MISHNAH: He¹. 5:15. The volume of the offering was 1/10 of an epha or about one US Gallon. Cf. also Chapter 1, Note 239. 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 vessel²-offering also must be in a Temple vessel once the Cohen takes it, but as long as the Cohen is still occupied with the preliminaries it may not be in a Temple vessel.. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense³. 5:11) is likewise without olive oil and incense.. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ‘omer 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.

footnotes: ¹ The husband; Num ² All other offerings must be in a Temple vessel when given to a Cohen to be processed. It is true that the soṭah ³ This is not quite correct; the offering of the poor sinner (Lev

HALAKHAH: “He brought her flour offering,” etc. It is written⁴. 5:18. The verse requires that the offering be in the woman’s hands all the time the water is in the Cohen’s hand.: “In the Cohen’s hand shall be the spell-inducing bitter water.” Is that to tire her out? Rather to inspire her with fear.

footnotes: ⁴ Num

“Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name⁵ 1:1). The Mishnah notes that “he (the husband) brings her (the wife’s) flour-offering.” Does this mean that the offering is to be offered only on her behalf?? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name⁶. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed⁷: “It⁸. 6:16) and cannot be eaten as the wife’s offering (Lev. 6:9). 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 handful⁹. 6:7–11). is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately¹⁰. 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.¹¹. 5:15.”

footnotes: ⁵ A flour-offering in order to be valid must be offered by a Cohen in a Temple vessel on behalf of its owner (Mishnah Menaḥot ⁶ It must be brought in both their names. ⁷ He does not disagree here at all; he supports the previous opinion. The text is from Halakhah 3:7 (fol. 19b line 37) where R. Ḥiyya disagrees. Cf. Tosephta 2:6. ⁸ If a Cohen suspects his wife of adultery, the flour-offering cannot be burnt as a Cohen’s offering (Lev ⁹ Of any flour-offering, a handful of the flour (with the incense) has to be burned on the altar and, normally, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim within the Temple enclosure (Lev ¹⁰ This is a matter of dispute; R. Ḥiyya disagrees with the opinion that the remainders which cannot be eaten by the Cohanim have to be dispersed on the ashes but holds that they have to be burned as a kind of fuel (Halakhah 3:7, Babli 23a). ¹¹ Num

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 knowledge¹⁴? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing¹⁵. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). 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 crib¹⁶. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁷ 1:2, Note 153. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi 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 daughter¹⁸. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power¹⁹. 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 ²⁰ since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi 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 written²¹. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved, cf. Chapter 1, Note 8. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the ordeal. The Babli concurs, 27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written²². 14:26. “A man’s house” always means his wife. For example, since the High Priest must purge his sins and those of his house on the day of Atonement (Lev. 16:17), an unmarried High Priest cannot officiate.: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge²³.

footnotes: ¹⁴ In case the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is a second question to be answered. ¹⁵ Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev ¹⁶ Who could have been afflicted with scale disease and, if female, with a discharge at birth mimicking menstruation. ¹⁷ Text from Yebamot ¹⁸ Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him. ¹⁹ Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him. If she is not married, she cannot be a suspected wife. ²⁰ This statement is from Chapter 1, Note 91. ²¹ Num ²² Deut ²³ Since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abin disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila: He may not dedicate for her the bird elevation offering, only the bird purification offering because the latter enables her to eat family sacrifices²⁴ 6:4 notes that only the purification offering enables her to eat family sacrifices. The elevation sacrifice also may be paid by him but only with his wife’s knowledge.. It was stated: He may dedicate for her only something that enables her to eat family sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that²⁵ 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 sacrifices²⁶. It was stated: Even by the shearing of her head²⁷ who may not drink any wine and the husband did not use his right to free her from any vow of self-punishment. As long as she is forbidden to drink wine, he cannot fully enjoy the holiday with her. Therefore, after she has cut her hair, the husband can dedicate the three offerings due from the nazir (Num. 6:14) without the knowledge of his wife (according to R. Ila only the family sacrifice which permits the wife to drink wine.) she hinders him from eating family sacrifices. Since she is ugly²⁸ and he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her²⁹ from eating family sacrifices.

footnotes: ²⁴ This speaks about the woman after childbirth whose husband is poor and can afford only two birds as purgation offering. It is asserted here that the husband on his own can only dedicate a sacrifice in which he has a direct interest, as stated by R. Abin. Mishnah Keritut ²⁵ The offerings of the woman after childbirth. ²⁶ In all cases, those whose impurity was produced by their own body and the suspected wife, where the husband cannot enjoy a holiday without having seen to it that her sacrifice has been presented in good order, any dereliction on his part to remove her disability is put on the same level as his hindering her from eating sacrifices. Therefore, it is his duty to bring these sacrifices and he does not need his wife’s consent for the dedication. ²⁷ The wife made a vow to be a nazir ²⁸ Because of her long hair. ²⁹ By not having vetoed her vow he is responsible for the problem.

³⁰ 15:3, explained there in Notes 43–45. The words in Italics are changed in gender from the text in Yebamot: The text here refers to the obligations the husband takes upon himself at the time of marriage; the text in Yebamot refers to the receipt the divorcee writes upon delivery of the divorce settlement. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for he writes to her³¹ “any other obligations that come to me because of you from earlier times.”

footnotes: ³⁰ From Yebamot ³¹ While he is married, he is liable also for sacrifices she was obligated to obligations cease, before marriage. Upon divorce, all his obligations cease.

Was it not stated³² (Tosephta Menaḥot 1:16) states that flour offerings are brought in private vessels to the Temple and only there transferred to Temple vessels.: “The order of flour offerings is the following: One brings from his house in silver or gold vessels.” These would be acceptable as Temple vessels³³.

footnotes: ³² The objection is to the Mishnah which states that “all flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel” when the baraita ³³ If they were dedicated together with the flour, no other vessels would be necessary. But an Egyptian palm leaf basket is never acceptable as a Temple vessel. The same question and answer in the Babli (14b).

Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated³⁵: Why did they say that no purification³⁶ 15b). The sacrifices of the persons needing purge from impurity (Note 15) shows that “sin offering” is not a primary meaning of our word. An intentional sin can be expiated only by death or by God’s grace following sincere repentance. 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-diseased¹⁵. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30).. If you say that he is no sinner, did not Rebbi Isaac say: “That shall be the instruction for the scale-diseased,” this is the instruction for the slanderer³⁷ 16a), R. Joḥanan holds that scale-disease is a punishment for (1) calumny, (2) homicide, (3) perjury, (4) incest, (4) haughtiness, (5) robbery, (6) envy.! Rebbi Hila said, since he was made to suffer and it is written³⁸. 25:3. It is to be noted that in Arabic one of the meanings of both roots צרע and צ̇רע, corresponding to the Hebrew צרע “having scale-disease”, is “to humble oneself”. “that your brother should [not] be contemptible in your eyes,” he is as if he had not sinned.

footnotes: ³⁵ The Babli, 15a, quotes a more detailed statement by R. Simeon bar Ioḥai: Why is the sinner let off cheaply in that he saves the expenses for wine, flour, and oil, required for all other private sacrifices? ³⁶ The idea is that חפאת should be considered as “sin offering”. It seems more likely that the root חטא basically means “to cleanse”. The noun חֵטא then means “cleansable sin”, i. e., inadvertent sin, in contrast to פֶּשַׁע “crime, intentional sin”, for which no Temple ritual is available (cf. Babli Temurah ¹⁵ Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev ³⁷ Taking apart the word מצוֹ-רע. In the Babli (mentioned 15a, main source Arakhin ³⁸ Deut

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: ³⁹. 2:14, where “a flour offering of first fruits” is mentioned which is identified as the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14), traditionally brought from barley (since early in spring there is no wheat ready). The argument attempts to show that the offering mentioned in Lev. 2:14 must be the ‘omer offering of barley. The argument of R. Ismael is quoted only here because it cannot be sustained. The basis of the argument is the position that a word used in the legal parts of the Torah can only have one meaning. Since the construct form “flour offering of” used for the ritual of the suspected wife (Num. 5:15,16,18) refers to barley, it is concluded that the “flour offering of first fruits” also must refer to barley. The problem is that the construct state is also used in Lev. 2:7, 6:14,16; Num. 4:16, 28:8 clearly referring to wheat offerings.“Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. ⁴⁰ Wayyiqra Paršata 13(4). The reading Liezer for the first Tanna mentioned here, as against Lazar as suggested by the text, follows the reading of Sifra. Since this Tanna is mentioned before R. Aqiba, a reading of Lazar would refer to R. Eleazar ben ‘Arakh. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white⁴¹. 2:14, a word used in the description of the offering of first fruits. For the translation of אביב as “milky white”, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1991, pp. 192–194.” and it says in Egypt “milky white⁴². 9:31, referring to barley.”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost⁴³ offering is required as “first harvest” (Lev. 23:9–14). Pentecost is described as “holiday of first fruits” (Num. 28:26).. ⁴⁴ (but one cannot exclude the possibility that the text in Sifra is Amoraic and has been edited to make it more intelligible) and the Babli, Menaḥot 68b: רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר לַצִּיבּוּר. הֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בַּפֶּסַח וַהֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בָּעֲצֶרֶת. כְּמָה מָצִינוּ שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בָּעֲצֶרֶת. אַף מִמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בַּפֶּסַח. מֵאֵי זֶה מִין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ. מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַף הַצִּיבּוּר לֹא יָבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אִם תֹּאמַר. מִן הַחִיטִּין. אֵין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּיכּוּרִים. Rebbi Aqiba says: It was said to the public, bring First Fruits on Passover and bring First Fruits on Pentecost. As we find that, from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public has to bring their First Fruits on Pentecost, also from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public brings their First Fruits on Passover. 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 are not First Fruits. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering⁴⁵ flour offerings of a private person are the purification offering of the poor (Lev. 5:11) and the offering for the suspected wife. The voluntary offerings of a private person are all high quality wheat. 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 Breads⁴⁶. 23:17. These are called “First Fruits”. If the ‘Omer offering, whose nature is not specified in the verse, were to be brought from wheat, the Two Breads would not be baked from “First Fruits”. would not be first fruits.

footnotes: ³⁹ This sentence is also quoted in Halakhah 3:1. The argument refers to Lev ⁴⁰ A slightly garbled version of a text dealing with the same problem, preserved in Sifra ⁴¹ Lev ⁴² Ex ⁴³ During or after the Holiday of Unleavened Bread (depending on the interpretation of the term “after the Sabbath”) the ‘Omer ⁴⁴ This text is slightly garbled. A more intelligible text is in Sifra ⁴⁵ The only obligatory ⁴⁶ Two wheat breads made from sour dough to be presented to the altar but not burned, Lev

