text

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

We understand, to the witnesses, sign! But to the scribe, write? Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. He explains it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulas.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A anddefinitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rebbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rebbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, maybe in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified.

MISHNAH: If five wrote collectively a bill of divorce, the man A divorces B and C D and the witnesses sign at the end, all are valid and [the bill] shall be delivered to each of them. If one wrote the text separately for each of them and the witnesses sign at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. “It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid”. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject makes invalid in any case. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? Rebbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid. “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rebbi Yasa ben Rebbi Sabbatai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. “It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid”. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject makes invalid in any case. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? Rebbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid. “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rebbi Yasa ben Rebbi Sabbatai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. “It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid”. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject makes invalid in any case. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? Rebbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid. “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rebbi Yasa ben Rebbi Sabbatai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh.

A document which has an erasure or insertion in its main part is invalid; in the routine matter it is valid; but if it was mentioned later it is valid even in the main part. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, one has to mention it at least in the second line before the end of the text. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav: One has to mention the essence of the document with it. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If one did not mention the essence of the document with it. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, Rebbi Ba said in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity. And here, he says so? There, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, here in the name of Rav.

MISHNAH: It is valid if some of the text remained and was written in the second column, with the witnesses signing below. If the witnesses signed on top of the page, or at the sides, or on the other side for a simple document, it is invalid. If [two bills of divorce] start at the same place and the witnesses are in the middle, both are invalid. If the start of one bill is next to the end of the other and the witnesses are at the end, the bill whose witnesses are read with the end is valid. A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, or the scribe wrote with one witness, is valid. “X, witness” is valid. “The son of Y, witness” is valid. “X the son of Y”, but he did not write “witness”, is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is valid; that is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write.

HALAKHAH: “If some of the text remained,” etc. What does “remained” mean? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Baibon said, e. g., “true, valid, and clear.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rebbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rebbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, sometime in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The signatures of the witnesses must be two blank lines away from the text. Rebbi Idi in the name of Rav Jeremiah: On a knotted document the witnesses sign lengthwise; on a simple document the witnesses sign across. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rebbi Mana said, [ ]. How do the witnesses sign on a knotted document? Rav Huna said, between two knots. Rebbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject in any case [invalidates]. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: One estimates לך ולך. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject in any case [invalidates]. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: One estimates לך ולך. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.

Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency. If the witnesses’ handwriting was small and the text large, one follows the large. If the witnesses’ handwriting was large and the text small, one follows the small. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh.

Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency. If the witnesses’ handwriting was small and the text large, one follows the large. If the witnesses’ handwriting was large and the text small, one follows the small. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh.

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

The remainder of the text (to line three of the next paragraph) is missing in B without indication of a lacuna. It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with the king on the Day of Atonement at sundown and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. On that day their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests. They sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour. They recited about her the verse: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments.

Rabbah b. Rab Shela answered : In that case the text should have read weyithar ; what means wetaher? The day is clean [of light]; as people commonly say, "When the sun has set, the day is cleansed."

If so, the text should have read "from the neshef unto the neshef" or "from the 'ereb unto the 'ereb" !

Rab Huna b. Judah stated that R. Menahem said in the name of R. Ammi : A man should always finish his Parashah with the congregation, twice the Hebrew text and once the Targum —

as R. Joshua b. Levi said to his sons, "Finish your Parashot with the congregation, twice the Hebrew text and once the Targum; and also be careful to sever the jugular vein [of a bird when slaughtering] in accord with the opinion of R. Judah —

There were some lawless men living in the neighbourhood of R. Meir, and they used to vex him sorely. Once R. Meir prayed that they should die. His wife, Beruriah, exclaimed, "What thinkest thou? Is it because it is written, 'Let sinners cease out of the earth'? But has the text hoteim? It is written hata'im.

Bet Shammai would tell thee : In that case, the text should read, "In the morning and at even" ; what means "When thou liest down and when thou risest up" ? At the time of lying down, there should be actual lying down [to read the Shema'], and at the time of rising up, there should be actual rising up.

Rab Pappa said: Because [the text uses the word] "way" [we argue], Just as the way is voluntary, so all is voluntary.

What is Rabbi's reason ? The text states, "And these words shall be" (Deut. vi. 6); i.e. as they are, so must they remain.

And what is the reason of the Sages? The text states, "Hear, O Israel" (ibid. v. 4); i.e. in any language which thou hearest.

