MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired¹ in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money², or by a document³, or by intercourse⁴.rabba45(5), 51(11); Pesiqta rabbati 42, p. 177].. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar⁵ or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa⁶ was a small Hasmonean copper coin which disappeared with the end of the Jewish commonwealth, more than 100 years before the compilation of the Mishnah. Therefore, its value has to be defined in terms of Roman coins.? One eighth of an Italic assarius⁷ is the old name of the Roman as. In rabbinic practice, a peruṭa is defined as half a grain (¹/960 of a troy oz. or 0.0324 g) of sterling silver.. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law⁸. is acquired⁹ by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹ In matters of criminal law, any relations the woman might have with another man would be adultery. The husband cannot live with his wife (and does not acquire any dowry she might bring with her) unless he accepts the financial responsibilities incumbent upon a husband in a public ceremony, attended by at least 10 witnesses (cf. Peah 6:2, Note 46). The acquisition, or betrothal, mentioned here only needs the presence of two witnesses. ² The woman agrees to be preliminarily married for a monetary consideration given in the presence of two witnesses. ³ A written promise of marriage. ⁴ Attested to by two witnesses. It is enough for the witnesses to confirm that the parties were together in a locked bedroom for a period of time sufficient for intercourse. Since one speaks of preliminary marriage, the couple is in principle forbidden to live together after such intercourse and before the definitive marriage. There is a midrashic doctrine that no woman can become pregnant from her first intercourse unless she had lesbian or autoerotic experiences [Gen ⁵ A Roman silver denar; under Augustus and his first successors about 3.5 g of silver. ⁶ The peruṭa ⁷ Corresponding to 1/192 of a denar. Assarius ⁸ The widow of a brother who died childless; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot ⁹ In definitive marriage. By biblical standards there is no preliminary levirate marriage. ¹⁰ Before she entered the levirate marriage. Once she is married, she is a wife in all respects and regains her autonomy by divorce or widowhood.

HALAKHAH: “A wife may be acquired in three ways,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Either by money, or by document, or by intercourse. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated as follows: Not only by all three together, but even by any one of them.

By money, from where? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.¹¹. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases. By marital relations, from where? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse¹². 24:1: “After a man takes a wife and has marital relations with her” is the preamble to the rules of divorce. The verse is read to mean: “After a man buys and/or has marital relations with a woman, if he desires to terminate the relationship he is required to follow the rules of divorce.” Since there is no divorce without a preceding marriage, it follows that acquiring a wife by money and/or intercourse establishes marriage by biblical standards.. I would say, by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money, from where? ¹³ 3:6 (Notes 88–92). The man who sleeps with a virgin preliminarily married to another man is stoned; one who sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin is strangled. Since the verse mentions only intercourse, it is deduced that even if no money was given, the girl is legally bound to her husband and the seducer or rapist is executed for adultery. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Think of it, even if he did only acquire her by intercourse, the one coming after him is [executed] by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse¹⁴. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband¹⁵? As we have stated there¹⁶ 7:15.: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled¹⁷.”

footnotes: ¹¹ Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Gen ¹² Babli 9b. Deut ¹³ This elliptic statement is shortened from Ketubot ¹⁴ Sex play which leads to satisfaction without penetration and ejaculation. ¹⁵ If the verse was simply intended to state that the punishment of the adulterer with a non-virgin is different from that with a virgin, it would not have mentioned “her husband”. The husband makes his wife a non-virgin even by perverse intercourse, any other man only by penetration. ¹⁶ Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁷ If the first one penetrated her.

So we learned intercourse without money. Money without intercourse, from where? “She shall go free, without money.” “If he did acquire another one.”¹⁸. 21:11,10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife. Since one was by money, so the other is by money¹⁹.Simeon bar Ioḥai (p. 167) the argument is inverted: Since in general a woman may be acquired by a document, so Hebrew slave girls may be acquired by a document..

footnotes: ¹⁸ Ex ¹⁹ In Mekhilta dR

By a document? “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.²⁰. 24:1.” It brackets her being with her leaving²¹ 15b, Sukkah25a, Ketubot 47a, Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

footnotes: ²⁰ Deut ²¹ Babli 5a, Erubin

Rebbi Abin said that Ḥisqiah stated: ²². 268; Babli 4b.“After he acquires,” which means that she is acquired by money¹¹. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases.. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus?²³ Since the Hebrew slave girl, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by money, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, should be acquired by money? This is proved²⁴” because the rules are not comparable. by the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money but is acquired by intercourse⁹. Therefore you would not be astonished if this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, might not be acquired by money. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money²⁵.

footnotes: ²² Sifry Deut ¹¹ Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Gen ²³ Then the verse would be redundant. ²⁴ In these kinds of arguments, “proves” means “disproves the possibility of an argument de minore ad majus ⁹ In definitive marriage. By biblical standards there is no preliminary levirate marriage. ²⁵ The verse is necessary to understand the rules.

²⁶. 268; Babli 5a. The argument is completely parallel to that of the preceding paragraph.“And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money, can be acquired by intercourse, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by money, should be acquired by intercourse? The Hebrew slave girl proves²⁴” because the rules are not comparable., who cannot be acquired by intercourse but is acquired by money. You likewise do not wonder that this one, who may be acquired by money, might not be acquired by intercourse. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money; “and has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse.

footnotes: ²⁶ Sifry Deut ²⁴ In these kinds of arguments, “proves” means “disproves the possibility of an argument de minore ad majus

²². 268; Babli 4b. By a document. Since money which does not send out permits to enter, would it not be logical that a document which sends out should permit to enter²⁷? No. If you speak about money which eliminates dedication through redemption²⁸, what can you say about a document which does not eliminate dedication through redemption²⁹? The argument de minore ad majus is broken and you have to return to Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.²⁰. 24:1.” It brackets her being with her leaving²¹ 15b, Sukkah25a, Ketubot 47a, Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

footnotes: ²² Sifry Deut ²⁷ Money is used in preliminary marriage, to permit the woman to enter her husband’s family. Money cannot be used for divorce; the wife cannot pay the husband as a formal means of divorce. ²⁸ All valuables dedicated to the Temple regain their profane status by redemption when that money is given to the Temple treasury, and in no other way. ²⁹ Dedications cannot be redeemed by an I.O.U. ²⁰ Deut ²¹ Babli 5a, Erubin

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession³⁰ are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot5:5, Note 100. As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law. A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”. A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse³¹. 25:46. says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

footnotes: ³⁰ His proof that arguments de minore ad majus ³¹ Lev

So far for Israel. For the Gentiles? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar³².rabba 18(8), a parallel source for this and the following paragraphs: R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan.: It is written³³. 20:3, speaking to the Gentile Abimelech. “you shall die because of the woman whom you took, since she is having marital relations with a husband.” They are guilty for those having marital relations; they are not guilty for the betrothed³⁴ 57b.. The words of Rebbi Eleazar imply, only if he had intention of acquiring her; the words of Samuel imply, even if he had no intention of acquiring her; since Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Samuel³⁵.rabba: “Rebbi Samuel.” For chronological reasons, and also because he is quoted after R. Eleazar, the reading of Gen.rabba is the only acceptable one.: “A prostitute stands in a window³⁶. Two men sleep with her. The first one³⁷ is not killed, the second one is killed because of him³⁸.” But did the first one intend to acquire her³⁹.rabba 18(8) only R. Samuel’s opinion is quoted, with the addition that “for Gentiles, intercourse acquires automatically.”?

footnotes: ³² In Gen ³³ Gen ³⁴ Babli, Sanhedrin ³⁵ In Gen ³⁶ To attract customers. ³⁷ Who deflowers her. In R. Samuel’s opinion, a Gentile marriage can be contracted only by intercourse and there is no divorce. Therefore, a free woman is automatically married to the man who deflowers her and any subsequent intercourse with any other man (during the first man’s lifetime) is adultery. ³⁸ As an adulterer. In his theory, a Gentile can sleep without guilt only with a wife whom he married as a virgin, or a chaste widow, or a servile prostitute who as a slave cannot marry. ³⁹ According to R. Eleazar, Gentiles can be married only by mutual consent. Then they also can repudiate the marriage.In Gen

“A man.” Why does the verse⁴⁰. 18:5: “Any man to any blood relation shall not come to uncover nakedness.” Parallel interpretations are in the Babli, Sanhedrin57b; Sifra Aḥare Pereq 13(1). say, “any man”? To include that Gentiles who committed adultery or incest⁴¹ by Gentile rules should be judged by Gentile law, but if they committed adultery with a Jewishwoman, one judges them by Jewish law. Rebbi Eleazar said, of all of them there is only the Jewish betrothed⁴² 57b, this also is a statement of R. Joḥanan., for if he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty, with a betrothed Gentile woman he cannot be prosecuted. If he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty. How is he found to be guilty? By their rules or by Jewish rules? If you say by Jewish rules, by two witnesses⁴³. 19:15., 23 judges⁴⁴ 1:4., after warning⁴⁵ 3:4, Note 121., and by stoning. If you say by their rules, by one witness, one judge, without warning, and by the sword⁴⁶. The corrector wrote בהונקו. No root הנק is known..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Lev ⁴¹ עֶרְוָה “nakedness”, abbreviated for גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה “uncovering of nakedness”, is the legal term for “incest and/or adultery”. ⁴² The Gentile cannot commit incest with a Jewish partner since he has no family relationship with her. If he commits adultery with a married woman, he is guilty under Gentile law. The only case is intercourse with a preliminarily married woman, which is adultery in Jewish law but a relationship with an unmarried woman by Gentile standards.In the Babli, Sanhedrin ⁴³ Deut ⁴⁴ Mishnah Sanhedrin ⁴⁵ Cf. Soṭah ⁴⁶ Reading of the editio princeps

