rebbi

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

Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Elihu Ben Barakhel the Buzite from the family Ram got angry.” Elihu that is Bileam. Ben Barakhel, who came to curse Israel but blessed them. The Buzite, whose prophecy was degraded, “who falls down open-eyed.” From the family Ram, “from Aram did Balaq lead me.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, if he is he, then the Omnipresent already covered it up. If he is not he, in the future [world] he will argue with you. But Elihu that is Isaac. Ben Barakhel, the son whom God blessed, as it was said: “The Eternal had blessed him”. The Buzite, who degraded all temples of foreign worship at the moment he was bound on the altar. From the family Ram, the son of Abram.

Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Elihu Ben Barakhel the Buzite from the family Ram got angry.” Elihu that is Bileam. Ben Barakhel, who came to curse Israel but blessed them. The Buzite, whose prophecy was degraded, “who falls down open-eyed.” From the family Ram, “from Aram did Balaq lead me.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, if he is he, then the Omnipresent already covered it up. If he is not he, in the future [world] he will argue with you. But Elihu that is Isaac. Ben Barakhel, the son whom God blessed, as it was said: “The Eternal had blessed him”. The Buzite, who degraded all temples of foreign worship at the moment he was bound on the altar. From the family Ram, the son of Abram.

“ “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, he was conciliatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, is a person who is not conciliatory not acceptable? But he was conciliatory even if cursed.

“ “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, he was conciliatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, is a person who is not conciliatory not acceptable? But he was conciliatory even if cursed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure”, [you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”], about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness! Rebbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure”, you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”, about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness!

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure”, [you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”], about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness! Rebbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure”, you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”, about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: But the following must be said in the holy language: The recitation for the first fruits, ḥalîṣah, blessings and curses, the priestly blessing, the benedictions of the High Priest, the portion about the king, the portion about the calf whose neck was broken, the [priest] anointed for war at the time he speaks to the people. The recitation for the first fruits, how? “You shall begin and say before the Eternal, your God” but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice”. Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language. Ḥalîṣah how? “She shall begin and say: So shall be done to the man” but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice”. Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language. Rebbi Jehudah says, “She shall begin and say so,” [it is invalid] unless she says exactly that text.

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rebbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rebbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rebbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rebbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rebbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rebbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

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

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

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

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

It is written: “The Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice”, this teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, associated His voice to theirs. Another explanation, “the best of voices”. Rebbi Isaac said, not low, not high, but moderate.

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

HALAKHAH: “ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road towards the sun’s coming”, the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Ḥiwwite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the verse comes only to prepare the road for them and say that they should walk on the road, not in fields, in inhabited regions, not in the desert, in the valley, not in the mountains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rebbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rebbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi”, since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the Cohanim, the Levites”? As Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them: “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rebbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rebbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi”, since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the Cohanim, the Levites”? As Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them: “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rebbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rebbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi”, since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the Cohanim, the Levites”? As Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them: “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rebbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rebbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi”, since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the Cohanim, the Levites”? As Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them: “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”

Blessed in general and blessed in particular; cursed in general and cursed in particular. Sixteen covenants on every detail, to study, to teach, to keep, and to do; and the same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab. Rebbi Simeon does exclude that of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and instead includes that of the Tent of Meeting. Also Rebbi Simeon did say, there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 576 covenants were concluded. Twelve in blessing, twelve in cursing. Twelve in general, twelve in detail. That makes 48 covenants. To study, to teach, to keep, and to do, that makes 192 covenants. The same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab, that makes 576 covenants. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: 603’550. Rebbi says, if one follows the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus who said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, then there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 48 times 603’550 covenants were concluded.

Blessed in general and blessed in particular; cursed in general and cursed in particular. Sixteen covenants on every detail, to study, to teach, to keep, and to do; and the same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab. Rebbi Simeon does exclude that of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and instead includes that of the Tent of Meeting. Also Rebbi Simeon did say, there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 576 covenants were concluded. Twelve in blessing, twelve in cursing. Twelve in general, twelve in detail. That makes 48 covenants. To study, to teach, to keep, and to do, that makes 192 covenants. The same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab, that makes 576 covenants. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: 603’550. Rebbi says, if one follows the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus who said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, then there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 48 times 603’550 covenants were concluded.