MISHNAH: He¹ took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket², put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave³. He weaved, presented⁴, took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests⁵. 6:7–11..

footnotes: ¹ The officiating priest. ² See Mishnah 2:1. ³ The prescribed movements for the dedication of private offerings. The movements in the six directions (fore and aft, right and left, up and down) are imitated today as the motions of the palm-branch on Tabernacles. ⁴ Before the altar receives its part, the entire offering in the vessel is presented to the altar at its South-West corner. ⁵ As are all offerings except those of a priest; cf. Lev

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written⁶ 5:25: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand, weave it before the Eternal and present it to the altar.”: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave⁷ 7:30) that the individual bringing the sacrifice be the actor: “His hands shall bring the Eternal’s gift, the fat on the breast he has to bring, to weave it before the Eternal.” In the Babli, 19a, the parallel expressions his hands, the woman’s hand are taken as proof that the woman has to take part in weaving her gift just as a man has to take part in the weaving of his. The formulation of the Yerushalmi may be interpreted as a question: Since the Mishnah requires the woman to participate and the verse requires the Cohen to perform the weave, how can the Mishnah be justified?? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. ⁸ 1:8 (fol. 61c).“The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable⁹? He brings a kerchief¹⁰. Does that not separate¹¹? He brings an elderly Cohen¹². You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour¹³. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹⁴ R. Ḥiyya stated, it happens (that the Cohen has sinful thoughts). Maybe he implies that since the weaving can be done by two priests for the handless woman, it can be done by two priests for all women. There is no parallel to this baraita in any other known source.: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

footnotes: ⁶ Num. ⁷ The verse requires that the Cohen perform the weave. But in the case of an animal sacrifice it is required (Lev. ⁸ The rest of the paragraph is also in Qiddušin ⁹ In the Babli, this would be written כעור. Is the bodily contact between the Cohen and an otherwise married woman not immoral? It is not directly forbidden since the woman has to be pure to enter the Temple but this makes the situation only worse. ¹⁰ Between his and her hands, not to touch the woman. ¹¹ It is a general principle that the Temple service has to be by the priest directly. Since the verse requires the priests to serve in the Temple, they may not wear shoes (even in winter) since then the shoes would be in the Temple, not the Cohen directly. If the Cohen has to perform the weave, his hands cannot be separated from the Temple vessel. If, as indicated in the previous Note, the participation of the woman is implicitly required by the verse, her hands do not count as separation. ¹² Presumably he is past all sexual feelings. ¹³ The fear of the Temple will banish all bad thoughts. The commentaries read the sentence to mean that in the short time needed for the weave, bad thoughts cannot develop. This is obviously false. ¹⁴ In Qiddušin:

Rebbi 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 vessel¹⁵2:8.?

footnotes: ¹⁵ When the Cohen brings the offering to the altar, does he touch the wall of the altar with the Temple vessel or does he have to turn the vessel so that some of the flour touches the wall? The Babli, 14b, states that the vessel is presented, based on Lev.

From where that weaves precede presentations¹⁶ 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife¹⁷ 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty¹⁸ 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following¹⁹ 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,²⁰ 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil. The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that²¹ 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave²²5:25..? It already preceded.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁷ Since Num. ¹⁸ While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot ¹⁹ Lev. ²⁰ Lev. ²¹ Lev. ²² Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.

There, it was stated²⁴7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵ bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶ offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷ in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸ 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹ 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸ 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹ 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰, so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹ said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³² 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 eaten³³? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴ in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵ 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵ 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷ 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹ 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰ 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹ 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²”. “You shall bring,²⁰ 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil. The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

footnotes: ²⁴ Mishnah Menaḥot ²⁵ This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. ²⁶ The paragraph of the ‘Omer ²⁷ Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. ²⁸ Num. ²⁹ Lev. ²⁸ Num. ²⁹ Lev. ³⁰ This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26. ³¹ This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. ³² Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. ³³ For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else. ³⁴ R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot ³⁵ Lev. ³⁶ The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev. ³⁵ Lev. ³⁷ The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. ³⁸ The argument of the preceding baraitot ³⁹ He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. ⁴⁰ Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ⁴¹ Lev. ⁴² Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife. ²⁰ Lev. ⁴³ While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.

MISHNAH: He¹ gives her to drink and after that he presents her offering⁴⁴. Rebbi Simeon says, he sacrifices her offering and afterwards gives her to drink as it is said⁴⁵ 5:27.: “After that he shall give the water to the woman to drink.” If he gave her to drink and after that sacrificed her offering, it is valid⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹ The officiating priest. ⁴⁴ As the Babli (19b) points out, Mishnah 1 only described all the ritual acts to be performed for the flour offering but did not determine the time sequence. ⁴⁵ Num. ⁴⁶ Even for R. Simeon.

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 her⁴⁷ 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink⁴⁵ 5:27..” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only⁴⁸ How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement⁴⁹. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid⁵⁰. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out⁵¹ but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is⁵² what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity⁵³ 5:15..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her¹ 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25.⁵⁴.” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs⁵⁵. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time⁵⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Num. ⁴⁵ Num. ⁴⁸ She has to drink the rather small amount of water completely. ⁴⁹ Cf. Mishnah 3. In the Babli, 19b, this is the position of the rabbis. ⁵⁰ This statement is not in the Babli. As Tosaphot (19a, s. v. ואחר) points out, the Babli does not object. ⁵¹ In the Babli, 20b, this is given as R. Simeon’s reason to require sacrificing the offering before the drink. ⁵² Reading אִין as הֵן, equivalent of Babylonian אִינּוּן “they are”. Instead of אין, the Rome ms. has היו. The past tense does not agree with the rest of the text; it should be rejected. Note that there also exists a Babylonian אִין, equal to הֵן “yes”. ⁵³ Num. ¹ Num. ⁵⁴ The same explanationas anonymous text in Sifry Num. 18; copied in Num. rabba 9(18). ⁵⁵ Cf. Mishnah 4. ⁵⁶ Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action.