⁴⁷.rabba 34(19) where from Gen. 9:6 it is inferred that Gentiles are executed by the sword. The verse reads: שוֹפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ “He who spills a human’s blood, by humans his blood shall be spilled.” Then the question arises whether a murderer who kills by strangling can be prosecuted under Noahide law. To this, R. Jehudah bar Simon gives a positive answer by reading the verse as: “He who spills a human’s blood within a human, his blood shall be spilled.” [In the Babli, Sanhedrin 57b, R. Ismael is quoted as deducing that for a Gentile, the killing of a foetus, a “human within a human”, is a capital crime. In rabbinic law, abortion is not prosecutable and is even required if the mother’s life is at risk (Mishnah Ahilut 7:6).] Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi added one who strangles, as a separate offense. What is the reason? For “blood in a human.”

footnotes: ⁴⁷ This does not belong here; except for the name, it is the corrector’s text taken from Gen

If you say, by Jewish rules, he⁴⁸ is guilty if he converted. If you say, by their rules, he cannot be prosecuted if he converted, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a descendant of Noah who blasphemed and then converted cannot be prosecuted since the law changed for him⁴⁹ 71b.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The descendants of Noah are warned about nakedness⁴¹ as Jews are⁵⁰.rabba 18(8), Babli Sanhedrin 58b.; ⁵¹. 2:24. Cf. Gen.rabba 18(8), Babli Sanhedrin 57b. the verse says, “he shall cling to his wife”, not to somebody else’s wife. “He shall cling to his wife”, not to a male, nor to an animal⁵². 20:12 it is inferred that the uterine half-sister also is forbidden.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A descendant of Noah who had perverse intercourse⁵³ with his wife is killed. What is the reason? “He shall cling to his wife so they become one flesh,” at the place where they together create one flesh⁵⁴.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The Gentile who had raped a preliminarily married virgin, mentioned in the paragraph before the last. ⁴⁹ Nobody can be convicted under a law which did not apply to him at the moment the criminal act was committed. Since after conversion, Jewish law applies to him, he cannot be prosecuted for prior crimes. The Babli agrees, Sanhedrin ⁴¹ עֶרְוָה “nakedness”, abbreviated for גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה “uncovering of nakedness”, is the legal term for “incest and/or adultery”. ⁵⁰ Gen ⁵¹ Gen ⁵² In addition, it is deduced there that the wording “father and mother” prohibits incest of father with daughter or stepdaughter, and son with mother or father’s wife. From Gen ⁵³ Any sex play which does not include penetration and ejaculation. ⁵⁴ Any intercourse which excludes the possibility of creating a pregnancy is sinful, except regular intercourse with one’s pregnant wife.

Rebbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching”⁵⁵, 4:2 Note 59; 6:1, Note 11 ff.) a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman⁵⁶. 20:18 that in the case of the menstruating woman, “touching” establishes the criminality of the act. Therefore, for Jews “touching” is the equivalent of completed intercourse in criminal law. The Babli, Yebamot 54b, seems to reject the equation of bestiality with homosexual activity.? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rebbi Mana said, not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ If the two persons’ genitals are touching. This is the definition of a sex act for criminal and marriage laws (Yebamot ⁵⁶ Not the prohibition, but the technicalities which make the act prosecutable. It is spelled out in Lev

So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi and Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rebbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.⁵⁷. 2:16, speaking of the person divorcing his first wife without necessity.” In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, did lend his name only to Jewish divorce.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Mal

The word of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya implies that Gentiles have no divorce⁵⁸, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this matter⁵⁹.rabba 18(8).: A Gentile who divorced his wife, who herself then went and married another, when the latter divorced her and then both of them⁶⁰ converted, I do not read⁶¹.rabba איני for אני. for them: “Her first husband who had divorced her cannot return to marry her.” It was stated in this matter: A case came before Rebbi and he approved⁶².

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Not that divorce were impossible for Gentiles but that Gentile divorce does not have the legal implications of Jewish divorce. ⁵⁹ Gen ⁶⁰ The first husband and the wife. ⁶¹ Reading with Gen ⁶² He lets the first husband remarry the divorced wife who, while Gentile, had another husband.

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah⁷ is the old name of the Roman as. In rabbinic practice, a peruṭa is defined as half a grain (¹/960 of a troy oz. or 0.0324 g) of sterling silver., but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth⁶³ (interpretation of R. Nissim Gerondi).. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect⁶⁴: “Not only a document which is worth a peruṭah since a woman can have herself preliminarily married by anything which is worth a peruṭah. But even if he wrote it on an ostrakon or on papyrus⁶⁵ and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

footnotes: ⁷ Corresponding to 1/192 of a denar. Assarius ⁶³ Since betrothal by document is deduced from divorce by document (Note 21), if the document was invalid because it was not written for the specific woman for whom it was used, the preliminary marriage would be effected if and only if the material used for the document was worth a peruṭah ⁶⁴ Tosephta 1:2. ⁶⁵ The document must only read: הרי את מקודשת לי “you are preliminarily married to me”. It is possible to write it on a snippet of paper worth less than a penny.

If he wrote it⁶⁶ on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin⁶⁷ vol. 1, #603, reads: Zenon. stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced⁶⁸ 20a, which also states as undisputed Galilean rule that a divorce document may be written on material forbidden for usufruct. By implication, a declaration of marriage also may be written on such material.. Rebbi Eleazar⁶⁹.cit., reads “R. Eliezer.” said, she is not divorced⁷⁰. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced²¹ 15b, Sukkah25a, Ketubot 47a, Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words⁷¹. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah⁷² 12b, Menaḥot 79b,102b, Keritut 24b, Temurah 23a) that anything which must be burned by biblical command is legally considered ashes even if not burned.. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime⁷³. 23:18, 34:25. For R. Meïr it is a rabbinic decree; biblical prohibition of leavened matter only starts shortly before nightfall on the fourteenth (Pesaḥim 1:4, 27c 1. 48 ff.). Why does R. Meïr invalidate a preliminary marriage document for which material was used which is only rabbinically prohibited for usufruct?? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage⁷⁴, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah⁷⁵! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler⁷⁶ (in the Babli, Giṭṭin 20b, the example is a single leaf of an olive tree) can be used together with other materials as stuffing. Material forbidden for ususfruct cannot be used for anything..

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The declaration of marriage. ⁶⁷ Rashba, Responsa ⁶⁸ Quoted as anonymous statement in the Babli, Giṭṭin ⁶⁹ Rashba, loc ⁷⁰ This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. Rashba holds that the Babli, which simply quotes the rule without discussion, by reference incorporates the Yerushalmi discussion and decision. ²¹ Babli 5a, Erubin ⁷¹ Material permitted by biblical law, only forbidden by rabbinic rules. ⁷² Most material prohibited for ususfruct by biblical law must be burned or otherwise disposed of. It seems that the authorities quoted follow the opinion, not mentioned in the Yerushalmi and attributed in the Babli to R. Simeon as minority opinion (Pesaḥim ⁷³ According to everybody, leavened matter in possession of a Jew is forbidden for usufruct after noontime on Passover eve, the 14th of Nisan. For the majority, this is a biblical decree, derived from Ex ⁷⁴ Since material rabbinically prohibited for usufruct has no monetary value, it cannot be used as a gift for preliminary marriage. It is possible that R. Meïr would validate a marriage by text written on paper sized with a solution of flour in water executed on Passover eve. ⁷⁵ If used as writing material, rather than for its intrinsic worth. ⁷⁶ Material not worth a peruṭah

⁷⁷ 6:1 (36d, 11. 21–50, ו). There, we have stated: “A judicial oath⁷⁸. 22:8 for a person denying a claim when neither he nor the claimant have proof. The defendant can be made to swear only if he admits that at least one peruṭah’s worth of the claim is true; cf. Ketubot 2:1, Note 12 (Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin2)., for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus⁷⁹, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There⁸⁰ 1:1. The formulation shows that the origin of the text is in Ševuot., they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There⁸⁰ 1:1. The formulation shows that the origin of the text is in Ševuot., they say, “money” is a peruṭah, but here, they say that “money” is two obols. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The house of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl¹⁸. 21:11,10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife.. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar⁸¹. 21:7–11, that the person buying an underage Hebrew girl is supposed to marry her when she grows up, or to marry her to his son. The money given for her services is at the same time the money for preliminary marriage. The House of Shammai hold that the original buying price, which later is shown to be at least a silver denar, is the bridal money used for the legal acquisition of the girl as preliminarily wedded wife. The House of Hillel hold that only the amount not amortized by the girl’s work in the meantime is bridal money. Since the master can marry the girl even on the last day of her servitude, he can marry her for a peruṭah’s worth and, as shown before, he can marry any other woman also for a peruṭah’s worth.. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution⁸². 21:8 states that “if she is bad in her master’s eyes, who does not intend her for himself, let her be redeemed”, it is concluded that the Hebrew girl-servant can be redeemed during her servitude, in contrast to the Hebrew indentured servant who has to serve his full six years. Since it is prescribed for the Hebrew servant of a Gentile master that he can be redeemed by paying off the proportion of his original price not amortized by the time spent in servitude (Lev. 25:50), the same must hold for the servant girl. As long as she still is a servant, the redemption price is at least a peruṭah.. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah¹⁸. 21:11,10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife.. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver⁸³. 21:11. At the end of six years, the master cannot ask for money to let her go..” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”⁸⁴? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵. So why is it not an obolus? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolus and leaves⁸⁶. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah⁸⁷.? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left, and at the end of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolus, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah⁸⁸ since the House of Shammai consider the original sum as bride-money, cf. Note 81. The Yerushalmi’s interpretation of the House of Shammai is explicitly rejected in the Babli, 12a.! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah¹. 21:7–11, that the person buying an underage Hebrew girl is supposed to marry her when she grows up, or to marry her to his son. The money given for her services is at the same time the money for preliminary marriage. The House of Shammai hold that the original buying price, which later is shown to be at least a silver denar, is the bridal money used for the legal acquisition of the girl as preliminarily wedded wife. The House of Hillel hold that only the amount not amortized by the girl’s work in the meantime is bridal money. Since the master can marry the girl even on the last day of her servitude, he can marry her for a peruṭah’s worth and, as shown before, he can marry any other woman also for a peruṭah’s worth.⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The original of this and the following paragraphs is in Šebuot ⁷⁸ The oath required by Ex ⁷⁹ One sixth of a drachma identified with the imperial silver denar. ⁸⁰ Mishnah Qiddušin ⁸⁰ Mishnah Qiddušin ¹⁸ Ex ⁸¹ It is clear from the biblical text, Ex ⁸² Since Ex ¹⁸ Ex ⁸³ Ex ⁸⁴ Since “gratis” means “without payment”. ⁸⁵ Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin. ⁸⁶ Since she serves for six years, her price must be a six-fold multiple of a silver coin. This determines the drachma as the minimum price. ⁸⁷ And be bought at the start for 6 peruṭot ⁸⁸ This argument is correctly missing in Šebuot ¹ It is clear from the biblical text, Ex ⁸⁹ The Šebuot text has here an additional text similar to the text used in Qiddušin in the discussion of the House of Shammai: הַגַּע עַצְמְךָ שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר שָׁם שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ מְגָרָעַתּוֹ וְיוֹצָא. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּרוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה אַף קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. "Think of it, if there is one peruṭah's worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is a peruṭah."

