rav

It follows what Rebbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: The priestly blessings are read but not translated. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the reason? He told him, so you shall bless, it was given as blessing, it was not given to be read.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Tefillin and mezuzzah, which one has precedence? Samuel said, mezuzzah has precedence. Rav Ḥuna said, tefillin have precedence. What is Samuel’s reason? Since it applies on holidays and Sabbath. What is Rav Ḥuna’s reason? Since it applies to travellers on the Seas and those who cross deserts. A baraita supports Samuel: “A worn-out tefillah one may make into mezuzzah, a worn out mezuzzah one may not make into a tefillah. Why? Because one increases in holiness but may not decrease.”

Tefillin and mezuzzah, which one has precedence? Samuel said, mezuzzah has precedence. Rav Ḥuna said, tefillin have precedence. What is Samuel’s reason? Since it applies on holidays and Sabbath. What is Rav Ḥuna’s reason? Since it applies to travellers on the Seas and those who cross deserts. A baraita supports Samuel: “A worn-out tefillah one may make into mezuzzah, a worn out mezuzzah one may not make into a tefillah. Why? Because one increases in holiness but may not decrease.”

It was stated: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“ And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy, even from a butcher shop. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply] all seven days.

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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

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.

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: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes.

May one appoint Elders for selected topics? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]

HALAKHAH: “One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons},” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael states warnings to the actors. Since Rebbi Immi was sitting and stating a warning for active homosexual and a warning for the passive homosexual, this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

“Nor the Chariot to one.” Is this still Rebbi Aqiba’s? It is the opinion of everybody, so that a person know how to take care of the glory of his Maker. Did not Rav say, nobody is permitted to pronounce anything (about skin disease) [against his teacher] unless either he saw or he served. How does one proceed? At the start his teacher indicates the topics of the verses and summarizes. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi had a competent student who explained one Chapter in the Work of the Chariot to which Rebbi did not concur; he was stricken with scabies. This teaching may be compared to two roads, one of fire and the other of snow. If he takes one he dies in fire, if he takes the other he dies in snow. What should he do? Walk in the middle.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Siracides: What is beyond you do not have to know, what is deeper than the abyss do not investigate. Ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things. Rav said, may lying lips be אלם: may they become dumb, be rubbed out, silenced. May they become dumb, as you are saying, the Eternal said to him, Who formed a mouth etc. May they be rubbed out, as you are saying, here we were tying sheaves. May they be silenced, as it is understood. Which talk boasting about a just one, who talk about the Universal Just One in matters which He hid from His creatures. With haughtiness and contempt, that is he who is haughty to say, I am investigating the Creation. He feels like haughty but only is insulting.

“They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath.” So the House of Hillel are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath. Whose are the hides? Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, of all watches. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, of this watch. And you are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; whose are the hides? The disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Pentecost has all of seven days as make-up. Rav Hoshaia objected: was it not stated, just as the New Moon is one day after its count, to Pentecost is one day after its count? Rebbi La said, if he did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it all seven days.

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals I declared impure for you here.

“He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, because of a happening. It happened to a person that his amphora sprung a leak and he plugged it with his sandal. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he transgressed and carried it, it is pure. This follows what Rebbi Eleazar said: some say, he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is impure. [But some say,] he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is pure. Rebbi Ze`ira said in front of Rebbi Mana does this not imply that they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea? [If you would say, they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea,] then if he transgressed and carried he would be impure. He answered him, explain it if it is connected to sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

HALAKHAH: What is readying a grave? Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai said, one whitewashes it with lime. Rav Ḥisda said, if it was long he shortens it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he enlarges it at one side and widens it at another side. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he enlarges and widens it whether on one side or at two sides.”

Rav Hoshaia had flour but he ground wheat. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Jonah: go out and buy us black ones to pound. He said to him, do we have a holiday grindstone? He was offended by him.

