aqiba

So far if she knows that she is a married woman. What if she did not know that she was a married woman? Let us hear from the following: An underage girl who was married off by her father. She was divorced and went and married on her own. About this Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife. Is there a difference? There, whether she knows or does not know, here also whether she knows or does not know.

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]. Is it a bastard from the first? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]. Is it a bastard from the first? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]. Is it a bastard from the first? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

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

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one who copulates with his mother-in-law disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his wife’s sister; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “In fire they should burn him and them.” Where do we hold? If it is about burning, only one of them is burned. So if it cannot be relevant for burning, let it be relevant for prohibition. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “In fire they should burn him and them,” him and the second one. And the House of Shammai was arguing: Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person the cause of the prohibition became forbidden, if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition is forbidden. Which rule is slight? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the beginning of the chapter. But this is very strong! There is a difference since she was permitted to be married to him.

So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? “The genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter.” Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far for the warning, from where the punishment? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo”. That follows Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “they”, from “them”. So far about his daughter’s daughter, from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to extirpation, so much more for his daughter!

HALAKHAH: “A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not the convert guilty for his mother but not for his father following Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aqiba says, “his father and mother he cursed.” Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that the “silenced” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rebbi Yose the Galilean agrees.

HALAKHAH: “A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not the convert guilty for his mother but not for his father following Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aqiba says, “his father and mother he cursed.” Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that the “silenced” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rebbi Yose the Galilean agrees.

“A wooden sandal.” The colleagues in the name of Rav: If only the edges are wooden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If only the bottom of the sole is wooden. There, they say in the name of Rav: If only the loops are wooden. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if it is entirely of wood it is valid. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ A straw sandal becomes impure by being stepped on and a woman may use it for ḥalîṣah, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages do not agree about impurity by being stepped on.”

MISHNAH: If she stripped off and spat but did not recite, the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not strip off, the ḥalîṣah is invalid. If she stripped off and recited but did not spit, Rebbi Eliezer says, the ḥalîṣah is invalid, but Rebbi Aqiba says, the ḥalîṣah is valid. Rebbi Eliezer said, “so it shall be done”, anything which is an action is preventing. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, is that a proof? “So it shall be done to the man”, any activity of the male [is preventing.]

MISHNAH: If she stripped off and spat but did not recite, the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not strip off, the ḥalîṣah is invalid. If she stripped off and recited but did not spit, Rebbi Eliezer says, the ḥalîṣah is invalid, but Rebbi Aqiba says, the ḥalîṣah is valid. Rebbi Eliezer said, “so it shall be done”, anything which is an action is preventing. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, is that a proof? “So it shall be done to the man”, any activity of the male [is preventing.]

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two [judges] or of three when it turned out that one was a relative or unfit, the ḥalîṣah is invalid; Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian declare it valid. If happened that she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him in jail; the case came before Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it valid.

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two,” etc. The case happened in a jail and was resolved in a jail. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian dressed up as a pedlar. One day, he passed in front of the place of confinement of Rebbi Aqiba, he cried aloud and said, “who needs needles, who needs hooks, what is if she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him?” Rebbi Aqiba pushed himself tightly to the hole and said: “Do you have spindles? You have valid!”

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two,” etc. The case happened in a jail and was resolved in a jail. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian dressed up as a pedlar. One day, he passed in front of the place of confinement of Rebbi Aqiba, he cried aloud and said, “who needs needles, who needs hooks, what is if she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him?” Rebbi Aqiba pushed himself tightly to the hole and said: “Do you have spindles? You have valid!”

MISHNAH: If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died”, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.

MISHNAH: If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died and then my father-in-law died”, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her mother-in-law remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.

MISHNAH: If he became betrothed to one of five women but it cannot be ascertained to which of them he became betrothed, and each one says he became betrothed to me, he gives a bill of divorce to each of them, puts up the amount of one ketubah between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them. He robbed one of five people, it is not known which of them he robbed and each one says “I was robbed”, he puts up the amount of the robbery between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he pays the amount of the robbery to each of them.

MISHNAH: If he became betrothed to one of five women but it cannot be ascertained to which of them he became betrothed, and each one says he became betrothed to me, he gives a bill of divorce to each of them, puts up the amount of one ketubah between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them. He robbed one of five people, it is not known which of them he robbed and each one says “I was robbed”, he puts up the amount of the robbery between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he pays the amount of the robbery to each of them.

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”

HALAKHAH: “I had a son overseas.” Rebbi Ḥanania asked before Rebbi Hila: Who is the one who stated that one takes her words into account and she performs ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Tarphon, but not Rebbi Aqibah! He said to him, it is the opinion of everybody and even Rebbi Aqiba agrees to it. What is the difference betweeen this statement and the first one? There, you say that she is not to be believed. But here, you say that she is believed! (When she left as included in the permission of levirate. But) where you say that she is not believed, when she left and was not included in the permission of levirate.

