mana

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.

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.

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

The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness. If he found her behavior ugly, he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses.

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.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: “If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing. Or is it to be treated like the following: “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

“With him.” Rebbi Mana said, it only said “with him.” Therefore, not one after the other. Rebbi Abin said, even one after the other since anyhow it is obvious: On a road during the night, in a ruin during daytime, in dark passageways during daytime.

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

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.”

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Why Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rebbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rebbi Simeon.

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.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Aqabiah asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who instructed him: 24 months. Rebbi Jeremiah: Aqabiah asked Rebbi Ḥanina who instructed him: 24 months. How? Two cases were there, one in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and one in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Mana instructed: eighteen months, and fasted that entire day. Rebbi Mar Uqba instructed in Arbela: 24 months, even if the baby had died.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

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

HALAKHAH: “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?

From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir, he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

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

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.

“And the recitation of the Šema‘.” For it is written: “You shall talk about them.” Rebbi says, I say that the Šema‘ is recited only in the holy language. What is the reason? “The words shall be”. Rebbi Levi bar Ḥaita went to Caesarea. He heard their voices when they were reading the Šema‘ in Hellenistic manner. He wanted to hinder them, but Rebbi Yose heard of it and was offended. He said, do I say that someone who does not know to read Assyrian letters should not recite it at all? But he fulfills his duty in any language he knows. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: But there is the Esther scroll, where somebody who knows to read both Asssyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script. Rebbi Mana said: About the Esther scroll, somebody who knows to read both Asssyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script; Greek only, he fulfills his obligation in Greek; and so he can fulfill his obligation in any language he understands.

“And the oath of a witness and the oath about a deposit.” One makes him swear in his own language. If one made them swear not in their language and they said “Amen”, they are not prosecutable. As we have stated: The oath before the judges is according to our understanding, not according to your understanding. Rebbi Yudan said, it is to be assumed that he makes them swear according to his understanding. Why does he have to spell out this condition to him? Because of the uneducated, lest they say that there may be mental reservations for oaths. Rebbi Ḥanania stated before Rebbi Mana: Is there not written: “But with everybody who stands here with us today”? He said to him, the future generations do not have mental reservations.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said: I told the Samaritan scribes: You falsified your Torah and did not gain anything, because you cause to be written in your Torah “near the terebinths of guidance, Sichem”. Is it not known that this is Sichem? It is only because you do not explain by “equal cut”, but we explain by “equal cut”. It is written here, “the terebinths of guidance”, and it is said there, “the terebinths of guidance.” Since “the terebinths of guidance” there are at Sichem, also “the terebinths of guidance” here are at Sichem; and following Rebbi Ismael. For Rebbi Ismael said, any “comings” which were said in the Torah refer to after fourteen years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they distributed. Therefore, blessings and curses were recited only after fourteen years. Rebbi Ḥanania objected before Rebbi Mana: Is it not written, “It shall be when you cross the Jordan you shall erect these stones”? He said to him, they erected the stones immediately but blessings and curses were said only after fourteen years.

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

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

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

It was stated: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure foods to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that [the earth] become unusable forever.

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated: “A man should not first have sexual relations on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.” But “others” permit only when he is already married, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns, and to dissolve her vows. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz, and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [zuz] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property. If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has]. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina!

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa] not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching” with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a manumitted slave girl? Let us hear from the following: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay; the verse says: “He shall take her as wife by the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the [gentile] slave (or any) whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her, she collects the fine, and any who collects the fine has a ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina! Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or manumitted before she reached three years and one day is like an Israel.

It was stated: “And for a widow 200.” It was stated: “This order applies both to a widow of an Israel and a widow of a Cohen”. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the daughter of a Cohen should collect, for her tribe collects. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should not collect; is it not sufficient that she rose to the priesthood that you say, she should collect? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the other way. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should collect for she rose to the priesthood; the daughter of a Cohen should not collect for she stepped down from the priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, in both cases they demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

They say, these are our signatures, but others say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There, we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming. But not if it clings to a branch. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since “Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so theDay of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