There, said by Rebbi Jonah: “Halica⁴⁷ “groats of spelt”. This is confirmed by the (Galilean) spelling חליקה of the Rome ms. The spelling חילקה is Babylonian; cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutaḥ Nedarim, p. 456. He explains that R. Jonah derives חילקה from the Hebrew root חלק “to split” and pronounced טרגיס, trayis from Latin tres or Greek τρεῖς. The Mishnah, Makhširin 6:2, mentions “spelt groats, tragos, tisana” as manufactured products; R. Jonah defines these trade names. In the Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 13b, R. Jonah’s definition is described as Babylonian; the Galilean definition of חילקה given by Rav Dimi is כונתא, explained by the commentary ascribed to Rashi as “spelt for chewing” and by “Rashi’s commentary” edited by E. Kupfer as “shelled spelt”, confirming the determination as halica., into two parts. Tragos⁴⁸ “porridge”., into three. Tisana⁴⁹, Greek πτισάνη, “peeled barley, barley gruel”., into four.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked: From there on, is it coarse flour⁵⁰. 5:15) as “coarse barley flour”. Is it enough if the kernels are broken into at least five parts or does there have to be a real grinding process? The question is not answered.? One does not have to sift out the fine flour from in between⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ J. Levy, supported by H. L. Fleischer, sees in חילקה Latin alica, halica ⁴⁸ Greek τράγος, “spelt (or other grains); goat”. Latin tragos, tragum ⁴⁹ Latin “barley groats, pearl barley; barley water”; originally Latin ptisana ⁵⁰ The offering of the suspected wife is defined (Num ⁵¹ The presence of a few finely ground pieces of barley does not invalidate the offering if it is recognizable as coarse flour by the naked eye.

MISHNAH: He⁵² brought a new⁵³ earthenware bowl⁵⁴ and filled it with half a log⁵⁵ 17:11. of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]⁵⁶. (Just as he⁵⁷ shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He⁵² 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 said⁵⁸. 5:17.: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”

footnotes: ⁵² The officiating priest. ⁵³ The text of the Yerushalmi is also the text of most Mishnah mss. The word is missing in the Babli mss. ⁵⁴ Greek φιάλη. ⁵⁵ 0.27 1. Cf. Mishnah Kelim ⁵⁶ A quarter log is the rabbinic minimum for any liquid used in any ceremony. ⁵⁷ Rebbi Jehudah; cf. Mishnah 3. ⁵² The officiating priest. ⁵⁸ Num

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.⁵⁹” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁰ 1(4)., as we have stated there⁶¹ 14:1, referring to the purification of the person healed from skin disease.: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.⁶². 14:5, speaking of the slaughtering of one of the two birds used in the purification rite. “Live” water is running water from a fountain or natural stream.” 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 here⁶³: If the meaning of “earthenware vessel” was determined to include “new”, the same meaning applies everywhere. The Yerushalmi rejects this application to the names of vessels of common use.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he⁶⁴ agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin⁶⁵. 30:17–21. The statement is also anonymous in Sifry Num. 10, Sifry zuṭa Naśo, Num. rabba 9(12); cf. Targumim to Num. 5:17. In the Babli, 15b, it is attributed to R. Joḥanan in the editio princeps, impossible in a Tannaïtic text, and to R. Ismael in the Munich ms., contradicting the next statement there. In the Babli text quoted in the 12th Century Sefer Yereïm 460 (ed. S. Z. Halberstam), the statement is missing; this is the only consistent Babli text, defining this baraita as differing from the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water⁶⁶ in the Temple area.. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah⁶⁷, loc. cit.) it follows that the word describes a somehow defective or incomplete clay vessel. Ben Jehudah in his Thesaurus (p. 3662) quotes several proposed interpretations without giving his own opinion. As a Semitic word, the root is נקד, “exhibiting spots”, but cf. Greek μαγίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “kneading trough, pan, plate”; Latin magis, -idis, or magida -ae, “dish, platter, kneading trough”.. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They⁶⁸ wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁹ 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 left⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ In the Babli, 15b, this is attributed to R. Ismael. The statement is not mentioned in the Midrashim. The quote seems to imply a Mishnah text similar to that of the Babli. ⁶⁰ The argument is mentioned in his name in Sifra Meṣorah Pereq ⁶¹ Mishnah Nega‘im ⁶² Lev ⁶³ The argument is irrelevant for the ritual of the suspected wife. In the Babli, the connection is made by R. Ismael’s rule of gezerah s̊awah ⁶⁴ R. Eliezer. ⁶⁵ From which the priests draw the water for their ablutions; cf. Ex ⁶⁶ The last two statements are also in the Babli, 15b. The statement by R. Ismael requires the water to be brought from outside the Temple precinct (the Giḥon source); the rabbis permit the water to be drawn also from the water canal crossing the temple courtyard or from one of the miqwaot ⁶⁷ From the context (here, and in Sifra ⁶⁸ Some members of the Academy. ⁶⁹ Since it may be assumed that “a new vessel” means: not a defective one. ⁷⁰ A broken vessel is acceptable if it represents the major part of a complete vessel. This statement is not in the Babli; since the Babli requires a new vessel (or at least one renewed by firing), it will reject a broken one.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm 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 Rebbi 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 rabbis⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷¹ A clean vessel is prescribed but an infraction of this rule does not invalidate the procedure. The Babli disagrees, 15b, and declares a sooty vessel unacceptable under any circumstance as long as the soot has not been removed by firing the vessel. Since the statement in the Babli is attributed to Rava who is described as knowledgeable in the rules of the Yerushalmi, the statement in the Babli is a direct polemic against the Yerushalmi.