The rabbis say, he writes, erases, gives to drink, and sacrifices [the flour offering]. Rebbi 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 Rebbi 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 gargle⁵⁶ and forces her to drink”. Following Rebbi Simeon. But following the rabbis she already drank⁵⁷ can only be from the school of R. Simeon since for the rabbis the offering is sacrificed only after she drank.. We have stated: “She did not finish drinking⁵⁸”. Some Tannaïm state: She did not move from there⁵⁹. He who says, she did not finish drinking, Rebbi Simeon⁶⁰ 4, Note 175, ‘Orlah 2, Note 30) that the Yerushalmi decides that practice follows R. Simeon.. He who says, she did not move from there, the rabbis⁶¹ follow R. Simeon..

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action. ⁵⁷ The baraita ⁵⁸ Mishnah 3:4: The water acted as poison when she was still standing in the courtyard of the Temple. ⁵⁹ After drinking the water, she had to remain in the courtyard until the fistful of her offering was burned on the altar. ⁶⁰ Since he was reported to hold that the water is checking her out. In this interpretation, the report in the Mishnah of a disagreement between the rabbis and R. Simeon is followed by an anonymous Mishnah following R. Simeon. This implies (cf. Yebamot ⁶¹ Since it was stated in the preceding paragraph that the water is only activated by the burning of the offering on the altar. This reason is given in the Babli for R. Simeon to require the early sacrificing of her offering, cf. Note 51. It shows that the Babli decides that practice does not

MISHNAH: If she said “I shall not drink⁶² money but without explicitly admitting guilt.” before the scroll was erased, her scroll is put away⁶³ and her offering dispersed on the ashes⁶⁴. Her scroll is not acceptable to be used to make another suspected wife drink⁶⁵. If she said “I am impure” after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed on the ashes⁶⁶. On her confession she cannot be prosecuted for adultery because confessions are not acceptable in a court of law since the testimony of close relatives is not admissible and everybody is a relative to himself.. If she said “I shall not drink” after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶² Since she is forbidden to her husband from the moment she was found to have been in a secluded place with her paramour until after she drank the water, by refusing to drink she accepts to be divorced by her husband without any ketubah ⁶³ Since it was written in holiness and contains the Divine Name, it cannot be destroyed. ⁶⁴ Since the offering was already dedicated in a Temple vessel, it cannot be returned to profane status. It is put on the ashes taken from the altar. ⁶⁵ Cf. Halakhah 2:2, Note 104. ⁶⁶ Since there is no longer any doubt, the water cannot be used, neither can the offering. By her confession of adultery she has to be divorced by her husband, without him having to pay the ketubah ⁶⁷ Since she caused the Divine Name to be erased, if she does not drink she commits blasphemy.

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 it⁷⁰. A small hollow space was where the water was poured out⁷¹ 34a, the open space between the ramp leading to the top of the altar and the altar is called lul; in the parallel Tosephta Zebaḥim 7:6 this is called חלון “window” or רבוכה ,רביבה “hollow with masonry walls.” That hollow could not be classified as “small”.. It was stated⁷²: There is no holiness in it. May it be used to moisten mortar⁷³? What should be wrong? It is poured out! It was stated⁷⁴. Since it is unknown which of the two baraitot represents practice, the unneeded water cannot be used for anything.: There is holiness in it.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Tosephta 2:2. The scroll has to be destroyed to avoid its being used again, but this must be done in holiness and without anybody touching the Divine Names. ⁷¹ There is no parallel to this statement in any known tannaїtic source; one does not know where this hollow space was. In Babli Pesaḥim ⁷² Tosephta 2:2, referring to the water which no longer is needed. ⁷³ It is sinful to use Temple property for private use. But the water might be used in ongoing repairs on the Temple mount. ⁷⁴ In another, otherwise undocumented baraita

“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 written⁷⁵. Rebbi Yose said, there is more: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, her offering is holy once she is on her way⁷⁶. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, our Mishnah states this⁷⁷ obligation.: “Or if her husband had sexual relations with her on the road.”

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Since following the rabbis the offering is transferred to the Temple vessel only after she drank the water, if her offering is treated as holy but invalid by being poured over the ashes of the sacrifices, the question arises when the offering acquires the holiness of a Temple offering. The question is obvious even for R. Simeon since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct even though according to him the case of the Mishnah could not arise. ⁷⁶ From the moment the husband had dedicated the flour, irrespective of the vessel it was brought in. ⁷⁷ Mishnah 4:2, detailing the cases in which the procedure becomes inactive. If the husband had relations with his wife while she was forbidden to him, he must divorce her since without the Temple procedure she cannot become permitted to him. But because it is his fault that she cannot rehabilitate herself, he has to pay the full amount of his ketubah

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” ⁷⁸ How many letters have to be erased? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. ⁷⁹ Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out⁸⁰! But Rebbi Aqiba must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you”⁸¹. But does Rebbi Aqiba 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 drink⁸².

