mishnah

The Mishnah applies if he became betrothed to her by money. But if he became betrothed to her by copulation, his betrothal is an action but his divorce is not an action.

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

MISHNAH: Two deaf-mute brothers married to two deaf-mute sisters, or two hearing sisters, or two sisters of whom one is deaf-mute, the other hearing; or two deaf-mute sisters married to two deaf-mute brothers, or two hearing brothers, or two brothers of whom one is deaf-mute, these are free from ḥalîṣah and levirate. If the women are unrelated, they must marry them, and, if they want to, they may send them away. Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two hearing sisters. If the deaf-mute married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife do? [The widow] has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute married to the hearing wife do? He divorces his wife by a bill of divorce; his brother’s widow is permanently forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two hearing brothers married to two sisters, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the hearing [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to a hearing wife do? [The widow] has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife do? He removes his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.

MISHNAH: Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two sisters, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the deaf-mute [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to a hearing wife do? [The widow] has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife do? He removes his wife by a bill of divorce; his brother’s wife is permanently forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two unrelated hearing women. If the deaf-mute [brother] married to a hearing wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to a hearing wife do? He performs either ḥalîṣah or levirate. If the hearing [brother] married to a hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute [brother] married to a hearing wife do? He marries [the widow] and never can divorce her.

MISHNAH: Two hearing brothers, married to two unrelated women, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the hearing [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to a hearing wife do? He marries [the widow], and if he wants to divorce, he divorces. If the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife do? He performs either ḥalîṣah or levirate. Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two unrelated women, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the deaf-mute [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife do? He marries, and if he wants to divorce, he divorces. If the hearing [brother] married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute [brother] married to the deaf-mute wife do? He marries and can never divorce.

MISHNAH: A woman went overseas with her husband. If there was peace between him and her and there was peace in the world and came and said, “my husband died”, she can remarry, “my husband died”, she can marry in levirate. If there was no peace between him and her but there was peace in the world, she cannot be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, she is never believed unless she comes crying with torn clothes. They said to him, in any case she can remarry.

Not only according to the current Mishnah that a single witness can permit her, but even according to the earlier Mishnah that a single witness cannot permit her, she permits herself. What is the difference between herself and a single witness? A single witness is suspected to want to cause trouble to her; she is not suspected to want to cause trouble to herself.

Not only according to the current Mishnah that a single witness can permit her, but even according to the earlier Mishnah that a single witness cannot permit her, she permits herself. What is the difference between herself and a single witness? A single witness is suspected to want to cause trouble to her; she is not suspected to want to cause trouble to herself.

MISHNAH: The House of Hillel say, we heard only about one who came from the grain harvest. The House of Shammai said to them, it makes no difference whether she comes from the grain harvest, or from the olive harvest, or from overseas. The Sages spoke about the grain harvest only because of what happened. The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, she should remarry and collect her ketubah. The House of Hillel say, she should remarry but not collect her ketubah. The House of Shammai said to them, you permitted the stringent incest prohibition, should you not permit the lenient money matters? The House of Hillel said to them, we find that the brothers cannot access the inheritance on her testimony. The House of Shammai said, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. But is the money contained in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate?

MISHNAH: Everybody is accepted to be a witness for her except her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her levir’s wife, and her husband’s daughter. What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death? The document is the proof. If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave. If one witness says that he died but two say that he did not die, even if she remarried she must leave. If two say that he died but one said that he did not die, even if she has not yet remarried she may remarry.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is accepted to be a witness for her,” etc. It was stated: “Just as they cannot be trusted for her, so she cannot be trusted about them.” Her mother-in-law’s son is like her mother-in-law’s daughter. Her husband’s son is like her husband’s daughter. Her co-wife, even if remarried. Her levir’s wife, even [if she is] her own sister. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says that they did not treat the males as they treat the females, as we have stated there: “because a woman is not trusted if she says, my levir died, that she should be free to remarry, nor that her sister died, to enter her house.” Because she has no children. But if she has children, she is trustworthy.

MISHNAH: One [wife] says, he died, the other one says, he did not die. The one who said that he died can remarry and collect her ketubah; the one who said that he did not die cannot remarry nor collect her ketubah. If one said that he died, while the other one said he was killed; Rebbi Meïr says, since they contradict one another, they cannot remarry. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.