There⁷² 11:8. The hyssop was used to sprinkle water mixed with ashes of the red cow to cleanse a person defiled by the impurity of the dead. From the biblical expression (Num. 19:9) מֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִיא “sprinkling water, it is purifying”, the water is called in Talmudic terminology מֵי חַטָּאת or simply חַטָּאת “purifying (water)”. Cf. also Note 36., we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable [to be used] to purify the sufferer from skin disease⁷³. 19:18); for the cleansing from skin disease it is used among other things (Lev. 14:6)..” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar⁷⁴: That [was stated] to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer⁷⁵ 8:2: “A hyssop acceptable for purifying is acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. If he used it for sprinkling to purify it is still acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Eliezer says, the cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson strip mentioned in the Torah (Lev. 14:6) cannot have been previously used for any purpose.” The prohibition of prior use is spelled out in the Torah for the red cow only (Num. 19:2). By rabbinic tradition, the prohibition is extended to the water used for purifying as explained at length in Mishnah Parah. R. Eliezer extends the prohibition to anything used in any ritual of purification by hyssop and water., as it was stated⁷⁶ is not quoted in any other source; the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note shows that the source of the baraita is the school of R. Eliezer.: 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. ⁷⁷11:4); no dissent by R. Eliezer is recorded. Therefore, practice must follow the Mishnah, not R. Eliezer. Rebbi 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?

footnotes: ⁷² Mishnah Parah ⁷³ Hyssop alone is required for purifying (from the impurity of the dead) (Num ⁷⁴ The Amora, ben Pedat. ⁷⁵ Tosephta Nega‘im ⁷⁶ This baraita ⁷⁷ The argument presented here is intended to show an error in the position of R. Eliezer. The argument of R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) is not found in any other source.The argument goes as follows: Everybody agrees that the rules of purification from skin disease are not as stringent as those from the impurity of the dead. If using hyssop for purifying from the impurity of the dead would disqualify it as instrument for purifying from skin disease, one must require that one hyssop cannot be used for several people defiled by contact with a corpse. But is was general practice that the Temple provided a purification service where a person was standing in a window and was sprinkling continuously on the people walking by below, always using the same hyssop (Mishnah Parah

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, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eleazar⁷⁸ will agree with him. But with him who said, it is disqualified, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eleazar will disagree. It was stated⁷⁹ 8:2, Sifra Meṣora‘ (13).: Rebbi Jehudah said, it was my Sabbath⁸⁰ and I followed Rebbi Tarphon to his house. He said to me, Jehudah, my son, give me my sandals. I gave them to him. He reached with his hand to the window and gave me a stick⁸¹. 14:6), follow parallel rules. from there. He said to me, Jehudah, my son, with this one I cleansed three sufferers from skin disease and I taught with it seven practices. That it is yabrut⁸² ברות. The exact kind of cedar mentioned is not known. Since Mishnah Parah 11:6 states that any kind of hyssop known by a qualifying adjective is invalid (examples given are: blue hyssop, Roman hyssop, desert hyssop), R. Tarphon insists that any tree of the cedar family qualifies even if its trade name does not even contain the word “cedar”., on its head is a leaf⁸³, 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)⁸⁴, and one sprinkles and repeats and does it a third time⁸⁵, and one purifies when there is a Temple and when there is no Temple, and one purifies in the countryside⁸⁶. 14:1–9), while requiring the services of a Cohen such as R. Tarphon, is independent of the Temple service. While R. Tarphon was old enough to have served in the Temple, R. Jehudah was born after its destruction..

footnotes: ⁷⁸ No R. Eleazar (one of the Tannaïm, ben Pada or ben Shamua‘) is mentioned in any of our other sources as joining R. Jehudah in this controversy. ⁷⁹ Tosephta Nega‘im ⁸⁰ It seems that in the Academy of R. Tarphon, the students had to serve their teacher on the Sabbath, taking turns. ⁸¹ Hyssop does not grow solid stems. Therefore, this must refer to the cedar branch used in the ceremony. It is to be assumed that cedar and hyssop, mentioned in parallel in the verse (Lev ⁸² In the Tosephta אברית, in Sifra ⁸³ A cedar stick without any green needles is invalid. ⁸⁴ Even a very thin branch will do. ⁸⁵ This answers our question. ⁸⁶ Even though the final purification rite which gives access to the Sanctuary presupposes a Sanctuary, the preliminary rite which re-integrates the sufferer from skin disease into society (Lev

“Water⁸⁷ 5:17: מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים.”, I could think it should look like water. The verse says, “dust”⁸⁸. 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 dust⁸⁹. The Sages estimated half a log of water from the wash basin. But did we not state⁹⁰: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]”. Rebbi Jehudah follows his particular way, as we have stated: “Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.”

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Num. ⁸⁸ A translation (Arabism) of the word עָפָר “dust”; cf. Arabic ارض. ⁸⁹ The dust should be a powder on the clear water. ⁹⁰ In the Mishnah.

There⁹¹ a 3:10, speaking of Queen Helena of Adiabene., 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 risen⁹². What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹³ said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it⁹⁴. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average⁹⁵ The questioner thought that the entire tablet had to be copied as it was written; then an abbreviated version would be impossible.. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”⁹⁶; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph⁹⁷: 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.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Mishnah Yom ⁹² The golden tablet was fixed on the Eastern wall of the Temple building. ⁹³ The short form ריש לקיש is a Babylonism. ⁹⁴ Single letters were written on the tablet, each letter being the first of its word. (Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, pp. 88–95). ⁹⁵ The suspected wife’s scroll had to be written in the way the letters were on the queen’s tablet, not ornamental and not in italics. ⁹⁶ For each letter one copies the entire word. The first sentence of the scroll would read on the tablet as אם ל ש א א ו ל ש ט ת א ה מ ה ה ה which would be copied as אם לא שכב איש אתך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה where every first letter was copied exactly from the tablet and the rest of the word added in the same style of script. ⁹⁷ While writing, the Cohen explained the text homiletically to the suspected wife, as explained in the next paragraph, so that she would understand the meaning of the ceremony.

