earlier

“To the Palhedrin lodge.” Abba Shaul was calling it the council member’s lodge. Earlier it was called the council member’s lodge. But now one calls it the Palhedrin lodge. The ex-priests, a passing matter. In the first {Temple}, where he, his son, and his grandson served, there were eighteen priests serving. But in the second, where they bought it for money, but some say that they killed one another by sorcery, there served 80 priests, but some say 81, and some say 82, and some say 84, and some say 85. And from these Simeon the Just served for 40 years. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written, the fear of the Eternal adds days, these are the priests who served in the first Temple, but the years of the wicked ones will be shortened’, these are those who served in the second building. It happened that one sent through his son two measures of silver, full of silver, and their covers silver. Another came and sent through his son two measures of gold, full of gold, and their covers gold. They said, the foal overturned the candelabrum.

I could think that the Anointed for War should bring his tenth of an ephah. The verse says, in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead [brings a tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the Anointed for War whose son will not serve in his stead. From where that the Anointed’s for War son will not serve in his stead? The verse says, seven days shall the priest wear them in his stead, one of his sons. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the Anointed for War who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? [As it is said,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea, he did not protest.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement: Six times with the bull, and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots. Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever, “this is My Name to conceal.” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim. In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones.

Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement: Six times with the bull, and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots. Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever, “this is My Name to conceal.” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim. In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones.

MISHNAH: But the following are for shame: The family Garmu did not want to teach the preparation of the shew-bread. The family Eutinos did not want to teach about preparation of the incense. Hugdas ben Levi knew a chapter about song and did not want to teach. Ben Qamsar did not want to teach writing technique. About the earlier ones it is said, the remembrance of the just is for blessing, and about those it is said, but the name of evildoers shall rot.

MISHNAH: From when the Ark was removed there was a stone there from the time of the earlier prophets; it was called Foundation, higher than the ground by three finger widths. On it he deposed it.

It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year [nor in the year following the Sabbatical;] but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year. It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this you do not infer anything. watch the spring month. Watch it that it should come in its renewal.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.

Rebbi Tanḥuma said, I asked before Rebbi Phineas: It is acceptable following Rebbi Jehudah, it is not acceptable following Rebbi Meןr. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? To take this Torah scroll and put it next to the side of the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant, etc In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, who said, where the Torah scroll was put? They made for it a kind of case outside and the Torah scroll was put into it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meןr? You should put the cover on top of the Ark. In the opinion of Rebbi Meןr who says that there is no earlier and later in the Torah, in the Ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give to you, and after that, you should put the cover on top of the Ark. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Torah which the Holy One, Praise to Him, gave to Moses, was white fire engraved in black fire. It was fire mixed with fire; hewn from fire, given from fire: That is what is written: From His right hand, the fiery law to them.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Also for the kings of the peoples of the world one only counts from Nisan. In the sixth, in year two of Darius. In the eighth, [in year] two of Darius. Should we not say, “in the eighth in year three”? Heipha said, the eighth was said first but there is no earlier and later in the Torah. Rebbi Jonah said, it is written: and now take notice, starting with this day, before a stone is set upon stone in the Temple of the Eternal. How is this? In the sixth the foundation stone was laid. In the eighth this verse was said. If you are saying, they already laid, Heipha is correct. If you are saying, they did not lay, Heipha did not say anything. Rebbi Isaac objected: Is it not written, it was in the 601-st year, in the first, on the first day of the month? And it was stated on this, the year of the Flood is not counted. Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, in Tishre was the world created. But is it not written, it was in the month of Nisan of year twenty; it was in the month of Kislew of year twenty? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, any year of which 30 days have not elapsed is not counted as a full year. But is it not written, It was in the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, when the Sanctuary was erected? If you are saying that it was the third year and because 30 days had not elapsed it is not counted as a full year, is it not written, it was in the second year in the second month, on the twentieth of the month? There are 50 days in the year, and it would not be counted as a whole year? That is one of Rebbi Isaac’s answers which are difficult.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

“After the end of Nisan it is a sign of curse.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only after a Nisan of equinox. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this you are saying if it did not rain earlier. But if it rained earlier it is a sign of blessing.

