MISHNAH: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday, for in smaller towns court convenes two times per week, on Monday and Thursday, so if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court¹

footnotes: ¹ This reason, explored at length (and rejected) in the Halakhah, refers only to the marriage of the presumed virgin. For the widow, both Talmudim explain that the groom will have three days, the day of the wedding, Friday, and the Sabbath, to spend with his new wife. If he marries any other day, the groom might be expected to go to work the next day. In a metropolis one might expect to have the court available every working day.

HALAKHAH: “A virgin is married on Wednesday,” etc. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. But a blessing in only written on the Fifth and the Sixth days! On the Fifth for birds and fish². 1:22., on the Sixth for Adam and Eve³. 1:28.. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of Bar Qappara is the Fourth, evening of the Fifth⁴ in Bar Qappara’s name., and the Fifth, evening of the Sixth⁵ attributed to Bar Qappara.. Is there not a blessing written also on Sabbath⁶. 2:3.? No blessing is written for creatures, only for the day.

footnotes: ² The days of the week, which in Hebrew are simply numbered from 1 to 6, are identified with the Days of Creation. Fish and birds, created on the Fifth Day (Thursday) are blessed in Gen ³ Gen ⁴ A couple which marries on Wednesday will first sleep together in the following night. Since the Jewish day starts at nightfall, this already is Thursday; they immediately benefit of the blessing to be fruitful and multiply. In the Babli, 5a, this is a baraita ⁵ In the Babli, 5a, the explanation of R. Yose is part of the baraita ⁶ Gen

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated⁷ is stated in full in Berakhot 2:6 (5b 1. 7), Note 261.: “A man should not first have sexual relations⁸ on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.⁹ text in Berakhot. In the Babli, Ketubot 6b, the opinion of “others” is ascribed to “the Sages” and practice is decided following them.” But “others” permit only when he is already married¹⁰, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns¹¹, and to dissolve her vows¹² Chapter 11.. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath¹³. 58:13).. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow¹⁴ must take her in¹⁵ 64:5. (In Tosafot, Yoma 13b, s. v. לחדא, the statement is quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina.) The question is whether the clause “to take her in”, is different from “entering the ḥuppah” used to describe the final marriage ceremony of a virgin. From Medieval times, ḥuppah denotes the canopy, open on all sides, under which the pair stands for the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions”. But there is no reason to assume that חוּפָּה originally meant anything but the totally covered bridal bedroom (Ps. 19:6), from חפה “to cover”. There is no indication here that the rules of transfer of property rights are different for marriages of virgins and widows. when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

footnotes: ⁷ This baraita ⁸ With his virgin bride. ⁹ This is part of the baraita ¹⁰ Meaning the final marriage ceremony in which the bride enters her husband’s house, which consists of the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions” in the presence of at least ten witnesses (cf. Note 76) after which the couple is considered married in all respects by being alone together. This ceremony activates all monetary aspects of the marriage contract. ¹¹ In addition, the woman acquires the right to all services the husband is obligated to deliver in return for his acquisition of her property rights. ¹² Without needing her father’s consent; cf. Nedarim ¹³ Which is certainly forbidden by rabbinic standards, and, in the opinion of Isaiah, by biblical standards (Is ¹⁴ Who make the big wedding meal Friday night, to save the expenses of a separate Sabbath meal. ¹⁵ He must take her into his house before sunset to acquire his marital rights.This sentence, which has no parallel in the Babli, is the source of an extensive rabbinic literature; cf. Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer

Rebbi Eleazar explains the reason given in the Mishnah, that if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court¹⁶. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Since the time of danger¹⁷ vol. 6, p. 187), “danger” always refers to the persecutions after the war of Bar Kokhba, when Jewish observances were forbidden and, therefore, marrying on Wednesday would have been a capital crime. (The Babli explains otherwise.) they used to marry on Tuesdays and the Sages did not object; about Monday one does not listen to him, but if it was because of a danger it is permitted. What is “because of a danger”? because of sorcery¹⁸. What is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? One who waits one day cannot be compared to one who waits two days. Why not let him wait two days? That his acquisition should not be sweet for him. Why should his acquisition not be sweet for him? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful¹⁹. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name.. Could we not suspect that she was raped²⁰? A rape is public knowledge. And even if you suspect that she was raped, there is no other doubt²¹: לֹא סָפֵק אֶחָד “is there not only one doubt?” It is a generally recognized principle in both Talmudim that a single doubt referring to biblical precepts has to be judged restrictively, a double doubt leniently. Cf Yebamot 7:2, Note 73; Babli Beṣah3a.. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened²² 33b).. From the words of the Torah one has to be stringent. Rebbi Yose said, if you suspect that she was raped, there are two doubts. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened; there is a doubt whether it happened after she was preliminarily married or before. From the words of the Torah, with two doubts one has to be lenient²³.

footnotes: ¹⁶ His explanation is given later, by R. Hila. He insists that the Mishnah does not refer only to the fact that if he married a girl supposed to be a virgin and he found her lacking virginity that he can divorce her without paying but he can claim “erroneous acquisition” and ask the court to void the marriage without bill of divorce. ¹⁷ Tosephta 1:1, Babli 3b. As S. Lieberman points out (Tosefta ki-Fshutah ¹⁸ If somebody is afraid that sorceresses will put a spell on him to make him impotent if he marries on a day known to be a day for marrying, one lets him marry on any other day. ¹⁹ Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah ²⁰ If a married woman is raped, the husband does not have to divorce her unless he is a Cohen. ²¹ In editio princeps ²² If she was a willing partner to adultery. This only applies to a girl which has the status of adolescent since “the seduction of a minor is rape” (Babli Yebamot ²³ The husband who claims that his bride was not a virgin is not obligated to divorce his wife against his will; R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the Mishnah is rejected by R. Yose.

If he performed the preliminary marriage in the bridal chamber, these strictures do not apply. They said that Rebbi Mattaniah acted thus for his daughter²⁴ 6:2, Note 46) precedes the final marriage ceremony only by a few moments, the bride could not possibly have committed adultery and R. Eleazar’s argument becomes pointless. R. Mattaniah’s procedure was adopted by all Jewish groups (except that the bridal chamber was transformed into a canopy, Note 15.) To separate the preliminary from the final marriage, one spends some time by publicly reading the marriage contract. However, it seems that the current procedure is not derived from any talmudic statement but is a consequence of the poverty of the remnants of the Jewish communities in Western Europe after the devastation of the First Crusade which did not allow most people to organize two festivities, one for the preliminary and a separate one for the definitive wedding; cf. I. Schepansky, התקנות בישׂראל, vol. 3, Jerusalem-NewYork 1992, pp. שע-שעא.. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, could she be married any day at a place where courts are in session every day²⁵? And at a place where there are no courts (every day)²⁶). could she never be married? One does not want to abolish the time of Wednesday²⁷. Why does one not want to abolish the time of Wednesday? Because he²⁸ also accepts what Bar Qappara stated. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. Could she not be married on Sunday, that he might quickly go to court on Monday? Some want to say, not to abolish the time of Wednesday; some want to say, because of what Bar Qappara stated, for Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there²⁹.

footnotes: ²⁴ If the preliminary marriage (see Peah ²⁵ In the Babli, 3a, (and at the end also in the Yerushalmi, cf. Note 66) this is accepted as a declarative sentence (subject to the condition that the groom spend three days to prepare the wedding feast.) ²⁶ An erroneous corrector’s addition (reproduced in editio princeps ²⁷ Nobody challenges the first statement in the Mishnah, even if they disagree with the meaning of the later part of that Mishnah. ²⁸ R. Eleazar accepts that the Wednesday/Thursday combination is preferable over Sunday/Monday, even though local courts always also sit on Monday. ²⁹ In the Babli, 3b, the reason of the rejection is that the groom has to spend three days to prepare the wedding feast.

One agrees that she should not be married either Friday or Saturday night. Not on Friday, for the honor of the Sabbath³⁰. Not Saturday night: The colleagues say, because of the exertion; Rebbi Yose says, for the honor of the Sabbath³¹. A baraita³² supports the colleagues: Why did they say, a virgin is married on Wednesday? That a man should prepare for his needs³³ three consecutive days.

footnotes: ³⁰ That the wedding feast should not impinge on the observance of the Sabbath and the Sabbath meal. As noted above, the wedding of a widow, which proceeds without great fanfare, may be scheduled for Friday. ³¹ That he should not prepare on the Sabbath for the feast scheduled directly after nightfall; Babli 5a. ³² Babli 2a,3a,5a,7a. In the Tosephta, 1:1, this is given as an alternative to the reason explained in the Mishnah. ³³ The wedding feast.

³⁴ 5:2 (63, 1. 64) and Ta‘aniot 4:9 (69b, 1. 50). Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not [preliminarily] marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast³⁵. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab³⁶ a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There³⁷ 18b., he says, “God puts singles in a house, etc.³⁸. 68:7. The verse means that marriages are pre-ordained in Heaven. The verse is quoted in the name of R. Joḥanan in the Babli, Soṭa 2a and Sanhedrin 22a, to show that selecting the right mate is as difficult as the liberation of Israel from Egypt, the topic of the second half of the verse.,” “To rise on scales; they all are of vapor!³⁹. 62:1. In Lev.rabba 29(5), this verse is the topic of a sermon of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Levi, that when the fetuses still are like vapor in their mothers’ wombs, they already are joined together on Heaven’s scales.” And there, he says so⁴⁰? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer⁴¹. Even so, it would not be permanent⁴².

footnotes: ³⁴ The parallels are in Beṣah ³⁵ Since this would impinge on the Sabbath meal. It is in order to make the preliminary marriage on Friday and arrange the engagement feast as the Sabbath meal. ³⁶ The anniversary of both destructions of the Temple, the most severe day of mourning in the Jewish calendar, where any exhibition of joy is frowned upon. ³⁷ A similar argument in the Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan ³⁸ Ps ³⁹ Ps ⁴⁰ If marriages are pre-ordained, why should anybody be afraid that another man could snatch the bride preselected for him? ⁴¹ Another man may by his prayer cause the Heavenly decree to be changed. ⁴² In the Babli, Samuel tells a man that praying to change Heaven's decree leads to an early death of either groom or bride.

