verse

The Torah said: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rebbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come. They brought him in order to be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant for our God”. He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them”. And it is written: “For he will divert your son from after Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired, etc.” “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest,” since it is said, “the firstborn she will bear shall …”. How do we hold? If about the newborn, the verse should read “he should rise in the name of his dead father.” But it must be that the newborn is a firstborn. In that case, even if he had children and they died before he died, his widow should not be a candidate for levirate! Then the verse should have said, “he never had children”. But if it cannot refer to the newborn; let it refer to the levir, “the obligation of levirate is on the oldest.”

HALAKHAH: “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired, etc.” “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest,” since it is said, “the firstborn she will bear shall …”. How do we hold? If about the newborn, the verse should read “he should rise in the name of his dead father.” But it must be that the newborn is a firstborn. In that case, even if he had children and they died before he died, his widow should not be a candidate for levirate! Then the verse should have said, “he never had children”. But if it cannot refer to the newborn; let it refer to the levir, “the obligation of levirate is on the oldest.”

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he performed ḥalîṣah with a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage? Let us hear from the following: If somebody died and left a pregnant widow, should I think that she must have recourse to her levir? The verse says, “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is extinguished. The verse says, “to establish a name in Israel for his brother,” until you know whether there is a live child or not. I could think that the wife of an eunuch should need levirate, the verse says “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is not extinguished; this excludes this one whose name was already extinguished.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he performed ḥalîṣah with a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage? Let us hear from the following: If somebody died and left a pregnant widow, should I think that she must have recourse to her levir? The verse says, “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is extinguished. The verse says, “to establish a name in Israel for his brother,” until you know whether there is a live child or not. I could think that the wife of an eunuch should need levirate, the verse says “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is not extinguished; this excludes this one whose name was already extinguished.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he performed ḥalîṣah with a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage? Let us hear from the following: If somebody died and left a pregnant widow, should I think that she must have recourse to her levir? The verse says, “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is extinguished. The verse says, “to establish a name in Israel for his brother,” until you know whether there is a live child or not. I could think that the wife of an eunuch should need levirate, the verse says “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is not extinguished; this excludes this one whose name was already extinguished.

HALAKHAH: “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “her levir shall come upon her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “ he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have?

Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “ he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have?

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow.” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable, since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow.” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable, since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating.

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man.” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage! What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave, the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood, it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man.” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage! What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave, the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood, it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.

HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property.

HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

Is it free? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,” it is as if free from one side.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

HALAKHAH: “Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe”, he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose! The verse says, “the lowly”. What comes between his heels. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile. And not only if [a testicle] is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody [born] with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch”. Rebbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rebbi Immi said, certainly Rebbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for making the case clear.

HALAKHAH: “Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe”, he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose! The verse says, “the lowly”. What comes between his heels. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile. And not only if [a testicle] is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody [born] with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch”. Rebbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rebbi Immi said, certainly Rebbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for making the case clear.

One verse says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ismaelite.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ismaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth,” and converted. Then he gave him his daughter. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ismaelite? But he girded his loins like an Ismaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab.” She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.

One verse says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ismaelite.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ismaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth,” and converted. Then he gave him his daughter. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ismaelite? But he girded his loins like an Ismaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab.” She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled. Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples”. A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of [Rebbi] Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,” not from those who dwell in your land.

“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female? Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use the principle of gezerah šawah. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Here also the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meїr. As Rebbi Meїr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi [Eleazar] ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth and further.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use the principle of gezerah šawah. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Here also the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meїr. As Rebbi Meїr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi [Eleazar] ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth and further.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said the argument is about the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron the priest and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public, the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits, he testifies, his grain offering is burnt completely, one says grace with him as with a male.

From where that no betrothal is valid for a married woman? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” When she leaves his house she may be with another. And from where that no betrothal is valid for incestual relations? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” Why does the verse say “another”? To exclude the list of incest relations.

