jo

It was stated: A mistaken ḥalîṣah is valid. What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will be permitted to you after some time. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and learning that “if he has the intention but not she, or she has the intention but not he, ḥalîṣah is always invalid unless both of them have the intention!” What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah for Rebbi Joḥanan? A case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will pay you a hundred talents. Rebbi Mana said, if this was stipulated as a condition, she has to pay. A case came before Rebbi Huna and he followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When he heard that Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed, he changed his opinion and forced a second ḥalîṣah. A case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He told him, my son, this woman does not want to be married in levirate; therefore perform ḥalîṣah and remove your candidacy from her, then she will marry you in a regular marriage. After the ḥalîṣah, he said to him: Even if Moses and Samuel came, they could not permit her. He referred to himself as “they are wise to do evil; they do not know how to do good.”

It was stated: A mistaken ḥalîṣah is valid. What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will be permitted to you after some time. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and learning that “if he has the intention but not she, or she has the intention but not he, ḥalîṣah is always invalid unless both of them have the intention!” What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah for Rebbi Joḥanan? A case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will pay you a hundred talents. Rebbi Mana said, if this was stipulated as a condition, she has to pay. A case came before Rebbi Huna and he followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When he heard that Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed, he changed his opinion and forced a second ḥalîṣah. A case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He told him, my son, this woman does not want to be married in levirate; therefore perform ḥalîṣah and remove your candidacy from her, then she will marry you in a regular marriage. After the ḥalîṣah, he said to him: Even if Moses and Samuel came, they could not permit her. He referred to himself as “they are wise to do evil; they do not know how to do good.”

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The husband she may repudiate since she married him with her consent. The levir to whom she was given by an act of God she cannot repudiate. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? If she can repudiate the principal, so much more the levir! Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. If she says, I can stand marriage with you but not with your brother? Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The husband she may repudiate since she married him with her consent. The levir to whom she was given by an act of God she cannot repudiate. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? If she can repudiate the principal, so much more the levir! Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. If she says, I can stand marriage with you but not with your brother? Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

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.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “If [a girl] repudiates a man, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

HALAKHAH: “If [a girl] repudiates,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

What is the status of her co-wife? Rav said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, her co-wife is permitted. Rebbi Eleazar said, I looked around at the rabbis here and at the rabbis there and did not find anybody agreeing with me except Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who says, her co-wife is permitted.Rav Hamnuna was sitting before Rav Ada bar Ahava and said, what is the status of her co-wife? He said to him, she is permitted. He asked, divorce? He answered, forbidden. He said, go around. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is reasonable following him who said that her co-wife is permitted. But following him who said, her co-wife is forbidden, as you take it: The aspect he acquired in her makes the corresponding aspect forbidden in her co-wife, the aspect he did not acquire in her makes the corresponding aspect permitted in her co-wife! Rebbi Shammai said, does one admit that kind of argument in matters of incest prohibitions? What about it? For any sister-in-law who is not totally outside [the family], the acquired aspect of her belongs to an incest prohibition and an incest prohibition forbids the co-wife.

So is the Mishnah: The underage girl should wait until she grows up, reaches puberty, and is being married. Rebbi Eleazar said, there is no “being married” here, only “being betrothed.” Rebbi Joḥanban said, these are the words of Rabban Gamliel: If somebody gave qiddušin to his sister-in-law’s sister, his sister-in-law was freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate. It follows that what we had stated there, “if somebody gave qiddušin to the sister of a woman waiting for her levir” does not follow Rabban Gamliel.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him, and you say so? Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joshua, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! And you say so? Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Joshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age. If not, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him, and you say so? Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joshua, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! And you say so? Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Joshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age. If not, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him, and you say so? Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joshua, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! And you say so? Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Joshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age. If not, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: The wife of a deaf-mute or an insane? He said to him, that does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Since you say, it does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin; if another man came and gave her qiddušin, they take hold of her. If he divorced, is she permitted to remarry the first [husband]? That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: About the wife of a deaf-mute who after being divorced by the deaf-mute went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot come to take her back.” About the wife of a hearing person who after being divorced went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot … ” If a deaf-mute’s husband went overseas and they came and told his wife, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, and then her husband returned, she has to leave both of them. If the husband of a hearing wife went overseas and they came and told her, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf-mute, and then her hearing [husband] returned, we would think that the deaf-mute should divorce her but the hearing person can keep her. She is still under these disabilities.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: The wife of a deaf-mute or an insane? He said to him, that does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Since you say, it does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin; if another man came and gave her qiddušin, they take hold of her. If he divorced, is she permitted to remarry the first [husband]? That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: About the wife of a deaf-mute who after being divorced by the deaf-mute went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot come to take her back.” About the wife of a hearing person who after being divorced went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot … ” If a deaf-mute’s husband went overseas and they came and told his wife, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, and then her husband returned, she has to leave both of them. If the husband of a hearing wife went overseas and they came and told her, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf-mute, and then her hearing [husband] returned, we would think that the deaf-mute should divorce her but the hearing person can keep her. She is still under these disabilities.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, why can a deaf-mute woman be divorced but a deaf-mute man cannot divorce? They told him, a divorcing man is not comparable to a divorced woman since a woman can be divorced with or against her will but a man divorces only by his own will. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father that she could be divorced by a bill of divorce. They said to him, that is an example.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, why can a deaf-mute woman be divorced but a deaf-mute man cannot divorce? They told him, a divorcing man is not comparable to a divorced woman since a woman can be divorced with or against her will but a man divorces only by his own will. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father that she could be divorced by a bill of divorce. They said to him, that is an example.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is nothing to be learned from the beginning, but there is something to be learned from the end. What is there at the beginning? If the deaf-mute [brother] was the husband of the deaf-mute [woman] and the hearing the husband of the hearing. But if the deaf-mute [brother] was the husband of the hearing [woman] and the hearing the husband of the deaf-mute, that should have been stated at the very end.