“After the end of Nisan it is a sign of curse.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only after a Nisan of equinox. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this you are saying if it did not rain earlier. But if it rained earlier it is a sign of blessing.

When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai desired that it rained, he said to his barber: stand in front of the Temple: because my rabbi needs to be groomed and is not strong enough to suffer; then immediately it started to rain. When Rav Ada bar Aḥawa desired that it rained, he took off his shoe. If he took both off the world was swamped. There were building collapses; Rav let one of his students sit there until they had emptied the house. After that one left the house, the house collapsed. But some are saying, this was Rav Ada bar Aḥawah. The Sages sent and asked him, what good deeds did you do? He told them, never came a person earlier than me to the synagogue, and I never left a person in the synagogue before I left. I did not walk four cubits without Torah, but never mentioned words of the Torah at a smelly place. I never prepared my bed and slept deep sleep, and never walked among the colleagues. I never called a colleague by a nickname, and never enjoyed the calamity of a colleague. The curse of a colleague never came on my bed, and I never went in public to a person who was in debt to me. I never was angry with my family, to fulfill what was said, I shall walk in the simplicity of my heart in the midst of my house.

MISHNAH: These are the bystanders. Command the Children of Israel: My sacrifice, My offering as My gift. How could a person’s sacrifice be offered not in his presence? But the earlier prophets instituted 24 watches. For each watch there was a presence in Jerusalem of priests, and of Levites, and of Israel. At the time of service of each watch, its priests and Levites come to Jerusalem, and Israel belonging to this watch congregate in their towns and read about Creation.

Rav, and Rebbi Ḥanina, and Rebbi Jonathan, and Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this scroll had be said to Moses on Sinai; only there is no earlier and later in the Torah. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Prophets and Hagiographs will in the future be nullified, but the five books of the Torah will never be nullified. What is the reason? A strong voice, never ending. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the Esther scroll and practices will never be nullified. It is said here, a strong voice, never ending, and it is said there, their remembrance will not end from their descendants. Practices? His practices are eternal.

Assyrian has a script but no language; Hebrew has a language but no script. They choose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew language. Why is it called Assyrian? Because it is beautiful script; Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Ezra was worthy that the Torah could have been given through him, only Moses’s generation preceded him. Even though the Torah was not given through him, but he gave writing and language; and the script of the letter written in Aramaic and explained in Aramaic. And they could not read this script; this teaches that it was given on that day. Rebbi Nathan says, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew; this follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi said, the Torah was given in Assyrian, but when they sinned it was changed into paleo-Hebrew. When they merited it in the days of Ezra it was changed into Assyrian: Also today I shall return to you what was told to change; he shall write for himself this changing Torah in a scroll, a script which in the future is apt to change. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Protos who said it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the Torah was given in Assyrian script. What is the reason? The hooks of the pillars, that the letters vav of the Torah look like pillars. Rebbi Levi said, for him who said, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew, the letter ayin was a miracle. He who said, the Torah was given Assyrian, the letter samekh was a miracle. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed. Therefore samekh was closed.

Of all double letters in the alphabet one writes the first form at the start of a word and in the middle of a word, but the last form at the end, and if one changed this he disqualified it. In the name of Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash they said, מנצפ״ך is a practice of Moses from Sinai. What is מנצפ״ך? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: what the seers instituted for you. Who are those seers? It happened on a day of rainstorm that the Sages did not come to the assembly hall, but the children entered. They said, come and let us form an assembly that it should not be cancelled. They said, what is that that it is written mem mem, nun nun, ṣade ṣade, peh feh, kaf khaf. From utterance to utterance, from trustworthy to trustworthy, from just to just, from mouth to mouth, from the hand of the Holy One, praise to Him, to the hand of Moses. The Sages identified them and they all grew to become important personalities. They said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua were from these. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed. Therefore samekh was closed.

