invalidated

One may not cook sheviit vegetables in oil of terumah lest they become invalidated. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. The last thing exchanged is always subject to the sabbatical law, and the produce itself remains forbidden.

Four types of vows the Sages have invalidated: Vows of incentive, vows of exaggeration, vows in error, and vows [broken] under pressure. Vows of incentive how so? If one was selling an article and said, “Konam that I will not reduce below a sela”; and the other replied, “Konam that I will not add above a shekel” both of them want [a price] of three denarii. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: Also one who wishes to subject his friend to a vow to eat with him, may say: “Every vow which I may make in the future shall be void”, providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow.

If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up.

If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Holy loaves in whose hollows there was holy water, if one contracted uncleanness from a sheretz, they all become unclean. In the case of loaves of terumah, uncleanness is conveyed to two loaves and one is invalidated. If there was dripping liquid between them, even in the case of terumah all become unclean.

By the first statement he invalidated the second. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspect to eat or to serve to others? He should not go, defile his body and come to defile pure food. It does not disagree even with Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspect to eat but not to serve to others. There one speaks about purity but here about tithes. “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes.”

Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sons of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada were all deaf-mutes and all purities in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching.

HALAKHAH: The compounding of the incense: balsamum, and cloves, galbanum and frankincense, each in the weight of 70 maneh. Myrrh and cassia, spicenard and saffron, each in the weight of sixteen maneh. Costus twelve, bark three, cinnamon nine. You find that there were 365 maneh according to the days of the year and three for this day. That is what we have stated: “but on this day he adds a fistful.” Carshina nine qab, (Qanrisin) [caper] wine three seah and three qab. If he has no (Qanrisin) [caper] wine he brings aged whitish wine. Sodom salt a quarter. Some smoke producing herb. Rebbi Nathan says, also some (Qafra) [Kifa] of the Jordan. If he added honey he invalidated it. If he left out one of its ingredients he is liable for death.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, balsamum is only the sap of the (qtab) [qtaf] tree. For what comes Carshina lye? In it one polished the cloves. For what does (Qanrisin) [caper] wine come? In it one (polishes) [soaks] cloves that it should be strong. Would not be urine good for this? Only one does not introduce bad smell into the Temple courtyard because of decorum. And when he was pulverizing he was saying: be well pulverized, be well pulverized, for voice is good for compounding. If he left out one of its ingredients or added honey he invalidated it. If he failed to add salt or added smoke producing herb he became liable for death. Rebbi Zeˋura said, and he sins because of unnecessary entry.

HALAKHAH: “If she decided to bring him money,” etc. “If she decided to bring him 500 denars by appraisal, he makes it 400. If he did not do that but made it 1’000; if she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, he deducts five denars for each tetradrachma, but he cannot touch the addition. If she decided to bring him 500 denars in coin, he makes it 750. If he did not do that but made them 1’000; if she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, he deducts six denars for each tetradrachma, but he cannot touch the addition. If she decided to bring him 1’000 zuz, he must turn them into fifteen minas. If he did not do that but wrote over to her a field worth 12 minas in place of the 1’000 zuz. If she made an agreement, she collects everything; if not, one does not decrease for a virgin to less than 200 and for a widow to less than a mina.” Here, you say, he deducts. But there, you say, he does not deduct. Here, if she invalidated part of it, there if she did not invalidate part of it. Here, you say, he touches the addition but there, you say, he does not touch the addition. Here, he added but did not subtract; there, he subtracted but did not add. It was stated: Both for appraisal and for coin. Why for appraisal? Corresponding to what he subtracts, corresponding to what what he adds, corresponding to what she brings.

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200 or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy? Explain it that the property increased in value. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions.” He explains it, unless it was excessive. If he redeemed what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, “I am a nazir” and became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything; Rebbi Eliezer says, he invalidated only seven. “I am a nazir for 30 days,” if he became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, “I am a nazir” and became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything; Rebbi Eliezer says, he invalidated only seven. “I am a nazir for 30 days,” if he became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, “I am a nazir” and became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything; Rebbi Eliezer says, he invalidated only seven. “I am a nazir for 30 days,” if he became impure on the 30 day, he invalidated everything.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 30. If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 30. If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 30. If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 30. If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.

Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem? Of a pure nazir. But for an impure nazir, it is obvious to him that they cannot be combined. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that not an argument of “so much more”? Since for days which are counted neither for his nor for his son’s nezirut, you say that they are combined, days which are counted for his and for his son’s nezirut, it would only be logical that they should be combined! Rebbi Mana said, there he is not in a state to receive a warning, but here he is in a state to receive a warning. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you say there about Rebbi Eliezer, at the start only if he has something to omit; at the end even if he has nothing to omit? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is that not a Mishnah? “If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.” He said, we hear that he invalidates; did we hear that he brings a sacrifice?

Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem? Of a pure nazir. But for an impure nazir, it is obvious to him that they cannot be combined. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that not an argument of “so much more”? Since for days which are counted neither for his nor for his son’s nezirut, you say that they are combined, days which are counted for his and for his son’s nezirut, it would only be logical that they should be combined! Rebbi Mana said, there he is not in a state to receive a warning, but here he is in a state to receive a warning. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you say there about Rebbi Eliezer, at the start only if he has something to omit; at the end even if he has nothing to omit? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is that not a Mishnah? “If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.” He said, we hear that he invalidates; did we hear that he brings a sacrifice?

HALAKHAH: “A person who made a vow of nazir,” etc. It was stated: The House of Shammai say, from the moment he asked; but the House of Hillel say, from the moment he vowed. Where do we hold? If he scoffed at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he asked. If he did not scoff at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he vowed. But we have to deal with one who is going to ask. The House of Shammai say, since he decided to ask, he is now scoffing. But the House of Hillel say, if he were scoffing, he would not ask. If he made a vow of nazir and scoffed at his vow, one does not let him ask about it unless he kept its prohibitions for the number of days he did not keep the prohibitions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yasa said, when has this been said? If he vowed a lengthy period. But if he vowed a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. What is the difference between a lengthy and a short period? But it must be: When has this been said? If he scoffed at his vow for a lengthy period. But if he scoffed at his vow for a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. Where are we holding? If he scoffed in impurity, everybody agrees that he invalidated everything. If he scoffed in shaving, everybody agrees that he invalidated only 30 days. But we must deal with the case that he scoffed with wine. That is, if he is still within his period of nazir. But after his period of nazir, he invalidated everything.

HALAKHAH: “A person who made a vow of nazir,” etc. It was stated: The House of Shammai say, from the moment he asked; but the House of Hillel say, from the moment he vowed. Where do we hold? If he scoffed at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he asked. If he did not scoff at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he vowed. But we have to deal with one who is going to ask. The House of Shammai say, since he decided to ask, he is now scoffing. But the House of Hillel say, if he were scoffing, he would not ask. If he made a vow of nazir and scoffed at his vow, one does not let him ask about it unless he kept its prohibitions for the number of days he did not keep the prohibitions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yasa said, when has this been said? If he vowed a lengthy period. But if he vowed a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. What is the difference between a lengthy and a short period? But it must be: When has this been said? If he scoffed at his vow for a lengthy period. But if he scoffed at his vow for a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. Where are we holding? If he scoffed in impurity, everybody agrees that he invalidated everything. If he scoffed in shaving, everybody agrees that he invalidated only 30 days. But we must deal with the case that he scoffed with wine. That is, if he is still within his period of nazir. But after his period of nazir, he invalidated everything.