“If one witness says,” etc. “If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave.” Because he said that after she had remarried. Therefore if [the second witness came] before she remarried, if she remarried she has to leave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages [are], whether he testified after she remarried or before she remarried, she should not remarry, but if she remarried she shall not leave. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, one says to him, “you are not he.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, think of it, if he is a famous person like Immi? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is there nobody who would look like Rebbi Immi? There came a case before the rabbis there. They said to him, “you are not he.” Abba bar Abba got up and whispered in his ear saying, by your life, give her a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rav’s students got up and beat him. Somebody said, the whip is burning and the footstool is burning. Samuel said, I was there, no whip was burning and no footstool was burning, but my father was hit and got up. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said to him, yes, it is sure that she is permitted to you but you should know that the child of this man is a bastard before Heaven. Rebbi Ze‘ira was praising him because he made the situation clear.

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

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

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut, the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.

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

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

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

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

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the rabbis: “When [brothers] dwell,” certainly, not in a case of doubt.

It is written: “Abijah and his people inflicted a very great slaughter on them.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, he destroyed the face recognition of the men of Israel. That is what is written, “the recognition of their faces testified about them,” etc. That refers to the nose. Rebbi Immi said, he put up guards for three days until appearance was disfigured. That is what is written: “Your widows are more for me than the sand of the oceans.” It was stated in this respect: One testifies only on the appearance of the face with the nose. It is written: “Jeroboam was powerless for the rest of Aijah’s days; the Eternal smote him and he died.” Rebbi Samuel said, you think that this refers to Jeroboam, but it is Abijah. Why was he smitten? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he insulted Jeroboam in public. That is what is written: “You are a great multitude and with you are the golden calves that Jeroboam made for you as gods.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because he denigrated his teacher Aḥijah from Shiloh. That is what is written: “And men, rascals, joined him,” that he called Aḥijah from Shiloh a rascal. But the rabbis say, because an idol fell into his hand and he did not destroy it, that is what is written: “Abijah pursued Jeroboam and took from him cities, Beth El and its dependencies …” and it is written: “He set up one in Beth El and one he dedicated in Dan.”

What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rebbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but he did not accept it

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as less than three people passed by. If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared [the bill] valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on [the bill]? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name. Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry?” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.

They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself], brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her, with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her.

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

“How long is ‘touching’? Rebbi Eliezer says, [time needed] to walk around a date palm; Rebbi Joshua says, to mix a cup [of wine]; Ben Azai says, to drink it; Rebbi Aqiba says, [time needed] rolling an egg; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, to sip three rolled eggs one after the other; Rebbi Eleazar ben Phineas says, [time needed] for the weaver to bind a thread; Miniamin says, that she can stretch out her hand and lift a loaf of bread from the basket. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint: ‘For a whoring woman up to a loaf of bread.’” Rebbi Yose said, all these measurements [of time] are after she removes her underpants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, each of them judged by his own experience. But did Ben Azai ever marry? Some want to say, he had an erection. But some want to say, he was married and gave it up. Some want to say, “the secret of the Eternal is for those who fear Him, to inform them about His covenant.”

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. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya 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. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah 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 to 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.

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. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya 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. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah 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 to 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.

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. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya 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. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah 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 to 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.

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. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya 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. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah 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 to 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.

Samuel said, one separates from the whoring woman but not from her house. This parallels what Rebbi Joḥanan said: “If a married woman committed adultery, her children are her husband’s since most of the intercourse was with the husband.”

“Absalom beautified himself with his hair.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, it was like a large carob tree. Should I think like a javelin? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It was made like this and like that.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed.

