implies

This implies that if one finds a vessel on the road it is like the feet of the finder.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the prairie animals, those who leave on Passover and return with the rains. The following are the domestic ones, those who stay in the village overnight. Rebbi says, it is permitted to slaughter these and those which entered the Sabbath domain after dark. What are prairie animals? Those who grow up in the dust.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies, it is permitted to move a vessel which entered the Sabbath domain from outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: But only within four cubits. As this, a Saracen honored Gamliel the Twin with truffles. He came and asked Rebbi Mana who said to him, receive them in your kitchen and eat them within four cubits.

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says, “the one who stands before the Ark on the last holiday of Tabernacles, the last one mentions but the first one does not mention;” and here he says so? One {Mishnah} in his own name, the other one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. But we do not know which one in his own name and which one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Since “Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra, and Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah, that all holidays end with dew since dew is a good sign for the world,” this implies that the first one is in his own name, the second one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.

From where that there is a clear commandment? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: Nor did I give from it to the dead. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, would this be permitted for the living? Since this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted to the living but forbidden to the dead? This implies that this is anointing.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There, he says, God puts singles in a house; To rise on scales; they all are of vapor! And here, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

It is written: May the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her bridal chamber. May the bridegroom leave his room, that is the Ark, and the bride her bridal chamber, that is the Torah. Another word: May the bridegroom leave his room, that is the Patriarch, and the bride her bridal chamber, that is the presiding judge. Rebbi Ḥelbo said to Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch, come with us and your pain will be gone. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that our fasts are no real fasts. Why? since the Patriarch is not with us.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Levi said, it is written: The Eternal will stick to you the epidemic. {A parable} of a woman who sticks three loaves together. How is this acted on? Is it not that larger it needs another rate? Let us hear it from the following: Even a city large as Antiochia, and there were brought out three dead persons during three consecutive days. This implies that larger it needs another rate. The houses about which they spoke, healthy but not shaky. And similarly, young people but not old ones. It was stated: Diphtheria any; two by plague and one by diphtheria. Come and see, “diphtheria any” and you are saying so? It is needed for the case that they blew the shofar about diphtheria and it went away and after that two died of a plague and one of diphtheria.

“It happened that they said to Onias the circle-drawer, pray for rain. He said to them, go and shelter the Passover ovens so they should not get softened.” This implies that it was close to Passover. It also was stated thus: “On the twentieth all the people fasted for rain and it fell on them.”

“He said, that is not what I was asking for, but rain of goodwill, blessing, and donation. It rained normally until Israel moved from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain.” This implies that the Temple Mount was covered by a roof. And it was stated so: There was a stoa inside a stoa.

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, that is a building of enjoyment. But if his wall was inclined, he tears it down and rebuilds it. Samuel said, the wall where he sleeps. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Av a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There, he says, God puts singles in a house; To rise on scales; they all are of vapor! And here, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: The entire month is qualified for reading the scroll. What is the reason? The month which for them was turned from sorrow to joy. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, but only up to the Fifteenth. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. That is what you are saying to read the scroll. But making a dinner one makes only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth; and one distributes [to the poor] only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth. The eyes of the poor are only directed to the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth. Then these should be for reading and those for the dinner? Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: These days are remembered and executed. Remembered by reading. And executed by dinner. This implies that the Scroll is given to be analyzed Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is said here, words of peace and truth. And it is said there, truth buy but do not sell. It is like the truth of the Torah. This one needs ruling, that one needs ruling. This one is given to be analyzed, that one is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed to David is given to be analyzed. What is the reason? Everything in writing, that is the Masora. For the hand of the Eternal, that is the Holy Spirit. To me for understanding, from here that it is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, and why do we not say, the plan of everything was in spirit with him? Rebbi Mana said, what is בָר֨וּחַ֙? by the wind of his mouth.

Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment, this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz and planted saplings on Purim. Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday. And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns.

Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment, this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz and planted saplings on Purim. Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday. And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns.

Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment, this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz and planted saplings on Purim. Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday. And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns.

HALAKHAH: In all cases where we are stating “if it falls” it refers to the Fourteenth. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “walled cities the next day.” Rebbi Yose said, there is no “if it falls on Monday”, [there is no] “if it falls on the Sabbath.” If it falls on Monday, the Great Fast Day is on Sunday; if it falls on the Sabbath, the Great Fast Day falls on Friday.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, for “Rebbi Eleazar said, [also] the third time one checks him out because of the sacrifice.” But for the rabbis, the second time if forced he is pure, but the third time if forced is impure. Rebbi Yose said, if it is not the rabbis’, it also is not Rebbi Eleazar’s, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar said, I did not say to undo his count, only that he may not bring a sacrifice. I did not say that he is not a sufferer from flux to undo the count of episodes; not to upset his status did I say but that he may not bring a sacrifice. This implies that it is everybody’s opinion. If you would say it is Rebbi Eleazar’s it should state: the second time is subject to undoing but not a sacrifice, the third time to undoing and sacrifice. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, if she experienced two episodes of easy flux and one in difficulty she undoes and does not bring a sacrifice.

