Jerusalem Sotah

Mishnah

1 If a man declares his jealousy to his wife, Rabbi Eliezer says, he declares his jealousy in front of two witnesses and takes her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony. Rabbi Joshua says, he declares his jealousy in front of two witnesses and takes her to drink by the testimony of two witnesses.

Halakhah

“If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife”Numbers 5:14; this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

The declaration of jealousy, Rabbi Joshua said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, is obligatory; but Rabbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said before Rabbi Yasa, it turns out that Rabbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rabbi 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.” Rabbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses.

“And Rabbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel.” For the House of Hillel say, even if she burned his food. Therefore, he says it is optional. If he wants to declare his jealousy, he declares his jealousy; if he wants to divorce her, he divorces her.

What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.” “Nakedness,” that is the rendezvous. “Word,” that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses, so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness,” about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others.

It was stated: “Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness”Deuteronomy 24:1; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses. How does Rabbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness. May a single witness let him take her to drink? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink, a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later, a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later.

What is the reason of Rabbi Joshua? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.”Deuteronomy 24:1 “Word,” that is the declaration of jealousy. “For he found”; “finding” has to be validated by witnesses.... How does Rabbi Joshua explain “nakedness”? A prohibition of nakedness that came because of a word.

They answered on the words of Rabbi Yose ben Judah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy by himself, brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah. Rabbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rabbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna it is a valid objection, following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, it is written: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,”Deuteronomy 13:7 Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her, with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her.

Witnesses of a declaration of jealousy who were found to be false are whipped. About witnesses concerning her being in a secluded place who were found to be false, you say that they are whipped; why should they not pay? It is not through their action that she loses her ketubah. Or it might be, following what Rabbi Abba, Rav Judah, said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so.

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

Mishnah

2 How does he declare his jealousy? If he said to her in front of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man X, and she spoke with him, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave. If she enters a hidden room together with him and remains there long enough for impurity, she is forbidden to her house and forbidden to eat heave; if he dies she needs ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.

Halakhah

“How does he declare his jealousy,” etc. Does this mean only, until she talks with him? That would imply, if she went to a secluded place with him without talking, that going to a secluded place would count for nothing? It comes to tell you more: Even if she talked to him but was not with him in a secluded place, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave, since the Mishnah uses chaste language: Do not be alone with Mr. X.

May he declare his jealousy with respect to two men together? Rabbi Yudan said, that is in dispute. He who says that he may declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, says that he may declare his jealousy with respect to two men together. Rabbi Yose asked: May he declare his jealousy with respect to a hundred men? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to him: If he said to her, do not enter the synagogue, she enters.

“With him.” Rabbi Mana said, it only said “with him.” Therefore, not one after the other. Rabbi Abin said, even one after the other since anyhow it is obvious: On a road during the night, in a ruin during daytime, in dark passageways during daytime.

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passover as in purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

There, we have stated: “In all matters of incest, He made him who touches equal to him who completes and one is guilty for each single intercourse. He was more stringent with the slave girl since in her case He treated the intentional as unintentional.” Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abba bar Mamai in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. Here is written “flow of semen,” and here is written “flow of semen.” Here, you say “flow of semen” until he ejaculates. And here, you say so? Rabbi Yose said, there is a difference, for it is written: “She was hidden and became impure.”Numbers 5:13 From the moment she was hidden, the Torah calls her “impure.” But here, “flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. For what reason is written “flow of semen”? For measures, as it is stated: “She was hidden and became impure”Numbers 5:13; what is counted as hiding? Time to become impure. What is the time for impurity? Time for intercourse. What is the time for intercourse? Time for ‘touching.’

“How long is ‘touching’? Rabbi Eliezer says, time needed to walk around a date palm; Rabbi Joshua says, to mix a cup of wine; Ben Azai says, to drink it; Rabbi Akiva says, time needed rolling an egg; Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says, to sip three rolled eggs one after the other; Rabbi Eleazar ben Phineas says, time needed for the weaver to bind a thread; Miniamin says, that she can stretch out her hand and lift a loaf of bread from the basket. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint: ‘For a whoring woman up to a loaf of bread.’”Proverbs 6:26 Rabbi Yose said, all these measurements of time are after she removes her underpants. Rabbi Joḥanan said, each of them judged by his own experience. But did Ben Azai ever marry? Some want to say, he had an erection. But some want to say, he was married and gave it up. Some want to say, “the secret of the Eternal is for those who fear Him, to inform them about His covenant.”Psalms 25:14

It was stated: Rabbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rabbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

Rabbi Jacob bar Abin stated before Rabbi Jonathan: “‘If you deviated from under your husband.’ This excludes rape.” How do you understand this? He said to him: Just as she is “under your husband” by her consent, so also in this case by her consent.

Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rabbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rabbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rabbi Akiva says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rabbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rabbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rabbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

Mishnah

3 The following are prohibited from eating heave: One who says, I am impure for you, and where witnesses proved that she is impure, and one who refuses to drink, and one whose husband refuses to let her drink, and one whose husband slept with her on the trip. What does he have to do: He brings her to the court at his place and they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip. Rabbi Judah says, her husband is believed about her.

Halakhah

“The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there: “Three kinds of women leave and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, or Heaven is between you and me, or I am separated from the Jews.” Rabbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood?

It was stated: “‘Except your husband,”Numbers 5:19 which excludes that other semen preceded your husband’s. Rabbi Hila said, parallel what has been said, “except the morning elevation offering.”Numbers 28:23 But did we not state: “Just as the water examines her, so the water examines him. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water examines her for every intercourse in which she receives her husband after she had slept with her paramour, so it examines him? Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Hila: Here, if he knows, there, if he does not know.

Rabbi 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”? Rabbi 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: Rabbi Judah 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.”Proverbs 9:17 Rabbi Judah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest,”Numbers 5:15 etc. They said to him, only with witnesses.

Mishnah

4 They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem where they try to instill fear in her, as they try to instill fear in witnesses in capital cases, and say to her: My daughter, much does wine cause, much does joking cause, much does youth cause, much do bad neighbors cause. Do not cause the Great Name, which will be written in holiness, to be erased by water, and they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear.

Halakhah

“They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem,” etc. Just as they instill fear in her that she should change her mind, so they instill fear in her that she should not change her mind, and say to her: My daughter, if you are pure, if it is clear to you that you are pure, insist on what is clear to you, since this potion is only like solid poison which if given on healthy skin does no harm; only if it finds there a wound it starts to dissolve and penetrate.

Rabbi Zevadiah, the son-in-law of Rabbi Levi, reported the following happening. Rabbi Meir 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. Rabbi Meir 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 Meir 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 Meir not so much more?

“And they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear,” etc. For example, what happened between Reuben and Bilhah, or what happened between Judah and Tamar. “If Sages tell,”Job 15:18-19 these are Reuben and Judah, “they do not hide before their fathers.” What rewards did they take for this, “to them alone the Land was given; no stranger passes in their midst.” When Moses came to bless them, “Reuben may live and not die,” “and that for Judah.”

Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Ḥiyya explains three verses as praise. “She sat at the entrance to the source.” Is that possible? Even the most depraved prostitute would not do that. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all eyes are looking. She said before Him: Master of the Universe, let me not leave this family empty-handed. Another explanation, “at the entrance to the eyes,” that she opened his eyes saying, I am unmarried and pure. “And Eli was very old,”1 Samuel 2:22-23 “they would make them lie” is written. That women would bring them their bird-sacrifices to be purified for their houses but since they were dragging their feet, the Holy One, praise to Him, found them guilty as if they had slept with them. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, here, he needles them: “why do you disregard my slaughter-sacrifice and my flour-sacrifice?”1 Samuel 2:29 If you say that they committed a serious crime, why should he absolve them from the serious crime and needle them for a minor one? “But his sons did not follow in his ways and turned after lucre.”1 Samuel 8:3 That they took tithe but remained judging. Rabbi Berekhia: A camel-caravan came by, they put aside the needs of Israel and were going and attending to business affairs.

Mishnah

5 If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves. If she said, I am pure, one brings her to the Eastern gate, the Nikanor gate, for there one lets the suspected wives drink, and one purifies the woman after childbirth, and the persons healed from skin disease. A priest seizes her garment, if it tears it tears, if it frays it frays, until he uncovers her breast, and he destroys her hairdo. Rabbi Judah says, if her breast was beautiful, he did not uncover it, if her hair was beautiful, he did not undo it.

Halakhah

“If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The priest 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.”1 Samuel 2:25 Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

Does one shame out of a doubt? Rabbi Simlai said, anywhere one finds whoring, mass destruction comes to the world.

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rabbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand”Numbers 5:18; did she ever sit? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair.

The argument of Rabbi Judah seems inverted. There, he says: “One covers a man in front and a woman front and back.” And here, he says so? There, she goes to her death anyhow, but here, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? There, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” choose for him the easiest death. But here, “all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”Ezekiel 23:48

Mishnah

6 If she was clothed in white, he covers her in black. If she wore gold jewelry, chains, nose rings and finger rings, he removes them from her in order to make her ugly. After that he brings an Egyptian rope and binds it higher than her breasts. Anyone who wants to look may come and see, except for her male and female slaves because she feels superior to them. All women are permitted to see her, as it was said: “all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

Halakhah

“If she was clothed in white,” etc. Our Mishnah assumes that they are not fitting her. But if they are fitting her, it does not apply.

“He brings an Egyptian rope.” And why an Egyptian rope? Rabbi Isaac said, because she behaved in an Egyptian way. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Does the Egyptian rope prevent, does the Egyptian basket prevent? Who pays for them? That one follows what Rabbi said, for Rabbi said that the water supply, the city wall and its towers, and all public works in the city are paid with the excess of the Temple treasury. The same holds here.

Mishnah

7 By the measure a person measures one measures him. She adorned herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent made her ugly. She bared herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent laid her bare. 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.

Halakhah

“By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: 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.”Ecclesiastes 7:27 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 Rabbi Meir: 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 Judah who locked his wife in. They said to him, did your ancestors 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.

Samuel said, one separates from the whoring woman but not from her house. This parallels what Rabbi Joḥanan said: “If a married woman committed adultery, her children are her husband’s since most of the intercourse was with the husband.”

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? Rabbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rabbi 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.” Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for heavenly punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is struck and all limbs hurt, in the case of heavenly benefices, which are given out in abundance, may we not expect so much more!

Mishnah

8 Samson followed his eyes, therefore the Philistines pierced his eyes. Absalom beautified himself with his hair, therefore he was hung by his hair. Because he came to his father’s ten concubines, therefore ten lances were put into him, as it was said: “Ten squires, Joab’s weapons carriers, surrounded him.”2 Samuel 18:15 And because he stole three steals, his father’s opinion, the court’s opinion, and Israel’s opinion, therefore three staves were stuck into him, as it was said: “He took three staves in his hand and stuck them into Absalom’s heart.”2 Samuel 18:14

Halakhah

“Samson followed his eyes,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi says, because he started going astray at Gaza, therefore his punishment was at Gaza. But is it not written: “Samson descended into Timna”Judges 14:1? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, that was a formal marriage.

One verse says, “Samson descended into Timna,” and another verse says, “look, your father-in-law ascends to Timna.” Rav said, there were two Timnot, one of Judah and one of Samson. Rabbi Simon said, there was only one Timnata. Why does it mention decent and ascent? But in the case of Judah, because it was in the name of Heaven, ascent is written. In the case of Samson, because it was not in the name of Heaven, descent is written. Rabbi Ayvu bar Naggari said, for example like Bet Maon to which one descends from Palatatha and ascends from Tiberias.

It is written: “They came to the vineyards in direction of Timna.”Judges 14:5 Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this teaches you that his father and mother were showing him the vineyards in direction of Timna sown in several kinds and saying to him: My son, just as their vineyards are sown with several kinds so their daughters are sown with several kinds. “And his father and mother did not know that this was from the Eternal, that he was looking for a pretext from the Philistines.” Rabbi Eleazar said, In seven places it is written: “Do not contract marriage with them.” Rabbi Abun said, to prohibit seven peoples. And here, it says so? Rabbi Isaac said, “if he scoffs about the scoffers.”Proverbs 3:34

It is written: “The spirit of the Eternal started to ring in him in the encampment of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.”Judges 13:25 Two Amoraïm. One said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his steps were as from Zorah 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 Zorah to Eshtaol. “The Eternal blessed him.” Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yose: That his sex life was that of anybody. “I shall revenge one revenge of my two eyes from the Philistines.”Judges 16:28 Rabbi 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.”Judges 16:31 Rabbi 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.

“Absalom beautified himself with his hair.” Rabbi Ḥanina said, it was like a large carob tree. Should I think like a javelin? Rabbi Bibi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It was made like this and like that.

Rabbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my son’s belt and the belt of my father-in-law to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran. But today, we do not even get one for one.

It is written: “No man in Israel was beautiful like Absalom, to be very much praised.”2 Samuel 14:25 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.”1 Samuel 9:2 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? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, and the rabbis. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said: “Let the squires get up and play before us.”2 Samuel 2:14 Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?”2 Samuel 3:12 He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written: “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!”1 Samuel 24:5 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: “Can you answer, Abner?”1 Samuel 26:14 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.

“And because he stole three steals, his father’s opinion, the court’s opinion, and Israel’s opinion.” His father’s opinion, as it is written: “It was after forty years.”2 Samuel 15:7 David himself did not rule more than forty years, and here, it says so? But it is from the time that Israel demanded a king. “For your servant made a vow.” He said to him, what else do you want? He said to him, write me a tablet that two men should go with me. He said to him, tell me whom you want and I shall write. He said to him, write it to open and I shall take whom I want. He wrote it open. He went and added two people each until he had added 200 people. That is what is written, “with Absalom went 200 invited people from Jerusalem, going in their simplicity.” Invited, from David. Going in their simplicity, of Absalom. “They did not know anything,” of Ahithophel’s counsel. Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: They all were presiding judges. Then they saw the things. They went to change sides. They said: Master of all universes: Let us fall in David’s hand and do not let fall David in our hands! For if we fall in David’s hand, he will have mercy on us. But if, Heaven forbid, David would fall in our hands, we would not have mercy on him. That is what David said, “He saved me in peace from my confidant, for the majority were with me!” “The court’s opinion.” “And Absalom said, who would make me the judge of the land.”2 Samuel 15:4 “So Absalom would act.”2 Samuel 15:6 “And Israel’s opinion.” Absalom insinuated himself with the men of Israel.