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written⁹⁰. 22:6. The verse is the introduction to the judicial oath prescribed in v. 8 (cf. Note 78) and establishes the parameters of judicial intervention. The arguments in this paragraph are to some extent paralleled in Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 199.: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”⁹¹. 5:26. One of the topics treated in Lev. 5:20–26 is the guilt of the person swearing falsely the oath required in Ex. 22:8. For the translation of the verbal root אשם as “to incur liability”, cf. J. Milgram, Leviticus1–16, Anchor Bible 1991, pp. 339–345 (the author does not refer to the rabbinic texts.) Since restitution is possible only by payment, anything worth less than the smallest coin cannot be restituted: There can be no oath for a residual claim not worth a peruṭah (Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 23, end.)? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?)⁹². From there, that it should be more than silver⁹³. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two⁹⁴ 2:5, Note 90., also “money” is two⁹⁵ 39b.. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels⁹⁶.Simeon ben Ioḥai (Note 90). There it is argued that since silver is mined from the earth, also “vessels” should be restricted to those made from terrestrial material, to exclude anything coming from the sea (either from seaweed or fish skin). R. Jehudah reads כֵּלִים as כְּלֵי יַם “objects from the sea” (explanation of J. N. Epstein). E. Z. Melamed also reports there that J. N. Epstein, in his personal copy of the Yerushalmi, emended the parallel reading in Šebuot, כלי חרס “clay vessels”, into כלי חרם “fisherman’s netting”, which might have been made from material grown in the sea. (The reading כלי חרס makes no sense, since clay vessels are always understood if “vessel” is used without qualifier in biblical texts and do not need to be defined through additions. In the Babli, Zebaḥim 22a, anything grown in water is considered water.) “All kinds of vessels” includes vessels made from marine material.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty⁹⁷ 40b, points out that Samuel must hold that the “vessels” quoted in the verse refer to any vessels, irrespective of their value.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth⁹⁸ 39b, *s. v.*מה).. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Ex ⁹¹ Lev ⁹² This text is an intrusion from the parallel discussion in the preceding paragraph; it is correctly missing in Šebuot ⁹³ The argument seems to be that nobody will give a worthless thing to be watched over. If the verse emphasizes “silver” or “money”, it must mean more than the minimum. ⁸⁵ Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin. ⁹⁴ An indeterminate plural always means its minimum, 2. Cf. Niddah ⁹⁵ Babli 11b, Šebuot ⁹⁶ This argument can only be understood by reference to Mekhilta dR ⁹⁷ The Babli, Šebuot ⁹⁸ Since otherwise the court could not take cognizance of the case, Note 91 (quoted in Tosephot Šebuot

⁹⁹ 1:6, Notes 243–261(א). It seems that the Yebamot text is the original.“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and someone who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, and someone who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and a woman who receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second [gives her afterwards)] for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and her child by the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and her child by the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai say unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed their own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ The text of this paragraph and the one following is from Yebamot

⁹⁹ 1:6, Notes 243–261(א). It seems that the Yebamot text is the original. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wanted to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgress the words of the House of Hillel are deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: Both of them are the words of God, but practice follows the House of Hillel. Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rebbi Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ The text of this paragraph and the one following is from Yebamot

“How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: ¹⁰⁰ 44b, Tosephta Baba batra 5:11. The as is¹/24 of a silver denar; the silver denar is¹/24 of a gold denar¹⁰¹. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus¹⁰²”. is two as. A pondius¹⁰³.” is two semisses. An as¹⁰⁴”. is two quadrantes¹⁰⁵, ¼ of an as... A semis¹⁰⁶”. The final list reads: 1 denar = 6 oboli = 12 dupondii = 24 as = 48 semisses = 96 quadrantes = 192 peruṭot (confirming the tannaïtic standard of the peruṭah as ¹/8 of an as, Mishnah Idiut 4:7). In the Roman system, the obolus appears as a weight, rather than a coin: one-sixth of a denar of 3.6 g. is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is¹/32 of the above¹⁰⁷ is 1/32 of an obolus.” In the entire list, the first entry in each sentence has to be replaced by the next smaller unit and למעלה by מעה..”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Babli Baba meṣia‘ ¹⁰¹ In Imperial coinage, the gold denar was usually counted for 25 silver denarii. ¹⁰² This has to read: “a dupondius ¹⁰³ This has to read: “an as ¹⁰⁴ This has to read: “a semis ¹⁰⁵ Greek κοδράντης, equivalent of Roman quadrans ¹⁰⁶ This has to read: “a quadrans ¹⁰⁷ This has to read: “A peruṭah

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in the days of Rebbi Simai¹⁰⁸ and our teachers they made it¹⁰⁹.¹/24 of an obolus, as it was stated: ¹⁰⁰ 44b, Tosephta Baba batra 5:11.“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, three dodrantes¹¹⁰ are an obolus, two besses¹¹¹ are a dodrans, two semisses are a bes, two peruṭot a semis. It results in¹/24 of an obolus¹¹²200-400,Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974, pp. 78–80, conjectures that the change in computation of a peruṭah from 1/32 to 1/24 of an obolus was a rabbinic response to Caracalla’s monetary reform which increased the ratio of silver to gold from 12:1 to 9:1. The argument is purely theoretical since the peruṭah as a coin disappeared with the Jewish Commonwealth..”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. “Our teachers” therefore refers to Rebbi. ¹⁰⁹ The peruṭah ¹⁰⁰ Babli Baba meṣia‘ ¹¹⁰ Latin for ¾ of any measure. ¹¹¹ Latin for 2/3 of any measure. ¹¹² D. Sperber, Roman Palestine

Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana¹¹³. Rebbi Ḥanina says, bronze remained in its place¹¹⁴, silver increased or decreased in value. Rebbi Mana said, silver remained in its place¹¹⁴, bronze increased or decreased in value. In Rebbi Ḥanina’s opinion, with one as six women always can contract a preliminary marriage. In Rebbi Mana’s opinion, sometimes six, sometimes eight¹¹⁵ 2:6–7). In R. Mana’s opinion, the groom has to deliver merchandise (including copper coin considered as merchandise) in the actual value of a peruṭah. In terms of the silver as, not in circulation after Nero’s time, he can use one silver coin for as many women as the as can buy peruṭot. In R. Ḥanina’s opinion, since women cannot be expected to be cognizant of the current value of silver on the metals exchange, the women can be sure that the as represents the value promised them only at the historical minimum value of silver. (The explanations of the classical commentaries have to be rejected since they require a switching of the names in addition to emending the text. The relation of coins to the mint standard, whether they are treated as money or merchandise, is the topic of Baba meṣi‘a, Chapter 4.).

footnotes: ¹¹³ They probably are R. Ḥanania of Sepphoris and R. Mana II, of the last Amoraïm. After Diocletian’s reform, with the gold standard universally accepted, they discuss the legal standard in the inflationary period of the last Severans and the following military anarchy when the government paid its debt in adulterated silver coin but required taxes to be paid in genuine silver coin. ¹¹⁴ I. e., is the monetary standard. ¹¹⁴ I. e., is the monetary standard. ¹¹⁵ It is assumed that a man can deliver a coin to a goup of women as payment for his preliminary marriage to all of them (Mishnah Qiddušin

Ḥilfai said¹¹⁶ in talmudic discussions; cf. Ketubot 6:7, Note 113.: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita¹¹⁷. from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “A tetradrachma are four denar.” He said to them, we also have stated¹¹⁸ 4:4.: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar¹¹⁹.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it¹²⁰ 4:3. Since “silver coin” means “smallest silver coin”, i. e., an obolus, and it was established that a denar was a quarter tetradrachma, it follows that a silver denar was 6 obols. These and smaller denominations had long disappeared from circulation in Ḥilfai’s time, towards the middle of the Third Century. (Cf. Note 85.): “Fraud¹²¹ is four silver coins for twenty-four silver coins, a tetradrachma, one sixth of the selling price.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two dupondii are an obolus.” He said to them, we also have stated thus¹²² 7:1. If somebody dedicates his field to the Temple, Scripture prescribes that he redeem it proportional to the numbers of years to the next Jubilee. The full rate, for the entire 49 yars of a Jubilee cycle, is 50 šeqel for a field on which a ḥomer (or kur, 30 se’ah) of barley can be sown (75’000 square cubits). Talmudic theory identifies the biblical šeqel with the Roman tetradrachma, which is slightly more than the standard šeqel documented from First Kingdom times, 11.4 g. Since in the vernacular the zūz, the Babylonian half-šeqel, was identified with the Roman denarius, the “sheqel” was identified as two denar. This gave rise to the theory that the biblical “holy šeqel”, which simply was “the king’s weight” and still the Tyrian šeqel in Roman times, was twice the profane šeqel. The rate to be paid for the standard field per year therefore was ⁵⁰/49 = 1 ¹/49 tetradrachma. The rate stated in the Mishnah is 1 ¹/48 tetradrachma. The small difference, 1/48 - 1/49 is qolbon (κόλλυβος, Latin collybus,collubus, “exchange of coins; rate of exchange”), the small coin paid as agio to the money-changer to convert the sum into actual coin. The Mishnah shows that a dupondius was 1/48 of a tetradrachma or half an obolus.: “He gives a tetradrachma and a dupondius per year.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two as are a dupondius”. He said to them, we also have stated thus123 4:8, Note 130.: “He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two semisses are an as, two quadrantes are a semis, two peruṭot are a quadrans.” He said to them, we also have stated thus¹²⁴ and as.: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ At many places, he is quoted as opposing the use of baraitot ¹¹⁷ A paradigm for the later Tosephta, in the present case the two preceding baraitot ¹¹⁸ Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a ¹¹⁹ He accepts a coin as of full weight if it deviates from the standard by no more than 1/24, i. e. 4.167%, in contrast to commercial contracts which are fraudulent only if the customer was overcharged by more than 1/6, 16.667%. In any case, the Mishnah states clearly that the deficiency admissible for a tetradrachma is four times that of a denar. {Cf. Trimalchio’s remark that the profession of banker is one of the most difficult since he must be able to recognize the inferior metal of a coin beneath its silver coating (E. G.)} ¹²⁰ Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a ¹²¹ Overcharging or underpaying in commercial contracts. ¹²² Mishnah ‘Arakhin ¹²⁴ Mishnah 1:1. While the Mishnah does not state anything about the intermediate denominations, it clearly defines the relation between peruṭah