⁹⁸ 18(1); cf. Abot dR. Natan, A 19, B 32; Derekh Ereṣ 3 in the name of Ben Azai. There ⁹⁹ 3:1: "Aqabiah ben Mehallalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression: Know from where you came, where you are going, and before Whom you will be held accountable in the future. From where you came, from a stinking drop. Where you are going, to a place of dust, worms, and vermin. Before Whom you will be held accountable in the future, before the King over emperors and kings, the Holy One, praise to Him.", we have stated: “Aqabiah ben Mehallalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression.” Rebbi Abba ben Rav Pappaeus and Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All three Aqabiah derived from the same verse¹⁰⁰. 12:1.: “Remember your Creator,” your fountain, your cavern, your Creator¹⁰¹. 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.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Lev. rabba ⁹⁹ Mishnah Abot ¹⁰⁰ Eccl ¹⁰¹ Based on three possible vocalizations of the biblical בראך.. The vocalization בוראֲך instead of the masoretic בראֶך is the manuscript’s.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰² 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶ Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷, the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸, and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹ (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹² Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴ 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵ 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..

footnotes: ¹⁰² A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin ¹⁰³ Deut ¹⁰⁴ Num ¹⁰⁵ Lev ¹⁰⁶ Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry ¹⁰⁷ Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead. ¹⁰⁸ As described in the Mishnah. ¹⁰⁹ Deut ¹¹⁰ Lev ¹¹¹ Taking exactly one quarter log ¹¹² Sifra ¹¹³ Lev ¹¹⁴ Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah ¹¹⁵ R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah

“And from the dust.¹¹⁷. 5:17: “And from the dust which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary, the Cohen has to take and put on the water.” The parallel version in the Babli, 15b, [and Num. rabba 9(13)], is formulated differently.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe¹¹⁸, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. ¹¹⁹ preserved only in the Babli (15b, bottom; variant readings in the critical edition p. רלו) which requires the dust to be prepared outside, brought inside, and spread on the floor of the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House¹²⁰ 14:8.).

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Num ¹¹⁸ This דקל is not Aramaic “date palm” but the equivalent of Mishnaic דקר “pick-axe” by a change of liquids. ¹¹⁹ R. Abin reformulates the preceding argument from a slightly different angle. His polemic is directed against a baraita ¹²⁰ The order given here is also in the Munich ms. of the Babli. The historic order would be: the Tabernacle, Shilo, Nob, Gibeon, and the Eternal House (the Temple which in rabbinic tradition cannot be replaced by a Sanctuary at any other place, Mishnah Zebaḥim

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” 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.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt¹²⁷. Rebbi Jehudah said¹²⁸ he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “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.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

footnotes: ¹²⁷ He requires that verses 19–22 be written in their entirety. ¹²⁸ He holds that verses 19–20 indicate a preparatory speech by the Cohen, that the valid curses, designated as such, are only in v. 21 and part of v. 22.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹³ 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 verse¹²¹ but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking¹²². rabba 5(45)] solves the problem by requiring that the scroll be written after the wife has agreed to the oath but before it is administered.. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions¹²³ and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes¹²⁴ 19a) that any biblical precept characterized as חוּקָּה or תּוֹרָה is invalid if not executed to the letter. The procedure of the suspected wife is called תורה in v. 30.; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree¹²⁵ but they¹²⁶ 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.

footnotes: ⁹³ The short form ריש לקיש is a Babylonism. ¹²¹ Administering the oath is mentioned in verses 19 and 21; writing the curses is only mentioned in v. 23, followed by the commandment to let the woman drink the water in v. 24. But then the ceremony is interrupted by presenting the flour offering and it is stated (vv. 26, 27) that only after that the water is to be given. ¹²² The Babli [17b, 19b, quoted in Num ¹²³ All details of the procedure outlined in the verses. The first opinion holds that the entire procedure is invalid if one detail is wrong. The second opinion holds that the procedure becomes invalid only if the water is given before the oath was administered. ¹²⁴ It is a generally accepted principle (Babli Menaḥot ¹²⁵ Nobody disagrees with the rule expressed in Note 124. ¹²⁶ The sequence of execution of the ceremony may not follow the sequence of the verses; cf. Mishnah 3:1.

MISHNAH: He does not write on a wooden plank, or on papyrus, or on διφθέρα¹⁵¹, only on a scroll, as it is said: “In a book¹⁴⁸ 5:23.”. He does not write with gum¹⁵²; Greek κόμμι, τό “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 off¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Greek “hide prepared for writing.” The traditional interpretation of the Mishnaic word is “rough parchment; incompletely tanned skin.” ¹⁴⁸ Num. ¹⁵² Latin commis, gummi ¹⁴⁶ This is the commentary on Mishnah 5.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt,” etc. Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Does the suspected wife’s scroll defile the hands¹²⁹ 3, Babli Šabbat 14a. The decree applies to any text at least 85 letters long. The impurity of hands, being secondary, would not cause any trouble in the Temple. The Cohen simply would have to wash his hands before handling the cup of water from which the woman drinks.? He said to him, that is a question. Rebbi Yose¹³⁰ 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 erased¹³¹! One only questions because it had to be erased¹³² 9:11) disregards the question and follows R. Yose..

footnotes: ¹²⁹ All biblical texts defile the hands by a rabbinic decree, to make it impossible to a fellow of the faithful to study the Bible with food in his hand, to protect the books from mice and other animals found around food; cf. Mishnah Yadaim ¹³⁰ The Amora. ¹³¹ The entire scroll has to be erased, including the two instances of the Divine Name which in any other circumstance may not be erased. How can such a text claim holiness? ¹³² R. Yose’s argument is irrelevant. There remain two questions: (1) After the script has been erased, does the sheet retain holiness and must be buried, or may it be re-used for profane purposes? If it retains holiness it induces impurity of the hands. (2) If for some reason the scroll was not erased, for example if the wife admits her infidelity, the scroll has to be buried or otherwise hidden (Mishnah 3:3). The question is whether this is a biblical requirement because of the sanctity of the writing, or rabbinical to make sure the scroll could not be used for any other woman (cf. Note 104). The question remains unanswered; Maimonides (Abot Haṭum’a