Mishnah

9 Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said: “His sister stood by from afar.”Exodus 2:4 Therefore, all of 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.”Numbers 12:15

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.’” Rabbi Joḥanan said, the entire verse was said in the language of inspiration: “His sister stood by,” “I saw the Eternal standing on the altar.”Amos 9:1 “His sister,” “say to wisdom: you are my sister.”Proverbs 7:4 “From far,” “from far away the Eternal appeared to me.” “To know,” “for the earth will be full of the Eternal’s knowledge.”Isaiah 11:9 “What will be done with him,” “because the Eternal will not do anything unless He uncovered His counsel to His servants, the prophets.”Amos 3:7

Mishnah

10 Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he, as it is said: “Joseph ascended to bury his father.”Genesis 50:7 Who would be greater than Joseph? Only Moses could occupy himself with him. Moses had the merit to take Joseph’s bones and no one in Israel was greater than he, as it is said: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him.”Exodus 13:19 Who would be greater than Moses? Only the Holy One, Praise to Him, could occupy himself with him, as it is said: “He buried him in the valley.” Not only about Moses was this said but about all the just, as it is said: “Your righteousness will precede you, the glory of the Eternal will gather you in.”Isaiah 58:8

Halakhah

“Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he,” etc. Rabbi Isaac said: The glory of the Lifegiver of the Worlds was with them. It is written: “They came to the threshing place of the brambles.”Genesis 50:10 Since when does the bramble-bush have a threshing place? Rabbi Samuel ben Naḥman said, we checked in all of Scripture and did not find a place called “brambles.” What are “brambles”? These are the Canaanites who should have been threshed like brambles. By which merit were they saved? By the merit of: “The inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning at the threshing place of the brambles.”Genesis 50:11 What act of kindness did they do for him? Rabbi Eleazar said, they unbelted. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they undid the knots on their shoulders. The rabbis said, they stood up. Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they pointed with their fingers and said, “a heavy mourning is that for Egypt.” Now these who did no act of kindness with their hands or feet; look what the Holy One, praise to Him, did reward them with; Israel who are used to do acts of kindness with their hands or feet for their great and their little ones, they deserve so much more!

Rabbi Abbahu said, these seventy days between letters and letters correspond to the seventy days in which the Egyptians performed kindness with our father Jacob.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy,”2 Samuel 1:17-18 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 Jashar?” 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 traveled from the springs of Bene-Jaakan to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor and died there.”Numbers 33:38 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.”Numbers 33:40 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 traveled 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 Izharite, the Hebronite, the Uzzielite.”1 Chronicles 26:23 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.” Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: You do it for yourself. Rabbi 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.”Genesis 46:4 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.

It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: If it had not been written, it would have been impossible to say: This teaches us that when Moses died, he was lying on the wings of the Shekhina about four miles, from the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben to the inheritance of the tribe of Gad, since he died in the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben and was buried in the inheritance of the tribe of Gad. From where that he died in the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben? Because it was said, “the tribe of Reuben built Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, and Nebo.”Numbers 32:38 And it is written: “Ascend this ʿAbarim mountain, the Mountain of Nebo, and die on the Mountain up which you will climb.”Deuteronomy 32:49 And from where that he was buried in the inheritance of the tribe of Gad? For it was said: “To Gad he said, praised be He Who enlarges Gad, etc. For there the part of the lawgiver is hidden.”Deuteronomy 33:20-21 The Holy One, praise to Him, added: “He came at the head of the people.” The angels of the service said, “he executed the justice of the Eternal,” and Israel were saying, “and His laws with Israel.” All together were saying: “ May he come in peace, may they rest on their couches, he goes in His pleasure.”

Mishnah

1 He brought her flour offering in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and then puts it on her hands to tire her out. All flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel except this which at the start is in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and at the end in a Temple vessel. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ʿomer flour offering, even though it comes from barley, comes as roasted kernels but this one comes as flour. Rabban Gamliel said, since she behaved like an animal so her offering is animal feed.

Halakhah

“He brought her flour offering,” etc. It is written: “In the priest’s hand shall be the spell-inducing bitter water.”Numbers 5:18 Is that to tire her out? Rather to inspire her with fear.

“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. Rabbi 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.”Numbers 5:15

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rabbi Joḥanan said, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman healed from genital discharges, one healed from scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman healed from genital discharges or healed from scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rabbi Redifa, Rabbi Jonah, say in the name of Rabbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew pubic hair she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.”Numbers 5:22 Rabbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,”Deuteronomy 14:26 and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ila: He may not dedicate for her the bird elevation offering, only the bird purification offering because the latter enables her to eat family sacrifices. It was stated: He may dedicate for her only something that enables her to eat family sacrifices. Rabbi Yose said, that is all. It was stated: Just as that disables her from eating family sacrifices, so she disables others from eating family sacrifices; since he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices. It was stated: Even by the shearing of her head she hinders him from eating family sacrifices. Since she is ugly and he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices.

It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rabbi Judah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for he writes to her “any other obligations that come to me because of you from earlier times.”

Was it not stated: “The order of flour offerings is the following: One brings from his house in silver or gold vessels.” These would be acceptable as Temple vessels.

Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai stated: Why did they say that no purification or reparation sacrifices need wine offerings? That the sacrifice of a sinner should not be magnificent. They objected: There are the purification and the reparation offerings of the scale-diseased. If you say that he is no sinner, did not Rabbi Isaac say: “That shall be the instruction for the scale-diseased,” this is the instruction for the slanderer! Rabbi Hila said, since he was made to suffer and it is written “that your brother should not be contemptible in your eyes,”Deuteronomy 25:3 he is as if he had not sinned.

Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: “Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. Rabbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white”Leviticus 2:14 and it says in Egypt “milky white.” Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rabbi Akiva said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads would not be first fruits.

There, said by Rabbi Jonah: “Halica, into two parts. Tragos, into three. Tisana, into four.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun asked: From there on, is it coarse flour? One does not have to sift out the fine flour from in between.

Mishnah

2 He brought a new earthenware bowl and filled it with half a log of water from the laver; Rabbi Judah says, a quarter log. Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water. He entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the priest shall take and put on the water.”Numbers 5:17

Halakhah

“He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rabbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rabbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.”Leviticus 14:5 Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water”; but what may one say here? Rabbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rabbi Ishmael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rabbi Ishmael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer holds with Rabbi Ishmael about the water and Rabbi Ishmael with Rabbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rabbi Ishmael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaim state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaim state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rabbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

Some Tannaim state: “In an earthenware vessel,” not if it is sooty. Some Tannaim state: “In an earthenware vessel,” even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel,” not if it is sooty, is Rabbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel,” even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel,” not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel,” even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

There, we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable to be used to purify the sufferer from skin disease.” Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: That was stated to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it was stated: If he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease. If he sprinkled with it for the sufferer from skin disease, it is disqualified for purifying. Rabbi Yose said, would that not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since for the sufferer from skin disease, for whose ceremony use does not disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease; purifying, for whose ceremony use does disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for purifying?

If he used it to sprinkle on the sufferer from skin disease, is it acceptable to use it for another sufferer from skin disease? If somebody said it is acceptable, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar will agree with him. But with him who said, it is disqualified, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar will disagree. It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, it was my Sabbath and I followed Rabbi Tarfon to his house. He said to me, Judah, my son, give me my sandals. I gave them to him. He reached with his hand to the window and gave me a stick from there. He said to me, Judah, my son, with this one I cleansed three sufferers from skin disease and I taught with it seven practices. That it is yabrut, on its head is a leaf, it is one cubit long, its width is about one fourth that of a bed’s leg split one into two and two into four, and one sprinkles and repeats and does it a third time, and one purifies when there is a Temple and when there is no Temple, and one purifies in the countryside.

“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: “Rabbi Judah says, a quarter log.” Rabbi Judah 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: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there.” Rabbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.

There, we have stated: “Aqabiah ben Mahalalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression.” Rabbi Abba ben Rav Pappaeus and Rabbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: All three Aqabiah derived from the same verse: “Remember your Creator,”Ecclesiastes 12:1 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.”Deuteronomy 24:1 “He shall execute for her.”Numbers 5:30 “Or manumission was not given to her.”Leviticus 19:20 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. Rabbi Ishmael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease. Rabbi Zeira 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. Rabbi Pedat in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight.

“And from the dust.”Numbers 5:17 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 pickaxe, the verse says “which will be.” How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rabbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary,” one could think the dust qualified only if he digs with a pickaxe, the verse says “which will be.” From anywhere. “The Sanctuary,” that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

Mishnah

3 Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? “If no man has lain with you,...”Numbers 5:19 “but if you deviated from under your husband,”Numbers 5:20 etc. He does not write “the priest has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,”Numbers 5:21 but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.”Numbers 5:22 He does not write “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”Numbers 5:22 Rabbi Yose says, he does not interrupt. Rabbi Judah said he does not write anything but: “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.”Numbers 5:21 “This curse-water would come into your intestines...”Numbers 5:22 He does not write “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”Numbers 5:22

Halakhah

“Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rabbi Crispus said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish 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 Tannaim who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaim 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.

Mishnah

4 He does not write on a wooden plank, or on papyrus, or on διφθέρα, only on a scroll, as it is said: “In a book.” He does not write with gum or vitriol nor with anything leaving a permanent impression except with ink; it is written “he shall wipe off,” writing that can be wiped off.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Yose says, he does not interrupt,” etc. Levi bar Sisi asked before Rabbi: Does the suspected wife’s scroll defile the hands? He said to him, that is a question. Rabbi Yose said, it is no question. Did they not decree impurity of the hands for books only because of their holiness? And that one has to be erased! One only questions because it had to be erased.

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

There is written “book,” and here is written “book.” There, you say anything which is plucked. And here, you say so? He said to him, it is different here because it is written “in a book.”Numbers 5:23

“And he writes.” I could think one writes with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate, the verse says, “he shall wipe off.”Numbers 5:23 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: Rabbi Meir said, all the time we were studying with Rabbi Ishmael, we put no vitriol in the ink.

Mishnah

5 Why does she repeat: “Amen Amen”? Amen on the curse, Amen on the oath, Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. Amen that I was not defiled and if I was defiled it should hurt me. Amen that I did not deviate preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in. Rabbi Meir says, Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.

Halakhah

: “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimra: “Amen” is said for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen,” may the words be confirmed. “Amen” is said for acceptance, from the suspected wife. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your ancestors,” etc. “Amen,” may the words be confirmed: “Benaiah ben Jehoiada the priest answered the king and said Amen,” etc. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse,” because oath means curse, as you say: “The priest has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”Numbers 5:21

From where did they learn rollover of oaths? From the suspected wife: “The woman shall say, Amen, Amen”; Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir? Nevertheless one rolls over.

Some Tannaim state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaim state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaim state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaim state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rabbi Akiva! For Rabbi Akiva said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rabbi 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. Rabbi Shammai said, did not Rabbi 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. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥaliṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rabbi 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.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rabbi Akiva since Rabbi Akiva 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, Rabbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rabbi Mana said, did not Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rabbi 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.”

How could one state this Mishnah? Not the rabbis nor Rabbi Akiva! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house follows the rabbis against Rabbi Akiva. He who says that she is forbidden to her house follows Rabbi Akiva against the rabbis. Rabbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a priest, and they permitted her to her house. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.

Not that Rabbi Meir was saying that the water checks her outside of its time

“The teaching about jealousies.” This is a teaching of the Temple. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rabbi Judah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rabbi Akiva that a woman drinks and repeats. Rabbi Akiva said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon.

There, we have stated: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: “The sons of Israel”Numbers 5:12 not proselytes. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: “The man has to bring his wife to the priest.”Numbers 5:15 But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? “The children of Israel,” not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them,” to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her.” His lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

“It was hidden from her husband’s eyes,” that excludes the blind man who has no eyes. It is the same for the blind man and the blind woman. This baraita follows Rabbi Judah who frees him from all obligations in the Torah.

Mishnah

6 Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced. If she was secluded after that, became impure, and after that he took her back, he cannot stipulate with her. This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.

Halakhah

“Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced,” etc. Rabbi Yannai said, it is obvious that a man may forgive about his jealousy. If he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven. How is that? If he had declared his jealousy, divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place. If you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven, he has to declare his jealousy a second time. But if you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had not forgiven, he does not have to declare his jealousy a second time. But if he had declared his jealousy, she was at a secluded place and he knew it, then he divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place, if she drank and the water did nothing to her, she is pure. Or maybe that since the water does not check out a woman forbidden to her husband, she might be impure.

Mishnah

1 He took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket, put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The priest puts his hands under hers and performs the weave. He weaved, presented, took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests.

Halakhah

“He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The priest shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.”Numbers 5:25 Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here one understands that he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The priest puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the priest put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly priest. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

Rabbi Yose said: In all cases, the following is an open question for the rabbis: What does he present? The body of the flour offering or the body of the vessel?

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rabbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.”Leviticus 6:7 Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rabbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which verse says anything? “You shall bring,”Leviticus 2:8 to include the ʿOmer 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”Leviticus 2:9; where is the weave? It already preceded.

There, it was stated: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rabbi Abba bar Mamal and Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where do we know that the remainders of the ʿOmer offering are eaten? He said to him: Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: “Offering of, offering of.” Since “offering of” mentioned there is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten, so the remainders of the ʿOmer offering are eaten. Rabbi Akiva said: After they got up, Rabbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rabbi Jeremiah. He said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where do we know that the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten? Rabbi Zeira brought Rabbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil.” Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another baraita states: “Or dry.” Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rabbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose. “It shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance, remembrance.” “You shall bring,”Leviticus 2:8 to include the ʿOmer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

Mishnah

2 He gives her to drink and after that he presents her offering. Rabbi Simeon says, he sacrifices her offering and afterwards gives her to drink as it is said: “After that he shall give the water to the woman to drink.”Numbers 5:27 If he gave her to drink and after that sacrificed her offering, it is valid.

Halakhah

“He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her.” What is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink.” How does Rabbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only How do the rabbis explain Rabbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement. Rabbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rabbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out but Rabbi Simeon says, the water is what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity.” What is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “They shall come into her.” How do the rabbis explain Rabbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs. How does Rabbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time.

The rabbis say, he writes, erases, gives to drink, and sacrifices the flour offering. Rabbi Simeon says, he writes, sacrifices, erases, and gives to drink. Everybody agrees that erasing immediately precedes drinking; only that the rabbis say, he writes, erases, gives to drink, and sacrifices, while Rabbi Simeon says, he writes, sacrifices, erases, and gives to drink. It was stated: “She may always change her mind as long as her offering was not sacrificed. If her offering was sacrificed and she said I do not want to drink’ one makes her gargle and forces her to drink.” Following Rabbi Simeon. But following the rabbis she already drank. We have stated: “She did not finish drinking.” Some Tannaim state: She did not move from there. He who says, she did not finish drinking, Rabbi Simeon. He who says, she did not move from there, the rabbis.

Mishnah

3 If she said “I shall not drink” before the scroll was erased, her scroll is put away and her offering dispersed on the ashes. Her scroll is not acceptable to be used to make another suspected wife drink. If she said “I am impure” after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed on the ashes. If she said “I shall not drink” after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.

Halakhah

“Before the scroll was erased,” etc. It was stated: Her scroll is put away under the hinges of a gate of the Temple hall. Why? In order to shred it. A small hollow space was where the water was poured out. It was stated: There is no holiness in it. May it be used to moisten mortar? What should be wrong? It is poured out! It was stated: There is holiness in it.