¹²⁵“She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce,” as it is written¹²⁶. 24:1. The part not quoted and v. 2 make it clear that the divorcee is free to contract another marriage.: “He shall write her a bill of divorce.” “Or the husband’s death,” as it is written: “Or if the latter husband dies.¹²⁷. 24:3. Since the widow cannot remarry her first husband, it is clear that she can marry any other man.” So far, if the latter one dies, [what about] the death of the former¹²⁸? Since the latter’s death releases her, even though his death does not cause a complete release¹²⁹, it is only logical that the former’s death should release her since his death will cause a complete release¹³⁰. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the verse implies that death releases, as it is written: “If brothers live together and one of them dies childless, etc.¹³¹. 25:5. Since the verse prohibits remarriage of the widow outside the family, it implies that the widow of a man who had children is free to marry according to her wishes.” Therefore, if he had a child, death releases. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if you would say that death does not release, how could we find a widow for a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah for a common priest¹³²? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, explain it for a sister-in-law¹³³.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ A parallel but different discussion is in the Babli, 13b. ¹²⁶ Deut ¹²⁷ Deut ¹²⁸ Which is not mentioned in the verse. ¹²⁹ The former husband becomes forbidden. He was permitted after his divorce and before her second marriage. ¹³⁰ The divorcee is free to marry any man not forbidden to her by incest or holiness prohibitions. ¹³¹ Deut ¹³² The statement about the common priest implies that a widow is permitted to a common priest even if he is not of her first husband’s family. ¹³³ If a brother of a High Priest dies childless, his widow is forbidden to the High Priest. The prohibition has to be stated even if in general a widow were not permitted to remarry.

¹³⁴, Chapter 2:1 (ב), explained there in Notes 12–20, and Chapter 5:1 (ה).“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and take her in levirate.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to his brothers.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ The text is from Yebamot

Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rebbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her”, then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as a wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for the preliminary marriage of a woman¹⁹.Simeon bar Ioḥai (p. 167) the argument is inverted: Since in general a woman may be acquired by a document, so Hebrew slave girls may be acquired by a document.. Just as preliminary marriage acquires completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

footnotes: ¹⁹ In Mekhilta dR

Rebbi Isaac asked: Why do we not say: “either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife?”¹³⁵. Mishnah Yebamot 4:1 states that for the House of Hillel the levirate marriage or ḥalîṣah of one wife of the deceased childless brother forbids all her co-wives to the levir’s brothers and, therefore, frees the co-wives to marry any other man. He turned around and said: Did we state “by her own ḥalîṣah”? Not “by her own ḥalîṣah”¹³⁶,” not indicating who performs it; it could be a co-wife.! But here either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife. But did we not state, “by intercourse”? Can you say, either by her own intercourse or the intercourse of her cowife¹³⁷ in the last case also means a personal act.? The Mishnah speaks of one sister-in-law; the problem arises for two sisters-in-law.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, that the widow of the childless man can regain her autonomy by ḥalîṣah ¹³⁶ It is only stated “by ḥalîṣah ¹³⁷ One has to assume that the Mishnah is formulated in a uniform style. It is clear that a man cannot marry a group of women by sleeping with one of them, even though he could marry all women in the group by giving valuables to one of them if the others empower her to act for them (Note 115). If “intercourse” in the first case means a personal act, then ḥalîṣah

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: How can a ḥăruphah slave girl¹³⁸. 19:20–22. The slave girl has a status approximating that of married woman but sleeps with another man. By rabbinic interpretation, the girl is whipped and the man has to bring a reparation sacrifice. The exact meaning of the root חרף is in doubt, in view of the multiple meanings of Arabic حرف or خرف; rabbinic interpretations are given at the end of this paragraph and the next. If she were an unattached slave, she could not marry and, therefore, could have guiltless sex with any man of her choosing. The Jewish man who slept with her would be guilty of violating Deut. 23:18 for which he could be whipped if the act was observed by two witnesses, but no sacrifice would be due. acquire her autonomy in such a way that she would be freed from flogging, and [free] the one who had intercourse with her from a reparation sacrifice? It is obvious that she cannot leave by a bill of divorce since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage¹³⁹ 4:5, Notes 140–141. In this interpretation the girl is partially manumitted and engaged to be married by a free Jewish man after her complete manumission. Since in her present state she cannot be legally married, neither can she be divorced.. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least since (Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least)¹⁴⁰. Rebbi Yose said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: Aquila the proselyte translated before Rebbi Aqiba “and she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”¹⁴¹. 19:20., by “one who was pounded before a man”¹⁴², as you say, “she spread morsels on it¹⁴³. 17:19. The identification of ה and ח is routine in rabbinic derivations but etymologically unfounded. Modern dictionaries treat הריפות, הרפות as derived from a hypothetical root ריף, not הרף..” Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: So Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon explained it before the Sages. “And she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”, by “one who was pounded before a man”, as you say, “in morsels by a pestle.¹⁴⁴. 17:19. Aquila translates בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת by ἐν μέσῳ ἐμπτισσομένων “in the midst of pounded things”. Both verses are quoted in the same sense in the Babli, Keritut 11a, that a man who sleeps with a ḥaruphah slave girl is guilty only if the girl had previously slept with her assignee, not if she is a virgin. (This agrees with the derivation of נחרפת, accepted by Gesenius, from Accadic ẖarāpu, Arabic خرف “to pluck, to harvest”, that the slave girl “had been plucked by a man,” Lev. 19:20.) The tradent there is R. Isaac; Aquila is not mentioned [since in the Babli’s tradition he did not translate following R. Aqiba but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, one generation earlier (Megillah 3a).] {One is tempted to find in ח̇רפ the root of Greek Χάρυβδις, a dangerous whirlpool between Italy and Sicily, personified as a dangerous female being who “plucks men” (E. G.).}”

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Cf. Lev ¹³⁹ Giṭṭin ¹⁴⁰ The meaning of this sentence is unclear. The text in parentheses is dittography inserted by the corrector. ¹⁴¹ Lev ¹⁴² She was betrothed by intercourse. ¹⁴³ 2S ¹⁴⁴ Pr

Can she¹⁴⁵ slave girl, to be able to sleep with whomever she pleases. regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man¹⁴⁶ 11a. Her situation can be remedied only by her full manumission, Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:5.. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite¹⁴⁷ slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.¹⁴⁸. 21:4. Since the children born from this union are slaves, the woman cannot be a Hebrew slave girl. Since the woman is called “wife”, she is required to be faithful by biblical standards. The question is whether this kind of marriage is terminated automatically, without any formality, at the moment the Hebrew slave regains his freedom. At the same moment, the slave woman becomes forbidden to him since any sexual relations between people who could not legally be married is qualified as qādēš(Deut. 23:18).” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir¹⁴⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ The ḥăruphah ¹⁴⁶ Babli Keritut ¹⁴⁷ Meaning: originally Gentile. ¹⁴⁸ Ex ¹⁴⁹ As explained in the next Halakhah. The question is not answered since it can never arise in the future (Note 152).

MISHNAH: A Hebrew slave¹⁵⁰. 21:2–6, Lev. 25:39–43, Deut. 15:12–18. The Lev. source clearly refers to the person who sells himself as indentured servant because he cannot fend for himself. Ex. 22:2 provides for judicial sale of the thief who cannot pay the required double restitution. Separate rules for the Hebrew slave acquired by a Gentile are given in Lev. 25:47–54. In that case, the slave regains his freedom automatically only in the Jubilee year but the family can force his redemption by repaying the portion of his buying price not amortized by the time passed (Lev. 25:50). is acquired by money or a document; he regains his autonomy by years¹⁵¹. 21:2, Deut. 15:12., or the Jubilee¹⁵². 25:40. Since the Jubilee brings back everybody to his ancestral land, everybody is presumed to be able to feed himself. The dependence of the rules of the Hebrew slave on the Jubilee implies that Hebrew slavery disappeared with the Jubilee; it never existed during the Second Commonwealth and is not to be re-instituted in the times of the Messiah (Ševi‘it 10:3, Notes 83–88; Giṭṭin 4:3, Note 65). The discussion about the rules of Hebrew male slavery are a purely theoretical reconstruction of the past whose interest is not in statements but in the rules of inference., or reduction of the amount¹⁵³. The Hebrew slave girl¹⁵⁴. 15:12,17 equate the rules for male and female slaves. Therefore, all the detailed rules developed in this Halakhah are purely theoretical interpretations of the biblical text; they never were operational within the rabbinic framework. in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty¹⁵⁵. The pierced slave is acquired by piercing¹⁵⁶. 21:6, Deut. 15:17).; he regains his autonomy in the Jubilee or by the master’s death¹⁵⁷. 21:5, Deut. 15:16 make it clear that the relationship of the “pierced” slave to his master is a personal one, not transferable to his heirs..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ The rules are based on Ex ¹⁵¹ The maximum time of a contract of an indentured servant was 6 years; Ex ¹⁵² Lev ¹⁵³ If the slave or his family buy his freedom, the master is required to accept payment proportional to the time not yet served. ¹⁵⁴ While the rules for the Hebrew slave girl are not tied to the Jubilee, the verses Deut ¹⁵⁵ While a father can forcibly marry off his daughter until she has reached adulthood (12 years six months and one day) he cannot sell her into slavery beyond adolescence (12 years and a day if she shows signs of puberty). He cannot sell her to work for longer than he had the right to sell. ¹⁵⁶ The slave who does not want to regain his freedom after six years, whose earlobe is pierced (Ex ¹⁵⁷ Ex