How many letters have to be written unnecessarily¹³⁵ for him to be guilty? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah¹³⁶. Rebbi Yudan asked, if he wrote from memory¹³⁷ Yerushalmi 4:1; Babli 18b). This is a rabbinic requirement., or rubbed it off with dust¹³⁸, or wrote one word and wiped it off immediately¹³⁹? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua said, one does not write on leather from an unclean animal¹⁴⁰ 13:9: “That the Eternal’s Torah shall be in your mouth.”. Rebbi Simeon said, since you said it is written to be erased, why can he not write? It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon said, I prefer the words of Eleazar ben Shamua over my father’s words. Maybe she will say: I will not drink. Then the Name would be hidden¹⁴¹ on leather from an unclean animal.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ In a way that makes the text unacceptable; e. g. with one of the proscribed types of ink. Then erasing the Name will be sinful.Tosaphot (20a) have a completely different reading: כמה ימחק “How much does he have to erase? Rebbi Ḥanin stated …” ¹³⁶ The shortest divine Name which may not be erased. ¹³⁷ A Torah scroll written from memory, not from a corrected original, cannot be used (Megillah, ¹³⁸ The verse requires erasing with water. The answer to this question is not given; the negative answer is obvious from Note 124. ¹³⁹ Before the ink has time to dry. That procedure saves much time and work. No answer is given. In the Babli, 18a, the procedure is declared invalid. ¹⁴⁰ A Torah scroll must be written on leather or parchment from an animal whose kind could be eaten. This is derived in both Talmudim from the verse Ex. ¹⁴¹ Mishnah 3:3. The matter is one of good behavior, not of a biblical precept.

There is written “book”, and here is written “book”¹⁴³ 24:1. Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3 states that one may write on anything, e. g. on a leaf which was plucked from its plant; according to some authorities the husband may even write the bill on the horns of a cow and deliver the cow to his wife. But for the document of the suspected wife one requires regular writing leather.. 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”¹⁴⁴ 5:23. This is more explicit in Mishnah 5, quoted in Sifry Num. 16; Num. rabba 5(47)..

footnotes: ¹⁴³ The divorce document is called “a book of divorce” in Deut. ¹⁴⁴ Num.

¹⁴⁶“And he writes”. I could think [one writes] with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate¹⁴⁷ 13a) translates Romance adrement, Latin atramentum. Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxiv.32) writes that the Greeks call chalcanthum what in Rome is called atramentum sutorium,“blacking for leather”., the verse says, “he shall wipe off”¹⁴⁸ 5:23.. If he has to erase, I could think [one writes] with drinks or fruit juice; the verse says, “he shall write”¹⁴⁹. How is that? Writing that can be wiped off. What is this? This is ink without vitriol. But did we not state: If he wiped off from a Torah scroll it is valid. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: Rebbi Meïr said, all the time we were studying with Rebbi Ismael, we put no vitriol in the ink¹⁵⁰ 13a) reports that R. Ismael required that a Torah scroll must be written so that it could serve as the suspected wife’s scroll..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ This is the commentary on Mishnah 5. ¹⁴⁷ Greek χάλκανθον. Rashi (Erubin ¹⁴⁸ Num. ¹⁴⁹ In the sense of a permanent writing. ¹⁵⁰ The Babli (Erubin

MISHNAH: Why does she repeat¹⁵³ 5:22.: “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 me¹⁵⁴. Amen that I did not deviate preliminarily married¹⁵⁵ Chapter 1, Note 63; Peah Chapter 6, Note 46. and married, waiting for the levir and taken in¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Meїr says, Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ In the Bablylonian Mishnah: על מה היא אומרת “What does she imply by repeating”. The reference is to Num. ¹⁵⁴ In the Babylonian Mishnah, this sentence comes after the following. ¹⁵⁵ Cf. Yebamot, ¹⁵⁶ If the first husband had died childless and the levir brings her to the Temple as his wife. Only R. Aqiba considers sexual relations of the not-yet-married widow a crime. All other authorities will remove the mention of the widow “waiting to be married by the levir”.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁸: Halakhah 5.: “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra¹⁵⁹ 36a, this is a statement of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, a younger contemporary of R. Yose ben Zimra. In Num. rabba 9(46) the reading is that of the Yerushalmi.: “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen”, may the words be confirmed. “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, from the suspected wife¹⁶⁰ 5:22.. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers”, etc¹⁶¹ 11:5: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers to give to them the Land flowing with milk and honey as today; I answered and said, Amen, o Eternal.”. “Amen”, may the words be confirmed¹⁶² 1:36.: “Benaiah ben Yehoyada (the priest) answered the king and said Amen”, etc. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing¹⁶³. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse¹⁶⁴ 29:11. The curse is *Deut.*28:15–68.,” because oath means curse, as you say¹⁶⁵ 5:21. In the Babli, Šebuot35b, this is a tannaїtic statement. In Sifry Num. 14 the argument is: From the verse one infers that any oath implies a potential curse on the person taking the oath.: “The Cohen has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ In the ms. and editio princeps ¹⁵⁹ In the Babli, Šebuot ¹⁶⁰ Num. ¹⁶¹ Jer. ¹⁶² 1K. ¹⁶³ The verse from Jeremiah only confirms what can be learned from the verse in Kings, that Amen is an affirmation. ¹⁶⁴ Deut. ¹⁶⁵ Num.