⁴³ 5:2 (64 1. 59), Sanhedrin 4:6 (22b 1. 17). Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object⁴⁴, Mishnah 4:6: “In money matters, judgment can be rendered immediately. In criminal matters, the accused can be found innocent immediately, but he can be found guilty only the next day; therefore …” Since judgment may not be rendered on the Sabbath, the panel discussion cannot be held on Friday.: “Therefore, one does not judge criminal matters on Friday or any day before a holiday”? Therefore, one judges money matters⁴⁵! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for Torah study⁴⁶ 113a): One does not schedule court sessions on the eve of a Sabbath or holiday..

footnotes: ⁴³ The same text in Beṣah ⁴⁴ Sanhedrin ⁴⁵ The prohibition is explicitly restricted to criminal matters. ⁴⁶ In Sanhedrin: כָּאן לַהֲלָכָה כָּאן לְמַעֲשֶׂה “here for practice, there for action.” It is declared practice not to judge money matters on Friday but if a court held a session on Friday its decisions are valid. In the Babli (Baba Qama

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Crispus: An adult woman is like an open amphora¹⁴⁸. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful². R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name.⁴⁹; here he is not authorized to keep her. As Rashi explains in the Babli, there one treats the case that the husband comes to court to report the case and is ready to be convinced if the proceedings clear his wife. In the Yerushalmi one treats the case that the husband comes to complain convinced that his bride was unfaithful after preliminary marriage. Then one follows the principle that if somebody is convinced that something is forbidden, one cannot permit it. Since the husband is only subjectively forbidden to keep his wife who objectively may have been a virgin, he has to pay the full amount of her ketubah since obligations based on written contracts can be abolished only by a full proof of the guilt of the beneficiary.. This also applies to what Rebbi Ḥanina said, since Rebbi Ḥanina said: It happened that a woman was found without virginity and the case came before Rebbi⁵⁰. He said to her, where is it? She said, the stairs in my father’s house were high and it was rubbed off. Rebbi believed her. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This⁵¹ also applies to what we stated there⁵²: “The ketubah sum of a virgin who is a widow, or a divorcee, or one who had received ḥalîṣah, after a preliminary marriage⁵³ ceremony and the women are presumed to be virgins. is 200 [zuz], and they are subject to complaints about virginity.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]⁵⁴ sum of a non-virgin is 100 zuz, called מְנָה, a mina (1Μνᾶ = 100 Δράχμη, in contrast to the Babylonian מָנֶה manēi = 60 šeqel).. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This⁵¹ also applies to what we stated there⁵⁵: “One who eats unchaperoned at his father-in-law’s in Judea cannot go to court about virginity since he was alone with her.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]⁵⁴ sum of a non-virgin is 100 zuz, called מְנָה, a mina (1Μνᾶ = 100 Δράχμη, in contrast to the Babylonian מָנֶה manēi = 60 šeqel).. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful⁵⁶ one tells him that he cannot keep his wife.. This⁵¹ also applies to what we stated⁵⁷: “If somebody married a woman and found her not to be a virgin. She says, I was raped after the preliminary marriage and your field was flooded⁵⁸ is only a mina since the ketubah is executed at the time of the final marriage, his acquisition of marital rights was at the preliminary marriage and, therefore, he cannot claim to have been lured by false pretenses and cannot annul the marriage without paying anything., but he says, no, it was before the preliminary marriage and my acquisition was in error,⁵⁹” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This⁵¹ also applies to what we stated⁶⁰: “She says, I was injured by a piece of wood, but he says no, you were trampled on by a man,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [zuz]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful¹⁹. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name..

footnotes: ¹ Once she is older than 1½ years, her body is so soft that the rupture of the hymen may not be noticed. The court will not hear such a case. ⁴⁸ In the quote in Tosaphot (9a, s. v. האומר): "an open wine amphora." ² Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah ⁴⁹ In the parallel case in the Babli, 9a, the argument ascribed here to R. Yose (Notes 21-23) is used to restrict R. Eleazar's statement to the case of either a Cohen (who has to divorce his wife in case of rape) or a person who preliminarily married a girl aged less than 3 full years (who could not have had premarital sex). Note also the change of language: R. Hila in the name of R. Eleazar states that he is forbidden to keep her ⁵⁰ In the Babli, 10b, a woman did not bleed when deflowered and Rabban Gamliel the elder accepted the fact that not to bleed was hereditary in her family and told the husband to enjoy his wife. In another case quoted there, Rebbi convinced the husband that he had not penetrated on his weddding night. ⁵¹ That the woman wins her case in money matters does not imply that the court tells the husband to keep her. ⁵³ Mishnah 1:2. In all three cases the husband died before the ḥuppah ⁵⁴ The ketubah ⁵¹ That the woman wins her case in money matters does not imply that the court tells the husband to keep her. ⁵⁵ Mishnah 1:5. ⁵⁴ The ketubah ⁵⁶ Even though the court will not hear a claim to annul the marriage because of missing virginity since the groom was alone, unchaperoned, with his preliminarily married wife, if he asserts that he did not sleep with her before the ḥuppah ⁵¹ That the woman wins her case in money matters does not imply that the court tells the husband to keep her. ⁵⁷ Mishnah 1:6. ⁵⁸ If a farmer buys a field and after the property rights were transferred to him the field is flooded and unusable for that year, he has no regress on the seller. While it is true that her ketubah ⁵⁹ It is a question who has the burden of proof. For Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer, the husband has the burden of proof and if he cannot prove his assertion he has to pay. For R. Joshua, the wife has the burden of proof and if she cannot prove her case the marriage is annulled and she gets nothing. ⁵¹ That the woman wins her case in money matters does not imply that the court tells the husband to keep her. ⁶⁰ Mishnah 1:7. This case is completely parallel to the preceding one. ¹⁹ Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah

When is an adult married following Rebbi Eleazar⁶¹? When is a virgin after marriage married⁶², the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday.? When is a woman injured by a piece of wood married following Rebbi Meïr⁶³ but is not subject to a claim of missing virginity.? Let us hear from the following⁶⁴: “If there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma.⁶⁵ was lost who claims that she married as a virgin. If she can produce witnesses that ὑμέναια “wedding songs” were sung at her wedding, it is a proof that she married as a virgin (M. Sachs). Since wedding songs were prohibited after the wars of Bar Kokhba (Soṭah9:13, Note 189), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (2:1, 26a 1. 71; Babli 17b), in Galilee φόρημα “a litter”.” Wednesday was not mentioned. This means that Wednesday does not mean anything⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Since it was stated that no claim of missing virginity is possible for adult girls, there is no need to have the wedding on Wednesdays. ⁶² If the husband died immediately after the final marriage ceremony, the widow is still a virgin but in her next marriage she can claim only the widow’s mina for her ketubah ⁶³ Mishnah 1:3. She can claim a virgin’s ketubah ⁶⁴ Mishnah 2:1. ⁶⁵ A woman whose ketubah ⁶⁶ A marriage on Wednesday is no proof of virginity and a marriage on another day is no proof of non-virginity.

“A widow [is married] on Thursday.” For if you would let him [marry] any other day of the year, he would go to work the next morning. Since you tell him, on a Thursday, he enjoys himself with her on Thursday, Friday, and Sabbath⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The same argument, somewhat enlarged, in the Babli, 5a, and Tosephta, 1:1. From the Tosephta text it seems likely that one whould read בְּאֶחָד מִכָּליְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת “any other weekday”. Since the husband has to spend time on Friday and buy provisions for the Sabbath, it is not worthwhile for him to go to work.

Moses instituted seven days of a marriage feast⁶⁸. 29:27. But in the interpretation of Nahmanides, the Yerushalmi refers to an oral tradition going back to Moses, without reference to biblical verses. Sforno sees in Gen. 29:21 a biblical justification for R. Mattaniah’s procedure (Note 24). In Yalqut Šim’oni II, 70, in a note attributed to Pirqe R.Eliezer (not in the surviving text): “The seven days of a wedding feast we learned from Jacob and Simson (Jud. 14:12).” and seven days of mourning⁶⁹. 50:10. Since this mourning was held before the burial, it cannot be the real paradigm for the rabbinic mourning period which starts after burial., but he instituted nothing for the widow. Even though you say that he instituted nothing for the widow, she needs a benediction⁷⁰. From Boaz, as it is written⁷¹ 4:2.: “And (Boaz)⁷² 4(7). took ten men of the city Elders and said, sit here, and they sat down.” Rebbi Alexander said, ⁷³4(7). from here [one learns that] the lesser person is not permitted to sit down until the more important person⁷⁴ 4:21; cf. the author’s Commentary to Seder ‘Olam(Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 124–125. tells him to sit down. Rebbi Phineas said, from here [one learns that] this family⁷⁵ appoints Elders for their marriage feasts. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, from here [one learns that] the wedding blessing needs ten people [present]⁷⁶. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, not only a bachelor marrying a virgin, but also a widower marrying a widow, since Boaz was a widower and Ruth a widow, as it is written⁷⁷ 1:19. The same argument in the Babli, Baba batra 91a; Ruth rabba 3(6). “The entire city was in an uproar because of them.” Is that possible that the entire town was in alarm because of the sorry state of Naomi? But Boaz’s wife had died that very day and when all the people went to the burial, Ruth and Naomi entered. It turned out that when one left, the other entered.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ The week-long wedding feast of Jacob and Leah, Gen ⁶⁹ The week-long mourning for Jacob, Gen ⁷⁰ The “Seven Benedictions” without which the final marriage ceremony cannot be held. The same argument in the Babli, 7a, as an Amoraic statement. ⁷¹ Ruth ⁷² Not in the biblical text, implied by v. 4:1; is also in Ruth rabba ⁷³ This and the following statements are also in Ruth rabba ⁷⁴ Since Boaz was of the family of the princes of Judah, Ruth ⁷⁵ The descendants of King David. ⁷⁶ In contrast to the preliminary marriage ceremony which requires only the presence of two witnesses. ⁷⁷ Ruth