I could think that the one anointed for war should bring his tenth of an ephah. [The verse says, in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says, seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, [his son will not stand in his stead.] From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? [As is written,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea, he did not protest.

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who aggrandizes himself by the disgrace of another person has no part in the Future World. He who aggrandizes himself by the glory of the Universal Living not so much more? What is written afterwards? How great is the good which You hid for those who fear You. He may not have part in the great good. Rebbi Levi said, it is written, the glory of God is hiding things, etc. The glory of God is hiding things, before the world was created; the glory of kings is investigating things, after the world was created. Rebbi Levi said, do you know what happened earlier, but you since human was put on the earth.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. In earlier times, they were burying them in ditches. When the flesh had rotted away, they collected them and buried them in cedar wood. On the day itself he was mourning, the day after he was happy, implying that his parents were at rest from judgment.

For his father, and for his mother, and for his teacher who taught him wisdom, from where? And Elisa saw, and he cried ‘my father, my father, chariot of Israel and its charioteers’. Rebbi Mattun asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one infer instruction from Elisa? He said to him Mattun, Mattun, just as a dead person from the moment he is deceased cannot see him, so also from the moment he disappeared he did not see him. In the same way one tears for the Sages so one tears for their students. Who is a student of the Sages? Ḥizqiah said, any who has studied practices up to the Torah. Rebbi Yose said to him, that you are saying for earlier ones. But today only practices. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Any who neglects his business for his learning. It was stated: Any whom one asks and he answers. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for example, we, since our instructors supervise us and we answer them. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, any who can explain his Mishnah. But as relates to us, even our teachers are not wise to explain our Mishnah.

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

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of that Tanna: “At the end of ten years since Abram lived in the Land of Canaan.” Deduct the years outside the Land. We also have stated: [The time during which] she was sick or he was sick, or he went overseas, does not count. If she was married to the first [husband] and did not give birth, she receives ketubah; from the second she receives ketubah, from the third she receives ketubah, from the fourth and fifth she has no ketubah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah: From the third himself she has no ketubah. If she was married to a fourth or fifth and did not give birth, may the earlier ones have regress on her? She can say, only now did this woman become sterile. If she was married to the fifth and gave birth, has she regress on the fourth? He says to her, your silence is better than your talk.

There, we have stated: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes]. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos] and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah]. If was found stated, it still is in dispute. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.

Not only according to the current Mishnah that a single witness can permit her, but even according to the earlier Mishnah that a single witness cannot permit her, she permits herself. What is the difference between herself and a single witness? A single witness is suspected to want to cause trouble to her; she is not suspected to want to cause trouble to herself.

Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there: “Three [kinds of] women leave and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, [or] Heaven is between you and me, [or] I am separated from the Jews.” Rebbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood?

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for he writes to her “any other obligations that come to me because of you from earlier times.”

Rebbi Tanḥuma said, I asked before Rebbi Phineas: It is acceptable following Rebbi Jehudah, it is not acceptable following Rebbi Meïr. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “To take this Torah scroll”. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, who said, where the Torah scroll was put? They made for it a kind of case outside and the Torah scroll was put into it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? “You should put the cover on top of the Ark.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr who says that there is no earlier and later in the Torah, “in the Ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give to you,” and after that, “you should put the cover on top of the Ark.” Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Torah which the Holy One, Praise to Him, gave, its leather was white fire, its inscription was black fire, it was fire mixed with fire; hewn from fire, given from fire: “From His right hand, the fiery law to them.”

Rav Ḥisda said, in earlier times the fear of the court was on them and they did not include lewd language in song. But now when the fear of the court is no longer on them they include lewd language in song.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

MISHNAH: After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim stopped. When the Temple was destroyed, the shamir and flowing bee’s honey stopped and trusting men disappeared, as it was said: “Help, o Eternal, for the pious man is finished, for the trusting have vanished from mankind.”

HALAKHAH: “After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim stopped.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: These are Samuel and David. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rav: These are Gad and Nathan. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac in the name of Rav: These are Jeremiah and Barukh. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies that these are Jeremiah and Barukh. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “it was when he asked God in the days of Zacariah who understood God’s visions.”