“If she said ‘I am impure’ after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed over the ashes.” This proves that the suspected wife’s offering is holy before the scroll is written. Rabbi Yose said, there is more: Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, her offering is holy once she is on her way. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, our Mishnah states this: “Or if her husband had sexual relations with her on the road.”

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? Rabbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rabbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rabbi Akiva said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! But Rabbi Akiva must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you.” But does Rabbi Akiva not agree that “one makes her gargle until her face turned yellow and forces her to drink against her will”? He does, if she started to drink.

Mishnah

4 She does not finish drinking before her face becomes yellow, her eyes protrude, and her veins swell. She is taken outside so that she does not pollute the temple courtyard. If she has merit, it suspends. There is merit which suspends for one year, there is merit which suspends for two years, there is merit which suspends for three years. From this, Ben Azai concluded that one is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that when she needs to drink, she will know that the merit will assist her. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her debauchery. Rabbi Joshua said: a woman prefers one qab and frivolity to nine qabim and abstinence. He used to say: a foolish pious man, a sly wicked man, a predatory woman, and hits by the predatory, these are the ones who ruin the world.

Halakhah

“She does not finish drinking,” etc. But did we not think to say “All of them, not part only”? It is as if somebody said, X did not finish drinking when he started shaking.

“There is merit which suspends for one year, there is merit which suspends for two years, there is merit which suspends for three years.” “There is merit which suspends for one year,” from Nebuchadnezzar: “At the end of twelve months.”Daniel 4:26 “There is merit which suspends for two years,” from Amnon: “It was after two years.”2 Samuel 13:23 “There is merit which suspends for three years,” from Ahab: “They sat for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.”1 Kings 22:1 Rabbi Yose said, it was said that the entire twelve months he occupied himself with deeds of charity. And all these two years he occupied himself with Torah. That is what it says: “They were in a Yeshiva for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.”

“An offering of remembrance,” a general statement; “referring to sin,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a specific one, the general does not mean more than the specific. If you say so, do you not find the argument disadvantaged? If punishment, which is given out sparingly, can refer, then reward, which is given out in abundance, should do so much more! But, “an offering of remembrance,” if she has merit, “referring to sin,” if she has no merit. It was stated: Rabbi Tarfon said, all statements of “remembrance” in the Torah have a good meaning except this one which is for punishment. Rabbi Akiva said to him: If it only said, “referring to sin,” and then was silent, I would agree with your statement. But since it says “an offering of remembrance,” this must be for a good purpose.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi 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. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rabbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate.

Ben Azai does not follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rabbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rabbi Joshua in Beqiin. He asked them, what was new today in the House of Study? They said to him, we all are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them, even so, it is impossible that there not be a new idea every day in the House of Study. Who stayed there over the Sabbath? They said to him, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? “Assemble the people, men, women, and children.”Deuteronomy 31:12 What did he say about this? Since the men come to learn and the women to hear, why do the children come? It must be to give a reward to those who bring them. He said to them, the generation is not orphaned which counts Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them.

A lady asked Rabbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death? He said to her, the wisdom of a woman is only in her spinning rod, as is written: “All wise women span with their hands.”Exodus 35:25 His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year. He answered him: May the words of the Torah be burned and not be delivered to women! After she had left, his students said to him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a stick, what do you explain to us? Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife. Anybody against whom there were neither witnesses nor warning died from a plague. Rav and Levi bar Sissi both say: One who sacrificed, burned, and poured out a libation was executed in court. He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague.

Who is a foolish pious man? He saw a baby struggling in a river. He said, after I take off my phylacteries, I shall save him. By the time he takes off his phylacteries, that one is dead. He saw a prime fig and said, I shall give it to the first person I shall meet. He saw a preliminarily married girl and ran after her. That is what we have stated: “If somebody pursues another to kill him, after a male, or after a preliminarily married girl.”

“A sly wicked man.” Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take on himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The fool walks in darkness.’ The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: “Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

A predatory woman. That is one who sits and makes fun of the words of the Torah: “She said, you shall come to me... and he slept with her that night.”Genesis 30:16 Rabbi Abbahu said, one could think that this was the divine intention. He only knew that she was doing this only to produce more tribes.

“Hits by the predatory.” That is the one who counsels the orphans to hide support from the widow. As the following: Rabbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. The orphans came before Rabbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; you are stupid. Some scribe came out and said to them: I shall tell you what he said: Behave as if you would sell and she will demand her ketubah and lose her support. In the evening she came before Rabbi Eleazar. He said, this one was hit by the predatory. It should come over me if I had intended that.

A student of Rabbi had 199 denar; Rabbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive as usual, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he Rabbi let him receive as he was used to do.

They added to these a fasting virgin, a neighborly widow, and a child outgrowing his months. A fasting virgin; she pretends to have lost her hymen by fasting. A neighborly widow, by running around she spreads bad reputations. A child outgrowing his months: Rabbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rabbi Simon. That is one who is more advanced in his studies than usual for his age and he denigrates those older than him. Rabbi Yose said, that is one nine-years-old who looks like a twelve-years-old. He sleeps with any of the incest prohibitions in the Torah and they are executed because of him but he is free from prosecution.

Mishnah

5 Rabbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water. If you say that merit suspends in the case of the curse water, you weaken the water in the eyes of all women who drink it and you smear the reputation of the pure women who drank because one would say that they are impure but that merit suspended for them. Rabbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water, but she does not have children, does not get better, but degenerates and in the end she dies that death.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water,” etc. “Rabbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water,” etc. Rav Hamnuna said, the degenerating woman is permitted to her house. This parallels what was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even a pure woman who drank will in the end die in great pain because she brought herself into that great doubt.

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,”Numbers 5:28 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? Rabbi 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. Rabbi 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.

Mishnah

6 If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed. After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned. The flour offerings are burned in the following cases: One who says, I am impure for you, or that witnesses declared that she was impure; one who refuses to drink, or whose husband does not want to let her drink, or whose husband slept with her on the road. In addition, the flour offerings of women married to priests are burned.

Halakhah

“If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel,” etc. It was stated: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed; after it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned.

“One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea. It is compared to a hung reparation offering. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel! Rabbi Mattaniah said, it is compared to a hung reparation offering that was slaughtered, as we stated there: “If it became clear to him after it was slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the meat has to be taken out to the burning place.”

It was stated: If her offering became impure before the fistful was sacrificed; if she died or her husband died, the rest is forbidden because it was brought from the start to resolve a doubt. Her doubt was atoned for and went away. If there came witnesses declaring that she was impure, in any case her offering is forbidden. What means “in any case”? Whether the fistful was taken or not, whether it was sacrificed or not. Rabbi Hila said, whether the fistful was taken or not as long as it was not sacrificed, but if it was sacrificed the rest is permitted.

We have stated there: “Rabbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a priest. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the priest’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. Rabbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a priest 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 priest. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a priest 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: Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rabbi 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. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi 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. Rabbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a priest 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 priest. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a priest 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.”

Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi accepted the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon and taught accordingly. Rabbi Abba bar priest asked before Rabbi Yose: Why Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rabbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina objected before Rabbi Mana: Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rabbi accepted the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rabbi Simeon.

Mishnah

7 The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a priest is burned, the offering of a priest’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. What is the difference between a priest and a priest’s daughter? The flour offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten, that of a priest is not eaten. A priest’s daughter is desecrated, a priest is not desecrated. A priest’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a priest may not defile himself for the dead. A priest eats most holy food a priest’s daughter may not eat most holy food.

Halakhah

“The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a priest,” etc. What is the difference between a priest and a priest’s daughter? “The flour offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten, that of a priest is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a priest shall be total, it should not be eaten”Leviticus 6:16; not the priest’s daughter’s. Rabbi Abbahu asked before Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Is it not written: “If a priest acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a priest but not ro a priest’s daughter? How is that? “The priest anointed in his stead, one of his sons”Leviticus 6:15; one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

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

“A priest’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rabbi Dosa from Malchijah, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: A priest’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the priests.” Not to the daughters of priests. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

“A priest eats most holy food, a priest’s daughter may not eat most holy food.” For it is written: “Every male among the priests shall eat it.”Leviticus 7:6

Mishnah

8 What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams. A man can make his son a nazir, no woman can make her son a nazir. A man can shave using his father’s vow of nazir, no woman can shave using her father’s vow of nazir. A man can betroth his daughter, no woman can betroth her daughter. A man can sell his daughter, no woman can sell her daughter. A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked. A man is hanged, no woman is hanged. A man is sold for his theft, no woman is sold for her theft.

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.”

“A man can make his son a nazir,” and “a man can shave.” Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Meir: In twenty-four matters are the House of Shammai lenient while the House of Hillel are restrictive and that is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot make his son a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, a man can make his son a nazir.

“A man can sell his daughter,” for it is written: “If a man sell his daughter as a handmaid.”Exodus 21:7 “A man can betroth his daughter,” as it is written: “I gave my daughter as a wife but he hated her.”Deuteronomy 22:16

“A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked.” For it is written, “you shall stone him,” not his garment. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is it not written: “You shall stone them with stones,”Deuteronomy 22:24 does that mean “them but not their garments”? How is that? A man is not greatly degraded by this, so he is stoned naked, but a woman who would be greatly degraded by it cannot be stoned naked.

“A man is hanged, no woman is hanged.” Because it is written, “one shall hang him,” not her.

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution. For his theft but not for his perjury. For his theft he is not sold twice. There is only a monetary claim on him. That means, for one theft, but for two thefts he can be sold a second time. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts? If he stole and removed things in the night, we would say that if the owners realized the loss in the meantime, there are two thefts; otherwise, it is one theft.

Mishnah

1 A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law neither drinks nor collects her ketubah, since it is said: “. who will deviate from under her husband,”Numbers 5:29 which excludes a preliminarily married woman and one who waits for her brother-in-law. A widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one who received ḥaliṣah to a common priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness to an Israel, or an Israel woman married to a bastard or a Gibeonite, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah.

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 priest.” 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,”Leviticus 5:14 even if she is only partially his wife.

Does our Mishnah follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “she takes her ketubah but does not drink”? Rabbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is that she may say, bring me my husband, then I shall drink. But here, she knew that the preliminarily married cannot drink; why did she bring herself into that great doubt? In order to disqualify herself from receiving her ketubah.

Rabbi Judah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,”Leviticus 5:14 even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah. If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of the first husband’s declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

There, we have stated: “A she-ram, an old woman, or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,”Numbers 5:28 this refers to one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow married to the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed? There is a difference, since it is written: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.”Leviticus 21:15 There, we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rabbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place.

Mishnah

2 The following cannot drink or collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you, or one for whom came witnesses declaring her to be impure; one who says “I will not drink.” But one whose husband refuses to make her drink, or whose husband copulated with her on the road, collects her ketubah but does not drink. About those whose husbands died before she would drink, the House of Shammai say, they collect the ketubah but do not drink, but the House of Hillel say, they neither drink not collect the ketubah.

Halakhah

“The following cannot drink or collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you,” etc. Rabbi Joshia said, Zeira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the rebellious son, and the rebellious Elder, etc.

Mishnah

3 A woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s child may neither drink nor collect her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. A she-ram, an old woman, or a sterile one, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah; Rabbi Eleazar says, he may marry another wife and be fruitful and multiply with her. All other women either drink or cannot collect their ketubah.

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.”Proverbs 23:10 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 Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later. Does Rabbi Meir always fine people? Let us hear from the following: “The underage woman who performed ḥaliṣah should repeat ḥaliṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥaliṣah is valid.” Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Isaac the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya the scribe in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is Rabbi Meir who said that one does not perform ḥaliṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram.

It was stated: “A nursing woman whose husband died should not remarry until 24 months later, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, eighteen months. Rabbi Jonathan ben Yose says, the House of Shammai say 24 months, but the House of Hillel say eighteen months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, following him who said 24 months, she is permitted to remarry after 21 months; following him who said eighteen months, she is permitted to remarry after fifteen months, since the milk terminates only after three months.”

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Aqabiah asked Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish who instructed him: 24 months. Rabbi Jeremiah: Aqabiah asked Rabbi Ḥanina who instructed him: 24 months. How? Two cases were there, one in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina and one in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. Rabbi Mana instructed: eighteen months, and fasted that entire day. Rabbi Mar Uqba instructed in Arbela: 24 months, even if the baby had died.

The Sages agree with Rabbi Eleazar that if he had another wife and children, she drinks and collects her ketubah. If he had another wife and children but they died between the declaration of jealousy and her secret rendezvous, she already was eligible to drink. If he did not have another wife and children but they died between the declaration of jealousy and her secret rendezvous, she already was barred from drinking.

Mishnah

4 A priest’s wife drinks and is permitted to her husband; the wife of a eunuch drinks. One may declare one’s jealousy with respect to any incest-‘prohibited person, except for a minor and a non-man.

Halakhah

“A priest’s wife drinks,” etc. Otherwise, what could we say? She drank and the water had no influence on her; she is pure! I could say, merit suspended for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rabbi Isaac said, really we deal with the case that she drank and the water had no influence on her; that you should not say since the water has no influence on a rape victim, but only on a seduced woman, this one is a rape victim. But a rape victim in the priesthood is like a willing one for an Israel, therefore it is necessary to say that she is permitted to her house. From where that rape disables a married woman in the priesthood? Since in matters of crawling things, which are a trifling matter, He made forced impurity equal to intentional impurity, in the weighty matter of the deviant not so much more? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi stated before Rabbi Jonathan: “If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,” that excludes rape. How do you understand this? He said to him, just as “under your husband” is by consent, so “if you became defiled” is by consent. “She was not raped,” she is forbidden. Therefore, if she was raped, she is permitted. But there is a rape victim which is forbidden for an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started by consent and ended up raped. And there is one who is not a rape victim which is permitted to an Israel. Who is that? That is one who started as a rape victim and ended up consenting. Like that woman who came to Rabbi Joḥanan and said to him, I was raped. He said to her, but was it not sweet to you in the end? She said to him, if a person dips a finger into honey and puts it into his mouth on the Day of Atonement, does he not feel bad about it and at the end it is sweet? He accepted her.

“If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,”Numbers 5:20 that excludes a castrate’s wife. “And a man ejaculated into you,” that includes a castrate. “Except for a minor and a non-man,” e.g., an ape.

Mishnah

5 For the following the court will declare jealousy: One whose husband had become a deaf-mute, or insane, or was confined in a jail; not to make her drink but to make her ineligible for her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says, also to make her drink: When her husband will be freed from jail he should make her drink.

Halakhah

“For the following the court will declare jealousy,” etc. “The children of Israel.”

Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest.” 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,”Numbers 5:14 even if she is only partially his wife.

From where that the intercourse of a disabled disables? What are we talking about? If about a married woman, there is a serious offense. If about a widow married to the High Priest, it already is written “The man shall bring his wife to the priest.” What is equal between them is: Everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified. These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israel, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rabbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.”

Mishnah

1 Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come.” Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son. Rabbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour.