Whence does Rabbi find authority for the rule that the Shema' may not be read out of order? He derives it from the fact that the text states "these words shall be" and not "the words shall be." And the Sages [what do they make of this distinction between "these words" and "the words"]?

[The text of the Mishnah] is defective and should read thus : "Between the sections, he may greet a man out of respect for him, and there is no need to state that he may return the salutation ; and in the middle [of the sections], he may greet a man because of fear for him, and there is no need to state that he may return a salutation. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says : In the middle, he may greet [[fol. 14a.]] because of fear and return a salutation out of respect;

Dost thou suppose that R. Judah's reason is because the text states, "[And the priest] shall write"? His reason is because the text states, "[And the priest shall write] these curses," i.e. the curses shall be written, but not the words of the command.

Dost thou suppose that R. Judah's reason is because the text states, "[And the priest] shall write"? His reason is because the text states, "[And the priest shall write] these curses," i.e. the curses shall be written, but not the words of the command.

How is that demonstrated ? Rab Pappa said : Because [the text uses the word] "way" [we argue]: Just as the way is voluntary, so all is voluntary.

R. Eleazar said : what means that which is written, "So will I bless Thee as long as I live ; in Thy name will I lift up my hands" (Ps. Ixiii. 5)? "So will I bless Thee as long as I live" refers to the reading of the Shema' ; "in Thy name will I lift up my hands" refers to Tefillah. If one act thus, of him the text saith, "My soul is satisfied as with marrow and fatness" (ibid. v. 6) ; and not only that, but he will inherit two worlds, this world and the world to come, as it is said, "And my mouth will praise Thee with joyful lips" (ibid.).

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

What principle are they arguing about?... The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, while R. Shimon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative.

‘The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative’, and the word Sukkoth occurs twice defectively and once with the full spelling, making four references. Deduct one for the law itself, and three remain;

And if you wish you can say hat they are unanimous that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ on this principle; one Master holds that the tradition comes to diminish while the other holds that tradition comes and adds to it.

And if you wish you can say that both agree that tradition comes to diminish and that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ as to whether one uses first [references] for exegesis: one Master holds that we do expound upon first references, and the other Master holds that we do not.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.

And how do the rabbis expound the words, "And he writes"? They need that [text for to teach that] with writing she becomes divorced, but she does not become divorced with money Lest I would have said, since her going out [from the married state] is compared to her entry into it just as her entry is with money, so is her exit, therefore it teaches us [this].

[Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’

The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

But who mentioned the Sabbatical Year? There is something missing in the text, and so it should be read: The tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking, and its subjection to the laws of the Sabbatical Year depends on [the time of its] blossoming. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said that ... the etrog is dependent on the time of its picking as regards both tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Said R. 'Ashi: The same view can be deduced from the text of our Mishnah, for it reads: "In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these (seven) fast days the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which shows that with respect to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike. If, however, you should say that here, too, the Mishnah mentions one difference and omits another, what will you do with the words of the Mishnah: "In what respect"? Answer: Do you think that the phrase "in what respect" is to be taken strictly? Did not the Mishnah omit mentioning the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Mishnah mentions it in the next chapter. Now that you have arrived at this point, you may just as well say that failing to mention the increase in the number of benedictions to twenty-four is no omission either, because the Mishnah speaks of it in the next chapter.

3. On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8; on the second, verses 6-13; on the third, verses 9-19; on the fourth, verses 14-23; on the fifth, verses 20-31; on the sixth, verses 24-31, and chapter 2, verses 1-3. A long portion was divided between two men, and a short one was read by one. This procedure was adhered to only during the morning and Musaf prayers, but in the afternoon prayer everybody recited (the whole text) for himself by heart in the manner one recites for himself the Shema'. On Fridays the assemblage in the synagogues for the afternoon prayer did not take place, because the time was needed for preparations in honor of the Sabbath.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

This procedure was adhered to only during the morning and Musaf prayers, but in the afternoon prayer everybody recited (the whole text) for himself by heart, etc. The question was asked: How is this passage to be understood? Does it mean to say that in the morning and Musaf prayers the portion is read from the book (Scroll) and in the afternoon by heart, as one reads the Shema', or that in the morning prayer it is read from the Scroll and in the Musaf and afternoon prayers by heart, as one reads the Shema'? Come and hear the reply: It is taught in a Baraita: During the morning and Musaf prayers the people assemble in the synagogue and read from the Torah in the same way as they do during the entire year, but during the afternoon prayer one individual recites the whole portion by heart. Said R. Jose: Is an individual ever allowed to recite the Torah for the congregation by heart? You must therefore say that all the congregants read it individually (for themselves) by heart, as one reads the Shema'.