“Any preserves of which one can eat on the holiday one makes.” Therefore not preserves of which one cannot eat on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, this you are saying if they would not spoil. But things apt to spoil are permitted. It was stated: One may not go out and collect greenery which is not usually eaten on the holiday and sell it on the market. Rav Hoshaia said, if you would say so you would permit professional work on the holiday. But did not Rebbi Abba say, this you are saying if they would not spoil; but things apt to spoil are permitted? The baraita if he collected it on the holiday; what Rebbi Abba said if he collected it on the eve of the holiday.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One is permitted to knit a net on the holiday to catch fish on the holiday. Rav Jehudah instructed that sieves may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. Rebbi Immi instructed that pompa may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, one fires pans and pots for the needs of the holiday. Samuel said, one pitches barrels but one does not pitch pitchers. One pitches barrels since the pitch is thin; one does not pitch pitchers since the pitch is glazed. Some do switch: one pitches pitchers but one does not pitch barrels. One pitches pitchers since this is for immediate use; one does not pitch barrels, since this is for storage.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One is permitted to knit a net on the holiday to catch fish on the holiday. Rav Jehudah instructed that sieves may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. Rebbi Immi instructed that pompa may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, one fires pans and pots for the needs of the holiday. Samuel said, one pitches barrels but one does not pitch pitchers. One pitches barrels since the pitch is thin; one does not pitch pitchers since the pitch is glazed. Some do switch: one pitches pitchers but one does not pitch barrels. One pitches pitchers since this is for immediate use; one does not pitch barrels, since this is for storage.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One is permitted to knit a net on the holiday to catch fish on the holiday. Rav Jehudah instructed that sieves may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. Rebbi Immi instructed that pompa may be made on the holiday for the needs of the holiday. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, one fires pans and pots for the needs of the holiday. Samuel said, one pitches barrels but one does not pitch pitchers. One pitches barrels since the pitch is thin; one does not pitch pitchers since the pitch is glazed. Some do switch: one pitches pitchers but one does not pitch barrels. One pitches pitchers since this is for immediate use; one does not pitch barrels, since this is for storage.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: one thickens; Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost. Cahana said, there are things in holidays more difficult than “tent coverings” and “skin diseases”. There, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, one spreads a mat over rows <of any bricks> on the Sabbath. And here he says so? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: To pluck from the ground is between them. The rabbis are saying, he plucks and thickens. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may not pluck but may thicken.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: one thickens; Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost. Cahana said, there are things in holidays more difficult than “tent coverings” and “skin diseases”. There, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, one spreads a mat over rows <of any bricks> on the Sabbath. And here he says so? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: To pluck from the ground is between them. The rabbis are saying, he plucks and thickens. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may not pluck but may thicken.

Who permits? Did we not state, if one of the excommunicators died one may not permit him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch. But if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: It happened that one of the excommunicators died and they did not permit him. Did not Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch, but if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits? What Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said is confirmed if he did not reform. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rav Sheshet: At Usha they voted not to excommunicate an ordained rabbi. This parallels what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not strip an ordained rabbi who is guilty of something of his title but tells him, respect yourself and sit in your house. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One treats an ordained rabbi who forgot his learning by an act of God with the holiness of the Ark. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Excommunication by an ordained rabbi who excommunicated for his personal benefit is no excommunication.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

A man lost his tefillin on the holiday. He came to Rebbi Ḥananel who sent him to Rebbi Abba bar Nathan. He said to him, give him your tefillin and go, write for yourself. Rav said to him, go and write for him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “a person may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself,” therefore not for others. He explains it: writing for supply.

A man lost his tefillin on the holiday. He came to Rebbi Ḥananel who sent him to Rebbi Abba bar Nathan. He said to him, give him your tefillin and go, write for yourself. Rav said to him, go and write for him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “a person may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself,” therefore not for others. He explains it: writing for supply.

“And spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: he spins even using a spindle. Rav said, he spins using a spindle both for himself or for others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “and spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit;” therefore not for others. He explains it: spinning for supply.

“And spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: he spins even using a spindle. Rav said, he spins using a spindle both for himself or for others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “and spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit;” therefore not for others. He explains it: spinning for supply.

“And spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: he spins even using a spindle. Rav said, he spins using a spindle both for himself or for others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “and spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit;” therefore not for others. He explains it: spinning for supply.