HALAKHAH: “A person who made a vow of nazir,” etc. It was stated: The House of Shammai say, from the moment he asked; but the House of Hillel say, from the moment he vowed. Where do we hold? If he scoffed at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he asked. If he did not scoff at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he vowed. But we have to deal with one who is going to ask. The House of Shammai say, since he decided to ask, he is now scoffing. But the House of Hillel say, if he were scoffing, he would not ask. If he made a vow of nazir and scoffed at his vow, one does not let him ask about it unless he kept its prohibitions for the number of days he did not keep the prohibitions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yasa said, when has this been said? If he vowed a lengthy period. But if he vowed a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. What is the difference between a lengthy and a short period? But it must be: When has this been said? If he scoffed at his vow for a lengthy period. But if he scoffed at his vow for a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. Where are we holding? If he scoffed in impurity, everybody agrees that he invalidated everything. If he scoffed in shaving, everybody agrees that he invalidated only 30 days. But we must deal with the case that he scoffed with wine. That is, if he is still within his period of nazir. But after his period of nazir, he invalidated everything.

HALAKHAH: “If a person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal,” etc. Where do we hold? If he saw an animal passing on the market and said, I am a nazir on that animal which passed by, he is a nazir even if the animal was stolen. If he thought that he had one and it turned out that he did not, would we say if he was rich and became poor, the nezirut would be invalidated? But we must hold that he said, I am a nazir on the animal I have at home, then went and found it stolen. If he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say: Rebbi Jehudah asked: If the thieves returned it in the night, did his nezirut return to him retroactively or for the future?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation,” etc. And it was stated: “Why did the Sages say that he who divorces his wife because of bad reputation cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of bad reputation, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the accusations were baseless and he said, if I had known that the accusations were baseless, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her children bastards. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.”

It was stated: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge! “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife as a she-ram cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife as a she-ram, when she went, married another man, and bore him children, and he said, if I had known that she can have children, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since there are women she-rams who are married and since [their husbands] are satisfied with them they keep them.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it isinvalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he never was alone with her.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it isinvalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he never was alone with her.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

MISHNAH: “Measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape, more or less;” “more or less” invalidated “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape”. “More or less, measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape;” “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape” invalidated “more or less”, the words of Ben Nannas. “By its description and its boundary strips,” less than one sixth he received it, up to a sixth he shall deduct.

MISHNAH: “Measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape, more or less;” “more or less” invalidated “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape”. “More or less, measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape;” “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape” invalidated “more or less”, the words of Ben Nannas. “By its description and its boundary strips,” less than one sixth he received it, up to a sixth he shall deduct.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept the first oath and invalidated the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one and did not keep the second.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept the first oath and invalidated the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one and did not keep the second.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated.

HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana in the name of Samuel: Any woman without a definite period is forbidden to her house unless she checked herself. But did we not state: “All women are presumed pure for their husbands.” He explains it, for those who come from a trip. But did we not state: “The wives of men coming from a trip are presumed pure”? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he came and found her awake. But was it not stated: Whether he found her awake or found her sleeping. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he left her in a state of purity. {What is the period that is counted for her? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: One gives her 30 days as average period.} Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating that it is permitted even after three years, but only for a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Abbahu said, only if it was seven days after the onset of her period. Are you not worried that maybe she did not immerse herself? Rebbi Ḥanina said, that means that it is forbidden for a woman to stay in her impurity. Samuel bar Abba asked: Even if it was certain that she had given birth? Rebbi Yose said, so we are saying, even if she became impure. But since her prior state was invalidated when she gave birth, so her prior state was invalidated when she became impure.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana in the name of Samuel: Any woman without a definite period is forbidden to her house unless she checked herself. But did we not state: “All women are presumed pure for their husbands.” He explains it, for those who come from a trip. But did we not state: “The wives of men coming from a trip are presumed pure”? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he came and found her awake. But was it not stated: Whether he found her awake or found her sleeping. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he left her in a state of purity. {What is the period that is counted for her? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: One gives her 30 days as average period.} Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating that it is permitted even after three years, but only for a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Abbahu said, only if it was seven days after the onset of her period. Are you not worried that maybe she did not immerse herself? Rebbi Ḥanina said, that means that it is forbidden for a woman to stay in her impurity. Samuel bar Abba asked: Even if it was certain that she had given birth? Rebbi Yose said, so we are saying, even if she became impure. But since her prior state was invalidated when she gave birth, so her prior state was invalidated when she became impure.