recognizable

One who dedicates his entire vineyard [to the Temple] before the “defective clusters” were recognizable, the “defective clusters” do not belong to the poor. After the defective clusters were recognizable, then they do belong to the poor. Rabbi Yose says: [the poor] must give the value of their improved growth to the Temple. What is deemed “forgotten” in the case of a trellis [a lattice for supporting plants]? Anything that one can no longer stretch his hand and take it. And in the case of ground-trained vines? From the time [the gatherers] pass by it.

One who dedicates his entire vineyard [to the Temple] before the “defective clusters” were recognizable, the “defective clusters” do not belong to the poor. After the defective clusters were recognizable, then they do belong to the poor. Rabbi Yose says: [the poor] must give the value of their improved growth to the Temple. What is deemed “forgotten” in the case of a trellis [a lattice for supporting plants]? Anything that one can no longer stretch his hand and take it. And in the case of ground-trained vines? From the time [the gatherers] pass by it.

Second tithe is set apart for eating, for drinking and for anointing; for eating what is usually eaten, for drinking what is usually drunk, and for anointing what is usually used for anointing. One may not anoint oneself with wine or with vinegar, but one may anoint oneself with oil. One may not spice oil of second tithe, nor may one buy spiced oil with second tithe money. But one may spice wine. If honey or spices fell into wine and improved its value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If fish was cooked with leek of second tithe and it improved in value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If dough of second tithe was baked and it improved in value, the whole improved value is second [tithe]. This is the general rule: whenever the improvement is recognizable the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion, but whenever the improved value is not recognizable the improved value belongs to the second [tithe].

Second tithe is set apart for eating, for drinking and for anointing; for eating what is usually eaten, for drinking what is usually drunk, and for anointing what is usually used for anointing. One may not anoint oneself with wine or with vinegar, but one may anoint oneself with oil. One may not spice oil of second tithe, nor may one buy spiced oil with second tithe money. But one may spice wine. If honey or spices fell into wine and improved its value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If fish was cooked with leek of second tithe and it improved in value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If dough of second tithe was baked and it improved in value, the whole improved value is second [tithe]. This is the general rule: whenever the improvement is recognizable the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion, but whenever the improved value is not recognizable the improved value belongs to the second [tithe].

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Between its dark blue and its white. What is the reason of the Rabbis? (Num. 15:39) “You shall see it”, from what is close to it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “You shall see it”, that it should be recognizable among colors.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: On olive oil one recites “Creator of the fruit of the tree.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Pappus said before Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah says so. “Except for wine because on wine one says ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’.” Is wine not mashed? But it says only “except for wine”, hence all other things even if they are mashed are recognizable in their state.

Rebbi Abba said: Rav and Samuel both say, on cooked vegetable one says “that everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: Large cooked pieces of liftan, if they are recognizable one says on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” if one mashed them one says “He, by Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Yose said, does the Mishnah say so? “Except for bread because on bread one says ‘He Who produces bread from the earth.’.” Is bread not mashed? But it says only “except for bread”, hence all other things even if they are mashed are recognizable in their state.

Rebbi Abba said: Rav and Samuel both say, on cooked vegetable one says “that everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: Large cooked pieces of liftan, if they are recognizable one says on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” if one mashed them one says “He, by Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Yose said, does the Mishnah say so? “Except for bread because on bread one says ‘He Who produces bread from the earth.’.” Is bread not mashed? But it says only “except for bread”, hence all other things even if they are mashed are recognizable in their state.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: (Pesaḥim 2:6) “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeïra said, who understands well what Rebbi Yoḥanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you want, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said “bitter herbs”, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: (Pesaḥim 2:6) “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeïra said, who understands well what Rebbi Yoḥanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you want, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said “bitter herbs”, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

He who chews wheat kernels says on them “Creator of kinds of seeds.” If he baked or cooked them, as long as pieces are recognizable he recites on them “He Who produces bread from the earth” and afterwards three benedictions. If the pieces are not recognizable, he recites “Creator of kinds of food” and afterwards one benediction in the kind of three. Down to which size are there pieces? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun, Cahana bar Malkiah in the name of Rav: down to olive-sized bits.