HALAKHAH: “The decree of seven”, sandal and soap. “The decree of thirty,” mending, and pressing, and shaving. What is pressing? New pressed woolen garments, and pressed white linen garments. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on a Sabbath, he shaves on Friday. How is this possible? Explain it if he had been dragged away by a wild animal and they gave up hope to look after him. It was stated thus: When do you start to count for somebody who was dragged away by a wild animal? When they gave up hope to look after him. If they found separate limbs of him one counts when his head and most of his body had been found. Rebbi Jehudah says, spine and skull form the majority. Rebbi Abun said, explain it that the cover plate was laid Friday evening at the start of darkness. How is this possible? Rebbi Aḥa said, explain it if it was closed by a Gentile. Some wanted to say that he received a current notice on the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “The decree of seven”, sandal and soap. “The decree of thirty,” mending, and pressing, and shaving. What is pressing? New pressed woolen garments, and pressed white linen garments. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on a Sabbath, he shaves on Friday. How is this possible? Explain it if he had been dragged away by a wild animal and they gave up hope to look after him. It was stated thus: When do you start to count for somebody who was dragged away by a wild animal? When they gave up hope to look after him. If they found separate limbs of him one counts when his head and most of his body had been found. Rebbi Jehudah says, spine and skull form the majority. Rebbi Abun said, explain it that the cover plate was laid Friday evening at the start of darkness. How is this possible? Rebbi Aḥa said, explain it if it was closed by a Gentile. Some wanted to say that he received a current notice on the Sabbath.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what was stated: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what was stated: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what was stated: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

It was stated: These are the words of Abba Shaul. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The word of Abba Shaul: both days and decrees are cancelled. But the words of the Sages: the days are cancelled but the decrees are not cancelled. What is the difference between them? Rav Ḥuna said, the eve of a holiday is between them. If he shaved before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. If he did not shave before the holiday he may not shave after the holiday. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not shave before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. Rebbi Eleazar instructed Rebbi Simeon bar Abba to shave after the holiday, but we do not know whether following Abba Shaul or following the consensus of the rabbis.

It was stated: These are the words of Abba Shaul. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The word of Abba Shaul: both days and decrees are cancelled. But the words of the Sages: the days are cancelled but the decrees are not cancelled. What is the difference between them? Rav Ḥuna said, the eve of a holiday is between them. If he shaved before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. If he did not shave before the holiday he may not shave after the holiday. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not shave before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. Rebbi Eleazar instructed Rebbi Simeon bar Abba to shave after the holiday, but we do not know whether following Abba Shaul or following the consensus of the rabbis.

It was stated: These are the words of Abba Shaul. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The word of Abba Shaul: both days and decrees are cancelled. But the words of the Sages: the days are cancelled but the decrees are not cancelled. What is the difference between them? Rav Ḥuna said, the eve of a holiday is between them. If he shaved before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. If he did not shave before the holiday he may not shave after the holiday. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not shave before the holiday he may shave after the holiday. Rebbi Eleazar instructed Rebbi Simeon bar Abba to shave after the holiday, but we do not know whether following Abba Shaul or following the consensus of the rabbis.

A mourner may not put on tefillin on the first day; on the second day he puts on tefillin and when new faces appear during the seven days of mourning he takes them off; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says: On the first and second days he does not put on tefillin; on the third day he puts on tefillin and if new faces come he does not take them off. If he does not put on tefillin even on the second day, why is it necessary to mention “anyone whose dead is lying before him”? Because he stated the one he stated the other. Rebbi Ze`ira, Mar Uqban in the name of Samuel; Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer in putting on and Rebbi Joshua in taking off. Rebbi Ze`ira inquired: If he put them on on the second day, following Rebbi Eliezer, would Rebbi Eliezer act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Is it so that Rebbi Eliezer would act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? If it were so, we should say “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.”

A mourner may not put on tefillin on the first day; on the second day he puts on tefillin and when new faces appear during the seven days of mourning he takes them off; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says: On the first and second days he does not put on tefillin; on the third day he puts on tefillin and if new faces come he does not take them off. If he does not put on tefillin even on the second day, why is it necessary to mention “anyone whose dead is lying before him”? Because he stated the one he stated the other. Rebbi Ze`ira, Mar Uqban in the name of Samuel; Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer in putting on and Rebbi Joshua in taking off. Rebbi Ze`ira inquired: If he put them on on the second day, following Rebbi Eliezer, would Rebbi Eliezer act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Is it so that Rebbi Eliezer would act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? If it were so, we should say “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.”

