time and then were hidden? That was another wonder, that the Holy One, praise to Him, gave insight to every people and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. For him who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, it is understandable that “you shall whitewash them with lime.” But he who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, how does he uphold “ “you shall whitewash them with lime”? Between the stones. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “The peoples will be lime incinerators”, from the lime they took their death sentence. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “But the Gentiles will be totally destroyed,” from Ḥoreb they took their death sentence.

It is written: “The waters descending from higher up stood like a dam, very far, from the town of Adam which is besides Ṣāretān. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Adam is a town and Ṣāretān is a town; there are twelve mil from one to the other. That teaches that the water was stacked up and rose like the citadel of Ṣāretān. Which one is lighter, water or man? Waters are lighter than man; you know that this is so. This teaches that the waters were stacked and increased, wave upon wave. Rebbi Levi said, up to the sky’s heart. There, they said, as far as Babylon. It says here “far”, and it says there “they came from a very far land, from Babylon.” It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the waters were stacked and rose, waves on waves, for more than 300 mil until all the peoples of the world saw them. That is what is written: “It happened when all the kings of the Emorite on the other side of the Jordan, and all the Canaanite dwelling on the Sea, heard that the Eternal had dried up the waters of the river Jordan for the children of Israel until they had passed across,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “As it was said further,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who is not in the position of those [men] who had the power to object, should not object. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as it is a commandment to speak on things that will be done, so it is a commandment not to talk about things that would not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to burn or to suspend, always prefer burning to suspension since nothing is more beloved in the Torah than burned oxen and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked: Does one infer something which is not commanded from something which is commanded?

HALAKHAH: “As it was said further,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who is not in the position of those [men] who had the power to object, should not object. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as it is a commandment to speak on things that will be done, so it is a commandment not to talk about things that would not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to burn or to suspend, always prefer burning to suspension since nothing is more beloved in the Torah than burned oxen and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked: Does one infer something which is not commanded from something which is commanded?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths. Who stated “a cubit of six handbreadths”? This is Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, all cubits were average.” According to Rebbi Meïr who says that the Ark was made with a a cubit of six handbreadths, the length of the Ark was fifteen cubits, as it is written: “Its length two cubits and a half.” Each cubit was six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two broken ones and two whole ones, as it is written: “Which you broke and put into the Ark.” Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the widths of the tablets were in the length of the Ark, there were three handbreadths left. Apply them to the cylinder. The width of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: “A cubit and half a cubit.” A cubit six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two broken ones and two whole ones. Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the lengths of the tablets were in the length of the Ark, there were three handbreadths left. On each side half a handbreadth to have a handle, and two handbreadths as place to put there the Torah scroll.

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says: “And he did not redeem it”. In case one is commanded to redeem it; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard”. And similarly, one only understands “planted”. It was stated: “And he did not redeem it”, that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin. Where do we hold? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, usage is between them; Rebbi Jehudah called a war of choice a war of obligation. “But in a war of duty everybody goes out, even a groom from his room and a bride from her bridal chamber.” Rav Ḥisda said, they disagree. The rabbis say, a war of obligation was the war of David. A war of duty was the war of Joshua. Rebbi Jehudah called it a war of obligation if we went out against them; a war of duty if they attacked us. It is written: “King Asa proclaimed in all of Jehudah, nobody is free”. What means “nobody is free”? Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. Rebbi Simon said, nobody is free to return home even for one hour. But the rabbis say, there is no exemption for a scholar, son of a scholar.

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

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

“The meaning of etan is “hard”, “Hard is your seat, make your nest in the rock.” “Even if it is not hard it is qualified.” Similarly, if there is no brook? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “they shall bring down, and they shall bring down,” even if there is no brook. But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

MISHNAH: When the adulterers prevailed, the spell-inducing water stopped and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai abolished it, as it is said: “I shall not care if your daughters are whoring,” etc.

MISHNAH: When Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died, the grape bunches disappeared, as it was said: “There is no bunch to eat, no early ripe fig that my soul desires.”

It was stated: It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Moses died until Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem. It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died until Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba arose. They said about Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba that all he did was in the name of Heaven except that he raised an animal of the flock. This happened the following way. Once he fell sick and the medical men went to visit him. They told him: there is no healing for you except freshly warm milk, because he had angina pectoris. What did he do? He bought a goat and bound it to the legs of his bed and when he had an attack of angina he sucked from it freshly warm milk. But when the Sages wanted to visit him, they said how could we enter when the robber dwells with him in the house? When he died, he said: I did never sin except that in this case I disregarded the words of my colleagues. After his death they checked all he had done and did not find any sin except that goat alone.

