halakhah

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri testified,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Hila. The matters seem reasonable for a hearing woman of sound mind, that she is divorced with or without her acquiescence. But a deaf-mute woman who has no will should not be divorced except with her acquiescence. But is it not testimony “that is an example”; does one add to a testimony? But Rebbi Ḥanania is of the opinion that this deals with a hearing girl who was married off by her father and became deaf-and-dumb. Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that this deals with an underage girl who was married off by her father and became divorced.

HALAKHAH: “Two deaf-mute brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife ? Let us hear from the following: If his hearing daughter was married to his deaf-mute brother, her co-wife is free from ḥalîṣah and levirate.

HALAKHAH: “Two hearing brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: If his deaf-mute daughter was married to his hearing brother, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

HALAKHAH: “Two deaf-mute brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: If his deaf-mute daughter was married to his deaf-mute brother, her co-wife is free from ḥalîṣah and levirate.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “A woman went with her husband,” etc. Just as you say, “if there are witnesses that she is a married woman and she says, I was divorced, she is not trustworthy;” would I say it is the same here? There is a difference for witnesses of death since if he comes he disproves [the testimony]. Then she should be trustworthy to say: “my levir died”! That is impossible since we have stated: “A woman is not trustworthy if she says ‘my levir died’ to remarry, or ‘my sister died’ to enter her house.” Rebbi Abba said, she is trustworthy for her husband whom she married out of her free will; she is not trustworthy about her levir on whom she was thrown against her will. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, think of it, then she should not be trustworthy if she was forced to marry him!

HALAKHAH: “The House of Hillel say, we heard only,” etc. The House of Shammai said to them: Is there not harvest the entire year? How is that? At the end of barley harvest starts wheat harvest. At the end of wheat harvest starts grape harvest. At the end of grape harvest starts olive harvest. That means, there is some harvest the year round. They accepted this argument. And why the grain harvest? Rebbi Mana said, because there accidents are frequent, for the sun only hits a person’s head at grain harvest time. That is what is written: “The child grew and some day it went to his father, to the harvesters. He said to his father, ‘my head, my head’; who said to the servant, ‘carry him to his mother’. He carried him and brought him to his mother where he sat on her knees until noontime, when he died.” But the rabbis say, because snakes are abundant. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “You shielded my head at the day of kissing,” at the day summer and winter are kissing. Another explanation: “At the day of weaponry,” that is Gog’s weaponry. Another explanation, on a day when two worlds kiss one another, when this world leaves and the future world enters.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, she should remarry,” etc. May the daughters claim upkeep based on her word?

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is accepted to be a witness for her,” etc. It was stated: “Just as they cannot be trusted for her, so she cannot be trusted about them.” Her mother-in-law’s son is like her mother-in-law’s daughter. Her husband’s son is like her husband’s daughter. Her co-wife, even if remarried. Her levir’s wife, even [if she is] her own sister. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says that they did not treat the males as they treat the females, as we have stated there: “because a woman is not trusted if she says, my levir died, that she should be free to remarry, nor that her sister died, to enter her house.” Because she has no children. But if she has children, she is trustworthy.

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.

HALAKHAH: “if she says ‘my husband died’,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that he died, and a woman says that he did not die; a woman said that he died and a witness said that he did not die.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

HALAKHAH: She is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife. Then she should not be trustworthy even for herself! Since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful. Then she should be trustworthy even for her co-wife! She is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife.

HALAKHAH: “If he was betrothed to one.” Should she not be trusted to say “my father-in-law died”? Did we not hold that just as they are not trusted about her so she is not trusted about them? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if her father-in-law was there and she described the circumstances.

HALAKHAH: [(He robbed one of five people). Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah deals with the case that she was betrothed by a document. But if he was betrothed by money, everybody agrees that he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.]

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

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas”. Rav asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Why can she not wait three months and then immediately perform ḥalîṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not affect her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥalîṣah in her hand! He said to him: They taught “three months” only for herself. If so, how long does she have to wait for her co-wife? 9 months. After that, could she not immediately perform ḥalîṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not touch her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥalîṣah in her hand? There came Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: That she would not need a proclamation with regard to priesthood.

HALAKHAH: Two sisters-in-law, of whom one has children and witnesses but the other has neither. The first one is permitted by children, the other one by her witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “One testifies only on the appearance of the face,” etc. Rav Jehudah said, the nose with the mandibles. This follows what Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following: In the times of king Ursicinus, some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all caught because of lies.

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

HALAKHAH: “Even if somebody heard women.” If one heard lamenting women eulogizing him among the dead, there is no better testinony than that. From the king’s commentariensis, “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. From a Jewish court, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry.

HALAKHAH: “One testifies by the light of a candle.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jonathan taught me, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There, we have stated: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if the saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rebbi Abun said, damaging spirits are as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.