If he came and found mourning in his house. On the second or third {day} he finishes with them. On the fourth he counts by himself. Rebbi Simeon says, even on the (sixth) [fourth] he finishes with them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon if he was not the head of the family. But the head of the family counts by himself. As the following: Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi <jacob in> Armenia: since you are the head of the family, count by yourself. <this you are saying> if he did not see most of the people. But if most of the people were seen by him one takes him to the bath house. As the following: Rav <rebbi> Huna instructed the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi, since most of the people were seen by him, take him to the bath house.

If he was informed on the holiday about the death of a relative but the Thirty were completed before the end of the holiday. The colleagues are saying, since he was informed within the Thirty, he counts Seven after the Thirty. Rebbi Yose said to them, since he heard at a moment where he could not mourn it is as if he was informed after Thirty(;) [and] he observes only one day. Rabbi Idi of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he received recent information on the Sabbath, he tears {his garment} the next day and mourns. Rebbi Ḥanania said, he does not mourn. Rebbi Mana said to him, is there tearing without mourning? Since for his father or his mother even after a length of time he is obligated to tear. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave. As the following: Rebbi Mana was in Caesarea. He heard that his grandson had died, and he went and eulogized. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us, even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave? He said to them, those who were with him. We were not there. Rebbi Eudaimon bar Tobi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: even as derivative of a derivative he is obligated to tear, as Rebbi Abbahu said, groan silently, from here that he has to cry. Do not arrange mourning for the dead, from here that he has to mourn. Your splendor put on yourself, some want to say, these are tefillin. Some want to say, this is pressing. He who says these are tefillin; just as tefillin refer to two days, also mourning two days? He who says this is pressing; just as pressing is for thirty days, also mourning thirty days? Put your shoes on your feet, from here that he is forbidden wearing shoes. And do not cover your mustache, from here that he has to cover his mouth. Could he cover it from below? Rav Ḥisda said, so they should not say, he has a mouth-ache. And do not eat men’s bread, from here that the smaller ones go to the greater ones. And from where that the greater ones go to the smaller ones? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written: For so says the Eternal, do not go to a funeral repast, etc.

If he was informed on the holiday about the death of a relative but the Thirty were completed before the end of the holiday. The colleagues are saying, since he was informed within the Thirty, he counts Seven after the Thirty. Rebbi Yose said to them, since he heard at a moment where he could not mourn it is as if he was informed after Thirty(;) [and] he observes only one day. Rabbi Idi of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he received recent information on the Sabbath, he tears {his garment} the next day and mourns. Rebbi Ḥanania said, he does not mourn. Rebbi Mana said to him, is there tearing without mourning? Since for his father or his mother even after a length of time he is obligated to tear. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave. As the following: Rebbi Mana was in Caesarea. He heard that his grandson had died, and he went and eulogized. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us, even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave? He said to them, those who were with him. We were not there. Rebbi Eudaimon bar Tobi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: even as derivative of a derivative he is obligated to tear, as Rebbi Abbahu said, groan silently, from here that he has to cry. Do not arrange mourning for the dead, from here that he has to mourn. Your splendor put on yourself, some want to say, these are tefillin. Some want to say, this is pressing. He who says these are tefillin; just as tefillin refer to two days, also mourning two days? He who says this is pressing; just as pressing is for thirty days, also mourning thirty days? Put your shoes on your feet, from here that he is forbidden wearing shoes. And do not cover your mustache, from here that he has to cover his mouth. Could he cover it from below? Rav Ḥisda said, so they should not say, he has a mouth-ache. And do not eat men’s bread, from here that the smaller ones go to the greater ones. And from where that the greater ones go to the smaller ones? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written: For so says the Eternal, do not go to a funeral repast, etc.

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.

“Reading in the Torah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody was saying anything to him, not even a word from the Torah. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, he himself would not have died if he had stated. What about it? As Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they were at a loss how to start with him, whether about his body, or his money, or the souls of his sons and daughters. A student of Rav Ḥisda became sick. He sent him two students to study with him. He turned before them into a kind of snake; they interrupted and he died. A student of Bar Pedaya became sick. He sent him two students to study with him. He turned before them into a kind of (oil cake) [a star]; they interrupted and he died. It was stated: But he may study a subject not familiar to him. As the following: Something happened to Rebbi Yasa. Rebbi Joḥanan sent him two students to study with him. If because it is permitted we do not know; or if because it was a subject not familiar to him we do not know. What was not familiar to Rebbi Yasa? But for example rabbinic decisions people are asked about and it is for him as if not familiar. Something happened to Rebbi Yose bar Petrus the first father-in-law of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Bar Qappara sent him two students to study with him. If because it is permitted we do not know; or if because he was ardent for words of the Torah we do not know. And it was stated thus: If he was ardent for words of the Torah it is permitted.

