maybe

In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, should he not give it its name and then take it down? It will be forbidden to move it. Then should he not take it down and then give it its name? Maybe he would forget and eat it. Should he not take it down, then give it its name, and with another piece put it in an isolated corner, following what we did state there, “one may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food”? It cannot be compared; there impure for the needs of pure, but here profane for the needs of impure. The colleagues asked, could he not throw it onto the garbage heap and then dedicate it? May a person dedicate what is not his? Then could he not dedicate it and throw it on the garbage heap? Can a person declare ownerless something that is not his?

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

What can you say [about a baby]? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if his Seventh day falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling may be done on the day before.

“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world knows? And is the permanence of the living not like living? Explain that he was found compressed.

Rebbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shining. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu found a treasure. He asked them, why? They told him, his face is shining. He said to them, maybe he understood a new teaching. He came to visit him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosephta. He recited about him, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face

MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house to the Parhedrin lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house, his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends.

HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if from the following: As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there, this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also is atonement through the High Priest.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: One sends him Elders from the Elders of the Court; they read before him the Order of the Day and say to him, Sir High Priest, read yourself with your mouth, maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned. In the morning of the eve of the Day of Atonement one makes him stand at the Eastern Gate and brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep, so he should recognize and be used to the service.

MISHNAH: One sends him Elders from the Elders of the Court; they read before him the Order of the Day and say to him, Sir High Priest, read yourself with your mouth, maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned. In the morning of the eve of the Day of Atonement one makes him stand at the Eastern Gate and brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep, so he should recognize and be used to the service.

HALAKHAH: “Maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned.” Did we not state, “the priest, greater than his brethren, that his greatness be from his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured. Rebbi says, in beauty, in riches, in wisdom, and in looks.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first [Temple], here in the second.

HALAKHAH: “Maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned.” Did we not state, “the priest, greater than his brethren, that his greatness be from his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured. Rebbi says, in beauty, in riches, in wisdom, and in looks.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first [Temple], here in the second.

“One does not show a thumb in the Temple,” because of the tricksters. One does not say from whom in the Temple, but the overseer lifts the cap of one of them and they know that the lottery (proceeds) [starts] from there. Should we not worry, maybe for a friend or a relative? They formed a snail. How was the lottery proceeding, to the right or to the left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since we did state, the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan, this implies that it proceeded to the right. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hilfai: It is as follows. The lottery proceeds to the left, the winner adds to the right. It is preferable that one should win over whom the lottery passed twice, rather than one over whom the lottery passed only once.

For the Eternal, to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots.

HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests! They were arranged like a snail. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it for maybe its shape is not lost> Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it for maybe its shape is not lost> Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

“For demanding will demand, these are purification and reparation offerings. The Eternal, your God, this is dedication for the upkeep of the Temple. From with you, this is collecting single stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Or there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.” For otherwise what would we say? Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say, maybe the sacrifice will be found disqualified; therefore it was necessary to say, (do not tarry to fulfill it, and not its substitute) [there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.] The pronouncement of your lips you shall guard and execute. “You shall guard and execute, to alert the court that they should force you.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Avuna: From here the pledge. As you vowed to the Eternal, your God, a voluntary gift. Is there a vow which is called voluntary gift? But to make him liable for each single vow and every single voluntary gift. “What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