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

MISHNAH: One witness said that he died, another witness said that he did not die; a woman said that he died, another woman said that he did not die; she may not remarry.

MISHNAH: If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died”, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.

MISHNAH: If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died and then my father-in-law died”, she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her mother-in-law remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.

MISHNAH: If he became betrothed to one of five women but it cannot be ascertained to which of them he became betrothed, and each one says he became betrothed to me, he gives a bill of divorce to each of them, puts up the amount of one ketubah between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them. He robbed one of five people, it is not known which of them he robbed and each one says “I was robbed”, he puts up the amount of the robbery between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he pays the amount of the robbery to each of them.

HALAKHAH: [(He robbed one of five people). Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah deals with the case that she was betrothed by a document. But if he was betrothed by money, everybody agrees that he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.]

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

MISHNAH: A woman went overseas with her husband and her son; if she returns and says, “my husband died and after that my sondied,” she is to be believed. “My son died and after that my husband died,” she is not believed but one takes her words into account and she performs ḥalîṣah but is excluded from levirate. “I had a son overseas,” she says, “my son died and after him my husband,” she is believed; “my husband died and after that my son,” she is not believed but one takes her words into account and she performs ḥalîṣah but is excluded from levirate. “A levir was given to me overseas;” if she said “my husband died and after that my levir” [or] “my levir died and after that my husband”, she is to be believed. If she, her husband, and her levir went overseas, if she said “my husband died and after that my levir” [or] “my levir died and after that my husband”, she is not to be believed, since no woman is believed if she says “my levir died” that she might marry [outside the family] nor “my sister died” that she might enter his house. Also the husband is not to be believed if he says “my brother died” that he might marry his wife in levirate, nor “my wife died” that he might marry her sister.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says that they did not treat the males as they treat the females, as we have stated there: “because she is not trusted if she says, my levir died, that she should be free to remarry, nor that her sister died, to enter her house.” Because she has no children. But if she has children, she is trustworthy.

MISHNAH: If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas and people came and told her “your husband died”, she cannot remarry or perform ḥalîṣah until she has ascertained whether this co-wife was pregnant. If she had a mother-in-law, she does not have to suspect. If the latter left pregnant, she has to suspect; Rebbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect.

MISHNAH: If each one of two sisters-in-law says “my husband died”, each one is forbidden because of the other’s husband. If one has witnesses but the other has no witnesses, the one who has witnesses is forbidden but the one who has no witnesses is permitted. If one has children but the other has no children, the one who has children is permitted but the one who has no children is forbidden. If they married in levirate but the levirs died, they are forbidden to remarry. Rebbi Eleazar said, since they were permitted to the levirs, they became permitted to any man.

MISHNAH: One testifies only on the appearance of the face with the nose, even though there may be marks on his body and his clothing. One testifies only up to three days. Even if one saw him cut up or crucified on the cross, or an animal eating of him, one testifies only after he has stopped breathing. Rebbi Judah ben Baba says, not all people nor all places nor all times are the same.

So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Suknin in the name of Rebbi Levi: During the first three days, the soul hovers over the body because she thinks that she will return to it. Once she sees that the splendor of his face changes after three days, she abandons him and goes away. After three days, the belly breaks open in his face and says to him, there is what you have robbed and extorted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joshia brings it from that verse: “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment, “but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”

MISHNAH: If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden. Rebbi Meїr said, if happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. Rebbi Yose said, it happened with a blind man who went to immerse himself in a cave, and his guide went after him, they stayed there the time to die [from drowning] and they permitted their wives to remarry. It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered. The Sages said, if from the knee and higher, she can remarry, from lower than the knee she cannot remarry.

MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died. Rebbi Jehudah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends [to testify]; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony.

MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me and said to me, I heard that in the Land of Israel one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness, except Jehudah ben Baba. I told him, that is so. He said to me: Tell them in my name, you know that this country is in bad shape because of armed bands; I learned from Rabban Gamliel the Elder that one lets a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness. When I came and lectured about this before Rabban Gamliel, he was happy about my words and said, we found a colleague for Jehudah ben Baba. During the discussion, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people had been killed at Tel Arza and Rabban Gamliel let their widows remarry on the testimony of a single witness. It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman or a slave girl.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of a single witness. Rebbi Aqiba says, not on the testimony of a woman nor on that of relatives.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry,” etc. We have stated: “It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman, and a woman on the words of another woman, and from a slave or a slave girl.” And you say so? Our Mishnah is of the prior Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry,” etc. We have stated: “It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman, and a woman on the words of another woman, and from a slave or a slave girl.” And you say so? Our Mishnah is of the prior Mishnah.

MISHNAH: They said to him, it happened that Levites went to Zoar the town of date palms when one one them fell ill and they left him at an inn On their return they asked the women innkeeper,where is our colleague? She told them, he died and I buried him; and they let his widow remarry. They said to him, should not the wife of a Cohen be like a women innkeeper? He retorted, if she is in the position of the women innkeeper. For the women innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his back pack and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.

MISHNAH: If a man declares his jealousy to his wife, Rebbi Eliezer says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony. Rebbi Joshua says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].

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

MISHNAH: How does he declare his jealousy? If he said to her in front of two [witnesses]: Do not speak with the man X, and she spoke with him, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave. If she enters a hidden room together with him and remains there long enough for impurity, she is forbidden to her house and forbidden to eat heave; if he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.

HALAKHAH: “How does he declare his jealousy,” etc. Does this mean only, until she talks with him? That would imply, if she went to a secluded place with him without talking, that going to a secluded place would count for nothing? It comes to tell you more: Even if she talked to him but was not with him in a secluded place, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave, since the Mishnah uses chaste language: Do not be alone with Mr. X.

It was stated: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

MISHNAH: The following are prohibited from eating heave: One who says, I am impure for you, and where witnesses proved that she is impure, and one who refuses to drink, and one whose husband refuses to let her drink, and one whose husband slept with her on the trip. What does he have to do: He brings her to the court at his place and they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip. Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her.

HALAKHAH: “The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there: “Three [kinds of] women leave and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, [or] Heaven is between you and me, [or] I am separated from the Jews.” Rebbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood?

HALAKHAH: “The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there: “Three [kinds of] women leave and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, [or] Heaven is between you and me, [or] I am separated from the Jews.” Rebbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood?

HALAKHAH: “The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there: “Three [kinds of] women leave and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, [or] Heaven is between you and me, [or] I am separated from the Jews.” Rebbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood?

MISHNAH: They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem where they try to instill fear in her, as they try to instill fear in witnesses in capital cases, and say to her: My daughter, much does wine cause, much does joking cause, much does youth cause, much do bad neighbors cause. Do not cause the Great Name, which will be written in holiness, to be erased by water, and they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear.

MISHNAH: If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves. If she said, I am pure, one brings her to the Eastern gate, the Nikanor gate, for there one lets the suspected wives drink, and one purifies the woman after childbirth, and the persons healed from skin disease. A Cohen seizes her garment, if it tears it tears, if it frays it frays, until he uncovers her breast, and he destroys her hairdo. Rebbi Jehudah says, if her breast was beautiful, he did not uncover it, if her hair was beautiful, he did not undo it.

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand”; did she ever sit? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair.

MISHNAH: If she was clothed in white, he covers her in black. If she wore gold jewelry, chains, nose rings and finger rings, he removes them from her in order to make her ugly. After that he brings an Egyption rope and binds it higher than her breasts. Anyone who wants to look may come and see, except for her male and female slaves because she feels superior to them. All women are permitted to see her, as it was said: “”all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

HALAKHAH: “If she was clothed in white,” etc. Our Mishnah [assumes that] they are not fitting her. But if they are fitting her, it does not apply.

MISHNAH: By the measure a person measures one measures him. She adorned herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent made her ugly. She bared herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent laid her bare. The genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.

MISHNAH: Simson followed his eyes, therefore the Philistines pierced his eyes. Absalom beautified himself with his hair, therefore he was hung by his hair. Because he came to his father’s ten concubines, therefore ten lances were put into him, as it was said: “Ten squires, Joab’s weapons carriers, surrounded him.” And because he stole three steals, his father’s opinion, the court’s opinion, and Israel’s opinion, therefore three staves were stuck into him, as it was said: “He took three staves in his hand and stuck them into Absalom’s heart.”

