MISHNAH: One does not put up an animal in hostelries¹ of Gentiles since they are suspected of bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them² because they are suspected of forbidden sexual relations; a man should not stay alone with them since they are suspected of shedding blood. A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew³ but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman but a Non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman at her home⁴.

footnotes: ¹ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 123. ² A single woman with any number of Gentile men. ³ Since she helps to increase the number of pagan worshippers. This reason given in the Halakhah is (incorrectly) part of the Mishnah in some Babli and Mishnah texts. ⁴ The wet-nurse should not be allowed to remove the baby from his mother’s house since she might kill it.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵: explain it⁶ following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵?

footnotes: ⁵ Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina. ⁶ The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. ⁷ Mishnah Parah ⁸ One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself. ⁹ It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.” ¹⁰ Mishnah Ketubot ¹¹ The argument appears to be cogent. ¹² In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah ¹³ Is. ¹⁴ The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now. ¹⁵ This is the same argument as before.

Rebbi Hoshaia said¹⁶60:7 quoted earlier., why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages]¹⁷11:12. The quote is wrong in L (in parentheses), correct in G [in brackets]. In v. 13 the pieces of silver are declared to be “the Eternal’s treasure;” this explains the identification as saints., thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future¹⁸98(14) as opinion of R. Joḥanan. In the Babli, Ḥulin92a, in one opinion 30 commandments which the Gentiles already took upon themselves, of which they keep only three; one of them being not to allow homosexual marriages.. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking¹⁹. rabba35(2) in the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. In the Babli, Ḥulin92a, in another opinion the 30 just Gentiles on whose merit the Gentile world exists. The Jewish world exists for the Babli on the merit of 36 just men (Sukkah45b, Sanhedrin97b)., as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be²⁰. 18:18., the numerical value of יהיה is 30²¹. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land²²98(14) as opinion of Rav.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips²³3:9. The verse ends: They all are invoking the Eternal’s Name, to serve Him with united shoulder, implying that the Gentiles will accept the Jewish style of worship. Babli Berakhot57b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes²⁴. 2:3; cf. Babli 3b.! That is the commandment of phylacteries²⁵2(8). The chains are the straps of the phylactery on the arm.; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit²⁶3b s. v. ומניחין..

footnotes: ¹⁶ In G: asked. This paragraph interrupts the discussion of the Mishnah and turns to explaining the verse Is. ¹⁷ Sach. ¹⁸ “In the future”, i. e, in the time of the Messiah. Gen. rabba ¹⁹ Gen ²⁰ Gen ²¹ 5+10+5+10=30. ²² Gen. rabba ²³ Zeph. ²⁴ Ps ²⁵ Midrash Psalms ²⁶ These are the “ropes”, Tosaphot Avodah zarah

²⁷ Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written²⁸15:11. At first glance this refers to the booty which they took from the Nubians as described in Chapter 14 since no other war of Asa was mentioned.: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed²⁹. But is it not written³⁰. 6:15, one the day the Philistines returned the Ark on a carriage drawn by cows.: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal³¹. 6:14. In Lev. 1:3 it is spelled out that an elevation offering must be a male animal. Since the entire proceedings were irregular, one cannot infer anything about the rules to follow.. But is it not written³². 15:15. As explained in v. 21, the animals taken from the Gentile tribe were to be slaughtered as sacrifices. Babli 24b., Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot³³53a/b, the verse 1S. 14:47 in interpreted that religious practice never follows Saul. The same is intended here.. But it is not written³⁴. 24:24., David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written³⁵. 24:23. To give pleasure before the Eternal usually is asserted of sacrifices (e. g., Ex. 28:38). Babli 24b., Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written³⁶. 22:25., Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer³⁷7(12) where the verse is read to prohibit accepting money of the Temple tax from Gentiles..

footnotes: ²⁷ One returns to the prior topic, to try to understand R. Eliezer’s position in view of biblical verses which seem to indicate that Gentile animals are perfectly acceptable as sacrifices. ²⁸ 2Chr. ²⁹ Since Chapter 15 does not refer to the war described in Chapter 14, it is not necessary to assume that “the booty” was taken from the Nubians. ³⁰ 1S ³¹ 1S ³² 1S ³³ Something inedible. In the Babli, Eruvin ³⁴ 2S ³⁵ 2S ³⁶ Lev ³⁷ Since R. Eliezer considers all animals of a Gentile unfit for the altar. But he must read the verse as absolute prohibition of accepting any sacrifice from a Gentile, similar to Sifra Emor Pereq

It was stated:³⁸ “One does not put up animals in hostelries, even males next to males and females next to females; it is not necessary to say males next to females and females next to males.” Males next to males, what do you have? His beloved comes and she does not find him, then she is impregnated by it³⁹ that male animals attract homosexuals and females heterosexuals. If males are put next to females, animal copulation will stimulate Gentile voyeurs.. Females next to females, what do you have? Her lover comes and does not find her and impregnates it. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Not only the Jew’s animal at a Gentile’s but even a Gentile’s animal at a Jew’s should not be left alone with another Gentile acquaintance, lest it cause him a mishap⁴⁰. But then even if he leased his animal it would not be nice to return it to be alone with him, lest it cause him a mishap? He is suspected of cohabiting with another’s animal; he is not suspected to have sexual relations with his own animal. For he knows that if he cohabits with her he makes her sterile; therefore he will not cohabit with her⁴¹.

footnotes: ³⁸ Babli 14a, Tosephta 3:2. ³⁹ By the animal. Since Gentiles are used to have pre- and extramarital sex, if one of the partners feels the need for sex but does not find his/her partner, he/she will take an animal as replacement to satisfy him/her. The Tosephta holds otherwise, viz., ⁴⁰ The Jew would be the instrument of the second Gentile’s copulation with the first Gentile’s animal. ⁴¹ Babli 15a, 22b.

“But one may put up an animal in a Samaritan hostelry,”⁴²) should have been quoted. etc. This implies that Samaritans are not suspected of forbidden relations. And it was stated thus⁴³5:9.: “A woman may be alone with two men⁴⁴4:11, Notes 246–254). Babli 25b., even if both are slaves⁴⁵. or one a Samaritan and one a slave. But she should not be alone with a Gentile⁴⁶. His mother-in-law, and his wife’s sister, and all other forbidden relations should be alone with him but require the presence of two [others]⁴⁷5:10, Babli Qiddušin81b. These Babli sources have “sister” instead of “wife’s sister” but the Yerushalmi text is confirmed by G. In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi both here and in Qiddušin unquestionably permits a man to be alone with his sister (but not to share a bed with her.).”

footnotes: ⁴² Tosephta 3:1. The Note “etc.” implies that the entire Tosephta (or an equivalent Galilean baraita ⁴³ Tosephta Qiddušin ⁴⁴ Two Jews. This excludes being alone with husband, father, son, and possibly brother (Qiddušin ⁴⁵ Converted and circumcised who belong to a Jewish familia ⁴⁶ This statement is obviously incomplete since a Jewish woman is not allowed to be alone with a single Jewish man, so certainly not with a single Gentile. One must read with the Tosephta and G, of which a new leaf starts here: “not even with a hundred Gentiles.” ⁴⁷ Tosephta Qiddušin

It was stated:⁴⁸ “One sells them neither weapons nor accessories to weapons⁴⁹. One does not sharpen weapons for them.” Explain it in a town of only Gentiles⁵⁰. Is a woman not in danger to be killed⁵¹? Rebbi Immi⁵². In the latter’s interpretation, a strong woman is one who would survive a gang rape. In a quote in Tosaphot 25b s. v. איכא R. Jeremiah. said, explain it about a muscular one. Rebbi Abin said, even you may say [about a weak one.⁵³] A woman may hide herself and say, I am a Gentile, but a man cannot hide himself and say, he is a Gentile⁵⁴.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Tosephta 2:4, Babli 15b. ⁴⁹ Such as a sheath of a sword. ⁵⁰ But in a town with Jewish inhabitants one may provide weapons for the security forces. ⁵¹ This refers to the Mishnah which states that a woman is in danger to be raped but a man to be killed. ⁵² In G: R. Mana, the same in a quote in Or zarua ⁵³ Added from G. (The vocalization is from G.) ⁵⁴ Since he is circumcized.

It was stated⁵⁴: “If a Gentile is paired with a Jew, he puts him on his right hand side. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, with a sword, at his right; with a staff, at his left⁵⁵. If he climbs with him to an upper floor or descends to the exit, the Jew should be higher and the Gentile below. He should not lie down before him lest he smite his skull. And he should extend the way to him, that if he asks him where he goes he should indicate a farther distance, as our father Jacob did with Esau, until I shall come to my Lord at Seir⁵⁶. 33:14.. But he went to Sukkot*.* Rebbi Huna said, we do not find that our father Jacob went to Seir. Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi [Aivo]⁵⁷, he spoke to him of the future world, *when saviors will climb on Mount Sion to judge Mount Esau.*⁵⁸. 21.”

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Tosephta 3:4, Babli 25b. ⁵⁵ Since the sword is girded at his right side and the staff held in his left hand. The Gentile should not have space to swing his weapon. ⁵⁶ Gen ⁵⁷ Added from G, missing in L. ⁵⁸ Ob

⁵⁹“A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew, for she brings a son⁶⁰ to pagan worship; but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman.” It was stated so: From the outside but not the inside. She should not put her hand inside not to squish the fetus in her innards, and she should not give her a cup of root-extract to drink⁶¹6:6); therefore a woman is permitted to use chemical birth control methods which do not change the sex act. Since Gentiles are suspect as potential murderers such a potion may be taken only from a Jewish source or, as indicated later in this paragraph, also from a duly qualified Gentile professional.. If she was a medical doctor? This will come as what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted⁶². And here, if she was a medical doctor it is permitted. [Rebbi Yose bar Abun, these questions … [doc]tor permitted.⁶³; probably a confirmation of the permission to use Gentile certified medical professionals.]

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Tosephta 3:3, Babli 26a. ⁶⁰ This is the reading in all sources except G which reads גוי “Gentile” instead of בן “son”. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 177. ⁶¹ A concoction used to prevent pregnancies. The obligation of having children uniquely is on the male (Mishnah Yebamot ⁶² Babli 27a, also in the name of R. Joḥanan. He has to worry about his professional reputation. ⁶³ Fragment in G of a sentence missing in L and the editio princeps

“A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman” because she gives it life⁶⁴. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one may not teach him a trade⁶⁵4:12.. As the following: Two trades, glaziers and carpenters⁶⁶“craftsman of …” There exists a Greek word κιβωτάριον but this is a diminutive, “small box or chamber” and does not designate a profession. Jastrow explains as “maker of pickles” but this is a gross misreading of κιβώτιον in Terumot10:3, Note 36. were at (Giro) [Acco]⁶⁷. The glaziers did not teach⁶⁸ and continued, the carpenters taught and were pushed out.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ In Tosephta 3:3 “because she raises a son for pagan worship” as in the preceding paragraph. G is defective at this point. ⁶⁵ In order to live one has to make a living. Therefore it is a religious duty for a man to see to it that his son learn a trade; cf. Qiddušin ⁶⁶ A hybrid of Greek κιβωτός “box, chest” (in LXX used to translate תֵּיבָה) and the Latin suffix -arius ⁶⁷ No place Giro (ms. L) is known. (If one would read גידו the place would be Jedda in Arabia.) Acco (reading of G) was known as a city divided between Jews and Gentiles, only partially within the borders of the Land; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1 Note. 30. ⁶⁸ They did not accept Gentile apprentices.

“But a Non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman” as it is written, their kings will be your pedagogues and their princesses your wet nurses⁶⁹. 49:23, giving divine sanction to Gentile wet nurses.. It was stated: A baby nurses continuously from a Non-Jewish woman or from a non-kosher animal and one brings him milk from anywhere and does not worry either about abomination or because of impurity⁷⁰9:22: One does not nurse from a Non-Jewish woman or from a non-kosher animal but if it was a matter of survival nothing stands before saving lives..

