Sotah

R. Mari raised an objection: If her offering became ritually defiled before it became hallowed in the vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings  and is redeemed; but if [it became defiled] after it had been hallowed in the vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [in such a circumstance] and is destroyed.  If the handful of flour  was hallowed but there was not sufficient time to offer it before [the husband] died  or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and must be destroyed. If the handful had been offered but there was not sufficient time [for the priest] to eat the remainder  before [the husband] died or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and is eaten; because it was brought from the commencement in connection with a matter of doubt,  it atoned for the doubt which is now ended. If witnesses came [and testified] against her that she had misconducted herself, her meal-offering is destroyed; should the witnesses against her be proved to be perjurers,  her meal-offering is non-holy?  — You mention perjured witnesses; the fact that they were perjured witnesses is generally known. There is a teaching in accord with the view of R. Shesheth  but not for the same reason as his,  viz., If she be clean  — [this indicates] there are no witnesses against her in a far-distant land;  'and if she be clean' — [the addition of and indicates] it is not merit that causes the water to suspend its effect; ['and if] she [be clean'] — [meaning that she has escaped the effect of the water because she is in fact clean] and not because women who spin by moonlight were discussing her.  Now as for R. Simeon,  agreed that he does not expound the conjunction and;  still there is the case