Rebbi Yudan said: The Mishnah is about two persons. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Mishnah says so, “the only difference between a sufferer from skin disease who is quarantined and one declared absolute is torn clothing, untended hair, shaving, and birds.” This implies that we are dealing with two persons. If you would say about one person, one should state: “the only difference between a large white spot and a small white spot.” Just as you are saying there, we are dealing with two persons, so also here we are dealing with two persons.

Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, [with thanksgiving,] with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.”

Antoninus asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement. What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.

Antoninus asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement. What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide, and deficient in time, and he was a Levite. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal. It is written, the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast, as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written, Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written, they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers] of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

“If he wrote it,” this implies that work is permitted. Should we say on the Fourteenth, in walled cities? “Studied it,” only he should not let his mind wander to other topics. “He corrected it.” It was stated: one is not explicit about its mistakes. Rebbi Isaac bar Abba from Mehasia and Rebbi Ḥananel were sitting before Rav. One said, Yehudim. And the other one said, Yehudiim, and neither of them changed his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan was reading always “Yehudim”. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One verse says “book”, another verse says “letter.” How is this? They made it light for sewing. They were lenient regarding its sewing, that if he stitched two or three stitches it is qualified.

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House, that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified.

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House, that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

If somebody makes a light or a candelabrum for the synagogue, as long as the name of their owner is not forgotten, one is not empowered to change them to another place; if the name of their owner is forgotten, one is empowered to change them to another place. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if the owner’s name was engraved on it, it is as if the name of their owner is not forgotten. Antoninus made a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi heard and said, praise to God Who inspired him to make a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, what did Rebbi say? Praise to God or praise to our God? If he said praise to God, this implies that Antoninus did not convert; if he said praise to our God this implies that Antoninus did convert.

If somebody makes a light or a candelabrum for the synagogue, as long as the name of their owner is not forgotten, one is not empowered to change them to another place; if the name of their owner is forgotten, one is empowered to change them to another place. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if the owner’s name was engraved on it, it is as if the name of their owner is not forgotten. Antoninus made a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi heard and said, praise to God Who inspired him to make a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, what did Rebbi say? Praise to God or praise to our God? If he said praise to God, this implies that Antoninus did not convert; if he said praise to our God this implies that Antoninus did convert.

[There are indications implying that Antoninus converted; there are indications implying that Antoninus did not convert.] One saw him walking with a house shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. Antolinus said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. When he heard this, he went and circumcised. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. [And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin.] This implies that Antolinus converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that Antolinus did (not) convert., as Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antolinus comes at the head of all of them.

[There are indications implying that Antoninus converted; there are indications implying that Antoninus did not convert.] One saw him walking with a house shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. Antolinus said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. When he heard this, he went and circumcised. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. [And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin.] This implies that Antolinus converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that Antolinus did (not) convert., as Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antolinus comes at the head of all of them.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in his face. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a crowded holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing Israel. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Where does one appear? On the Temple Mount or in the Temple courtyards? He told him, let us hear from the following: “The impure is exempt from appearance, for it is written, you shall come there and bring there.” And one impure in the impurity of the dead may not enter the Temple Mount. This implies that appearance is in the Temple courtyards.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes, etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel.

There, we have stated: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow.

May one appoint Elders for selected topics? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]

HALAKHAH: “One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons},” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael states warnings to the actors. Since Rebbi Immi was sitting and stating a warning for active homosexual and a warning for the passive homosexual, this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: With two letters two worlds were created, this world and the Future World. [One by He and one by Yud.] What is the reason? For in Yah, the Eternal is the Rock of Worlds. However, we did not know which one was created by He and which one by Yud. But from what is written, these are the outcomes of Heaven and Earth in their being created, He created them by He. This implies that this world was created by He, and the Future World was created by Yud. Since He is (missing) [open] below, it is a hint for all creatures that they will descend to the pit. Since He has a point on top, from the moment they descend they ascend. Since He is open from all sides, so He opens a door to all who repent. Since Yud is curved, so all creatures should be bent. All faces turned yellow. When David saw this, he started to acclaim by two letters, praise Yah, praise, the servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions shall not be unimportant in your eyes, since leaning on is only a meritorious act and the fathers of the world disagreed about it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one has to press down with all his weight. If it were not so we would have to say that it is forbidden to touch an animal on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