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female¹⁵⁹. 15:12. The Babli, 14b, points out that the verse only covers persons sold by others, the girl by her father and the man by the court, not the person who sells himself. Sifry Deut. 118 disputes the entire argument and holds that the female had to be mentioned separately from the male since the rules of her acquisition and liberation are distinct from those of the male. (E. g., the female cannot sell herself; the adult female cannot be a Hebrew slave.). Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written¹⁶⁰. 21:11. Since after six years, or after she reached adulthood, she leaves without payment, it follows that her work was worth money; cf. Note 18.: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman¹⁶¹. 21:10 equates the marriage of the Hebrew slave girl to her master to the latter’s marriage with another, free, woman. (Babli 16a; Mechilta dR. Šimon b.Jochai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 167)., and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences¹⁶². For the intricacies of his position, cf. H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164; Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, pp. 171–196. The problem before the rabbis of the second and third generations of Tannaïm was to derive a consistent legal system which intellectually could compete with the Roman law from the scattered remarks offered in the Biblical text. R. Ismael allows no more than one intermediate step between biblical text and legal statement.. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה¹⁶³. 21:2,5 in reference to the male Hebrew slave. In R. Ismael’s opinion, the ḥâruphah slave girl is a former Gentile who needs manumission (Notes 147,148) and חֻפְשָׁה mentioned in Lev. 19:20 is her bill of manumission. Since the Gentile slave girl can be manumitted by a document, it is concluded that the Hebrew slave can be acquired by a document. As noted later, this is a non sequitur.. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages¹⁶⁴. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract¹⁶⁵. 24:1. Therefore, the “sending away” of the Hebrew slave (Deut. 15:12,13) also refers to a written document. As noted immediately, this only would prove that the master can terminate the indenture by a written document, not that he could acquire the Hebrew’s services by a document.. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah¹⁶⁶.” This reading is preferable since a fifth-generation Amora is unlikely to appear in a Tannaïtic discussion. said, “sale, sale”¹⁶⁷. 25:42 it is stated that a Hebrew “shall not be sold as in the sale of a [Gentile] slave.” In Deut. 15:12 it says, “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you.” It is an accepted principle (Sifry Deut. 72, Yerushalmi Baba batra 8:5 (16b), Babli Temurah5a) that if the verse notes that “something shall not be done,” if it is done it is sinful but legally valid since an invalid action does not have to be forbidden. Since the Gentile slave can be bought by contract (Mishnah 3), the Hebrew slave also can be bought by contract. The question remains whether he can be bought by contract without the buyer sinning.. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there¹⁶⁸ it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada¹⁶⁹ said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew¹⁷⁰. 15:12 at the start of rules mostly dealing only with the male, is to transfer the rules of acquisition from the female to the male..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ Deut ¹⁶⁰ Ex ¹⁶¹ Ex ¹⁶² Except for texts based on Lev ¹⁶³ The expression חפשי is used in Ex ¹⁶⁴ This translation follows the sentence structure of A. ¹⁶⁵ Divorce, which requires a written document, is called “sending away” (of the wife) in Deut ¹⁶⁶ In A: “Rebbi said, a baraita ¹⁶⁷ In Lev ¹⁶⁸ Since the laws regarding Gentile slaves in general follow the rules of real estate, undisturbed possession for three years accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition legally establishes ownership. Nobody claims that the same holds for Hebrew slaves. ¹⁶⁹ A: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (an Amora of the third generation). The reading of L is the only one acceptable, referring to R. Ḥiyya bar Ada I, of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. ¹⁷⁰ This essentially is the argument given at the start of this paragraph, Note 159. The reason for the female to be mentioned in Deut

“By money”. “The money of his sale price shall be;”¹⁷². 25:50, speaking of the redemption of a Hebrew slave from his Gentile master by his family. he can be redeemed by money, not by produce nor by vessels¹⁷³ 8(4).. Everywhere you treat money’s worth like money, but here you do not treat money’s worth like money. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, because the verse repeated “money, of money”¹⁷⁴. 25:50, the second (read מכסף for בכסף) Lev. 25:52, about the same subject. The repetition shows that the redemption can be forced only by payment in cash.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said¹⁷⁵, but if he wants to reduce, he can leave for the reduced amount even for produce, even for vessels¹⁷⁶. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said that this is only if he did not give them their money’s worth¹⁷⁶. But if he gave them their money’s worth, it is like money.

footnotes: ¹⁷² Lev ¹⁷³ Babli 8a, Sifra Behar Pereq ¹⁷⁴ The first כסף is from Lev ¹⁷⁵ Text of A: א״ר חייא בר אדא, preferred over L: “Even R. Ḥiyya bar Ada will agree.” ¹⁷⁶ The cash requirement applies only to redemption by his family. If the slave himself buys his freedom, he can offer valuables instead of money. ¹⁷⁶ The cash requirement applies only to redemption by his family. If the slave himself buys his freedom, he can offer valuables instead of money.

“By a document.” Rebbi Abbahu said, by a money document¹⁷⁸; therefore not by a gift document¹⁷⁹, since maybe he would renege. But then, could he not renege even with a money document? He said to him¹⁸⁰, maybe there comes a year of famine and his master reneges¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ A written contract which promises the slave a fixed sum of money, presumably at the end of his period of service. ¹⁷⁹ The slave agrees to serve without remuneration. ¹⁸⁰ R. Abbahu to the person raising the question. ¹⁸¹ It is not a problem of the prospective slave’s reneging, but his master’s. If in a year of famine the cost of the slave’s upkeep exceeds the value of his work, the master might be tempted to get rid of the slave. But if there is an IOU in the slave’s hand, he can be sure to be kept for the full period. Therefore, with a money document the slave has the intent from the start to be acquired by the master.

The order of sale¹⁸² is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference¹⁸³? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

footnotes: ¹⁸² The required text in a contractual sale or marriage of an underage girl by her father. This is the only relevant case possible in law after the disestablishment of the Jubilee. ¹⁸³ The marriage of the underage girl is purely a matter of contract between two adults; the girl is not involved and it does not matter which party writes the contract. This is in contrast to the marriage of an adult woman where a text “I, X, am taking you, Y, as preliminarily wedded wife” is valid, but “I, Y, am agreeing to be your, X’s, preliminarily wedded wife” is invalid.

It is written: “Six years he shall work¹⁸⁵. 21:2..” How much does he work? I could think that he leaves at the end of six [years]. The verse says, “and in the seventh he shall leave¹⁸⁵. 21:2..” I could think that he leave at the end of seven [years]¹⁸⁶.Šim‘on b.Jochai(ed. Epstein-Melamed) p. 160 the argument is made that the slave should leave only at the end of the year since debts are remitted only at the end of the Sabbatical. A similar argument is presupposed here.. The verse says, “six years he shall work.” How is that? He works the entire six and leaves at the start of the seventh. “And in the seventh he shall leave.” The seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world¹⁸⁷.Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 249).. Do you say, the seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world? Since it says, “six years he shall work,” this spells out six years. How can I confirm “and in the seventh he shall leave?” The seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world. Say it is the opposite. Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rav Huna: It is written: “and in the seventh,” “and in the seventh¹⁸⁸: One has to read the word וּבַשְּׁבִעִית as if it were written twice with two different meanings. “Six years he shall work, including the Sabbatical; but in the seventh he shall leave.””. Rebbi Ḥuna said, if you say, in the Seventh of the world, what would the Jubilee free¹⁸⁹? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, this follows him who said that the Jubilee does not become part of a Sabbatical period¹⁹⁰ 61a. This is the calendar also underlying the Saducee Jubilee.. But following him who said that the Jubilee becomes part of a Sabbatical period, sometimes it falls in the middle of a Sabbatical period¹⁹¹∙50 falls on year n (mod 7) of a Sabbatical cycle, it will eventually fall on any of the years of the cycle.. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even following him who said that the Jubilee becomes part of a Sabbatical period, we could deduce from here that the Sabbatical year frees the slaves and the Jubilee the pierced ones¹⁹².

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ Ex ¹⁸⁵ Ex ¹⁸⁶ In Mekhilta dR ¹⁸⁷ The Sabbatical year. Mekhilta dR ¹⁸⁸ It seems that the correct interpretation is the one given by Qorban Ha‘edah ¹⁸⁹ Since the 49th year of a cycle is a Sabbatical, if the slaves left then, nobody would be freed in the 50th, the Jubilee. ¹⁹⁰ The Sabbatical period following the first Jubilee starts only in year 51; there is a Jubilee in every year which is a multiple of 50 in the Jubilee calendar; Babli Nedarim ¹⁹¹ Since year 49 was a Sabbatical, the next Sabbatical is in year 55, and the next Jubilee in year 100 is in year 2 of the Sabbatical cycle. The Jubilee in year n ¹⁹² The preceding argument cannot be used to prove that the “seventh’ mentioned in the verse is not the Sabbatical; the argument at the start of the paragraph is the only valid one. (The emendation of this sentence by the classical commentaries has to be rejected since the text is confirmed by A.)