Halakhah

“Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came.” Some Tannaim stated “they will come, they will come.” He who said “they came, they came” is Rabbi Akiva, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rabbi Ishmael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure,” some Tannaim stated “and she became impure, and she became impure.” He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rabbi Akiva, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rabbi Ishmael.

It was stated, בוא ובה. Is that written? It follows what Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.

“The spell acting.” Rabbi Tanḥuma said, what is the count of “the spell acting”? It corresponds to the 248 parts of her body and the 248 parts of his body.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after intercourse with her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another man, she is checked out. But when he makes her drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes her drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. If the water checked her out but not him, I would say that merit suspends for him. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.”Leviticus 18:20 It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Mishnah

2 On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.”Leviticus 11:33 It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary. Rabbi 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 look, your student Akiva supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

Halakhah

“On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rabbi Akiva referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rabbi Akiva referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared for impurity by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands whose impurity is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from the impurity of a broken field. Rabbi Zeira said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure.”Leviticus 11:32 Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree of impurity for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rabbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

Rabbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is permitted to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rabbi Akiva? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: Even following Rabbi Akiva. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is permitted to turn it into heave but forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rabbi Samuel ben Rabbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rabbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rabbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rabbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

There, they say, because Rabbi Joshua praised Rabbi Akiva, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Maisha, in the name of Rabbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary impurity for tithes, even according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yudan in the name of Rabbi Hilai: Even according to Rabbi Akiva one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rabbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Immi, said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rabbi Yose said, even its primary impurity is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.”Deuteronomy 26:14 Rabbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, whose impurity is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, whose impurity is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rabbi Ḥanina objected before Rabbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rabbi Ḥanina said before Rabbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure,” “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rabbi Akiva?

There, they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.”Haggai 2:12 The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The priests answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead and touched these. Would it be impure? “The priests answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree impurity for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure”Haggai 2:14? That is what Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar.

Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: They were expert in pushings but not expert in slight impurities. “Assume a man carries holy meat,”Haggai 2:12 he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The priests answered, and said: No”; they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity. “The priests answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity.

Rabbi Tanḥuma, Rabbi Phineas, in the name of Rabbi Levi: He asked them about the fifth degree of sanctified food. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.”Haggai 2:12 The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup third, wine and oil fourth, and the food of the fifth degree. Does there exist fifth degree impurity for sanctified food? “The priests answered, and said: No.” They did answer correctly, since there is no fifth degree impurity for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite under the altar.

It was stated: “Rabbi 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.” Rabbi 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. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rabbi Akiva. Just as Rabbi Akiva says “it will be impure,” it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rabbi Yose says “it will be impure,” it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rabbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rabbi 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 end stage 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 Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure,”Leviticus 7:19 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

3 On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained: “You shall measure outside the city 2000 cubits to the East,”Numbers 35:5 but in another verse it says “outside the city wall, one thousand cubits all around.”Numbers 35:4 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. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, said: 1000 cubits open space and two thousand fields and vineyards.

Halakhah

On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained: “You shall measure outside the city,” etc. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, said, 2000 cubits the domain of the levitic cities. Deduct from them 1000 cubits open space, there results one quarter open space and the remainder fields. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: A quarter of 1000. Rabbi Isaac said, even if you say a quarter from every side, it is a quarter. He who wants to make a square from four amphoras needs sixteen. Rabbi Mana estimated it from a brick, Rabbi Abin estimated it from a strip, Rabbi Oshaiah estimated it from a dish. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, 50 by 50 form a bet seʾah; 100 by 100 are four bet seʾah. As it happened to the Resh Galuta when it was imposed on him to fill a hall of 40 by 40 cubits with wheat. He came to Rav Huna who said to him, negotiate that they should take from you 20 by 20 now and 20 by 20 later; you will earn half.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the levitic cities nor from the distance for breaking the neck in the wadi. This is acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

From where that one does not bury in a levitic city? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “Their open spaces shall be for their animals, their property, and their lives.”Numbers 35:3 They were given for their animals and their lives; the were not given for burial.

Mishnah

4 On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained: “ Then would Moses and the Children of Israel sing the following song to the Eternal to tell.” The verse should not have said “to tell”; why does the verse say “to tell”? It was that Israel were repeating after Moses every word, as one reads the Hallel: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high”; therefore “saying” was said. Rabbi Neḥemiah said, they were reciting it as one recites the Shema, not as one reads the Hallel.

Halakhah

On the same day, Rabbi Akiva explained: “Then would Moses sing,” etc. Like a minor who recites the Hallel in school and all repeat every word after him. Moses said, “I shall sing,” and they repeat after him: “I shall sing.” Moses said: “Strength,” and they say: “Strength.” Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean said, like an adult who recites the Hallel in the synagogue, and they repeat the first word. Moses said, “I shall sing,” and they repeat: “I shall sing.” Moses said: “My strength,” and they repeat after him: “I shall sing.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, when our ancestors were in the sea, the toddler was resting on his mother’s knees and the baby was suckling from his mother’s breast; but when they saw the Divine Glory, the toddler lifted his head from his mother’s knees and the baby took away his mouth from his mother’s breast; they opened their mouths in song and praise and said, “that is my God and I shall declare Him Beautiful.” Rabbi Meir said, even the fetuses were saying a song from their mothers’ wombs, as it is said: “ In choirs praise God, the Eternal from the source of Israel.” Rabbi Nehemiah said, when our ancestors rose from the sea they saw the corpses of the sinners who had subjected them to hard, forced labor, all of them dead corpses thrown on the sea shore. They wanted to sing and the holy spirit rested on them. Even the most insignificant in Israel sang the song just as Moses did. That is what is written: “ He remembered the days of old, Moses, his people; where is He Who raised them from the sea?” It is not written “the sheep’s shepherd” but “His sheep’s shepherd”; this teaches that He turned all of them into shepherds.

Why does the verse say, “to tell”? To tell to future generations. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina, the entire verse. Moses said, “I shall sing,” and they recite after his lead: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high; horse and rider He cast into the sea.” Moses said: “strength and growth,” and they recite after his lead: “strength and growth is Yah.” It is written: “When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteers”Judges 5:2; the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption. They objected. There is redemption of Mordecai and Esther! That is something else since they were outside the Land; some want to say that Mordecai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from Gentile government.

Mishnah

5 On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrkanos explained that Job served the Holy One, praise to Him, only out of love, as it is said: “Even if He will kill me, to Him I pray.”Job 13:15 But the matter is still in suspense, “to Him I look forward” or “I do not look forward to Him.” The verse says, “until I die I shall not remove my innocence from me,” this teaches that he did it out of love.

Halakhah

“On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrkanos explained,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: “God lives Who removed my lawsuit, and the Ruler made me bitter”; for nobody swears by the King’s life unless he loves Him. They said in the name of Rabbi Nathan: “Also He is my help, for insincerity will not come before Him.”Job 13:16

One verse says, “you shall love the Eternal, your God,”Deuteronomy 6:5 and another verse says, “fear the Eternal, your God, and Him you should serve.”Deuteronomy 6:13 Act from love and act from fear. Act from love, because if you are tempted to hate, know that you must love and a lover is no hater. Act from fear, because if you are tempted to rebel, know that you must fear and one who fears does not rebel.

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds on his shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment. Religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” I committed that sin and therefore I shall do this good deed to counteract it. Religious from fear, like Job. Religious from love, like Abraham. No one is beloved as much as the religious from love, like Abraham.

Our forefather Abraham turned the evil instincts into good ones. What is the reason?: “You found his heart trustworthy before You.”Nehemiah 9:8 Rabbi Aḥa said, he compromised, from “concluding a covenant with him.” But David could not stand it and killed it in his heart. What is the reason? “But my heart is slain in me.”Psalms 109:22

Rabbi Akiva was tortured before the evil Tineius Rufus. There came the time for reciting the Shema. He started to read and laughed. He said to him: Old man, you are either a sorcerer or one contemptuous of suffering. He said to him: The spirit of this man should be blown away; I am neither a sorcerer nor contemptuous of sufferings. But all my life I read this verse: “You must love the Eternal, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your force.”Deuteronomy 6:5 I loved Him with all my heart. I loved Him with all my money. But whether with all my soul I could not test. But now, when “with all your soul” came, the time of reciting the Shema has arrived and my mind has not wavered, therefore I am reciting and laughing.

Neḥemiah from Emmaus served Rabbi Akiva for 22 years and he taught him “את and גם mean additions, אך and רק mean exclusions.” He asked him: What means that which is written “את the Eternal, your God, you must fear.”Deuteronomy 6:13 He said to him, Him and His Torah.

Mishnah

6 Rabbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since all your days you explained that Job served the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it was said: “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil”Job 1:1; but look, Joshua, your student’s student deduced that he did it out of love!

Halakhah

“Rabbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. When was Job? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “ A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “ Oz his firstborn.” Rabbi Abba said, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “ You speak like one of the impious ones,” and it is written: “ For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rabbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “ What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him. That is what is written: “ He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me among evildoers.” Rabbi Ishmael stated: Job was one of Pharaoh’s servants, a great one in his government’. That is what is written: “ One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.,” and it is written about him, “ a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil.” Rabbi Yose bar Judah says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Look, you have all seen, why do you turn all into vapor.” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors.” Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them.” Rabbi Nathan said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.”Job 1:17 Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, he was in the days of Ahasuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king.” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rabbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew. Therefore Rabbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat”Job 1:20; Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: From here one learns that a mourner has to tear his garment while standing. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish is inconsistent: There, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had happened to him, he would have withstood it.

Rabbi Akiva explained: “Elihu Ben Barachel the Buzite from the family Ram got angry.”Job 32:2 Elihu that is Balaam. Ben Barachel, who came to curse Israel but blessed them. The Buzite, whose prophecy was degraded, “who falls down open-eyed.”Numbers 24:4 From the family Ram, “from Aram did Balak lead me.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, if he is he, then the Omnipresent already covered it up. If he is not he, in the future world he will argue with you. But Elihu that is Isaac. Ben Barachel, the son whom God blessed, as it was said: “The Eternal had blessed him.” The Buzite, who degraded all temples of foreign worship at the moment he was bound on the altar. From the family Ram, the son of Abram.

Moses wrote the five books of the Torah and added the chapters about Balak and Balaam. He also wrote the book of Job.

“A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil.” Rabbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, he was conciliatory. Rabbi Zeira said to him, is a person who is not conciliatory not acceptable? But he was conciliatory even if cursed.

Mishnah

1 If somebody declared his jealousy to his wife and she went to a secluded place, even if he heard about it from a bird flying by he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says, from the moment she is the subject of talk of women spinning by moonlight.

Halakhah

“If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This entire chapter deals with the case that he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Yasa: Not that Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Mana: Rabbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rabbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rabbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rabbi Abba Mari asked: There, Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rabbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?

We have stated: carders. Some Tannaim state: spinners. He who said carders, they card wool. He who said spinners, they spin flax.

Where do we hold? If about him who heard and did not know from whom he heard, it is like a bird flying by. If about him who heard and knew from whom he heard, it is a witness reporting the words of another witness. But here we deal with the case that X heard from Y and Y from Z; a word without foundation.

Mishnah

2 If a single witness said “I saw her when she became impure,” she could not drink. Not only that, but even a slave or a slave-girl are believed to cause her to lose her ketubah. Her mother-in-law, the mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter are trustworthy. They said this not to make her lose her ketubah but that she could not drink.

Halakhah

“If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure,’” etc. “And there is no witness against her”Numbers 5:13; not only a witness of good standing, from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her,” any one. And following Rabbi Ishmael? As Rabbi Ishmael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness,” in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rabbi Ishmael says two witnesses.

Was our Mishnah formulated after Rabbi Akiva agreed with Rabbi Tarfon? As it was stated: Rabbi Tarfon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure but not to let her lose her ketubah. Rabbi Akiva says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters? Rabbi Akiva answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rabbi Akiva changed his mind and taught following Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure,” you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure,” about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness! Rabbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure,” you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure,” about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness!

From what Rabbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rabbi Judah is saying: “X is a nazir, he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rabbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a priest and whored; her husband, a priest, then had relations with her but I had warned him”; he is not whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the priest, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

Mishnah

3 It would have been logical: Since the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two witnesses, the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by witnesses. The verse says: “There is no witness about her,” any kind of testimony about her. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,”Deuteronomy 24:1 and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.”Deuteronomy 19:15

Halakhah

“It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,” etc. The first testimony is about being in a secluded place; the last testimony is about impurity. The Mishnah follows Rabbi Joshua, since Rabbi Joshua says, “he declares his jealousy and warns her by the testimony of two witnesses, and makes her drink by the testimony of two witnesses.” Rabbi Mana said, it even follows the Tanna, about whom was stated: “Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: He declares his jealousy before one witness or by himself, but makes her drink by the testimony of two witnesses.”

Mishnah

4 If one witness says, she became impure, but another witness says, she did not become impure, or one woman says, she became impure, but another woman says, she did not become impure, she would drink. If one witness says, she became impure, but two witnesses say, she did not become impure, she did drink. If two witnesses say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.

Halakhah

“There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rabbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one male witness, they are like one witness.

Rav Ada bar Aḥawah said, a single witness is believed to declare her impure, but a single witness is not believed to make her lose her ketubah. Rav Ḥisda said, why did they say that a single witness is believed to declare her impure? Because the thing has feet to stand on.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one witness says, she became impure, but two witnesses say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two witnesses say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rabbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan. “If two witnesses say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one witness says, she became impure, but two witnesses say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rabbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rabbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendezvous. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendezvous”? He said to him, so says Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This entire chapter deals with the case that he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two witnesses. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there is testimony about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there is testimony about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three witnesses. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there is testimony about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three witnesses. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rabbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Mishnah

1 The following are recited in the vernacular: The verses of the suspect wife, and the declaration of tithes, and the recitation of the Shema, and prayer, and grace, and the oath of a witness, and the oath about a deposit.

Halakhah

“The following are recited,” etc. It is written: “The priest shall tell the woman,”Numbers 5:21 in any language she understands, the words of Rabbi Joshia. Rabbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon: We do not find that the Omnipresent talked to a woman, except only to Sarah. But is there not written: “To the woman He said: I shall increase,”Genesis 3:16 etc.? Rabbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanin said, through an interpreter. But is there not written: “The Eternal said to her, two peoples are in your womb”Genesis 25:23? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, the Word fell to her. Rabbi Biri said, how many weaver’s shuttles! The Holy One, praise to Him, desires to hear the talk of the just women: “He said no, but you laughed.”

The declaration of tithes, as it is written: “You should declare and say.”