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said, the baraita is about someone who takes back his divorcee after she had been married to another. Why after she had been married, not also after she had been betrothed? Because of Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, since Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, she is permitted after betrothal. Rebbi Eleazar said, the baraita is about a sister-in-law who became eligible before two levirs, when one of them “bespoke” her and then the other copulated with her. Why when one of them “bespoke” her, even if he had not “bespoken” her! Why if he copulated with her, even if he did not copulate with her! Because of the House of Shammai, because of Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated, Rebbi Simeon said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one who copulates with his wife’s sister disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his mother-in-law; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The House of Hillel were arguing: A man is permitted all women, a woman is permitted all men. When he becomes betrothed to her, he forbids her and she forbids him. The prohibition through which he forbids her is greater than the prohibition through which she forbids him, since he forbids her to go to marry any other man but she forbids him only her relatives. And is that not an argument de minore ad majus? If she, whose prohibition is greater, transgressed the prohibition in error, is not forbidden even to the one permitted to her, he, whose prohibition is less, if he transgressed the prohibition in error, is it not logical that he should not be forbidden even to the one permitted to him? That works for an error. From where if intentional: The verse says “with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her.

“How is that? [A male] nine years and one day old.” “If he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers. He should be able to allot her to the brothers by an argument de minore ad majus! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her [to his son] but may not allot her to the brothers. No. If you would accept the son since he will take [the father’s] place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers.

“How is that? [A male] nine years and one day old.” “If he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers. He should be able to allot her to the brothers by an argument de minore ad majus! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her [to his son] but may not allot her to the brothers. No. If you would accept the son since he will take [the father’s] place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers.

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover, etc.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother.

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.”

From where that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during [the period of duty of] any watch he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires … and serve”. If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him.”

HALAKHAH: “The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges,” etc. It is written “elders”, and you say laymen? The commandment is on the elders. From where that even laymen [are acceptable]? The verse says, “stripped of shoe”, in any case.

So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Suknin in the name of Rebbi Levi: During the first three days, the soul hovers over the body because she thinks that she will return to it. Once she sees that the splendor of his face changes after three days, she abandons him and goes away. After three days, the belly breaks open in his face and says to him, there is what you have robbed and extorted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joshia brings it from that verse: “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment, “but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”

The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness. If he found her behavior ugly, he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. {Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.}

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her by an argument de minore ad majus. Since he is believed about her when she is menstruating, when he would be subject to extirpation because of her, but for this one he is not subject to extirpation because of her, is it not logical that he should be believed about her? They said to him, no. If you mention the menstruating, she will be permitted after being forbidden, what can you say about this one who may not be permitted after being forbidden? And it says, “stolen waters are sweet”. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest”, etc. They said to him, only with witnesses.

Rebbi Zevadiah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, reported the following happening. Rebbi Meïr used to preach in the synagogue of Ḥamata every Friday evening. There was a woman who used to hear him. Once he extended his sermon. She went and wanted to come to her house but found the light had gone out. Her husband asked her, where have you been? She said to him, to hear the preacher’s voice. He said to her, so and so, that this woman will not enter here into her house unless she went and spat into the preacher’s face. Rebbi Meïr saw this in the holy spirit and faked pain in his eyes. He said, any woman who knows charms for the eye should come and do the charm. Her neighbors said to her, this answers your needs. Go to your house, represent yourself as a sorceress and spit in his eye. She came to him; he asked her, do you know to make a charm for the eye? In her fear of him, she said no. He said to her, if you spit into it seven times, he will feel better. After she had spat, he said to her: Go, and tell your husband, you said to me once, but she spat seven times! His students said to him, so does one denigrate the Torah? If you had ordered about him, would we not have brought him, whipped him on the footstool, and make him agree to make up with his wife? He said to them, the honor of Meïr should not be greater than that of his Maker. Since the verse says that the Holy Name, written in holiness, should be erased by the water in order to make peace between husband and wife, the honor of Meïr not so much more?

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal”, that is the Nikanor gate. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. It is written: “If a man sin against a man.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal”, that is the Nikanor gate. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. It is written: “If a man sin against a man.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal”, that is the Nikanor gate. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. It is written: “If a man sin against a man.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal”, that is the Nikanor gate. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. It is written: “If a man sin against a man.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand”; did she ever sit? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair.

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand”; did she ever sit? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair.