It was stated: The marriage benedictions are said all seven days⁷⁹: “Neither the marriage benedictions nor the mourning benedictions are said all seven days.” The following discussion shows that this cannot be the correct version.. [Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days.⁸⁰] Rebbi Yose said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: The benedictions of mourners⁸¹ are said all seven days. Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he consoles with him, so there he enjoys with him⁸², the positions of “consoles” and “enjoys” are switched.; as here one remembers, so there one remembers⁸³.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ In the Babli, 7b: One recites the marriage benedictions in the presence of 10 persons all seven days. In Megillah ⁸⁰ How else could one recite the wedding benedictions? ⁸¹ The special version of Grace for the mourner. ⁸² Anytime visitors to a house of mourners bring food and eat with the mourners, they recite the special version of Grace; anytime visitors of a newlywed couple who participate in a festive meal append the seven wedding benedictions to Grace recited after the meal.In Megillah ⁸³ The topic of conversation in a house of mourning is the deceased; the topic of conversation with the newlyweds is the marriage ceremony.

⁸⁴ are in the Babli, 12a, and the Tosephta, 1:4. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but⁸⁵ they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee⁸⁶. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee⁸⁷. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride⁸⁸; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules⁸⁹ could not present a claim of missing virginity.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Slightly different version of this baraita ⁸⁵ This is a hidden polemic against the formulation of the Tosephta, that the best men were appointed three days before the wedding day and conducted a common investigation of the bridal chamber, so that there was no place where the groom possibly could make a blood-stained cloth disappear in order to accuse the bride falsely of not being a virgin and also that the bride could not hide beforehand a blood-stained cloth in order to fake a non-existing virginity. ⁸⁶ This practice is confirmed by Mishnah 1:5. As noted there, it is obvious that at a place where one lets the pair be alone together there can be no claim of virginity and no best men were appointed.In the Babli, and it seems also in the Yerushalmi’s discussion of R. Eleazar’s position (Note 54), one assumes that at certain places in Judea one was very stringent and at others very lax. But it seems from Halakhah 1:5 that the radical change from appointing best men to letting the fiancé to be alone with the fiancée is not a matter of different localities but of different times (and the Yerushalmi’s practice certainly does not follow R. Eliezer). ⁸⁷ This paragraph belongs together with the first; it explains the roles of the best men. ⁸⁸ After bride and groom had finished their first sexual relations, the best men were invited for the remainder of the night to make sure no evidence was removed or introduced. ⁸⁹ In Jehudah, at a place where one did not let the pair be together unchaperoned.

There, we have stated⁹⁰ 9:11, a statement of R. Jehudah.: “Every vine gives wine; if there is no wine it is dried up⁹¹.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rebbi Jehudah does not admit claims of missing virginity⁹²? Rebbi Yose said, in itself it means that Rebbi Jehudah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee … they were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Mishnah Niddah ⁹¹ Greek τρυγητής, from τρύγη, ἡ, “crop, vintage; dryness”. It means that there are women who are congenitally unable to bleed. (In this and similar discussions it is always assumed that the causes of menstrual bleeding and bleeding when the hymen is torn are the same.) ⁹² Since he states that there are women who do not bleed when they are deflowered. ⁹³ The proven absence of bleeding is prima facie evidence of non-virginity, open to medical explanation which preserves the fact and denies the inference.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion to follow the standard of Judea in Galilee⁹⁴. Rebbi Yose said to him, is the standard of Judea in Galilee a testimony by biblical standards⁹⁵? No, [one follows] the standard of Judea in Judea and the standard of Galilee in Galilee. If you say, it is not testimony by biblical standards, why appoint them⁹⁶? That the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality. If it is that the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality, even if one appoints, they should not be trustworthy! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: A man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation⁹⁷ 10a, Yebamot 107a, Qiddušin 45b.). If it is that a man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation, even if one does not appoint, he should be believed. Rebbi Hila said, because of one suspicion, because of one immoral person⁹⁸. Where do we hold? If he investigated and found, he found⁹⁹! If he did not find but investigated, did he not investigate¹⁰⁰? But we deal with the case that he did not investigate and found¹⁰¹. She says, it is blood of virginity. He says no, it is a bird’s blood. His case is damaged since he did not follow the procedures. ⁴⁹ to keep her; here he is not authorized to keep her. As Rashi explains in the Babli, there one treats the case that the husband comes to court to report the case and is ready to be convinced if the proceedings clear his wife. In the Yerushalmi one treats the case that the husband comes to complain convinced that his bride was unfaithful after the preliminary marriage. Then one follows the principle that if somebody is convinced that something is forbidden, one cannot permit it. Since the husband is only subjectively forbidden to keep his wife who objectively may have been a virgin, he has to pay the full amount of her ketubah since obligations based on written contracts can be abolished only by a full proof of the guilt of the beneficiary. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. It follows what we statedthere¹⁰²: “A virgin and a widow, etc.” All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful¹⁹. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name..

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Since at the end of the Tosephta R. Jehudah states that anybody not following the procedure of Judea cannot claim absence of virginity, it seems that he denies to the people of Galilee the right to bring any such claim. ⁹⁵ The assertion of R. Jeremiah is unreasonable since the procedure of certain places in Judea has no biblical basis. ⁹⁶ If the testimony of the best men is not needed, why are they there? ⁹⁷ Since the groom bears all expenses of the wedding feast, he would not do that if his intention was from the start to claim non-virginity and go for an annulment of the match. There are much cheaper ways to get a woman for one night. (In a different context, the same argument is made in the Babli, Ketubot ⁹⁸ The entire set-up in certain regions in Judea is only because in a very few cases bad things do happen. ⁹⁹ He is bound by the testimony of the best men that his wife was a virgin. ¹⁰⁰ He can go to court and ask for annulment of the marriage. {R. Nissim Gerondi (שיטה לר״ן, ed. A. L. Feldman, Jerusalem 1997, col. 28), copied from R. Crescas, reads: “If he did not check and found, or his side checked but not her side.”} ¹⁰¹ He claims that he could enter his (underage) wife without resistance and that, therefore, she could not have been a virgin. The Babli, 10b, dismisses such claims out of hand since (a) it might be possible to enter without rupturing the hymen and (b) any man making such a claim must have ample experience with women, virgins and non-virgins, so that he must be treated as an amoral person. ⁴⁹ . In the parallel case in the Babli, 9a, the argument acribed here to R. Yose (Notes 21–23) is used to restrict R. Eleazar’s statement to the case either a Cohen (who has to divorce his wife in case of rape) or a person who preliminarily married a girl aged less than 3 full years (who could not have had premarital sex). Note also the change of language: R. Hila in the name of R. Eleazar states that he is forbidden ¹⁰² Mishnah 1:2, cf. Note 53. ¹⁹ Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah

It was stated: The claim of virginity is based on any amount (of blood). It happened that for a certain woman nothing was found except for [a stain the size of] a mustard seed. She came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said to her, there should be many like you in Israel. Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi: He cursed her¹⁰³, like people who, when they see a blind man, call him “much light”. The colleagues said, he needled her, any woman with little blood has few children¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Yose said, he praised her, any woman with little blood will not cause impurity to food prepared in purity¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ As explained later, because she might not have children. ¹⁰⁴ In the Babli, 10b, R. Meïr states the contrapositive: Any woman with much blood has many children. ¹⁰⁵ In the Babli, 10b: She will not cause her husband any problems with the impurity of her period.

MISHNAH: The ketubah¹⁰⁶ document may stipulate higher amounts. of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina¹⁰⁷ The Mishnah remains noncommittal about the nature of the coin involved.. The ketubah of virgins who after a preliminary marriage⁵³ ceremony and the women are presumed to be virgins. become widows, divorcees, or who received ḥalîṣah, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity¹⁰⁸. The ketubah of a proselyte, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed¹⁰⁹, freed¹¹⁰, or converted¹¹¹ at less than three years and one day of age, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity¹⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The minimum payable to the bride at the dissolution of the marriage either by divorce or by the husband’s death. This does not exclude that the ketubah ¹⁰⁷ 100 zuz. ⁵³ Mishnah 1:2. In all three cases the husband died before the ḥuppah ¹⁰⁸ To invalidate the document if they are found not to be virgins. ¹⁰⁹ It is assumed that a female kidnap victim will be raped as a matter of course. But a girl raped at age less than 3 years still is a virgin. ¹¹⁰ Since slaves can have guiltless sexual relations with Gentiles, it is assumed that they do have such relations. ¹¹¹ There is no presumed minimal age for sexual activity of Gentiles. Therefore, a proselyte aged more than 3 years at conversion is presumed not to be virginal. ¹⁰⁸ To invalidate the document if they are found not to be virgins.