“And the recitation of the Shema.” For it is written: “You shall talk about them.”Deuteronomy 6:7 Rabbi says, I say that the Shema is recited only in the holy language. What is the reason? “The words shall be.” Rabbi Levi bar Ḥaita went to Caesarea. He heard their voices when they were reading the Shema in Hellenistic manner. He wanted to hinder them, but Rabbi Yose heard of it and was offended. He said, do I say that someone who does not know to read Assyrian letters should not recite it at all? But he fulfills his duty in any language he knows. Rabbi Berekhiah objected: But there is the Esther scroll, where somebody who knows to read both Assyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script. Rabbi Mana said: About the Esther scroll, somebody who knows to read both Assyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script; Greek only, he fulfills his obligation in Greek; and so he can fulfill his obligation in any language he understands.

“And prayer,” that one should know how to ask according to his needs. “And grace,” that one should know to Whom he gives praise.

“And the oath of a witness and the oath about a deposit.” One makes him swear in his own language. If one made them swear not in their language and they said “Amen,” they are not prosecutable. As we have stated: The oath before the judges is according to our understanding, not according to your understanding. Rabbi Yudan said, it is to be assumed that he makes them swear according to his understanding. Why does he have to spell out this condition to him? Because of the uneducated, so that they would not say that there may be mental reservations for oaths. Rabbi Ḥanania stated before Rabbi Mana: Is there not written: “But with everybody who stands here with us today”Deuteronomy 29:14? He said to him, the future generations do not have mental reservations.

Mishnah

2 But the following must be said in the holy language: The recitation for the first fruits, ḥaliṣah, blessings and curses, the priestly blessing, the benedictions of the High Priest, the portion about the king, the portion about the calf whose neck was broken, the priest anointed for war at the time he speaks to the people. The recitation for the first fruits, how? “You shall begin and say before the Eternal, your God”Deuteronomy 26:5 but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice.” Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language. Ḥaliṣah how? “She shall begin and say: So shall be done to the man”Deuteronomy 25:9 but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice.” Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language. Rabbi Judah says, “She shall begin and say so,” it is invalid unless she says exactly that text.

Halakhah

It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: Any place where it was said in any of these expressions: you begin and say, thus, and thus, it means in the holy language. Rabbi Eleazar said, the defining paradigm for all is: “Moses would speak and God would answer him by voice.” Rabbi Ḥaggai objected, is there not written, “Laban and Bethuel began,” if you say because of “beginning” only, is there not written “and said”? If you want to say, by “saying” only, is there not written “from the Eternal came the word”? If you want to say, in the holy language, is there not written “the stone heap of testimony”Genesis 31:47? If you want to say, before the Torah was given, is there not the text of the declaration of tithes which may be recited in any language?

Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Syriac language should not be unimportant in your eyes, for it is mentioned in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographs. In the Torah, it is written: “Laban called it the heap of testimony.” In Prophets, it is written: “So you shall say to them.”Jeremiah 10:11 In Hagiographs, it is written: “The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic.”Daniel 2:4 Rabbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin said, four languages are good for use: The foreign language for song, Latin for war, Syriac for elegies, Hebrew for speech. Some people say, also Assyrian for writing. Assyrian has a script but no language, Hebrew has a language but no script. They chose for them Assyrian script and Hebrew language. Why is its name called אֲשׁוּרִי? Because one is made happy in writing it. Rabbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria.

It is written: “The Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice,”Deuteronomy 27:14 this teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, associated His voice to theirs. Another explanation, “the best of voices.” Rabbi Isaac said, not low, not high, but moderate.

Mishnah

3 Blessings and curses, how? When Israel had crossed the Jordan they came to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal in Samaria, next to Sichem which is close to the terebinths of guidance, as it is said: “They are on the other side of the Jordan, etc.,”Deuteronomy 11:30 and at another place it says: “Abram traveled through the Land up to the place of Sichem, up to the terebinth of guidance.”Genesis 12:6 Since the terebinth of guidance mentioned there is at Sichem so the terebinths of guidance mentioned here are at Sichem.

Halakhah

“ They are on the other side of the Jordan,” away from the Jordan. “Far away from the road toward the sun’s coming,” the place from where the sun shines. “In the Land of the Canaanite who dwells in the prairie, opposite Gilgal, near the terebinths of guidance.” That refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal among the Samaritans, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Eleazar said, this does not refer to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal of the Samaritans. “They are on the other side of the Jordan,” by the Jordan. “To the West, on the road to sunset,” a place where the sun goes down. “In the Land of the Canaanite,” but there is the Hivite. “Who dwells in the prairie,” but there it is in the mountains. “Opposite Gilgal,” Gilgal is nowhere there. “Near the terebinths of guidance.” The terebinths of guidance are not there. How does Rabbi Eleazar uphold “Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal”? They made two elevations and called them Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In the opinion of Rabbi Judah, they walked 120 mil on that day. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, they did not move at all.

It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the verse comes only to prepare the road for them and say that they should walk on the road, not in fields, in inhabited regions, not in the desert, in the valley, not in the mountains.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said: I told the Samaritan scribes: You falsified your Torah and did not gain anything, because you cause to be written in your Torah “near the terebinths of guidance, Sichem.” Is it not known that this is Sichem? It is only because you do not explain by “equal cut,” but we explain by “equal cut.” It is written here, “the terebinths of guidance,” and it is said there, “the terebinths of guidance.” Since “the terebinths of guidance” there are at Sichem, also “the terebinths of guidance” here are at Sichem; and following Rabbi Ishmael. For Rabbi Ishmael said, any “comings” which were said in the Torah refer to after fourteen years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they distributed. Therefore, blessings and curses were recited only after fourteen years. Rabbi Ḥanania objected before Rabbi Mana: Is it not written, “It shall be when you cross the Jordan you shall erect these stones”? He said to him, they erected the stones immediately but blessings and curses were said only after fourteen years.

Mishnah

4 Six tribes climbed to the top of Mount Gerizim and six tribes climbed to the top of Mount Ebal while the priests, the Levites, and the ark were below in the middle. The priests were surrounding the ark, the Levites the priests, and all of Israel were on both sides, as it was said: “And all of Israel, its Elders, its policemen, its judges were standing on both sides of the ark...”Joshua 8:33 They turned their faces toward Mount Gerizim and opened with the blessing: “Blessed be the man who will not make a hewn or molten image, the Eternal’s abomination, made by an artisan, and will not put it up in secret.” These and those did answer and say: Amen. They turned their faces toward Mount Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image, the Eternal’s abomination, made by an artisan, and would put it up in secret.”Deuteronomy 27:15 These and those did answer and say: Amen, until they finished blessings and curses.

Halakhah

It was stated: Rabbi says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down. It is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, the Elders of the Levites and the priests are down and the rest of the tribe are up. Rabbi Simeon says, it is impossible to say that Levi is up because it already was said that Levi is down and it is impossible to say that Levi is down because it already was said that Levi is up. From this you say, anyone able to serve is down and the rest of the tribe is up. Rabbi Simeon says, “Simeon and Levi,” since all of Simeon are up, also all of Levi are up. How do I confirm “in face of the priests, the Levites”? As Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, in 24 places are priests called Levites and this is one of them: “The priests Levites, the descendants of Ṣadoq.”Ezekiel 44:15

One could think that those on Mount Gerizim did recite the blessings and those on Mount Ebal did recite the curses, the verse says “the blessings and the curses”; both were saying blessings and curses. One could think that after they had recited the blessings they were reciting the curses, the verse says “the blessing and the curse,” one blessing and one curse. One could think that those on Mount Gerizim did answer “Amen” after the blessings and those on Mount Ebal did answer “Amen” after the curses, the verse says the entire people will answer and say “Amen”; these and those did answer “Amen” after the blessings and after the curses. How is that? When they were reciting the blessings they were turning their faces toward Mount Gerizim; when they were reciting the curses they were turning their faces toward Mount Ebal.

Blessed in general and blessed in particular; cursed in general and cursed in particular. Sixteen covenants on every detail, to study, to teach, to keep, and to do; and the same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab. Rabbi Simeon does exclude that of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and instead includes that of the Tent of Meeting. Also Rabbi Simeon did say, there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 576 covenants were concluded. Twelve in blessing, twelve in cursing. Twelve in general, twelve in detail. That makes 48 covenants. To study, to teach, to keep, and to do, that makes 192 covenants. The same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab, that makes 576 covenants. Rabbi Simeon ben Judah from the village of Emmaus says in the name of Rabbi Simeon: 603,550. Rabbi says, if one follows the words of Rabbi Simeon ben Judah from the village of Emmaus who said in the name of Rabbi Simeon, then there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 48 times 603,550 covenants were concluded.

So far subjects which were stated in general and in detail. Subjects which were stated in general but not in detail? He said to him: So says Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon. Anything which was in a set and left the set to teach, not to teach only about itself did it leave but to teach about the entire set. He said to him: Is that not about a single subject? Perhaps for two subjects? And here, we deal with two different subjects. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, since at the end is written “Amen,” it is as if everything were one subject.

It is written: “Cursed be he who would not raise all the words of this Torah.” Can the Torah fall down? Simeon ben Yaqim says, that is the ḥazzan who stands. Rabbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta says, that is the earthly house, as Rav Ḥuna, Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: Josia tore his garments about this verse and said, I have to raise.

Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum ben Rabbi Ḥiyya. If somebody studied and taught, kept and did, and it was in his power to strengthen, but he did not strengthen, that one is in the set of the cursed. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If somebody did not study, did not teach, did not keep and did not do, and it was not in his hand to strengthen but he did strengthen, that one is in the set of the blessed. And Rabbi Ḥana, Rabbi Jeremiah, said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the future world, the Holy One, praise to Him, will make shadow of those who perform commandments in the shadow of those who study Torah. What is the reason? “For in the shadow of Torah, in the shadow of money.” And it is said, “it is a tree of life for those who support it.”Proverbs 3:18

Why does the verse say: “and the half of it”? This teaches that a minority was on Mount Gerizim and a majority on Mount Ebal. Why? Because the tribe of Levi was not completely there. For if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: If the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would not have been equal. Why? Since already 24,000 had fallen at Shittim from the tribe of Simeon. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Why? Because from the tribes of Reuben and Gad only 40,000 front line troops came there.

Kahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaim state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rabbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one beam is next to the slim part of the other beam. Some Tannaim state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fullnesses,” that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rabbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rabbi Judah bar Zabida said, Joseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Joseph.”Psalms 81:6 But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rabbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rabbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names,” not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Judah is king. The last ones were written in order.

Mishnah

5 After that they brought the stones, built the altar, whitewashed it with lime, and wrote on it all the words of this Torah in seventy languages, as it is written: “well explained.” They took the stones, went and stayed in their place overnight.

Halakhah

It was stated: It was written on the stones of the dwelling place, the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Yose says, it was written on the stones of the altar. He who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, every day the peoples of the world were sending their stenographers and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. He who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, were they not only for a short time and then were hidden? That was another wonder, that the Holy One, praise to Him, gave insight to every people and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. For him who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, it is understandable that “you shall whitewash them with lime.” But he who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, how does he uphold “you shall whitewash them with lime”? Between the stones. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: “The peoples will be lime incinerators,” from the lime they took their death sentence. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “But the Gentiles will be totally destroyed,” from Horeb they took their death sentence.

You may say that there were three kinds of stones: The stones of the resting place, and the stones which Joshua put under the soles of the feet of the priests, and the steles that Moses had given them. Rabbi Ḥaninan said, it is obvious to us that there were four kinds of stones. Rabbi Simon ben Zebid said, that is correct. If you would say, they were the stones of the resting place; these were temporary and were hidden. If you would say, the stones which Joshua put under the soles of the feet of the priests; these were submerged in the water. If you would say, the steles that Moses had given them; they already had moved with them into the Land. But we must deal with the stones that Joshua put up for them on the banks of the Jordan.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah bar Ilai says: Abba Ḥalaphta, Rabbi Eleazar ben Mattia, and Ḥanina bar Ḥakhinai stood on those stones and estimated that each one on them was a load of 40 seah. From here you can estimate how big was the bunch of grapes. It is written: “Each one should lift a stone on his shoulder.”Joshua 4:5 One cannot compare one who lifts from the ground to his shoulder to one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder. One cannot compare one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder to one onto whom others hang the load. One cannot compare one onto whom others hang the load to a load carried by two. It is written: “One man per tribe.”Deuteronomy 1:23 In the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who says these are expressions of additions, there were 24, sixteen for the grape bunch and eight for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, who says there are double expressions, there were twelve, eight for the grape bunch and four for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael a beam; in the opinion of Rabbi Akiva a beam and beams of beams.

It is written: The waters descending from higher up stood like a dam, very far, from the town of Adam which is besides Zarethan. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Adam is a town and Zarethan is a town; there are twelve mil from one to the other. That teaches that the water was stacked up and rose like the citadel of Zarethan. Which one is lighter, water or man? Waters are lighter than man; you know that this is so. This teaches that the waters were stacked and increased, wave upon wave. Rabbi Levi said, up to the sky’s heart. There, they said, as far as Babylon. It says here “far,”Joshua 4:16 and it says there “they came from a very far land, from Babylon.”2 Kings 20:14 It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the waters were stacked and rose, waves on waves, for more than 300 mil until all the peoples of the world saw them. That is what is written: “It happened when all the kings of the Amorite on the other side of the Jordan, and all the Canaanite dwelling on the Sea, heard that the Eternal had dried up the waters of the river Jordan for the children of Israel until they had passed across,”Joshua 5:1 etc.

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, in the Jordan they accepted the secret matters. Joshua told them, if you do not accept the secret matters, the waters will come and sweep you away. Rabbi Simon bar Zabida said, that is correct. You should know that this is so, for Achan sinned and the majority of the Synhedrion fell at Ai. Rabbi Levi said, at Jabneh the rope was untied; there came a disembodied voice and said: You have nothing to do with secret matters.

Mishnah

6 How is the priestly blessing? In the countryside they recited it as three blessings, but in the Temple as one blessing. In the Temple one says the Name as it is written, but in the countryside by its circumlocution. In the countryside the priests lift their hands to the height of their shoulders but in the Temple over their heads except for the High Priest who does not lift his hands over the diadem. Rabbi Judah says, the High Priest also lifts his hands over his head, as it is said: “Aaron lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them.”Leviticus 9:22 How are the blessings of the High Priest? The organizer of the synagogue takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; the president of the synagogue gives it to the Second; the Second gives it to the High Priest. The High priest receives it standing, he stands and reads “after the death”Leviticus 16:1-34 and “but on the tenth”Leviticus 23:26-32; he rolls the Torah tight, puts it in his bosom and says: More than what I read before you is written here. “And on the tenth” in Numbers he recites by heart, and recites eight benedictions: For the Torah, for the Temple service, for thanksgiving, for forgiveness of sins, for the Temple, for Israel, for the priests, and the remainder of the prayer.

Halakhah

Rav Ḥisda said, they had great difficulty; elsewhere you say that one goes to the Torah, and here you say, one brings the Torah to him? But because they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora over there? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, since the seed of David is immersed there one treats him in the ancestral way.