HALAKHAH: “By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: By the measure a person measures one measures him. What is the reason? בְּסַאסְּאָה., seah for seah. Not only a seah, from where a three-qab, half a three-qab, half a qab, a quarter [qab], a toman, half a toman, or an ukla? The verse says, “for all that is in a seah, breaks the seah noisily;” he added many seot here. Not only things that can be measured, from where that small coins add up to a large bill? The verse says, “one to one, to find the bill.” It happens in the world that a person stumbles in a sin for which one would be punished by death by the hands of Heaven. His ox dies, his hen is lost, his flask breaks, and he hurts his finger, by that the bill is paid in full. Another explanation: One is filled into the next and the bill is established. And what is the fulfillment of the bill? Once.

HALAKHAH: “By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: By the measure a person measures one measures him. What is the reason? בְּסַאסְּאָה., seah for seah. Not only a seah, from where a three-qab, half a three-qab, half a qab, a quarter [qab], a toman, half a toman, or an ukla? The verse says, “for all that is in a seah, breaks the seah noisily;” he added many seot here. Not only things that can be measured, from where that small coins add up to a large bill? The verse says, “one to one, to find the bill.” It happens in the world that a person stumbles in a sin for which one would be punished by death by the hands of Heaven. His ox dies, his hen is lost, his flask breaks, and he hurts his finger, by that the bill is paid in full. Another explanation: One is filled into the next and the bill is established. And what is the fulfillment of the bill? Once.

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

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

One verse says, “Simson descended into Timna”, and another verse says, “behold, you father-in-law ascends to Timna.” Rav said, there were two Timnot, one of Jehudah and one of Simson. Rebbi Simon said, there was only one Timna(ta). Why does it mention decent and ascent? But in the case of Jehudah, because it was in the name of Heaven, ascent is written. In the case of Simson, because it was not in the name of Heaven, descent is written. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari said, for example like Bet Ma‘on to which one descends from Palatatha and ascends from Tiberias.

One verse says, “Simson descended into Timna”, and another verse says, “behold, you father-in-law ascends to Timna.” Rav said, there were two Timnot, one of Jehudah and one of Simson. Rebbi Simon said, there was only one Timna(ta). Why does it mention decent and ascent? But in the case of Jehudah, because it was in the name of Heaven, ascent is written. In the case of Simson, because it was not in the name of Heaven, descent is written. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari said, for example like Bet Ma‘on to which one descends from Palatatha and ascends from Tiberias.

It is written: “The spirit of the Eternal started to ring in him in the encampment of Dan, between Ṣor‘a and Eshtaol.” Two Amoraïm. One said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his steps were as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. The other said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his hairs were tolling like a bell and their sound went as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. “The Eternal blessed him”. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: That his sex life was that of anybody. “I shall revenge one revenge of my two eyes from the Philistines.” Rebbi Aḥa said, he said before Him: Master of the Universe! Give me the reward of one of my eyes in this world and the reward of the other eye be prepared for me in the World to Come. One verse says: “He judged Israel for forty years.” And another verse says: “He had judged Israel for twenty years.” Rebbi Aḥa said, this teaches that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death as they were afraid of him during his lifetime.

It is written: “The spirit of the Eternal started to ring in him in the encampment of Dan, between Ṣor‘a and Eshtaol.” Two Amoraïm. One said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his steps were as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. The other said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his hairs were tolling like a bell and their sound went as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. “The Eternal blessed him”. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: That his sex life was that of anybody. “I shall revenge one revenge of my two eyes from the Philistines.” Rebbi Aḥa said, he said before Him: Master of the Universe! Give me the reward of one of my eyes in this world and the reward of the other eye be prepared for me in the World to Come. One verse says: “He judged Israel for forty years.” And another verse says: “He had judged Israel for twenty years.” Rebbi Aḥa said, this teaches that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death as they were afraid of him during his lifetime.

It is written: “No man in Israel was beautiful like Absalom, to be very much praised.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his foot sole to the top of his forehead”. It is written: “He had a son whose name was Saul, select and good, no one of the Children of Israel was better than he.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his shoulder on he was higher than all the people.” But about Abner, what is written? “You should know that a leader and great man fell today in Israel.” Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

It is written: “No man in Israel was beautiful like Absalom, to be very much praised.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his foot sole to the top of his forehead”. It is written: “He had a son whose name was Saul, select and good, no one of the Children of Israel was better than he.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his shoulder on he was higher than all the people.” But about Abner, what is written? “You should know that a leader and great man fell today in Israel.” Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said: ‘His sister stood by from afar’ etc. Therefore, Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said: ‘The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.’ ” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire verse was said in the language of inspiration: “His sister stood by,” “I saw the Eternal standing on the altar.” “His sister,” “say to wisdom: you are my sister.” “From far”, “from far away the Eternal appeared to me.” “To know”, “for the earth will be full of the Eternal’s knowledge.” “What will be done with him”, “because the Eternal will not do anything unless He uncovered His counsel to His servants, the prophets.”