And what spoiling was there? These were kindling this day and those were kindling the next day; they were thinking that the Court was reconsidering and were spoiled. Who disestablished the beacons? Rebbi disestablished the beacons, and permitted the murderer, and permitted hearsay, and permitted that one was departing in the evening trusting that it would be sanctified. Rebbi Abbahu said, even though you are saying that the beacons were disestablished, they were not disestablished from the Sea of Galilee. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu, should those who see Safed light a beacon? He said to him, Rebbi disestablished the beacons. Why would Safed light a beacon? To communicate that they know. One does not light a beacon in the night of its regular time, but in the night of its extension. In the night of its regular time one cannot kindle because of the holiday, but one kindles in the night of its extension. One kindles only for months settled on time because of a holiday which might fall on a Friday. In the night of its regular time one cannot kindle because of the holiday, in the night of its extension one cannot kindle because of the honor of the Sabbath. For if you are saying, one kindles both for months settled on time [and for months not settled on time]; if you are saying this, they will say that maybe the Court was reconsidering and would be spoiled.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of what had happened. Once they blew early and the haters thought that maybe they want to go against us, they attacked them and killed them. Since they are seeing that they read the shema`, and pray, and read in the Torah, and pray while blowing, they are saying, they are occupied with their secret rites.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult for the House of Shammai. A large thigh one is permitted to send, a small kid goat one is not permitted to send. Rebbi Yudan said, it only is understood if he carries it. But if he draws it and it walks, what is the difference if he draws it to deliver it or he draws it to let it drink? The Great Rebbi Hoshaia asked Rebbi Jehudah the Prince, did you hear from your father whether one is permitted to move a chicken? Certainly if it was ready for slaughter it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. But are not all chickens ready for slaughter? The question is, maybe even if it is not ready. He told him in a whisper. He asked him, why are you telling me in a whisper? He said to him, just I heard it in a whisper, so I am telling you in a whisper.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

Why did they say that one does not climb on a tree? Is it lest he forget and eat, or maybe lest he forget and shake it? Let us hear from the following: If he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend. This implies, lest he forget and shake it.

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest; like you. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr., he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: that is if an individual disagrees with an individual. But in the case of an individual following the {anonymous} Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.

HALAKHAH: “If they were fasting and it rained before sunrise, they do not finish,” as it is said, before they will call I shall answer. “After sunrise they finish,” still they are talking and I shall hear. Or may be the other way around? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it was stated so: there is no answer but close to calling, and no calling but close to answering. In the days of Rebbi Yudan they decided on a fast; then rain fell in the night. Rebbi Mana went up to him; he said to him: since I am thirsty, may I drink? He said to him, wait. Maybe they will take counsel to finish.

“And the city was breached.” It is written, on the Ninth of the month the city was breached, and you are saying so? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said, here is an erroneous computation. That is what is written, it was in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, was the Eternal’s word to me, saying: Son of man, since Tyre said about Jerusalem hurrah. What “hurrah”? If you are saying on the first of Av, it still was not burned. If you are saying on the first of Ellul, cannot in one day and night the messenger leave Jerusalem and arrive at Tyre? But here is an erroneous computation. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, {a parable} of a king who was sitting and computing computations. They came and told him, your son was kidnapped; his computations became erroneous. He said, let this be the beginning of computations. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, {a parable} of a king who was sitting and computing computations. They came and told him, your son was kidnapped and incapacitated; his computations became erroneous. He said, let this be the beginning of computations. Rebbi Mana asked, one understands this that they were erroneous for the past; maybe for the future? Whether one follows him who said on the ninth of the month, or the one who said on the seventeenth, [in what do they differ?] there are twenty-one days from the day the city was breached to the day the Temple was destroyed. Rebbi Abuna said, an indication, I am seeing an almond stick. Since this almond tree from sprouting its flower to finishing its fruit needs twenty-one days, so from the day the city was breached to the day the Temple was destroyed twenty-one days. He who says on the Ninth of the month, the Temple was destroyed on the first of Av. He who says on the Seventeenth, the Temple was destroyed on the Ninth of Av.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Rebbi Jonathan passed by the synagogue. He heard their voices reading without benedictions. He said to them, how long are you making the Torah out of bald spots! Moses instituted that the Torah should be read on Sabbath, holidays, New Moons, and on the intermediate days of holidays. Ezra instituted that the Torah should be read on Mondays and Thursdays, and on Sabbath afternoon. He instituted immersion for people with emissions of semen. He instituted that law courts should sit in large villages on Mondays and Thursdays. He instituted that peddlars make the circuit of villages because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. He instituted that one should wash on Thursdays for the honor of the Sabbath. He instituted that one should bake bread on Fridays so that a piece be available for the poor. He instituted that one eat garlic on Friday Night, because it brings love and removes desire. He instituted that women should talk with one another in the toilet. He instituted that a woman wear an apron front and back. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said, because of what had happened. It happened that a woman was raped by an ape, both regular and irregular intercourse. He instituted that a woman may wash and comb her hair up to three days before her purity. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Corresponding to the Sabbath and the two days of holiday in the Diaspora. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jehudah: only if the time of her immersion is in the meantime. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if the time of her immersion is at the end. Then Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, what are you looking at me? What do you know that we do not know, you understand what is not with us? There came Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya and reported the reason: even if the time of her immersion is at the end; I am saying that maybe her spring is far away and she is lazy and not pure.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “hallel and joy eight”? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: We find that the Holy One, praise to Him, did forego for Israel about idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed. But for their rejection of the Torah he did not forego. What is the reason? It is not written here “The Eternal said, because they committed idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed,” but the Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that they abandoned Me I could forego, maybe they would keep My Torah, since if they abandoned Me but kept My Torah, the leavening in it would bring them close to Me. Rav Ḥuna said, study Torah even not for its own merit, since through {studying} not for its own merit you come to {study} for its own.

