anan

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.

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.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose said: It happened that, when a girl was raped while she went to draw water from the spring, Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If most people of the town can marry into the priesthood then she can marry into the priesthood.

Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

MISHNAH: If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma or with uncovered hair, her ketubah is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.

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

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

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated: Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later. Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rebbi and Rebbi Joḥanan the Sages.

It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later. Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rebbi and Rebbi Joḥanan the Sages.

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

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food. But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar one needs two witnesses. But was it not stated: One raises to priesthood, levitic status, or Israel, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and levitic status. But the status of an Israel? Is that not regarding family status? To give him the tithe of the poor.

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

“If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rebbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber’.

“If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rebbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber’.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There, we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming. But not if it clings to a branch. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There, we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming. But not if it clings to a branch. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

There, we have stated: “If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth.” And we have stated: “The following are flogged.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Corresponding to his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

There, we have stated: “If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth.” And we have stated: “The following are flogged.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Corresponding to his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

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

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! “If somebody eats heave intentionally he pays the principal but not the fifth.” In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said he pays, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. He explains following Rebbi Meïr who says, he is flogged and he pays.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

HALAKHAH: “The following cannot claim a fine,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah excepted the kidnap victim only for the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for the ketubah of a mina or 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even to let her eat heave. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Dosa both said the same, as we have stated there: The kidnap victim eats heave, the words of Rebbi Dosa. Rebbi Ḥanina came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rebbi Dosa.

As it was stated: “Living married to a husband,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition. If she said, he is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir.

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

HALAKHAH: “Anytime there is a sale,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis there can be sale and fine together. Following Rebbi Meïr: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale but no fine. From the age of 3 years and one day until she becomes an adult there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine. Following the rabbis: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale and fine together. From the age of 3 years and one day until she grows two pubic hairs there is sale but no fine. After she grows two pubic hairs until she becomes an adult there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine.

There, we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately; those for the daughter shall be held as property value. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value. If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value, but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately; those for the daughter shall be held as property value. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value. If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value, but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately; those for the daughter shall be held as property value. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value. If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value, but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted at Usha that a man has to feed his underage children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote. Uqba came before Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rebbi Ulla said, a Mishnah confirms that a man has to feed his underage children, since we have stated there: “If she is nursing, she has to work less and one adds to her food.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted at Usha that a man has to feed his underage children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we know who participated in that vote. Uqba came before Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Uqba, feed your children. He answered, Master, why? He said to him: Evil Uqba, feed your children. Rebbi Ulla said, a Mishnah confirms that a man has to feed his underage children, since we have stated there: “If she is nursing, she has to work less and one adds to her food.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said that a virgin collects 200,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, [he does not have] to give to him! He wants to give much to be called X’s son-in-law. That is, if he decided this at the time of the preliminary marriage. What if he decided this at the time of the definitive marriage? He wants to give much for sexual relations with her, which are sweet. That is if he slept with her. If he did not sleep with her? He wants to give much for the acquisition he made. If he had decided at the preliminary marriage, at the definitive marriage, he already is called X’s son-in-law, sexual relations are nothing new, there is no new acquisition; from thereon he wants to give much that she should not change her mind. But can she? Was it not stated that “a man divorces only by his own will”? Rebbi Abin said, she makes his life miserable and he frees her.

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

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rebbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such”. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Rebbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rebbi Jehudah agrees. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse, and after he had intercourse. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rebbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such”. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Rebbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rebbi Jehudah agrees. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse, and after he had intercourse. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rebbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such”. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Rebbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rebbi Jehudah agrees. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse, and after he had intercourse. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after.

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber. ”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings, she can work and sustain herself. The excess, Rebbi Meïr says, is dedicated, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield?

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment. “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. [ ] more than for slaves. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. [ ] more than for slaves. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. [ ] more than for slaves. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

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

“Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without their wives’ permission.” Therefore, with permission even longer. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He sent them to the Libanon, ten thousand per month.” Rebbi Abin said, the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred being fruitful and multiplying over the Temple. What is the reason? “One month they would be in Libanon, two months each in his house.” Rav said, “the one entering and the one leaving, month for month for all months of the year.”

HALAKHAH: “For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah”, etc. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three, has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated [that he is not obligated for] either šĕ‘ēr, or dress, or ‘onāh, he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rebbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male is greater than that of the female. That is what is written: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die”. He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted, since Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, a mina, i. e. four riṭl. He gives her a pillow, a light and wick, and an amphora, and a pot. Rebbi Yose said, she has no right to a pillow since the wives of poor men do not sleep on a pillow. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If she left over from her food, it is hers, if she left over rags they are his - if she left over rags they are hers. That is, of a married woman. But for a widow, both her leftover food and her leftover rags are hers.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him every Friday night,” etc. The matters are formulated in clean language. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Really eating. In the opinion of Rav, she eats at his expense; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she eats at her own expense.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him every Friday night,” etc. The matters are formulated in clean language. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Really eating. In the opinion of Rav, she eats at his expense; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she eats at her own expense.

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also they assigned it for cooking. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …”. But did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

HALAKHAH: “What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: One said, this is everybody’s opinion, the other said it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish should be the one who said it is in dispute since he explained that [the husband] provides her with food but does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money, and we did state: “If he does not give her a silver obolus as pocket money, what she makes with her hands is hers.” The work of her hands is parallel to what she finds. Rebbi Jacob bar Immi came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is everybody’s opinion. That means that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish varies in his opinions.

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

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

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If she brought him gold, at full value. This was also stated. Jewellery to be turned into denars, at the rate of one and one half. Denars to be turned into jewellery, at their full value. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Immi: If she brought him an animal? He said to him, at full value. If she brought him real estate: He said to him, at full value. But does he not gain from it? But she collects the real estate, he has only the usufruct.

So is the Mishnah: “And a perfume box for every mina.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made usufruct of perfumes like usufruct of money. Rebbi Avin said, they made usufruct of procreation like usufruct of money. As the following: The students of Rebbi Yose went to Qaddišin; they found them childless. They said to them: Did you stipulate between you? If you stipulated, it is fine; otherwise everything follows the local custom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself,” etc. Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Among the poor if he did not give a time limit.” Ulla bar Ismael said, among the poor if he did not give a time limit; but if he gave a time limit even if it were for ten years it is permitted, for no fox dies if he gets dusty from his lair. Nathan bar Hoshaiah said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Except holidays.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught that about the pursueds’ holiday. What is the pursueds’ holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, that is the first holiday when her father drives her to her husband’s house.