HALAKHAH: “About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her, so Rebbi Eleazar said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her. Then also for a seduced one? Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she remitted it to him. Can anybody remit anthing that does not belong to him? Explain it for an orphan; as it was stated in the House of Rebbi thus: The orphan, Rebbi Eleazar said that the rapist has to pay her but the seducer does not. Can anybody remit something which is not in his possession? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ura: The fine is not due from the first moment on. As we have stated there: “If she came to court before her father died, [the payments due] belong to her father and if the father died they belong to the brothers.” If you say that the fine is due from the first moment, it would belong to the brothers from the first moment! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah deals with shame and diminution of value. As Rebbi Mana said, how is it? The rapist is obligated for everything and the seducer is free from everything. Rebbi Abin said, [Rebbi] Shammai asked: What does it mean that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not? The rapist has to pay everything but the seducer is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine. That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Or, the rapist is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine but the seducer is free from everything? That is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel] a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr) learned from the calumniator. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour but the fine is only at the end; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira).

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr) learned from the calumniator. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour but the fine is only at the end; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira).

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu].

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays. There, we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu].

The husband is never flogged, nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas, unless the witnesses are stoned. When is he obligated for the fine? Rebbi Jonah said, at the end. Rebbi Yose said, from the first hour. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: In your opinion, since you say at the end, can he be flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three and the witnesses stoned by a court of 23? Rebbi Mana said, even according to Rebbi Yose one could ask the question following him who holds that perjured witnesses need to be warned. If they did not warn them, is he flogged and made to pay 100 tetradrachmas by a court of three; are the witnesses stoned by a court of 23? Rebbi Abbamari said, who is that who says so?

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥananiah: They voted in Usha that if one writes all his property over to his sons, he and his wife are supported by them. What is the situation of underage children? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥanina: He, his wife and his underage children are supported by them. What about his widow? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this was asked but not resolved. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it was asked and resolved, Rebbi Abba said, it seems reasonable that if she ate during her husband’s lifetime then she eats; otherwise, she does not eat. It says only “if one writes”; that excludes the seller. If he wrote to his sons and sold to others, what is here reasonable? Rebbi Ḥanina said, I would not give him anything. Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable that they hire him a servant and marry a wife to him so she should serve him?

What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield”. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.} Will he not die? But lest he die in the future.

HALAKHAH: ““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support. If they married, they lost their dowries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah. But did we not state: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her [a dowry of] 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim. Explain it that she had received partial payment. Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple [brother], this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture. There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi) Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah was twenty denars, and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her a house or they give her twenty denars. Rebbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 20 it is as if her ketubah was only twenty. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs.

A man said when he was dying: “This man’s wife should be paid her ketubah.” The case came before Rebbi Mana, who said, let the words of the deceased be confirmed. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him: Can a person do away verbally with a ketubah stipulation? He answered, since you are saying that, what is your reason? He said to him, are we not living in Galilee? And we are taught to say that the people of Galilee prefer their honor over their money.

“If she brought”. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought. As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend; workers ascend but do not descend. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl. Rebbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rebbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is it reasonable to consider scholars like those who do not work? Rebbi Mana said, would it not be more reasonable to compare them to sailors since they exert themselves harder? Rav said, “she eats with him every Friday night”, in clean language.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, a mina, i. e. four riṭl. He gives her a pillow, a light and wick, and an amphora, and a pot. Rebbi Yose said, she has no right to a pillow since the wives of poor men do not sleep on a pillow. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If she left over from her food, it is hers, if she left over rags they are his - if she left over rags they are hers. That is, of a married woman. But for a widow, both her leftover food and her leftover rags are hers.

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

Rebbi Yose said, they differ about wives of Cohanim. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of the second [month]. “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of the second [month]. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the third. And a disagreement was stated, at the end of three [months], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said to him, where no disagreement was stated, you introduce a disagreement. But they disagree if he is an Israel. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the second [month]. “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the beginning of the second. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah,” at the end of three [months]. It was stated thus: At the end of three by everybody’s opinion.