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Is ⁷⁰ The Babylonian attitude is expressed in Tosephta Šabbat

MISHNAH: One may be healed from the healing of property but not healing of persons. One may not be shaved from them anywhere⁷¹, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say it is permitted in the public domain but not in private.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Since the barber easily may cut the client’s throat with his knife.

HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body⁷². Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden⁷³. He does not permit any Gentile doctor, even qualified, to do any surgical procedure on the body of a Jew; only medication can be accepted. The translation reads here נחמס as in the sequel, not נחמם “developed a fever.” G is missing at this passage.. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader⁷⁴. He hurt his finger and put a bandage⁷⁵“pad, wound dressing”; cf. Orlah3:1 Note 20. on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off⁷⁶. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted⁶²? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden⁷⁷.

footnotes: ⁷² Babli 27a. ⁷³ Babli loc. cit ⁷⁴ Where usually the intercalation of a month was announced. ⁷⁵ Latin splenium ⁷⁶ Arabic قلم “to cut”. The feminine suffix shows that the bandage (f.) was cut off, not the finger (m.). ⁶² Babli 27a, also in the name of R. Joḥanan. He has to worry about his professional reputation. ⁷⁷ Deriving חמס from a root like Arabic خمش “to scratch”. He could not go to the local Gentile doctor because he needed surgical intervention which according to Rav Jehudah is forbidden; R. Joḥanan permits only non-surgical interventions.

May one have one’s eyelids painted by them⁷⁸, originally the Aramaic/Arabic name for antimony, then used for any paste applied in ophthalmology.? Rav said, anybody who wants to be blinded may be blinded. Levi said, anybody who wants to die may die⁷⁹55b.. Rav never had his eye painted; Levi had his eye painted. Rebbi Abba said, but do we not see that they taste this collyrium⁸⁰? We may say that they taste it if it is good. If it is no good it keeps and blinds. Opium⁸¹ is dangerous. Treacle⁸² ἀντίδοτος, “antidote against a poisonous bite.”, Rebbi Simon says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan⁸³ says it is permitted.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Applying koḥl ⁷⁹ Babli Niddah ⁸⁰ Greek κολλύρα “eye salve”. ⁸¹ Greek ὄπιον. ⁸² Greek θηριακή, scil. ⁸³ In G: E. Immi. This seems a more trustworthy reading.

¹ The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath⁸⁴. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state⁸⁵14:4. While one is permitted to drink (diluted) vinegar on the Sabbath, one may not use it as a pain killer since this is medical treatment of a situation which in general is not life-threatening.: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath⁸⁶. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath⁸⁷. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat⁸⁸ on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye⁸⁹ on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger⁹⁰. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous⁹¹. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath⁹²108b, with the names of Rav and Samuel switched. Since people sometimes put wine on their eyelids for non-medical reasons, it is permitted to do the same for minor aches for which medical intervention would be forbidden on the Sabbath. From this you infer for lichen⁹³. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula⁹⁴ an infection of the mouth. is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco]⁹⁵ in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness⁹⁶ is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover⁹⁷. A boil is permitted.⁹⁸ Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this⁹⁹17:2. As a matter of principle one may move a vessel on the Sabbath only if it is of any use on this day. A sewing needle cannot be used for its usual function on the Sabbath but may be used to remove a thorn in one’s foot or to open a boil.: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye¹⁰⁰, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He¹⁰¹ told them, also I am permitting it.

footnotes: ¹ From here to almost the end of the Halakhah there is a parallel in Šabbat 14:4 (ש); in addition the present paragraph still is available in a Genizah text (G). If these two sources present a common reading different from the text here, one may assume that the text here is in error, either by the scribe or in the text from which he copied. ⁸⁴ In the Babli, 28a, this is the position of Rebbi Immi. Since medical practice usually involves activities biblically forbidden on the Sabbath, such as compounding medicines and ointments or surgical interventions, also healing activities which do not involve these prohibitions are rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. However, if a condition is life-threatening, Sabbath prohibitions do not apply. A declaration that “one heals such-and-such a condition on the Sabbath” is the equivalent of declaring the condition as life-threatening. ⁸⁵ Mishnah Šabbat ⁸⁶ Babli 27b/28a, in the name of R. Joḥanan. ⁸⁷ Any injury to the skull bones. ⁸⁸ Babli 28b. The translation used here of “daughters of the ear” is an interpretation of Rashi’s explanation in the Babli: “Sinews of the ear which sometimes are lowered and keep the jaws open; then it is necessary to lift them and this is dangerous.” ⁸⁹ “An eye which rebelled”: it feels as if the eye would leave its place. Babli 28b. ⁹⁰ Any wounds at these places are considered life-threatening. Babli 28a. ⁹¹ Dark red color of a wound is indication of a life-threatening infection. ⁹² Babli Šabbat ⁹³ A skin disease, purely external. ⁹⁴ “Frog” (Aramaic), Latin ranula, ⁹⁵ The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms., the one in brackets from G and ש. ⁹⁶ This may either describe the bite of a spider or more likely a cancerous growth looking like a spider. ⁹⁷ Using leavened matter on Passover is a deadly sin but for medical purposes in life threatening situations it may be used without hesitation. ⁹⁸ A boil filled with pus may be opened on the Sabbath. ⁹⁹ Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁰⁰ This may describe a cataract or glaucoma. ¹⁰¹ R. Jeremiah. G ends here.

¹⁰²14:4. Babli 28a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Scurvy¹⁰³. Rashi in the Babli explains the word as French muguet, English thrush, a sickness producing a musk like smell of the mouth. is dangerous. Rebbi Joḥanan had it; he was treated by the daughter of Domitianus¹⁰⁴ Here “Domitianus’s”. If they are professionals, female doctors are as acceptable as male. of Tiberias. Friday evening he went down to her¹⁰⁵14:4, “went up.” In Tiberias, one goes up or down, almost never level. and asked her, will I need anything tomorrow? She said no, but if you need anything take date pits, some say of Nicolaus dates, split and heated, skin¹⁰⁶ of barley grain, and dry excrement of a baby, grind it and apply it; do not tell this to anybody. The next day he went up and preached it in the House of Study¹⁰⁷14:4 “in public”, which is the better version.. She heard it and strangled herself; but some say that she converted¹⁰⁸. You understand from this three things. You understand that scurvy is dangerous. You understand that anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath¹¹⁰⁹. You understand what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted.

footnotes: ¹⁰² It seems that the original of this paragraph is in Šabbat ¹⁰³ This is the meaning of צַפְדִּינָה in modern Hebrew. The different vocalization here is based on the text in Šabbat ¹⁰⁴ Translation of the text in Šabbat. ¹⁰⁵ In Šabbat ¹⁰⁶ Bran. ¹⁰⁷ In Šabbat ¹⁰⁸ Either she committed suicide because she lost her trade secret or she converted because she admired R. Joḥanan who made the recipe public and did not try to make money through his knowledge. ¹ In the Babli, 28a, this is the position of Rebbi Immi. Since medical practice usually involves activities biblically forbidden on the Sabbath, such as compounding medicines and ointments or surgical interventions, also healing activities which do not involve these prohibitions are rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. However, if a condition is life-threatening, Sabbath prohibitions do not apply. A declaration that “one heals such-and-such a condition on the Sabbath” is the equivalent of declaring the condition as life-threatening. ¹⁰⁹ Since R. Joḥanan acted on this, it is practice notwithstanding R. Ze‘ira’s criticism.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levy was suffering from colic¹¹⁰; Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan instructed him to grind taḥlusin¹¹¹, put it in old wine and drink it to avoid becoming endangered¹¹².

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Greek κῶλον, “gut, disease of the colon.” ¹¹¹ This probably is a plural of תּוּכְלָא “hard unripe date” which can be ground rather than תִּחְלֵי “cress, nasturtium” which could be cut but not ground. ¹¹² Since this is not a usual drink; its use on the Sabbath is rabbinically prohibited but to avoid future danger this prohibition can be waived. R. Joshua ben Levy was himself at least as qualified as the other two authorities to decide but he did not want to apply a leniency to himself on his own word.

His¹¹³ grandson suffered from choking; there came one, whispered something in the name of Jesus ben Pandera¹¹⁴) is unexplained. [Perhaps a distortion of Greek πανταρκής, Latin Pantarces, “all-helping”, a surname of Jupiter (E. G.)]. and he could breathe. When he left, he asked him¹¹⁵, what did you say over him? He answered, such and such words. He said, it would have been better for him had he died and not heard these words. It happened to him¹¹⁶, like an erroneous order from a ruler.

footnotes: ¹¹³ R. Joshua ben Levi’s grandson. ¹¹⁴ This name (or Panṭera ¹¹⁵ R. Joshua ban Levi asked the Christian missionary. ¹¹⁶ The grandson died.

Rebbi Jacob [bar Idi]¹¹⁷, needed for chronological reasons. In the Babli, Pesaḥim25a, the tradition is by R. Abin (Abun) in the name of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One heals with anything except pagan worship, uncovering nakednesses, and spilling blood¹¹⁸. Rebbi Phineas asked: So far if he said, bring me leaves from pagan worship, and he brought him. If he said to him bring me leaves (unspecified) and he brought him from pagan worship? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Aḥa had a fever attack. They brought him from the penis of Dohi¹¹⁹ but he did not drink. They brought to Rebbi Jonah and he drank. Rebbi Mana said, if my father Rebbi Jonah had known from where it was, he would not have drunk¹²⁰.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ From the text in Šabbat ¹¹⁸ The three sins which one is not permitted to commit even in order to save one’s life. Since Christian faith healing is rejected before pagan healing is discussed it is clear that it is not rejected as pagan but as falsely claiming to be Jewish. ¹¹⁹ A pagan statue with a spout in form of a penis, like Brussel’s Manneken Piss. ¹²⁰ Therefore healing by idolatrous materials is forbidden even if not specifically asked for.

Rebbi Huna said, (this means) [a baraita implies]¹²¹, has to be preferred over the text here (in parentheses). that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness¹²², as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases¹²³. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? Therefore the betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following¹²⁴75a. The text in the Babli makes it clear that R. Eleazar here is the Tanna, ben Shamua.: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked Rebbi Eleazar, should she parade before him that he may live? He said to them, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said to them, he should die but not this. How was it? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter¹²⁵ love a woman in the days of Rebbi Eleazar and (became dangerously sick) [and he permitted him]¹²⁶, to be preferred over the text here in parentheses. The main point is that R. Eleazar permitted the man to date the woman and to contract a marriage which was neither pre-arranged nor brokered.? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one, here and here about a married woman. Explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance (and did not listen to him) [and did not want to marry.]¹²⁷, to be preferred over the text here in parentheses. In the Babli they hold that the man was not interested in marriage at all, only in sex. Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Since the proof follows the statement, the text in brackets, from Šabbat ¹²² The technical term for criminal acts of a sexual nature, including but not restricted to incest and adultery. ¹²³ The laws of the Sabbath are suspended in the Temple where the prescribed sacrifices are slaughtered and burned, actions which outside would be capital crimes. But a preliminarily married woman is absolutely forbidden for any man without exception. ¹²⁴ Babli Sanhedrin ¹²⁵ It is possible that Ben Koḥa is not a proper name but means “strongman”. ¹²⁶ The text in brackets is from Šabbat ¹²⁷ The text in brackets is from Šabbat