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

“With him”. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You do it for yourself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: A parable of a king who was marrying off his son. There came a prefect to carry the litter, and they did not admit him. The king said, let him; tomorrow he will marry off his daughter and I can honor him the way he honored me. As it is written: “I shall descend with you to Egypt and I shall bring you up, also ascending.” Why does the verse say, “also ascending”? I shall bring you up and the other tribes also I shall bring up. That teaches that every tribe brought the bones of their ancestor with them.

“Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed: “It cannot be brought completely because of the participation by the wife. It cannot be eaten because of the participation by the husband.” He said to him, the handful is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately. And you say, “her flour offering”? But the expression used by the verse is used by the Mishnah: “He shall bring her flour-offering for her.”

“Water”, I could think it should look like water. The verse says, “dust”. Or “dust”, I could think it should look like ink. The verse says, “water”. How is that? The looks of water and the looks of dust. The Sages estimated half a log of water from the wash basin. But did we not state: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]”. Rebbi Jehudah follows his particular way, as we have stated: “Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.”

“Water”, I could think it should look like water. The verse says, “dust”. Or “dust”, I could think it should look like ink. The verse says, “water”. How is that? The looks of water and the looks of dust. The Sages estimated half a log of water from the wash basin. But did we not state: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]”. Rebbi Jehudah follows his particular way, as we have stated: “Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.”

There , we have stated: “Aqabiah ben Mehallalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression.” Rebbi Abba ben Rav Pappaeus and Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All three Aqabiah derived from the same verse: “Remember your Creator,” your fountain, your cavern, your Creator. Your fountain, from where you came. Your cave, to where you are going. Your Creator, before Whom you will have to be accountable in the future.

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

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

“And from the dust.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

“And from the dust.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

“And from the dust.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

“And he writes”. I could think [one writes] with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate, the verse says, “he shall wipe off”. If he has to erase, I could think [one writes] with drinks or fruit juice; the verse says, “he shall write”. How is that? Writing that can be wiped off. What is this? This is ink without vitriol. But did we not state: If he wiped off from a Torah scroll it is valid. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: Rebbi Meïr said, all the time we were studying with Rebbi Ismael, we put no vitriol in the ink.

“And he writes”. I could think [one writes] with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate, the verse says, “he shall wipe off”. If he has to erase, I could think [one writes] with drinks or fruit juice; the verse says, “he shall write”. How is that? Writing that can be wiped off. What is this? This is ink without vitriol. But did we not state: If he wiped off from a Torah scroll it is valid. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: Rebbi Meïr said, all the time we were studying with Rebbi Ismael, we put no vitriol in the ink.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave? It already preceded.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure.” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”? Only that at the end the Omnipresent rewards her for the abuse, that if she was sterile she will become pregnant, [if she] was having difficult births she will have easy ones, [if she] had ugly children she will have good looking ones, black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rebbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate.

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

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

HALAKHAH: “What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams,” etc. “A man”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, or woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme, “a man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams.”

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

HALAKHAH: A woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child],” etc. A man should not marry a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child], but if he did marry her, the verse says about him: “Do not remove the eternal boundaries and do not enter the orphans’ field.” He who marries a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s [child] has to divorce her and should never retake her, the words of Rebbi Meĩr, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. Does Rebbi Meїr always fine people? Let us hear from the following: “The underage woman who performed ḥalîṣah should repeat ḥalîṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥalîṣah is valid.” Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meїr who said that one does not perform ḥalîṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram.

Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary. Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah, but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city 2000 cubits to the East,” but in another verse it says “outside the city wall, one thousand cubits all around.” It is impossible to say 1000 cubits because already it was said 2000 cubits and it is impossible to say 2000 cubits because already it was said 1000 cubits. Why was 1000 said, and why 2000? But 1000 cubits open space and 2000 cubits Sabbath domain. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: 1000 cubits open space and two thousand fields and vineyards.