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

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. But if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she can claim her ketubah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she has no ketubah. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But she needs a bill of divorce from him even if he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: In case he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage, what does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say? Let us hear from the following: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” This implies that if the father proved his case, she can claim her ketubah. What do you see to say, if he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage! Where do we hold? Since afterwards [it is stated]: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” If he [made it conditional], could he not also claim for visible ones? But did not the colleagues say before Rebbi Yose: Should we say that the following statement disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “Once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” This implies that if the husband proved his case, she has no claim to ketubah. But by the statement of Rebbi Simeon ban Laqish, she has a claim to ketubah. Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: The Mishnah deals with the case that he definitively married her but did not sleep with her; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish speaks about the case that he definitively married her and slept with her; I am saying that she was acceptable to him since he took her to bed.

Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed three things: That a person should use his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings. And that children have to go to school. Also, he decreed impurity for glass ware. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity for Gentile lands and glass ware; Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ṭabbai? Rebbi Jonah said, Jehudah bar Ṭabbai and Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed on the purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Alexis said before Rebbi Mana: We act much better than you do. We send edicts. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He answered him, we also act in this way, we have the herald announce for thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He said to him, think of it, if he was in distant corners. He said to him, we send three letters, one after thirty days, one after the next thirty days, and one after the next thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is, if he was present at the trial and then fled. But if he was not present at the trial, we cannot irrevocably give away, but only announce.

Rebbi Ḥanaiah said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not mean that if a person borrows from another, and then he borrows again, he has to declare “in addition to the first paper you have on me”? It is frequent that a woman says, my ketubah is lost, write me another. Is it frequent that a man say, my paper is lost, write me another? But it is possible that he should declare for him.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If one of the brothers died, they all split evenly. Rebbi Mana said, that is necessary if they did not yet divide the estate. You should not say that he should be considered nonexistent and his house should inherit from him. If there was a (male) firstborn, you say the firstborn takes a double portion. What does he take? A double portion among his house or among all brothers? Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If there were two groups of daughters, they all split evenly. If there was a firstborn, you say the firstborn takes a double portion. What does he take? A double portion among his house or among all ketubot?

At which point in time does one appraise? The students of Rebbi Mana say, at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to them, are you not those who speak in the name of your teacher, “that is necessary if they did not yet divide the estate”? But one assesses from the first moment!

HALAKHAH: “If the estate contained expected property,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the basic claim of the two ketubot. Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. But for the excess denar everybody agrees that it is movable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees about the basic claim of the two ketubot that it must be real estate. Where do they disagree? About the excess denar, where Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: But in Syria they routinely collect from bronze and bedspreads. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only from bedspreads of that night. Rav Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The people in Arabia routinely collect from camels and spices. Similarly, only from spices of that night? Rebbi Ḥuna’s widow collected from movables following her place’s custom.

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise. If there was much merchandise? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rebbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi [Ze‘ira]: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to four women when he died,” etc. Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Following Ben Nanas, if one document was produced against (the wife) buyers, they all divide evenly. Rebbi Aqiba said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Samuel, since Samuel said, sharpness of the judges? As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom they want to hand it over in possession they hand it over. And here, he says so? Not with two mortgages, what about one? He did not hear what Rebbi Abin said in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on two fields or two mortgages were written on one field, to whom the court decide they hand it over in possession. Rebbi instituted that one follows Ben Nanas in matters of annona, head taxes, and real estate taxes.

As the following. Relatives of Rebbi Yose bought fields from the family of Bar Tapqan. Those from the family of Bar Tapqan went and married women, and gave them šeqi‘in. They came and wanted to attack the relatives of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said to them: I know that at the moment at which you bought these fields, these šeqi‘in were not before you.

Rebbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days. Why should they sell for the sustenance of 12 months? Not to disadvantage the woman. Why do they give her sustenance for 30 days? If you said otherwise, you would act in detriment of the orphans, as it was stated: If a widow took possession even of 1’000 zuz for her sustenance, one does not take it away from her. What could one say to her? “Show what is in your hands!” The students of Rebbi Mana said to her, “show what is in your hands.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to them, since in the end she will have to swear about anything in her hands, one says to her, let it be so.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

“And one announces mornings and evenings,” at the time when [agricultural] workers go out or come back, and he mentions the field and its description. Rebbi Yose said, if they do not get their estimated price, they can conclude the sale. Is that the Mishnah, “if the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much, their sale is invalid”? Becausethey sold too low or too high, but if they found their estimate they close the deal. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: What can you say, we deal with the case that they did not announce in public! From what is said afterwards: “Except if they offered public tender.” What is public tender? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, announcement.