Rebbi Ḥanina said, (this means) [a baraita implies]¹²¹, has to be preferred over the text here (in parentheses). that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there¹²⁸7:6. The Mishnah states that if a child during childbirth endangers the life of the mother one saves the mother’s life by cutting the fetus into pieces. But if head and part of the body are already born so that the baby breathes on his own one may not harm him. Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary notes “all this is obvious and does not need commentary.”: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him,” we suspect that he will live¹²⁹, “for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he tell him, injure that person. A Gentile against a Gentile, a Gentile against a Jew, is liable¹³⁰. A Jew against a Gentile is not liable¹³¹6:5 Note 75).. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi:¹³²: Rav Ḥisda. There it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Since the proof follows the statement, the text in brackets, from Šabbat ¹²⁸ Mishnah Ahilut ¹²⁹ Even though the baby might be stillborn (this includes the possibility that he might not live for a full thirty days after birth, in which case a person killing the baby could not be prosecuted for murder), if actually he is breathing on his own he must be treated as certainly being alive. ¹³⁰ Is prosecutable in a Jewish court. ¹³¹ Is not prosecutable by biblical rules, only by the king’s police powers (cf. Sanhedrin ¹³² In Šabbat

¹³³ It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you)¹³⁴ in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm)¹³⁴ as it is written¹³⁵. 10:8. The fence is a stone wall without mortar with holes in which a snake may hide., he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World¹³⁶. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them¹³⁷. 18:5..

footnotes: ¹³³ Babli 27b. According to this source, ben Dama was the son of R. Ismael’s sister. ¹³⁴ Addition in the text here. ¹³⁴ Addition in the text here. ¹³⁵ Eccl ¹³⁶ The mythical snake which seduced Eve. ¹³⁷ Lev

“One who cuts a Gentile’s hair cuts it until he comes to the lock¹³⁸21a explains by Arabic دوابة which means both a toupee and a mane; cf. Chapter 1, Note 105. Levy suggests Latin vellera crinis.. Once he comes to the lock he desists. One who gets a haircut from a Gentile looks in the mirror¹³⁹. 22:5). Babli 29a., from a Samaritan he does not look into the mirror¹⁴⁰. They permitted the family of Rebbi¹⁴¹ that they might look, because they were in need of Roman government connections.¹⁴²” Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock¹⁴³, and that they taught their children Greek¹⁴⁴ 49b., because they were in need of Roman government connections.

footnotes: ¹³⁸ A word of undetermined etymology which R. Ḥananel in his Commentary to Sanhedrin ¹³⁹ To make sure that the Gentile will not cut his throat. In general, for a man to look in a mirror to check on his grooming is rabbinically forbidden as “woman’s garb” (Deut ¹⁴⁰ Since they are (Sadducee) Jews, there is no reason to allow looking in a mirror. ¹⁴¹ The Patriarch’s family, the official representative of the Jews vis-a-vis the Roman Government from the Severan Emperors to Theodosius II. ¹⁴² Tosephta 3:4. ¹⁴³ Greek κόμη. ¹⁴⁴ Not simply the Greek language which every trader had to master but Greek education, literature, and philosophy, which are intrinsically pagan. Babli Soṭah

A convert was a barber and astrologer¹⁴⁵. He saw in his astrology¹⁴⁵ that Jews were spilling his blood. This only referred to his circumcision but when a Jew came to him to get a haircut, he killed him. How many did he kill? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said eighty. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said three hundred. At the end they prayed about him and he returned to his origin¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Greek ἀστρόλογος, ἀστρολογία. ¹⁴⁵ Greek ἀστρόλογος, ἀστρολογία. ¹⁴⁶ Then Jews who came to his place had to watch in a mirror what he was doing.

¹⁴⁷ 4:6, Notes 170–172. It was stated: One does not buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzzot¹⁴⁸ 45b) which permits to buy these from a Gentile trader if one is able to check that they are written according to the special rules. The problem is that one may be able to verify that all letters were written correctly but it is impossible to verify that the leather (or in later technology the parchment) was prepared correctly and that they were written by a Jew obligated to have one of these. The latter requirement is indispensable.. ¹⁴⁹ 45b.“It happened that a Gentile in Sidon was selling phylacteries, Torah scrolls, and mezuzzot. The case came before the Sages who ruled that one might buy from him.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This was a convert who returned to his origin¹⁵⁰ to his doorpost, and to study Torah, i. e., also empowered to write it..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Giṭtin ¹⁴⁸ This opposes a Tosephta (3:6, Babli Giṭtin ¹⁴⁹ Tosephta 3:7, Babli Giṭtin ¹⁵⁰ Since conversion to Judaism is irreversible, even if he starts following pagan rites again he remains obligated to wear phylacteries, to affix a mezuzzah

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine¹⁵¹. 13:18) which biblically is forbidden for all usufruct., and vinegar which originally was wine¹⁵², and Hadrianic pottery,¹⁵³ and heart-removed skins¹⁵⁴. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁵⁵. 106:26; it describes all pagan sacrifices.. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness¹⁵⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ One may assume that the Gentile before drinking the wine made a libation to the gods. If done for a full barrel, it makes all the wine in the barrel forbidden as חֶרֶם (Deut ¹⁵² Even though it is no longer wine and cannot be used for libations, since it remains usable the original prohibition is not removed. ¹⁵³ Very porous earthenware which is soaked in wine to absorb it. It is taken on caravan trips to give a taste of wine to water taken on the trip. ¹⁵⁴ Skins of the belly which show that the heart was removed before the animal was skinned. This is done only in pagan rituals; the animal including any parts not used in pagan worship is חֶרֶם. ¹⁵⁵ The expression “sacrifice to the dead” is from Ps ¹⁵⁶ This is the meaning of the word in other contexts. The meaning here is not uncontested, cf. Notes 220 ff.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. ¹⁵⁷8:5 (Notes 82–111). At places the text here is a reformulation, not a direct copy, of the text there; though it is not excluded that both might represent the same original by two very different paths of copying. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered¹⁵⁸. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine¹⁶⁰) conditum.. The bitter, vermouth wine¹⁶¹. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia]¹⁶²; it is preferred since no Amora “R. Joshua” without patronymic is known., Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned]¹⁶³, the one in parenthesis is the text here., Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.¹⁶⁴” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine¹⁶⁵.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ This paragraph and many of the following have a parallel in Terumot ¹⁵⁸ In both Talmudim it is assumed that a snake will drink from uncovered unattended fluids and in the process poison the drink for humans. Then the drink cannot be used, neither can it be sold since this would be “putting a stone in the path of a blind person.” This makes uncovered unattended wine almost as forbidden as wine used for pagan practices. ¹⁵⁹ Babli 30a. “Libation wine” is the technical term for Gentile wine which was used for pagan libations or other pagan ceremonies and therefore is forbidden for all usufruct. ¹⁶⁰ Latin (vinum ¹⁶¹ Greek ἀψίνθιον, “wormwood, Artemisia Absinthium.” ¹⁶² The text in brackets is the reading of the text in Terumot ¹⁶³ The text in brackets is the reading of the text in Terumot ¹⁶⁴ Babli 29b. The statement implies that Jewish cooked wine (pasteurized grape juice) cannot become forbidden after being handled by a Gentile. ¹⁶⁵ But anything manufactured from wine that was not originally forbidden does not become forbidden; same consequence as in the preceding Note.

¹⁶⁶ 8:5 Notes 91–94. Rebbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, would I not have served you? Rebbi Vivian said, bring it and we shall drink. He answered, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ Terumot

Bar Yudani had uncovered spice wine. He went and asked the rabbis who forbade it. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet, are not under the rules of being uncovered. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: About one which consists of one to three parts ground [spices]¹⁶⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ One part spices for every three parts wine (one fourth of the volume) is the minimal concentration for which R. Joshua ben Levi’s rule may be applied.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu, what is the rule for uncovered cooked [wine]? He told them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum¹⁶⁸, Greek κάροινον, wine which by cooking has lost one third of its volume. Since the alcohol-producing bacteria die at 13% alcohol by volume, if the volume has shrunk by one third certainly all alcohol had evaporated and no alcohol was left in the fluid. and you are asking me this? They asked Rebbi Isaac and he forbade it to them. Then Rebbi Abbahu remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden¹⁶⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ Latin carenum ¹⁶⁹ R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement is rejected in practice.

(Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.)¹⁷⁰, the corresponding sentence reads: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was entering and leaving it is permitted. This means that one may assume that no snake came out of its hole to eat from the food or drink the fluid if there was constant traffic in the room. The sentence really is needed to justify R. Abba bar Mamal’s ruling in the sentence after the next. Possibly it was deleted to indicate that the passage here should not be considered an exact copy of the text in Terumot. Terumot 8:5 Note 95. The barrel of Ben Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was sleeping it is permitted¹⁷¹. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, if he was sleeping it is forbidden. In is reasonable [to infer] that Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁷².

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ In the Leiden ms. this sentence was deleted by the scribe; it does not appear in the prints. In Terumot ¹⁷¹ Also here one does not assume that a snake would venture into the room, even though the story in the next paragraph disproves the assumption. The statement also is rejected in the Babli, 30a. ¹⁷² The frequent disagreements of R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan in both Talmudim really are disagreements between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan.

¹⁷³8:5 Notes 96–101; the text is somewhat reformulated. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from the following occurrence. It happened that a woman loved to do good deeds but her husband hated good deeds. There came a poor man and she gave him to eat. While he was eating she noticed her husband; she made him climb and hid him in the upper floor. She returned to her husband who ate and fell asleep. There came a snake and ate from what was before him; her husband awoke from his sleep and wanted to eat. The one in the upper floor started to talk¹⁷⁴. That means if he was sleeping it is permitted¹⁷⁵. It was used to it. But is it not forbidden because of being alone? For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands¹⁷⁶. 23:37*.*. Since he is not suspected of one he is not suspected of the other¹⁷⁷81b)..

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Terumot ¹⁷⁴ To warn the husband not to eat from the leftovers. ¹⁷⁵ Without warning the husband would have eaten the poisoned food. This proves both that the rule is that one may eat food left while a person is sleeping nearby and that the rule is questionable, at least if there is a house snake familiar with the happenings there. ¹⁷⁶ Ez ¹⁷⁷ Since the guest saved the husband from danger to his life he is not suspected of wanting him to die; this also clears him of any suspicion of adultery (Babli Nedarim

¹⁷⁸8:5 Notes 104–105. A pious person happened to be insistent in the matter of uncovered [drinks]; he was smitten with a fever. They saw him preaching on the Day of Atonement with a flask of water in his hand¹⁷⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ Terumot ¹⁷⁹ For medical reasons he would be permitted to take small sips of water on the day of the fast but it was extraordinary that he would have wanted to be seen with a flask of water which might lead people to believe that he did not fast. He took that chance rather than to risk leaving the water unattended.

¹⁸⁰8:5 Notes 102–103. Although in the first part the Terumot text appears as the original, from here on the order of texts makes more sense. The only connection the present paragraph has with the others is the mention of the Day of Atonement (missing in Terumot) which was introduced in the preceding one (and continues in the next one with the original theme.) It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once on the eve of the day of Atonement before nightfall he drank a great deal of wine and became drunk. He went to the roof, fell down, and died. The dogs started to lick his blood; people came to ask Rebbi Ḥanina how to remove him from before them. He told them, it is written¹⁸¹22:30., holy people you shall be to Me; torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs. This one robbed the dogs and fed the Jews carcasses and torn meat. Let them alone, they are eating from their own.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Terumot ¹⁸¹ Ex.

¹⁸²8:5 Notes 106–112. These are the last paragraphs having a parallel there. A person’s amphora of wine became uncovered on the eve of the Great Fast. He went to pour it out; another person said to him, bring it and I shall drink it. He told him, it was uncovered. He answered, does not the Master of the Day exist? He had not finished tasting when he started shaking.

footnotes: ¹⁸² Terumot

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills¹⁸³. Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [drinks]¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira; as master of the ruling he asked him¹⁸⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁸³ Babli 31b: reptile poisons do not kill except that of a snake. ¹⁸⁴ One should not ask a rabbi to authorize behavior that will endanger one’s health. Babli 30a. ¹⁸⁵ How could R. Jeremiah have asked if he is the person who teaches that one does not ask? He asked in order to be able to formulate his rule.