MISHNAH: Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said: “His sister stood by from afar.” Therefore, all of Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said: “The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.”

MISHNAH: Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he, as it is said: “Joseph ascended to bury his father.” Who would be greater than Joseph? Only Moses could occupy himself with him. Moses had the merit to take Joseph’s bones and no one in Israel was greater than he, as it is said: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him.” Who would be greater than Moses? Only the Holy One, Praise to Him, could occupy himself with him, as it is said: “He buried him in the valley.” Not only about Moses was this said but about all the just, as it is said: “Your righteousness will precede you, the glory of the Eternal will gather you in.”

MISHNAH: He brought her flour offering in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and then puts it on her hands to tire her out. All flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel except this which at the start is in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and at the end in a Temple vessel. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ‘omer flour offering, even though it comes from barley, comes as roasted kernels but this one comes as flour. Rabban Gamliel said, since she behaved like an animal so her offering is animal feed.

“Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed: “It cannot be brought completely because of the participation by the wife. It cannot be eaten because of the participation by the husband.” He said to him, the handful is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately. And you say, “her flour offering”? But the expression used by the verse is used by the Mishnah: “He shall bring her flour-offering for her.”

MISHNAH: He brought a new earthenware bowl and filled it with half a log of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]. (Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”

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

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt. Rebbi Jehudah said he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: He does not write on a wooden plank, or on papyrus, or on διφθέρα, only on a scroll, as it is said: “In a book”. He does not write with gum or vitriol nor with anything leaving a permanent impression except with ink; it is written “he shall wipe off”, writing that can be wiped off.

MISHNAH: Why does she repeat: “Amen Amen”? Amen on the curse, Amen on the oath, Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. Amen that I was not defiled and if I was defiled it should hurt me. Amen that I did not deviate preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in. Rebbi Meїr says, Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.

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

How could one state this Mishnah? Not the rabbis nor Rebbi Aqiba! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house [follows] the rabbis against Rebbi Aqiba. He who says that she is forbidden to her house [follows] Rebbi Aqiba against the rabbis. Rebbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a Cohen, and they permitted her to her house. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.

MISHNAH: Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced. If she was secluded after that, became impure, and after that he took her back, he cannot stipulate with her. This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.

MISHNAH: He took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket, put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave. He weaved, presented, took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests.

MISHNAH: He gives her to drink and after that he presents her offering. Rebbi Simeon says, he sacrifices her offering and afterwards gives her to drink as it is said: “After that he shall give the water to the woman to drink.” If he gave her to drink and after that sacrificed her offering, it is valid.

MISHNAH: If she said “I shall not drink” before the scroll was erased, her scroll is put away and her offering dispersed on the ashes. Her scroll is not acceptable to be used to make another suspected wife drink. If she said “I am impure” after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed on the ashes. If she said “I shall not drink” after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.

“If she said ‘I am impure’ after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed over the ashes.” This proves that the suspected wife’s offering is holy before the scroll is written. Rebbi Yose said, there is more: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, her offering is holy once she is on her way. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, our Mishnah states this: “Or if her husband had sexual relations with her on the road.”

MISHNAH: She does not finish drinking before her face becomes yellow, her eyes protrude, and her veins swell. She is taken outside so that she does not pollute the temple courtyard. If she has merit, it suspends. There is merit which suspends for one year, there is merit which suspends for two years, there is merit which suspends for three years. From this, Ben Azai concluded that one is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that when she needs to drink, she will know that the merit will assist her. Rebbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her debauchery. Rebbi Joshua said: a woman prefers one qab and frivolity to nine qabim and abstinence. He used to say: a foolish pious man, a sly wicked man, a predatory woman, and hits by the predatory, these are the ones who ruin the world.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water. If you say that merit suspends in the case of the curse water, you weaken the water in the eyes of all women who drink it and you smear the reputation of the pure women who drank because one would say that they are impure but that merit suspended for them. Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water, but she does not have children, does not get better, but degenerates and in the end she dies that death.