From where even if he fell ill¹⁹³.Šim‘on b.Jochai, p. 161, the word “gratis” is interpreted to mean that the master has no regress on the slave for his medical costs.? The verse says¹⁸⁵. 21:2., “in the seventh year he shall leave into freedom gratis.” I could think, even if he fled; the verse says¹⁸⁵. 21:2., “six years he shall work.¹⁹⁴ 1.” What did you see to include this and to exclude that? After the verse included, it excluded. I am including the one who remains in his power and am exluding the one who is not in his power. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said that Rav Hoshaia asked: I understand that if he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up [the time lost]. If he fled and then fell ill? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, let us hear from the following: “If a woman rebels against her husband, one writes him a bill of rebellion on her ketubah.”¹⁹⁵ 5:9, Notes 199–100. The wife refuses marital relations with her husband; the court deducts from her future claim of ketubah. And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married one and one waiting for her levir¹⁹⁶ 5:10, Babli Ketubot 63b.. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him while she was menstruating, the Torah instructed her to rebel¹⁹⁷. But we must hold that she rebelled when she was not menstruating and then started menstruating. Here she is unable to rebel, nevertheless you say, one writes¹⁹⁸ the entire time she had no relations, irrespective of the cause. By analogy, the runaway slave has to make up the time lost, including the time he was ill and could not have worked while in his master’s house.. Here also, if he rebelled and then fell ill he has to make up. For he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would not have become sick. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that argument even works in the first case. If he fell ill and fled afterwards¹⁹⁹, he has to make up, since he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would have recuperated sooner.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ He could not work the entire six years. Nevertheless, he leaves on time. The same argument in the Babli, 17a. In Mekhilta dR ¹⁸⁵ Ex ¹⁸⁵ Ex ¹⁹⁴ Babli 16b; Massekhet ‘Avadim ¹⁹⁵ A rewording of Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁹⁶ Ketubot ¹⁹⁷ Since sexual relations with menstruating women are forbidden. ¹⁹⁸ Once she refused marital relations, one fines her by reducing the sum due from her ketubah ¹⁹⁹ If he was ill when he fled, he has to make up even the times of his sickness.

“He regains his autonomy by years.” Some Tannaїm state: He may be sold for less than six [years], but he cannot be sold for more than six. But some Tannaïm state: He may not be sold for less than six [years] or more than to [year] seven. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the reason of that Tanna: Sometimes he is sold two or three years before the Jubilee; then the Jubilee arrives and frees him automatically²⁰¹ 7(4) in the name of the Tanna R. Eliezer ben Jacob..

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Even though formally he was sold for six years. Babli 15a; Sifra Behar Pereq

“Or the Jubilee,” as it is written, “in the Jubilee he shall leave.”²⁰². 25:31. This quote does not make sense since it refers to real estate transactions. The correct quotes are Lev. 25:40 for the slave sold to an Israel and Lev. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile. Babli 16a. “Or reduction of the amount,” as it is written: “If there still are many years²⁰³. 25:51–52; Sifra Behar Pereq8(5). The biblical text is unusually wordy, stating that the redemption price is high if many years of service remain and low if few years remain..” Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and if there are few there are not many? Rebbi Hila said, sometimes the years are worth more than the wages, sometimes the wages are worth more than the years. How do you explain the following? If he was sold for a mina²⁰⁴. each and improved so that now he is worth 200 each, from where that one computes for him only by a mina each? The verse says, “according to the years he shall compute his redemption²⁰⁵. 25:52. In the Babli 20a and ‘Arakhin 30a, the proof is from v. 51: “He shall compute the amount of his redemption from the amount for which he was bought.” There is an additional text: From where that if he was sold for 200 denars each but now he is worth only a mina, one computes a mina per year, the verse says “according to the years he shall compute his redemption.” If this passage also was in the Yerushalmi text, it must have disappeared already from the common source of A and L..” We learned that one sold to a Gentile is advantaged²⁰⁶ when he comes to be redeemed. From where that one sold to an Israel is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed? “Hireling, hireling”²⁰⁷. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile, Lev. 25:40 for the one sold to an Israel. Sifra Behar Pereq 8(6). for an equal cut. Since the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to a Gentile, so too the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to an Israel. Rebbi says, why does the verse say “he shall be redeemed, he shall be redeemed,” three times? To add all redemptions that they have to follow this order²⁰⁹ 8(3), an anonymous statement..

footnotes: ²⁰² Lev ²⁰³ Lev ²⁰⁴ The Greek Μνᾶ of 100 drachmas each, not the Babylonian מָנֶה of 60 šeqel ²⁰⁵ Lev ²⁰⁶ In that his redemption price is determined by law from the original sale price; there can be no haggling over the amount. ²⁰⁷ The slave has to be treated like a hireling; Lev ²⁰⁹ Sifra Behar Pereq

“If he be not redeemed by these²¹⁰. 25:54..” ²¹¹9(1). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude²¹². Rebbi Aqiba says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves²¹³. Rebbi Aqiba interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these”, by these he completes¹ before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Yasa²¹⁴ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom²¹⁵. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,²¹⁶. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid.” his own hand²¹⁷ 5(2).. “Or he found for his redemption²¹⁶. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid..” Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

footnotes: ²¹⁰ Lev ²¹¹ Babli 15b, Sifra Behar Pereq ²¹² “These” are the family members mentioned in vv. 48–49, who are required to buy him back from the Gentile. If he is bought from the Gentile by an unrelated Jew, he has to serve as a Hebrew slave either for six years or until the Jubilee, ²¹³ The verse reads: “Unless he be redeemed by these, he leaves in the Jubilee year.” If “these” are the modalities of redemption detailed in vv. 48–52, then the meaning is that the Hebrew slave of the Gentile leaves his service in the Jubilee year. But if “these” are persons, then there must be a case when the slave is redeemed from the Gentile and nevertheless has to serve until the Jubilee. ¹ The translation follows A. ²¹⁴ In the Babli: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ²¹⁵ They read “these” as the modalities of his redemption, Note 213. ²¹⁶ Lev ²¹⁷ Sifra Behar Pereq ²¹⁶ Lev

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Following him, who said “for servitude”²¹⁸, he makes up before he leaves²¹⁹. But was it not stated: After he redeemed him it is as if he were sold to him, he enslaves him before he leaves²²⁰. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is no “enslaves him before he leaves”, only “he makes up before he leaves.” If his relatives want to redeem him from the first [master’s], they redeem. If his relatives want to redeem him²²¹ להגאל. Yerushalmi Hebrew usually avoids qal, replacing it in general by pi‘el, sometimes by niph‘al. from the second [master’s], they cannot redeem²²². Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That follows him²²³ who said: “by these to freedom, by all others to servitude.”

footnotes: ²¹⁸ Either R. Yose the Galilean or R. Aqiba. ²¹⁹ He serves until the Jubilee or until he has served a total of six years. ²²⁰ This seems to mean that he has to serve the Jew who buys him a full six years, irrespective of how long he served the Gentile. ²²¹ It would be reasonable to vocalize active לִגְאֹל but ms. A clearly reads niph‘al ²²² There is no verse authorizing the premature release of a Hebrew slave from a Hebrew master. ²²³ R. Yose the Galilean; but the authorized interpretation is that of the Sages.

Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: There it is written “he computes” and here it is written “he computes”²²⁴. 25:27). Since sale of agricultural property is a sale of harvests (Lev. 25:15) it is clear that the right of redemption can be exercised only between harvest and the next sowing. Only full years are counted. But the redemption of the Hebrew slave of a Gentile is possible at all times and, therefore, the amount due changes every month.. Here you compute months and years so he may leave, there you do not compute months and years so he may leave. He said to him, the difference is that the Torah compared him to the hireling²²⁵. 25:53, even though the verse refers to “a hireling on a yearly contract.”. Since the latter computes months and years and leaves, so this one computes months and years and leaves.

footnotes: ²²⁴ The person who sells of his ancestral property until the Jubilee “computes the years of sale” when he buys the property back (Lev ²²⁵ Lev

²²⁶.Ismael,Neziqin 3; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 168; Midrash Wehizhir Mišpaṭim p. 130; alluded to in Babli Qiddušin 4a.“She leaves gratis,²²⁷. 21:11. Here starts the discussion of the rules for the girl sold by her father.” these are the days of adulthood²²⁸ 10:1, Note 1.) An adolescent is legally responsible for her actions but still under her father’s authority (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 159). She becomes an independent adult six months after becoming an adolescent. (A male becomes an adult only at age 13 years and one day if he did grow two pubic hairs.) Since the adult girl is not under her father’s authority, she cannot be under the authority of a master to whom she was given by her father even though she remains legally married by biblical standards if she was married off by her father when underage or adolescent. The double expression in the verse is taken to mean that the master’s authority ends when she reaches the stage of adolescent.; “without money²²⁷. 21:11. Here starts the discussion of the rules for the girl sold by her father.,” these are the indicators [of adolescence.] Could He not have mentioned only one of them²²⁹? If only one of them were mentioned, would I not have said that if she leaves with indicators [of adolescence], then certainly in the days of adulthood? But in that case I would have said that they are identical with the days of adulthood. Would this not be logical? She is emancipated from the power of the father and she is emancipated from the power of the master; since she is emancipated from the power of the father by some indicators [of adulthood]²³⁰, but A confirms the text as it stands., she is emancipated from the power of the master by the same indicators. Therefore, it was necessary to say, “she leaves gratis,” these are the days of adulthood, “without money,” these are the indicators [of adolescence.] Or maybe the other way around? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: “Without money.” At a place where there is money for the father, there is no money for the master²³¹ 46b, as proof that the father retains the right to marry off his daughter and pocket the valuables offered for the preliminary marriage, even though the master’s authority already expired at the girl’s adolescence..

footnotes: ²²⁶ Mekhilta dR ²²⁷ Ex ²²⁸ The indicators of adolescence are two pubic hairs after the girl has reached the age of 12 years and one day (cf. Nedarim ²²⁷ Ex ²²⁹ When the text of the laws was given to Moses. ²³⁰ It would be reasonable to emend סימנין to בגר, to keep unity of style (Qorban Ha‘edah) ²³¹ Babli Ketubot