In any case mentioned in the Torah for whom a Cohen defiles himself an Israel mourns. They added to these his maternal brother and sister and his married sister; he mourns and is in deep mourning but would not defile himself. For his preliminarily wedded wife he neither mourns nor is a deep mourner nor defiles himself. It was stated: About any one would mourn one joins in the mourning. Rav’s sister died. He commanded to his son Ḥiyya, when you will visit us, take off your shoes. The sons of Rebbi Ḥanina the brother of Rebbi Mana, died. They came and asked Rebbi Yose, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. Does one have to sleep on an overturned bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied for corpse digging a grave and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

It was stated: One makes no consolation visits on New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one makes consolation visits on the Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath. As the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥizqiah. The rabbis came to pay him a consolation visit on the Day of Atonement. He said to them, did they not say that one makes no consolation visits on New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement? Not because of prayer? There is a difference, concerning the Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath; there is a difference, concerning the Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday.

He who sees a dead scholar is like him who sees a Torah scroll burned. Rebbi Abbahu said, it should come over me if I tasted anything that whole day. Rebbi Jonah was in Tyre. He heard that Rebbi Abbahu’s son had died. Even though he had eaten and drunk water he kept it as fast day that whole day. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya were sitting. An ostrich came and snatched Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya’s tefillin. Rebbi Abba caught it and strangled it. Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him, we almost came to burning the Torah. He said to him, do you still hold this? So said Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One only rends his garment for a Torah scroll which an Israelite king burned forcibly, as e. g. Yehoyakim ben Josia the King of Judah. Ulla from Bireh, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who sees a Torah scroll burned has to rend his garment separately for the parchment and for the writing. What is the reason? After the king’s burning of the scroll and the words. The scroll, this is the parchment. And the words, that is the writing.

He who sees a dead scholar is like him who sees a Torah scroll burned. Rebbi Abbahu said, it should come over me if I tasted anything that whole day. Rebbi Jonah was in Tyre. He heard that Rebbi Abbahu’s son had died. Even though he had eaten and drunk water he kept it as fast day that whole day. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya were sitting. An ostrich came and snatched Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya’s tefillin. Rebbi Abba caught it and strangled it. Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him, we almost came to burning the Torah. He said to him, do you still hold this? So said Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One only rends his garment for a Torah scroll which an Israelite king burned forcibly, as e. g. Yehoyakim ben Josia the King of Judah. Ulla from Bireh, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who sees a Torah scroll burned has to rend his garment separately for the parchment and for the writing. What is the reason? After the king’s burning of the scroll and the words. The scroll, this is the parchment. And the words, that is the writing.

Does one have to sever the trim? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: David grasped. There is no grasping less than a hand-breadth. And tore them, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: From here that he has to sever the trim. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, even if he heard about his father or his mother, or his teacher who taught him wisdom, he rends one tear for all of them. Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema says, he rends for each one separately, only that he shall not make that for his father or his mother as an addition. Is that not the first {statement}? But he may not add to that for his father or his mother. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Mattana, Yose ben Manisha in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, he adds to the tear and rends. How far? Rebbi Ḥanina said, until he reaches to his navel. An old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: Even if he receives another garment during all the Seven he is obligated to rend. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, this you are saying about other relatives. But for his father and his mother even after the Seven he is required to rend. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, he moves three finger-widths and rends. If the front is full he starts in the back. If the upper part is full he starts with the bottom part. If both of them are full, Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Ada from Yafo says, he became shabby.

