Talmud do Taanit 2:13

HALAKHAH: ⁹This text is re-written from a text in Ta`aniot 2:12, Notes 185–189.“And the following shave on the holiday: He who comes from overseas, or from being kidnapped, or leaves jail.” Therefore all other people are forbidden? Rebbi Simon said, they decreed about them so they should not enter the holiday badly groomed<sup>10</sup>Babli 14a.. There, we have stated<sup>11</sup>Mishnah Ta`aniot 2:13.: “The people of the watch and those of the bystanders are forbidden to shave and to wash their garments, but on Thursday they are permitted because of the honor of the Sabbath.” Therefore on all other days they are forbidden? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Abun, <rebbi yasa>¹²Added from Ta`aniot and G. in the name of Ḥizqiah: They decreed about them so they should not enter their week badly groomed.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place⁵That the husband had some information that his wife met the man forbidden to her.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place⁶If there is not even a single witness against her.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding⁷There is no difference of interpretation between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish; the latter only follows the opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 1:1.. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously⁸The opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana⁹R. Mana I.: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if¹⁰This is the reading of the Mishnah in the Babli, which can be read as meaning that if the wife is the talk of the town, even a rumor of unknown origin forces the husband to divorce his wife. she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There¹¹‘Orlah, Chapter 2, Note 30., Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so¹²If Mishnah 6:1 is stated anonymously, it would imply that in Mishnah 1:1 practice follows R. Eliezer. However, it is evident not only that general practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer but also that in the case of the suspected wife, two witnesses of her misbehavior are needed to prohibit her to her husband. Therefore, the argument that R. Joshua only makes an anonymous statement precise is invalid.?

¹³Here a Genizah fragment (Ginze Schechter pp. 446–447) becomes readable again (ג). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather¹⁴A dead creeping animal (of the list Lev. 11:29–30) imparts impurity in the volume of a lentil; a human corpse only in the volume of an olive. A human corpse imparts impurity to everything under the same roof with it, a dead creeping one imparts impurity only by contact. The argument is incomprehensible but the text is confirmed not only by ג but also by Sefer Hapardes from the school of Rashi (Pardes Gadol §175, ed. H. L. Ehrenreich p. 230), and Meïri Pesaḥim (ed. Y. Klein, col. 290a). While textile and leather are written about the creeping animal in Lev. 11:32, they are not mentioned in the Chapter about tent impurity (Num. 19). It is mentioned in the Chapter about ṣāraˋ at impurity of textiles (Lev. 13:47–59) although not in the exact wording of 11:32. The argument should be that the equal cut is illegitimate since minimal sizes for impurity of animals are determined by volume while those of textiles by surface area; the rules cannot be transferred.. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure¹⁵This argument does not belong here, it is not in ג, nor in Pardes, nor in Meïri. It is part of a sermon in Taˋanti (Yerushalmi 2:1 69a line 69, Babli 16a.). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned¹⁶Since it is part of oral tradition.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself¹⁶Since it is part of oral tradition.. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

⁸From here on there also is a parallel in Taˋaniot 4:2 (נ). Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel⁹By the statement of the preceding paragraph, no man in Israel would be permitted to work both in the morning and in the evening.. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written¹⁰Deut. 16:16. G instead quotes Ex.23:14., three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written¹¹Deut. 11:14., you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets¹²David, Asaph, Heman, and Yedutun, 1Chr. 25:1. instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand¹³1Chr. 27:1. The verse is read as meaning that every month there were 24’000 representatives of the people at the Temple.. A stand-by group¹⁴Since the Cohanim were changed every week, the people’s representatives also were changed every week; only one quarter of the 24’000 on stand-by were actually needed for one week. The Babylonian term for עָמוּד is מַעֲמָד (Taˋanit 27a). The actual numbers in Second Temple times were small. from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium¹⁵For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service., and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel¹⁶These are forbidden any work while the Daily Sacrifice is offered but everybody else may work..

