repeatedly

There was there also a young woman afflicted by Satan; for that accursed wretch repeatedly appeared to her in the form of a huge dragon, and prepared to swallow her. He also sucked out all her blood, so that she was left like a corpse. As often as he came near her, she, with her hands clasped over her head, cried out, and said: Woe, woe's me, for nobody is near to free me from that accursed dragon. And her father and mother, and all who were about her or saw her, bewailed her lot; and men stood round her in a crowd, and all wept and lamented, especially when she wept, and said: Oh, my brethren and friends, is there no one to free me from that murderer? And the daughter of the chief who had been healed of her leprosy, hearing the girl's voice, went up to the roof of her castle, and saw her with her hands clasped over her head weeping, and all the crowds standing round her weeping as well. She therefore asked the demoniac's husband whether his wife's mother were alive. And when he answered that both her parents were living, she said: Send for her mother to come to me. And when she saw that he had sent for her, and she had come, she said: Is that distracted girl your daughter? Yes, O lady, said that sorrowful and weeping woman, she is my daughter. The chief's daughter answered: Keep my secret, for I confess to you that I was formerly a leper; but now the Lady Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, has healed me. But if you wish your daughter to be healed, take her to Bethlehem, and seek Mary the mother of Jesus, and believe that your daughter will be healed; I indeed believe that you will come back with joy, with your daughter healed. As soon as the woman heard the words of the chief's daughter, she led away her daughter in haste; and going to the place indicated, she went to the Lady Mary, and revealed to her the state of her daughter. And the Lady Mary hearing her words, gave her a little of the water in which she had washed the body of her son Jesus, and ordered her to pour it on the body of her daughter. She gave her also from the clothes of the Lord Jesus a swathing-cloth, saying: Take this cloth, and show it to your enemy as often as you shall see him. And she saluted them, and sent them away.

Wherefore did he give them orders repeatedly; and continued to do so until the end of the four hundred and eighty-fifth year of his life.

Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e. to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a statement. So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of life which cometh down from heaven. In like manner, also, it is said to employ the services of other members, which are transferred from their bodily appellations, and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of Solomon, “You will find a divine sense.” For he knew that there were within us two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not of the eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and new, the term “heart” repeatedly used instead of “mind,” i.e. intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God, as those who understand it under the limitation of the human understanding. In the next place, let us see what is meant by the name of Christ.

It came to pass then, when Jesus had finished speaking these words unto his disciples, that Mary Magdalene came forward and said unto Jesus: "My Lord, be not wroth with me if I question thee, because I trouble repeatedly. Now, therefore, my Lord, be not wroth with me if I question thee concerning all with precision and certainty. For my brethren will herald it among the race of men, so that they may hear and repent and be saved from the violent judgments of the evil rulers and go to the Height and inherit the Light-kingdom; because, my Lord, we are compassionate not only towards ourselves, but compassionate towards the whole race of men, so that they may be saved from all the violent judgments. Now, therefore, my Lord, on this account we question concerning all with certainty; for my brethren herald it to the whole race of men, in order that they may escape the violent rulers of the darkness and be saved out of the hands of the violent receivers of the outermost darkness."

“Even if a snake is wound around one’s heel, one should not interrupt.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose: They mentioned only a snake, but for a scorpion he interrupts. Why, because it stings repeatedly. Rebbi Ilaï said: They stated only “wound around”, but if a snake is attacking him, he hides before him but he should not interrupt his prayer. It is stated: If he was praying in a thoroughfare or on a square he removes himself from before a donkey or before a cart but he should not interrupt his prayer.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

It was stated: A student who gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Nadab and Abihu died only because they determined practice in the presence of their teacher Moses. It happened that a student gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher Rebbi Eliezer. The latter said to his wife Imma Shalom: That one will not live out his week. The week was not completed when he died. His students said to him: Rebbi, you are a prophet. He said to them (Amos 7:14) “I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a prophet” but I have received a tradition that any student who gives instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated: A student is forbidden to give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel. What is the reason? (Num. 33:49) “They encamped along the Jordan from Bet Hayyešimot to Abel Haššiṭṭim”; how far is this? Twelve mil. Like this: Rebbi Tanḥum ben Ḥiyya was in Ḥefer; they asked him repeatedly and he gave instructions about practice. They said to him, did the rabbi not teach us that a student may not give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel; and your teacher Rebbi Mana sits at Sepphoris! He said to them, so it should come over me that I did not know! From that moment on he did no longer give instructions.

It was stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden [to eat from them] for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rebbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rebbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings? But for torn [animals], Rebbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He went to the assembly hall where Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking him repeatedly but he did not answer. He said, what happened? He said, what can you do? He said, all limbs depend on the heart and the heart depends on the wallet. He said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He said, what do you have? He said to him, show me their corner. He went out to show him. They saw him from afar and started to chirp. They said, if that is Rebbi Joḥanan, may he take half of it. He said to them, by your life I am taking all of it; he took all.