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

“With him”. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You do it for yourself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: A parable of a king who was marrying off his son. There came a prefect to carry the litter, and they did not admit him. The king said, let him; tomorrow he will marry off his daughter and I can honor him the way he honored me. As it is written: “I shall descend with you to Egypt and I shall bring you up, also ascending.” Why does the verse say, “also ascending”? I shall bring you up and the other tribes also I shall bring up. That teaches that every tribe brought the bones of their ancestor with them.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white” and it says in Egypt “milky white”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads would not be first fruits.

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

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]. “He shall write for her.” “He shall execute for her.” “Or manumission was not given to her.” Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow, the dust of the suspected wife, and the spittle of the sister-in-law. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible. As it was stated: “In the blood”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight.

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

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

There, it was stated: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel] bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of, offering of.” Since “offering of” mentioned there is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten, so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba) said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil”. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry”. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance, remembrance”. “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

Ben Azai does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rebbi Joshua in Beqiïn. He asked them, what was new today in the House of Study? They said to him, we all are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them, even so, it is impossible that there not be a new idea every day in the House of Study. Who stayed there over the Sabbath? They said to him, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? “Assemble the people, men, women, and children.” What did he say about this? Since the men come to learn and the women to hear, why do the children come? It must be to give a reward to those who bring them. He said to them, the generation is not orphaned which counts Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them.

“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: “Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

“A man can make his son a nazir,” and “a man can shave”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meїr: In twenty-four matters are the House of Shammai lenient while the House of Hillel are restrictive and that is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot make his son a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, a man can make his son a nazir.

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

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

It was stated, בוא ובה. Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she 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. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary. Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah, but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

There, they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since all your days you explained that Job served the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it was said: “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”; but behold, Joshua, your student’s student deduced that he did it out of love!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: We do not find that the Omnipresent talked to a woman, except only to Sarah. But is there not written: “To the woman He said: I shall increase,” etc.? Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanin said, through an interpreter. But is there not written: “The Eternal said to her, two peoples are in your womb”? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the Word fell to her. Rebbi Biri said, how many weaver’s shuttles! The Holy One, praise to Him, desires to hear the talk of the just women: “He said no, but you laughed.”

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Syriac language should not be unimportant in your eyes, for it is mentioned in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographs. In the Torah, it is written: “Laban called it the heap of testimony”. In Prophets, it is written: “So you shall say to them.” In Hagiographs, it is written: “The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic.” Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin said, four languages are good for use: The foreign language for song, Latin for war, Syriac for elegies, Hebrew for speech. Some people say, also Assyrian for writing. Assyrian has a script but no language, Hebrew has a language but no script. They chose for them Assyrian script and Hebrew language. Why is its name called אֲשׁוּרִי? Because one is made happy in writing it. Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria.

So far subjects which were stated in general and in detail. Subjects which were stated in general but not in detail? He said to him: So says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon. Anything which was in a set and and left the set to teach, not to teach only about itself did it leave but to teach about the entire set. He said to him: Is that not about a single subject? Perhaps for two subjects? And here, we deal with two different subjects. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, since at the end is written “Amen”, it is as if everything were one subject.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

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

It is written: “The waters descending from higher up stood like a dam, very far, from the town of Adam which is besides Ṣāretān. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Adam is a town and Ṣāretān is a town; there are twelve mil from one to the other. That teaches that the water was stacked up and rose like the citadel of Ṣāretān. Which one is lighter, water or man? Waters are lighter than man; you know that this is so. This teaches that the waters were stacked and increased, wave upon wave. Rebbi Levi said, up to the sky’s heart. There, they said, as far as Babylon. It says here “far”, and it says there “they came from a very far land, from Babylon.” It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the waters were stacked and rose, waves on waves, for more than 300 mil until all the peoples of the world saw them. That is what is written: “It happened when all the kings of the Emorite on the other side of the Jordan, and all the Canaanite dwelling on the Sea, heard that the Eternal had dried up the waters of the river Jordan for the children of Israel until they had passed across,” etc.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, usage is between them; Rebbi Jehudah called a war of choice a war of obligation. “But in a war of duty everybody goes out, even a groom from his room and a bride from her bridal chamber.” Rav Ḥisda said, they disagree. The rabbis say, a war of obligation was the war of David. A war of duty was the war of Joshua. Rebbi Jehudah called it a war of obligation if we went out against them; a war of duty if they attacked us. It is written: “King Asa proclaimed in all of Jehudah, nobody is free”. What means “nobody is free”? Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. Rebbi Simon said, nobody is free to return home even for one hour. But the rabbis say, there is no exemption for a scholar, son of a scholar.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

MISHNAH: When the adulterers prevailed, the spell-inducing water stopped and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai abolished it, as it is said: “I shall not care if your daughters are whoring,” etc.