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day¹³Usually, “fast day” is one of the days of penitence called in case of a drought, as described in Tractate Ta`anit. However, since the Babli states (Ta`anit11b) in the name of Rav’s colleague R. Jeremiah bar Abba that this kind of fast day is not practiced in Babylonia, Rav’s instructions to the family of Rav Aḥa can only refer to the Fast Day, the Day of Atonement, where it is customary to prostrate oneself during the recitation of Rav’s composition Alenu at the mention that “we prostrate ourselves” and during the enactment of the Temple ceremony of the day. Cf. Note 18. you should not incline normally¹⁴Face down on the floor. The examples following refer to the daily prayers which morning and afternoon have three parts. The first, the “eighteen benedictions” are said standing, the second, “falling down on one’s face”, is said while bending down, and the third, a recitation of biblical verses, is said sitting up straight. Following the majority opinion here and the unquestioned prescription of the Babli (Megillah22b) one may not put down one’s face to the ground but must bend it sideways. This presumes that the synagogue had a stone floor (as shown by the archeological evidence in Galilee.) There would be no need to turn one’s head on a dirt floor or on carpets.. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written¹¹Lev. 26:1. The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear., a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written¹⁵2S. 15:32. A “high place” on the Mount of Olives which however had not to be destroyed since there was neither altar nor stone floor., it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down¹⁶2Chr.7:3.. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel¹⁷The additions of RR. Abahu and Mana are in the verse, except for the addition “on Israel” which are not in this verse nor in any other biblical occurrence of the formula give thanks to the Eternal for He is good, for eternal is His kindness.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day¹⁸Prostrating oneself with outstretched arms and legs. Since the only day one did this in Babylonia was the day of Atonement, it must refer to that day., and the willow of the Seventh Day¹⁹Hitting the floor with a bunch of willow twigs on the Seventh Day of the Festival of Tabernacles; an ancient custom to induce ample rains in the coming winter.. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting²⁰Traditions of good and bad days for blood letting.. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side²¹To avoid violating Lev.26:1. These now are Babylonian instructions for the Palestinian fast days for rain which were not practiced in Babylonia.. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up²²Jos.7:10., should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community²³An individual praying in public for the relief of a public calamity may not prostrate himself unless he claims for himself a status at least equal to Joshua’s. A private person praying for private needs may prostrate himself as much and as long as he feels necessary. Babli Megillah22b in the name of R. Eleazar..

“Onias the digger of ditches.” He was digging ditches and caves³⁷To create miqwaot for pilgrims to the Temple. and knew which rock cools the water and which rock was dry and how far its dryness extended. Rebbi Aḥa said, but (he) [his son]³⁸Reading of B and the corrector, to be deleted. died of thirst. ³⁹The text also is in Yom Ṭov3:9 (Note 124, צ). Rebbi Ḥanina said, anybody who says that the All-Merciful is indulgent, his intestines shall dissolve themselves; for He is forbearing and then collects His due. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written⁴⁰Ps. 50:3., His surroundings are very hairy. He is exact with them like a hair’s width. Rebbi Yose said, not because of this reason, but because what is written⁴¹Ps. 89:8., He is awesome on His surroundings, His fear on those near Him is greater than those far away.

When the New Moon falls on a fast day, how does one mention the New Moon⁹⁰This paragraph is extremely difficult to understand and the greatest authorities of the Middle Ages, Rashba (R. Abraham ben Adrat, on Babli Berakhot 32b) and Rosh (R. Asher ben Yeḥiël, to Chap. 5, #10) felt compelled to emend the text. Since three of the four prayers of the New Moon are weekday prayers with an addition added in “Temple service” (רצה, the 16th benediction in the Yerushalmi version) as given later in Chapter 5, Halakhah 2, the only question can be about Musaph. However, we never hear that the particular inserts in the morning prayers of a fast day were recited also for Musaph. On the other hand, as Rosh points out, the previous paragraph certainly implies that the one benediction recited on all fast-days except Yom Kippur, not only on those for rain, known as עננו, must be recited also for Musaph since the day requires that the benediction be inserted in all prayers. One may at least understand the position of Rebbi Abba that on a fast day for rain which coincides with a day of the New Moon, one recites the usual Musaph with an additional fifth benediction which deals with the fast day, after the fourth for the New Moon. The dissenting opinions of Rebbis Zeïra and Abba bar Mamal seem to imply that Musaph on a fast day consisted of the introductory and final benedictions that are common to all prayers and the additional benedictions for the fast day, whereas the section on the New Moon, for which Musaph is recited in the first place, is moved from its regular place to an insert in either the 16th or the 17th (מודים, “thanksgiving”, a place usually reserved for thanksgiving for past miracles) benediction.? Rebbi Zeïra said, in “thanksgiving”. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, in “Temple service”. Rebbi Avina said, he says it as the fourth benediction. Rebbi Abba said, how do we find everywhere that he says it as the fourth benediction, here also as the fourth benediction. And so it was acted upon according to Rebbi Abba⁹¹A reported action on an opinion is the best proof that this is accepted practice, see Chap. 1, Note 125..

Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris¹⁷⁰An Amora of the fifth generation, student of R. Mana. asked before Rebbi Mana: Where does one say this? He said to him: You still do not understand? Anything for the future one says in “Service”¹⁷¹The 16th benediction in the Galilean service, a prayer for the restitution of the Temple service. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, that is the correct place for the insertion of the prayer for the Ninth of Ab. However, in all historical documents we have from Gaonic times and later, the insertion is made in the 14th benediction, which is a prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This is either a popular custom or a Gaonic institution. It is justified since the place is fitting and the later discussion will show that occasional variations in the prayer text are welcomed. and anything about the past one says in “Thanksgiving”¹⁷²The 17th benediction, the natural place for the mention of the miracles of Ḥanukkah and Purim.. The Mishnah (Berakhot 9:6) says as much: “One gives thanks for the past and cries about the future.”

What is the difference between these and those⁴⁷Between the disqualified women married to priests who receive Ketubah at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not.? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah⁴⁸A more detailed discussion is in Tosephta 2:4/Babli 85b. Both these sources stress that a disqualified woman has no reason to seek out a Cohen since her child will be desecrated whereas a secondarily forbidden (who might be permitted to him by another sect) might want to be married by a relative. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried⁴⁹This case is not discussed in the parallel sources.. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.

¹²⁰Reference to Mishnah 12, found only in G.[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] ¹²¹Tosephta 3:10, Sifry Deut. 185. The Tosephta credits Abba Shaul with the statement quoted here for R. Nehorai. Sifry quotes R. Nehorai and (Rebbi) Shaul, in inverse order.“Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three¹²²Deut. 19:9. It is written there in v. 7, “three cities you shall designate”. Since it is already reported in Deut. 4:41–43 that Moses designated three cities in Transjordan, v. 19:7 must refer to the three cities which Joshua designated. Therefore 19:9 must refer to another three cities situated in the Northern part of the Land of Promise (Num. 34:1–15) that never was part of the historical Land of Israel. In the opinion of Abba Shaul this Northern part, promised only if the entire people keep all biblical commandments, was as wide as the Cis- and Transjordan parts of the Land of Israel, and therefore needed not three but six additional cities of refuge. It is difficult to make sense of R. Nehorai’s statement.
In the text probably one should read three(Deut. 19:7), three, the three(Deut.19:9). The words עוֹד “additional”, עַל אֵלֶּה “to these” are in Deut. 19:9. In the Constantinople edition, the argument of Abba Shaul for the first 9 is identical to that of the anonymous Tanna; this might be lectio facilior.. This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written¹²³Num. 35:13.: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 35:13, which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each.
Another interpretation (Pene Moshe) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount (2Chr.35:3) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple.? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina]¹²⁵Added from G (and the parallels, Taˋaniot 2:1, Horaiot 3:2, as well as the Babli, Yoma 21b). Only R. Samuel bar Aina is known as student of R. Aha. said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written¹²⁶Hag. 1:8.: Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored, without the letter he¹²⁷Ketib וְאֶכָּבֵד, Qere וְאֶכָּֽבְדָה֭. Both spellings make sense. The missing ה is interpreted in the Alexandrian system of numeration as “5”.. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire¹²⁸The Heavenly fire (2Chr. 7:1)., the Ark¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 35:13, which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each.
Another interpretation (Pene Moshe) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount (2Chr.35:3) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple., Urim and Tummim¹²⁹Which are mentioned as worn by the High Priest (Ex. 28:30) but for which no description or instructions are given., anointing oil¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 35:13, which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each.
Another interpretation (Pene Moshe) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount (2Chr.35:3) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple., and the Holy Spirit¹³⁰The spirit of prophecy..