Rebbi Reuben asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Miracles happened that day. It was Sabbath eve and all the surrounding towns came together to eulogize him. They made him [Rebbi] rest in eighteen synagogues until they brought him to his resting place but the day extended for them until each one had time to get to his house, fill an amphora of water, and light the candles. When the sun set, the rooster crowed. They were anxious and said, maybe we did desecrate the Sabbath? There came a voice and said to them, every one who was not lazy for the eulogies of Rebbi shall be announced for the life of the Future World, except the fuller. When the latter heard this, he climbed on the roof, threw himself down, and died. There came a voice and said, including the fuller.

When does one appraise for them? Rebbi Mana said, one appraises at the end. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, the words of the rabbis imply that one does not listen to you, for Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone! Therefore, one appraises at the start. Rav Ḥisda asked: If there was sustenance for twelve months and then the property increased in value? Let us hear from the following, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So here, if it increased in value, their property value increased. If the estate was not sufficient for twelve months’ sustenance, may the sons say to the daughters, take what is yours and leave! Rebbi Abba said, is that a question? The Mishnah says that they cannot say so to them, as we have stated there: “If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.”

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.

“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.

HALAKHAH: “What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A town square which is crossed by a public road is as if from the returnees from Babylonia. A man used a Torah scroll for his preliminary marriage to a woman. Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥasida brought the matter before Rebbi Yose who said, she is not married. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, you read the letter and there is written in it “not only”. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before Rebbi Ḥizqiah, what means “not only”? Did he marry with a Torah scroll which is private property? He said to us, she is not married. That comes to tell you, even if he used the public Torah scroll to marry, that is “not only”. But that means, even if he used a privately owned Torah scroll to marry, that is “she is not married.”

Rebbi Mana asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows they follow the vernacular? Is it not the way of a person who sees another one outside the gate to say, I saw him in Tiberias?

Rebbi Mana made a vow away from his father’s wine. His father came to him and said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that I am hurt by it? He said, no. He dissolved for him. Where do we hold? If he said, my benefit [is forbidden] to my father; is that not what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One forces the son to support his father. But we must hold that he said, my father’s benefit [is forbidden] to me. Rebbi Mana made a vow and came to Rebbi Shammai, who said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that people do not want to deal with you since you are a vower? He said, no, and he dissolved for him.

Rebbi Mana made a vow away from his father’s wine. His father came to him and said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that I am hurt by it? He said, no. He dissolved for him. Where do we hold? If he said, my benefit [is forbidden] to my father; is that not what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One forces the son to support his father. But we must hold that he said, my father’s benefit [is forbidden] to me. Rebbi Mana made a vow and came to Rebbi Shammai, who said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that people do not want to deal with you since you are a vower? He said, no, and he dissolved for him.

It was stated: One is asked about vows only while sitting and wrapped. The one who is asked must be sitting and the one who is asking is standing; from the following: “And the two people who have the dispute shall stand.” “Standing” means only “being judged”. That is for asking legal rules. Asking about sermons from where? The verse says “shall stand, and shall stand”. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus went to permit the vow of Rebbi Immi. He remained standing to say “there is no vow”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of the older Gamliel. He remained standing to say “there is no vow, there is no oath”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of Gamliel the grandson. He said to him, do not treat me as you treated my grandfather, but sit down and I shall remain standing.

It was stated: One is asked about vows only while sitting and wrapped. The one who is asked must be sitting and the one who is asking is standing; from the following: “And the two people who have the dispute shall stand.” “Standing” means only “being judged”. That is for asking legal rules. Asking about sermons from where? The verse says “shall stand, and shall stand”. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus went to permit the vow of Rebbi Immi. He remained standing to say “there is no vow”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of the older Gamliel. He remained standing to say “there is no vow, there is no oath”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of Gamliel the grandson. He said to him, do not treat me as you treated my grandfather, but sit down and I shall remain standing.

“If I wash, if I do not wash.” It was stated: “If I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels”, these are vows of mortification. Both according to Rebbi Ze‘ira or according to Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose seems to contradict his own opinion, as it was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence over their animals. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who said that washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life! Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

We understand “if I wash”. “If I do not wash”? Let her wash! Rebbi Mana said, if she said: “Any benefit from me shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself, if I ever wash myself.” Why should he not dissolve for her? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only when she said, “any benefit from my body shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself.” Why can he not force? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he has to dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. Rebbi Abba Mari said, If I wash [today], I shall not wash forever. If I wear jewellery [today], I shall not wear jewellery forever. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nasa: If I wash I shall not wear jewellery; if I wear jewellery I shall not wash.