HALAKHAH: “The ketubah of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina,” etc. Huna in the name of Samuel: In the Temple šeqel¹¹² coins struck in Jerusalem during the first war with the Romans are silver coins weighing between 13.5 and 14.3 g. The corresponding Tyrian coinage is about 13.5 g. A Temple šeqel in Babylonian theory is twice the weight of a common šeqel, which is the name of the two-denar coin. This means that the Temple šeqel is equal, both in the Yerushalmi and in the Babli, to the Roman tetradrachma (סֶלַע), based on an unadulterated silver denar (drachma, זוּז) of 3.4 g. Tyre ceased to mint coins between the reigns of Augustus and Septimius Severus, meaning that Tyrian coins in the Mishnaic period were unadulterated silver. Samuel requires that the ketubah be adjusted for the inflation caused by the debasement of the currency in circulation. It may be that he holds that the basic ketubah amount is a biblical requirement (cf. Halakhah 13:11).. Rebbi Abba bar Bina said, circulating coin¹¹³ has to be computed on the basis of the currency in circulation.. A Mishnah supports Rebbi Abba bar Bina¹¹⁴ 8:7; cf. Tosephta Ketubot 12:6.: “The five tetradrachmas of the firstborn¹¹⁵ 3:47, identifying the biblical šeqel as tetradrachma. are in Tyrian coinage, the 30 of the slave¹¹⁶ weregilt for the killing of another person’s slave by one’s ox, Ex. 21:32., the 50 of the rapist and the seducer¹¹⁷ bride money paid by the rapist (Deut. 22:29) and, by inference, the seducer (Ex. 22:15–16) of a girl., the 100 of the slanderer¹¹⁸ 22:19., are all computed in Temple šeqels in Tyrian coinage.” A woman’s ketubah is not stated with them. Rebbi Abin said, did they not learn the ketubah of a woman from the rapist and the seducer¹¹⁹ 22:16 or at least they are the inspiration for the rabbis to fixate the minimum ketubah at 200 zuz.? Since the rapist and the seducer are mentioned, it is as if women’s ketubah was stated with them¹²⁰ does not prove anything..

footnotes: ¹¹² The Temple šeqel ¹¹³ The value of the ketubah ¹¹⁴ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹¹⁵ The redemption of the firstborn, Num. ¹¹⁶ 30 šeqel ¹¹⁷ 50 šeqel ¹¹⁸ The fine imposed on a man wrongly accusing his wife of committing adultery during her preliminary marriage period, Deut. ¹¹⁹ Since the 50 tetradrachmas due from the rapist and the seducer are exactly 200 denarii; either these 200 denarii are the “bride money” described in the verse Ex. ¹²⁰ The Mishnah from Bekhorot

So far about a virgin. What about a widow? Rav Ḥinena said, it is enough for a widow that she take half of a virgin’s portion¹²¹ of a widow is a rabbinic institution..

footnotes: ¹²¹ Everybody agrees that the ketubah

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, even if “a woman’s ketubah” was stated with them¹²² of the virgin is a biblical institution, practice could not follow that Mishnah since all amoraic authorities hold that the ketubah is a purely rabbinic institution. The Babli (Qiddušin 10b) quotes Mishnah Bekhorot 8:7 with the addition that “all money due by rabbinic institutions is local coin”, following R. Abba bar Bun. A similar statement underlies the text here., do not all these rabbis disagree? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Jonathan both say, circulating¹²³ debt in legal but not circulating coin. coin. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, circulating coin. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: Current coin. Rebbi Joḥanan said¹²⁴200–400*, Money Prices,* Ramat Gan 1974, p. 223. I follow Sperber in identifying the coins referred to as those of Severus Alexander, whose Antiochene coins, following those of Elagabalus, earned the attribute of “good”, returning to earlier standards after the debasement of the gold minting by Caracalla., good Severan tetradrachmas, Jerusalem ones¹²⁵ of the war against the Romans, not the copper coins of Aelia Capitolina. R. Joḥanan here holds with Samuel that the ketubah goes by biblical standards.. These are saying so, those are saying otherwise¹²⁶! But he¹²⁷ has to be satisfied by rabbinical standards. also changed his mind and thought like them. Are not always these saying so, those are saying otherwise¹²⁸ is no different from most other rabbinic institutions.? Here, even he changed his mind and thought like them.

footnotes: ¹²² Even if the Mishnah did state that the ketubah ¹²³ This can be debased coin. However, if merchants refuse to accept debased silver coin but require to be paid in gold, it would not be possible to liquidate a ketubah ¹²⁴ The history of interpretation of this sentence is documented by D. Sperber, Roman Palestine ¹²⁵ This must refer to the full weight Jerusalem Temple šeqels ¹²⁶ In general, R. Jonathan, R. Joshua ben Levi, and R. Joḥanan are the leading authorities; it is difficult to decide if they disagree. ¹²⁷ R. Joḥanan changed his mind and agreed that the ketubah ¹²⁸ The standing of the ketubah

There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz¹²⁹ was written for 200 (debased) silver denars, as R. Ḥanina lived in the first half of the third Century C.E., at the end of the Severan dynasty and the early military anarchy. It could also be that the document was written in terms of a foreign currency, Persian or other, which when translated into local currency turned out to be less than the statutory 200 zuz. In any case, it is clear that the ketubah did not amount to the value of 50 Temple šeqel when it became due., and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana¹³⁰, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya¹³¹ say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation¹³² is immoral and cannot be tolerated. The Babli, 57a, decides that practice follows R. Meïr, against the opinion of R. Yose (usually the higher authority) that money matters between consenting adults are their private business. The Yerushalmi discusses R. Meïr’s opinion in Halakhah 4:9 in a non-committal way; the discussion here shows that it accepts R. Yose’s opinion as determining practice.]. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [zuz] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah¹³³ by default is 200 full weight silver denar. (A standard ketubah, as explained later, contains additions which exceed the legal minimum. Such additions are impossible if the ketubah is not written.). But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property¹³⁴ Chapter 14. The woman who marries him can accept all financial consequences of marriage, but her husband is incompetent to do so. (Naturally, the question could be asked, how can an incompetent person inherit? The question is asked for the next statement; it could have been asked here. The Babli, Yebamot 113a, notes that if the husband is healed and becomes able to conduct business, the marriage ceremony has to be repeated.). If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah?¹³⁵ that could be enforced against her husband’s legal heirs, whose claim to the inheritance is biblical? In contrast, the Babli, Yebamot 113a, holds that in this case of a deaf-mute bride her legal status is irrelevant; since the groom dedicated the ketubah money to her, the court will transfer it to her guardians. This must also be the theory of the Tosephta, 1:3, which prescribes 200 zuz for the virgin deaf-mute or insane bride. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute¹³⁶. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing¹³⁷? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf¹³⁸. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has]¹³⁹ Only the latter make sense.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine¹⁴⁰ of the Babli (36a) quote the Tosephta to the effect that she has a claim, but Tosafot RID quotes “she has no claim”. S. Lieberman concludes that the original version of the Babli (if there existed a uniform original version) cannot be reconstrued. He also accepts the emendation of M. Margalit: אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁבָּא עַל הַחֲרֶשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא אִית לָהּ קְנָס. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קְנָס אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. “If one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, would he be not liable for a fine? Since there is no fine there is no ketubah.” Even though this changes only one letter in the text, one should hesitate to accept emendations of M. Margalit without very convincing reasons.? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman¹⁴¹ collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine¹⁴² but her ketubah is a mina⁶², the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday.!

footnotes: ¹²⁹ The rabbinic commentaries all explain that the ketubah ¹³⁰ R. Mana I. ¹³¹ This probably is a scribal error since R. Ḥiyya the Elder preceded Samuel and R. Ḥiyya bar Abba lived two generations later. One should read (Rav) Ḥuna, student of Samuel’s contemporary Rav (Note 112). ¹³² Since the woman had agreed at the moment of marriage to be satisfied with the smaller amount. [In Mishnah 5:2, R. Meïr states that living with a woman without guaranteeing her the minimum support of the ketubah ¹³³ It seems that there were places in Galilee where nobody could read or write. At such a place, the ketubah ¹³⁴ One must assume that the deaf-mute is also illitterate since, if he could communicate in writing, he would be able to conduct business. If he cannot write, he cannot transact business, cf. Yebamot, ¹³⁵ It is clear that the deaf-mute woman has a claim to support since she lives with her husband. The question is only, how can the deaf-mute woman acquire a claim to the ketubah ¹³⁶ The two statements in the name of R. Eleazar are identical in meaning. ¹³⁷ The explanation cannot work: if the woman was competent when she married, she acquired all the rights of a married woman and her later loss of hearing and speech cannot change that. ¹³⁸ She was deaf-mute before the marriage, she is deaf-mute now. But in between there was a period in which she could communicate with the outside world; she acquired all the rights of a married wife if the husband lived with her during her lucid period. ¹³⁹ The words in parentheses are those of the ms.; the words in brackets are those of the editio princeps. ¹⁴⁰ The fines of the rapist and the seducer (Note 117) of an underage girl. The Tosephta (3:5) states that the deaf-mute has no claim to a fine. The existing mss. and the editio princeps ¹⁴¹ Who marries as a virgin. ¹⁴² If she still has not reached 12 years and 6 months of age. The argument of R. Yose is shown to be wrong. ⁶² If the husband died immediately after the final marriage ceremony, the widow is still a virgin but in her next marriage she can claim only the widow’s mina for her ketubah

¹⁴³ 113a.”A deaf-mute or an insane male who were taken in¹⁴⁴ by a hearing woman. Even if the deaf-mute became hearing, or the insane sane, she has no ketubah. If he wants to keep her, her ketubah is one mina¹⁴⁵.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her after he became hearing or sane. If he did not sleep with her after he became hearing or sane, she does not even have a ketubah of a mina¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Tosefta 1:3; a slightly different wording in the Babli, Yebamot ¹⁴⁴ Married. ¹⁴⁵ Even if at the start she was a virgin, now, at the moment her husband is legally able to contract a marriage, she is no virgin. ¹⁴⁶ Since there never was a legal marriage.

