relatives

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted [to marry] his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives and she is forbidden [to marry] his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted [to marry] his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives and she is forbidden [to marry] his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted [to marry] his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives and she is forbidden [to marry] his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted [to marry] his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives and she is forbidden [to marry] his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.

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

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Just as there are opinions in eating and drinking, so opinions are [varied] among men. There is a man, if a fly falls into his cup, he takes it out, throws it away and drinks. That is like a normal man who sees his wife talking to her neighbors and relatives. Or you have a man who if a fly flies over his cup, takes it, pours [the contents] out, and does not taste them. That is a bad human attitude because he thinks of divorcing her. Or you have a man who, if a fly sits on his cup, takes it and leaves [the cup] untouched. That is Pappos ben Jehudah who locked his wife in. They said to him, did your forefathers behave like this? Or you have a man who finds a dead fly in his cup, takes it, licks it, and drinks. That is the wicked one who sees that his wife is overbearing with her slaves and slave-girls, where he would be commanded to divorce her, as it is said: “She left his house and went and married another man.” The verse called him other because he is not of the class of the first who expelled his wife because of a sexual transgression and the other one stumbled over her. If Heaven gives him credit, he will divorce her; otherwise, at the end she will bury him as it is said, “or if the latter man dies.” That man deserves to die since he brought that woman into his house.

Women were kidnapped and brought there. The case came before Abba bar Abba, and Samuel. They ordered and gave them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He said to him: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler”. When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba, take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. The second one and she died. Why? Because they lied? God forbid, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, who intercalated the year outside the Land.

It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

MISHNAH: If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turned out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no bodily defects and it turned out that she had bodily defects, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had bodily defects, she should leave without ketubah; and all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove that the defects developed after she was preliminarily married and his field was swamped; once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove that she had the defects before the preliminary wedding so that his acquisition was in error, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects, and if there is a public bathhouse in his town he has no claim for hidden defects since he checks her out through his female relatives.

As the following. Relatives of Rebbi Yose bought fields from the family of Bar Tapqan. Those from the family of Bar Tapqan went and married women, and gave them šeqi‘in. They came and wanted to attack the relatives of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said to them: I know that at the moment at which you bought these fields, these šeqi‘in were not before you.

As the following. Relatives of Rebbi Yose bought fields from the family of Bar Tapqan. Those from the family of Bar Tapqan went and married women, and gave them šeqi‘in. They came and wanted to attack the relatives of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said to them: I know that at the moment at which you bought these fields, these šeqi‘in were not before you.

MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one finds an opening in changed circumstances, but the Sages forbid it. How is this? If he said, a qônām that I shall not benefit from Mr. X, who then becomes a public scribe or who marries off his son to one of [the vower’s] relatives, and he said, if I had known that he will become a public scribe or marry off his son to a relative, I would not have vowed; or if he said, a qônām that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue and he said, if I had known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed; Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages prohibit.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

“If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested,” in any language it is a valid protest. If he sat before a barber, it is not a protest; may a relative protest?

“If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested,” in any language it is a valid protest. If he sat before a barber, it is not a protest; may a relative protest?

MISHNAH: The High Priest and the nazir do not defile themselves for their relatives. If they were walking on a road and found a corpse of obligation, Rebbi Eliezer says, the High Priest shall defile himself but the nazir shall not defile himself. But the Sages say, the nazir shall defile himself but the High Priest shall not defile himself. Rebbi Eliezer said to them, the Priest shall defile himself, who does not bring a sacrifice for his defilement, but the nazir shall not defile himself, who has to bring a sacrifice for his defilement. They told him, the nazir shall defile himself, whose holiness is temporary, but the Priest shall not defile himself, whose holiness is permanent.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

If a bond was signed by four witnesses and it turned out that the first two were relatives or disqualified, it is valid and is confirmed by the remaining testimony. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: This follows him who says that witnesses sign only in the presence of each other. But following him who says that witnesses may sign without being in the presence of each other, even if the Jew signed last it is invalid. And would it not be remote testimony? That one cannot say since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah that disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity.

As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed. He said, One should give money to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya. They did not give him; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.

It was stated: Also the sick person. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Shezur about the dangerously ill. What is the difference between a dangerously ill and a sick person? A sick person is a normal case; any who gets sick suddenly is dangerously ill. In a normal case, the relatives visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case?