Rebbi Ze`ira was dozing; he was sitting and eating in the evening. The light went out; he put his hand on the toman¹⁸⁶(a hemina, half a sextarius) of wine. Sine the room was dark he held that the presence of a human in the room would not deter a snake from drinking the wine. Babli 30a.. They lit the light and found a snakelet like a hair curled around it. He said to it, evil one, was I not careful about you?

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ A vessel containing half a log

Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife¹⁸⁷ in an etrog, or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Store a knife there.

Rebbi Yannai said, if you bit something off, you bit off soot. If you lose, you lose a pearl¹⁸⁸. If anybody asked Rebbi Jonathan he told him: Am I the guarantor of your life? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if you sold yourself for the games¹⁸⁹; as a gladiator., you would sell yourself for an excessive price; but here for a very cheap price.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ If you take chances with your health you may lose it. ¹⁸⁹ Latin ludi

Rebbi Assi¹⁹⁰, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, it should be sold entirely to a Gentile except the value of the libation wine contained in it¹⁹¹. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Undetermined wine¹⁹² of a Gentile is forbidden¹⁹³ but does not make impure. If he deposited it¹⁹⁴ with him it is forbidden for drinking but permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, how? If he segregated it? He told him, if he deposited it¹⁹⁵. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are three kinds of wine. If he saw the Gentile pouring a libation, it is certainly pagan worship and induces severe impurity like a reptile¹⁹⁶ 9:1. In the Babli, 30b/31a, the formulation is more correctly “severe impurity”..Gentiles’ undetermined wine is forbidden but does not cause impurity. If he deposited with him¹⁹³ with one seal it is forbidden to drink¹⁹⁴ and permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: See what he said! He only said with a seal. Therefore without a seal it is forbidden for drinking and usufruct. Rebbi Eleazar instructed: if it was segregated; Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed it¹⁹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. ¹⁹¹ This is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s opinion in Mishnah 5:13, opposed by the anonymous majority which declares the entire cistern as forbidden for usufruct. The Babli (74a) agrees that practice has to follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. ¹⁹² Wine about whose previous use nothing is known. ¹⁹³ In this sentence, “forbidden” means “forbidden for usufruct”. ¹⁹⁴ Wines produced by Jews if handled by Gentiles are permitted to drink only if they are guarded by an inner seal and an outer seal which make it practically impossible for the Gentile to get to the wine without being detected. If there is no double seal, the wine becomes forbidden to drink. The problem then is to determine when Jewish wine handled by a Gentile or in the custody of a Gentile is permitted for usufruct. ¹⁹⁵ In the first case, it was specified that the Jew’s closed wine amphora has to be kept at a specified place, with the Jew being able to inspect the place and see that the condition was kept. In the second case the amphora is to be kept by the Gentile in his wine cellar, not separate from his own wine amphoras. ¹⁹⁶ In rabbinic teaching in many aspects pagan worship induces impurity much more severe than that of a dead reptile, cf. Mishnah 3:13, Šabbat ¹⁹³ In this sentence, “forbidden” means “forbidden for usufruct”. ¹⁹⁴ Wines produced by Jews if handled by Gentiles are permitted to drink only if they are guarded by an inner seal and an outer seal which make it practically impossible for the Gentile to get to the wine without being detected. If there is no double seal, the wine becomes forbidden to drink. The problem then is to determine when Jewish wine handled by a Gentile or in the custody of a Gentile is permitted for usufruct. ¹⁹⁷ Since R. Eleazar confirmed that he was correct in his question to R. Yasa, against R. Yasa. Since R. Eleazar died before R. Joḥanan, the entire discussion must be dated to the generation after R. Joḥanan, trying to understand the latter’s teachings.

There, we have stated¹⁹⁸ 3:4. Demay is produce bought from a Jew who is suspected of not following rabbinic rules. He is presumed to have given heave, which is a small amount and the violation of whose prohibition is clearly a biblical deadly sin, but is suspected of neglecting all other rules (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay). The anonymous majority holds that Gentile produce in the Land of Israel is free from the rules of heave and tithes. (For the opinion of R. Simeon, cf. Demay 3:4 Note 91). Ṭevel is Jewish produce from which no heave or tithes have been taken, forbidden for any Jew after storage.: “With a Gentile, it is like his produce. Rebbi Simeon says, it is demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mani: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place? He said to him, for all that is in it. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing him¹⁹⁹3:4, Notes 104–107. In the opinion of the anonymous Tanna, since the obligation of ṭevel starts only after storage, initial storage by a Gentile removes the obligation completely. Since R. Mani (Mana I) was an Amora of the first generation, the name has to be Ḥanina in both occurrences unless one reads Mana (II) and Ḥanania in all occurrences here and the next paragraph.. The placing of the quote here can only be understood with the help of the Babli (31a). In the preceding paragraph it was established that the Jew’s wine stored with the Gentile under certain conditions remains permitted for usufruct. Then the question is why wine does not follow the rules of produce, that if stored by the Gentile it follows the rules of Gentile produce. While for grain this implies release from the obligations of heave and tithes, for wine it should imply prohibition of all usufruct. The answer is given in the next paragraph (having no parallel in the Babli) that the person who frees grain from heave and tithes forbids wine stored with the Gentile for usufruct..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Mishnah Demay ¹⁹⁹ The paragraph has a parallel in Demay

If he deposited with him with a seal²⁰⁰. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one says, prohibited²⁰¹, and one says, permitted. Where do they disagree? For usufruct. But for drinking it is forbidden.

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ A barrel or bottle of wine, deposited with a Gentile without being held at a separate place. As noted earlier, it remains permitted as a drink for Jews only if it is secured by a double seal. The question remains about its status if it is secured only by a single seal which makes it unlikely but not impossible for the Gentile to access the wine. ²⁰¹ R. Mana..

Rav said, ḥbyt is forbidden, ḥmpg²⁰² and ḥampag. Babli 39a/b. is permitted. A piece of fish without distinguishing mark²⁰³, meat, wine, and dark blue color²⁰⁴, which by tradition must be dyed with the blood of a marine snail which can easily be counterfeit by (much cheaper) indigo, and therefore needs certification. (In modern Hebrew תכלת is light blue but classically very dark blue.), are forbidden with a single seal; assa foetida²⁰⁵, fish sauce²⁰⁶; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper., bread, and cheese, are permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Yudan said, the reason of Rav is that anything which is forbidden in itself is forbidden with a single seal, if because of admixture it is permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everything is permitted with a single seal except wine²⁰⁷.

footnotes: ²⁰² Mnemonic marks composed of initial letters of the items to be remembered; pronounced ḥavit ²⁰³ If it is not directly visible that it is a piece of a fish with fins and scales, permitted as food. ²⁰⁴ Woolen threads for use in the ṣiṣit ²⁰⁵ A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used. ²⁰⁶ Latin muries ²⁰⁷ Babli 31a.

“And Hadrianic pottery.” ²⁰⁸ 3:2, Notes 64–76, since in the text “here” means ‘Orlah and “there” Avodah zarah. Nevertheless the order of sentences is too different and the text here cannot be considered as simply a copy of the text there. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah²⁰⁹: does practice follow Rebbi Meïr? As it was stated²¹⁰, “Hadrianic pottery is prohibited and its prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr²¹¹: R. Eliezer., but the Sages say, its prohibition is not of usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: what is the status of the cloth about which we stated here²¹², the treatise about the prohibition to use the fruits of a tree in the first three years of its growth. Mishnah ‘Orlah3:1 states: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shell shall be burned.” R. Jeremiah asks, why do the Sages hold that libation wine absorbed in pottery is not forbidden for usufruct but dye from ‘orlah shells (e. g. walnut shells) absorbed in cloth make the entire cloth forbidden for usufruct?? He was offended by this and told him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible. May one use it to support the legs of a couch²¹³? Rebbi Eleazar says it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is forbidden²¹⁴, the attributions are switched. The Babli 32a cannot decide between the two traditions..

footnotes: ²⁰⁸ The origin of this text is in ‘Orlah ²⁰⁹ Probably this should read: Ze`iri in the name of Rav Jeremiah. ²¹⁰ Cf. Tosephta 4:8. Since the majority opposes R. Meïr, it is difficult to understand why the Mishnah should support a minority opinion as practice. ²¹¹ In the editio princeps ²¹² This shows that the paragraph belongs to ‘Orlah ²¹³ They used to put the legs of the couch in water containers to shield the sleeper from snakes and other crawling animals. ²¹⁴ In ‘Orlah

“And heart-removed skins.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel²¹⁵.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ In the Babli 32b this is a tradition of Samuel. R. Jeremiah here is the first generation Babylonian.

How does he do it? He tears its heart out from the living animal for pagan worship. How does one know²¹⁶? Rebbi Ḥuna said, if it is torn out from the living animal it rebounds and becomes circular; after slaughter it becomes stretched. Rebbi Yose said, one can infer from this that if he slaughtered one sign, even though one says that nothing living can become prohibited, here it becomes prohibited²¹⁷.

footnotes: ²¹⁶ Which skins were used in pagan ceremonies and are forbidden? ²¹⁷ Even an animal which was worshipped as a divinity is not forbidden for usufruct (it is forbidden as a sacrifice.) If in an act of pagan worship only the windpipe of an animal is cut but not the esophagus and the carotid arteries, the animal is not immediately killed. But since it is for pagan worship it is not less than tearing the heart out from a living animal which makes the entire carcass forbidden for usufruct.

“Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, to exclude the statement of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says that the thoughts of a Non-Jew are about pagan worship²¹⁸ 2:7. He holds that even if a Jew correctly slaughters an animal for a Gentile the meat is forbidden since the Gentile owner in his mind dedicates the slaughter to his god. Practice follows R. Yose who holds that only the slaughterer’s intentions have any influence on the process of slaughtering. Babli 32b..

footnotes: ²¹⁸ Mishnah Ḥulin

“But what leaves is forbidden.” Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: When he introduced it inside the lattice railing²¹⁹, “lattice gates” (of Temples, eic.) Babli 51b.. But if he did not introduce it inside the lattice railing it is permitted. That is about a pagan Temple which has a lattice railing. But if a pagan Temple has no lattice railing, the entire building is considered lattice railing.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Greek κιγκλίς, mostly used in the plural Greek κιγκλίδες, Latin cancelli

“Those who go in²²⁰ ugliness.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, θόρυβος²²¹. One brings a large idol to a small idol. Some state תרפות.²²². 32:14), as also in rabbinic, “culture”. For תרפות compare Greek τράπεζα “table” including table dedicated to divinities with offerings of food (E. G.). He who says תרפות, idols²²³. 13,16). Arabic ترف “to live the good life”.. He who says ²²⁴תרבות, θόρυβος.

footnotes: ²²⁰ This text, בתרפות, is otherwise found only in Mishnah texts of the Maimonides tradition. It seems preferable to the common text לתרפות. ²²¹ “Tumult.” The reference is to pagan processions. ²²² There seems a sentence to be missing, “some state תרבות”. This is a word תַּרְבּוּת both in biblical Hebrew, “brood” (Num ²²³ A word derived from a root תרפ used either for household gods or dolls (1S ²²⁴ To be vocalized תֹרֻבוֹתֿ.

“But those who return are permitted.²²⁵” Rebbi Abinnas in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If their returning is not like their going. But if their returning is like their going, also those returning are forbidden.

footnotes: ²²⁵ A quote from the Mishnah in all versions except the Yerushalmi separate Mishnah.