But this text is required for its literal meaning? If that were all, Scripture could say simply “at the [appointed] time.”

But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak, that the thirteenth was the time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text.

But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak, that the thirteenth was the time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text.

the text had said, “the fourteenth day and the fifteenth” you would have been right. Now, however, that it is written “the fourteenth day and [ve’et] the fifteenth — the et comes and makes a distinction, so that the one set is on the fourteenth and the other set on the fifteenth.

R.Joshua b. Korha could answer: And can our Tanna explain the words satisfactorily? Since he draws the analogy between perazi and perazi, why do we require the words “city and city”? The truth is that the text is there for a midrash, and to teach the rule of R.Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: “A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city.”

But when all is said and done, [we have the text] “These are the commandments” which implies that no prophet was destined ever to introduce an innovation hereafter? Rather, they forgot them and then they went back and reestablished them.

But did Onkelos the convert compose the Targum to the Pentateuch? Did not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by the verse, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading?” (Nehemiah 8:8): “And they read in the book, in the law of God”: this refer to the [Hebrew] text; “with an interpretation”: this refers to Targum; “And they gave the sense” this refers to the verse stops; “And caused them to understand the reading”: this refers to the accent marks, or, according to another version,

The text [above states]: R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city and all that is next to it and all that is visible with it is reckoned as city. It was taught: Adjoining, even if it is not visible, and visible even if it is not adjoining.

Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by “laid waste”? If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], “which has a wall” [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?

There is an indication of this in a precise reading of the text, as it is written, “For he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities” (II Chronicles 14:6). From this we can infer that they had already been towns beforehand; learn from this.

With regard to these they said that they should be pushed forward but not postponed. What is the reason? Abba said in the name of Shmuel: The text says, “And it shall not pass” (Esther 9:27).

The text [above state]: Hezekiah read in Tiberias on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being doubtful whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. But could he have been in doubt about Tiberias. Is it not written, “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer and Hamath and Rakat and Kinnereth” (Joshua 19:5), and it has been established that Rakat is Tiberias? The reason why he was doubtful was because one side is bounded by the lake.

Even so, he preferred fields and vineyards. This is also indicated by the language of the text, as it says, “Naphtali upon the high places of the field.” This is a proof.

R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text, In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:

From where is this rule derived? As our Rabbis have taught: R. Simai says: The text counted two [issues] and designated the man as unclean, and then three and designated him as unclean. How so? Two for uncleanness, a third for a sacrifice.

He replied: If you would think that that text is for the purpose of excluding, then the text could simply omit the word. And should you say, we could then derive the rule [that he is to count seven days] by a logical deduction, such a deduction could be confuted by the case of the woman who counts day for day.

He replied: If you would think that that text is for the purpose of excluding, then the text could simply omit the word. And should you say, we could then derive the rule [that he is to count seven days] by a logical deduction, such a deduction could be confuted by the case of the woman who counts day for day.

And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy. If so let the verse say, “And when he that has an issue is cleansed” and no more. Why do I have “from his issue”? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days.

Scrolls may be written in any language. They contradicted this with the following: Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew, or [either] in Hebraic script, does not defile the hands; until it is written in Assyrian script upon a scroll and in ink.

Scrolls may be written in any language. They contradicted this with the following: Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew, or [either] in Hebraic script, does not defile the hands; until it is written in Assyrian script upon a scroll and in ink.

Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!

Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!

Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!

Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!

R. Elazar replied: He himself does not rejoice, but he makes others rejoice. This is indicated also by the text, which writes yasis and not yasus; learn from this.

Hanina b. Papa began his discourse on this section with the following text: “You have caused men to ride over our heads, we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12). Through fire in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and through water in the days of Pharaoh. “But you did bring us out into abundance,” in the days of Haman.

Yohanan began his discourse on this section with the following text: “He has remembered his mercy and his faithfulness to the house of Israel, all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our Lord” (Psalms 98:3). When did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our Lord? In the days of Mordecai and Esther.

Resh Lakish began his discourse on this section with the following text: “As a roaring lion and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” (Proverbs 4:7). “A roaring lion”: this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written, “A lion is gone up from his thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7). “A ravenous bear”: this is Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear,” (Daniel 7:5), and R. Joseph taught: These are the Persians, who eat and drink like bears, and are coated with flesh like bears, and are hairy like bears, and have no rest like bears. “