There, we have stated: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands.” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure.

There, we have stated: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands.” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

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

From where in the Torah that mourning is seven {days}? He organized seven days of mourning for his father. Can you infer anything from before the giving of the Torah? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: At the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night for seven days, and keep the watch of the Eternal’ s sanctuary. Just as the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}, so you shall watch for your brothers for seven {days}. And from where that the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}? It was after seven days that the Deluge came over the world. May one mourn before the dying person dies? Only flesh and blood who do not know what will be in the future do not mourn until the dying person dies. But the Holy One, praise to Him, Who knows what will be in the future did first watch for His world. Some want to say, these are the seven days of mourning for Methusela the Just. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for the Eternal’s anointing oil is on you. Just as you were anointed with the anointing oil all of seven, so watch for your brothers all of seven. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: please let her not be like the dead. She shall be locked away. Just as the day of isolation for the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven. One student reported this from Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said, here he uses it for isolation, but there he uses it for making absolute, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, please let her not be like the dead: just as the days of the dead are not counted, so the days of being absolute are not counted. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: the days of crying of the mourning for Moses ended. “The days”, seven. “Of crying”, two. “Mourning”, thirty. Some switch, “the days”, two, “of crying”, seven, “mourning”, thirty. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah the Patriarch: I shall turn your holiday into mourning. Since the days of Tabernacles are seven, also the days of mourning are seven. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Maybe since the days of Tabernacles are eight, also the days of mourning are eight? He answered him, the eighth day is a separate holiday Or since Pentecost is one day, also mourning is one day? He answered him, from here about a deferred information. And it was stated such: Current information requires Seven and Thirty. Deferred information does not require Seven and Thirty.

It was stated: The following are forbidden to the mourner all Seven {days}: Washing, anointing, wearing shoes, sexual relations, grooming, washing clothes, reading in the Torah, studying Midrash, practices, and homiletics, greeting, and working. Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire Seven? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Immi; he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all Seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent to Rebbi Abba bar Cohen who said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Immi, he asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who instructed him “all Seven following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rav Hoshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it. Rebbi Yose asked, which rabbis? The rabbis here or the rabbis in the South? If you say the rabbis of here, it is fine. If you would say the rabbis from the South, would he have asked minor authorities when greater ones were available to him? If you say the rabbis of the South, we would allow and they would forbid, as we have stated: “At a place where it is customary to bathe after a funeral, one may bathe; in the South one bathes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: He who permits that bath makes it like eating and drinking. That means, about a bath for pleasure. But a bath that is not for pleasure is permitted. Samuel bar Abba developed scab. They came and asked Rebbi Yasa, what is the rule, may he bathe? He said to them: If he does not bathe, would he not die? If he needs it, even on the Ninth of Av. If he needs it, even on Yom Kippur. They saw Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Ḥanina, immersing himself. They did not know whether it was for his emission, they did not know whether it was to cool down because bathing in cold water is not called bathing. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed following this statement.