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

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry,” etc. We have stated: “It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman, and a woman on the words of another woman, and from a slave or a slave girl.” And you say so? Our Mishnah is of the prior Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “For the woman innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his shoes, his money belt, and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.”. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated her like a Gentile speaking simplemindedly. A gentleman asked before Rebbi Mana, does that not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds! The statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta is impossible; one has the statement of Rebbi Ḥanina: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot.

HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

HALAKHAH: “How does he declare his jealousy,” etc. Does this mean only, until she talks with him? That would imply, if she went to a secluded place with him without talking, that going to a secluded place would count for nothing? It comes to tell you more: Even if she talked to him but was not with him in a secluded place, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave, since the Mishnah uses chaste language: Do not be alone with Mr. X.

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?

HALAKHAH: “They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem,” etc. Just as they instill fear in her that she should change her mind, so they instill fear in her that she should not change her mind, and say to her: My daughter, if you are pure, if it is clear to you that you are pure, insist on what is clear to you, since this draught is only like solid poison which if given on healthy skin does no harm; only if it finds there a wound it starts to dissolve and penetrate.

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

HALAKHAH: “If she was clothed in white,” etc. Our Mishnah [assumes that] they are not fitting her. But if they are fitting her, it does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: By the measure a person measures one measures him. What is the reason? בְּסַאסְּאָה., seah for seah. Not only a seah, from where a three-qab, half a three-qab, half a qab, a quarter [qab], a toman, half a toman, or an ukla? The verse says, “for all that is in a seah, breaks the seah noisily;” he added many seot here. Not only things that can be measured, from where that small coins add up to a large bill? The verse says, “one to one, to find the bill.” It happens in the world that a person stumbles in a sin for which one would be punished by death by the hands of Heaven. His ox dies, his hen is lost, his flask breaks, and he hurts his finger, by that the bill is paid in full. Another explanation: One is filled into the next and the bill is established. And what is the fulfillment of the bill? Once.

HALAKHAH: “Simson followed his eyes,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi says, because he started going astray at Gaza, therefore his punishment was at Gaza. But is it not written: “Simson descended into Timna”? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, that was a formal marriage.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said: ‘His sister stood by from afar’ etc. Therefore, Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said: ‘The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.’ ” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire verse was said in the language of inspiration: “His sister stood by,” “I saw the Eternal standing on the altar.” “His sister,” “say to wisdom: you are my sister.” “From far”, “from far away the Eternal appeared to me.” “To know”, “for the earth will be full of the Eternal’s knowledge.” “What will be done with him”, “because the Eternal will not do anything unless He uncovered His counsel to His servants, the prophets.”

HALAKHAH: “Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said: The glory of the Lifegiver of the Worlds was with them. It is written: “They came to the threshing place of the brambles.” Since when does the bramble-bush have a threshing place? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said, we checked in all of Scripture and did not find a place called “brambles”. What are “brambles”? These are the Canaanites who should have been threshed like brambles. By which merit were they saved? By the merit of: “The inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning at the threshing place of the brambles.” What act of kindness did they do for him? Rebbi Eleazar said, they unbelted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they undid the knots on their shoulders. The rabbis said, they stood up. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they pointed with their fingers and said, “a heavy mourning is that for Egypt”. Now these who did no act of kindness with their hands or feet; look what the Holy One, praise to Him, did reward them with; Israel who are used to do acts of kindness with their hands or feet for their great and their little ones, [they deserve] so much more!

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

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt,” etc. Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Does the suspected wife’s scroll defile the hands? He said to him, that is a question. Rebbi Yose said, it is no question. Did they not decree impurity of the hands for books only because of their holiness? And that one has to be erased! One only questions because it had to be erased.

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

HALAKHAH: “Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, it is obvious that a man may forgive about his jealousy. If he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven. How is that? If he had declared his jealousy, divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place. If you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven, he has to declare his jealousy a second time. But if you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had not forgiven, he does not have to declare his jealousy a second time. But if he had declared his jealousy, she was at a secluded place and he knew it, then he divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place, if she drank and the water did nothing to her, she is pure. Or maybe that since the water does not check out a woman forbidden to her husband, she might be impure.

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

HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink.” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement. Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her.” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time.

HALAKHAH: “Before the scroll was erased,” etc. It was stated: Her scroll is put away under the hinges of a [gate of] the Temple hall. Why? In order to shred it. A small hollow space was where the water was poured out. It was stated: There is no holiness in it. May it be used to moisten mortar? What should be wrong? It is poured out! It was stated: There is holiness in it.

