formulated

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah, if they cut for themselves, but if they cut for a Jew it is obligated. And we have formulated regarding this: One does not hire Gentile workers because they do not know about gleanings.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?” Rebbi said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“Because the latter are not prepared,” and they are used only connected to the ground. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Originally all implements could be taken on the Sabbath. Because they were suspected of desecrating holidays and Sabbaths as it is written, at that time I saw in Jehudah that they were working wine presses on the Sabbath … and loading on donkeys, etc., they forbade them everything. After they were fenced in they continued to permit to them until they permitted them everything except the big saw and the blade of the plough. Rebbi Yose said, also the engraver’s stylo. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also the anchor.” “A mortar, if there is garlic in it one may take it, otherwise one may not take it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is a small mortar used at table then it is like a bowl and one moves it on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they formulated before implements were permitted.

There, we have stated: “A door-bolt, Rebbi Joshua says one may slip it off one door and hang it on another on the Sabbath. Rebbi Tarphon says, it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, the Mishnah is about a courtyard without an eruv. If it is about a courtyard without an eruv, is that what we did state, “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥananiah reaches it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: they formulated before implements were permitted. (If they formulated before implements were permitted,) is that what we have stated: “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Like the “three implements which can be carried in a courtyard: a small knife, the chopper of fig cake, and the soup ladle.”

There, we have stated: “A door-bolt, Rebbi Joshua says one may slip it off one door and hang it on another on the Sabbath. Rebbi Tarphon says, it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, the Mishnah is about a courtyard without an eruv. If it is about a courtyard without an eruv, is that what we did state, “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥananiah reaches it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: they formulated before implements were permitted. (If they formulated before implements were permitted,) is that what we have stated: “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Like the “three implements which can be carried in a courtyard: a small knife, the chopper of fig cake, and the soup ladle.”

The bugle, he blows a third time on the roof and puts it down at that spot. Is it not a implement? Rebbi Yudan said, they formulated before implements were permitted.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were formulated before implements were permitted. One may not move planks of a ship on the Sabbath. If they cover implements or food they are like covers of any implement and may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi La said, even although you are saying “like covers of implements”, this is only if they have the designation of an implement.

MISHNAH: A person may not hire workers on the Sabbath and not say to another to hire workers for him. One does not wait for nightfall at the Sabbath boundary to hire workers and to bring produce, but one may wait for nightfall to watch and to bring produce in his hand. Abba Shaul formulated a principle: For anything which I am permitted to talk about I am permitted to wait for nightfall.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other. Rebbi Berekhiah preached following Ben Bathyra, the Mishnah says so: “she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.” The words of the rabbis disagree, but Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: In every instance where Rebbi formulated a disagreement and later formulated it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other. Rebbi Berekhiah preached following Ben Bathyra, the Mishnah says so: “she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.” The words of the rabbis disagree, but Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: In every instance where Rebbi formulated a disagreement and later formulated it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement.

HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written The families of counters, dwellers of Yabeṣ. Why does the verse say, counters? Because they formulated the teaching numbers, numbers. “Five shall not lift heave.” “Fifteen women free their co-wives.” “Thirty-six extirpations in the Torah.” “Thirteen matters about the carcass of a pure bird.” “Four main categories of torts.” “Thirty-nine categories of work.”

One who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name.” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again. Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Does one have to mention the time after nightfall? Rav Hoshaia said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ila said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Zevida said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada formulated it as a tradition: Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Oshaia: After nightfall one has to mention the time.

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats are pure unless made for sitting. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi instructed about those on the doors of stores that they are pure. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years, [but] one does not sanctfy months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the Court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it [and intercalated it.] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

HALAKHAH: “One does not reduce to less than ten verses of Kingdom,” corresponding to the ten praises which David formulated, Hallelujah, praise God in his Sanctuary, praise Him in His mighty heaven, etc., up to every soul praise Jah, hallelujah. Ten verses of Remembrance, corresponding to the ten confessions formulated by Isaiah, wash, cleanse, remove, etc.,learn to do good, seek justice, etc. What is written after this? Come and let us argue, says the Eternal, etc. Ten verses of Shofar, corresponding to the seven sheep, one ox, one ram, and one goat.

HALAKHAH: “One does not reduce to less than ten verses of Kingdom,” corresponding to the ten praises which David formulated, Hallelujah, praise God in his Sanctuary, praise Him in His mighty heaven, etc., up to every soul praise Jah, hallelujah. Ten verses of Remembrance, corresponding to the ten confessions formulated by Isaiah, wash, cleanse, remove, etc.,learn to do good, seek justice, etc. What is written after this? Come and let us argue, says the Eternal, etc. Ten verses of Shofar, corresponding to the seven sheep, one ox, one ram, and one goat.

MISHNAH: They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden by an incest prohibition has neither ḥalîṣah nor levirate. If she is forbidden by a commandment prohibition or one of sanctity, she has ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Her sister who is also her sister-in-law has either ḥalîṣah or levirate.