HALAKHAH: It is written: “But God is angry every day.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the earlier ones all continue. What can do away with them? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The priestly blessing does away with them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, you can observe that dew has become cursed. In earlier times, a village abundant in dew was abundant in produce but today, a village abundant in dew is poor in produce! In earlier times, dew descended on chaff and straw and whitened it, but today it descends on chaff and straw and blackens it.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “But God is angry every day.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the earlier ones all continue. What can do away with them? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The priestly blessing does away with them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, you can observe that dew has become cursed. In earlier times, a village abundant in dew was abundant in produce but today, a village abundant in dew is poor in produce! In earlier times, dew descended on chaff and straw and whitened it, but today it descends on chaff and straw and blackens it.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “But God is angry every day.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the earlier ones all continue. What can do away with them? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The priestly blessing does away with them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, you can observe that dew has become cursed. In earlier times, a village abundant in dew was abundant in produce but today, a village abundant in dew is poor in produce! In earlier times, dew descended on chaff and straw and whitened it, but today it descends on chaff and straw and blackens it.

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

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

There, we have stated: “Every vine gives wine; if there is no wine it is dried up.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rebbi Jehudah does not admit claims of missing virginity? Rebbi Yose said, in itself it means that Rebbi Jehudah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee … they were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s,” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them and raped their daughters; they decided that a soldier would have sex with her first. They decreed that her husband should come to her when still in her father’s house; for when she knows that her husband’s fear is on her she is drawn after him. But is she not in the end being used for sex by a soldier? She is raped, and a rape victim is permitted to her husband. What did Cohanot do? They were hiding them. Why did they not also hide the daughters of Israel? That becomes talk and the government hears it; then these and those will be taken together. What kind of a sign did they have? The talk of a cook in town: There is a wedding meal, there is a wedding meal; there is light in Beror-Ḥayil: a week for a son, a week for a son. When the persecution ended, the custom did not end. Rebbi Hoshaia’s daughter-in-law was pregnant when she married definitively.

Women were kidnapped and brought there. The case came before Abba bar Abba, and Samuel. They ordered and gave them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He said to him: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler”. When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba, take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. The second one and she died. Why? Because they lied? God forbid, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, who intercalated the year outside the Land.

“I took”, that excludes assignations. Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation. “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate. “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Jehudah explained: A man brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that may come to you from me from earlier times.”

MISHNAH: The levir does not cause her to eat heave. If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, or even all the time for the husband except for one day for the levir, or all the time for the levir except for one day for the husband, she cannot eat heave. That is the earlier Mishnah. The court in later times said that no woman eats heave unless she had been entering the bridal chamber.

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed three things: That a person should use his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings. And that children have to go to school. Also, he decreed impurity for glass ware. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity for Gentile lands and glass ware; Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ṭabbai? Rebbi Jonah said, Jehudah bar Ṭabbai and Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed on the purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

“Rebbi Meïr used to teach: It says, ‘A man came from Baal-Shalishah and brought to the man of God bread from first grain, etc.’ At no place in the Land of Israel does produce ripen earlier than at Baal-Shalishah, and only that kind ripened early.” ‘He brought to the man of God,’ when did he bring it? After the ‘Omer ceremony, since it is said: ‘Give to the people to eat.’ “But since the year was in need of an intercalation, why did Elisha not intercalate? This teaches you that the year was one of famine and everybody was jumping to the threshing floors.”

Rebbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed. The force of Rebbi Yose is from the following: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.” It turns out that Rebbi Jeremiah parallels Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila.

MISHNAH: One opens about festive days and Sabbaths. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided. How is this? ‘A qônām that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old [wine] is good for the intestines, old [wine] was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural [onion] was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rebbi Meїr permitted all onions to him.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, earlier generations were asking, may a man ask about his confirmation? How is that? If his wife made a vow, her husband heard it and did not dissolve for her. It is obvious that he cannot dissolve as a husband. May he dissolve as an Elder? What are we talking about? If it is about vows between him and her, these are vows of himself. But we must talk about vows between her and others. [Is that not a Mishnah? “Not his wife’s vows between her and others!”] Is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Judah; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of the Sages.