Samuel said, PḤZ are obligatory, NTR meritorious. Uncovering the head, turning around the tear, turning the couch upright, are obligatory. Wearing shoes, sexual relations, washing, are meritorious. A student of Samuel had sexual relations. Samuel heard, was offended by him, and he died. He said, this was said as legal rule; maybe to be acted on? Rav said, ḤZ are obligatory, PN meritorious. Turning around the tear, turning the bed upright, are obligatory; uncovering the head, wearing shoes, are meritorious. Two of Rebbi’s sons went out, one with his head uncovered having taken off his shoes; the other with his head covered wearing shoes. Rebbi Jonah went up to Rebbi Gorion, who came out to him wearing shoes. He said to him, what are you thinking? That one will adopt action from you? One does not learn action from an unimportant personality.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

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

HALAKHAH: “If two [men] gave qiddushin to two sisters,” etc. It was stated: These rules apply both for Israel and for Cohanim. That is, if ḥalîṣah was performed first and the levirate afterwards. But to perform levirate first is forbidden; maybe his brother will die and it will turn out that he cohabited with the sister of his sister-in-law. Rav Ḥisda said, that means that having relations with the sister of his sister-in-law does not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: He who cohabited with the sister of a woman for whom he had performed ḥalîṣah did not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood.

It was stated: “Abba Shaul says, the House of Hillel made this easy.” Is that a criticism? It is a praise, since people were saying, what is the prohibition here? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “If they jumped the gun and married, they should keep them.” But that is only if they had intercourse at the same time. In the opinion of Abba Shaul it is permitted to have intercourse without asking. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon only if he transgressed and had intercourse. If the first [brother] married and had intercourse, he tells the second also to have intercourse. If that one did not have intercourse, the first [brother] is forbidden to have intercourse a second time; maybe one of them will die and it turns out that he had intercourse with the sister of his sister-in-law. It was stated: If the second [brother] died, the first one had to divorce his wife with a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah. Even if the second one died? Does this not follow Rebbi Simeon? But Rebbi Simeon frees the second [sister] from ḥalîṣah and levirate! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I confirmed this: Any sister-in-law who was to be freed by ḥalîṣah will never be permitted without ḥalîṣah.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. Do the House of Shammai follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely? If they would follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, in case he had divorced the “bespoken” widow, she would not need ḥalîṣah! But Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the House of Shammai agree that if he divorced the “bespoken”, she needs ḥalîṣah! It must be they follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. If they would follow Rebbi Simeon, in any case, if “bespeaking” acquires, nothing follows it. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, why “his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister”? Maybe “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai is like candidacy for Rebbi Simeon in the interpretation of the rabbis there. As the rabbis there say, “bespeaking” acquires and leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, [candidacy] acquires and leaves a remainder. Rebbi Simeon says, no candidacy can come after a candidacy, so the House of Shammai say here, no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking”.

If there was ḥalîṣah during these three months, does she need another one after three months? Let us hear from the following: “A minor who performed ḥalîṣah should perform ḥalîṣah after she grows up; if she performed [only one] ḥalîṣah, the ḥalîṣah she performed is valid.” Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; this is Rebbi Meïr‘s, since Rebbi Meïr says one does neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate with a minor: maybe she would turn out to be a she-ram. As you say there, even though she already performed ḥalîṣah, she again performs ḥalîṣah; so here also though she did perform ḥalîṣah, she performs ḥalîṣah.

Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: There Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. It must be that Rebbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous [text]. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Abba and Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rebbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rebbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That means, if no diagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], practice does not follow the anonymous [opinion]. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to the [anonymous] Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous [text].

Ḥalîṣah against the rules frees. In which respect? That if an outsider comes and gives qiddushin to her co-wife, they will lay hold of her. If an outsider came and gave her qiddushin, since the candidacy from the deceased was removed from her, the qiddushin will lay hold of her, or maybe, since she still needs a bill of divorce for her “bespeaking”, the qiddushin will not lay hold of her?

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.

We find that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagrees with his father since Rebbi Simon said in the name of Hilfai: Rebbi, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they wanted to vote to free it from tithes but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand. He was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: did you not remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah? When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? But we found that he stated in the name of his father that they accepted tithes voluntarily! And he said, it is correct that if tithes are from their words and the food of the daughters is of their words that their words may uproot their words.