There, we have stated: “One winds in Prophets but one does not wind in the Pentateuch.” One winds in one prophet, but not from one prophet to another, but among prophets of the Twelve it is permitted. But one does not wind in the Pentateuch; Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Because one does not wind the Torah in public. Rabbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small portion? But that Israel should hear it in its order. But did we not state: “He reads ‘after the death’ and ‘but on the tenth’ ”? It is different here, because that is the order of the day. Know that it is so since Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, one does not recite by heart, and here he recites by heart. Rabbi Yose commanded Bar Ulla, the organizer of the congregation of Babylonians: When the Torah has been brought back, wind it behind the curtain. If there are two, return one and bring the other.

He recites eight benedictions: For the Torah, “He who chooses the Torah.” For the Temple service, “For You alone in fear we worship.” For thanksgiving, “the Good One, You one must thank.” For forgiveness of sins, “He Who forgives the sins of His people Israel in mercy.” For the Temple, “He Who chooses the Temple”; and Rabbi Idi said, “He Who dwells in Zion.” For Israel, “He Who chooses Israel.” For the priests, “He Who chooses the priests.” And the remainder of the prayer, “entreaty and begging, for Your people Israel need to be helped before You; Praise to You, Eternal, Who hears prayer.”

Mishnah

7 How does the reading of the king proceed? At the end of the last day of Tabernacles, on the eighth, at the end of the Sabbatical year, one makes a wooden platform for him and he sits on it, as it is said: “At the end of seven years, at the assembly of the Sabbatical years at the festival of Tabernacles, when all of Israel appears.”Deuteronomy 31:10-11 The organizer of the synagogue takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; the president of the synagogue gives it to the Second; the Second gives it to the High Priest, the High Priest gives it to the king. The king stands to receive it, he reads sitting down. King Agrippas stood to receive, he read while standing, and the Sages praised him. When he reached “you cannot put over yourselves a strange man who is not your brother,” tears flowed from his eyes. They said to him, do not fear Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother.

Halakhah

Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: Nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the Davidic dynasty, and Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard! Explain it, that he was leaning on the wall in a kind of sitting. But is it not written: “King David came and sat before the Eternal”2 Samuel 7:18? Rabbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated on his prayer. There, we have stated: The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second in the Ḥel, and the third at its place! Rabbi Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Mana: Did we state that the third sat at its place? It stood at its place!

It was stated: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says, many slain fell on the day they were flattering him.

Mishnah

8 And he reads from the beginning of “These are the words”Deuteronomy 1 to Shema,Shema, “And it shall be if you listen,”Deuteronomy 11:13-21 “tithing you shall tithe,”Deuteronomy 14:22-27 “when you will have finished tithing,”Deuteronomy 26:12-15 blessings and curses and the paragraph of the king, until he finishes the entire paragraph. The benedictions which the High Priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes “for the holidays of pilgrimage” instead of “forgiving of sins.”

Halakhah

Rabbi Abbahu said, why does one read “tithing you shall tithe,,” “when you will have finished tithing,”Deuteronomy 26:12-15? Because Israel went from the Sabbatical year to the eighth, not to have them forget tithes. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose, does he not to make havdalah? He said to him, one already said havdalah on New Year’s Day.

Mishnah

1 The priest anointed for war was speaking holy language when he was addressing the people, as it is said: “It shall be when you approach war, the priest shall come near,”Deuteronomy 20:2-3 that is the priest anointed for war, “shall speak to the people,” in the holy language, “and say to them: Hear, Israel, you are approaching today war against your enemies,” against your enemies but not against your brothers, not Judah against Simeon and not Simeon against Benjamin, for if you would fall in their hands they would have mercy on you.

Halakhah

“The priest anointed for war,” etc. Why the priest anointed for war? Because it is written “he shall speak”Deuteronomy 20:2? But about the reading of the Shema it is written: “You shall speak about them,” and it may be recited in any language. But because it is written there “saying.” But for the declaration of tithes it is written “saying”Deuteronomy 26:13 and it may be recited in any language! Rabbi Ḥaggai said, it says here “to come close”Deuteronomy 20:2 and it says there, “the Levitic priests shall come close”Deuteronomy 21:5; since “coming close” there implies recitation in the holy language, so also “coming close” here implies recitation in the holy language. That follows Rabbi Akiva who says, these are expressions of additions. Following Rabbi Ishmael who says, these are double expressions? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “Moses shall come close to the mist,” since “coming close” there implies recitation in the holy language, so also “coming close” here implies recitation in the holy language.

Would it not be reasonable that “the commanders should take charge at the head of the people”Deuteronomy 20:9 and then “the priest shall come close”Deuteronomy 20:2? He who directs them should inform them! The text is not in the correct order. At the border, you say that the policeman hears from the priest the text and communicates it to the people in any language. But at the battle order they provide water and food and repair the roads. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked, since at the border the policeman hears from the priest the text and communicates it to the people in any language, should it not be the same with the battle order? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected, is it reasonable that “when the policemen finished talking to the people,” after that “the priest shall come close and speak to the people”? He said to him, since you say, the text is not in the correct order, you cannot infer anything.

Mishnah

2 As it was said further: “The men who were mentioned by name got up, they took charge of the prisoners and all their naked ones they clothed from the booty.”2 Chronicles 28:15 You are going against your enemies and if you should fall into their hands they would not have mercy on you.

Halakhah

“As it was said further,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, anybody who is not in the position of those men who had the power to object, should not object. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Just as it is a commandment to speak on things that will be done, so it is a commandment not to talk about things that would not be done. Rabbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure impure. Rabbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to burn or to suspend, always prefer burning to suspension since nothing is more beloved in the Torah than burned oxen and burned rams, and they are burned. Rabbi Yose asked: Does one infer something which is not commanded from something which is commanded?

Mishnah

3 “Your heart should not soften, do not fear, nor become impulsive, do not become impressed before them.”Deuteronomy 20:3 Your heart should not soften because of the neighing of horses or the gleam of swords. Do not fear, because of the shaking of shields and the stomping of military boots. Do not become impulsive because of the sound of horns, nor be impressed because of the sound of cries. “For the Eternal, your God, is He Who goes with you to make war on your enemies to save you.” They come with victories of flesh and blood, but you come with the victory of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came with the victory of Goliath; how did he end? In the end, he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But you, you are not so but “for the Eternal, your God, is He Who goes with you to make war on your enemies to save you,” that is the camp of the Ark.

Halakhah

“Your heart should not soften,” etc. It is written: “From the radiation that surrounds Him, His clouds,”Psalms 18:13-15 against their cavalry squads, “passed,” against their cohorts. “Hailstorm,” against their missile throwers. “And embers,” against their throwing machines. “Of fire,” against their naphtha. “He thundered from Heaven,” against their torches. “The Most High made His voice heard,” against the sound of their horns. “He sent His arrows,” against their arrows. “And dispersed them,,” this teaches that they were dispersing them. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, this teaches that they were in rectangular formations, that the arrows dispersed them but the lightnings were bringing them together. “Lightnings,” against their swords. “And confused them,” He confused them, made them disoriented, and felled their standard. Rabbi said, the expression “and confounded them” means only pestilence, as it is written: “He will confuse them in a great confusion until He destroyed them.”Deuteronomy 7:23

“ ‘To save you,’ that is the camp of the Ark.” But some say, that is the Name which was given in the Ark, as it was stated: Rabbi Judah ben Lakish says, two arks were traveling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: “Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp.”Numbers 14:44 The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: “Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god?”1 Samuel 4:8 A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rabbi Judah ben Lakish. “Saul said to Ahijah: present God’s Ark.” But was the Ark not at Kiriath Jearim? What do the rabbis with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem.’ Another verse supports Rabbi Judah ben Lakish: “The Ark, Israel, and Judah, dwell in huts..” Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

When the ark was hidden, there were hidden with it the flask of Manna, the bottle of anointing oil, Aaron’s staff with its flowers and almonds, and the chest which the Philistines returned as a reparation sacrifice for Israel’s God. Who hid it? Josiah! When he saw that it was written: “The Eternal will lead you and your king whom you will have put above you, to a people whom neither you nor your fathers had known,”Deuteronomy 28:36 he started and hid it. That is what is written: “He said to the Levites, who instruct all of Israel, the ones holy to the Eternal, put the Ark into the House that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, built; you do not have to carry it on your shoulder.”2 Chronicles 35:3 He said, if it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will never return it to its place. But “ now, serve the Eternal, your God, and his people Israel.”

The preparation of the anointing oil. Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and cassia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.”Exodus 30:25 “That will be for Me for your generations.”Exodus 30:31 It was stated, Rabbi Judah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin.” It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,”1 Samuel 16:12 this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.”Exodus 30:31

One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said: “Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him, etc.”1 Kings 1:33-34 One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adonijah; Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,”1 Samuel 16:12 this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing! But Joaḥaz because of his brother Jehoiakim who was two years his elder. But did not Josiah hide it? That means, they anointed with balsamum. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yudan Antordiyya said, because of “the scepter shall not be removed from Judah.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because “he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.” What is written after that? “The levitic priests should not.”Deuteronomy 8:1

Rabbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”1 Chronicles 3:15? The first in kingdom. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Zedekiah. But is not written: “The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum”1 Chronicles 3:15? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Zedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Zedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Zedekiah.”

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths. Who stated “a cubit of six handbreadths”? This is Rabbi Meir. As we have stated: “Rabbi Meir says, all cubits were average.” According to Rabbi Meir who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths, the length of the Ark was fifteen cubits, as it is written: “Its length two cubits and a half.”Exodus 25:10 Each cubit was six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two broken ones and two whole ones, as it is written: “Which you broke and put into the Ark.”Deuteronomy 10:2 Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the widths of the tablets were in the length of the Ark, there were three handbreadths left. Apply them to the cylinder. The width of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: “A cubit and half a cubit.” A cubit six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two broken ones and two whole ones. Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the lengths of the tablets were in the length of the Ark, there were three handbreadths left. On each side half a handbreadth to have a handle, and two handbreadths as place to put there the Torah scroll.

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the Ark was made using a cubit of five handbreadths. Who stated “a cubit of five handbreadths”? This is Rabbi Judah. As we have stated there: “Rabbi Judah says, the builders’ cubit was of six handbreadths, but that of vessels five handbreadths.” And the Ark is a vessel. According to Rabbi Judah who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of five handbreadths, the length of the Ark was twelve and one half cubits, as it is written: “Its length two cubits and a half.”Exodus 25:10 Each cubit was five and half a cubit two and one half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written: “Which you broke and put into the Ark.”Deuteronomy 10:2 Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the widths of the tablets were in the length of the Ark, there was half a handbreadth left. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side. The width of the Ark was seven and one half handbreadths, as it is written: “A cubit and half a cubit.”Exodus 25:10 A cubit five and half a cubit two and one half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written: “Which you broke and put into the Ark.”Deuteronomy 10:2 Each of the tablets was six handbreadths in length and three in width. If the lengths of the tablets were in the width of the Ark, there were one and a half handbreadths left. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side, and on each side half a handbreadth to have a handle.

How did Bezalel make the Ark? Rabbi Ḥanina said, he made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put one of gold inside the one of wood, and the one of wood inside the other one of gold. That is what is written: “You shall cover it inside and out with pure gold inside and out.”Exodus 25:11 Why does the verse say, “you shall cover it”? To include the upper rim. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he made one box and gilded it. That is what is written: “You shall cover it inside and out with pure gold inside and out.” Why does the verse say, “you shall cover it”? Rabbi Phineas said, also between the planks.

How were the tablets written? Rabbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words,”Deuteronomy 4:13 ten on each tablet. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words,” twenty on each tablet. Rabbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, “on each side they were written,” a square Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters of the Torah were written. “Filled with taršiš,” like the Great Sea. When Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

Rabbi Tanḥuma said, I asked before Rabbi Phineas: It is acceptable following Rabbi Judah, it is not acceptable following Rabbi Meir. What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? “To take this Torah scroll.” In the opinion of Rabbi Judah, who said, where the Torah scroll was put? They made for it a kind of case outside and the Torah scroll was put into it. What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? “You should put the cover on top of the Ark.”Exodus 25:21 In the opinion of Rabbi Meir who says that there is no earlier and later in the Torah, “in the Ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give to you,”Exodus 25:16 and after that, “you should put the cover on top of the Ark.” Rabbi Phineas in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The Torah which the Holy One, Praise to Him, gave, its leather was white fire, its inscription was black fire, it was fire mixed with fire; hewn from fire, given from fire: “From His right hand, the fiery law to them.”Deuteronomy 33:2

Mishnah

4 “The policemen shall speak to the people, saying: Who is the man who built a new house and did not inaugurate it; he should go and return to his house,”Deuteronomy 20:5 etc. Not only he who builds a house, but also one who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility. Not only he who builds, but also one who buys, or inherits, or who received as a gift.

Halakhah

“Who built a house,” not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man.” From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds.” I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

Why does the verse say, “who built”Deuteronomy 20:5? This excludes him whose house collapsed and he rebuilt it. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that one who remarries his divorcee does not return. One could think that somebody who builds a house outside the Land would return; the verse said, “and he did not inaugurate it,” meaning where there is an obligation of inauguration; this excludes cases where there is no obligation of inauguration. If he received prepaid rent, it is as if he inaugurated it; if the rent is payable only after twelve months, it is as if he had not inaugurated it. If he locked it, if it contains valuables for which one usually stops working, it is as if he inaugurated it; otherwise, it is as if he had not inaugurated it.

Mishnah

5 “And who is the man who planted a vineyard and did not redeem it,”Deuteronomy 20:6 etc. Not only one who planted a vineyard but also one who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds. Not only one who planted but also one who sank or grafted, also one who buys, or inherits, or who received as a gift.

Halakhah

“Who planted.” Not only who planted; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man.” From where about him who planted a vineyard but also who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds? The verse says, “who planted,” in any circumstance. I could think that one who planted four fruit trees or five futile trees may return? The verse says, “a vineyard.” Since a vineyard is special in that it is composed of five vines, this excludes the case where there are not five vines.

If the wine is freshly pressed, if the wine is sour? As it was stated: Sour wine may be used to make an eruv and participating, one makes a benediction for it, and one may use it for the preliminary marriage of a bride, for consoling the mourner, and it may be sold in a store as wine. If somebody made an unqualified contract for wine, he did not sell sour wine. One is prohibited from delivering a decision, or to dissolve a vow, or to enter the Temple. Only it is forbidden on the altar. And about the rebellious son it is problematic.

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says: “And he did not redeem it.”Deuteronomy 20:6 In case one is commanded to redeem it; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard.” And similarly, one only understands “planted.” It was stated: “And he did not redeem it,” that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin. Where do we hold? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one.

When does he redeem it? In the fourth or the fifth year? It seems reasonable in the fifth, since in the fourth it costs him money. But the rabbis of Caesarea say, it is only reasonable in the fourth, since it is written: “And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy for praise to the Eternal.”Leviticus 19:24

Mishnah

6 “ Who is the man who became betrothed to a woman and did not take her,” etc. Not only one betrothed to a virgin, even one betrothed to a widow, even to one who waits for her brother-in-law. Even if he heard that his brother had died in the war he then returns and leaves. All those who listen to the priest in the front lines return and provide food and water and improve the roads.