HALAKHAH: “They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said: When I was still there, we extracted fourteen cases from “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate”, except his daughter. When we came up here, we heard what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: His daughter from a woman he raped was married to a paternal halfbrother; she also has a maternal sister from a different father married to a second brother who died childless. His daughter is forbidden to him but her sister, who is her sister-in-law, is permitted to him. That is, “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate”.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers married to three women,” etc. Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. One understands that he has to perform ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” because the wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Why can the other one not be married in levirate? Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, of any one you cannot marry in levirate, you cannot marry the co-wife in levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar formulated this, he formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “ A boy at least nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his sister-in-law and when he grew up he married another wife; if he never had intercourse with the first again after he became an adult, the second [wife] may perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, but only if first he married in levirate and then performed ḥalîṣah. But if he performed ḥalîṣah first, it is forbidden; perhaps “bespeaking” acquired and she was freed by her co-wife’s ḥalîṣah.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers married to three women,” etc. Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. One understands that he has to perform ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” because the wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Why can the other one not be married in levirate? Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, of any one you cannot marry in levirate, you cannot marry the co-wife in levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar formulated this, he formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “ A boy at least nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his sister-in-law and when he grew up he married another wife; if he never had intercourse with the first again after he became an adult, the second [wife] may perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, but only if first he married in levirate and then performed ḥalîṣah. But if he performed ḥalîṣah first, it is forbidden; perhaps “bespeaking” acquired and she was freed by her co-wife’s ḥalîṣah.

Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one dead [husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, “any one who cannot marry me in levirate, cannot marry my co-wife in levirate.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second [wife] either performs ḥalîṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who went overseas with her husband,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Meïr agrees in the first case. It was found stated: That is also in dispute. What is the difference between the second and the first cases? In the first case, did they not consider her word as nonexistent for her companion? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.

Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.) A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

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

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

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

Rebbi Ḥanin stated in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Both for women about whom they said that they have ketubah as also those about whom they said they leave without ketubah, as the minor, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram, did they speak about a mina or 200 [zuz]? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses, but she takes her existing rags. But the one who leaves because of a bad reputation loses everything. Can she take her paraphernalia? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, she takes. Rebbi Hila said, she does not take. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen mention it in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both women about whom they said that they leave without ketubah, did they speak about the ketubah of a mina or 200 [zuz]? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses. Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Joḥanan: All the Mishnaiot are connected to this baraita. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yasa: About which baraita? Of Rebbi Ḥanin from Samuel? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. And Rebbi Ḥiyya formulated so: “Women who infringe upon the law lose everything.

Unless the cow stood up, unless the door was opened? Let us hear from the following: “The House of Shammai say, they are all nezirim. But the House of Hillel say, only those are nezirim whose words turned out not to be true.” So is the Mishnah: “Whose words turned out not to be true;” it is formulated in the opposite, as not to say that she should not bury her son. Even if the cow did not stand up, even if the door was not opened.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it was formulated following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: The spine and the skull are impure even if crushed, even disconnected, because the grave unites them as “a human in a tent”.

HALAKHAH: “If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. There came a case before Rebbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; [he declared it] valid. Rebbi Abba said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rebbi Assi said, if not for Rebbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman! Even if you say that Rebbi Assi did not accept what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, did he not accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission [for delivery] but he should not accept [a bill of divorce] as we do. They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity.

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me”, then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

MISHNAH: “On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married if he owns it. “On condition that I possess it at place X”, she is preliminarily married if he owns it at place X, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “On condition that I shall show you a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married and he has to show her, but if he showed it in the valley she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, any condition which is not formulated in the manner of the condition imposed on the tribes of Gad and Reuben is invalid, as it is said: “Moses said to them, if the tribes of Gad and Reuben cross over … but if they will not in arms cross over with you, etc.” Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said, that formulation was necessary for otherwise one would have understood that even in the Land of Canaan they should not inherit.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another. Rebbi [Hila] said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer?

Abba bar Zamina gave a denar to the food merchant and took from him at the cheapest rate of the entire year. Rav did not agree. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder had flax. The donkey drivers wanted to buy from him. He told them, it is not my intention to sell this before Purim. They said to him, sell it to us now at the price which you would sell it for at Purim. He went to ask Rebbi, who told him, it is forbidden. He went out, formulated this in a baraita, and stated the following: “If one was owing money and the other wanted to take from him on the threshing floor, when he told him, credit it to my account by the market rate and I shall provide you all twelve months; this is forbidden for it is not as if the assarion came to his hand.” Rav said, my uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya will agree that if they paid him and he immediately acquired, then it is permitted. If he paid beforehand and acquired afterwards, it is permitted; if he acquired earlier and paid afterwards, it is forbidden.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. [Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.

“A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”? Rebbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.

MISHNAH: One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” [or] “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld; except if, however, he formulated it in terms of inheritance, he did not say anything. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years but not months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the (month) [year] one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but [he said] “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums, etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers, etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium.

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship) is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life.

Geḥazi was great in Torah, but three things were the matter with him: He was grudging, dissolute in sexual matters, and denied the Resurrection of the Dead. Grudging. When Elisha sat and formulated his teachings, Geḥazi sat outside the door. The students saw him and said, Geḥazi did not find room inside, could we find room inside? His statements were said without anybody profiting from them. Once he was removed, what is written there? The prophecy students said to Elisha (etc.,) the place where we are sitting is too narrow for us. It does not contain the general population and the students who were there.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative liable for an oath about testimony formulated by himself? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by himself for an oath about testimony only from oaths about deposits, and since there relatives are liable, so they also are here? Rebbi Yose said, can relatives here be inferred from relatives there?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “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 that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for 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.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “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 that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for 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.”