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

MISHNAH: Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas. Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Following him, who said “for servitude”, he makes up before he leaves. But was it not stated: After he redeemed him it is as if he were sold to him, he enslaves him before he leaves. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is no “enslaves him before he leaves”, only “he makes up before he leaves.” If his relatives want to redeem him from the first [master’s], they redeem. If his relatives want to redeem him from the second [master’s], they cannot redeem. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That follows him who said: “by these to freedom, by all others to servitude.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Following him, who said “for servitude”, he makes up before he leaves. But was it not stated: After he redeemed him it is as if he were sold to him, he enslaves him before he leaves. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is no “enslaves him before he leaves”, only “he makes up before he leaves.” If his relatives want to redeem him from the first [master’s], they redeem. If his relatives want to redeem him from the second [master’s], they cannot redeem. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That follows him who said: “by these to freedom, by all others to servitude.”

“If he allots her to his son;” but he may not allot her to his grandson. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: In matters of inheritance you recognize the grandson like a son but here you do not recognize the grandson like a son? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if anybody explains this matter, I shall pour him spiced wine. Rebbi Naḥum answered: In matters of inheritance where the brother can take the place of a son and all others can take the place of the son, the grandson takes the place of a son. But here, where neither the brother nor any other relative can take the place of a son, the grandson cannot take the place of a son. The rabbis of Caesarea answered: In matters of impurity you consider a brother like a son and all [near] relatives like a son but not a grandson like a son. They said, there went the spiced wine.

Then they changed it to clipping. What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he brought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

Then they changed it to clipping. What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he brought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Rav Sheshet objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “You married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily; he is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” They said, so did it happen: Simeon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce and delivered it in front of one witness. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, a single witness in marital matters is nothing. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Assi in the name of Assi say: a single witness in marital matters is nothing? Rav said, one who performs a preliminary marriage in front of a single witness did not do anything. Samuel said, he who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped, but the preliminary marriage holds. Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel said three things: He who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped; one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is whipped; one who insults the court bailiff is whipped.

Rav Sheshet objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “You married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily; he is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” They said, so did it happen: Simeon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce and delivered it in front of one witness. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, a single witness in marital matters is nothing. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Assi in the name of Assi say: a single witness in marital matters is nothing? Rav said, one who performs a preliminary marriage in front of a single witness did not do anything. Samuel said, he who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped, but the preliminary marriage holds. Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel said three things: He who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped; one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is whipped; one who insults the court bailiff is whipped.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. I she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

MISHNAH: “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to me; he is forbidden the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is forbidden his relatives.

MISHNAH: “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to me; he is forbidden the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is forbidden his relatives.

MISHNAH: “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to me; he is forbidden the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is forbidden his relatives.

MISHNAH: “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to me; he is forbidden the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is forbidden his relatives.

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

HALAKHAH: “One man should not be alone with two women,” etc. Rebbi Abun said, when has this been said? With decent men. But with profligates she should not be alone even with a hundred men. It was stated: A one day old child who died is for his father, his mother, and all his relatives like one fully grown. Not only if he died when one day old but even if he was alive when his head and most of his body were born. He is carried out at the bosom and buried by one woman and two men; Abba Shaul says even one man and two women. It is obvious that Rebbi Simeon will agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul does not need to agree with Rebbi Simeon since there is no sexual desire in the cemetery.

HALAKHAH: “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing. It was stated: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over.

HALAKHAH: “How long does one have to make it public,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times one made it public during three holidays, and after the last holiday seven days so that one goes home during three days, comes back during three days, and makes it public during one day. After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to make it public during three days. Starting from the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbors; this is sufficient.

“Son.” Not only a son, from where a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son”, from anywhere. “Daughter.” Not only a daughter, from where a daughter’s son, a son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, a son’s son? The verse says, “a daughter”, from anywhere. “Brothers.” Not only brothers, from where brothers’ sons, brothers’ daughters, brothers’ sons’ daughters? The verse says, “his flesh’s relatives”, from anywhere.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house,” etc. A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife large bridal gifts. His relatives told him not to taste anything there. He went, did not listen to them, and ate. The house collapsed; they kept everything.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

MISHNAH: The following are the relatives: His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son, and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.