It was stated: It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Moses died until Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem. It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died until Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba arose. They said about Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba that all he did was in the name of Heaven except that he raised an animal of the flock. This happened the following way. Once he fell sick and the medical men went to visit him. They told him: there is no healing for you except freshly warm milk, because he had angina pectoris. What did he do? He bought a goat and bound it to the legs of his bed and when he had an attack of angina he sucked from it freshly warm milk. But when the Sages wanted to visit him, they said how could we enter when the robber dwells with him in the house? When he died, he said: I did never sin except that in this case I disregarded the words of my colleagues. After his death they checked all he had done and did not find any sin except that goat alone.

MISHNAH: The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated there: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated there: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar? He went and made them rings. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He made rings for them, wide below and narrow at the top.

After the last prophets, Haggai, Zacariah, and Malachi, died, the Holy Ghost stopped from them, but nevertheless they were using the disembodied voice. If happened that Simeon the Just heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: Gaius Caligula was killed and his decisions became void. It happened that young men went to fight at Antiochia when Joḥanan the High Priest heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: The young people are victorious who fought at Antiochia. At that time they wrote down the exact time and found that it happened exactly at that hour.

“And flowing bee’s honey”. Rebbi Eleazar said, honey that comes with floaters. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, farina which floats on the sieve kneaded with honey and butter. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran. But today, we do not even get one for one.

They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

Who permits the earlier ones? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the one who permitted these permitted those. As the following: The Head of the Diaspora sent and asked Rav Ḥisdai: what is the meaning of “taking away the head cover, removing the crown”? He said to him, when the head cover was taken away, the crown was removed. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, he is grace and his words are gracious.

MISHNAH: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom disappeared. When the elder Rabban Gamliel died, the honor of Torah disappeared, purity and self-discipline died. When Ismael ben Phiabi died, the splendor of priesthood died. When Rebbi died, meekness and fear of sin died. When Rebbi Meїr died, the inventors of parables disappeared. When Rebbi Aqiba died, the preachers disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the students disappeared. When Rebbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world When Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappeared from the Sages. When Rabban Gamliel died, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and Yose the small died, piety disappeared. Why was he called Yose of the small room? For he was the concentrate of pious men. Rebbi Phineas ben Yaїr says, after the Temple was destroyed, fellows and freeborn were ashamed and covered their heads, people of [good] deeds shrivelled, strong-armed people and informers became dominant, nobody explains, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. The great Rebbi Eliezer says, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the Sages were diminished to be like scribes, the scribes like community servants, the community servants like common people; the common people go and degenerate, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. On the heels of the Messiah impertinence will grow, inflation will lead, the vine will give its fruit but the wine will be expensive, the government will turn heretic, nobody rebukes, the assembly hall will be a brothel, Galilee will be destroyed and Gaulanitis become deserted, frontier dwellers will move from city to city and nobody will have mercy on them, the wisdom of scholars will be defective, those who fear sin will be despised, truth will be absent, young men will insult Elders, Elders will stand before the young, “a son will abuse his father, a daughter rebel against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, the enemies of a person are his family”, the generation is dog-faced, a son is not ashamed before his father. What do we have to rely on? Our Father in Heaven.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw. They proposed marriage into the family of the Patriarch to one of the family Pazi, but he did not accept and said that they should not be ashamed. When he was dying, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor should come for him who fled before honor.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw. They proposed marriage into the family of the Patriarch to one of the family Pazi, but he did not accept and said that they should not be ashamed. When he was dying, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor should come for him who fled before honor.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, even if “a woman’s ketubah” was stated with them, do not all these rabbis disagree? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Jonathan both say, circulating coin. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, circulating coin. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: Current coin. Rebbi Joḥanan said, good Severan tetradrachmas, Jerusalem ones. These are saying so, those are saying otherwise! But he also changed his mind and thought like them. Are not always these saying so, those are saying otherwise? Here, even he changed his mind and thought like them.

There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz, and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [zuz] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property. If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has]. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina!

HALAKHAH: “A virgin, a widow, a divorcee after final marriage,” etc. Who is a virgin after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who entered the bridal chamber but her witnesses testify that she had no sexual relations. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if a man married a woman under the presumption that she was a virgin and she turned out not to be a virgin, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina. If a man married a woman under the presumption that she never had illegitimate sex and she turned out that she had illegitimate sex, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina.

There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice? Would that mean if Rebbi Joḥanan would hold with Rebbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer but Rebbi Joshua? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman in empowered. They wanted to say, when does Rebbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rebbi Joshua will agree. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rebbi Joshua think that immorality runs after the disabling? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice? Would that mean if Rebbi Joḥanan would hold with Rebbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer but Rebbi Joshua? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman in empowered. They wanted to say, when does Rebbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rebbi Joshua will agree. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rebbi Joshua think that immorality runs after the disabling? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex.

HALAKHAH: “If she was pregnant,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity. It was stated thus: “Where was this said, for the testimony of the woman in her own behalf. But everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity.” Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, simply of unknown paternity! We find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira had a different version: Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. They wanted to say, according to Rebbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; according to Rebbi Joḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; he answered [Rebbi Eleazar] following the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.