At less than three years and one day of age¹⁴⁷, Rebbi Yose in the name of [Rav] Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: What is this like? One makes a dimple in the flesh which straightens out by itself. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Like one who muddies a source which becomes clear again. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so¹⁴⁸ 5:4: Younger than that, it is as if one puts a finger on an eye. ¹⁴⁹ 6:13, Notes 138-141. Variant readings: ונמלכין ׀ נמלכו, אין הבתולין ׀ אינן, הבתולין ׀ בתולין. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise her hymen does not repair itself.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ This explains the statement of the Mishnah that girls violated less than three years of age are still virgins. ¹⁴⁸ Niddah ¹⁴⁹ From Nedarim

MISHNAH: If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl¹⁵⁰, or an underage boy¹⁵⁰ with an adult female, or one injured by wood¹⁵¹, their ketubot are 200 [zuz], the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the ketubah of one injured by wood is a mina.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Too young to marry. ¹⁵⁰ Too young to marry. ¹⁵¹ Her hymen was split by an accident.

HALAKHAH: “If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl,” etc. What is an underage boy and what is an underage girl? They said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, an underage boy is younger than nine years and one day¹⁵² Mishnaiot 10:15–18; Chapter 3, Note 143. The sex act of a younger boy has no legal consequences., an underage girl is younger than three years and one day¹⁴⁷. One understands that if an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, her hymen repairs itself. If an underage boy has sexual relations with an underage female, her hymen repairs itself. But if an underage boy has sexual relations with an adult female, her hymen does not repair itself!¹⁵³ Rebbi Abin, explain it that he had relations with her without penetration¹⁵⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin said, you can even say that he had normal relations with her. The relations of an underage boy are relations but he does not have the force to damage her hymen¹⁵⁵. It was stated thus: It happened that [an adult] became pregnant while her hymen was intact¹⁵⁶ 14b/15a, holds that an intact virgin might become pregnant in a bathtub from semen floating there..

footnotes: ¹⁵² The sex act of a boy of 9 years and one day has legal consequences; cf. Yebamot, ¹⁴⁷ This explains the statement of the Mishnah that girls violated less than three years of age are still virgins. ¹⁵³ How can she marry as a virgin? ¹⁵⁴ There was no penetration. ¹⁵⁵ This is a matter of dispute in the Babli, 11b. ¹⁵⁶ The Babli, Ḥagigah

They objected to Rebbi Meïr: There is no hymen¹⁵⁷ and you say, her ketubah is 200 [zuz]? He answered them, is that dependent on the hymen? But the adult has no hymen⁴⁷ and her ketubah is 200! the virgin widow has a hymen and her ketubah is a mina¹⁵⁸ after the recitation of the wedding benedictions.! What is the reason? The adult still has all her grace¹⁵⁹; the virgin widow has lost her grace. Where do they disagree? If she was injured by wood. Rebbi Meïr says, she did not lose her grace, but the rabbis say, she lost her grace.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Referring to the virgin whose hymen was ruptured in a mechanical accident. ⁴⁷ Once she is older than 12½ years, her body is so soft that the rupture of the hymen may not be noticed. The court will not hear such a case. ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah 4, about a girl whose husband dies in the ḥuppah ¹⁵⁹ The groom is willing to pay for a woman who never was with another male.

Did they disagree that a virgin who had sexual relations with an underage boy¹⁶⁰ 6:5, Note 108; 7:5, Note 105; 13:1, Note 14) that sexual relations between unmarried partners are always harlotry which bars the female from marrying a priest. For all other authorities, there would only be a problem regarding the High Priest who may marry only a virgin. or with someone who is not a man¹⁶¹ is enabled for the priesthood? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said, she is enabled even for the High Priest¹⁶² 59b, this is an Amoraic statement by Samuel..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ This is a problem only for R. Eleazar who holds (Yebamot ¹⁶¹ Sexual relations of a woman with an animal is a capital crime if initiated by the woman. But it has no influence on her marital status. ¹⁶² In the Babli, Yebamot

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked¹⁶³: What is the difference between her¹⁶⁴ and one who had sex with a finger¹⁶⁵? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood¹⁶⁶? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration¹⁶⁷.. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse¹⁶⁸. 21:13, speaking of the high priest. The complicated expression אִשָּׁהבִבְתוּלֶיהָ “a woman in her virginities” instead of simpy בְּתוּלָה “a virgin” calls for an explanation.: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects¹⁶⁹ 59a.. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.¹⁷⁰. 24:16; here again the double expression calls for an explanation. In Gen.rabba 60(5), the explanation is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said¹⁷¹. 125:3. In Gen.rabba 60(5), this explanation is ascribed to R. Joḥanan.: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa]¹⁷² not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching”¹⁷³4:2, Note 59; Mishnah 6:1) and for criminal law (Mishnah Keritut 2:4; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Notes 97,98). The same question is asked in Qiddušin 1:1 (59c 1. 14). with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem¹⁷⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ The text is impossible as it stands. It must have been either “R. Jeremiah (fourth generation) said that R. Immi (second generation) asked” or “R. Yasa and R. Immi asked”. The sequel would support both versions. ¹⁶⁴ The woman whose hymen was impaired by a mechanical accident, who is declared eligible to marry a High Priest. ¹⁶⁵ Either she or another person perforated her hymen with his finger in sexual activity without penetration by a penis. ¹⁶⁶ The high priesthood. Only the High Priest is required to marry a virgin. ¹⁶⁷ If the girl had sexual experience without any penetration, she will qualify for a virgin’s ketubah ¹⁶⁸ Lev ¹⁶⁹ She must be a virgin without any sexual experience; cf. Babli Yebamot ¹⁷⁰ Gen ¹⁷¹ Ps ¹⁷² Since the author here cannot be the fourth generation Babylonian Rav Joseph (bar Ḥiyya), most likely he is Rebbi Yasa (cf. Note 163). ¹⁷³ The touching of the genitals of two persons, whether there was penetration or emission or not. “Touching” is the legal definition of the sex act both for marriage (cf. Yebamot ¹⁷⁴ That solution is too obvious not to have occured to R. Ammi, and it does not address his question which asks for the difference between a hymen split by mechanical means or by the girl’s own finger. In both cases, no male was involved.

MISHNAH: ¹⁷⁵ For virgins who after a final marriage become widows, divorcees, or who received ḥalîṣah¹⁵⁸ after the recitation of the wedding benedictions., their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity. For a proselyte, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed, converted, or freed at more than three years and one day of age, their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Cf. Mishnah 2, Notes 108–111. ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah 4, about a girl whose husband dies in the ḥuppah

HALAKHAH: “A virgin, a widow, a divorcee after final marriage,” etc. Who is a virgin after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who entered the bridal chamber but her witnesses testify that she had no sexual relations¹⁷⁶. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if a man married a woman under the presumption¹⁷⁷ “holding fast” is the presumption that a known status quo ante remains unchanged until a change in status has been observed. In the case here, the groom had the right to assume that his bride was still the virgin she had been at birth. If before the marriage he required special assurances that the bride was a virgin, that is not a case of presumption, and if she was not virginal he can claim acquisition in error and annulment of marriage and forfait of ketubah. that she was a virgin and she turned out not to be a virgin, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina¹⁷⁸ of one mina; this shows that the presumption does not exclude that the bride was not a virgin. In the Babli, 11b (13a), a statement of Rav Sheshet; this might imply that “R. Yose” here is R. Yasa.. If a man married a woman under the presumption that she never had illegitimate sex and she turned out that she had illegitimate sex, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina¹⁷⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ A different formulation of the same fact is in the Tosephta, 1:4, and the Babli, 11b. ¹⁷⁷ Ḥazaqah ¹⁷⁸ In the case of the Mishnah there was a presumption of virginity but only a ketubah ¹⁷⁹ This is essentially the previous case since, if there are witnesses that the husband had not slept with her, any defect could have come only from illegitimate sexual activity.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a manumitted slave girl¹⁸⁰ of the freedwoman is determined in Mishnaiot 1:2,4 and her right to the fine imposed on the rapist or the seducer in 3:1,2. R. David Fraenckel emends מהו to מניין and reads the question as asking for the biblical source of the Mishnaiot mentioned.? Let us hear from the following¹⁸¹: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay¹⁸²; the verse says¹⁸³. 22:15.: “He shall take her as wife by the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the [gentile] slave (or any)¹⁸⁴ whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her¹⁸⁵, she collects the fine, and any who collects the fine has a ketubah. ¹⁸⁶ Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult¹⁴¹ collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine¹⁴² but her ketubah is a mina⁶², the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday.! Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or manumitted before she reached three years and one day is like an Israel¹⁸⁷. 44:22; cf. Bikkurim1:5 (Notes 89–99), Babli Yebamot 60b.].