HALAKHAH: “If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meĩr. But the Sages say, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.” Rebbi Meїr said, it happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. They said to him, one does not mention wonders. Rebbi said, it happened that two went to put fish nets into the Jordan in the evening. One of them saw a fish cave and entered it. When he wanted to leave, he was unable to find the cave’s entrance. His colleague waited at the entrance of the cave so long that he would be dead; he returned and reported to his house. Next morning when the sun shone, the man recognized the entrance of the cave, left, and found his house in mourning. Rebbi Aqiba said, It happened that I was traveling on the ocean that I saw a ship sinking. I was sorry for a student Sage who was on that ship. When I came to Kappadocian Mazaga he greated me and asked me questions. I said to him, my son, how did you escape? He told me, Rabbi, one wave tore me to another, and another to another, until it vomited me onto dry land. Then I said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me and said to me, I heard that in the Land of Israel one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness, except Jehudah ben Baba. I told him, that is so. He said to me: Tell them in my name, you know that this country is in bad shape because of armed bands; I learned from Rabban Gamliel the Elder that one lets a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness. When I came and lectured about this before Rabban Gamliel, he was happy about my words and said, we found a colleague for Jehudah ben Baba. During the discussion, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people had been killed at Tel Arza and Rabban Gamliel let their widows remarry on the testimony of a single witness. It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman or a slave girl.

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of a single witness. Rebbi Aqiba says, not on the testimony of a woman nor on that of relatives.

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

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

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

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

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

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

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

“The teaching about jealousies”. This is a teaching of the Temple. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon.

“The teaching about jealousies”. This is a teaching of the Temple. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon.

There, we have stated: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes). If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

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

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! But Rebbi Aqiba must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you”. But does Rebbi Aqiba not agree that “one makes her gargle until her face turned yellow and forces her to drink against her will”? He does, if she started to drink.

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! But Rebbi Aqiba must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you”. But does Rebbi Aqiba not agree that “one makes her gargle until her face turned yellow and forces her to drink against her will”? He does, if she started to drink.

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! But Rebbi Aqiba must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you”. But does Rebbi Aqiba not agree that “one makes her gargle until her face turned yellow and forces her to drink against her will”? He does, if she started to drink.

“An offering of remembrance,” a general statement; “referring to sin”, a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a specific one, the general does not mean more than the specific. If you say so, do you not find the argument disadvantaged? If punishment, which is given out sparingly, can refer, then reward, which is given out in abundance, should do so much more! But, “an offering of remembrance,” if she has merit, “referring to sin”, if she has no merit. It was stated: Rebbi Tarphon said, all statements of “remembrance” in the Torah have a good meaning except this one which is for punishment. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: If it only said, “referring to sin”, and then was silent, I would agree with your statement. But since it says “an offering of remembrance,” this must be for a good [purpose].

MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour.

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael.

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

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

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

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city 2000 cubits to the East,” but in another verse it says “outside the city wall, one thousand cubits all around.” It is impossible to say 1000 cubits because already it was said 2000 cubits and it is impossible to say 2000 cubits because already it was said 1000 cubits. Why was 1000 said, and why 2000? But 1000 cubits open space and 2000 cubits Sabbath domain. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: 1000 cubits open space and two thousand fields and vineyards.

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

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “ Then would Moses and the Children of Israel sing the following song to the Eternal to tell.” The verse should not have said “to tell”; why does the verse say “to tell”? It was that Israel were repeating after Moses every word, as one reads the Hallel: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high;” therefore “saying” was said. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, they were reciting it as one recites the Šema‘, not as one reads the Hallel.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Then would Moses sing,” etc. Like a minor who recites the Hallel in school and all repeat every word after him. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “Strength”, and they say: “Strength”. Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, like an adult who recites the Hallel in the synagogue, and they repeat the first word. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they repeat: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “My strength”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, when our forefathers were in the sea, the toddler was resting on his mother’s knees and the baby was suckling from his mother’s breast; but when they saw the Divine Glory, the toddler lifted his head from his mother’s knees and the baby took away his mouth from his mother’s breast; they opened their mouths in song and praise and said, “that is my God and I shall declare Him Beautiful”. Rebbi Meïr said, even the fetuses were saying a song from their mothers’ wombs, as it is said: “ In choirs praise God, the Eternal from the source of Israel.” Rebbi Nehemiah said, when our forefathers rose from the sea they saw the corpses of the sinners who had subjected them to hard, forced labor, all of them dead corpses thrown on the sea shore. They wanted to sing and the holy spirit rested upon them. Even the most insignificant in Israel sang the song just as Moses did. That is what is written: “ He remembered the days of old, Moses, his people; where is He Who raised them from the sea?” It is not written “the sheeps’ shepherd” but “His sheeps’ shepherd”; this teaches that He turned all of them into shepherds.