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Cf. Chapter 2, Notes 135–136. ⁷⁹ In a discussion between R. Jehudah and R. Aqiba, quoted in full in Babli 19b, Tosephta 2:3. ⁸⁰ In the Babli, בדוקה ועומדת “lawfully checked out”; in the Tosephta בדוקה ומנוולת “checked out and degraded”. ⁸¹ One admits her guilt, the other accepts the consequences as if she were guilty; since the proceedings are extra-judicial, there is no reason to treat the two cases differently. ⁸² In the Tosephta, following the rabbis who make the entire procedure depend on the burning of the flour offering, R. Aqiba holds that she does not have to drink as long as the offering was not burned. Since for the rabbis the offering follows the drinking, he treats the one who says “I am impure” exactly as the one who pays the fine without admitting guilt. In the Babli, R. Aqiba’s argument is explained away: one accepts her statement that she is impure only if made in a self-assured way, when she can be believed; but if she makes the confession while trembling, one suspects that she might be pure but has been intimidated by the procedure and therefore her guilt has not been established. Both sources disagree with the Yerushalmi.

MISHNAH: 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. Rebbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her debauchery. Rebbi 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 only⁸⁸”? It is as if somebody said, X did not finish drinking when he started shaking⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Cf. Note 48; it was agreed that the water will not become active until the woman finished drinking. ⁸⁹ This is a manner of speech meaning “immediately”.

“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 Nabuchadneṣar: “At the end of twelve months.⁹⁰. 4:26. It is written in v. 24: Therefore, o king, take my advice: atone for your sins by deeds of charity and for your misdeed by kindness to the poor, then your peace will be prolonged. In the Babli, 20b, and in Sifry Num. 8, this is attributed to R. Ismael as maximum time lag for the water’s action.” “There is merit which suspends for two years,” from Amnon: “It was after two years.⁹¹. 13:23. Absalom managed to kill Amnon two years after the latter had raped Tamar.” “There is merit which suspends for three years,” from Ahab: “They sat for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.⁹². 22:1. Everywhere in talmudic literature is the nameless “king of Israel” of Chap. 22:1–38 identified with Ahab mentioned in vv. 39–40. The three years are counted from the judicial murder of Nabot.” Rebbi Yose said, it was said that the entire twelve months he⁹³ occupied himself with deeds of charity. And all these two⁹⁴, 20b s. v. יש, the reading is “three years.” This reading is slightly suspect since the Babli (21a) accepts only the merit of Torah study as a saving device for Jews (works of charity really being the main vehicle of salvation for Gentiles). years he occupied himself with Torah. That is what it says: “They were in a Yeshiva⁹⁵ for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Dan ⁹¹ 2S ⁹² 1K ⁹³ Probably referring to Nabuchadneṣar; but in the current text it refers to the first year of Ahab after Nabot’s murder. ⁹⁴ In Tosaphot ⁹⁵ A talmudic academy.

⁹⁶. 8, copied in Num. rabba 9(39).“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 specific⁹⁷, the argument is in R. Ismael’s name.. 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 abundance⁹⁸, 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: Rebbi Tarphon said, all statements of “remembrance” in the Torah⁹⁹. 5:15,18. R. Tarphon holds with R. Simeon in the next Mishnah that it is preposterous to assume that the procedure has any value if it is inactive in most cases. have a good meaning except this one which is for punishment. Rebbi Aqiba 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].

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In different wording, the following two paragraphs are in Sifry Num ⁹⁷ The fifth hermeneutical rule of R. Ismael: The only purpose of the offering is to lead to the punishment of the wife should she be found guilty. In the Sifry ⁹⁸ Cf. Halakhah 1:7, Note 269, Babli 11a. Tosephta 4:1 notes that the second of the Ten Commandments defines the measure of reward as at least 500 times the measure of punishment (since “thousands” are at least 2000, the ratio is ≥ 2000/4). ⁹⁹ All occurences of זכרון in the Pentateuch except Num

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure¹⁰⁰. 5:28..” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”¹⁰¹. 19, the double expression is justified: R. Ismael holds that she only is permitted to her husband if the procedure had shown her innocence. An anonymous source notes that if she got a divorce after the procedure or her husband died, she was free to marry the man she was suspected of having an affair with; if she was divorced for adultery, the adulterer would be forbidden to her. The Yerushalmi text is copied in Num. rabba 9(50).? Only that at the end the Omnipresent rewards her for the abuse, that if she was sterile she will become pregnant¹⁰². 19, the first clause, about the sterile becoming pregnant, is R. Aqiba’s; all the others are attributed to R. Ismael. In the Babli Berakhot 31b, the attributions are switched., [if she] was having difficult births she will have easy ones, [if she] had ugly children she will have good looking ones¹⁰³, black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁰⁴. the argument is R. Ismael’s. It seems that the Yerushalmi refers to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, quoted in the next sentence. said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rebbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Num ¹⁰¹ In Sifry Num ¹⁰² In the Babli, 36a, and Sifry Num ¹⁰³ This clause is missing in the parallels. In Babylonian historical spelling, it would be כעורים. ¹⁰⁴ This attribution to a second generation Amora is quite impossible in a tannaїtic text; in the Babli and Sifry Num ¹⁰⁵ In Halakhah 4:1, a similar (anonymous) argument is quoted to show that a divorcee married to a priest cannot be subjected to the procedure of the suspected wife because even if she was innocent she could not have legitimate seed from the husband forbidden to her; her children from the priest are desecrated.