There we have stated: “The deep mourner touches but may not sacrifice nor take his part of meat in the evening.” There you are saying, he may touch. But here you are saying, he is forbidden to touch. Rebbi Yannai said, here when he put his mind to other things, but there if he did not put his mind to other things. Rebbi Yose asked, if he put his mind to other things should he not also be forbidden heave? How is this? As Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: They treated him like one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta. This implies that one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. And here he is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. There we have stated: “For the House of Shammai are saying, she needs immersion at the end, but the House of Hillel are saying, she does not need immersion at the end.” Where do we hold? If about eating heave it is difficult for the House of Shammai; if about eating sancta it is difficult for the House of Hillel. Does she not lack expiation? Do people lacking expiation not need immersion for sancta? If you are saying that there one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated here the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. If you are saying that here one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated there the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said before Rebbi Mana, we are dealing with heave. There the reason of the House of Shammai is because of the unlearned, that they should not say, we saw a woman losing blood and eating heave.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. They asked before Rebbi Yose: May a slave marry a woman on a holiday? He told them, let us hear from the following: “One who is half a slave and half a free man.” And Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. This implies that a slave is commanded to be fruitful and multiply and anybody commanded to be fruitful and multiply is forbidden to marry on a holiday

“Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.” Two Amoraim, Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday everybody agrees that it is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent: just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary pain is pain, so he says here, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

“One does not bring vessels from the potter’s house.” This implies, merchandise in danger of spoilage may be moved on the holiday.

There, we have stated: “Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Hannad who questioned the purity of hands.” This implies that one who questions even one of the words of the Sopherim needs excommunication. There, we have stated: “They let her drink dikma.” What is dikma? An imitation. “They excommunicated him, he died in his excommunication, and the Court stoned his coffin. To teach you that one stones the coffin of anybody dying in his excommunication.” This implies that anybody insulting an Elder, even after his death, needs to be excommunicated. In the days of Rebbi Ze`ira they were excommunicating and readmitting. (He said to them, no.) [Rebbi La said to them:] Now one excommunicates and now one readmits? They took up the matter and voted, when he changes his opinion one readmits them.

There, we have stated: “Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Hannad who questioned the purity of hands.” This implies that one who questions even one of the words of the Sopherim needs excommunication. There, we have stated: “They let her drink dikma.” What is dikma? An imitation. “They excommunicated him, he died in his excommunication, and the Court stoned his coffin. To teach you that one stones the coffin of anybody dying in his excommunication.” This implies that anybody insulting an Elder, even after his death, needs to be excommunicated. In the days of Rebbi Ze`ira they were excommunicating and readmitting. (He said to them, no.) [Rebbi La said to them:] Now one excommunicates and now one readmits? They took up the matter and voted, when he changes his opinion one readmits them.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

“Since they said, Sabbath is counted but does not interrupt, holidays interrupt but are not counted.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because he is permitted sexual relations. Rebbi Jeremiah met Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Simon. He said to him, (is that from) [so say] all students of Rebbi Joḥanan? Nobody heard this from him except your father. Rebbi Jacob said to him, if it was said, it only was said as one of the questionable statements. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies that he is forbidden sexual relations. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, even though they said that there is no mourning on a holiday, the public observe it in private. What means in private? That he is forbidden sexual relations. They objected: Since on a holiday he is forbidden sexual relations and it does not count, the Sabbath where he is forbidden sexual relations should not count. Rebbi Abba said, it is possible to have Seven without a holiday; it is impossible to have Seven without a Sabbath.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Criminal! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

“And his daughter-in-law.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.

How can one prove secondary prohibitions? Rebbi Ḥuna said: “These”, the strong ones. This implies that there are weaker ones. The following are the secondary prohibitions: His paternal grandmother and his maternal grandmother, his paternal grandfather’s wife and his maternal grandfathers wife, his grandson’s wife whether from son or daughter, the wife of his mother’s brother and the wife of his father’s maternal brother.

“If they were from priestly families they are disabled for heave.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that rape disables in priestly families like adultery.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

“Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” Does this imply that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥalîṣah? That says it, “his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” That implies that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥalîṣah.

HALAKHAH: “No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥalîṣah,” etc. How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meїr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meїr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks”. “Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

HALAKHAH: “No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥalîṣah,” etc. How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meїr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meїr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks”. “Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Since Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, does he say similarly that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, there is nothing after copulation if it is primary. Therefore, if it is secondary, there is something afterwards. That must deal with copulation after a bill of divorce. For if it were copulation after “bespeaking”, what could you say? If “bespeaking” acquired, there is nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse will acquire and there is nothing after that. So we must speak about copulation after a bill of divorce. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

They objected to Rebbi Jehudah: Think of it, if she was sterile and could not give birth. Think of it, if she was old. Rebbi Eleazar said, intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman not with the intent of marriage is intercourse of harlotry. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, that implies that the High Priest who performed qiddushin by copulation is not having intercourse with a deflowered one.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone, neither from heave since that would be inference after inference. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner? “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife.

Do they disagree with Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos? From what Rebbi Joḥanan said, which is the underage girl that needs a bill of divorce? Anyone who is given her bill of divorce together with something else and she produces it after some time. This implies that they disagree with Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos.

Is a single witness trustworthy in wartime? Let us hear from the following: A person was living in the times of Rebbi. They asked him about X; he said, he died. They asked him about Y; he said, he died. They asked him, are they all dead? He answered, if they were alive would they not have come? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The case came before Rebbi and he said, the ones married should stay married, the ones not married should not marry. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, it happened in wartime. That implies that a single witness is trustworthy in wartime.

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: : “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: “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?

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

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

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.