Halakhah

“Who became betrothed.” Not only a young man who married a young woman. From where even a young man who married a widow, a widower who married a young woman, a widower who married a widow? From where? The verse says, “a woman,” of any kind. Why does the verse say, “new”? That excludes him who remarries his divorcee. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that one who marries a sheram does not return since he has no religious obligation to live with her.

Even one who waits for her brother-in-law with five brothers. Similarly, even one house for five brothers? There not one of them would be able to live in it. But here, each one of them is able to marry in levirate. What would be like it? Somebody who preliminarily married a woman from now on in twelve months and the time is up while he is in the war; he returns and goes.

Mishnah

7 The following do not return: If somebody builds a portico, a covered walkway, or a verandah, or planted four fruit trees or five futile trees, or remarried his divorcee. In the case of a widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one having received ḥaliṣah for an ordinary priest, a bastard or Gibeonite girl for an Israel, a Jewish girl for a bastard or a Gibeonite, he would not be returning. Rabbi Judah says, also he who rebuilt his house on its foundations would not be returning. Rabbi Eleazar said, also one who built a brick house in the Sharon would not return.

Halakhah

It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, if he changed anything, he would be returning. If he whitewashed it or added windows, he would not return, if it had been great and he made it small he returns, or one room and he made it two.

It was stated: Rabbi Eleazar said, also the people from the Sharon did not return since they have to rebuild two times in a Sabbatical period. Also the High Priest was praying for them on the Day of Atonement that their houses should not become their graves.

Mishnah

8 But the following do not leave at all: If he built a house and inaugurated it, planted a vineyard and redeemed it, he who married his preliminarily married spouse, he who took in his sister-in-law, for it is said: “Free he shall be for his house for one year.”Deuteronomy 24:5 “His house,” that is his house; “shall be,” that is his vineyard; “and give pleasure to his wife,” that is his wife; “whom he took,” to include his sister-in-law. These do not provide food and water and do not improve the roads.

Halakhah

“If he built a house and inaugurated it,” but did not use it for twelve months. “If he planted a vineyard and redeemed it,” but did not use it for twelve months. And all are derived from the wife: Since the wife needs twelve months, also all of them need twelve months. It was stated: All those mentioned remain unoccupied in town, do not pay city taxes, and do not provide food and water nor improve the roads, as it is said: “nor should anything be imposed on him,”Deuteronomy 24:5 but it may be imposed on others.

Mishnah

9 The policemen shall add and say to the people: ‘Who is the man fearful and faint-hearted, let him go and return to his house. Rabbi Akiva says, “fearful and faint-hearted” in its simple meaning, that he cannot stand in military engagements and see a drawn sword. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “fearful and faint-hearted” is one who is fearful because of his sins; therefore the Torah appended him to all of these that he should return because of them. Rabbi Yose said, a widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one having received ḥaliṣah for an ordinary priest, a bastard or Gibeonite girl for an Israel, a Jewish girl for a bastard or a Gibeonite, that is the “fearful and faint-hearted.”

Halakhah

It is written: “The policemen shall add.” This expression “shall add” only means an addition. Like a man who says, I am adding to the words of my teacher. It was stated: The latter words are additions. Rabbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. He who said, “I am adding to the words of my teacher,” both the first and the later declarations both he and his teacher said. He who said, the later ones are additions, the first declarations both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. Rabbi Mana said, there is only one Tanna. The first declarations both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yose: He hears a sentence from the priest and tells it to the people in all languages. But its end disagrees with Rabbi Mana: He adds a final word of his own. If you say so, it does not disagree at all with Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: The first declarations both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher.

Also, it was stated: They all have to bring proof except from this one whose witnesses are with him. This follows him who said that he cannot stand in military engagements and see a drawn sword. But following him who says that he is one who is fearful because of his sins, he has to bring proof. Therefore the Torah appended him to all of these that he should return because of them, not to publicize the sinners. This comes as Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “At the place where the elevation offering is being slaughtered, the purification offering is being slaughtered before the Eternal,”Leviticus 6:18 not to publicize the sinners.

Mishnah

10 “When the policemen finish to speak to the people, the officers will have taken up position at the head of the people.”Deuteronomy 20:9 Behind the people one puts up people with backups armed with iron axes and they have permission to break the legs of anyone who desires to abandon his post since flight is the start of falling, as it is said: “Israel fled from before the Philistines and a great plague was among the people.”1 Samuel 4:17 Further on it says, “the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and slain fell on Mount Gilboa.” About what have these things be said? About a war of choice, but in a war of obligation everybody goes out, even a groom from his room and a bride from her bridal chamber. Rabbi Judah said, about what have these things been said? About a war of obligation, but in a war of duty everybody goes out, even a groom from his room and a bride from her bridal chamber.

Halakhah

It is written: “When the policemen finish to speak to the people, the officers will have taken up position at the head of the people.” Not only in front of the people, from where also behind the people? The verse says, “take up position,” “and take up position.” That follows Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir used to call the end of a rope its head.

Rabbi Meir said: It is written, “the wise man’s eyes are in his head.” The stupid one’s are where? In his legs. Rabbi Abba Mari said, the wise man knows what will be the final outcome when he starts something. “Gad, a troop will gang up on him.” A troop comes to rob him, and he robs them.

So is the Mishnah: “Since flight is the start of falling.”

Rabbi Joḥanan said, usage is between them; Rabbi Judah called a war of choice a war of obligation. “But in a war of duty everybody goes out, even a groom from his room and a bride from her bridal chamber.” Rav Ḥisda said, they disagree. The rabbis say, a war of obligation was the war of David. A war of duty was the war of Joshua. Rabbi Judah called it a war of obligation if we went out against them; a war of duty if they attacked us. It is written: “King Asa proclaimed in all of Judah, nobody is free.” What means “nobody is free”? Rabbi Simon and the rabbis. Rabbi Simon said, nobody is free to return home even for one hour. But the rabbis say, there is no exemption for a scholar, son of a scholar.

Mishnah

1 The portion of the calf whose neck was broken, in the holy language. For it is said: “If a murder victim be found on the land, etc. Then your Elders and judges should go out.”Deuteronomy 21:1 Three from the High Court in Jerusalem had to go out. Rabbi Judah says five, since it is written “your Elders,” two, “and your judges,” two. Since no court may have an even number of members, one adds another one.

Halakhah

“The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say.” He starts from the beginning of the paragraph. “If there be found,”Deuteronomy 21:1 not in a time when they are frequent. “If there be found,” not that you have to search. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses. “It is not known who killed him,” therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim. And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, is it only if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

If the court saw the killer. Some Tannaim state, two of them should stand up and testify before them. There are Tannaim who state that they all should go and testify at another place. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Zeira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Zeira: “A slain one,” not one in convulsions; “a slain one,” not one in death-throes. If one saw him in convulsions and after some time he came back and did not find him, I say that a miracle occurred and he survived. If one saw him in death-throes here and then found him at another place, one measures from the place where he was found. “Which the Eternal, your God, is giving to you,” this excludes places outside the Land. “To inherit it,” this excludes Jerusalem which belongs to all tribes, and following Rabbi Ishmael. For Rabbi Ishmael said, any “comings” which were said in the Torah mean after fourteen years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they distributed. Rabbi Phineas ben Rabbi Abun said, we may say that all these fourteen years they were not breaking the neck, for it is written “if there be found,”Deuteronomy 21:1 not in a time when they are frequent. And all these fourteen years they were frequent.

It was stated: How is it done? The emissaries of the court come out, collect all his signs and bury him. They put up a marker on his grave so that the court who come from the stone hall may measure.

From where about marks? Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran. Rabbi Yose said it in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Uziel the son of Rabbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran: “impure, impure, he shall call out”Leviticus 13:45; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone,”Ezekiel 39:15 from here that one makes markers for bones. A human, from here that one makes markers for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes markers on fixed stones. If you say on loose stones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A marker, from here the marks.

If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a plowed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

It was stated: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose. Rabbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rabbi Mana: Will that not cause pure foods to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that the earth become unusable forever.

There, we have stated: The leaning of the hands of the Elders and the breaking of the neck of the calf is done by three judges; Rabbi Judah says, by five. What is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “The Elders shall lean,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes three. What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? “They shall lean,” two; “the Elders,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes five. And for the calf whose neck is broken, what is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “Your Elders, your judges,”Deuteronomy 21:2 two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes three. What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? “Your Elders shall go out,” two, “and your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds, that makes five. Rabbi said, the words of Rabbi Simeon are reasonable for the leaning of the hands and those of Rabbi Judah for the breaking of the neck. The words of Rabbi Simeon are reasonable for the leaning of the hands, for he does not refer to “they shall lean.” And those of Rabbi Judah for the breaking of the neck, for he does not refer to “they shall go out.” If you would say that the words of Rabbi Judah are reasonable for the calf whose neck is broken because he refers to both to “they shall lean” and “they shall go out,” it turns out that you have to say “there shall go out” two, “your Elders” two, “and your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes seven. How do the rabbis explain “your Elders and your judges”? Your Elders who are your judges. It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says “your Elders,” that is the High Court; “and your judges” these are king and High Priest.

Mishnah

2 If the corpse was found hidden in a heap, or hanging from a tree, or floating on the water, one did not break the neck as it is written “on the earth”Deuteronomy 21:1 but not hidden in a heap, “fallen” but not hanging from a tree, “on the field” but not floating on the water. If he was found close to the border, a town in which Gentiles live, or a town without a court, one did measure only from a town with a court. If he was found exactly in the middle between two towns, both bring a total of two calves, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; but the Sages say that one town brings one calf whose neck is broken but two towns do not bring two calves, and Jerusalem does not bring a calf whose neck is broken.

Halakhah

It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer says, if he was found strangled and hanging from a tree they did not break its neck. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said, one does not have to say strangled and hanging from a tree, from where even if he was found cast away? The verse says “fallen,” why does the verse say “slain”? But even if he was found strangled or hanging from a tree they did not break its neck.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun stated in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rabbi Joḥanan said, all those statements of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

If he was found at the entrance of the city one did break its neck in order to perform the commanded measurement.

When Rav descended there, he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks its neck. He told him, one does not break its neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden, not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rabbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.” It is reasonable to say “on the land,” not floating on the water, “on a field,” not hidden in a heap. That is how it was stated in the House of Rabbi.

The argument of the rabbis seems inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. It is a restriction after a restriction to add the hidden things. But here, “on the land,” not floating on the water.

“If he was found close to the border,” I say that Saracens killed him. “To a town in which Gentiles live,” I say that Gentiles killed him. “Or a town without a court, one did measure only from a town with a court,” as it is written: “Our hands did not spill this blood.”Deuteronomy 21:7

What is the reason of the rabbis? As it is written: “It shall be the town close to the slain.”Deuteronomy 21:3 What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written: “They shall measure to the towns which surround the slain.”Deuteronomy 21:2

What is the status of cities of refuge? If you say, they were given as distribution, they bring a calf whose neck is broken. If you say, they were given as living quarters, they do not bring a calf whose neck is broken.

Mishnah

3 From where did they measure? Rabbi Eliezer says, from his navel. Rabbi Akiva says, from his nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, from the place which makes him slain, from his neck.

Halakhah

“From where did they measure? Rabbi Eliezer says, from his navel,” from the place the child is formed. “Rabbi Akiva says, from his nose,” from the place from which one is identified. This follows what Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them,” that is the nose. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following: In the times of king Ursicinus, some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all were caught because of lies.

“Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, from the place which makes him slain, from his neck.” What is the reason? Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “To put you on the throats of the corpses of sinners.”

Mishnah

4 If his head is found at another place than his body, one brings his head to his body, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; Rabbi Akiva says, the body to his head.

Halakhah

Rabbi Eleazar said, they disagree about burial. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: When do they disagree? If the head was higher but the body lower. But if the head was lower and the body higher everybody agrees that one brings the head to the body. If there was an incline on both sides, do I say that the head fell to one side and the body to the other or does this head have no body and that body no head? If it was level, any distance it is usual to chop it off is one body; otherwise, the head has no body and the body no head.

Mishnah

5 When the Elders of Jerusalem had completed their work and left, the Elders of that town bring “a cattle calf, one which never had been used for work, which never had drawn under a yoke.”Deuteronomy 21:3 Bodily defects do not disqualify it. One brings it down to an etan valley; the meaning of etan is “hard.” Even if it is not hard it is qualified. One breaks its neck with a stiletto from behind. Its place is forbidden to be used for sowing or agricultural works; it may be used to card flax or to hew stones.

Halakhah

“One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally. Rabbi Jonah explains the Mishnah: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn. Rabbi Yose explained the Mishnah: Intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn. It turns out that Rabbi Jonah follows Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Yose the rabbis. Rabbi Jonah follows Rabbi Ishmael, since Rabbi Ishmael says, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach leaves its set and stands in its new meaning. Therefore, he has to spell out “one which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn. Rabbi Yose follows the rabbis, since the rabbis say, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach remains in its set and in its new meaning. Therefore, he has to spell out: intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn.

How far would it have to draw? Rabbi said, its width. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said, three finger breadths. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Nehorai said, the entire length of the yoke in its width.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke, so for the “yoke” said for the cow we have to treat all work as a yoke. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional, so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables, also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable? The verse says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf. Then it also says “one which never had been used for work,”Deuteronomy 21:3 for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah! Did not Rabbi Yasa say that Rabbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar, but here, the altar has no part. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot, how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled? Does its blood prepare? Since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure, its blood prepares.

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be ṭerefa.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rabbi Yannai say, the words of Rabbi Meir, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rabbi Yannai?

The meaning of etan is “hard,” “Hard is your seat, make your nest in the rock.” “Even if it is not hard it is qualified.” Similarly, if there is no brook? Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, “they shall bring down, and they shall bring down,” even if there is no brook. But that of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rabbi Joḥanan said, all those statements of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

Does he break its neck until he has cut two blood arteries or most of them? Let us hear from the following, that Rabbi Zeira said, Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Any place the bottom of the neck is acceptable for slaughtering, the back of the neck is acceptable for breaking; here he would say the same.

There, we have stated: “One might plow one furrow and by this infringe eight prohibitions.” Rabbi Hoshaia asked: Could one not state “one who plows the place where the calf’s neck was broken,” for a total of nine? The colleagues said before Rabbi Yose: Explain it by the past. He said to them, since it was for the past, so certainly for the future.

The place where it falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits. Rabbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits. Rabbi Samuel the son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference.

Mishnah

6 The Elders of that town wash their hands with water at the place where the calf’s neck was broken and say: “Our hands did not spill this blood,” etc. Did we ever think that the court was spilling blood? But, that he did not come to our attention and we sent him away, or that we did not see him and left him. The priests say: “Purge for Your people Israel which You did redeem, o Eternal.”Deuteronomy 21:8 They did not have to say that “the blood was purged for them,”Deuteronomy 21:8 but the Holy Spirit announces to them that when they follow this procedure the blood will be purged for them. If the killer was found before the calf should have its neck broken, it should leave and graze in the flock. If after the calf’s neck was broken it should be buried at its place because if came from the start in a doubtful case; it purged its doubt and left. If the killer was found after the calf’s neck was broken, he should be executed.