HALAKHAH: “She does not finish drinking”, etc. But did we not think to say “All of them, not part only”? It is as if somebody said, X did not finish drinking when he started shaking.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water,” etc. “Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water,” etc. Rav Hamnuna said, the degenerating woman is permitted to her house. This parallels what was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even a pure woman who drank will in the end die in great pain because she brought herself into that great doubt.

HALAKHAH: “If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel,” etc. It was stated: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed; after it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned.

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

HALAKHAH: “What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams,” etc. “A man”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, or woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme, “a man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams.”

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

HALAKHAH: “The following cannot drink or collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you,” etc. Rebbi Joshia said, Ze‘ira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the rebellious son, and the rebellious Elder, etc.

HALAKHAH: A woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child],” etc. A man should not marry a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child], but if he did marry her, the verse says about him: “Do not remove the eternal boundaries and do not enter the orphans’ field.” He who marries a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child] has to divorce her and should never retake her, the words of Rebbi Meĩr, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. Does Rebbi Meїr always fine people? Let us hear from the following: “The underage woman who performed ḥalîṣah should repeat ḥalîṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥalîṣah is valid.” Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meїr who said that one does not perform ḥalîṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram.

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

HALAKHAH: “For the following the court will declare jealousy,” etc. “The children of Israel.”

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrcanos explained,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “God lives Who removed my lawsuit, and the Ruler made me bitter;” for nobody swears by the King’s life unless he loves Him. They said in the name of Rebbi Nathan: “Also He is my help, for insincerity will not come before Him.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rebbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,” etc. The first testimony is about being in a secluded place; the last testimony is about impurity. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Joshua says, “he declares his jealousy and warns her by the testimony of two [witnesses], and makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].” Rebbi Mana said, it even follows the Tanna, about whom was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He declares his jealousy before one witness or by himself, but makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].”

HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

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

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rebbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rebbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rebbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rebbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi”, since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the Cohanim, the Levites”? As Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them: “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: It was written on the stones of the dwelling place, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, it was written on the stones of the altar. He who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, every day the peoples of the world were sending their stenographers and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. He who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, were they not only for a short time and then were hidden? That was another wonder, that the Holy One, praise to Him, gave insight to every people and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. For him who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, it is understandable that “you shall whitewash them with lime.” But he who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, how does he uphold “ “you shall whitewash them with lime”? Between the stones. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “The peoples will be lime incinerators”, from the lime they took their death sentence. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “But the Gentiles will be totally destroyed,” from Ḥoreb they took their death sentence.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥisda said, they had great difficulty; elsewhere you say that one goes to the Torah, and here you say, one brings the Torah to him? But because they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora over there? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the seed of David is immersed there one treats him in the ancestral way.

HALAKHAH: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: Nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the Davidic dynasty, and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard! Explain it, that he was leaning on the wall in a kind of sitting. But is it not written: “King David came and sat before the Eternal”? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated on his prayer. There, we have stated: The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second in the Ḥel, and the third at its place! Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Did we state that the third sat at its place? It stood at its place!

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, why does one read “ “tithing you shall tithe,”, “when you will have finished tithing,”? Because Israel went from the Sabbatical year to the eighth, not to have them forget tithes. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does he not to make havdalah? He said to him, one already said havdalah on New Year’s Day.

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

HALAKHAH: “As it was said further,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who is not in the position of those [men] who had the power to object, should not object. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as it is a commandment to speak on things that will be done, so it is a commandment not to talk about things that would not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to burn or to suspend, always prefer burning to suspension since nothing is more beloved in the Torah than burned oxen and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked: Does one infer something which is not commanded from something which is commanded?

HALAKHAH: “Your heart should not soften,” etc. It is written: “From the radiation that surrounds Him, His clouds,” against their cavalry squads, “passed,” against their cohorts. “Hailstorm,” against their missile throwers. “And embers,” against their throwing machines. “Of fire,” against their naphta. “He thundered from Heaven,” against their torches. “The Most High made His voice heard,” against the sound of their horns. “He sent His arrows,” against their arrows. “And dispersed them,”, this teaches that they were dispersing them. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, this teaches that they were in rectangular formations, that the arrows dispersed them but the lightnings were bringing them together. “Lightnings,” against their swords. “And confused them,” He confused them, made them disoriented, and felled their standard. Rebbi said, the expression “and confounded them” means only pestilence, as it is written: “He will confuse them in a great confusion until He destroyed them.”

HALAKHAH: “Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

HALAKHAH: “Who planted”. Not only who planted; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where about him who planted a vineyard but also who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds? The verse says, “who planted”, in any circumstance. I could think that one who planted four fruit trees or five futile trees may return? The verse says, “a vineyard.” Since a vineyard is special in that it is composed of five vines, this excludes the case where there are not five vines.