“If he did not allot her, he must let her be redeemed²³². 21:8. Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 166; Babli 19a. “Allotment” is the legal term for the preliminary marriage of the slave girl to her master or his son..” This teaches that he cannot allot her for himself unless there is time for her handywork to be worth a peruṭah and that a peruṭah be left to be deducted, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah²³³ is not worked off by her. (Since she works at most 6 years, at most 2190 days, if the buying price was at least 11.5 denars he can marry her early on the last day of her servitude.). But the Sages say, he allots any time until sundown²³⁴. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada²³⁵ said, everybody agrees that for a Hebrew slave only if a peruṭah’s worth is left. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? There is no money left, there is no handiwork left? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he allots her by speech²³⁶ given for preliminary marriage but to acquire the right to make her his wife by declaration (Interpretation of Maimonides; cf. S. Z. Brauda, בגדרי יעוד, Moriah 23 fasc. 6–7, 2000, p. 100–107.).

footnotes: ²³² Ex ²³³ If he wants to marry her but first extract the maximum of work from the girl, he must divide the money he paid by the number of days of her prospective servitude and marry her as long as at least a peruṭah ²³⁴ On the last day of her servitude; Babli 19b. ²³⁵ In A: “Abba”. Cf. Note 169. ²³⁶ The money he paid to the father was not

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: How does he allot her? He tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “You are allotted to me.²³⁷” In Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he gives her²³⁸ to Qiddušin, 19b. The money was not given to her but to her father. money for the allotment at the end. In the rabbis’ opinion, the money for allotment was given at the first hour²³⁹. What is the difference between them? Her earning power. For him who says, he gives her money for the allotment at the end, her earning power belongs to her husband²⁴⁰. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, her earning power belongs to her father²⁴¹, the father should have the right to claim the proceeds of anything she earned during her years of servitude, since the earnings of the daughter belong to the father until either she is married or becomes an adult (Ketubot 4:2, Note 30). That would create an impossible situation.. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, her earning power belongs to her husband. It is as if he said: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that your earning power belong to me.²⁴²”

footnotes: ²³⁷ Babli 19b, an anonymous tannaїtic statement. Since “allotment” legally is preliminary marriage, it has to follow the latter’s formal rules. ²³⁸ This word, לָהּ, is correctly missing in A and in the quote of this passage in Rashba’s Novellae ²³⁹ At the moment of the original sale. ²⁴⁰ From the moment of “allotment”, she has to be treated as fiancee and can no longer be used as a slave. But anything she completed before this moment rightfully belongs to her master who now is her husband, since he paid for it. ²⁴¹ Since it turns out that the money was not given for her work but for qiddušin ²⁴² The father, by agreeing to the sale, agreed to the stipulation.

If he was married to her sister who died²⁴³. 18:18. Therefore, the money was given only for her services as a slave.. For him who says, he gives money for the allotment at the end, she needs additional money. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she does not need additional money. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she needs additional money. Why? Everybody agrees that preliminary marriage is impossible in an incestuous relationship²⁴⁴.

footnotes: ²⁴³ At the moment of sale, the future master could not possibly think of allotting her for himself since she was forbidden to him, Lev ²⁴⁴ The master could not have acquired the right of allotment from the father while the girl was forbidden to him by an incest prohibition; he has to buy this right after the death of his first wife.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards²⁴⁵ be left in the end because he holds that “allotment” not only is preliminary marriage but also must follow all rules of preliminary marriages? Then it is difficult to understand why separate biblical rules are given in this case.? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated²⁴⁶: By the deposit you hold for me²⁴⁷; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married²⁴⁸. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married²⁴⁹. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan²⁵⁰’s worth of work by the “allotment”..

footnotes: ²⁴⁵ Does R. Yose ben R. Jehudah require that a peruṭah ²⁴⁶ Babli 47a, Tosephta 3:1. ²⁴⁷ There should be an initial clause: “You are preliminarily married to me for the value of …” It is assumed that the deposit was given on condition that she would be responsible only if she misused it, not if it was lost without her fault or stolen. If nothing was left, she received nothing and could not possibly be married. ²⁴⁸ Since she does not have to repay the loan, she received value and is married. ²⁴⁹ As the Babli explains, 47a, a loan is given to be spent. For R. Meïr, nobody can marry except by offering some tangible value. ²⁵⁰ He considers the purchase price as a loan to the father which is going to be repaid by the daughter’s work. Therefore she cannot be married if she is not freed from a peruṭah

²⁵² 10:14 (י), explained there in Notes 178–210.“If he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to his brother. He should be able to allot her to his brother by an argument de minore ad majus! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥalîṣah and levirate? No. If you would accept the son since he will take [the father’s] place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to his brother.

footnotes: ²⁵² This and the following paragraphs are paralleled in Yebamot

“If he allots her to his son;” but he may not allot her to his grandson. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: In matters of inheritance you recognize the grandson like a son but here you do not recognize the grandson like a son? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if anybody explains this matter, I shall pour him spiced wine. Rebbi Naḥum answered: In matters of inheritance where the brother can take the place of a son and all others can take the place of the son, the grandson takes the place of a son. But here, where neither the brother nor any other relative can take the place of a son, the grandson cannot take the place of a son. The rabbis of Caesarea answered: In matters of impurity you consider a brother like a son and all [near] relatives like a son but not a grandson like a son. They said, there went the spiced wine.

“If he allots her to his son;” with [the girl’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no agreement here. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said so, the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, is he not a minor? “If he allots her to his son;” with [the latter’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he allots her to his minor or adult son, with or without the latter’s agreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he allots her only to his adult son with the latter’s agreement.

“A male nine years and one day old makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest.” In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who must explain this for a marriage, she should also be free from levirate or ḥalîṣah, as we have stated: “If he married a woman, that one is free from levirate or ḥalîṣah.” Rebbi Abin said, following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it comes following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated so: If a male nine years and one day old up to twelve years and one day old grew two pubic hairs, they are warts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, they are indicators [of puberty]. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they were still there at the time of indicators.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish²⁵³ by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked before me: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

footnotes: ²⁵³ Here ends fragment A.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah learned from Aḥaz, as it was stated: Aḥaz produced a child at age nine, Haran at age six, and Caleb at age ten following him who identifies Caleb ben Ḥeṣron with Caleb ben Yephuneh.

If he²⁵⁴ sold her to one and gave her in preliminary marriage to another, the father played with the master²⁵⁵, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say that the father did not play with the master²⁵⁶. It is as if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me after 30 days,” since if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me after 30 days,” and another came and married her preliminarily (after)²⁵⁷ 30 days, is she not preliminarily married to the second man²⁵⁸? “From now after 30 days.” Since if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me from now after 30 days,” and another came and married her preliminarily within the 30 days, is she not preliminarily married to both of them?²⁵⁹ From then when he wants²⁶⁰. Everybody agrees that if he definitively married her off, the father played with the master²⁶¹.cit. Note 236)..

footnotes: ²⁵⁴ The father. The same statement is in the Babli, 19b. ²⁵⁵ She is preliminarily married to the other man and the master lost his right of allotment. ²⁵⁶ The master did not lose his right of allotment. ²⁵⁷ This should read: “Within”. ²⁵⁸ Mishnah 3:1. Since R. Yose ben R. Jehudah holds that the money paid for the services of the girl is not given for preliminary marriage but only to acquire the right of allotment, the girl was not married at the time the second man gave money for preliminary marriage. Since nobody can marry an already married woman, the master has lost his right of allotment. ²⁵⁹ Mishnah 3:1. The Sages hold that the original price was given for preliminary marriage at the time chosen by the master. If another man gives her money for preliminary marriage before the master exercises his right of allotment, both have equal rights to her and neither can marry her without the other writing a bill of divorce. A third man can marry her only if both divorce her. ²⁶⁰ It is the Sages’ interpretation of the sale contract, that the buyer can activate his right of allotment any time he chooses. ²⁶¹ If the second man combined preliminary and definitive marriage at the same time, nothing can undo a definitive marriage except divorce or death. However, this statement is problematic both for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah and for the Sages.A reasonable interpretation of the position of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah would be that the sales contract, by which the master acquires the right of allotment, implies that the father surrendered his right to marry off his daughter. One must assume that the contract explicitly excluded this interpretation.For the Sages it really should not make any difference whether preliminary and definitive marriages are performed together or not; the potential preliminary marriage of the master in any case precedes any action by the second man. One must assume that the Yerushalmi holds that in addition to the cases mentioned in the Mishnah, definitive marriage frees the girl from the ownership of her master (cf. Note 279). In that case, even though the act of preliminary marriage created the impossible situation described in the text, the definitive marriage solved the problem by eliminating the master’s ownership and with it his right of allotment. The only recourse the master has is to sue the father for the value of services lost. (Explanation of S. Z. Brauda, loc

²⁶².Šim‘on b,Jochai, p. 165.“As a slave girl.²⁶³. 21:7” Only as a slave girl: this teaches that he may sell her on condition that he not have the right of allotment over her, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he did not do anything, for he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, “and the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid.”²⁶⁴ 7:14. But does Rebbi Meïr not agree that “the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid”²⁶⁵? He accepts it if it is impossible to keep the stipulation in the end, but here it is possible to keep the stipulation in the end²⁶⁶ 7:14. Since the master is not required to marry his servant, he will not infringe on any biblical obligation by agreeing not to marry her. Everybody will agree that if a man marries a woman on condition that she be freed from levirate or ḥalîṣah if he should die childless, the stipulation is invalid since it infringes on obligatory biblical law.. Do the rabbis not agree about a stipulation which it is possible to keep in the end? They agree to it in money matters²⁶⁷ 7:14; cf. Ketubot5:10 Note 227 where all references are given., but this is a personal matter. But did we not state: A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she have no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations²⁶⁸ 5:10 Note 227, R. Jehudah’s opinion is accepted in the Yerushalmi as generally valid.? One understands food and clothing. But are marital relations not a personal matter? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it for an underage girl²⁶⁹. How can that Tanna explain “as a slave girl”²⁷⁰? He may sell her as a widow to the High Priest, as a divorcee or one who received ḥălîṣah to a common priest²⁷¹.Šim‘on b,Jochai, p. 165).. How can that Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by a widow from preliminary marriage²⁷² 4:3, Note 42), the girl sold as a widow or divorcee must be a widow or divorcee after preliminary marriage only. The mention of ḥăliṣah is a slip of the pen because of the usual combination of the terms; for the House of Hillel ḥălîṣah is possible only after definitive marriage (Yebamot 1:6, Note 192).. But was it not stated: A person may sell his daugher into marriage²⁷³ and repeat, into servitude and repeat, into marriage after servitude, but not into servitude after marriage²⁷⁴ 1.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are different Tannaïm. He who states “a widow to the High Priest” agrees to servitude after marriage; he who does not state “a widow to the High Priest” does not agree to servitude after marriage. How does the latter Tanna explain “as a servant”²⁷⁵? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if [the master] was married to her sister²⁷¹.Šim‘on b,Jochai, p. 165)..