Halakhah

The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim. The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, “he did not come to our attention and we sent him away,” and did not execute him; “or that we did not see him and left him,” and muddled his trial. But the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim, “he did not come to our attention and we sent him away,” without company; “or that we did not see him and left him,” without provisions.

The Elders wash their hands with water at the place where the calf’s neck was broken and say: “Our hands did not spill this blood,” etc. The priests say: “Purge for Your people Israel.”Deuteronomy 21:8 The Holy Spirit says, “the blood was purged for them.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say: “She said, please recognize this seal, strings, and staff,”Genesis 38:25-26 so far Tamar spoke. “Judah recognized and said, she is more just than I am because I did not give her to my son Shelah,” so far Judah spoke. The Holy Spirit said, “he never knew her again.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say: “They told him and said, we came to the land you sent us to; it really is flowing of milk and honey and that is its fruit”Numbers 13:27-30; so far Joshua spoke. “But the people are strong who dwell in the land, the cities are very highly fortified, and also the young giants we saw there”; so far said the spies. “Caleb silenced the people to Moses and said, we certainly can mount and inherit it, for certainly we can do it”; so far Caleb spoke. Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say: “Sisera’s mother looked out and whimpered, etc.”Judges 5:28-31; so far Sisera’s mother spoke. “Her wise princesses answered her,..., will they not find and distribute booty”; so far said her daughters-in-law. And the Holy Spirit says, “so all enemies of the Eternal will be lost.”

Rabbi Phineas said, it is worthy to provide purification all the time back to the Exodus.

Rabbi Yannai said, the words of Rabbi Meir: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Immi, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The words of Rabbi Meir: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. The words of Rabbi Simeon: Even if he cut its throat, he is not punishable. Rabbi Yannai said, I heard about a boundary, from when it is forbidden: “They shall bring it down,” from the time of bringing down. Rabbi Ila said, to free it from “it and its young” following Rabbi Simeon.

Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is holy while still alive. The Mishnah said so: “it should leave and graze in the flock.” What shall it leave? It shall leave its holiness.

Rabbi Mattania said, this is correct. What is written? “The blood shall be purged for them”; then it is silent. Nevertheless, “but you shall eliminate innocent blood from your midst.”Deuteronomy 21:9

Mishnah

7 If one witness says, I saw the murderer, and one witness says, I did not see him; or a woman said, I saw, but another woman said, I did not see, they did break the neck. If one witness said I saw, but two said, we did not see, they did break the neck. I two said, we saw, but one said to them, you did not see, they did not break the neck.

Halakhah

Gidul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. One should state: “A witness says that he saw the murderer, and a woman says that she did not see; a woman said that he saw and a witness said that he did not see,” as it was stated in the name of Rabbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one male witness, they are like one witness.

Mishnah

8 When professional murderers prevailed, breaking of the calf’s neck became obsolete, when Eleazar ben Dinai came who was called Teḥina ben Perisha. They turned to call him murderous son.

Halakhah

“Murderous son,” son, professional murderer.

Mishnah

9 When the adulterers prevailed, the spell-inducing water stopped and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai abolished it, as it is said: “I shall not care if your daughters are whoring,”Hosea 4:14 etc.

Halakhah

For it is written, “for they behave like donkeys with the prostitutes,” and it is written: “The woman will be a swearword among her people.”Numbers 5:27 In times when her people are peaceful, not in times when her people are dissolute. “The man shall be free from sin.”Numbers 5:31 When does the woman carry her iniquity? If the man is free from sin.

Mishnah

10 When Yose ben Yoʿezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died, the grape bunches disappeared, as it was said: “There is no bunch to eat, no early ripe fig that my soul desires.”Micah 7:1

Halakhah

There did not arise another grape bunch until Rabbi Akiva rose. Were the other couples not also grape bunches? But these served in a position of leadership; the others did not serve in a position of leadership.

It was stated: It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Moses died until Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem. It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died until Rabbi Judah ben Baba arose. They said about Rabbi Judah ben Baba that all he did was in the name of Heaven except that he raised an animal of the flock. This happened the following way. Once he fell sick and the medical men went to visit him. They told him: there is no healing for you except freshly warm milk, because he had angina pectoris. What did he do? He bought a goat and bound it to the legs of his bed and when he had an attack of angina he sucked from it freshly warm milk. But when the Sages wanted to visit him, they said how could we enter when the robber dwells with him in the house? When he died, he said: I did never sin except that in this case I disregarded the words of my colleagues. After his death they checked all he had done and did not find any sin except that goat alone.

Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said, my father’s family were landowners in Galilee. Why were they ruined? Because they judged civil matters alone and were raising animals of the flock. And this was so: We had a copse close to the village but a field was between it and us, and the flock entered it going and coming there.

Mishnah

11 The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to priests. There is support for Rabbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated there: “Similarly, the daughter of a priest married to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a priest’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It follows him who says one does not give tithe to priests. That means, he himself says one gives heave to priests.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since omitting First Tithe is a deadly sin and omitting Second Tithe implies the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the priest; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

Why should he not make the declaration? Rabbi Hila said, he causes anger before the Omnipresent by saying “I did” when he did not. If it is so, he who separated should make the declaration, he who did not separate should not make the declaration, as we have stated: “Up to ‘Look down’ they were saying it in an undertone, from ‘Look down’ onwards in a high voice.”

“The arousers.” Those who were saying: “Be roused, why do You sleep, o Eternal, etc.”Psalms 44:24 Does there exist sleep before the Omnipresent? Has it not already been said: “Indeed, He will not slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel!”Psalms 121:4 Why does the verse say: “Like a sleeper awoke the Eternal, like a hero exhilarated by wine.”Psalms 78:65 But in a symbolic way it is as if sleep were before Him when Israel is in trouble and the other peoples are at ease. So it says: “When they apostasize, My Eye will rest.”Job 17:2

“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar? He went and made them rings. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Judah: He made rings for them, wide below and narrow at the top.

“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. “And in his days nobody had to ask about demay” because he sent out teams

The word of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Tanḥum, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among priests and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Pakora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. Rabbi Ḥasida asked Rabbi Ḥizqiah, is it not reasonable to the end of his days. He said, I also am of that opinion.

What means demay? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order.

Mishnah

12 When the Synhedrion was disestablished, the epithalamium stopped at wedding feasts as it was said: “They shall not drink wine in song.”Isaiah 24:9

Halakhah

Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: “The Elders are no longer at the gate” etc.

Rav Ḥisda said, in earlier times the fear of the court was on them and they did not include lewd language in song. But now when the fear of the court is no longer on them they include lewd language in song.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.”Lamentations 5:15 But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Molech, not to kill him,”Leviticus 20:4 in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

Mishnah

13 After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim stopped. When the Temple was destroyed, the shamir and flowing bee’s honey stopped and trusting men disappeared, as it was said: “Help, o Eternal, for the pious man is finished, for the trusting have vanished from mankind.”Psalms 12:2

Halakhah

“After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim stopped.” Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: These are Samuel and David. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rav: These are Gad and Nathan. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac in the name of Rav: These are Jeremiah and Baruch. The word of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi implies that these are Jeremiah and Baruch. For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, “it was when he asked God in the days of Zechariah who understood God’s visions.”

After the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit stopped from them, but nevertheless they were using the disembodied voice. If happened that Simeon the Just heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: Gaius Caligula was killed and his decisions became void. It happened that young men went to fight at Antiochia when Joḥanan the High Priest heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: The young people are victorious who fought at Antiochia. At that time they wrote down the exact time and found that it happened exactly at that hour.

It happened that Elders came together in the house Gadia in Jericho, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There is among you one man who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him, only the generation is not worthy. They all looked at Hillel the Elder. When he died, they said about him, o meek, pious student of Ezra. Again it happened that Elders came together in a second floor at Jabne, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There is among you one man who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him, only the generation is not worthy. They all looked at Samuel Minor. Why was he called Minor? Because he effaced himself. Some say, because he was slightly below Samuel from Ramah. When he died, they said about him o meek, pious student of Hillel the Elder. When he was dying he said: Simeon and Ishmael to the sword, the rest of the people to plunder, immense troubles will be. He said that in Aramaic and they did not understand what he was saying. For Rabbi Judah ben Baba they intended to say o meek, pious, but the time was torn.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, what was this shamir? It is a creature that existed from the creation of the world and if one shows it stones those would open themselves like the two boards of a pinax, and Solomon built the Temple with it. That is what is written: “During the building of the House, it was built from whole carried stones, and hammers or axe or any iron implement was not heard in the House when it was built.”1 Kings 6:7 Rabbi Nehemiah says, they were sawed. That is what is written: “All these were expensive stones, in the measure of ashlars, sawed with a saw inside and out.”1 Kings 7:9 Say now, at the building site they were not treated at all but they were finished outside and then brought inside. Rabbi says, the words of Rabbi Judah are convincing for the stones of the Temple and those of Rabbi Nehemiah for the stones of Solomon’s palace. But since nothing can withstand it, and even when it was put on a stone or a box sheet it would split it and fall down, what did they do to restrain it? One was binding it with wool fibers and put it into a lead cylinder filled with barley bran. That is what is written: “He enjoys robbing the strong.”

“And flowing bee’s honey.” Rabbi Eleazar said, honey that comes with floaters. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, farina which floats on the sieve kneaded with honey and butter. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran. But today, we do not even get one for one.

“Trusting men disappeared.” Rabbi Zeira said, men who trusted in Torah, as one teacher who was teaching Bible to his brother in Tyre when they were calling on him for a business deal. He said, I do not push aside my set time. If it is destined to come to me, it will come to me.

Mishnah

14 Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: Since the day the Temple was destroyed there is no day without a curse, and the dew did not descend for a blessing; and the taste of fruits disappeared. Rabbi Yose says, also the fat of fruits disappeared. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, purity took away taste, tithes took away the fat of grain, immorality and sorcery killed everything.

Halakhah

It is written: “But God is angry every day.”Psalms 7:12 Rabbi Zeira said, the earlier ones all continue. What can do away with them? Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: The priestly blessing does away with them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, you can observe that dew has become cursed. In earlier times, a village abundant in dew was abundant in produce but today, a village abundant in dew is poor in produce! In earlier times, dew descended on chaff and straw and whitened it, but today it descends on chaff and straw and blackens it.

It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, purity took away taste and smell, tithes took away the fat of grain.” From what was taken most? Rabbi Levi ben Ḥaita said, let us hear from the following: “One thought to come to a heap of twenty and it was ten. He came to the winepress to draw 50 pitchers,”Haggai 2:16 it does not say ‘and there were 25’ but “and there were 20.” “ But the Sages say, immorality and sorcery killed everything.”

Mishnah

15 During Vespasian’s war they decided about grooms’ crowns and the erus. During Quietus’s war they decided about brides’ crowns and that nobody should teach Greek to his son. During the last war they decided that a bride should not be carried in a litter through the city; our teachers permitted that a bride should be carried in a litter through the city.

Halakhah

“Our head’s crown fell”; these are the grooms’ crowns, that is gilded woolen strips. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: Of salt and sulfur. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Of salt and olives. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, even of willows. Rav Jeremiah of Šibšeb wore a crown of olive branches. Samuel heard this and said, it would have been better for him it he had been beheaded but not done this thing. That happened to him, as “an error coming from before the ruler.”Ecclesiastes 10:5

The following are grooms’ chambers: Ornamented sheets on which hang golden half-moons. It was stated: But he makes papyrus ropes and hangs on them anything he wants.

Mishnah: “And the erus.” resisa.

The following are brides’ crowns, that is a city of gold. Rabbi Akiva made for his wife a city of gold, which made Rabban Gamliel’s wife jealous. He said to her, did you ever do what she did? She sold her braided hair, gave the money to him so he could study Torah.

They asked Rabbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.”Joshua 1:8 If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rabbi Ishmael stated: “Choose life!”Deuteronomy 30:19 That refers to a profession. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rabbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rabbi Joḥanan.

Who permits the earlier ones? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Bun said, the one who permitted these permitted those. As the following: The Head of the Diaspora sent and asked Rav Ḥisdai: what is the meaning of “taking away the head cover, removing the crown”Ezekiel 21:31? He said to him, when the head cover was taken away, the crown was removed. Rabbi Joḥanan heard this and said, he is grace and his words are gracious.

Mishnah

16 When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom disappeared. When the elder Rabban Gamliel died, the honor of Torah disappeared, purity and self-discipline died. When Ishmael ben Phiabi died, the splendor of priesthood died. When Rabbi died, meekness and fear of sin died. When Rabbi Meir died, the inventors of parables disappeared. When Rabbi Akiva died, the preachers disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the students disappeared. When Rabbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world When Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappeared from the Sages. When Rabban Gamliel died, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and Yose the small died, piety disappeared. Why was he called Yose of the small room? For he was the concentrate of pious men. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says, after the Temple was destroyed, fellows and freeborn were ashamed and covered their heads, people of good deeds shriveled, strong-armed people and informers became dominant, nobody explains, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. The great Rabbi Eliezer says, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the Sages were diminished to be like scribes, the scribes like community servants, the community servants like common people; the common people go and degenerate, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. On the heels of the Messiah impertinence will grow, inflation will lead, the vine will give its fruit but the wine will be expensive, the government will turn heretic, nobody rebukes, the assembly hall will be a brothel, Galilee will be destroyed and Gaulanitis become deserted, frontier dwellers will move from city to city and nobody will have mercy on them, the wisdom of scholars will be defective, those who fear sin will be despised, truth will be absent, young men will insult Elders, Elders will stand before the young, “a son will abuse his father, a daughter rebel against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, the enemies of a person are his family,”Micah 7:6 the generation is dog-faced, a son is not ashamed before his father. What do we have to rely on? Our Father in Heaven.

Halakhah

“When Rabbi Eliezer died, the book of wisdom was hidden. When Rabbi Joshua died, good counsel and good deeds disappeared from Israel. When Rabbi Akiva died, the sources of wisdom disappeared. When Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappeared from the Sages. When Rabbi Yose died, insight disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the preachers disappeared. When Rabbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world. When Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa died, the workers of wonders disappeared. When Rabbi Yose the pious and Rabbi Yose the minor died, pious men disappeared. Why is he called minor? For he was the concentrate of the just and the pious. When Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel died, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rabbi died, troubles were doubled.”

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rabbi Eliezer died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw. They proposed marriage into the family of the Patriarch to one of the family Pazi, but he did not accept and said that they should not be ashamed. When he was dying, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor should come for him who fled before honor.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that Elders came together in the upper floor of the house Gadia in Jericho, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There are among you two who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on them, and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They all looked at Samuel Minor. Again it happened that Elders came together in a second floor at Jabne, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There are among you two who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on them, and one of them is Samuel Minor. They all looked at Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos and were happy that their opinion coincided with that of the Omnipresent.