HALAKHAH: “Who became betrothed”. Not only a young man who married a young woman. From where even a young man who married a widow, a widower who married a young woman, a widower who married a widow? From where? The verse says, “a woman”, of any kind. Why does the verse say, “new”? That excludes him who remarries his divorcee. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who marries a sheram does not return since he has no religious obligation to live with her.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, if he changed anything, he would be returning. If he whitewashed it or added windows, he would not return, if it had been great and he made it small he returns, or one room and he made it two.

HALAKHAH: “If he built a house and inaugurated it,” but did not use it for twelve months. “If he planted a vineyard and redeemed it,” but did not use it for twelve months. And all are derived from the wife: Since the wife needs twelve months, also all of them need twelve months. It was stated: All those mentioned remain unoccupied in town, [do not pay city taxes], and do not provide food and water nor improve the roads, as it is said: “nor should anything be imposed on him,” but it may be imposed on others.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “The policemen shall add.” This expression “shall add” only means an addition. Like a man who says, I am adding to the words of my teacher. It was stated: The latter [words] are additions. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaïm. He who said, “I am adding to the words of my teacher,” both the first and the later declarations both he and his teacher said. He who said, the later ones are additions, the first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. Rebbi Mana said, there is only one Tanna. The first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: He hears a sentence from the Cohen and tells it to the people in all languages. But its end disagrees with Rebbi Mana: He adds a final word of his own. If you say so, it does not disagree at all with Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: The first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher.

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

HALAKHAH: “The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say”. He starts from the beginning of the paragraph. “If there be found,” not in a time when they are frequent. “If there be found,” not that you have to search. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses. “It is not known who killed him”, therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim. And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, [is it only] if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, if he was found strangled and hanging from a tree they did not break its neck. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, one does not have to say strangled and hanging from a tree, from where even if he was found cast away? The verse says “fallen”, why does the verse say “slain”? But even if he was found strangled or hanging from a tree they did not break its neck.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree about burial. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: When do they disagree? If the head was higher but the body lower. But if the head was lower and the body higher everybody agrees that one brings the head to the body. If there was an incline on both sides, do I say that the head fell to one side and the body to the other or does this head have no body and that body no head? If it was level, any distance it is usual to chop it off is one body; otherwise, the head has no body and the body no head.

HALAKHAH: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally. Rebbi Jonah explains the Mishnah: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn. Rebbi Yose explained the Mishnah: Intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn. It turns out that Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Yose the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael says, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach leaves its set and stands in its new meaning. Therefore, he has to spell out “one which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn. Rebbi Yose follows the rabbis, since the rabbis say, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach remains in its set and in its new meaning. Therefore, he has to spell out: intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn.

HALAKHAH: The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim. The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," and did not execute him; "or that we did not see him and left him," and muddled his trial. But the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," without company; "or that we did not see him and left him," without provisions.

HALAKHAH: Gidul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. One should state: “A witness says that he saw the murderer, and a woman says that she did not see; a woman said that he saw and a witness said that he did not see,” as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

HALAKHAH: “Murderous son,” son, professional murderer.

HALAKHAH: For it is written, “for they behave like donkeys with the prostitutes,” and it is written: “The woman will be a swearword among her people.” In times when her people are peaceful, not in times when her people are dissolute. “The man shall be free from sin.” When does the woman carry her iniquity? If the man is free from sin.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated there: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: “The Elders are no longer at the gate” etc.

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: “Our head’s crown fell”; these are the grooms’ crowns, that is gilded woolen strips. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Of salt and sulfur. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Of salt and olives. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, even of willows. Rav Jeremiah of Šibšeb wore a crown of olive branches. Samuel heard this and said, it would have been better for him it he had been beheaded but not done this thing. That happened to him, as “an error coming from before the ruler.”

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

HALAKHAH: “A virgin is married on Wednesday,” etc. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. But a blessing in only written on the Fifth and the Sixth days! On the Fifth for birds and fish, on the Sixth for Adam and Eve. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of Bar Qappara is the Fourth, evening of the Fifth, and the Fifth, evening of the Sixth. Is there not a blessing written also on Sabbath? No blessing is written for creatures, only for the day.

HALAKHAH: “The ketubah of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina,” etc. Huna in the name of Samuel: In the Temple šeqel. Rebbi Abba bar Bina said, circulating coin. A Mishnah supports Rebbi Abba bar Bina: “The five tetradrachmas of the firstborn are in Tyrian coinage, the 30 of the slave, the 50 of the rapist and the seducer, the 100 of the slanderer, are all computed in Temple šeqels in Tyrian coinage.” A woman’s ketubah is not stated with them. Rebbi Abin said, did they not learn the ketubah of a woman from the rapist and the seducer? Since the rapist and the seducer are mentioned, it is as if women’s ketubah was stated with them.