It is written: “Every vow and every oath of prohibition to mortify a person.” For example, [a qônām] if I would taste peppers, if I would taste rolls. Not only if that kind is available now; even if that kind is not available now, perhaps he might bring her some later on. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If there were two pieces before them, one nice and one not nice. If she desired the nice one and made a vow to forbid herself the less nice one, he may dissolve that. Why can he dissolve? The colleagues say, because of her mortification. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila both say, because of his mortification. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: A man can dissolve all vows except if she says, any benefit from me shall [be qônām] for X. That means he can dissolve: Any benefit from X shall [be qônām] for me. But did we not state: “The produce of this grocery store [is qônām] for me, he cannot dissolve.” Explain that following Rebbi Yose and they disagree with him, for we did state there: “If he can get the necessities of life only from that grocer, he may dissolve.” Rebbi Yose said, because he gives him credit, he delivers to him. Rebbi Mana said, because he gives him good quality produce.

The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for himself for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that the position of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was handsome, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to remove me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I embraced him, kissed him on his head and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc.” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir. “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.

Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: If he said “I am obligated for the sacrifices of a nazir,” might he make the vow of nazir in the future?If he made the vow without explaining, he may shave any nazir, whether he already made the vow or whether he would make it in the future. If he explained? It can be compared to the following, as Rebbi Levi ben Ḥayyata asked: If he wrote to her, “I shall have nothing to do with the properties which you might inherit in the future.” May a person make a condition on things not yet in existence?

HALAKHAH: “If his wife had a miscarriage,” etc. Should one not be afraid that he might have been viable? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s, since Rebbi Jehudah said, any doubt of nezirut is permitted. It was said to him that Rebbi Jehudah said so only for the end; but for the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. What is beginning and what is end? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbu Abun said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac disagreed: Everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end. Where do they disagree? If it was once or twice. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba considered it the end, Rebbi Samuel considered it the beginning. Rebbi Mana: The problem for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac about one or two times is whether it is the beginning or the end.

HALAKHAH: “ “I am a nazir and a nazir when a son is born to me,” etc. Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? “He interrupts his own, counts for his son, and then finishes for himself.” Not even if his wife is in the process of giving birth? He said to him, his nezirut is not comparable to his son’s nezirut, but to the case that he said, “I am already a nazir and a nazir after twenty days.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say: If he finished his nezirut, his son’s nezirut cannot start for him before he was shaving with a sacrifice. About a nazir who became impure, the opinions of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seem contradictory. There, he says, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead made a vow of nazir, his seventh day is counted. If a nazir becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted. In our case, is he not like a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? And is not the seventh day counted for a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? Would this obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? But if a nazir who becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted; does it not obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? And here, because he is obligated to bring a sacrifice (of impurity), the seventh day is [not] counted for him.

HALAKHAH: ““I am a nazir for 100 days,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “This is the teaching for the nazir on the day of his fulfilling;” if he becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling, one gives him the teaching for the nazir. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he becomes impure in those days, what is their status, to be given the teaching for the nazir? Rebbi Shammai said, he is obligated by the teaching for the nazir if he becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling, and for one who becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling the seventh day is not counted. Rebbi Mana asked: If he becomes impure at fulfilling, why should he invalidate 30, should he not invalidate only seven? But if somebody became impure after fulfilling, the seventh day is counted for him.

Ulla bar Ismael said, what is his problem? Of an impure nazir. But for a pure nazir, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees if he has nothing to omit. Samuel bar Abba asked: May one day of his nezirut and one day of nezirut for his son be combined? Where do we hold? If his son was born today and tomorrow he enters, he has two days for his nezirut. If his son was born the next day and he enters the next day, he has two days for his son’s nezirut! Rebbi Mana said, explain it at twilight. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say in the middle of the day, did we not intend to say that the start of the day is counted for him, the end of the day is counted for his son?

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