Ben Azai does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah¹⁰⁶, as it was stated¹⁰⁷ Babli 3 a; Yerushalmi 1:1.: It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rebbi Joshua in Beqiïn¹⁰⁸. 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, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? “Assemble the people, men, women, and children.¹⁰⁹. 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 Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ R. Eleazar ben Azariah obligates women to listen to the Torah but not to study it. ¹⁰⁷ Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁸ In the Babli: פקיעין. The locality is not identified; it cannot be the place of the same name in Galilee. ¹⁰⁹ Deut

¹¹⁶ 66b; Num.rabba 9(53). A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death¹¹⁷. 32:28), (2) that the people died of a plague (Ex. 32:35), (3) that Moses ground the golden calf into dust, spread it on water and let the people drink, in imitation of the soṭah ritual (Ex. 32:20).? 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.¹¹⁸. 35:25. R. Eliezer intended to insult the woman who had dared to study Torah (In the Babli, she is called “a wise woman” and her question is dealt with at length by Rashi in his commentary on the Pentateuch). It is not clear whether this represents the general teaching of the House of Shammai or that of R. Eliezer alone. Since it is common practice to teach Pentateuch and its interpretation to girls it is impossible to understand how Maimonides and Joseph Caro could have R. Eliezer’s statement included in their Codes.” His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year¹¹⁹ or 9’000 modii.. 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? ¹²⁰ Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court¹²¹. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife¹²². 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 court¹²³ 7:6).. He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife¹²⁴. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague¹²⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Babli Yoma ¹¹⁷ In the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf, it is stated (1) that the Levites killed about 3000 men (Ex ¹¹⁸ Ex ¹¹⁹ The lady must have been exeedingly rich if her tithes, given to a Cohen, amounted to 300 kor ¹²⁰ In the Babli, this answer and the following one are attributed to "one of Rav or Levi ben Sissi.” ¹²¹ According to rabbinic theory, nobody can be convicted by biblical standards unless (1) the crime was witnessed by two witnesses of sterling character and (2) criminal intent is proven by two witnesses who testify that the criminal was informed that his intended deed would subject him to prosecution and nevertheless he persisted in his criminal behavior. ¹²² One has to assume that this procedure was part of the police powers granted to Moses in his position of king of the Israelites, and that the guilty persons died from the gold water. ¹²³ Since these are acts of Temple worship, as idolatrous practices they are capital crimes (Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹²⁴ These are sinful practices if in idolatrous intent but not criminally prosecutable. ¹²⁵ Since this sin was known only to God, its punishment was by the Hand of Heaven.

Who is a foolish pious man? He saw a baby struggling in a river¹³⁰. He said, after I take off my phylacteries¹³¹, 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 her¹³². 22:23–24), one may kill the attempting murderer or rapist with impunity. If the girl is afraid of him when he presents the fig and runs away, religious law would force him not to run after the girl.. That is what we have stated¹³³ 8:7: These are the people one may save [from sinning] by killing them: “If somebody pursues another to kill him, or after a male (for homosexual rape), or after a preliminarily married girl [one may kill the perpetrator]; but one who pursues an animal (for sodomy), desecrates the Sabbath, or commits idolatry one may not save by killing him.” A bystander can kill a person bent on committing a capital crime only if thereby he saves another human being.: “If somebody pursues another to kill him, after a male, or after a preliminarily married girl.”

footnotes: ¹³⁰ Really, “making bubbles”, because it is drowning. In the Babli, 21b, it is a woman drowning whom he cannot save because it would hurt his salvation if he looked at a woman. ¹³¹ Since the phylacteries contain biblical verses, they are holy. He is too ignorant to realize that the commandment to save a life overrides all other commandments except those involving murder, incest and adultery, and idolatry. ¹³² Since it is a commandment to keep one’s word, he brings himself into a situation in which he can be killed. The Mishnah quoted states that if one observes a person bent on committing a murder, a homosexual rape, or the rape of a preliminarily married girl (Deut ¹³³ Mishnah Sanhedrin

“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others¹³⁸. ¹³⁹ Chapter 1, Notes 192–199; Yebamot Chapter 1, Notes 256–261. Cf. Babli Erubin 6b, 13b. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one 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 Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Babli 21b, as one possibility of many. ¹³⁹ The same text Berakhot

A predatory woman¹⁴¹. 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.¹⁴². 30:16, Leah buying a night with Jacob from her sister Rachel. R. Abbahu’s explanation is slightly more elaborate in Gen. rabba 72(4).” Rebbi Abbahu said, one could think that this was the [divine] intention. He only knew that she was doing this only to produce more tribes.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ The Babli has no parallel explanation since it interprets אשה פרושה to mean “a pious woman”. ¹⁴² Gen

“Hits by the predatory”. That is the one who counsels the orphans to hide support from the widow¹⁴³. As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. The orphans came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; you are stupid¹⁴⁴). The text is better in the Geniza ms: אָמַר לוֹן וּמַה נֵיעֲבַד לְכוֹן אַלוֻךְ אִימָּה שַׁטְייָ מִדְּנַפְקוֹן אָֽמרִין ל׳ כְּתוֹבֵיהּ עִמְדוּ עַד נֵימַר לְכוֹן מַה אָמַר. “He said to them, what can I do for you, your charge is a senile mother. When they left, his scribe told them: stay here until I shall explain to you what he meant.” Occupational names of the measure pĕ‘ôlāh have been recognized by L. Ginzburg in the Yerushalmi: קְרוֹבָה the liturgical poet, דְּרוֹשָׁה the preacher, כְּתוֹבָה the scribe; all masculine. In the Geniza texts published by M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel Aviv and New York 1981, one finds four כתובא times and כתובה three times.. Some scribe came out and said to them: I shall tell you what he said: Behave as if you would sell¹⁴⁵ was a lien on the deceased’s real estate. The crooked counsel was that the heirs should loudly declare their intention to sell the real estate, which would force the widow eventually into lengthy court proceedings to recover her lien. The idea was to force the widow into demanding to be paid her ketubah, which immediately would terminate her right to support but would allow the heirs to somewhat drag their feet before paying up. The honorable thing would have been to offer the widow to pay her the ketubah in a lump sum, in the hope that she would accept the offer. Since then the initiative would be the heirs’, the widow’s support would have to be paid until the money was delivered in full. and she will demand her ketubah¹⁴⁶ and lose her support. In the evening she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, this one was hit by the predatory. It should come over me¹⁴⁷ if I had intended that¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ In the Babli, 21b, this is an opinion of R. Joḥanan. ¹⁴⁴ This is a corruption in the Leiden and Rome mss. (from their common Vorlage ¹⁴⁵ The ketubah ¹⁴⁶ Greek φερνή “dowry”. ¹⁴⁷ An oath formula, “such and such shall come over me if I intended that”. ¹⁴⁸ He disclaimed authorship of the counsel his (?) scribe had given in his name. It is not reported whether he reversed the transaction.