Rebbi Aqiba was tortured before the evil Tineius Rufus. There came the time for reciting the Shema‘. He started to read and laughed. He said to him: Old man, you are either a sorcerer or one contemptuous of suffering. He said to him: The spirit of this man should be blown away; I am neither a sorcerer nor contemptuous of sufferings. But all my life I read this verse (Deut. 6:5): “You must love the Eternal, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your force.” I loved Him with all my heart. I loved Him with all my money. But whether with all my soul I could not test. But now, when “with all your soul” came, the time of reciting the Shema‘ has arrived and my mind has not wavered, therefore I am reciting and laughing.

Neḥemiah from Emmaus served Rebbi Aqiba for 22 years and he taught him “את and גם mean additions, אך and רק mean exclusions.” He asked him: What means that which is written (Deut. 6:13) “את the Eternal, your God, you must fear.” He said to him, Him and His Torah.

Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Elihu Ben Barakhel the Buzite from the family Ram got angry.” Elihu that is Bileam. Ben Barakhel, who came to curse Israel but blessed them. The Buzite, whose prophecy was degraded, “who falls down open-eyed.” From the family Ram, “from Aram did Balaq lead me.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, if he is he, then the Omnipresent already covered it up. If he is not he, in the future [world] he will argue with you. But Elihu that is Isaac. Ben Barakhel, the son whom God blessed, as it was said: “The Eternal had blessed him”. The Buzite, who degraded all temples of foreign worship at the moment he was bound on the altar. From the family Ram, the son of Abram.

Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.

Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.

Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.

Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: Abba Ḥalaphta, Rebbi Eleazar ben Mattia, and Ḥanina bar Ḥakhinai stood on those stones and estimated that each one on them was a load of 40 seah. From here you can estimate how big was the bunch of grapes. It is written: “Each one should lift a stone on his shoulder.” One cannot compare one who lifts from the ground to his shoulder to one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder. One cannot compare one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder to one onto whom others hang [the load]. One cannot compare one onto whom others hang [the load] to [a load] carried by two. It is written: “One man per tribe.” In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who says these are expressions of additions, there were 24, sixteen for the grape bunch and eight for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, who says there are double expressions, there were twelve, eight for the grape bunch and four for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael a beam; in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba a beam and beams of beams.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: Abba Ḥalaphta, Rebbi Eleazar ben Mattia, and Ḥanina bar Ḥakhinai stood on those stones and estimated that each one on them was a load of 40 seah. From here you can estimate how big was the bunch of grapes. It is written: “Each one should lift a stone on his shoulder.” One cannot compare one who lifts from the ground to his shoulder to one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder. One cannot compare one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder to one onto whom others hang [the load]. One cannot compare one onto whom others hang [the load] to [a load] carried by two. It is written: “One man per tribe.” In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who says these are expressions of additions, there were 24, sixteen for the grape bunch and eight for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, who says there are double expressions, there were twelve, eight for the grape bunch and four for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael a beam; in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba a beam and beams of beams.

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

MISHNAH: “The policemen shall add and say to the people: ‘Who is the man fearful and faint-hearted, let him go and return to his house. Rebbi Aqiba says, “fearful and faint-hearted” in its simple meaning, that he cannot stand in military engagements and see a drawn sword. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, “fearful and faint-hearted” is one who is fearful because of his sins; therefore the Torah appended him to all of these that he should return because of them. Rebbi Yose said, a widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one having received ḥalîṣah for an ordinary Cohen, a bastard or Gibeonite girl for an Israel, a Jewish girl for a bastard or a Gibeonite, that is the “fearful and faint-hearted”.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “When the policemen finish to speak to the people, the officers will have taken up position at the head of the people.” Not only in front of the people, from where also behind the people? The verse says, “take up position”, “and take up position”. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr used to call the end of a rope its head.

MISHNAH: From where did they measure? Rebbi Eliezer says, from his navel. Rebbi Aqiba says, from his nose. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, from the place which makes him slain, from his neck.

HALAKHAH: “From where did they measure? Rebbi Eliezer says, from his navel”, from the place the child is formed. “Rebbi Aqiba says, from his nose,” from the place from which one is identified. This follows what Rav Jehudah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following: In the times of king Ursicinus, some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all were caught because of lies.

MISHNAH: If his head is found at another place than his body, one brings his head to his body, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Aqiba says, the body to his head.

HALAKHAH: There did not arise another grape bunch until Rebbi Aqiba rose. Were the other couples not also grape bunches? But these served in a position of leadership; the others did not serve in a position of leadership.