Rebbi Meїr¹⁵⁸He is the author of the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah, as asserted by R. Simeon ben Laqish in the paragraph after the next. N. Rabbinovicz in Diqduqe Soferim Erubin 47a (Note כ) indicates that the Soncino edition, in the quote of the Mishnah here, has “the words of Rebbi Meїr”, a reading rejected by Rashi ad loc. It seems that the Soncino text is the correct quote of a parallel Mishnah. is suspicious about bills of divorce¹⁵⁹He is afraid that a man who had divorced his childless wife would notice too late that she was pregnant and say that, if he had known this, he never would have divorced her. This could invalidate the bill of divorce and make the divorcee and the second husband adulterers and the child a bastard. {Therefore, in modern divorce proceedings, one lets the husband state three times before witnesses that any later action to invalidate the bill will be null and void.}. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child¹⁶⁰He requires waiting only in cases where there could be a question of the paternity of a child. Since bills of divorce should be handled only by a competent authority, he is confident that the case behind R. Meїr‘s restrictions is not justified.. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child¹⁶¹The “and” is taken in the strict sense: Only if there is a simultaneous question about a bill of divorce and paternity.. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated¹⁶²תנן is an error of the corrector under the influence of the Babli instead of תנינן.: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.¹⁶³Since this is stated as R. Jehudah’s opinion, it follows that R. Meїr objects. To dissolve a preliminary marriage, a bill of divorce is needed even though there normally should not be any chance of pregnancy.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula¹⁶⁴Usually, he is called Rav Gidul; a Babylonian of the second generation, student of Rav, who immigrated into Galilee.: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months¹⁶⁵Both statements are about underage girls, too young to have children. If the girl had been married off by her father, she cannot repudiate her husband but needs a bill of divorce. R. Meїr requires a waiting period for all divorcees even if there is no question of a possible pregnancy. In the Babli, 34b, this is a statement of Samuel.. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months¹⁶⁶In the Babli, 35a, this is a tannaitic statement attributed to R. Yose, whose opinion is interpreted to assume that she will know how to rid herself of the unwanted semen. R. Jehudah is quoted as requiring her to wait three months; his opinion is interpreted as questioning the efficacy of means to rid herself of the unwanted semen.. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated¹⁶⁷In the parallels, only the first part, dealing with waiting before marriage, is quoted. A shortened version is in Tosephta 6:6. The text quoted here is in the Babli, 35a, with the same lack of coordination between nouns and verbs.: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood¹⁶⁸Their menstrual blood which is an original source of impurity. Gentiles cannot impart impurity by biblical standards; the impurity of menstruation certainly is not applicable to Gentiles. Therefore, a Gentile who converts to Judaism (or becomes fully Jewish in the case of the manumitted slave) really should not be a retroactive source of impurity. In the Tosephta, Niddah 1:3, the attributions are switched, and this seems to be the background both for the remark of Rebbi (not in the Tosephta) and the later discussion since in a switched version, Rebbi seems to prefer the stringency of R. Judah in the matter of remarriage. But it is difficult to change the text against the testimony of both mss. (which, however, represent the same Vorlage.)
The Babli has no possible interest in this discussion since it holds (Avodah zarah 36b) that all Gentile women are rabbinically permanently menstruating {and biblically married, since in talmudic theory, Sanhedrin 58b, a Gentile is married to the first partner he or she is copulating with, without possibility of divorce (a position which seems to be adopted by the Apostle Paul).}, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁹In the practical rules of preference, Rebbi Yose ranks over all other students and colleagues of Rebbi Aqiba (Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1, Notes 20–26; Babli Erubin 46b).? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”¹⁷⁰This question makes sense only if Rebbi’s preference is formulated so it endorses R. Jehudah for the rules of remarriage.. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument¹⁷¹This seems to refer to the disagreement between rabbis Eliezer and Joshua over pressed figs among which some heave was lost; Terumot Halakhah 4:10, Tosephta 5:11. In neither source is there a reference to the position taken by Rebbi.. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁷²The Great R. Ḥiyya, not R. Ḥiyya bar Abba mentioned earlier in this paragraph. stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon¹⁷³R. Simeon ben Laqish, cf. Note 158. The question mark put in the text by the editor of the ms. is unnecessary., he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man¹⁷⁴R. Joḥanan. certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the altar is permitted only by a prophet. What is the reason? Guard yourself lest you bring your elevation offerings at any place you are seeing, except at a place ⁵³⁷Deut. 12:13–14. The argument is from the part not quoted, except at a place which the Eternal will chose, by informing a prophet of His choice. etc. ⁵³⁸Ta`aniot 2:8, Notes 164–165. And Elijah sacrifices when local altars are forbidden? Rebbi Simlai said, the Word He said to him⁵³⁹1K. 18:36.: I acted on Your saying. I acted following Your Word.