¹⁴⁹ 8:8, Notes 112–115; it is referred to in Babli 21b. A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi 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 (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ The same text Peah

They added to these¹⁵⁰ a fasting virgin¹⁵¹, a neighborly widow, and a child outgrowing his months¹⁵². A fasting virgin; she pretends to have lost her hymen by fasting¹⁵³. A neighborly widow, by running around¹⁵⁴, s. v. חגל. she spreads bad reputations. A child outgrowing his months: Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon. That is one who is more advanced in his studies than usual for his age and he denigrates those older than him. Rebbi 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 prosecution¹⁵⁵, Chapter 3, Note 143..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ To the list of the destroyers of the world. ¹⁵¹ In the Babli (22a): A praying virgin. ¹⁵² In the Babli (22a), except the Munich ms.: “a premature baby”. ¹⁵³ But in reality she slept around. ¹⁵⁴ The Geniza ms. probably has another reading which, however, is not readable. The translation follows Arukh ¹⁵⁵ The sex act of a minor less than 9 years old has no legal consequences. If the boy is 9 years and one day old, his sex act counts: if a married woman sleeps with him, she is criminally liable for adultery but he is not responsible since he is a minor. Cf. Yebamot

MISHNAH: Rebbi 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. Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water, but she does not have children¹⁵⁶. 5:28., does not get better, but degenerates and in the end she dies that death¹⁵⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Childbirth is a sign of purity, Num ¹⁵⁷ Supposing that the (not biblical) symptoms described in Mishnah 4 indicate that she would die immediately after drinking.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water,” etc. “Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water,” etc. Rav Hamnuna said, the degenerating woman is permitted to her house¹⁵⁸. This parallels what was stated: Rebbi 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 doubt¹⁵⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ In the Bable, 26a, this is a comment of Rav Huna on Mishnah 4:4 that even a Cohen’s wife, who would be forbidden to her husband if she was raped, is permitted to her husband after she survived drinking the bitter water. The Babli adds the condition that she not exhibit the features described in the verse, a swollen belly without a pregnancy. That condition is missing in the Yerushalmi. ¹⁵⁹ That two witnesses confirmed her being alone with another man. In the Tosephta, 2:3, this is a statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of R. Meïr

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,¹⁶⁰ 5:28.” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure¹⁶¹. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her¹⁶². 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 recognizable¹⁶³? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house¹¹⁶⁴. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin¹⁶⁵ 5:31.,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her¹⁶⁶. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin¹⁶⁵ 5:31.”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ Num. ¹⁶¹ “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed” ¹⁶² The latter will not experience any change in her fertility status. ¹⁶³ There seems to be no reason for Rav Hamnuna’s position. ¹ “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed” ¹⁶⁴ There is no inference possible on Rav Hamnuna's statement. ¹⁶⁵ Num. ¹⁶⁶ The husband who brought his wife to the Temple where the water had no influence on her is free to sleep with her and is told not to worry that she still might be forbidden to him. ¹⁶⁵ Num.

MISHNAH: 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 redeemed¹⁶⁷ 12:1)... After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned¹⁶⁸. The flour offerings are burned¹⁶⁹ 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 Cohanim are burned¹⁷⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Its holiness is transferred to a sum of money which then is used to buy a replacement offering. The original offering then becomes profane (Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁶⁸ Outside of the holy precinct, on the burning place organized for invalid sacrifices. ¹⁶⁹ Even if they are pure and still in the palm-leaf basket. ¹⁷⁰ Where it has to be burned is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah.

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 burned¹⁷¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ This statement is that of the Mishnah (the one missing word, ואם, is also missing in most mss. of the Babli and of the Maimonides tradition of the Mishnah). The quote seems to be in opposition to statements similar to Tosephta 2:4: “After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, one has to wait until it spoils and then one takes it out to 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 Sea¹⁷². It is compared to a hung reparation offering¹⁷³ 5:17–19. Similarly, the offering of the suspected wife is brought for a case of doubt.. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel¹⁷⁴! Rebbi 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.¹⁷⁵ 6:1–2. (In the Mishnah, there are dissenting opinions that the hung reparation offering is a valid offering in all cases.) R. Mattaniah compares transferring the offering into the Temple vessel to slaughtering the animal since the transfer enables the priest to offer a fistful on the alter just as slaughter enables the priest to bring the blood to the altar.”

footnotes: ¹⁷² From the Rome ms. Word missing in the Leiden ms. by an oversight. ¹⁷³ The sacrifice of a person who worries that possibly he could have sinned, Lev. ¹⁷⁴ This is compared to the reparation offering introduced into the Temple courtyard. ¹⁷⁵ It became clear either that an inadvertent sin was committed, and then a purification offering is required, not a reparation offering, or that no sin was committed, and then no offering is required. In the latter case, since the offering was brought for peace of mind, it certainly was the intention of the person to have a valid sacrifice even in case he did not sin. This differs from the case of a sacrifice brought in error which is treated according to the rules of profane animals introduced in error into the Temple; Mishnah Keritut