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs²²⁶ containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct²²⁷.

footnotes: ²²⁶ Which were not thoroughly cleansed to remove all traces of use for Gentile wine. ²²⁷ The wine may be used for trade; it is forbidden for Jews to drink.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs,” etc. ²²⁸“Rough Gentile wine skins²²⁹ are permitted; tarred ones are forbidden. If a Gentile made it and insulated²³⁰ it while a Jew was watching, one may fill it with wine without worry.” Should one not be afraid that possibly he made a libation? He will not usually make a libation in repugnant circumstances²³¹. Then even if no Jew was watching? I say, maybe he switched²³².

footnotes: ²²⁸ Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a. ²²⁹ The interior surface is leather only; it was not smoothened by tar. ²³⁰ It is difficult to see how the scribe could have written דובבן for זופתן “tarred them” in the other sources; it may be better to accept the word as it stands and read it as ذبّب “to protect, defend something”, to protect the skin against being penetrated by the wine. ²³¹ Even if the pitch is diluted with vinegar when applied to the skin, the bad smell does not invite making a libation. One assumes that the Jew has provided the vinegar which was made from kosher wine. ²³² Then one has no control over the vinegar which was used.

²²⁸“Gentile jugs, new ones are permitted even tarred; old are forbidden even if not tarred.” Here you say tarred are permitted and there you say tarred are prohibited. Rebbi Abbahu said, I investigated tarring of jugs; they do not use vinegar while tarring²³³.

footnotes: ²²⁸ Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a. ²³³ There is no reason to forbid new jugs.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: If somebody puts wine which was forbidden to drink but permitted to use into jugs, the jugs become like the wine²³⁴. If he removed it and put new wine²³⁵ into them, the wine becomes like the jugs²³⁶. If he removed it and put new wine²³⁵ into them, the wine is forbidden but the jugs permitted²³⁷. Why “forbidden to drink but permitted to use”? Because of Rebbi Meïr who said, forbidden to drink and for use²³⁸.

footnotes: ²³⁴ It cannot be exactly like the wine since one cannot drink the solid jug. But it means that the jug is permitted for usufruct but will make any wine which touches its inside forbidden to drink. ²³⁵ Kosher wine. ²³⁶ Forbidden to drink but permitted for usufruct. ²³⁵ Kosher wine. ²³⁷ The first wine was forbidden. If the jug was filled twice with kosher wine, it has been cleansed from the first contamination; the third time the kosher wine remains kosher. ²³⁸ He will reject this way of cleansing the jug.

Rebbi Abba said, when Rebbi Aqiba went to the tar workers, they came and asked him, how does one purify Gentiles’ jugs? From the following I taught them, since they are permitted if not tarred, if they were tarred but the pitch was shaved off not so much more? But when I came to my colleagues they told me that they are absorbing because of the pitch²³⁹.

footnotes: ²³⁹ They hold that wine absorbed in earthenware which had been tarred will not be removed even if the tar was removed and the vessel cleansed with water for three days as explained at the end of the Halakhah.

¹²⁴⁰“If the Gentile filled it with water, the Jew fills it with water; then he fills it with wine without worry. It the Gentile filled it with fish fluid²⁴¹ is a sauce in which pieces of fish are preserved. or fish sauce²⁰⁶; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper. the Jew may fill it with wine²⁴². If the Gentile filled it with wine, the Jew fills it with fish fluid or fish sauce, then he fills it with wine without worry.”

footnotes: ¹ Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a. ²⁴⁰ A very different version in the Babli, 33a, bottom. ²⁴¹ צִיר is any fluid obtained by squeezing something, whether fruit, meat, or in this case fish. Muries ²⁰⁶ Latin muries ²⁴² The smell of the fish will obliterate any taste that might have remained of the Gentile’s wine.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to meet²⁴³ Rebbi Yudan the Prince at Acco. They came and asked him, how does one purify jugs? He said, from the following I taught them, since after the Gentile filled it with fish fluid or fish sauce the Jew fills it with wine²⁴⁴. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he puts them into the fire not so much more? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he strips off the tarring²⁴⁵ not so much more? Do they stand this? If they stand it, they stand²⁴⁶.

footnotes: ²⁴³ Greek ἀπαντάω “to meet” with Atamaic prefix ל. ²⁴⁴ This is the quote from the previous Tosephta. Of R. Joḥanan’s argument there exist two versions, one by R. Yasa (reported in the Babli 33b), the other by R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ²⁴⁵ By burning of the tar. ²⁴⁶ Both R. Yasa and R. Ḥiyya require that the earthenware jug be treated with fire; either fired in its entirety or fire applied to the tar lining. It is agreed that there is a risk that the vessel will burst in the fire, but if it withstands the process it may be used to store Jewish wine.

Untarred jugs²⁴⁷, Rebbi Assi¹⁹⁰ said, they are forbidden²⁴⁸, Rebbi Immi said, they are permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi questioned: do we say that a tankard does not absorb²⁴⁹? Rebbi Abba said, Rav Sheshet asked, could we say that a vessel for urine does not absorb?

footnotes: ²⁴⁷ Which had been used by Gentiles. ¹⁹⁰ This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. ²⁴⁸ They cannot be cleansed to become usable. ²⁴⁹ Both R. Assi and Rav Sheshet question the position of R. Immi.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One fills Gentiles’ jugs with water three days from time to time²⁵⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi¹⁹⁰ asked, does one do this? Rebbi Yose from Malḥa brought a case before Rebbi Mana. He told him, that is what happened; he answered that it is permitted. Is that to start? He told him, it is forbidden²⁵¹. Rebbi Jeremiah went to Goblana; he instructed about large cups²⁵²“flat dish or saucer; libation bowl” or Greek ποτήριον (cup, receptacle for offerings in temples; cup in the Eucharist) (Kohut). that one fills them with water three days from time to time²⁵³.

footnotes: ²⁵⁰ One fills the vessel with water, lets it stand for 24 hours, pours the old water out and refills with new, and repeats twice. ¹⁹⁰ This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. ²⁵¹ The method is a short-cut which cannot be used generally; if people used it without asking one cannot prohibit the vessels cleansed in this way. ²⁵² Latin patera ²⁵³ He sees nothing wrong with the method and recommends it publicly. He is quoted in the Babli, 33a, in the same sense and ascribes the ruling to R. Immi.

An Aramean’s²⁵⁴ leather bag split; the Jew received it into his²⁵⁵. The case came before the rabbis who said, one fills them with water three days from time to time²⁵⁶.

footnotes: ²⁵⁴ A Non-Jew, not necessarily a pagan; cf. Chapter 1, Note 177. ²⁵⁵ The Aramean’s wine-skin started leaking; a Jew saved his wine by receiving it into his own wine-skin. The Gentile’s wine certainly is forbidden to the Jew; the question is how the Jew can regain the use of his skin after the wine was transferred to the Gentile’s vessel, without ruining the vessel by using it for fish sauce. ²⁵⁶ Following R. Jeremiah, against R. Yasa (Assi).

Rebbi Yasa²⁵⁷ went to Tyre. He saw them²⁵⁸ tarring small leather bags and Jews bought them. He asked, who permitted you? They asked Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Mani²⁵⁹, who prohibited it.

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ In the entire Halakhah he opposes cleansing Gentile wine vessels for use by Jews. ²⁵⁸ Gentile workers. ²⁵⁹ The earlier authorities all forbid refurbishing wine skins and jugs; the later generations do permit it.

MISHNAH: ²⁶⁰ Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins²⁶¹ are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted.

footnotes: ²⁶⁰ In the Mishnah this text follows Mishnah 5 which belongs to Halakhah 6. The sequence of the Halakhah also is the one in the Babli and Maimonides’s Mishnah Commentary. ²⁶¹ Which remain after the production of wine.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat²⁶². But did we not state²⁶³, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern²⁶⁴”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern²⁶⁵.

footnotes: ²⁶² In the Babli, 34a, ascribed to the Galilean R. Joḥanan. ²⁶³ Mishnah 4:8. ²⁶⁴ Grape juice pressed out of grapes does not become forbidden before it is collected in a vat below the wine press. Since kernels and skins are kept in the press they should not become forbidden. ²⁶⁵ The only skins forbidden are those put in the fermenting wine to give it red color.

There we have stated:²⁶⁶9:5. “And so it is with new solid matter of olives; but old one is pure.²⁶⁷” What is new? Within twelve months. Old, after twelve months²⁶⁸.

footnotes: ²⁶⁶ Mishnah Kelim ²⁶⁷ If the solid remnants in the olive press which remain after the production of oil are impure, they impart impurity only as long as they are somewhat moist. Once they are stone dry they do no longer impart impurity to clay vessels. ²⁶⁸ The same is true for grape skins used for the production of Gentile wine. Once they are completely dry, having dried out for a full 12 months, they are forbidden no longer; Babli 34a (attributed there to Samuel).

MISHNAH: Fish sauce²⁰⁶; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper., cheese²⁶⁹, and theriac²⁷⁰., φάρμακα “medicines made from poisonous beasts (θηρίον)”. It is possible however that ותרייקי is an error for בתנייקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. characterizes the kind of cheese which if made by Gentiles is forbidden for usufruct; cf. Note 431. of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ Latin muries ²⁶⁹ The reasons for prohibiting Gentile cheese will be discussed in the next Halakhot. ²⁷⁰ Greek θηριακή, scil

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.²⁷¹11:1 (ת, Notes 11–23). However, the first paragraph is a reformulation and explanation of that text as noted by S. Lieberman (Tosefta kiFshutah Terumot p. 454). The second paragraph also belongs to Terumot2:5 (תּ, Notes 118–119). The quote refers to a baraita similar to Tosephta Terumot9:6. According to Rebbi one puts wine into muries to improve its taste. This is a legitimate use of wine as food; therefore the Cohen may use his heave wine, sanctified food which has to be consumed in purity as a religious duty, to improve his muries. On the other hand, since the improved taste is noticeable, the entire muries now must be eaten under the rules of heave. R. Eleazar holds that wine is used in muries only to clean it from contaminations. To use heave wine for this purpose is sinful since it destroys sanctified drink. But if heave wine was used in this illegitimate way, it was destroyed and therefore lost its sanctity. The muries is profane and may be eaten by lay people in impurity.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden²⁷²? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles²⁷³. But did not [Rebbi Yose]²⁷⁴ texts. state: “From a professional²⁷⁵ 4:13. The Leiden ms. in Terumot reads המין “trustworthy”, which in editio princeps became an unintelligible חמין “hot”. The reading of ג, אמון may be read either as אָמוֹן “craftsman” with the Leiden ms. here or אֵמוּן “trustworthiness” with the text in Terumot. it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked²⁷⁶? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship²⁷⁷. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted²⁷⁸. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him²⁷⁹ carries a rabbinic certification that no wine was used in its production..

footnotes: ²⁷¹ From here on, there exists a Genizah text (ג) which differs from the Leiden text mainly in its spelling. The origin of the entire Halakhah is Terumot ²⁷² Since the amount of any forbidden wine left in the sauce would be insignificant. If the trace of heave wine is permitted to impure laymen, should not a trace of Gentile wine be permitted to everybody? ²⁷³ Whose general prohibition is discussed in Halakhah 9. ²⁷⁴ Added from ג and the Terumot ²⁷⁵ This is the reading of the Leiden ms., Babli 34b, and Tosephta Terumot ²⁷⁶ Since otherwise it still would be forbidden as Gentile cooking even if one was sure that no wine was used in its production. ²⁷⁷ In industrial production a Gentile might use wine of which a libation was made. ²⁷⁸ Since usufruct of pagan wine is forbidden, the rules of declaring an amount as insignificant do not apply; the most minute amount makes the entire product forbidden whereas less than ½% of heave in food leaves it permitted for everybody. ²⁷⁹ In modern terms, if the muries

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers²⁸⁰ 11:1: “One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; R. Jehudah permits since he improves it.” But some people do not want to drink alcohol-free cooked wine. The problem really is whether the vintner is permitted to cook his wine before he gave heave since (a) with the diminution in volume of the wine he diminishes the volume of heave to be taken and (b) not every Cohen may be willing to accept cooked heave wine.. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

footnotes: ²⁸⁰ This refers to Mishnah Terumot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses²⁸¹? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver²⁸²20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering²⁸³. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw²⁸⁴; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct²⁸⁵. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny²⁸⁶. He³⁰³ gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He³⁰⁴ retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct²⁸⁹? He³⁰³ deflected him to an other subject³⁰⁵ and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine³⁰⁶. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He³⁰⁴ told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He³⁰³ answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils³⁰⁷. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male. The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine. R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil. As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67)..

footnotes: ²⁸¹ They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason. ²⁸² The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa ²⁸³ An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev ²⁸⁴ The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321. ²⁸⁵ While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev ²⁸⁶ As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden. ³⁰³ R. Joshua. ³⁰⁴ R. Ismael. ²⁸⁹ Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct. ³⁰³ R. Joshua. ³⁰⁵ As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. ³⁰⁶ Cant ³⁰⁴ R. Ismael. ³⁰³ R. Joshua. ³⁰⁷ Cant

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most]²⁸⁷ calves there²⁸⁸ Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden²⁸⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable²⁹⁰; excrement is part of its body.

footnotes: ²⁸⁷ Added from the Genizah text, necessary for syntactic reasons. ²⁸⁸ This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian ²⁸⁹ Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct. ²⁹⁰ It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.