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ It seems that this is a rhetorical question since the ketubah ¹⁸¹ A parallel text in Halakhah 3:1. ¹⁸² The fine imposed on a person raping or seducing an underage girl, cf. Note 117. ¹⁸³ Ex ¹⁸⁴ Reading ארמית for מי או of the text. ¹⁸⁵ If she is freed and can contract a marriage. ¹⁸⁶ From Halakhah 1:2. ¹⁴¹ Who marries as a virgin. ¹⁴² If she still has not reached 12 years and 6 months of age. The argument of R. Yose is shown to be wrong. ⁶² If the husband died immediately after the final marriage ceremony, the widow is still a virgin but in her next marriage she can claim only the widow’s mina for her ketubah ¹⁸⁷ Mishnaiot 1:2, 3:1 state clearly that in matters of marriage, girls becoming Jewish at a very young age are equal to those born Jewish [except for marriages with priests where practice follows Ez

The blind woman and the she-ram¹⁸⁸ 1:1, Note 65. are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? I say, he found [her to be a virgin] and destroyed [the evidence]¹⁸⁹ over having 200 zuz with a chance of being deprived of it by a cheating husband.. What is the rabbi’s reason? She can catch him. What does Rebbi Meïr with this argument? He can cleanse it with spittle¹⁹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ A woman without secondary female sex characteristics, presumed to be infertile; cf. Yebamot ¹⁸⁹ Since the blind woman cannot see what her husband does, she cannot see to it that the traces of her hymeneal blood are not destroyed, leaving her without defenses in court. R. Meïr assumes that she prefers to have an untouchable mina as ketubah ¹⁹⁰ The Babli, 36a, connects the disagreement between R. Meïr and the rabbis to that of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua (Mishnaiot 1:8,9) whether her unsupported statement is credible or not. The rabbis follow Rabban Gamliel, R. Meïr follows R. Joshua. The Tosephta, 3:5, knows only of the rabbis’ position.

¹⁹² 13:15, Notes 123–130; cf. Babli Yebamot 111b. The variant readings from Yebamot are indicated by י. It was stated: A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, immediately. Where do we hold? If he copulated, immediately. If he did not copulate, even after a longer delay. But we must deal with the case that it was not spelled out. Rebbi Meïr said, it is credible that a man may hold himself back for thirty days. But the Sages say, a man does not hold himself back even for one day. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: According to Rebbi Meïr, would a man be believed to assert that he held himself back for thirty days in order to make the child of unknown paternity? Let us hear from the following: “If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥalîṢah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṢah with her.” And Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s. And Rebbi Eleazar said, that refers only to her, but not to her co-wife. As you say there, she is not believed to damage her co-wife, so here, he is not believed to damage his son.

footnotes: ¹⁹² This is from Yebamot

MISHNAH: If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s in Judea without chaperones cannot claim missing virginity since he is alone with her¹⁹³. Both for an Israel widow as a Cohanim widow¹⁹⁴ the ketubah is a mina. The court of priests collected 400 zuz for a virgin¹⁹⁵ was lost., to which the Sages did not object.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ As the Halakhah makes clear, he is supposed to sleep with his fiancיe. ¹⁹⁴ The daughter of a Cohen, even if married to an Israel. ¹⁹⁵ It is not clear whether this applies to marriages of daughters of Cohanim, or marriages of Cohanim, or both. Since this is generally accepted practice known to the groom at the time he contracted the marriage, it is legal and can be enforced even if the original ketubah

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s,” etc. In earlier times¹⁹⁶ they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw¹⁹⁷.rabba to 5:7. The story that Jehudah killed Esaw when the latter wanted to kill Jacob at Isaac’s funeral is in Midraš Soḥer ṭob 18:32, mentioned in Sifry Deut. 348, quoted in Yalquṭ Šim‘ony 162. In the tradition of the Babli, Soṭa 13a, Esaw was killed by Ḥushim ben Dan at Jacob’s funeral., as it is written¹⁹⁸. 49:8.: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them¹⁹⁹ and raped their daughters; they decided that a soldier²⁰⁰ over girls married on Wednesdays. would have sex with her first. They decreed that her husband should come to her when still in her father’s house²⁰¹; for when she knows that her husband’s fear is on her she is drawn after him²⁰². But is she not in the end being used for sex by a soldier? She is raped, and a rape victim is permitted to her husband²⁰³. 7, based on Num. 5:13.. What did Cohanot do? They were hiding them. Why did they not also hide the daughters of Israel? That becomes talk²⁰⁴ and the government hears it; then these and those will be taken together. What kind of a sign did they have? The talk of a cook²⁰⁵ in town: There is a wedding meal, there is a wedding meal²⁰⁶; there is light in Beror-Ḥayil²⁰⁷ was the residence of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai after the first war with the Romans; it must have been in the imperial domain of Jabneh, in the plain. Lights were lit to indicate an invitation to attend a forbidden circumcision, just as the presence of a professional cook indicated a wedding.: a week for a son, a week for a son. When the persecution ended, the custom did not end. Rebbi Hoshaia’s²⁰⁸ 3:3, 50 c 1. 71). daughter-in-law was pregnant when she married definitively.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ The only time when the Roman government could be supposed to act officially in the manner described was during Hadrian’s persecution in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba. ¹⁹⁷ “Esaw” is a code name for Rome; e. g., Eccl ¹⁹⁸ Gen ¹⁹⁹ After the war of Bar Kokhba, most of the Jewish population of Judea were sold as slaves. ²⁰⁰ Greek στρατιώτης. In the considerably toned down version of the Babli, 3b, it was only the general, ἡγεμών, who would exercise a ius primae noctis ²⁰¹ After the preliminary marriage. ²⁰² The commentaries and S. Lieberman emend נִגְרֶרֶת to נִגְדֶּרֶת “she is fenced in.” This emendation has to be rejected since it is understandable that one should want the girl to be drawn to her husband and not to the soldier with whom she otherwise would have her first sexual experience. ²⁰³ Sifry Num ²⁰⁴ If everybody does it, it cannot be kept secret. ²⁰⁵ Greek μάγειρος, ὁ, “cook, butcher”. ²⁰⁶ While in biblical Hebrew מִשְׁתֶּה is any festive meal, in rabbinic Hebrew the term is used exclusively for wedding festivities. Since one could not speak of weddings during the persecution, one spoke of the cook. ²⁰⁷ Beror-Ḥayil ²⁰⁸ He taught in Galilee 100 years after the Hadrianic persecution. His family was from Judea, where his father still lived (Niddah

It was stated: “And for a widow 200.²⁰⁹ for a widow, against the explicit testimony of the Mishnah. In the opinion of the Babli, 12a/b, the priestly families tried to enforce this for their daughters but were forced to retract since nobody would take a widow for 200 zuz when he could get a virgin for the same price. The Babli also gives to non-priestly noble families the right to establish the higher tariff as default option for their daughters; the Yerushalmi considers this part of the Mishnah obsolete.” It was stated: “This order applies both to a widow of an Israel²¹⁰ and a widow of a Cohen²¹¹”. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the daughter of a Cohen should collect, for her tribe collects. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should not collect; is it not sufficient that she rose to the priesthood that you say, she should collect? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the other way. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should collect for she rose to the priesthood; the daughter of a Cohen should not collect for she stepped down from the priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, in both cases they demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ The court of Cohanim collected 200 zuz ²¹⁰ The daughter of a Cohen, widow of an Israel. ²¹¹ The daughter of an Israel, widow of a Cohen.

MISHNAH: Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin²¹². She says, I was raped after you had married me preliminarily, so your field was flooded²¹³. He says not so, but it happened before I married you preliminarily; therefore, my acquisition was made in error. Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed²¹⁴ was raped later is stronger than his assertion that maybe she was raped or had consensual sex earlier. If the husband wants to deny her claim, he has to provide evidence.. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she had sexual relations before she was preliminarily married unless she provides proof of her statement²¹⁵ and he does not want to pay at all, she claims money and a claimant in a civil suit carries the burden of proof..

footnotes: ²¹² The fact is not in dispute. ²¹³ Cf. Note 58. ²¹⁴ If neither of them has any corroborating evidence, her claim that she certainly ²¹⁵ Since she claims a ketubah

HALAKHAH: “Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin”, etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that a claim of missing virginity is impossible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer²¹⁶, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a claim of missing virginity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that he found her a virgin and destroyed the evidence. Why should she not be believed²¹⁷? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful¹⁹. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name.. Here you say, she is believed. There, you say that she is not believed. In this case, both agree that the door was open²¹⁸ her to be guilty, has to divorce her irrespective of the real facts behind the case..

footnotes: ²¹⁶ If the court automatically has to side with the woman, how could the husband hope to be heard? ²¹⁷ If she claims to have been a virgin at the time of the final marriage ceremony. ¹⁹ Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah ²¹⁸ In the case of the Mishnah here, the facts are not in dispute, only their explanation is. It is possible to prefer an explanation presented as certain over a presumed argument. But if she denies not being a virgin, he has to assume that she is forbidden to him and, because he thinks

There, we have stated²¹⁹: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua²²⁰? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear²²¹. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these²²². Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof²²³. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects²²⁴: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof²²⁵; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Mishnah 7:8. The groom says that he never would have agreed to the marriage had he known that the bride had a bodily defect; his preliminary marriage was arranged under false pretenses; he wants to withdraw without paying. The father asserts that at the time of the preliminary marriage the bride was without defects, and that “the groom’s field was flooded”. If the disagreement surfaces before the final marriage, the burden of proof is on the father; after that, the burden of proof is on the husband. ²²⁰ Since R. Joshua puts the burden of proof on the wife in the Mishnah here; why is there no disagreement recorded there? ²²¹ For problems that have to be expected, the person in control of the place where they happened is responsible. In Halakhah 7:8, it is stated that in the matter of very frequent defects, the husband can complain if at the start he had stipulated that the bride be free from even the most minute impairment. ²²² Claims for annulment of the marriage because of bodily defects of the bride and because of missing virginity follow identical rules. ²²³ It really is the other way around; in this case the rule about a complaint about virginity is derived from that about defects. If the final marriage ceremony is held at the father’s house, then in case of a blemish the burden of proof would have to be on the father; therefore, for the claim of missing virginity the father has to bring proof that his daughter either was a virgin at the moment of final marriage or lost her virginity in a manner which did not impair the validity of the marriage. ²²⁴ Again, this should be inverted: Rules for claims about blemishes derived from rules of complaints about virginity. ²²⁵ This follows only Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer; it is the only indication that practice should follow Rabban Gamliel (and not R. Joshua against R. Eliezer); this is stated explicitly in the Babli (12b). In the Mishnah here it is agreed that the loss of virginity occured in her father’s house. But since the argument developed after the final marriage in the husband’s house, the burden of proof is on the husband.

