MISHNAH: He took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket, put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave. He weaved, presented, took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests. 6:7–11 . .
HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written 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 weave 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. 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 objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated 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.
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 vessel2:8 . ?
From where that weaves precede presentations 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 wife 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 novelty 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 following 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, 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 that 2:9 . : “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave5:25 .. ? It already preceded.
There, it was stated7:1 . 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] 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 eaten 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 say in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of 5:15 , “an offering of jealousy”. , offering of 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 there 5:15 , “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here 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 eaten, so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba) said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten? Rebbi Ze‘ira in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil 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 said2:1–10 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 dry 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 flour 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 purpose, which in the Babli ( Menaḥot 72b ) 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 blemished 21:17–19 ). . A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished 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 “remembrance 2:9 : “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar. , remembrance”. “You shall bring, 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 that2:10 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.”
MISHNAH: He gives her to drink and after that he presents her offering. Rebbi Simeon says, he sacrifices her offering and afterwards gives her to drink as it is said 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 valid.
HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her 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 drink 5:27 . .” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only 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 agreement. 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 valid. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity 5:15 . .” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her 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 . .” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs. 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 time.
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 gargle and forces her to drink”. Following Rebbi Simeon. But following the rabbis she already drank 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 drinking”. Some Tannaïm state: She did not move from there. He who says, she did not finish drinking, Rebbi Simeon 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 rabbis follow R. Simeon. .
MISHNAH: If she said “I shall not drink money but without explicitly admitting guilt. ” before the scroll was erased, her scroll is put away and her offering dispersed on the ashes. Her scroll is not acceptable to be used to make another suspected wife drink. If she said “I am impure” after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed on the ashes. 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 will.
HALAKHAH: “Before the scroll was erased,” etc. It was stated: Her scroll is put away under the hinges of a [gate of] the Temple hall. Why? In order to shred it. A small hollow space was where the water was poured out 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 stated: There is no holiness in it. May it be used to moisten mortar? What should be wrong? It is poured out! It was stated. Since it is unknown which of the two baraitot represents practice, the unneeded water cannot be used for anything. : There is holiness in it.
“If she said ‘I am impure’ after the scroll was erased, the water is poured out and her offering dispersed over the ashes.” This proves that the suspected wife’s offering is holy before the scroll is written. Rebbi Yose said, there is more: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, her offering is holy once she is on her way. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, our Mishnah states this obligation. : “Or if her husband had sexual relations with her on the road.”
“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? 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. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! 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”. 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 drink.
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 only”? It is as if somebody said, X did not finish drinking when he started shaking.
“There is merit which suspends for one year, there is merit which suspends for two years, there is merit which suspends for three years.” There is merit which suspends for one year,” from Nabuchadneṣar: “At the end of twelve months.. 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.. 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.. 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 he occupied himself with deeds of charity. And all these two, 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 Yeshiva for three years when there was no war between Aram and Israel.”
. 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 specific, 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 abundance, should do so much more! But, “an offering of remembrance,” if she has merit, “referring to sin”, if she has no merit. It was stated: Rebbi Tarphon said, all statements of “remembrance” in the Torah. 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].
It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure. 5:28 . .” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”. 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 pregnant. 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 ones, black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. 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 illegitimate.
Ben Azai does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated 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 Beqiïn. 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.. 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.
66b ; Num . rabba 9(53). A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death. 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.. 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 year 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? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife. Anybody against whom there were neither witnesses nor warning died from a plague. Rav and Levi bar Sissi both say: One who sacrificed, burned, and poured out a libation was executed in court 7:6 ). . He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague.
Who is a foolish pious man? He saw a baby struggling in a river. He said, after I take off my phylacteries, I shall save him. By the time he takes off his phylacteries, that one is dead. He saw a prime fig and said, I shall give it to the first person I shall meet. He saw a preliminarily married girl and ran after her. 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 stated 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.”
“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others. 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.
A predatory woman. That is one who sits and makes fun of the words of the Torah: “She said, you shall come to me … and he slept with her that night.. 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.
“Hits by the predatory”. That is the one who counsels the orphans to hide support from the widow. 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 stupid). 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 sell 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 ketubah 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 me if I had intended that.
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.
They added to these a fasting virgin, a neighborly widow, and a child outgrowing his months. A fasting virgin; she pretends to have lost her hymen by fasting. A neighborly widow, by running around, 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 prosecution, Chapter 3, Note 143 . .
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 children. 5:28 . , does not get better, but degenerates and in the end she dies that death.
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 house. 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 doubt.
“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, 5:28 . ” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin 5:31 . ,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin 5:31 . ”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.
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 redeemed 12:1 ).. . After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned. The flour offerings are burned in the following cases: One who says, I am impure for you, or that witnesses declared that she was impure; one who refuses to drink, or whose husband does not want to let her drink, or whose husband slept with her on the road. In addition, the flour offerings of women married to Cohanim are burned.
HALAKHAH: “If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel,” etc. It was stated: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed; after it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned.
“One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea. It is compared to a hung reparation offering 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 vessel! 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. 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. ”
It was stated: If her offering became impure before the fistful was sacrificed; if she died or her husband died, the rest is forbidden because it was brought from the start to resolve a doubt. Her doubt was atoned for and went away. If there came witnesses declaring that she was impure, in any case her offering is forbidden. What means “in any case”? Whether the fistful was taken or not, whether it was sacrificed or not. 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 permitted.
We have stated there 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 offering5:11–13 . 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 offering 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 entire 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 epha 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 eaten? The verse 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 remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them 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 Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes6:2 ). . That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety. 6:16 , which deals with voluntary offerings, not that of Lev. 6:15 , which deals with an obligatory offering of another kind. ”
Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly. 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 altar 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 part; 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.
MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned, the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned. 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 desecrated. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead 21:1. . A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food] 6:11 , 22 ; 7:6 . .
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 eaten 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 money 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; 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.
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. 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] herself? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin 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 desecrated, what can you say about a woman who can be otherwise desecrated? Since she can be otherwise desecrated, it is an argument that she should be desecrated! If you wish, you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’ 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.
“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 Land 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 Cohanim 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 leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.
“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 seams13:45 ). 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 nazir 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 nazir 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 daughter 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 daughter 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 naked 6:3–4. , no woman is stoned naked. A man is hanged 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.
HALAKHAH: “What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams,” etc. “A man13:44 : “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‘ Pereq 12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut 8b, Arakhin 3a . ”. 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 theme13:45 ). 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.”
“A man can make his son a nazir ,” and “a man can shave”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meїr 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 .
“A man can sell his daughter,” for it is written. 21:7 . : “If a man sell his daughter as a handmaid. “A man can betrothe his daughter,” as it is written 22:16 . : “I gave my daughter as a wife but he hated her.”
“A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked.” For it is written 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 written 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 naked 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.” .
“A man is hanged 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.
“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution13:44 : “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‘ Pereq 12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut 8b, Arakhin 3a . . For his theft but not for his perjury 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 time. 21:7 . . Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts 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.