The following are brides’ crowns, that is a city of gold. Rebbi Aqiba made for his wife a city of gold, which made Rabban Gamliel’s wife jealous. He said to her, did you ever do what she did? She sold her braided hair, gave the money to him so he could study Torah.

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

HALAKHAH: “When Rebbi Eliezer died, the book of wisdom was hidden. When Rebbi Joshua died, good counsel and good deeds disappeared from Israel. When Rebbi Aqiba died, the souces of wisdom disappeared. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappered from the Sages. When Rebbi Yose died, insight disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the preachers disappeared. When Rebbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world. When Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa died, the workers [of wonders] disappeared. When Rebbi Yose the pious and Rebbi Yose the minor died, pious men disappeared. Why is he called minor? For he was the concentrate of the just and the pious. When Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel died, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rebbi died, troubles were doubled.”

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a man who rapes or seduces an orphan girl does not have to pay. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said, that is a disagreement, it follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba she can claim the fine and the fine becomes her property. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said “at less than three years and one day of age,” and is she not like an orphan? And did we not state: “Because he raped her,” that includes an orphan for a fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he had intercourse with her when her father was alive; when her father died, he already had the obligation to give to her father.

HALAKHAH: “The one who comes to his daughter,” etc. If another man had come to her, would the fine not be her father’s? Explain it that another man came to her before her father died and then her father died. That follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba, she collects a fine and the fine is hers.

MISHNAH: If an adolescent girl had been preliminarily married but was divorced, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says she cannot collect the fine; Rebbi Aqiba says, she can collect the fine and it belongs to her.

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: “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: “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.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One who rapes or seduces an orphan is free. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, this is in dispute; following Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba a fine is due, and the fine belongs to herself. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “She has neither a door to her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas;” is she not like an orphan? Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say, one who calumniates an underage girl is free. Rebbi Hoshaiah said, that is correct. If she were an adult who was not warned, would there be any case? And an underage girl who was warned is like an adult who was not warned.

What is a wife and what is a concubine? Rebbi Meïr says, a wife has a ketubah, a concubine has no ketubah. Rebbi Jehudah says, both have a ketubah. A wife has a ketubah and the ketubah stipulations; a concubine has a ketubah but no ketubah stipulations. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: These are the opinions of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah. But the words of the Sages: “A man may marry a woman and stipulate with her not to feed her and not to provide for her. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah. It happened that Rebbi Joshua, son of Rebbi Aqiba, married a woman and stipulated with her not to feed her and not to provide for her. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah. But when years of famine came and they distributed the properties among themselves, she started complaining about him to the Sages of Israel. He said to them, for me she is trustworthy more than anybody. She told them, it is true that thus I stipulated with him. [They said to her], nothing comes after acquisition.”

MISHNAH: One gives a virgin twelve months from when the husband requested to marry her to provide for herself. Just as one gives to the woman so one gives to the man to provide for himself. And to a widow thirty days. If the time has come and they are not definitively married, they eat from his [property] and may eat heave. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one gives her everything in heave. Rebbi Aqiba said, half profane and half heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one gives all heave to her, for heave is found everywhere. Rebbi Aqiba says, half profane [food] and half heave, for women frequently are impure for holy things.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any place, where heave is mentioned, one gives her twice the corresponding amount of profane [food].

HALAKHAH: “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits,” etc. ”If he made her vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since he gives her a bad reputation among her [female] neighbors. And so if she made a vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, she should leave without ketubah since she gives him a bad reputation among his [male] neighbors.” ”If he made her vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since tomorrow a relative of hers will die and nobody will take notice of her. And so if she made a vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, she should leave without ketubah since tomorrow a relative of his will die and nobody will take notice of him.” ”Rebbi Meïr is saying in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba: ‘It is better to pay condolence visits than to go to a wedding since the former is the end of every human, and the living should take notice.’ Why does the verse say, ‘and the living should take notice’? But do so they shall: eulogize so they should eulogize, bury so they should bury, accompany so they should accompany.”

MISHNAH: If she inherited property after she was definitively married, both agree that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers. [If she interited] before she was definitively married and [sold] after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties], and you want to burden us with the old ones?

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

MISHNAH: If somebody died and left his wife, a creditor, and heirs, and he was owed a deposit or a debt by a third party, Rebbi Ṭarphon says, these should be given to the weakest among them. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But these should be given to the heirs for all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

MISHNAH: If he left produce taken from the ground, the one who takes them first acquires them. If the widow acquired more than her ketubah sum, or the creditor more than his claim, the remainder, Rebbi Ṭarphon says, should be given to the weakest among them. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But it should be given to the heirs since all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.