¹⁶⁶ 1:5 (fol. 60d). In the Babli, the parallel is Qiddušin 27b. From where did they learn rollover of oaths¹⁶⁷ 1:5. It is seen in Mishnah 7 that some connection of the additions to the original claim is required.? 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 about¹⁶⁸. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married¹⁵⁵ Chapter 1, Note 63; Peah Chapter 6, Note 46. and married, waiting for the levir and taken in¹⁵⁶.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir¹⁶⁹ 5:19)”. Nevertheless, the husband can force her to swear about her behavior when she was his wife but not under him.? Nevertheless one rolls over.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ This paragraph and the next are also in Qiddušin ¹⁶⁷ If a person is required to swear, the opposing party can add to the contents of the oath any statement similar to the one which causes the oath to be forced. For example, if a person has a monetary claim on another person for which he has partial proof, enough to force the opposing party to swear, he can add to the text of the oath of disclaimer any other financial claim which he might have but for which the proofs in his hand are not sufficient to force the defendant to swear. This is the topic of Qiddušin ¹⁶⁸ While the husband must specify the name of the man he suspects of an affair with his wife in order to declare his jealousy and bring her to the Temple, he could have named any other man. Therefore, he can add the names of other men to the formula of the oath. ¹⁵⁵ Cf. Yebamot, ¹⁵⁶ If the first husband had died childless and the levir brings her to the Temple as his wife. Only R. Aqiba considers sexual relations of the not-yet-married widow a crime. All other authorities will remove the mention of the widow “waiting to be married by the levir”. ¹⁶⁹ Mishnah 4:1 states that there is no declaration of jealousy admitted in these two cases since the ceremony applies only to “a wife under her husband (Num.

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath¹⁷² 14, copied in Num. rabba 9(46).. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They¹⁷³ 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 oath¹⁷⁴ 7:11 that Hillel, about 100 years before R. Ismael, accepted only seven rules (numbers 1–6, 13). The baraita may be genuine but it is not practice.? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They¹⁷³ 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, Amen¹⁷⁴ 7:11 that Hillel, about 100 years before R. Ismael, accepted only seven rules (numbers 1–6, 13). The baraita may be genuine but it is not practice.?

footnotes: ¹⁷² This is the ninth hermeneutical rule of R. Ismael: “Anything which was in a set and was singled out to teach, was not singled out for itself but to teach about the entire set.” The rules of oaths derived from the ceremony of the suspected wife must apply to all members of the set of oaths. The same argument in Sifry Num. ¹⁷³ The members of the Academy of Tiberias. ¹⁷⁴ If one negates the 9th hermeneutical rule, one also has to negate the possibility of rollover of oaths in general. It is reported in Tosephta Sanhedrin ¹⁷³ The members of the Academy of Tiberias. ¹⁷⁴ If one negates the 9th hermeneutical rule, one also has to negate the possibility of rollover of oaths in general. It is reported in Tosephta Sanhedrin

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law¹⁷⁵, Chapter 1, Note 30; Babli Y ebamot 92a. R. Aqiba declares as a bastard any child from a union not explicitly permitted.. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife¹⁷⁶. ¹⁷⁷ 1:1, explained there in Notes 93–101. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house¹⁷⁸ 81a,92b,95a,96a; Giṭṭin 80b; Soṭa 18b.) In the last source, the decision that practice does not follow Rav Hamnuna is explicitly attributed to Yerushalmi sources.. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir]¹⁸⁰, 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.¹⁸¹”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Cf. Yebamot ¹⁷⁶ Since the widow of a childless man cannot possibly marry any man but her levir (unless she is released by the latter), and she can be married by the levir without any ceremony, she may be considered as engaged to be married by him. ¹⁷⁷ This text is from Yebamot ¹⁷⁸ “Her house” is really her future house, that of her levir. This is the answer to the question asked if we follow R. Eleazar.The opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi is in the Babli ascribed to Rav Hamnuna (Yebamot ¹⁸⁰ Since a man is forbidden to marry his deceased wife’s mother, even if the wife died while being only preliminarily married to him, it follows that the one waiting for her levir is unrelated to the levir for R. Eleazar. She is unable to be unfaithful to him and the question of R. Ilai cannot be asked. ¹⁸¹ Mishnah 7. R. Abba bar Mamal is correct in the tradition of R. Eleazar. For him, only R. Aqiba could let the levir include a question about the time between the first husband’s death and his marriage.

How could one state this Mishnah¹⁸²? Not the rabbis nor Rebbi Aqiba! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house [follows] the rabbis against Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸³. He who says that she is forbidden to her house [follows] Rebbi Aqiba against the rabbis¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house¹⁸⁵. 25:5. As R. Yose bar Abun notes here, the prohibition covers only marriage, not extramarital relations.. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes¹⁸⁶. 5:13. This baraita is not found in any other source. In a later paragraph, the expression quoted is interpreted to mean that a blind man cannot declare his jealousy and in Sifry Num. 7 that if the husband ever had looked the other way he never again could invoke the procedure of the suspected wife.,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a Cohen, and they permitted her to her house. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.

footnotes: ¹⁸² Mishnah 7, just quoted. In the tradition of the Babli and of the independent Mishnah mss., Mishnah 7 is part of Mishnah 6. Then one has a real problem, since in our interpretation Mishnah 6 is R. Aqiba’s and Mishnah 7 the rabbi’s. ¹⁸³ Then Mishnah 7 has to be separated from Mishnah 6 as in the Yerushalmi text. ¹⁸⁴ There is no problem; Mishnah 7 is part of Mishnah 6. ¹⁸⁵ R. Yannai is the one who in the preceding paragraph had stated that a woman waiting for her levir is unable to contract a marriage outside the family. He will also hold that contracting such a marriage is a criminal act since that is formulated as a prohibition in Deut ¹⁸⁶ Num