²⁹³1:1 (60a ll. 39–54, ב) and a Genizah text (Yerushalmi Fragments, pp. 156–157, בּ) of the same. The source clearly is the Beṣah text even though the argument is from Avodah zarah and the reference to Beṣah is a side remark. “Gentile’s stomach content” naturally means “stomach content of animal slaughtered by a Gentile.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass²⁹⁴ nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship²⁹⁵ text seems better: Does this (i. e., the prohibition of Gentile rennet) follow R. Eliezer (whom practice does not follow in general) since it treats Gentile rennet as more problematic than the one derived from a carcass? Since here practice is said to follow R. Eliezer, the tradition seems questionable; one has to search for parallel traditions either to confirm or to reject.? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa]²⁹⁶ came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither]²⁹⁷ with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.]²⁹⁸ and prohibit as torn only the victims of predator attacks as described by the verse, *Ex.*22:30.) And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside²⁹⁹1:1 which states that the House of Shammai permit the use on the holiday of an egg laid on that day while the House of Hillel forbid it. The problem is to understand the position of the House of Hillel since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday (Ex. 12:16). According to the Babli and one opinion in the Yerushalmi the prohibition applies only to eggs laid by chickens raised to produce eggs. Then the mother was not food at the start of the holiday. While the egg is food according to everybody, for the House of Hillel it cannot change its character from non-food to food on the holiday. Then the question is raised why milk which is prohibited as food before being ingested by a ruminant becomes permitted by the animal’s stomach. In this question, the revised ruling in matters of rennet would agree with the stance of the House of Shammai. But the answer is that the two cases cannot be compared; the stomach contents of an animal never were part of the animal and do not have the latter’s status.. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s]³⁰⁰ of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua³⁰¹ that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents³⁰². They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

footnotes: ²⁹³ For this paragraph there exist two additional witnesses, the Leiden ms. in Beṣah ²⁹⁴ An animal which was not slaughtered following the rules of ritual slaughter. whose flesh therefore is forbidden as meat. ²⁹⁵ The Beṣah ²⁹⁶ The Babylonian form of the name (in parentheses) has to be deleted in favor of the Galilean form used in the three parallel sources [in brackets]. ²⁹⁷ To be added by the unanimous testimony of the other three sources and the later arguments. ²⁹⁸ The ms. text (in parentheses) is inconsistent. It has to be replaced by the text of the other three sources [in brackets] which is consistent with R. Joḥanan’s statement in both versions since for dietary laws a “torn” animal has the same status as a carcass.A “torn” animal is one of which a vital organ is impaired or defective, the most common one being tuberculous lesions of the lung. If a cow is known to suffer from a defect which makes it “torn”, its milk is forbidden as drink but as stomach contents it becomes excrement and is no longer forbidden. (Karaites deny the existence of internal ṭerefa ²⁹⁹ This now connects the discussion with Mishnah Beṣah ³⁰⁰ The plural is attested to in the three parallel sources and required by the context. ³⁰¹ The parallels unanimously state the name as Jehudah ben Shemu`ai without a rabbinic title. ³⁰² The latter teaching which permits rennet from animals prohibited as meat is confirmed by a ruling in an actual case.

“Because they curdle it,” etc. ³⁰⁹ 1:7 (Notes 182-191) and Sanhedrin 11:6 (Notes 54-57); Midrash Cant. 1(18). The Geniza fragment ends here on line 2.The colleagues in the name of Rebbi [Joḥanan]: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are (more pleasant than) [pleasant like] the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine³¹⁰7:10; Babli 35a.. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friends are better than wine³¹¹ 1:7.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon³¹². 1:2. did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake³¹³. 10:8..

footnotes: ³⁰⁹ This paragraph and the next are from Berakhot ³¹⁰ Cant. ³¹¹ Mishnah Berakhot ³¹² Cant ³¹³ Eccl

Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe, since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥanina³¹⁴ in the name of Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach³¹⁵ 2:6.. And it is written,I shall preach to you for wine and liquor³¹⁶ 2:11.. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two seals³¹⁷, persons authorized to use the imperial mail. to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον³¹⁸, do not believe him. About the other he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle³¹⁹. 13:2.. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you³²⁰. 17:11..

footnotes: ³¹⁴ With the other two sources read: Ḥinena. ³¹⁵ Micha ³¹⁶ Micha ³¹⁷ As the text shows this is a scribal error. Read with the other sources פלמנטריןdiplomatarii ³¹⁸ Greek “seal”. ³¹⁹ Deut ³²⁰ Deut

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there²⁸⁸ Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden²⁸⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable²⁹⁰; excrement is part of its body.

footnotes: ²⁸⁸ This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian ²⁸⁹ Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct. ²⁹⁰ It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.

What means “burns it”? He slurps it³²¹. 1(17) גמיע.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny³²².

footnotes: ³²¹ In Midrash Cant ³²² Since he must slurp the contents of the stomach in the Temple it would be a desecration to use a clean Temple vessel for this purpose. A private vessel may not be introduced into the Temple precinct. The priest may use a dirty vessel which nobody else would use for food to eat the disgusting matter.

Why did he not tell him? Because they prohibited it recently and Rebbi Ismael was young³²³.

footnotes: ³²³ They had to establish the authority of the newly formed Synhedrion at Jabneh; Babli 35a. The story must be dated to the last 20 years of the first Century, after the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai (at an unknown date). R. Ismael never appears as member of the Synhedrion.

Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject³²⁴, he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah³²⁵. 25:34 remains undecided in this sense. Parallel sources are Babli Yoma52a/b, Gen. rabba80(5) (Theodor-Albeck #957/958, Sokoloff Geniza Fragments p. 170), Midrash Cant. 1(18), Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Amaleq1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai Epstein-Melamed p. 121, Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ26.The list itself is attributed in most sources to Issy ben Jehudah. [A discussion in principle about this subject is found in ש. קוגוט, המקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות, י־ם תשנד; מ. ברויאר, מקראות שאין להם הכרע, לשוננו נח (תשנה) 189־199.], which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well³²⁶4:7. They must have read הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִ֔יב שְׂאֵ֕ת וְאִם֙ לֹא תֵיטִ֔יב but also in the masoretic text הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת there is a stop between תֵּיטִיב֙ and שְׂאֵ֔ת.. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong³²⁷49:6–7. It is a question whether to read one or two sentences.. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill³²⁸. 17:9.. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers³²⁹. 25:34..The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore³³⁰. 31:16.. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended³³¹. 34:7. Most translations follow the masoretic punctuation in choosing the first alternative but the German translation by Torczyner et al. (Berlin 1934) which opts for the second.. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth³³². 1:2 was chosen because its first part, quoted now, tells R. Ismael to be silent since a person who is kissed on his mouth cannot speak at that time. The first part clearly refers to a male; nevertheless R. Ismael had a point reading the second part as addressing a female since the sentence switches from third to second person, possibly indicating a change of speaker.. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command³³³. 4:14. Here starts a rather defective Genizah fragment (Ginzberg pp. 276–277.). “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone³³⁴.

footnotes: ³²⁴ If R. Joshua’s intention only was to deflect R. Ismael’s inquiry there were many other questions to be asked. ³²⁵ In the absence of masoretic accents it may be difficult to parse a sentence. In Babli sources, this is called “verses that have no decision,” i. e., where to place the caesura. In our masoretic texts only Ex ³²⁶ Gen. ³²⁷ Gen. ³²⁸ Ex ³²⁹ Ex ³³⁰ Deut ³³¹ Gen ³³² This answers R. Ḥama bar Uqba’s question. The verse Cant ³³³ Deut ³³⁴ Not everything has to be told to everybody.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Lambs for your clothing; the price of a field are rams³³⁵. 27:26.. It is written “suppressings³³⁶”. How is this? If the students are young, suppress before them the secrets of the Torah. If they grew and became like rams, reveal to them the secrets of the Torah. This lends support to what Rebbi Simoen ben Ioḥai stated: And these are the laws which you shall put before them³³⁷. 21:1.. Just as this putting is not revealed to everybody³³⁸. 21–22 are not to be told to Gentiles nor applied to their suits. so you do have permission to immerse yourself in words of the Torah only before legitimate people.

footnotes: ³³⁵ Prov ³³⁶ Identifying שׁ and שׂ for the homily. ³³⁷ Ex ³³⁸ The laws in Ex

MISHNAH: The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: Milk which the Gentile milked when no Jew was seeing him, bread, their oil³³⁹, and anything preserved by cooking³⁴⁰. Rebbi and his court permitted oil. Preserves in which usually wine is used³⁴¹, where wine might have been added. The wine is forbidden but there is no danger that it might have been used for pagan rituals., and vinegar³⁴², and pieces of triton³⁴³, and fish sauce³⁴⁴ not containing a whole fish, and hallec³⁴⁵) prepared from small fish” (Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary)., and a lump of asa foetida²⁰⁵, and salqonarit salt³⁴⁶, spiced salt (mentioned by Pliny xxxi,87 and in Diocletian’s price edict. A recipe is given by Apicius.) Kohut proposes salcenarium Medieval Latin “used for pickling”. Also consider sal candidum “white salt” (E. G.).; these are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct:

footnotes: ³³⁹ Olive oil. ³⁴⁰ Even if the Gentile cooked with the Jew’s vessels under his control, as long as no Jew participated in the cooking process. ³⁴¹ Preserves made with spices without cooking, such as Sauerkraut ³⁴² Vinegar is not wine, but vinegar made from grapes is forbidden. ³⁴³ The Latin name of a kind of sea fish mentioned by Pliny; in Greek it is the name of sea gods. Since the fish is cut in little pieces one cannot ascertain that no forbidden fish (without fins and scales) was used. ³⁴⁴ Fluid obtained by squeezing fish. ³⁴⁵ “Fish sauce (garum ²⁰⁵ A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used. ³⁴⁶ Musaphia reads סלקונדית and explains as sal conditum

HALAKHAH: “The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden,” etc. ³⁴⁷ 8:5 (Notes 135–142) and Šabbat 1:(3d line 2). The text in Terumot is a copy of the text in Šabbat; the text here is somewhat different. Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Rebbi Abba (son of) [in the name of]³⁴⁸ Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering¹⁵⁸. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison given between the holes³⁴⁹. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net³⁵⁰. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and were [not]¹ disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the great assembly³⁵¹ were uncovered. The first ones drank and were not disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. It was stated thus³⁵² 7:17.: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.”

footnotes: ³⁴⁷ Parallels to these two paragraphs are in Terumot ³⁴⁸ The text of the Leiden ms. in parentheses has to be corrected by the text of ג in brackets and the parallels. ¹⁵⁸ In both Talmudim it is assumed that a snake will drink from uncovered unattended fluids and in the process poison the drink for humans. Then the drink cannot be used, neither can it be sold since this would be “putting a stone in the path of a blind person.” This makes uncovered unattended wine almost as forbidden as wine used for pagan practices. ³⁴⁹ One seems to assume that the poison will be separated out in the process of solidification making hard cheese. But if the cheese has holes the poison will accumulate there and there may be small holes not directly visible. ³⁵⁰ Babli 30b. ¹ In brackets is the addition of ג. ³⁵¹ The half-yearly reunion of all members of the Academy. ³⁵² Tosephta Terumot

Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals³⁵³. It was stated so³⁵⁴: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew sits with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.”

footnotes: ³⁵³ Babli 35b. This is the only explanation given in the Babli where also it is noted that making cheese from the milk does not solve the problem. ³⁵⁴ Tosephta 4:11; Babli 30b.

