cohen

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

MISHNAH: An Israel woman married to a Cohen shall eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she shall eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat tithe. If [then] she marries an Israel, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

MISHNAH: If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat neither heave nor tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she may eat tithe. From the Levite, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth.”

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth.”

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth.”

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

From where that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during [the period of duty of] any watch he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires … and serve”. If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him.”

MISHNAH: Which underage girl needs to repudiate? Anyone whom mother or brothers married off with her knowledge. If they married her off without her knowledge she does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, any girl who is unable to watch over her marriage gift does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Eliezer says, in all legal respects, the underage girl is like one seduced: The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen may not eat heave; the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may eat heave.

MISHNAH: Which underage girl needs to repudiate? Anyone whom mother or brothers married off with her knowledge. If they married her off without her knowledge she does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, any girl who is unable to watch over her marriage gift does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Eliezer says, in all legal respects, the underage girl is like one seduced: The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen may not eat heave; the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may eat heave.

HALAKHAH: “Two brothers, one deaf-mute,” etc. May she eat heave? Let us her from the following: “A hearing daughter of an Israel who married a deaf-mute Cohen does not eat heave. If he died and she came before the levir, if he is hearing, she eats, deaf-mute does not eat.”

HALAKHAH: “Two hearing brothers,” etc. “Two brothers, one of them deaf-mute,” etc. May she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “A hearing daughter of an Israel who became engaged to a hearing Cohen, who did not manage to bring her to the bridal chamber before he became deaf-mute or before she became deaf-mute, does not eat heave. If he died and she came before a levir she eats even if he is deaf-mute. In this He increased the power of the levir over that of the husband since the deaf-mute levir enables her to eat, but the deaf-mute husband does not enable her to eat.”

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.

What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? Is it because she is not suspected to cause trouble [to herself in order later to cause trouble to her co-wife or because she is not suspected to cause any trouble] to her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: “If a woman went overseas with her husband and returns and says ‘my husband died’, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden.” We explain it, saying that she is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife, and Rebbi Eleazar does not disagree. It is impossible that the reason be that she is not suspected to cause any trouble to her co-wife. We could suspect that perhaps her husband sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Think of it, what if her [next] husband was a Cohen? Rebbi Abba bar Rebbi Zemina said, she is suspected to produce several desecrated children in order to make bastards of her co-wife’s children.

MISHNAH: They said to him, it happened that Levites went to Zoar the town of date palms when one one them fell ill and they left him at an inn On their return they asked the women innkeeper,where is our colleague? She told them, he died and I buried him; and they let his widow remarry. They said to him, should not the wife of a Cohen be like a women innkeeper? He retorted, if she is in the position of the women innkeeper. For the women innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his back pack and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.

It was stated: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

MISHNAH: If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves. If she said, I am pure, one brings her to the Eastern gate, the Nikanor gate, for there one lets the suspected wives drink, and one purifies the woman after childbirth, and the persons healed from skin disease. A Cohen seizes her garment, if it tears it tears, if it frays it frays, until he uncovers her breast, and he destroys her hairdo. Rebbi Jehudah says, if her breast was beautiful, he did not uncover it, if her hair was beautiful, he did not undo it.

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal”, that is the Nikanor gate. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. It is written: “If a man sin against a man.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

HALAKHAH: “He brought her flour offering,” etc. It is written: “In the Cohen’s hand shall be the spell-inducing bitter water.” Is that to tire her out? Rather to inspire her with fear.

MISHNAH: He brought a new earthenware bowl and filled it with half a log of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]. (Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt. Rebbi Jehudah said he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

HALAKHAH: : “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen”, may the words be confirmed. “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, from the suspected wife. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers”, etc. “Amen”, may the words be confirmed: “Benaiah ben Yehoyada (the priest) answered the king and said Amen”, etc. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse,” because oath means curse, as you say: “The Cohen has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”

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.

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.

MISHNAH: He took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket, put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave. He weaved, presented, took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Why Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rebbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rebbi Simeon.

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

“‘A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated.’ For it is written: ‘He shall not desecrate his seed in his clan.’ Not only that he desecrates his seed; from where [that he desecrates] herself? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin, is it not logical that she should be desecrated? He himself gives a counter-argument since he sinned and is not desecrated. No. If you talk about the man who is not otherwise desecrated, what can you say about a woman who can be otherwise desecrated? Since she can be otherwise desecrated, it is an argument that she should be desecrated! If you wish, you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’” even to desecrate one who is enabled.

“‘A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated.’ For it is written: ‘He shall not desecrate his seed in his clan.’ Not only that he desecrates his seed; from where [that he desecrates] herself? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin, is it not logical that she should be desecrated? He himself gives a counter-argument since he sinned and is not desecrated. No. If you talk about the man who is not otherwise desecrated, what can you say about a woman who can be otherwise desecrated? Since she can be otherwise desecrated, it is an argument that she should be desecrated! If you wish, you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’” even to desecrate one who is enabled.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim.” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim.” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

“A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”

“A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s wife drinks and is permitted to her husband; the wife of a eunuch drinks. One may declare one’s jealousy with respect to any incest-‘prohibited person, except for a minor and a non-man.

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

Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

From where that the intercourse of a disabled disables? What are we talking about? If about a married woman, there is a serious [offense]. If about a widow married to the High Priest, it already is written “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” What is equal between them is: Everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified. These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.”

From where that the intercourse of a disabled disables? What are we talking about? If about a married woman, there is a serious [offense]. If about a widow married to the High Priest, it already is written “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” What is equal between them is: Everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified. These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.”

From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir, he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir, he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir, he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

MISHNAH: The priest anointed for war was speaking holy language when he was addressing the people, as it is said: “It shall be when you approach war, the Cohen shall come near”, that is the priest anointed for war, “shall speak to the people”, in the holy language, “and say to them: Hear, o Israel, you are approching today war against your enemies,” against your enemies but not against your brothers, not Jehudah against Simeon and not Simeon against Benjamin, for if you would fall in their hands they would have mercy on you.

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: “ Who is the man who became betrothed to a woman and did not take her,” etc. Not only one betrothed to a virgin, even one betrothed to a widow, even to one who waits for her brother-in-law. Even if he heard that his brother had died in the war he then returns and leaves. All those who listen to the Cohen in the front lines return and provide food and water and improve the roads.

MISHNAH: The following do not return: If somebody builds a portico, a covered walkway, or a verandah, or planted four fruit trees or five futile trees, or remarried his divorcee. [In the case of] 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, he would not be returning. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who rebuilt his house on its foundations would not be returning. Rebbi Eleazar said, also one who built a brick house in the Sharon would not return.

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”.