It is written: Fathers shall not be killed because of sons. Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers. From here that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence?

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence?

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

MISHNAH: If the flesh has rotted away, one collects the bones and buries them at their place. The relatives come and greet the witnesses and judges, implying that “we hold no grudge against you because you delivered a true judgment.” They did not mourn but were in deep sorrow, since deep sorrow is only in the mind.

An accident happened to Rebbi Abbahu; he lost a baby. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose ascended to visit him. Out of respect for him, they did not speak to him words of Torah. He told them, would the rabbis think saying a word of Torah? They answered, think of it, our teacher. He said to them: If about a terrestrial authority, where one finds lies, and untruth, and misleading statements, and favoritism, and bribery, and they are here one day and gone the next, it was said: “the relatives come and greet the judges and witnesses, implying that we hold no grudge against you because you delivered a true judgment,” the Heavenly authority, before which there are no lies, no untruth, no misleading statements, no favoritism, and no bribery, and He exists forever in all worlds, so much more are we obligated to accept His judgment. And it is said, May He give you mercy, have mercy on you, and make you increase as He has sworn to your ancestors.

“One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman.” So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape or after a seduction. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted. If he seduced a woman, he daughter is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] copulated with a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with the latter. Is he [criminally] liable about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter? He said to them, they are relatives, it is taboo, all because of taboo.

MISHNAH: A blurted oath applies to men and women, relatives and unrelated persons, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional [to bring] a variable sacrifice. A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and unrelated persons, to qualified and disqualified ones, in court and out of court, and by his own words. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional he is not prosecutable. In both cases, one who is sworn to by another person can be liable. How is this? One said, “I did not eat today, I did not put on phylacteries today.” “I want you to swear to it,” if he said “Amen” he is liable.

MISHNAH: A blurted oath applies to men and women, relatives and unrelated persons, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional [to bring] a variable sacrifice. A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and unrelated persons, to qualified and disqualified ones, in court and out of court, and by his own words. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional he is not prosecutable. In both cases, one who is sworn to by another person can be liable. How is this? One said, “I did not eat today, I did not put on phylacteries today.” “I want you to swear to it,” if he said “Amen” he is liable.

MISHNAH: An oath about testimony applies to men but not to women, to unrelated persons but not to relatives, to qualified but not to disqualified ones; it applies only to those admitted to testify, in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court. They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one, and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.

It is written: Fathers shall not be killed because of sons. Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers. From here that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would each of them not be killed by the other’s testimony? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by the other’s sentencing?

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would each of them not be killed by the other’s testimony? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by the other’s sentencing?

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Ze`ira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Ze`ira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative liable for an oath about testimony formulated by himself? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by himself for an oath about testimony only from oaths about deposits, and since there relatives are liable, so they also are here? Rebbi Yose said, can relatives here be inferred from relatives there?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative liable for an oath about testimony formulated by himself? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by himself for an oath about testimony only from oaths about deposits, and since there relatives are liable, so they also are here? Rebbi Yose said, can relatives here be inferred from relatives there?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative liable for an oath about testimony formulated by himself? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by himself for an oath about testimony only from oaths about deposits, and since there relatives are liable, so they also are here? Rebbi Yose said, can relatives here be inferred from relatives there?

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said, if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb. The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the tenth of an ephah. Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement, commanded about the virgin, and prohibited for a widow, and do not defile themselves for close relatives, and may not let their hair grow or rend their garments, and let the homicide return.

It was a favourite saying of Abbai: A man should always be cunning in the fear [of God], giving the soft answer that turneth away wrath (cf. Prov. xv. 1), increasing peace with his brethren and relatives and with all men, even the heathen in the street ; so that he may be beloved above and popular on earth, and acceptable to his fellow-creatures.

[It is written,] "Or for his sister" (Num. vi. 7). What has this teaching to tell us ? Supposing he were on his way to sacrifice the Paschal lamb or circumcise his son, and he heard that one of his relatives had died, it is possible [to think] that he should turn back and render himself unclean ; say, then, he shall not make himself unclean.

It is possible [to think] that in the same way that [under these conditions] he may not make himself unclean for his relatives, he may not make himself unclean for a Met Miswah, therefore there is a teaching to tell us "or for his sister" ; i.e. "for his sister" he may not render himself unclean,