“If there are males they enable to eat, females do not enable to eat.” If there are males, they enable to eat since there is one doubt, whether he is male or female. A doubt in biblical matters forces restriction. Females do not enable to eat since there are two doubts, whether he is male or female, (after she was betrothed or maybe before she was betrothed.) A doubt regarding their words forces leniency. However you take it, if he is male, everything is his. Female, she takes her part with them.

HALAKHAH: “A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there, “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully. Then they should fine her with respect to the second [husband] but not with respect to the first! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did we not state: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him? But it must follow Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted. Did Rebbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated, “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first.

HALAKHAH: “A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there, “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully. Then they should fine her with respect to the second [husband] but not with respect to the first! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did we not state: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him? But it must follow Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted. Did Rebbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated, “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first.

The following is obvious: If a person younger than twenty years of age developed two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively. Older than twenty years of age, he becomes a man from that point into the future. Where do they disagree? If he is twenty. Samuel said, he becomes a man retroactively. Rav said, he becomes a man from that point into the future. A baraita disagrees with both of them: The castrate cannot become a rebellious son since he has no pubic hair. Should one not warn him, maybe he will develop two pubic hairs within the next three months? Following him who says, one does not accept conditional warnings. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: Does it make no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twelve years and one day old, if by then he did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively? Could you say: If he did grow two pubic hairs between the ages of nine years and one day until twelve years and one day, he becomes a man retroactively? Similarly, if he is older than twenty years of age and did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man from that point into the future. How does Samuel handle this? He explains it: soon after he turns twenty.

It is written: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with” but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared for him. Or maybe only by marriage? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: “If a man take his brother’s wife, it is despicable”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is confirmed by levirate. But is it not written: “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister to make her a co-wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is confirmed after her sister’s death. But is it not written: “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; he sees her genitals and she sees his genitals, it is ḥesed.” Rebbi Avin said, that you should not say that Kain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable”, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ḥesed.” But is it not written: “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her that the betrothal is valid.

The people of Simonia came to Rebbi and told him, please give us a man who preaches, judges, runs the synagogue, teaches reading, teaches Mishnah, and looks after all our needs. He gave them Levi bar Sisi. They made him a big platform and sat him on it. They came and asked him, how does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He did not respond. If she spat blood” He did not respond. They said, maybe he is not competent in studies, let us ask him in homiletics. They came and asked him, what is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He did not respond. They came to Rebbi and told him, that required one we asked you for? He told them, by your lives, I gave you one who is my equal! He sent to bring him and examined him. He asked him, what if she spat blood. He said, if it contains some fluid of spittle it is valid. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He said, with her teeth. What is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He said, until the decision of the court is sealed, it is traced. After it has been sealed, it is true. He asked him, and why did you not give any answers? He said to him, they made me a big platform and sat me on it; by that my spirit became bloated. He quoted about him: “If you became subject to contempt when you rose, if you planned, hand to mouth”; why did you become contemptible in the words of the Torah? That you used them to aggrandize yourself.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, she is never believed unless she comes crying with torn clothes.” They objected to Rebbi Jehudah: Think of it, if one came crying, the other did not cry. To this one you forbid, to that one you permit. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Think of it, maybe her son went overseas and died there, she remembers that and cries.

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.

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says: “One covers a man in front and a woman front and back.” And here, he says so? There, she goes to her death anyhow, but here, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? There, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” choose for him the easiest death. But here, “all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

How many letters have to be written unnecessarily for him to be guilty? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Yudan asked, if he wrote from memory, or rubbed it off with dust, or wrote one word and wiped it off immediately? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua said, one does not write on leather from an unclean animal. Rebbi Simeon said, since you said it is written to be erased, why can he not write? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon said, I prefer the words of Eleazar ben Shamua over my father’s words. Maybe she will say: I will not drink. Then the Name would be hidden on leather from an unclean animal.

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

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

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

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

{What means] demay? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order.

{What means] demay? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order.

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.