MISHNAH: She says²²⁶, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed²¹⁴ was raped later is stronger than his assertion that maybe she was raped or had consensual sex earlier. If the husband wants to deny her claim, he has to provide evidence.. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she was trampled on by a man unless she provides proof of her statement²¹⁵ and he does not want to pay at all, she claims money and a claimant in a civil suit carries the burden of proof..

footnotes: ²²⁶ This Mishnah is a continuation of the previous one; there is no doubt but that the bride was not an intact virgin. ²¹⁴ If neither of them has any corroborating evidence, her claim that she certainly ²¹⁵ Since she claims a ketubah

HALAKHAH: “She says, I was injured by wood,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, that follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]²²⁷ as ketubah but he does not want to give anything. This is the position articulated by R. Huna here. R. Joḥanan holds that she claims 200 but he wants to give only 100.. Rebbi Yose said, we would think to say, when did Rebbi Meïr disagree with those rabbis? If he took her in assuming she was injured by wood. But if he took her in assuming she was a virgin and it turned out she was injured by wood, then even Rebbi Meïr agrees²²⁸, R. Meïr agrees that he can sue to annul the contract., since we have stated: “She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man.” That means, there is a disagreement even if he took her in assuming she was injured by wood²²⁹ of one who claims to have been injured by wood. and she turned out to have been injured by wood. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and my ketubah is 200 [zuz]. He says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and you have no claim on me. What are we talking about? If he married her as a virgin and she turns out to have been injured by wood, Rebbi Meïr will agree²²⁸, R. Meïr agrees that he can sue to annul the contract.. If he married her as one injured by wood and she turns out to have been injured by wood, is there a recognizable difference in the opening of the door between wood or man²³⁰ 9:8, 17a 1.56).? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and so I stipulated with you, but he says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and there was no stipulation between you and me²²⁷ as ketubah but he does not want to give anything. This is the position articulated by R. Huna here. R. Joḥanan holds that she claims 200 but he wants to give only 100..

footnotes: ²²⁷ In the Babli, 13a, R. Eleazar is reported that she claims 100 zuz ²²⁸ If the husband was not informed of the facts when he signed the ketubah ²²⁹ There is agreement among all commentators that this should read: “if he took her in assuming she was a virgin.” But if that were true, R. Jeremiah would say the same as R. Yose. In addition, we know that there is a difference of opinion between R. Meïr and the rabbis about the ketubah ²²⁸ If the husband was not informed of the facts when he signed the ketubah ²³⁰ In that case, the position of Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer is preferable since she holds the contract in her hands and the burden of proof is on the party contesting a written contract (Baba batra ²²⁷ In the Babli, 13a, R. Eleazar is reported that she claims 100 zuz

MISHNAH: If she was seen speaking²³¹ to a man and one asked her, what kind of man is this? He is Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed²³². Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she was lying with a Gibeonite and a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement²³³ 1:1, Note 29) and Gibeonites by tradition (cf. Yebamot 2:4, Note 72). Therefore, a woman sleeping with such a man is a זוָנָה and forbidden to marry a Cohen (Yebamot 6:5, Note 100)..

footnotes: ²³¹ An unmarried woman was seen having an affair with an unknown person. ²³² A single person engaging in sexual activity with a man whom she could marry is still permitted to marry a Cohen. ²³³ Bastards (children of adultery or incest punishable by death by the court or Heaven) are forbidden to marry into the congregation by biblical decree (cf. Yebamot

HALAKHAH: “If she was seen speaking to a man,” etc. What is “speaking”? She had sexual relations²³⁴. Why did we state “speaking”? An expression for the knowing; Rebbi says, of purity.

footnotes: ²³⁴ In the Babli, 13a, this is the opinion of Rav Assi. His (Babylonian) contemporary Ze‘iri explains that R. Joshua already disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood if she had a rendez-vous with an unidentified person.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one²³⁵. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice²³⁶? Would that mean if Rebbi Joḥanan would hold with Rebbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer but Rebbi Joshua²³⁷? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman in empowered²³⁸ Chapter 15). The Babli concurs, 13b.. They wanted to say, when does Rebbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rebbi Joshua will agree²³⁹ that anybody who comes from a group belongs to the majority in that group” (Babli, 15a). In a town where most inhabitants are Gentile, or otherwise disqualified from marrying Jewish women, one would assume that the unidentified man sleeping with that woman was disqualified (siding with R. Joshua), but in a town where she could legally marry most of the men, he would be qualified (siding with Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer).. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rebbi Joshua think that immorality runs after the disabling²⁴⁰? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex²⁴¹ 1:5, N. 82..

footnotes: ²³⁵ Since R. Joshua is a higher authority than either Rabban Gamliel or R. Eliezer, the formulation of the Mishnah as a vote of 2 against 1 is to be read as endorsing the majority opinion. ²³⁶ “Practice” usually means “prior practice”, going back for generations. In that case, the formulation of the Mishnah invites scrutiny whether it really supports a decision. In the Babli, 14a, the situation is resolved by the ruling that “practice follows Rabban Gamliel but one should act only if most people around that woman are qualified”, see Note 239. ²³⁷ If the decision in the Mishnah is problematic a leading Amora, whose opinion would count for nothing against an anonymous Mishnah, could lend his weight to the opposite opinion. ²³⁸ In general, women can testify in court for matters of fact but not in law. But for the personal status of women, the testimony of women is accepted as it is from qualified men (Yebamot ²³⁹ We have a principle that “it may be assumed prima facie ²⁴⁰ If only the disqualified engage in extramarital sex, the unidentified man does not come from the large group of city dwellers, most of whom are qualified, but from the small group of whorers, most of whom are disqualified. Then R. Joshua would be consistent and should be followed. ²⁴¹ The formulation in the Babli (13b) and the Tosephta (1:6) is: “There does not exist a guardian against illicit sex.” In Babli and Tosephta this belongs to R. Joshua’s argument. For Greek ἐπίτροπος “guardian, administrator”, cf. Bikkurim

MISHNAH: If she was pregnant and one asked her, what kind of fetus is this? He is from Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she is pregnant from a Gibeonite or a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement.

HALAKHAH: “If she was pregnant,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity²⁴² 4:1, the child of unknown paternity is barred from intermarrying with qualified Jews and is permitted only marriage with proselytes, freedmen, bastards, Gibeonites, those of unknown paternity, and foundlings.. It was stated thus²⁴³: “Where was this said²⁴⁴, for the testimony of the woman in her own behalf. But everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity.” Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, simply of unknown paternity²⁴⁵! We find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came²⁴⁶ and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest²⁴⁷. 25:13: “A covenant of priesthood it shall be for him and his seed after him”, from which it is inferred that only a Cohen’s child which is recognized as his is a Cohen. In the case under discussion, the child “is silenced from claiming priesthood”..

footnotes: ²⁴² In Mishnah Qiddušin ²⁴³ Tosephta 1:6; Babli 13b. ²⁴⁴ That the woman’s testimony is accepted without corroboration. ²⁴⁵ Since the father is unknown, the child cannot inherit from him. The expression שְׁתוּקִי “silenced one” can be explained as “one silences him if he claims inheritance”. ²⁴⁶ He was not identified by name but certainly was a Cohen. ²⁴⁷ The Babli, 13b, agrees that the child is qualified to marry in the congregation but denies that he is a Cohen, based on Num

Rebbi Eleazar said to him: Is not the dough widow²⁴⁸ qualified but her daughter is disqualified²⁴⁹? He said to him, whoever declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified²⁵⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, did he not say “whoever declares her to be qualified”? This implies that there is another who disqualifies! Who declares qualified? Rebbi Meïr. Who disqualifies? The rabbis. As we have stated²⁵¹ 5:2) and the Babli (14a; Qiddušin 4:4, 66a 1.29), there is no mention of the desecrated, but there is the added category of “king’s slaves”, who were used by the king to run the state and, by their influence and riches, were able to marry Jewish women even if not manumitted. In Jewish tradition (Rashi 14a), Herod was a slave of the Hasmoneans. In the Babli tradition (cf. Otzar haGeonim 8, Ketubot, הפירושים p. 12), the dough widow was a woman who had married a man possibly descending from a desecrated woman. This definition is reproduced by Rashi, 14a. The difference between the Galilean and Babylonian traditions was already highlighted by Rabbenu Hananel (Otzar ha-Geonim l. c., לקוטי פירוש רבינו חננאל p. 12).: What is qualified dough, anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with one of these is qualified for thepriesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared²⁵², Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers²⁵³ 4:4. and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever²⁵⁴.

footnotes: ²⁴⁸ As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known. ²⁴⁹ She carries the possible disabilities of the father’s family. ²⁵⁰ If the daughter might be disqualified then the mother might be desecrated, i. e., her husband might have been the offspring many generations back of a union forbidden to Cohanim. ²⁵¹ In the Tosephta (Qiddušin ²⁵² The nature of the disability was no longer known. ²⁵³ These are really 8 mothers, spanning 3 to 4 generations, enumerated in Mishnah Qiddušin ²⁵⁴ Until he finds the source of the trouble.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira had a different version: Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow²⁴⁸? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified²⁵⁰. They wanted to say, according to Rebbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified²⁴² 4:1, the child of unknown paternity is barred from intermarrying with qualified Jews and is permitted only marriage with proselytes, freedmen, bastards, Gibeonites, those of unknown paternity, and foundlings.; according to Rebbi Joḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; he answered [Rebbi Eleazar] following the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came²⁴⁶ and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest²⁴⁷. 25:13: “A covenant of priesthood it shall be for him and his seed after him”, from which it is inferred that only a Cohen’s child which is recognized as his is a Cohen. In the case under discussion, the child “is silenced from claiming priesthood”..

footnotes: ²⁴⁸ As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known. ²⁵⁰ If the daughter might be disqualified then the mother might be desecrated, i. e., her husband might have been the offspring many generations back of a union forbidden to Cohanim. ²⁴² In Mishnah Qiddušin ²⁴⁶ He was not identified by name but certainly was a Cohen. ²⁴⁷ The Babli, 13b, agrees that the child is qualified to marry in the congregation but denies that he is a Cohen, based on Num

The word of Rebbi Zera²⁵⁵ implies that a child of unknown paternity is qualified, for Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa²⁵⁶: Is it the same for families²⁵⁷4:1 excludes a child of unknown paternity from marrying most Jews. What is the relation of the two Mishnaiot?? He said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There, for families²⁵⁸., but here for sanctified food in the country²⁵⁹. 23:9).. The word of Rebbi Samuel ben [Rav] Isaac implies that a child of unknown paternity is disqualified, for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked: Does this mean that a child of unknown paternity is does not exist following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a child of unknown paternity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that she does not know²⁶⁰.

