rubbed

And when his eyes began to smart, he rubbed them;

Now when the king came to the city he inquired of his friends concerning the palace which Judas that is called Thomas was building for him. And they told him: Neither hath he built a palace nor done aught else of that he promised to perform, but he goeth about the cities and countries, and whatsoever he hath he giveth unto the poor, and teacheth of a new God, and healeth the sick, and driveth out devils, and doeth many other wonderful things; and we think him to be a sorcerer. Yet his compassions and his cures which are done of him freely, and moreover the simplicity and kindness of him and his faith, do declare that he is a righteous man or an apostle of the new God whom he preacheth; for he fasteth continually and prayeth, and eateth bread only, with salt, and his drink is water, and he weareth but one garment alike in fair weather and in winter, and receiveth nought of any man, and that he hath he giveth unto others. And when the king heard that, he rubbed his face with his hands, and shook his head for a long space.

And he commanded Verus (Berus), the brother that ministered to him, to gather the aged women that were in all Ephesus, and made ready, he and Cleopatra and Lycomedes, all things for the care of them. Verus, then, came to John, saying: Of the aged women that are here over threescore years old I have found four only sound in body, and of the rest some.... (a word gone) and some palsied and others sick. And when he heard that, John kept silence for a long time, and rubbed his face and said: O the slackness (weakness) of them that dwell in Ephesus! O the state of dissolution, and the weakness toward God! O devil, that hast so long mocked the faithful in Ephesus! Jesus, who giveth me grace and the gift to have my confidence in him, saith to me in silence: Send after the old women that are sick and come (be) with them into the theatre, and through me heal them: for there are some of them that will come unto this spectacle whom by these healings I will convert and make them useful for some end.

And the Son of Goodness made answer and said unto His Father, 'Blessed be Thy word. That which Thou hast said I will do.' Then the beloved Son came forth from the presence of His Good Father, and He took a little piece of His right side, of His divine flesh, and He rubbed it down into small pieces, and brought it to His Holy Father. His Father said unto Him, 'What is this?' And He said, 'This is My flesh, according to what Thou didst say unto Me.' His Father answered and said unto Him, 'Yea, certainly, My Son. Wait, and I will give unto Thee some of My own flesh, which is invisible.'

The thirty-first said: "I am called Hephesimireth, and cause lingering disease. If you throw salt, rubbed in the hand, into oil and smear it on the patient, saying: 'Seraphim, Cherubim, help me!' I at once retire."

And he lifted up the head of Zadok, and felt his heart and his nose to find out whether there was any sign of breath being in him; and he fanned him, and lifted him up, and rubbed him and laid him out upon the table.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

They bring her up to the great court which is in Jerusalem, and [the judges] solemnly admonish her in the same way that they admonish witnesses in capital cases. And they say to her, “My daughter, much is done by wine does much, much is done by frivolity, much is done by youth, much is done by bad neighbors. For the sake of His great name which is written in holiness do it so that it may not be rubbed out on the water.” And they say to her matters which neither she nor all the family of her father's house is worthy to hear.

If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.

If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.

If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine].

All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each.

If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it.

Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint. How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean. If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean. If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean. If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean. If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean. If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean. Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them.

Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint. How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean. If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean. If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean. If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean. If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean. If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean. Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: It is a bad sign if one lets wind during one’s prayer. That means on one’s bottom, but not on one’s top. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rebbi yawning, belching, putting his hand on his mouth, but not spitting. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, one may even spit so that one’s cup should be clean; forward is forbidden, behind oneself is permitted. To one’s right is forbidden, to one’s left is permitted; that is what is written (Ps. 91: 7): “On your left hand side will fall a thousand.” Everybody agrees about one who spits toward the stele, that he is forbidden to do so. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, he who spits in the synagogue is like one who spits into his own eye. Rebbi Jonah spat and rubbed out. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaphta in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly he who spat should not pray until he walked four cubits.

There (Mishnah Idiut 4:6) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it drips, but the House of Hillel say impure. But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.

Rebbi Aqiba said, I entered once after Rebbi Joshua to see the action. They asked him, what did you see? He said to them, I saw him sitting and his side was towards the West; he did not undress until he was sitting, he did not sit down before he rubbed, and he did not cleanse himself with his right hand but with his left hand. Simeon ben Azai also said so: I entered once after Rebbi Aqiba to see the action. They asked him, what did you see? Etc.

Just as you say for the harvest that its collection must be at one time in order to qualify for peah, should one say that the same is true for the laborer? Rebbi Jonah said, there is a difference since it says (Deut.23:26): “You may pluck rubbed ears,” even of something that is not stored.

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

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

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

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: “If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing. Or is it to be treated like the following: “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

How many letters have to be written unnecessarily for him to be guilty? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Yudan asked, if he wrote from memory, or rubbed it off with dust, or wrote one word and wiped it off immediately? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua said, one does not write on leather from an unclean animal. Rebbi Simeon said, since you said it is written to be erased, why can he not write? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon said, I prefer the words of Eleazar ben Shamua over my father’s words. Maybe she will say: I will not drink. Then the Name would be hidden on leather from an unclean animal.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Crispus: An adult woman is like an open amphora. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what Rebbi Ḥanina said, since Rebbi Ḥanina said: It happened that a woman was found without virginity and the case came before Rebbi. He said to her, where is it? She said, the stairs in my father’s house were high and it was rubbed off. Rebbi believed her. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated there: “The ketubah sum of a virgin who is a widow, or a divorcee, or one who had received ḥalîṣah, after a preliminary marriage is 200 [zuz], and they are subject to complaints about virginity.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated there: “One who eats unchaperoned at his father-in-law’s in Judea cannot go to court about virginity since he was alone with her.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated: “If somebody married a woman and found her not to be a virgin. She says, I was raped after the preliminary marriage and your field was flooded, but he says, no, it was before the preliminary marriage and my acquisition was in error,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated: “She says, I was injured by a piece of wood, but he says no, you were trampled on by a man,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

They objected: If letters in it [the scroll] are partially rubbed out or torn, if they are still legible, it may be used, but otherwise it may not be used. There is no difficulty: one statement refers to all of it, the other to part of it.