Not that Rebbi Meïr was saying that the water checks her outside of its time¹⁸⁷ retroactively.” This is very close to the text of a baraita in the Babli (18b) and is suspect against the testimony of both mss. The usual meaning of למפרע is “retroactively (in time); in inverse order (of an arrangement)”. Since, as noted by J. Levy in his Dictionary in the name of H. L. Fleischer, מפרע seems to be an Arabism and Arabic פרע means both ascending and descending, the translation of מפרע chosen here is “not in time (possibly earlier, possibly later).” Then the longer text would be unnecessary and the meaning is clear: The water will have no effect any time a sin was not committed. In the Tosephta (2:2), the reading is: That even after 20 years the water may reawake and check her out.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that the husband may stipulate that the wife swear not to be unfaithful in the future. Tosaphot (18a) has a fuller version: לא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַכְשָׁיו אֶלָּא הַמַּיִם פְּקוּדִים בָּהּ לִכְשֶׁתִּטַּמֵּא הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. “Not that Rebbi Meïr was saying that the water checks her now but that the water is deposited in her body and if she would be defiled the water would check her

“The teaching about jealousies¹⁸⁸. 5:29. The text seems to be a composition of two different texts. In Sifry zuṭa [also similarly in Num. rabba 5(51)] one reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’; the jealous husband may express his jealousy in Shiloh and in the Eternal House (cf. Note 120). I could think, also at a local altar? The verse says: This.” The argument is obsolete since it is generally accepted doctrine that after the building of the Temple no local altar was permitted. The question arose since v. 15 requires the husband to bring his wife to the Cohen, perhaps not necessarily to the Tabernacle. But since the dust has to be taken from the floor of the Sanctuary, an altar without Sanctuary is excluded. The special emphasis of this indicates that no substitute for the Tabernacle is acceptable.”. This is a teaching of the Temple. ¹⁸⁹ reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’, which teaches that a woman drinks and repeats {from the several jealousies}. Rebbi Jehudah says this {a singular}, a woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats and we accepted his testimony from two husbands but not from one husband. But the Sages say that a woman does not drink and repeat whether from one husband or from two husbands.” The Babli has a complicated explanation to harmonize the anonymous first source (which has to represent the opinion of the majority, the Sages) with the contradictory statement at the end. The text of Num. rabba 5(51), is clearly an explanation of the position of the Babli. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba 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 repeats¹⁹⁰ drink and repeat.” This text, which eliminates the disagreement with the Babli, is in contradiction to the following. 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 Abtalyon¹⁹¹ 5:6 she is called Karkemit the libertine (the freedwoman). It is unclear whether at the end there is a difference between the two Talmudim since it is not stated whether Korkemit was repeatedly accused of relations with the same man..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ Num ¹⁸⁹ In the Babli, 18b, the text of this baraita ¹⁹⁰ In the Rome ms: “A woman does not ¹⁹¹ In Mishnah Idiut

There, we have stated¹⁹² 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “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 written¹⁹³. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)¹⁹⁴ 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written¹⁹⁵. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹⁶. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them¹⁹⁷. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His¹⁹⁸ lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

footnotes: ¹⁹² Mishnah Idiut ¹⁹³ Num ¹⁹⁴ This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba ¹⁹⁵ Num ¹⁹⁶ This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba ¹⁹⁷ Num ¹⁹⁸ In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying …

“It was hidden from her husband’s eyes¹⁹⁹. 5:13.”, that excludes the blind man who has no eyes²⁰⁰ 7, Tanḥuma Buber Naśo 11 (Note 62); Sifry Num. 7, Sifry zuṭa Naśo; Num. rabba 9(36); Babli 27a (the only other source which also includes the blind wife).. It is the same for the blind man and the blind woman. This baraita follows Rebbi Jehudah who frees him from all obligations in the Torah²⁰¹31a. Since some of the great Babylonian authorities were blind (Rav Sheshet and Rav Yoseph), practice does not follow R. Jehudah. (Nevertheless, Maimonides disqualifies the blind man from the ceremony of the suspected wife)..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ Num ²⁰⁰ Tanḥuma Naśo ²⁰¹ Quoted also in Babli Qiddušin

MISHNAH: Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced²⁰². If she was secluded after that²⁰³. 24:2–4 prohibits the first husband from remarrying his divorcee if she had married another man after her divorce (Deut. 24:2: “She went and became another’s [wife]”.) Remarrying a wife who was promiscuous after divorce but not otherwise married is not forbidden., became impure²⁰⁴ 6:5, Note 107; Babli Yebamot 61b; Sifra Emor Pereq 1)., 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 him¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ²⁰² He cannot ask her to swear that she did not have any intercourse while not being married to him. ²⁰³ After the divorce. Deut ²⁰⁴ Unmarried intercourse is punishable as harlotry according to some authorities (Yebamot ¹⁸¹ Mishnah 7. R. Abba bar Mamal is correct in the tradition of R. Eleazar. For him, only R. Aqiba could let the levir include a question about the time between the first husband’s death and his marriage.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, it is obvious that a man may forgive about his jealousy²⁰⁵ 8:6 (fol. 26b, line 33), he may retract his declaration any time before the scroll is erased. In the paragraph here, the argument is as in the Babli.. 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 it²⁰⁶. 5:31)., 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.

footnotes: ²⁰⁵ In the Babli, 25a, this husband may annul his declaration of jealousy only if the wife did not meet her paramour at a secluded place. In the Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin ²⁰⁶ From that moment on, she is forbidden to him. If he divorces her instead of taking her to the Temple, there is a question whether the divorce annuls the prohibition or not. If the divorce annuls the prohibition, he may take her back and the water will check her out in the future. If the divorce does not annul the prohibition, it is sinful for him to take her back without having her checked out and therefore the entire procedure is invalid since the water acts only if the husband himself is totally free from any sexual misbehavior (Num