³⁵⁵ 8:5 (Notes 57–62), Maaser Šeni* 3:1 (Notes 2–3, **מ**), and *Šabbat*1 (3c l. 55, **ש**). The Genizah text here, and the texts in *Maaser Šeni and Šabbat are clearly copies of one and the same original; the text in Ševiit* is slightly different in wording but identical in meaning. Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan. Bread is of the practices of obfuscation. [Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation?]³⁵⁶ Do I say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition³⁵⁷? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted³⁵⁸, *Maaser Šeni, and Šabbat add: “and they obfuscated about it and forbade it.” But the illegible space in ג is not sufficient for this addition; one has to assume that it never was in the Avodah zarah text.? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store³⁵⁹ “bread merchant”.; but one does not do this³⁶⁰.

footnotes: ³⁵⁵ There are three parallels to this text, in Ševiit ³⁵⁶ Added from the three identical texts; most of the paragraph is taken up by the questions of R. Yose and R. Mana; only at the end the correct answer is spelled out.The practice of obfuscation is that the rabbis have to justify the popular disregard of their prohibition. ³⁵⁷ As shown in the Mishnah, rabbinic prohibitions do not need justification, only permissions which are inconsistent with general prohibition, such as to permit bread while prohibiting all other kinds of Gentile cooking. ³⁵⁸ The texts in Ševiit ³⁵⁹ Greek πρατήρ “seller”. Lieberman reads πωλητήριον “retail store”, Kohut Latin panetarius ³⁶⁰ But eats also privately baked Gentile bread; forbidden in the Babli 35b.

³⁶¹ 1 (3c line 65). The Geniza fragment (ג) ends at the mention of Rav. Another fragment, in much better shape, edited by J. N. Epstein [Tarbiz 3(1932) 15-26 (G)] starts at the second mention of Deut. 2:28. They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc³⁶²2:28. In the Babli, 37b, a statement of R. Joḥanan. The Babli (38a) negates a biblical base for the prohibition of Gentile cooking.. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans³⁶³, פנקריסין³⁶⁵., and similarly in the Tosephta, it appears asקפריסין “capers”. and קובטיות³⁶⁶ 5) proposes copta قُباط “fig preserve”. This agrees well with the quote in the Babli since, as stated later also here, all preserves made from fruit which also is eaten raw are not under the prohibition of Gentile cooking. The only problem is that the next sentence implies that the word describes a dried fruit or vegetable which can be returned more or less to its original state but soaking., roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav³⁶⁷51a, Bava qamma11a, Yebamot12b. Also Yerushalmi Nedarim6:1 (39c l. 44).: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking³⁶⁸ text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking³⁶⁹ text nor the Babli. It also contradicts the insertion in the Šabbat text (Note 368). Either it is spurious or the text here disagrees with the text there..) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him)³⁷⁰ text and G. with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior³⁷¹ p. 4, remark about R. Jonathan. came to [his]³⁷² text. town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

footnotes: ³⁶¹ Šabbat ³⁶² Deut. ³⁶³ The list also appears in Tosephta 4:11. In the Babli 38b the word is explained as meaning either φάσηλος or שעועית, both meaning “bean”. ³⁶⁵ The word is unexplained. In the Babli, loc. cit ³⁶⁶ In the Babli קפלוטות “leeks”. In Tosephta קפטאות, קפאטיות. N. Brüll (Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur ³⁶⁷ Babli 38a, 59a; Šabbat ³⁶⁸ The Šabbat ³⁶⁹ This restriction is found neither in the Šabbat ³⁷⁰ Reading of the corrector of L. The scribe wrote as in the Šabbat ³⁷¹ A superior Roman judge; cf. Introduction to Tractate Neziqin ³⁷² Readings of G and the Šabbat

³⁷³ I, 3d line 16 ff., ש. While the sentence order there differs from here, the fact that G while following the sentence order of L very often follows the formulation of ש indicates that the two texts are essentially the same. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful, etc³⁷⁴. 1:8. The verse does not seem to mention olive oil. As the Babli explains (36a), the argument is from the continuation, that he would not defile himself by the king’s solid food and the wine of his drinks, where the plural drinks refers both to wine (whose prohibition is generally accepted) and oil (where Daniel’s action rather is an act of personal piety.) In any case, the prohibition of Gentile olive oil never was considered to have any biblical basis..

footnotes: ³⁷³ The following also is in Šabbat ³⁷⁴ Dan

And who permitted it? Rebbi permitted it and his court³⁷⁵36a.. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents³⁷⁶7:3, Notes 49–64. The essence of the controversy is whether a divorce document subject to a certain condition is only valid after the condition has been satisfied or is valid immediately but not actionable unless the condition be satisfied. The simplest example is that of a sick childless man who wants to shield his wife from levirate marriage (or prevent her from marrying his brother) by writing a bill of divorce valid if he should die from his disease. If he stipulates that divorce be “from today if I shall die”, the divorce is unquestionably valid. If he omits “from today” then for Rebbi it is valid, for the rabbis it is invalid since a dead person cannot divorce., oil, and a sole³⁷⁷3:4, Notes 93–98. The “sole” is the result of a miscarriage where no features are recognizable in the aborted fetus. For the rabbis, the woman is subject to all disabilities of a woman who gave birth to a male and a female (Lev. 12:1–8), for Rebbi and his court only if human features were recognizable.. They called him “the court which permitted oil.³⁷⁸” Any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. ³⁷⁹(Note 54) which thereby is shown to be the source of the preceding sentences, and refer to Mishnah Giṭtin7:10 about a man who gave his wife a bill of divorce valid if he should not return within 12 months, and notice was received of his death. Does she have to wait the full 12 months or not? May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, she is forbidden to remarry.

footnotes: ³⁷⁵ Babli ³⁷⁶ Giṭtin ³⁷⁷ Niddah ³⁷⁸ In the other two sources: Should he not be called “a permissive court” (a pejorative term) since …“ ³⁷⁹ These two sentences really do not belong here; they are copied from the text in Giṭtin

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it³⁸⁰ I, 3c l.37, Babli 17b) it must refer to the situation there. The exact meaning of “King’s mountain” as a geographical entity has not been determined.. Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai³⁸¹ the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true³⁸²! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder³⁸³8:6, Note 64.. He answered him, when I still was there³⁸⁴ I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him³⁸⁵, he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate³⁸⁶.

footnotes: ³⁸⁰ In ש, this immediately follows the statement that Daniel forbade Gentile oil and invalidates it. It is not clear what danger there was in getting Gentile oil but since both Talmudim declare the prohibition of Gentile oil to be of the 18 prohibitions promulgated in the run-up to the first revolt against the Romans (Šabbat ³⁸¹ In the Babli and ש, as well as in the quote from the Yerushalmi in Tosaphot 36a, s.v. אשר, R. Simlai. Babli 37a. This dates “R. Jehudah” here as R. Jehudah II. For “Southerner” the Babli has “from Lydda”, which is taken as a pejorative term. ³⁸² In the two other sources, probably correctly, “Samuel accepted this and ate.” ³⁸³ Cf. Sanhedrin ³⁸⁴ When Rav was studying in Galilee under Rebbi (Jehudah I) and R. Ḥiyya the Elder. ³⁸⁵ Rav to Samuel. In the Babli. 37a, R. Simlai is described as being critical of the decision to allow Gentile oil. ³⁸⁶ Rav ate in order to sustain the authority of the Patriarchate.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”³⁸⁷1:5.? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict³⁸⁸. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it³⁸⁹.

footnotes: ³⁸⁷ Mishnah Idiut ³⁸⁸ In the Babli 36a: It is forbidden to promulgate a decree that the majority of the public cannot accept. ³⁸⁹ Babli 36a. This proves conclusively that the original prohibition of oil was relatively recent and purely rabbinic.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade³⁹⁰. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana³⁹¹, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts³⁹². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them³⁹³. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off³⁹⁴ under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead³⁹⁵24b s. v. אתא.. A man went to wash a piece of meat³⁹⁶7:3 (50c l. 47). Sokoloff in his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic² accepts also Jastrow’s explanation “an object on which the meat was hung” but this seems to be excluded by the context. in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place³⁹⁷95a–b..

footnotes: ³⁹⁰ Babli 38b. The egg is roasted in its shell so that there are no problems of non-kosher admixtures. It is not impossible to eat an egg raw. ³⁹¹ R. Mana I. ³⁹² Babli 38a. ³⁹³ He used his office as overseer of Jewish markets to enforce strict rabbinic rules. ³⁹⁴ As recognized by J. N. Epstein, Aramaicאתֿר is Afel of Aramaicנתֿר Hebrew נשר. ³⁹⁵ This is a case of “meat which had been lost sight of” which must be treated as non-kosher; it cannot be sold as kosher meat. Quoted in Tosaphot Bava meṣia ³⁹⁶ The translation is a guess based on the context; the word itself is unexplained. It appears only here and in the exact parallel Šeqalim ³⁹⁷ A similar story in the Babli Ḥulin

What is the status of their lupines³⁹⁸? Rebbi forbids, Ganiba permits. Rebbi said, I am an Elder and he is an Elder. It came to my mind to forbid; it was his opinion to permit. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum went to Tyre and permitted their lupines. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre and found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He returned to Rebbi Joḥanan who asked him, what case came to your hands? He told him, I found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He asked him, did you not hit him? He answered, he is an important personality and knows how to sweeten the waters of the Great Sea. He told him³⁹⁹, no, my son. He knows how to compute the waters; when the waters come together to acclaim their Creator⁴⁰⁰ on *Ps.*93:4. they sweeten themselves. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, he starts to speak his disgrace and tells his praise! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a difficult computation; Rebbi Zakkai of Alexandria knows it. He said, if you want, you may learn it from him.

footnotes: ³⁹⁸ They cannot be eaten raw; according to Yerushalmi rules cooked lupines should be forbidden as Gentile’s cooking. But Ganiba was a Babylonian and the Babli has a second category of food exempted from the rules: coarse food not eaten in polite society (Babli 38a, rules of the autochthonous academy of Pumbedita.) The paragraph makes clear that this tradition never was accepted in the domain of influence of the Academy of Tiberias. ³⁹⁹ Here ends the second Genizah fragment. ⁴⁰⁰ Cf. Midrash Tehillim

What is the rule for their parboiled [food]⁴⁰¹? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah to the hot springs of Gadara and permitted their parboiled [food]. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, what is the difference between parboiled and lupines? Rebbi Yose said, parboiled is missing action by fire; lupines are not missing action by fire.

footnotes: ⁴⁰¹ Scalding is not boiling; while the food is prepared it is not cooked.