MISHNAH: Earlier they said, three categories of women have to be divorced and collect their ketubah: The one who says, I am impure for you, or Heaven is between you and me, or I am separated from the Jews. They changed to say that a woman should not be encouraged to want another man and cause trouble to her husband. If she says, I am impure for you, she should bring proof. Heaven is between you and me, they should try to mediate. I am separated from the Jews, he shall dissolve his part, she shall live with him and be separated from the Jews.

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

If a woman made a vow to be a nazir; her husband heard and did not dissolve it: Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he put his finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If he said, I cannot stand her being a nazir, he should divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, she put her finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If she said, I can stand it to be a nazir, he may divorce her without paying the ketubah.” Remove this, how can Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say so in the Mishnah? Even in the later Mishnah, why did he not dissolve? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon follow the later Mishnah. But you might say, the earlier Mishnah. Why did she make the vow?

“Naziq,naziaḥ,paziq”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are expressions chosen by earlier generations and nobody has the right to add to them. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: raziaḥ,haziaḥ? Rebbi Shila said, also to expressions chosen by earlier secondary ones nobody has the right to add. But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: “If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words, like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq, do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir?

“Naziq,naziaḥ,paziq”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are expressions chosen by earlier generations and nobody has the right to add to them. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: raziaḥ,haziaḥ? Rebbi Shila said, also to expressions chosen by earlier secondary ones nobody has the right to add. But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: “If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words, like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq, do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir?

MISHNAH: If his wife had a miscarriage, he is not a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If it was a viable child, I am a nazir as an obligation, if not, I am a nazir voluntarily. If afterwards she had a child, he is a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If the earlier one was a viable child, I earlier was a nazir as an obligation, and now I am a nazir voluntarily; otherwise, I earlier was a nazir voluntarily, and now I am a nazir as an obligation.

MISHNAH: If his wife had a miscarriage, he is not a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If it was a viable child, I am a nazir as an obligation, if not, I am a nazir voluntarily. If afterwards she had a child, he is a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If the earlier one was a viable child, I earlier was a nazir as an obligation, and now I am a nazir voluntarily; otherwise, I earlier was a nazir voluntarily, and now I am a nazir as an obligation.

MISHNAH: If his wife had a miscarriage, he is not a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If it was a viable child, I am a nazir as an obligation, if not, I am a nazir voluntarily. If afterwards she had a child, he is a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If the earlier one was a viable child, I earlier was a nazir as an obligation, and now I am a nazir voluntarily; otherwise, I earlier was a nazir voluntarily, and now I am a nazir as an obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery, even if he stayed there for thirty days, they are not counted and he does not bring a sacrifice for impurity. If he left and re-entered, they are counted and he has to bring a sacrifice for impurity. Rebbi Eliezer said, not on that day, since it is said: “The earlier days fall away,” until he has earlier days.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery, even if he stayed there for thirty days, they are not counted and he does not bring a sacrifice for impurity. If he left and re-entered, they are counted and he has to bring a sacrifice for impurity. Rebbi Eliezer said, not on that day, since it is said: “The earlier days fall away,” until he has earlier days.

“Impurity and shaving are more severe than produce of the vine.” Impurity, as it is written: “All the days he vowed to the Eternal.” And shaving, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away, for his vow in impure.”

“Impurity is more severe than shaving.” Impurity, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away,” “and he shall bring a yearling sheep as a reparation offering.” Shaving is more severe because He made the shaver equal to the shaved, but in impurity He did not make the defiler equal to the defiled.

The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, earlier the courts were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter bones; some said, half a log of blood, a half a log of bones, for nezirut and the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon: They said this as explanation from the mouths of Ḥaggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.