It was stated: If her offering became impure before the fistful was sacrificed¹⁷⁷; ¹⁷⁸ 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 away¹⁷⁹. If there came witnesses declaring that she was impure¹⁸⁰, 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. Rebbi Hila said, whether the fistful was taken or not as long as it was not sacrificed, but if it was sacrificed the rest is permitted¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ It is unclear what this sentence implies here. It is obvious that an impure sacrifice is forbidden as sacrifice and as food. In the Babli (note 178), the entire text of the Mishnah is quoted. Therefore, it seems that the sentence is simply a quote from the Mishnah; the note “etc.” is missing. ¹⁷⁸ Tosephta 2:5 and Babli 6b. There, the text reads: “If her husband or she died before the fistful was sacrificed, the rest is forbidden. But if the fistful was sacrificed and then her husband or she died, the rest is permitted because it was brought from the start to resolve a doubt. Her doubt was atoned for and went away.” For most flour offerings, a fistful is offered on the altar, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim under the rules of most holy food. ¹⁷⁹ This clause makes more sense in the Tosephta/Babli text, that the rest is permitted to the Cohanim if it became permitted by the rules, i. e., that the fistful was duly put into the fire on top of the altar. It is reasonable that a permitted remainder cannot retroactively become forbidden since the doubt of adultery either was resolved by the procedure or became moot by the death of one of the parties. ¹⁸⁰ Tosephta 2:5. Cf. Note 161; then there no longer is any doubt; the procedure becomes inactive and the offering should not be brought. ¹⁸¹ Once it was food for the Cohanim it cannot lose that status except by impurity.

We have stated there¹⁸² 6:1. In that Mishnah, the anonymous rabbis hold that the entire offering is burned on the altar in one piece.: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering¹⁸³5:11–13. of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering¹⁸⁴ 5:13. Since one speaks of a flour offering, it is diffult to understand why “it should be like 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 entire¹⁸⁵ 2:1–11. It is stipulated in Lev. 6:16 that no part of a priest’s flour offering may be eaten. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5) disagrees with the Yerushalmi; it interprets Lev. 6:16 to deal mainly with the Cohen’s obligatory offerings and only in a derivative fashion with voluntary offerings.. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha¹⁸⁶ 5:11. An epha was 3 seah. of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten¹⁸⁷? The verse¹⁸⁸ 6:16. says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders¹⁸⁹? 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 them¹⁹⁰ 2:2), a sacrifice is either valid or invalid from the start. Therefore, the biblical prohibitions of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר (Lev. 19:5–7) are interpreted to mean that the sacrifice becomes permanently prohibited if any of the prescribed actions in the Temple were executed with the idea that the meat should be eaten out of its allotted time or place. This means that the Cohen, by thinking to eat from the rest of the offering the next day or outside the Temple courtyard while dealing with the fistful taken for the altar, will invalidate the offering. This danger is restricted to the fistful, whose correct treatment will permit the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim. What these think while eating the rest is irrelevant; the only actions which are invalidated by wrong thoughts are those on which something else depends, either that part of the sacrifice becomes permitted as food, or that people are purified or otherwise enabled by it.. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon¹⁹¹ says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes¹⁹², Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes¹⁹³6:2).. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them¹⁹⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar¹⁹⁵. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful¹⁹⁶? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.¹⁹⁷ 6:16, which deals with voluntary offerings, not that of *Lev.*6:15, which deals with an obligatory offering of another kind.”

footnotes: ¹⁸² Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁸³ The flour offering of the very poor person who either refused to testify, was unmindful of his impurity in dealing with the Temple and its appurtenances, or had forgotten an oath he had imposed on himself, Lev. ¹⁸⁴ Lev. ¹⁸⁵ Voluntary flour offerings are described in Lev. ¹⁸⁶ The amount of flour required for the purification sacrifice, Lev. ¹⁸⁷ This shows that the offering of a Cohen cannot simply be compared to that of an Israel since the result would contradict biblical precepts. ¹⁸⁸ Lev. ¹⁸⁹ This question is about the opinion of R. Simeon. For the rabbis, the offering is brought to the altar in one piece and burned as a sacrifice. But for R. Simeon, since the fistful is brought to the altar as a sacrifice, it makes sense to inquire whether the rest is burned under the same rules or not. If the same rules were to apply, it is difficult to see why there should be two distinct offerings. ¹⁹⁰ Sacrifices can be offered in the Temple only between the morning and evening daily sacrifices. Remainders of sacrifices for which blood and fat were offered during daytime can be brought to the altar during the night.A sacrifice can be brought only during one’s lifetime.In talmudic theory (Mishnah Zebaḥim ¹⁹¹ While both mss. read here “R. Simeon ben Eleazar”, the continuation of the paragraph shows that the author must be R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. The Babli, 23a/b, and the Tosephta, 2:6, read: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is dispersed. ¹⁹² The ashes on the top of the altar are hot and spreading the offering out means burning it on the altar. If that were the meaning, R. Eleazar’s position is that of his father and does not have to be mentioned. ¹⁹³ The ashes removed from the altar to the floor of the courtyard (Lev. ¹⁹⁴ Anything not destined for the altar cannot permit anything else. Therefore, any wrong intention the Cohen may have while depositing the rest on the ashes is irrelevant; he may think what he wishes. Similarly, since the burning of the fistful permits the consumption (or dispersion) of the remainder by the Cohanim, if the owner of the offering dies after the burning of the fistful it cannot have any influence on the status of the rest. ¹⁹⁵ The argument of the previous Note is valid only for the offering of an Israel, for whom the fistful really permits the remainder to the Cohanim. But for the offering of a Cohen, the offering of the fistful according to R. Eleazar ben R. Simon does not permit anything, not even to bring the rest onto the altar. Therefore, the sacrificing of the fistful cannot lift the rules of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר for the Cohen’s offering. ¹⁹⁶ They require that the entire offering be burned, cf. Note 182. ¹⁹⁷ R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon accepts the comparison of the obligatory to the voluntary offering of a Cohen, called “binding (הֶקֵּשׁ) of one verse to the other”; it is only to modify the rule of Lev.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly¹⁹⁸. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Why Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rebbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar¹⁹⁹ 6:3. On the other hand, the burning outside the Temple is always called “burning”, cf. Lev. 4:12,21; 16:27. If the Mishnah uses the expression “burning”, it implies that this cannot be on the altar.. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part²⁰⁰; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rebbi Simeon.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ He holds that the last sentence of the Mishnah can be explained only following R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. ¹⁹⁹ Rabbinic usage follows biblical usage in this case. The burning of sacrifices on the altar is never called “burning”, but “eating (by the fire)”, cf. Lev. ²⁰⁰ The offering for a Cohen’s suspected wife. The first clause is in Tosephta, 2:6. For the intelligible full text of this discussion, cf. Chapter 2:1, Note 7 ff.

MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned²⁰¹, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned²⁰². What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated²⁰³. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead²⁰⁴ 21:1.. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food]²⁰⁵ 6:11,22; 7:6..

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Since it is the husband’s money; cf. Chapter 2:1, Note 7. ²⁰² The woman becomes a member of her husband’s clan. ²⁰³ This is explained in the Halakhah. An illicit marriage bars the wife and her children from ever marrying into the priesthood; a Cohen who divorces his forbidden wife returns to his priestly status. ²⁰⁴ The prohibition of the impurity of the dead is clearly addressed to the sons of Aaron, Lev. ²⁰⁵ This is a clearly biblical precept; spelled out in Lev.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten²⁰⁷ 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money²⁰⁸ 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;²⁰⁹ 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

footnotes: ²⁰⁷ Lev. ²⁰⁸ Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot ²⁰⁹ Lev.

²¹⁰ 2(7–8). For the Babli, 23b, it seems obvious that a woman forbidden to a Cohen becomes desecrated; one only needs a verse to free the Cohen from desecration.“‘A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated.’ For it is written: ‘He shall not desecrate his seed in his clan.²¹¹ 21:15, speaking of the High Priest who married a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman. The children of such a forbidden union are desecrated in their clan and are permanently barred from any priestly function.’ Not only that he desecrates his seed; from where [that he desecrates] herself²¹²? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin²¹³ 21:7), it is never stated that the forbidden woman sins in letting herself be married by the Cohen. The Sifra[Emor Pereq 1(12)] derives a warning to her from the double prohibition in Lev. 21:7., 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 desecrated²¹⁴, 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 wish²¹⁵, you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’²¹⁶ 21:15 is taken to imply more than one desecration. The Babli, Qiddušin 77a, derives different disabilities from the same argument.” even to desecrate one who is enabled.

footnotes: ²¹⁰ The entire paragraph is from Sifra Emor Pereq ²¹¹ Lev. ²¹² A woman who ever slept with a man whom she could not lawfully marry is considered a whore prohibited to a Cohen. By marrying her, he desecrates her permanently. ²¹³ While it is stated two times that a Cohen sins in marrying a woman forbidden to him (Lev. ²¹⁴ He is not permanently desecrated even if he sleeps with a slave girl, a Gentile, or a whore. ²¹⁵ If you consider the pseudological argument invalid. ²¹⁶ The root חול, חלל “to desecrate” appears in the Pentateuch also in Hiph‘il. The use of the intensive instead of the causative in Lev.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land²¹⁷ 21:1–4. By rabbinic decree, a Cohen is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel since the other countries, even disregarding the biblical impurity inherent in them, might be full of unrecognized graves so that the Cohen would automatically incur at least the doubt of contamination by a grave.. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim²¹⁸ 21:2: “Say to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron.” The prohibitions in this paragraph inherently concern only the males of the family. This is explicit in Sifra Emor, Introduction; alluded to in Babli, 23b..” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. 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 leave²¹⁹? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities²²⁰.

footnotes: ²¹⁷ A Cohen is prohibited from defiling himself in the impurity of the dead, Lev. ²¹⁸ Lev. ²¹⁹ Since the prohibition is rabbinic anyhow, how can the extent of the prohibition be measured by biblical standards? It is unlikely that the prohibition was known before the war of Bar Kokhba. We find king Yannai outside the Land, but he was a Sadducee and opposed to rabbinic prohibitions. But it is reported that R. Eleazar ben Azariah, a Cohen, descendant of Ezra in the tenth generation, went to Rome. ²²⁰ Since rabbinic decrees are גדירה, fences around the Law, they should not prohibit what is explicitly permitted in the Pentateuch.