Ḥawarnas⁴⁰² as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum, Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin³⁶⁸ text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah. Martisa⁴⁰² as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum, Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin³⁶⁸ text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah.

footnotes: ⁴⁰² These two words are unexplained; they can be given sense only by radical emendation. It takes some imagination to define martisa ³⁶⁸ The Šabbat ⁴⁰² These two words are unexplained; they can be given sense only by radical emendation. It takes some imagination to define martisa ³⁶⁸ The Šabbat

MISHNAH: The following are permitted to eat: Milk which a Gentile milked while a Jew saw him, and honey, and broken grapes⁴⁰³ (even though they drip they do not prepare for impurity.⁴⁰⁴. 11:38). Juice is treated as water in this respect. But the verse reads, if water is poured on vegetables, this is read to imply that contact with water makes vegetables susceptible to impurity only if it was poured intentionally or at least if the wetting was agreeable to the owner (Sifra Šemini Pereq 11). Therefore juice which flows out of table grapes does not prepare for impurity since it is lost, but juice flowing from wine grapes does prepare for impurity since it is not lost and eases the work of wine pressing.) Preserves in which usually wine or vinegar is not used, and uncut triton³⁴³, and fish sauce containing a whole fish³⁴⁴, and a leaf of asa foetida²⁰⁵, and rolled olives⁴⁰⁵: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25.; Rebbi Yose says, the pitted ones are forbidden⁴⁰⁶. Locusts from the basket are forbidden⁴⁰⁷, from storage permitted; similarly for heave⁴⁰⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁰³ Table grapes transported in baskets, not vine grapes transported in barrels. In the first case, juice dripping from broken grape berries is lost. In the second case the juice is collected in the barrel and poured into the wine press; this juice follows all the rules of wine and becomes forbidden by the Gentile’s touch. ⁴⁰⁴ Any vegetable food cannot become impure as long as it is connected to the ground. After harvest it can become impure once it comes into contact with water (Lev ³⁴³ The Latin name of a kind of sea fish mentioned by Pliny; in Greek it is the name of sea gods. Since the fish is cut in little pieces one cannot ascertain that no forbidden fish (without fins and scales) was used. ³⁴⁴ Fluid obtained by squeezing fish. ²⁰⁵ A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used. ⁴⁰⁵ It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh ⁴⁰⁶ He thinks that standard technology is to soften the olives by vinegar before removing the pits (Tosephta 4:8). ⁴⁰⁷ One assumes that the store will sprinkle the dead locusts on display with vinegar to keep them looking fresh (Tosephta 4:12). ⁴⁰⁸ A Cohen, who certainly is Jewish, has a food store and therefore can legally refreshen his locusts with vinegar or wine. If he is suspected of illegally using his heave wine or vinegar, which by biblical decree must be eaten by the Cohen in purity and should not be used commercially, to sprinkle on locusts for sale, he has to be treated the same as a Gentile seller of the same.

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,⁴⁰⁹” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct⁴¹⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs⁴¹¹. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back⁴¹². Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s⁴¹³ food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back⁴¹⁴ 20a..

footnotes: ⁴⁰⁹ This looks like a misquote from the Mishnah but probably is not since the following statement of R. Eleazar makes sense only if it relates to usufruct, not to food eaten by Jews. ⁴¹⁰ Since one refers to dishes produced by Gentiles they are forbidden as Gentile cooking. The only question is whether a Jew may use them as objects of trade. He may do that only if in the standard cook books no addition of wine or vinegar is required. In any case, if it is known that wine or vinegar was added it is forbidden for usufruct. If nothing is known but the standard recipe does not call for wine it is a legitimate object of trade. ⁴¹¹ The Babli 38b declares that there is no prohibition of Gentile cooking if either the Jew puts it on the fire and the Gentile cooks or the Gentile puts it on the fire and the Jew cooks. ⁴¹² Since the Yerushalmi requires that the Jew put the dish on the fire it is obvious that he has to put it back if for some reason the pot was taken off the fire. ⁴¹³ “The trampler”, a famous robber who always was on the run and therefore could eat his meat only rare. “Ben Derosai’s food” is rare, cooked one-third of normal cooking time. ⁴¹⁴ Any food cooked rare is no longer subject to the rules of Gentile cooking. Babli 38a, Šabbat

What is alec? Rav said, soltanit⁴¹⁵ is forbidden because it is a small fish caught together with non-kosher fish. Cf. Latin solea “sole” (also the fish).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, alec and cut-up triton follow the same rules. Rebbi Ze`ira, Cahana bar Taḥlifa, Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: Its mucus is forbidden because of admixture from prohibited fish. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This you say at a place were water is not running. But in running water no impure fish associates with pure fish. The Sea of Genezareth is similar to running water. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only at times when the fish bites. Samuel said, ḥafitha⁴¹⁶ 1:4 it is noted that it is a jumping fish. Arabic حٍفث is a large non poisonous snake. one judges according to its shell. If it produces mucus it is permitted, otherwise forbidden.

footnotes: ⁴¹⁵ There is no linguistic evidence for translating either sardine or herring. All one has to go on is a remark in the Babli 29a that soltanit ⁴¹⁶ This kind of fish likewise has not been identified. In Cant. rabba ad

What is uncut triton? Any where heads and spines exist⁴¹⁷. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that on a ship of the House of Rebbi there were more than 300 amphoras. Rebbi checked them all out and found only one where heads and spines were found. He permitted all of them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi¹⁹⁰ asked, would it not be reasonable that one amphora be permitted but the other amphoras be forbidden? But it was by a pretext.⁴¹⁸ ⁴¹⁹ 10:7, Notes 91–94. The common topic are subterfuges to stretch permissions over the reasonable limit. (A sale)⁴²⁰ one reads “cheeses”, ג for ז, a not infrequent misreading. While the principle of R. Abba bar Zavda refers to public property, here he applied it to loads on a common carrier. This is a subterfuge. was mixed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda who said to him, the property of the public cannot be forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Isaac asked: Is not Cajus Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext⁴²¹?

footnotes: ⁴¹⁷ Babli 40a, opinion of Rav Huna. ¹⁹⁰ This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. ⁴¹⁸ Since all of the amphoras came from the same source, he had reason to assume that all of them were made by the same rule. ⁴¹⁹ The following sentences are from Terumot ⁴²⁰ In Terumot ⁴²¹ Divorce documents can only be signed by Jews. In the diaspora, one must accept also Jewish witnesses with Latin and Greek names; therefore the appearance of foreign names on documents is no reason for attacking the genuineness of a document under any circumstance. This is a subterfuge.

Ulla the leatherworker⁴²². stated before Rebbi Dosa, an impure fish has live births, a pure fish lays eggs⁴²³ 7b.. He started again and stated, fish intestines and fish innards are eaten only upon certification by an expert⁴²⁴. He told him, change your statement! This one state or that one. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, do not change your statement. They are finished only upon being laid⁴²⁵. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, if one tells you, I salted them, he may be believed⁴²⁶ Nathan bar Abba said before Samuel, I know how to distinguish between fetuses of impure fish and fetuses of pure fish. The fetuses of impure fish are spherical, the fetuses of pure fish are elongated⁴²⁷. He showed him a salpe⁴²⁸, -ae, “stock-fish”.; he asked him, what is its status? He answered, impure. He told him, not only am I aggravated that you said impure of what is pure but at the end you will say pure of what is impure.

footnotes: ⁴²² Accadic aškapu ⁴²³ Babli 40a, Bekhorot ⁴²⁴ Babli 40a ⁴²⁵ In the Babli 40a the question is asked by Ulla (ben Ismael) to R. Dositheos of Bire and answered by R. Ze`ira correctly that all lay eggs but some impure fish hatch their eggs in their body (clearly excluding mammals). It is not impossible to read the same meaning into the statement here. ⁴²⁶ Babli 40b. If he asserts that he checked the fish and they were of the pure kind, he does not have to be an expert. ⁴²⁷ In the Babli, 40a, it is asserted that impure fish eggs are symmetrical ovaloid, pure fish eggs asymmetrical. ⁴²⁸ Greek σάλπη, Latin salpa

It was stated: One buys fish intestines and fish innards only upon certification by an expert⁴²⁹. One buys dark blue wool only upon certification by an expert¹, which by tradition must be dyed with the blood of a marine snail which can easily be counterfeit by (much cheaper) indigo, and therefore needs certification. (In modern Hebrew תכלת is light blue but classically very dark blue.)⁴³⁰ 42b.. One buys Bithynian⁴³¹. princeps בית היניקאי, Erfurt ms. ובית הינייקי, Vienna ms. missing. The Vienna text is the only one agreeing with the Mishnah as printed in the Yerushalmi editions. cheese only upon certification by an expert⁴²⁹. One buys wine in Syria only upon certification by an expert⁴²⁹. One buys meat without a mark only upon certification by an expert⁴²⁹. But all one may eat at a person’s who is not an expert without worry⁴²⁹.

footnotes: ⁴²⁹ Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b. ¹ Woolen threads for use in the ṣiṣit ⁴³⁰ Babli Menaḥot ⁴³¹ The translation assumes that ותינייקי is a scribal error for בתינייקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli (Note 270) characterizes cheese which is forbidden for usufruct if produced by Gentiles. In the Tosephta ed ⁴²⁹ Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b. ⁴²⁹ Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b. ⁴²⁹ Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b. ⁴²⁹ Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.

Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Tanḥum in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If one sent asa foetida he is trustworthy⁴³². Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joṣhua ben Levi: If one sent dark blue wool he is trustworthy. The lad of Levi of Ṣanbar was selling produce⁴³³. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The slave of a trustworthy person is trustworthy. Germanus the slave of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince had dark blue wool. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The slave of an expert is like an expert⁴³⁴.

footnotes: ⁴³² If a person sends a gift to another of a substance whose kosher status might be questionable, the recipient may assume that the gift was kosher, otherwise it would not have been sent without proper warning. Babli 39b. ⁴³³ The lad was a slave. The question was whether the buyer of produce may assume that heave and tithes were taken from produce sold by the servant of a person who himself was known to be trustworthy in matters of heave and tithes. Since the slave’s owner would not tolerate untithed produce in his house, one must assume that any produce sold by his slave was tithed. Babli 39a. ⁴³⁴ This is parallel to the previous case. Since R. Jehudah the Prince would not tolerate fake blue wool on his property, one may buy blue wool threads from his slave even if the latter was uneducated.

“And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted⁴³⁵. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania⁴³⁶ said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat.

footnotes: ⁴³⁵ One of these is R. Meïr, the other R. Jehudah, but Babli 39b and Tosephta 4:12 give contradictory attributions. One has to assume that the editors of the Yerushalmi refrained from attaching names to the traditions since they knew about differing attributions. ⁴³⁶ He is the previously mentioned R. Ḥanania ben Gamliel, Babli 39b.

⁴³⁷ Coverings are the same as protuberances⁴³⁸ 8:2 it is explained that סְכָכוֹת refers to trees giving shade and פְּרָעוֹת to bushes growing out of a stone wall. Both transmit “tent” impurity.. Veiled is the same as hulled⁴³⁹ 6:6: On a Sabbath, a Jewish woman in Arabia may walk in the public domain veiled and in Persia hulled.. Roofs are the same as covers⁴⁴⁰ 8:9. An oven (furnus) may become impure if according to R. Jehudah it has a roof (στέγη), according to Rabban Gamliel if it has a platform (שְׂפָיוֹת).. Cups are the same as grooves⁴⁴¹ 2:5: Two black hairs growing in the same groove disqualify a red cow; R. Jehudah says in the same cup.. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces⁴⁴² 22:1: A table or tripod (portable pieces of furniture which may become impure if whole) which were damaged but were covered with a marble top (which cannot become impure) still may become impure if the cover excludes a place for putting there cups (majority opinion) or pieces (R. Jehudah).. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,⁴⁰⁵: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25..

footnotes: ⁴³⁷ In this paragraph one gives example of technical terms used in Mishnaiot which are essentially the same. The list is made to explain the term זֵיתֵי קֻלוּסְקָא הַמְגוּלְגָּלִין which however is somewhat different in combining two expressions which are translations of one another (Note 405). ⁴³⁸ In Mishnah Ahilut ⁴³⁹ Mishnah Šabbat ⁴⁴⁰ Mishnah Kelim ⁴⁴¹ Mishnah Parah ⁴⁴² Mishnah Kelim ⁴⁰⁵ It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh

“The pitted are forbidden.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a variety⁴⁴³ and they put vinegar on them to be able to remove their pits.

footnotes: ⁴⁴³ A kind of olives which can easily be freed of its pits. The name refers to the root שלח I “to strip off”.