He who chews wheat kernels says on them “Creator of kinds of seeds.” If he baked or cooked them, as long as pieces are recognizable he recites on them “He Who produces bread from the earth” and afterwards three benedictions. If the pieces are not recognizable, he recites “Creator of kinds of food” and afterwards one benediction in the kind of three. Down to which size are there pieces? Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun, Cahana bar Malkiah in the name of Rav: down to olive-sized bits.

He who chews rice says for it: “Creator of kinds of seeds.” If he baked or cooked it, even if there are recognizable pieces he says for it: “Creator of kinds of food” and he does not have to recite a benediction afterwards. Rebbi Jeremiah said, “Creator of the fruit of the earth.” Bar Marina recited before Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba “By Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Simeon the pious said “Creator of all sorts of delicacies.” Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: They do not disagree. He who says “Creator of kinds of food”, if he made it into a ball. He who said “Creator of the fruit of the earth”, if it is separated. He who said “By Whose word everything was created”, if it is cooked in water a long time. He who said “Creator of all sorts of delicacies”, if it is torn.

What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.

HALAKHAH: There we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs from Temple trees. The Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple it is exempt from orlah, from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.”

HALAKHAH: There we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs from Temple trees. The Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple it is exempt from orlah, from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah descended into Acco and were received by Rebbi Mana. Rebbi said to them, make us a dish of vegetables; he made him red meat. The next day, he said again make us a dish of vegetables; he made him chicken. Rebbi said, this one is recognizable as coming from the door of Samaël. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, he is not even coming from the door of Samaël. Why did he do this? Because he is a student from the students of Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Jehudah said vegetables are forbidden in the border settlements of the Land of Israel. When he met him, he told him the facts. He said to him, you should have acted following us.

It was stated: “Produce from outside the Land that entered the Land should not be sold by measure, weight, or count, but only like produce of the Land.” It they are recognizable, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example qwrdqy’ brought up from Hippos and sold to Tiberias.

If there were 20 figs before him and one [fig] fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality; Rebbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.

Are they not pressed in the houses? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it where most people press in the fields. Rebbi Zeїra asked: Is it not recognizable whether it is pressed or not? Rebbi Saul said, sometime it jumps from under the roller, then it is pressed and looks as if not pressed. Sometimes a foot squeezes it, then it is not pressed and looks like pressed. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is, at a place where most people are not pressing in the fields. But at a place where most people are pressing in the fields, those who pressed and the minority who will press in the future are added together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself? Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries, and from ˋoriah, and from the Fourth Year, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself? Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries, and from ˋoriah, and from the Fourth Year, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.

“And also one goes to inspect for kilaim.” Did they not already go in Adar? Explain it if the year was late and the plants not recognizable.

MISHNAH: If a firstling fell into a cistern, Rebbi Jehudah says, the expert should go down and inspect; if it has a defect he may lift it and slaughter; Rebbi Simeon says, any whose defect was not recognizable on the eve of the holiday is not prepared.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.

“And also one goes to inspect for kilaim.” Did they not already go in Adar? Explain it if the year was late and the plants not recognizable.

He who tears the seam or the inner seam or the shawl, it is no tear. From mending it is a tear. What is mending? Rebbi Aḥa said, any whose place is not recognizable.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]. “He shall write for her.” “He shall execute for her.” “Or manumission was not given to her.” Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow, the dust of the suspected wife, and the spittle of the sister-in-law. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible. As it was stated: “In the blood”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight.