HALAKHAH: Does not the wood spoil repeatedly? Our Mishnah follows him who says that anything that spoils is forbidden. But even according to him who says anything that spoils is permitted, he agrees here that it is forbidden. Why? Fenugreek improves anything into which it falls.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, three in his right hand, three in his left hand, and three in his mouth. Since Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon was a glutton, he estimated so for himself. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to his father-in-law Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia who repeatedly mixed wine for him which he gulped down. He said to him, did you not hear from your father how one swallows from a cup? He said to him, one gulp if it is unmixed, two gulps [if mixed] with cold water, three with hot water. But the Sages did not estimate this with your wine which is good, or with your cup which is small, or with my belly which is large.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

Solomon made ten candelabra, [as it is said], he made the ten candelabra according to its rules. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the candelabrum is only qualified in the South, as it is said, and the candelabrum opposite the table on the South side. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s candelabrum, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was kindled, as it is said, and the golden candelabrum and its lights to kindle evening by evening. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were kindled, for it is said, the candelabra and their lights, to kindle them regularly in the Temple Hall, closed gold, and the flower, and the lights, and the pincers of gold, this uses up the gold. These used up Solomon’s gold. Rav Jehudah in the name of Assi: Solomon took 1’000 talents of silver, put them repeatedly into the (fire) [smelting furnace] until they were reduced to one, to fulfill what is written, from one talent of pure gold he made it. It was stated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one gold denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

The Greek speakers did not use to do this, but a single person reads the entire portion. If one knew the portion he reads it completely. If of seven persons each one knows three verses, they all read. If one knows three verses he reads them repeatedly. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah, a slave is counted for the count of seven; “and spoke” is counted as one of three verses. But did not Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, it is forbidden to teach Torah to one’s slave? Explain it if he learned it by himself or that his master taught him like Tabi.

HALAKHAH: “If one turned his olives over,” etc. We stated, “if one turned his olives over.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he whose olives were turned over repeatedly. Our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya, and the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they differ here they differ in the rules of mourning. As it was stated: The following things one does for the mourner in his mourning period. One presses his vat, and stirs his wine, and plugs his amphoras, and his repeatedly turned olives one grinds as usual, and one waters his irrigated fields if it is time for them to be irrigated, and one sows his field flax at the start of the rainy season, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. They told him, if it is not sown with flax it can be sown with another kind; if it was not sown in this week it can be sown in another week. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Yose. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts not be lost, and here he says so? There is a difference since there he is wont to be tricky. So much more the argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, since there where he is wont to be tricky he says it is permitted, here where he is not wont to be tricky, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinnena said, who is “they told him”? The Sages following Rebbi Jehudah’s argument for the holiday.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Criminal! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Sages visited Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos to ask him about the daughter’s co-wife. They said to him, are you the one who permits co-wives? He said to them, what did you hear? Dosa ben Hyrkanos? They said to him, ben Hyrkanos. He said to them, my brother Jonathan is exceedingly sharpminded and of the students of the House of Shammai. Be careful with him, he has three hundred arguments about the daughter’s co-wife. They went to him. He sent and wrote to him, be careful because the Sages of Israel will visit you. They came and he placed them before him. He lectured but they did not understand, repeatedly. They started to get drowsy. He said to them, why are you getting drowsy? He started pelting them with pebbles. But some people said, they entered in one door and left in three. He sent to say to him, why did you send to me, the people want to learn and you said to me, these are the Sages of Israel? They came to him and said to him, what do you say in the matter? He said, on this stone sat the prophet Ḥaggai and testified to three things: On the daughter’s co-wife that she can be married into priesthood, on Ammon and Moab that they tithe for the poor in a Sabbatical year, and on proselytes of Palmyra that they are acceptable to marry into the congregation. He said, lift my eyelids so I can see the Sages of Israel. He saw Rebbi Joshua and said to him: “To whom will one teach knowledge?” I remember that his mother brought his crib to the Synagogue that his ears should cling to the words of the Torah. [He saw] Rebbi Aqiba, and said to him: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry.” I know of him that he is a man strong in Torah. He saw Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and said to him: “I was a youth but became an elder.” I know of him that he is the tenth generation from Ezra and their eyes are similar. Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Tarphon also was with them and he addressed him as he did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

“‘A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated.’ For it is written: ‘He shall not desecrate his seed in his clan.’ Not only that he desecrates his seed; from where [that he desecrates] herself? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin, is it not logical that she should be desecrated? He himself gives a counter-argument since he sinned and is not desecrated. No. If you talk about the man who is not otherwise desecrated, what can you say about a woman who can be otherwise desecrated? Since she can be otherwise desecrated, it is an argument that she should be desecrated! If you wish, you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’” even to desecrate one who is enabled.

As it was stated: “Living married to a husband,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition. If she said, he is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out, and his seventh day is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit, he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out, and his seventh day is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit, he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sold himself repeatedly. But if he sold himself once, one buys him back, but if he sold himself to the games, one does not buy him back. There was a case of one who sold himself to the games; the case came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said, what can we do? He did it for his livelihood.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it isinvalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he never was alone with her.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

MISHNAH: Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. One who committed one crime punishable by two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection. If somebody was repeatedly whipped, the court sends him to jail where he is fed barley until his belly bursts. One sends the murderer without witnesses to jail and feeds him scanty bread and sparing water.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

How so? The last object [purchased] assumes [the sanctity] of the Sabbatical Year, but the produce itself always remains prohibited. Now since the term "purchased" is repeatedly used, it is evident that only by way of sale [does it become redeemed], but not by way of exchange.