“A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”

MISHNAH: What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams²²¹13:45). It is written in v. 44: He is a man with skin disease., no woman is dishevelled and with open seams. A man can make his son a nazir²²² 4:6. The nazir is forbidden all grape products, may not cut any hair, and may not defile himself in the impurity of the dead. A father can decree that his underage son be a nazir as long as neither the child nor the relatives object. He then is responsible for the cost of all sacrifices due at the end of the nezirut period., no woman can make her son a nazir. A man can shave using his father’s vow of nazir²²³ period, Num. 6:13–21. If both father and adult son were nezirim, the father had already bought the required sacrifices (one male and one female sheep, and one ram) when he died before using them, the father’s dedication is validly transferred to the son., no woman can shave using her father’s vow of nazir. A man can betrothe his daughter²²⁴ 22:16, where the father declares: I gave my daughter to this man as a wife. After the father’s death, the widow may only marry off her underage daughter by rabbinic standards. A fully adult daughter must find her own husband., no woman can betrothe her daughter. A man can sell his daughter²²⁵ 21:7: “If a man sell his daughter as a slave”. In rabbinic theory, the institution of Hebrew slavery was bound to that of the Jubilee year. The latter is predicated on the clan holdings of land received under Joshua. Therefore, the Jubilee year should have been disestablished with the first Assyrian deportations of the Ten Tribes., no woman can sell her daughter. A man is stoned naked²²⁶ 6:3–4., no woman is stoned naked. A man is hanged²²⁷ 21:22: “If a man was guilty of a capital crime and executed, you should hang him on a wooden pole.” This refers explicitly to a man., no woman is hanged. A man is sold for his theft, no woman is sold for her theft.

footnotes: ²²¹ A man afflicted with skin disease must have dishevelled hair and wear clothes open at the seams (Lev. ²²² Mishnah Nazir ²²³ “Shaving” stands here for the entire ceremony which ends the nezirut ²²⁴ If a man marries off his underage daughter, the marriage is valid by biblical standards. This is derived from Deut. ²²⁵ Ex. ²²⁶ Mishnah Sanhedrin ²²⁷ Deut.

HALAKHAH: “What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams,” etc. “A man²²⁸13:44: “A man afflicted with skin disease is he, impure is he, the Cohen shall certainly declare him impure if his disease is on his head.” A slightly more complete text in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut8b, Arakhin3a.”. 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 theme²²¹13:45). It is written in v. 44: He is a man with skin disease., “a man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams.”

footnotes: ²²⁸ Lev. ²²¹ A man afflicted with skin disease must have dishevelled hair and wear clothes open at the seams (Lev.

“A man can make his son a nazir,” and “a man can shave”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meїr²²⁹ 23 b; Nazir 25 a/b, 28b, 30a, 61b) and dependent sources [Num. rabba 10 (20] disagree and quote R. Joḥanan insisting that according to the biblical text, nobody can impose a state of nazir on another person but that it is traditional practice (in the words of the Midrash: “going back to Moses on Mount Sinai”) that a father may force his son to be a nazir, implying that nobody can dissent. The same paragraph is found in Nazir 4:6, fol. 53c.: 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.

footnotes: ²²⁹ The Babli (Soṭa

“A man can sell his daughter,” for it is written²³⁰. 21:7.: “If a man sell his daughter as a handmaid. “A man can betrothe his daughter,” as it is written²³¹ 22:16.: “I gave my daughter as a wife but he hated her.”

footnotes: ²³⁰ Ex ²³¹ Deut.

“A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked.” For it is written²³² 24:14: וְרָֽגְמוּ אֹתוֹ which means “they shall stone him;” this verse is quoted in Sifry zuṭa Šelaḥ 36, Babli Sanhedrin 43a., “you shall stone him,” not his garment. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written²³³ 22:24, speaking of the inhabitants of a city whose inhabitants, men and women, turn to idolatry. If the prior argument were correct, the verse would disprove the Mishnah.: “You shall stone them with stones,” 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 naked²³⁴ 23b refers to the argument in a very abbreviated way which presupposes the knowledge of the Yerushalmi’s argument. The original argument of the Yerushalmi is accepted in the Babli Sanhedrin 43a; in 45a the inference is attributed to R. Jehudah who requires that a woman be stoned naked. By contrast, in Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(4), an appropriate verse is quoted, Lev. 20:2: “Every man in Israel or among the sojourners in Israel who gives of his children to the Moloch shall certainly die, the people of the land shall stone him with stone.”.

footnotes: ²³² There is no such verse. Probably the reference is to Lev. ²³³ Deut. ²³⁴ There is no biblical source for the statement of the Mishnah. Since a garment would soften the blows of the stones, the agony of the man to be executed would be prolonged if he were clothed; since he probably would not mind being seen naked, it is to his advantage being executed while naked. But for a woman, the mental anguish of being naked in public would be much greater than the increased physical pain; therefore a woman has to be executed fully clothed.The Babli Soṭa

“A man is hanged²²⁷ 21:22: “If a man was guilty of a capital crime and executed, you should hang him on a wooden pole.” This refers explicitly to a man., no woman is hanged.” Because it is written, “one shall hang him”, not her.

footnotes: ²²⁷ Deut.

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution²²⁸13:44: “A man afflicted with skin disease is he, impure is he, the Cohen shall certainly declare him impure if his disease is on his head.” A slightly more complete text in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut8b, Arakhin3a.. For his theft but not for his perjury²²⁹ 23 b; Nazir 25 a/b, 28b, 30a, 61b) and dependent sources [Num. rabba 10 (20] disagree and quote R. Joḥanan insisting that according to the biblical text, nobody can impose a state of nazir on another person but that it is traditional practice (in the words of the Midrash: “going back to Moses on Mount Sinai”) that a father may force his son to be a nazir, implying that nobody can dissent. The same paragraph is found in Nazir 4:6, fol. 53c.. 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 time²³⁰. 21:7.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts²³¹ 22:16.? 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.

footnotes: ²²⁸ Lev. ²²⁹ The Babli (Soṭa ²³⁰ Ex ²³¹ Deut.