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s wife drinks,” etc. Otherwise, what could we say? She drank and the water had no influence on her; she is pure! I could say, merit suspended for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, really we deal with the case that she drank and the water had no influence on her; that you should not say since the water has no influence on a rape victim, but only on a seduced woman, this one is a rape victim. But a rape victim in the priesthood is like a willing one for an Israel, therefore it is necessary to say that she is permitted to her house. From where that rape disables a married woman in the priesthood? Since in matters of crawling things, which are a trifling matter, He made forced [impurity] equal to intentional [impurity], in the weighty matter of the deviant not so much more? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,” that excludes rape. How do you understand this? He said to him, just as “under your husband” is by consent, so “if you became defiled” is by consent. “She was not raped”, she is forbidden. Therefore, if she was raped, she is permitted. But there is a rape victim which is forbidden for an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started by consent and ended up raped. And there is one who is not a rape victim which is permitted to an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started as a rape victim and ended up consenting. Like that woman who came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was raped. He said to her, but was it not sweet to you in the end? She said to him, if a person dips a finger into honey and puts it into his mouth on the Day of Atonement, does he not feel bad about it and at the end it is sweet? He accepted her.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s wife drinks,” etc. Otherwise, what could we say? She drank and the water had no influence on her; she is pure! I could say, merit suspended for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, really we deal with the case that she drank and the water had no influence on her; that you should not say since the water has no influence on a rape victim, but only on a seduced woman, this one is a rape victim. But a rape victim in the priesthood is like a willing one for an Israel, therefore it is necessary to say that she is permitted to her house. From where that rape disables a married woman in the priesthood? Since in matters of crawling things, which are a trifling matter, He made forced [impurity] equal to intentional [impurity], in the weighty matter of the deviant not so much more? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,” that excludes rape. How do you understand this? He said to him, just as “under your husband” is by consent, so “if you became defiled” is by consent. “She was not raped”, she is forbidden. Therefore, if she was raped, she is permitted. But there is a rape victim which is forbidden for an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started by consent and ended up raped. And there is one who is not a rape victim which is permitted to an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started as a rape victim and ended up consenting. Like that woman who came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was raped. He said to her, but was it not sweet to you in the end? She said to him, if a person dips a finger into honey and puts it into his mouth on the Day of Atonement, does he not feel bad about it and at the end it is sweet? He accepted her.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “She says, I was injured by wood,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, that follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Yose said, we would think to say, when did Rebbi Meïr disagree with those rabbis? If he took her in assuming she was injured by wood. But if he took her in assuming she was a virgin and it turned out she was injured by wood, then even Rebbi Meïr agrees, since we have stated: “She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man.” That means, there is a disagreement even if he took her in assuming she was injured by wood and she turned out to have been injured by wood. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and my ketubah is 200 [zuz]. He says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and you have no claim on me. What are we talking about? If he married her as a virgin and she turns out to have been injured by wood, Rebbi Meïr will agree. If he married her as one injured by wood and she turns out to have been injured by wood, is there a recognizable difference in the opening of the door between wood or man? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and so I stipulated with you, but he says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and there was no stipulation between you and me.

Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: If the witnesses [sign] on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rebbi Eleazar, for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure. Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? Rebbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice.

This Nabal was a descendant of Kelubai. Nabal said, nobody in Israel comes from a better family than I. That is what is written: A man from Maˋon had his business in Karmel; the man was exceedingly rich, a Kalebite, a descendant of Kelubai. David heard in the prairie that Nabal was shearing. Tell him, to life! For long life. Peace be with you, etc. Rebbi Justus from Sunem said, they formed a camp. Nabal answered David’s servants, etc. From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men, etc. He flew at them. What means he flew at them? He made them fly with words. Now know this and consider what to do. She fell in with them, she bared her thigh and they walked by its light. She fell in with them, they all were recognizable. [David] said, was it in vain that I watched, etc.? Pissing on a wall; why does he refer to the dog pissing on a wall? Even with the dog I shall not have mercy. Abigail saw David, etc. She told him, my lord David, what did I do, what did my children do, what did my animals do? He answered her, because he insulted the kingdom of David. She asked him, are you a king? He told her, did not Samuel anoint me as king? She answered him, our Lord’s Saul‘s coin is still circulating. And I am your servant; this proves that he asked her for sex. Immediately, she brought out her stains and showed him. He said, does one investigate stains in the night? She retorted, may your ears hear what your lips say! Stains one does not investigate in the night, does one judge capital cases in the night? He answered, his sentence was already passed in daytime. She retorted, may this not be פוּקָה for you.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most] calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

MISHNAH: What is a virgin? Any female who never saw blood, even if she was married. Pregnant, once the fetus is recognizable. Nursing, until she weans her child. If she gave her child to a wet-nurse or weaned him, Rebbi Meïr says she causes retroactive impurity for 24 hours but the Sages say, her timing is exact.

[But] Rava said to him: we require recognizable partitions and there are not.