A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan told the people of Sepphoris: You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a person who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia does not have to say “it was written and signed before me.” But I am saying that it is necessary, for there is a Mishnah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East and Reqam belongs to the East.” And even if you say that they disagree with Rebbi Jehudah and say that Reqam does not belong to the East, what about from Babylonia to here? Rav said, we consider ourselves as in the Land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. But Samuel said, even from one city quarter to another. He asked before him to change his opinion, when Cahana told him, what would we do with the earlier cases of women who remarried? He said to him, what do you have in your hand? For he was of Rebbi’s opinion as it was stated: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was neither written nor signed in his presence, she has to leave under the thirteen penalties, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages did not agree in this matter.

This does not disagree with what Rebbi Joḥanan said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if an agent handed over to another agent, the first one is responsible. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Because of a condition of the divorce. What is the difference between them? If the husband came earlier and took it. If you say, because of a condition of the divorce, that is understandable. If you say, because I do not want to see my valuables in somebody else’s hand, his valuables are not in somebody else’s hand. Is it the same for preliminary marriages? What is the difference between divorces and preliminary marriages? One can divorce through the agency of anybody. One cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech. Explain it in a fully constituted court.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

HALAKHAH: “A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only,” etc. Earlier they swore falsely and buried their children, since it is written: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.” In addition, they fear vows more than oaths. If she transgressed and swore? Rav Huna said, if she swore, she swore. Rav said to his daughter-in-law: If I were not a person readily making concessions, even the cover on your head would be my property. Samuel said, she acquires the garments which she is wearing. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “Neither his wife’s garments nor his children’s are his property.”

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: An underage girl has no definitive marriage to let her eat heave. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rebbi Abin asked: If she was definitively married but had no intercourse, [the husband] sent her to her father’s house and she grew up, may she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “Based on her earlier definitive marriage.”

MISHNAH: There was no law of siqarii in Judea for those killed in the war. After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii. How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius, his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius gives a quarter to the original owner. When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else. Rebbi (Joshua) assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy and give a quarter to the original owner.

HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.

MISHNAH: If somebody says: “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife, divorce her, write a letter and deliver to her”, they should write and deliver. “Discharge her, provide for her, treat her according to the law, do what is necessary;” he did not say anything. Earlier, they said that if somebody was led away in a neck-iron when he said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, they should write and deliver. They reconsidered and said, also one who leaves on a ship or in a caravan. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, also the dangerously sick.

“ ‘From today if I should die, from now if I should die,’ that is a bill of divorce. ‘From today after my death’ is no bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yudan said, the rabbis and our teachers [discussed.] Our teachers objected to the rabbis: Why do you say, it is a bill of divorce? Because he said, “if”! But in the last statement, he said “if” and you say, it is no bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “from today”. We also hold that “from today” is the main point. Rebbi objected to the rabbis. Why do you say, it is not a bill of divorce? Because he said, “from today”! But in the earlier statement, he said “from today” and you say, it is a bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “if”. I also am holding that “if” is the main point. There, they switch attributions. Both Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav say that the words of Rebbi [interpreted] there are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] here: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “on condition.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, “on condition that I die” or “on condition that it be after my death”? He said to him, “on condition that I die.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi [interpreted] here are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] there: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “after death.”

HALAKHAH: “If I should not return within twelve months from today,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Because he mentioned writing earlier. But did he not also mention delivering earlier, and you say that it is no bill of divorce?

HALAKHAH: “If I should not return within twelve months from today,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Because he mentioned writing earlier. But did he not also mention delivering earlier, and you say that it is no bill of divorce?

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

It is written: “And the unwell in her menstruation and the sufferer from gonorrhea in his flow.” The earlier Elders used to say, “she shall be in her menstruation”, she shall not use kohl nor any make-up until she comes into water. Rebbi Aqiba said to them: Is that a reason? If you say so, she makes herself ugly and he starts thinking to divorce her. It turns out that the Elders follow the House of Shammai and Rebbi Aqiba the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.” Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi, one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rebbi Jehudah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.

HALAKHAH: “Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.” Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi, one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rebbi Jehudah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.