Does one have to sever the trim? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: David grasped. There is no grasping less than a hand-breadth. And tore them, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: From here that he has to sever the trim. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, even if he heard about his father or his mother, or his teacher who taught him wisdom, he rends one tear for all of them. Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema says, he rends for each one separately, only that he shall not make that for his father or his mother as an addition. Is that not the first {statement}? But he may not add to that for his father or his mother. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Mattana, Yose ben Manisha in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, he adds to the tear and rends. How far? Rebbi Ḥanina said, until he reaches to his navel. An old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: Even if he receives another garment during all the Seven he is obligated to rend. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, this you are saying about other relatives. But for his father and his mother even after the Seven he is required to rend. If a relative died, he rends. If another relative died, he moves three finger-widths and rends. If the front is full he starts in the back. If the upper part is full he starts with the bottom part. If both of them are full, Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Ada from Yafo says, he became shabby.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illai expired on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Dosa expired on the New Month of Nisan. They made them outside. They thought, with the agreement of the rabbis. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of the rabbis. Rebbi Crispus expired on the holiday. They made him outside. They thought, with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Even momentarily, from this: And Miriam died there and was buried there. But we see that the rabbis repeat the words. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the colleagues are careful and they will not deliver eulogies.

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

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

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

Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds and Palmyrenians. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. There, we have stated: “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore, the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable.

Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’, gbby’, and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’, gbby’, and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’, gbby’, and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

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

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.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, why did Scripture put the incest chapter next to the holiness chapter? To teach you that every one who shies away from incest is called “holy”. In this sense, the woman of Shunem said to her husband: “ Lo, I know that he is a holy man of God”. Rebbi Jonah said, “he is holy”, but not his student. Rebbi Abin said, that he never looked at her. But the rabbis say that he he never had an involuntary emission. {The slave girl of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, I never saw a bad thing on my master’s garments.} It is written “Geḥazi drew near to push her away”. What is לְהָדְפָהּ? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, he put his hand on her beauty spot, between her breasts.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanin said, all of them have no limit except for the wife of his maternal grandfather. Bar Qappara said, all of them have a limit, since Bar Qappara added the mother of his maternal grandfather and the mother of his paternal grandfather. Rav said, his son’s daughter-in-law is the limit. Why does he disagree? His son’s daughter-in-law comes under a different category. Rav said, his [grandson’s] issue from her is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rav is that all Jewish women are forbidden for Abraham and all Jewish men are forbidden for Sarah.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanin said, all of them have no limit except for the wife of his maternal grandfather. Bar Qappara said, all of them have a limit, since Bar Qappara added the mother of his maternal grandfather and the mother of his paternal grandfather. Rav said, his son’s daughter-in-law is the limit. Why does he disagree? His son’s daughter-in-law comes under a different category. Rav said, his [grandson’s] issue from her is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rav is that all Jewish women are forbidden for Abraham and all Jewish men are forbidden for Sarah.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanin said, all of them have no limit except for the wife of his maternal grandfather. Bar Qappara said, all of them have a limit, since Bar Qappara added the mother of his maternal grandfather and the mother of his paternal grandfather. Rav said, his son’s daughter-in-law is the limit. Why does he disagree? His son’s daughter-in-law comes under a different category. Rav said, his [grandson’s] issue from her is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rav is that all Jewish women are forbidden for Abraham and all Jewish men are forbidden for Sarah.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita contradict Rav? “A person’s stepson’s wife is permitted to him but the latter’s daughter is forbidden.” Is his stepdaughter not forbidden to him? The stepson is the corresponding male but his wife is permitted!

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.

“If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him.” If he agreed lawfully not to marry her and [nevertheless] married her, she is forcibly removed from him. If he divorced her, may he take her back? If you would say that, would you not defame her children? “If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman,” Rav said, that is, he was accused by witnesses. Rebbi Yose asked, if he was accused by witnesses, is that what was stated: If he divorced her, even if he married her, he must divorce her? If somebody else divorced her, he can keep her! If he was accused by witnesses, even if somebody else divorced her, he must divorce her! But that is what we deal with: If he was accused not by witnesses, if somebody else divorced her, he may keep her.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died: Rav said, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third [sister] performs ḥalîṣah with whom she wants. Samuel says, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥalîṣah with both of them. Rav said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Rebbi Hila said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each [sister] has to perform ḥalîṣah with both [brothers].

If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died: Rav said, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third [sister] performs ḥalîṣah with whom she wants. Samuel says, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥalîṣah with both of them. Rav said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Rebbi Hila said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each [sister] has to perform ḥalîṣah with both [brothers].

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.