MISHNAH: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed. After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned. The flour offerings are burned in the following cases: One who says, I am impure for you, or that witnesses declared that she was impure; one who refuses to drink, or whose husband does not want to let her drink, or whose husband slept with her on the road. In addition, the flour offerings of women married to Cohanim are burned.

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].

MISHNAH: What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams. A man can make his son a nazir, no woman can make her son a nazir. A man can shave using his father’s vow of nazir, no woman can shave using her father’s vow of nazir. A man can betrothe his daughter, no woman can betrothe her daughter. A man can sell his daughter, no woman can sell her daughter. A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked. A man is hanged, no woman is hanged. A man is sold for his theft, no woman is sold for her theft.

MISHNAH: A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law neither drinks nor collects her ketubah, since it is said: “.. who will deviate from under her husband,” which excludes a preliminarily married woman and one who waits for her brother-in-law. A widow [married to] a High Priest, a divorcee or one who received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness to an Israel, or an Israel woman married to a bastard or a Gibeonite, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah.

Does our Mishnah follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “she takes her ketubah but does not drink”? Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is that she may say, bring me my husband, then I shall drink. But here, she knew that the preliminarily married cannot drink; why did she bring herself into that great doubt? In order to disqualify herself from receiving her ketubah.

MISHNAH: The following cannot drink or collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, or one for whom came witnesses declaring her to be impure; one who says “I will not drink”. But one whose husband refuses to make her drink, or whose husband copulated with her on the road, collects her ketubah but does not drink. About those whose husbands died before she would drink, the House of Shammai say, they collect the ketubah but do not drink, but the House of Hillel say, they neither drink not collect the ketubah.

MISHNAH: A woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child] may neither drink nor collect her ketubah, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. A she-ram, an old woman, or a sterile one, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah; Rebbi Eleazar says, he may marry another wife and be fruitful and multiply with her. All other women either drink or cannot collect their ketubah.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s wife drinks and is permitted to her husband; the wife of a eunuch drinks. One may declare one’s jealousy with respect to any incest-‘prohibited person, except for a minor and a non-man.

MISHNAH: For the following the court will declare jealousy: One whose husband had become a deaf-mute, or insane, or was confined in a jail; not to make her drink but to make her ineligible for her ketubah. Rebbi Yose says, also to make her drink: When her husband will be freed from jail he should make her drink.

MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour.

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

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

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

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city 2000 cubits to the East,” but in another verse it says “outside the city wall, one thousand cubits all around.” It is impossible to say 1000 cubits because already it was said 2000 cubits and it is impossible to say 2000 cubits because already it was said 1000 cubits. Why was 1000 said, and why 2000? But 1000 cubits open space and 2000 cubits Sabbath domain. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: 1000 cubits open space and two thousand fields and vineyards.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “ Then would Moses and the Children of Israel sing the following song to the Eternal to tell.” The verse should not have said “to tell”; why does the verse say “to tell”? It was that Israel were repeating after Moses every word, as one reads the Hallel: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high;” therefore “saying” was said. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, they were reciting it as one recites the Šema‘, not as one reads the Hallel.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrkanos explained that Job served the Holy One, praise to Him, only out of love, as it is said: “Behold, even if He will kill me, to Him I pray.” But the matter is still in suspense, “to Him I look forward” or “I do not look forward to Him”. The verse says, “until I die I shall not remove my innocence from me,” this teaches that he did it out of love.

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

MISHNAH: If somebody declared his jealousy to [his wife] and she went to a secluded place, even if he heard about it from a bird flying by he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, from the moment she is the subject of talk of women spinning by moonlight.

MISHNAH: If a single witness said “I saw her when she became impure”, she could not drink. Not only that, but even a slave or a slave-girl are believed to cause her to lose her ketubah. Her mother-in-law, the mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter are trustworthy. They said this not to make her lose her ketubah but that she could not drink.

Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon.

MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her”, any kind of testimony about her. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.”

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

MISHNAH: If one witness says, she became impure, but another witness says, she did not become impure, or one woman says, she became impure, but another woman says, she did not become impure, she would drink. If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she did drink. If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one [witness] says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.

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

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: The following are recited in the vernacular: The verses of the suspect wife, and the declaration of tithes, and the recitation of the Šema‘, and prayer, and grace, and the oath of a witness, and the oath about a deposit.