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ This is the Babylonian spelling of Ze‘ira. ²⁵⁶ It is clear that R. Ze‘ira asked before his teacher R. Yasa, not before his student’s student R. Yose. ²⁵⁷ In the Mishnah, Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer declare than one believes the woman if she says that her child is a Cohen’s. Mishnah Qiddušin ²⁵⁸ If somebody looks after the purity of his blood line, he should follow the Mishnah in Qiddušin ²⁵⁹ “Sanctified food in the country” is heave. The child is empowered to eat heave; this implies that he is qualified for certain aspects of the priesthood (on the model of the local priests in Josiah’s reform, 2K ²⁶⁰ If the mother states that she does not know the identity of the child’s father, the child doubtless is of unknown paternity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose said: It happened that, when a girl was raped while she went to draw water from the spring, Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If most people of the town can marry into the priesthood then she can marry into the priesthood²⁶¹.

footnotes: ²⁶¹ He confirms the principle explained in Note 239, that without proof to the contrary one may assume that an unidentified member of a group belongs to the majority in that group. Therefore, the girl was raped by a man whom she could have married without detriment to her status; the rape does not diminish her status.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said: It happened,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: That happened at the source²⁶² of Sepphoris.

footnotes: ²⁶² Greek κρήνη “well, source” (in the Hebrew transliteration, read י for ו.) The translator of the LXX books of Kings uses the word for בְּרֵיכָה “pond”.In the Babli, 14b/15a, the statement is used in an argument that R. Joshua will agree with R. Yose only in this case when the rape happened at a place where not only the inhabitants of the city but all travelers congregate and it was known that at that point in time only qualified people travelled there. One cannot read the Babli’s interpretation into the Yerushalmi text.

Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim²⁶³. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

footnotes: ²⁶³ The Babli, 15a, disagrees and holds that R. Yose speaks of a very special case, that the rape occured on a market day when many קְרָנוֹת, carriages, came to Sepphoris and it was ascertained that both the majority of inhabitants of Sepphoris and the majority of foreign traders there were acceptable to marry into the priesthood, implying that R. Joshua agrees that no special proof is needed only in case (a) there are two groups and the majority of both is acceptable and (2) the woman was a victim, not a willing partner.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris²⁶⁴. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there²⁶⁵. What about a thoroughfare²⁶⁶ 5:1, Note 56. The thoroughfare is government property even in the town.? Rebbi²⁶⁷ ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi²⁶⁷ ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there²⁶⁸ because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority²⁶⁹. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi²⁶⁷ ‘Olam; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house²⁶⁵. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare²⁷⁰. If Sepphoris was locked²⁷¹. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here²⁷², Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: ²⁷³ 3:4, Notes 93–96; the variant readings are noted ד. The problem is that a person who is careful about the laws of tithing brings his grain to a mill that also serves the ‘am haäreṢ, the person who can be presumed to have given heave but not tithes from his grain. If the miller switches batches, the observant is in trouble. Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose)²⁷⁴, those in parentheses from Ketubot. The text from Demay seems preferable. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread)²⁷⁴, those in parentheses from Ketubot. The text from Demay seems preferable. was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry²⁷⁵.; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies²⁷⁶, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves²⁷⁷. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.²⁷⁸. The quote establishes that there is a presumption that things go wrong, in our case that the rapist was from a family disqualified for the priesthood. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there²⁷⁹.

footnotes: ²⁶⁴ The scene described by the Babli (Note 263) is rejected; it is purely the question of the people of the place. ²⁶⁵ This is based on a statement attributed in the Babli (15a) to R. Ze‘ira: Everything fixed in its place is judged as 50/50. Since the population of the town has fixed residences, if a person was seen coming from one of the houses, he cannot be considered to be from the qualified majority but one considers it only a 50% chance that he be qualified. In this case, R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will agree that the rape victim cannot marry a Cohen. ²⁶⁶ Greek πλατεῖα, cf. Berakhot ²⁶⁷ This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ²⁶⁷ This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ²⁶⁸ On the Sabbath, because for saving a life one violates all prohibitions of the Torah (except murder, incest and adultery, and idolatry). ²⁶⁹ One searches for victims only if the majority of the users are Jewish or at least known not to be idolators. ²⁶⁷ This must be “Rav”. He is the early Amora Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, presenting a tradition of R. Yose the Tanna. He might be one of the editors of R. Yose’s Seder ²⁶⁵ This is based on a statement attributed in the Babli (15a) to R. Ze‘ira: Everything fixed in its place is judged as 50/50. Since the population of the town has fixed residences, if a person was seen coming from one of the houses, he cannot be considered to be from the qualified majority but one considers it only a 50% chance that he be qualified. In this case, R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will agree that the rape victim cannot marry a Cohen. ²⁷⁰ Since the thoroughfare is a Roman military road, it may be assumed that the majority of users are not qualified to marry Cohanim. ²⁷¹ If the rape happened in the night, when the gates of Sepphoris are locked, by the argument of Note 265 there is no majority of qualified people and the rapist would have to be identified in order to permit his victim to marry into the priesthood. ²⁷² In the Mishnah. ²⁷³ The following sentences are from Demay ²⁷⁴ The words in brackets are from Demay ²⁷⁴ The words in brackets are from Demay ²⁷⁵ He has to tithe a second time under the rules of demay ²⁷⁶ If the travelling Arabs buy once from unobservant Jews, one has to assume that they always do, and that the grain they sell is not exempt Gentile produce. ²⁷⁷ Since they are itinerant sellers they have to buy provisions all the time. But the farmer mills once for his entire season. ²⁷⁸ End of the quote from Demay ²⁷⁹ This conclusion differs from the position of the Babli (Note 263) but not by much: One can qualify the rape victim only if the gates of the city were not locked and the perpetrator was not seen coming from a fixed place; that the group from which he came was not composed of locals only (Note 265).

“And everything found is judged by a majority.”²⁸⁰ 6:1). In difficult cases the rabbis compare this²⁸¹ to crawling things²⁸². 11:29–30 contains a list of “crawling things”, mostly reptiles, whose cadaver is a source of impurity. The only cadavers that produce impurity are those of crawling things and mammals., as it was stated²⁸³ is in the Babli 15a, Niddah 18a and Tosephta Tahorot 6:2.: “Nine frogs and one crawling thing²⁸⁴ in a private domain²⁸⁵ 1:2, Note 88., if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands²⁸⁶. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them²⁸⁷ of Abot. and their words; do not compare this²⁸⁸ to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure²⁸⁹. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words; is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rebbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain²⁹⁰.

footnotes: ²⁸⁰ This sentence does not really belong here but is an intrusion from the Tosephta quoted in the sequel. It is also quoted in the Babli, 15a, in the same context. What is meant here is that a find is pure if most things in town are pure, otherwise it is impure. In principle, this can also be applied to permitted or prohibited things: If 9 stores in town sell kosher meat and 1 non-kosher, then any meat found on the street can be considered as kosher (Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagrees, Tosephta Tahorot ²⁸¹ The status of the rape victim. ²⁸² Lev ²⁸³ A shorter version of this baraita ²⁸⁴ They are all dead; the dead frogs do not carry impurity. ²⁸⁵ Questions of doubt in matters of ritual impurity must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in private domains and a presumption of purity in public domains; cf. Soṭah ²⁸⁶ This is not rational, since the place where the object was found should be of importance. ²⁸⁷ The Sages. A similar expression in the heading of the baraita ²⁸⁸ The case of the raped girl whose disqualification would be a case of impurity. ²⁸⁹ Even against all probabilities. ²⁹⁰ The difference between public and private domains is not in the ownership but in accessibility. A cave in the public domain has the status of private domain. Rav Ḥisda is justified; this kind of argument is not relevant to explain the relation of Mishnah 10 to Mishnaiot 8,9.

It happened that a baby girl was noticed who had been thrown on a garbage heap. The case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said, she should be adjoined to dough¹²⁹¹. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, to qualified dough, would Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagree with his father²⁹²? Rebbi Yose said, even if you say to disqualified dough, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose would not disagree with his father. Why? While the qualified whore, only the disqualified throw away²⁹³.

footnotes: ¹ As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known. ²⁹¹ She should be adopted by a family of questionable status. ²⁹² He said that in a town of mostly qualified families, the children are automatically qualified. ²⁹³ Therefore, that baby is from a group of mostly unqualified children.