footnotes: ²⁶² Babli 19b; Mekhilta dR ²⁶³ Ex ²⁶⁴ Mishnah Baba meṣi‘a ²⁶⁵ Since the Mishnah is anonymous and is based on R. Meïr’s compilation, it is assumed that it represents R. Meïr’s position. ²⁶⁶ This is explicitly stated in Baba meṣi‘a ²⁶⁷ For which it is formulated in Mishnah Baba meṣi‘a ²⁶⁸ In the Babli, 19b, it reads: “A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she have no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations; she is married and the stipulations are void, the words of R. Meïr; R. Jehudah says, in money matters his stipulation is valid.” As noted in Ketubot ²⁶⁹ Who does not expect sexual relations. ²⁷⁰ R. Meïr who denies the ability of the father to exclude allotment. ²⁷¹ The father may sell her to a person unable to marry her by biblical law (Babli 19b; Mekhilta dR ²⁷² Since an underage girl is emancipated from her father by definitive marriage (Ketubot ²⁷³ Preliminary, not definitive. ²⁷⁴ Babli 18a; Massekhet ‘Avadim ²⁷⁵ As servant only, excluding the possibility of marriage; cf. Note 243. ²⁷¹ The father may sell her to a person unable to marry her by biblical law (Babli 19b; Mekhilta dR

Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Just as he cannot sell her into servitude after marriage, so not into servitude after servitude²⁷⁶.Ismael,Neziqin3, this is ascribed to R. Yose the Galilean and derived from the singular used in Ex. 21:7.. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s reason? “By his being unfaithful to her.²⁷⁷” Once he can be unfaithful to her, he cannot be unfaithful to her a second time. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s reason? “She being in his garment²⁷⁸.Šim‘on b,Jochai, p. 166.;” from the moment that [her master] spread his garment on her, her father no longer has any power over her.

footnotes: ²⁷⁶ Babli 18b. In Mekhilta dR ²⁷⁷ He reads בְּבִגְדוֹ as verbal form derived from the root בגד “to be unfaithful, traitorous”, referred to the father. In the Babli, 18b, this is R. Aqiba’s opinion. ²⁷⁸ He reads בְּבִגְדּוֹ as nominal form derived from בגד “garment”, referring to the master as husband. They hold that the girl sold into servitude is emancipated even by preliminary marriage. In the Babli this is the position taken by R. Eliezer; anonymous in Mekhilta dR

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Should not the Hebrew slave girl leave by definitive marriage, by an argument de minore ad majus? Since indications [of puberty] which do not emancipate her from her father’s power, free her from her master’s power²⁷⁹ 10:1, Note 1) but leaves servitude at the actual onset of puberty., is it not logical that definitive marriage, which emancipates her from her father’s power, shall free her from her master’s power? He said to him, I have only the Mishnah: “The Hebrew slave girl in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty¹⁵⁵.” Bar Pedaiah²⁸⁰ said, the Hebrew slave girl leaves at the death of her master. What is the reason? “Also your slave girl you shall treat in the same way;” and it is written: “He shall be for you a permanent slave.²⁸¹. 15:17, making it clear that the servitude of the “pierced slave” is personally to his master; cf. Note 157. By consensus of all sources, the final clause of that verse, speaking of the Hebrew slave girl, cannot refer to the piercing of the earlobe since this would contradict Ex. 21:5.” He bracketed the Hebrew slave girl with the “pierced slave”. Since the “pierced slave” leaves at his master’s death, the Hebrew slave girl also leaves at her master’s death²⁸². #122; Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin 2; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 164.. It turns out that Bar Pedaiah parallels the following Tanna, as it was stated: The Hebrew slave²⁸³ serves the son but not the daughter; the Hebrew slave girl serves the daughter but not the son²⁸⁴. Some Tannaїm state: The Hebrew slave girl as well as the Hebrew slave²⁸⁵ serve neither the son nor the daughter. How does the Tanna confirm “your slave girl you also shall treat in the same way”? He explains it about the allowance²⁸⁶. 15:14. This is the standard interpretation (Babli 17b; Sifry Deut. #122)., as it was stated: The following are given allowances: The one who leaves after six years or in the Jubilee, and the Hebrew slave girl who becomes autonomous by indicators of puberty. But one does not give allowances to one who leaves by the reduction of the amount²⁸⁷ or following the master’s death²⁸⁸. #119, the person leaving at his master’s death is entitled to an allowance. The Yerushalmi restricts allowances to persons serving a predetermined period. (In Masekhet ‘Avadim 2, allowances are given only to those sold by the court.).

footnotes: ²⁷⁹ An adolescent girl remains in her father’s power for six months after her formal puberty (Nedarim ¹⁵⁵ While a father can forcibly marry off his daughter until she has reached adulthood (12 years six months and one day) he cannot sell her into slavery beyond adolescence (12 years and a day if she shows signs of puberty). He cannot sell her to work for longer than he had the right to sell. ²⁸⁰ In the Babli, 17b, “R. Pada”. ²⁸¹ Deut ²⁸² Babli 17b; Sifry Deut ²⁸³ The one indentured for six years, not the “pierced slave” (parallel sources cf. Note 282). ²⁸⁴ In the Babli 17b: Neither son nor daughter. ²⁸⁵ The “pierced slave”, not the one indentured for six years. This is Bar Pedaiah’s statement. ²⁸⁶ A supply of produce, required to be given the departing slave by Deut ²⁸⁷ Who buys his freedom by repaying the amount given for his services reduced proportionally to the time served. ²⁸⁸ In the Babli, 16b, and Sifry Deut

It is written: “His master shall bring him to the judges, or he shall bring him to the door²⁸⁹.. 21:6..” How is that? The one who was sold by the court, “his master shall bring him to the judges.” The one who sold himself, “or he shall bring him to the door.”²⁹⁰.Ismael Neziqin 2; but in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) even the private act of piercing needs a public act in court. Rebbi Immi asked: It is obvious that the court writes the contract for him who was sold by the court. Who is writing the contract for him who sells himself?²⁹¹ It is written: “It shall not be hard in your eyes to send him away free from you; for twice the hire of a hireling he served you for six years.” The hired hand works during the day; he does not work in the night. The Hebrew slave works both day and night. It is written: “He shall not treat him harshly before your eyes²⁹². 25:53.,” and you say so²⁹³? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: His master marries him to a Canaanite slave; it turns out that he serves him day and night²⁹⁴. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked before Rebbi Immi: Think of it, if he was buying a Cohen²⁹⁵! He answered him: Would the case of an Israel not also be permission of something prohibited following Rebbi Simeon²⁹⁶ 4:15,7:6 Note 135). Therefore, if the slave woman is temporarily permitted to the Israel, she also is temporarily permitted to the Cohen slave. The woman is not married to the slave in legal terms since at the moment when the slave regains his freedom she automatically becomes forbidden to him and permitted to others without a bill of divorce. In the Babli, 21b, only Rav holds that the Canaanite woman was permitted to the Cohen while Samuel disagrees.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamai here changed his mind.

footnotes: ²⁸⁹ Ex ²⁹⁰ Mekhilta dR ²⁹¹ No answer is given since in a private transaction any one of the parties may write the contract. ²⁹² Lev ²⁹³ It certainly is forbidden to ask more than a full day’s work from any slave, whether Hebrew or not. ²⁹⁴ Since in the night he produces slave children for his master. ²⁹⁵ Since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee, certainly a slave woman is forbidden to him. ²⁹⁶ The slave woman is not more strictly forbidden to the Cohen than she is to the Israel. According to R. Simeon, children of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother have no family relationship with their father; children of a Jewish father and Gentile mother have no family relationship with their father; the latter statement includes slave women who as yet are not fully Jewish (cf. Yebamot

Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Abun²⁹⁷. #122, he seems to be identified as R. Jehudah (bar Ilai); explicitly so in Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2. The opinion ascribed here to R. Meïr there is that of the anonymous Sages. preached: The earlobe was pierced, lest a Cohen become disqualified. Rebbi Meïr says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rebbi Meïr says that a Cohen cannot be pierced lest he become blemished and be disqualified for service²⁹⁸ 6:1 notes that both sacrificial animal and priest are disqualified for Divine service if the cartilage of their ears be punctured in the size of a vetch seed.. Could not the cartilage be pierced less than the size of a vetch seed? Maybe it would result in the size of a vetch seed. Let it be the size of a vetch! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance²⁹⁹. 25:27. This is the wrong quote since it refers to real estate returned to its original owner in the Jubilee. The verse referring to the Hebrew slave released in the Jubilee is v. 41, “he shall return to his family, to his forefathers’ inheritance he shall return.” The inheritance of a priest is the Divine service (Num. 18:20).,” as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children³⁰⁰.Ismael Neziqin2, dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.. “By an awl”³⁰¹. 21:6.. Not only an awl, from where even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass? The verse says, “he pierces”³⁰² 15:17: “You shall take the awl,” anything that can be used to serve as an awl.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

footnotes: ²⁹⁷ In the Babli, 21b, and Sifry Deut ²⁹⁸ Mishnah Bekhorot ²⁹⁹ Lev ³⁰⁰ A Jewish wife and children, whom he is unable to support by himself. Mekhilta dR ³⁰¹ Ex ³⁰² This interpretation seems to be the reason for the masoretic accents which introduce a dividing accent: “he shall pierce his ear, with an awl”, taking “as an awl” as an afterthought. The Babli, 21b, refers to Deut

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated³⁰³ 16b; Sifry Deut. #122.: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation.The Torah said, “in a scroll”³⁰⁴, but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust”³⁰⁵. 17:13. The blood of slaughtered wild animals or birds has to be covered “in dust”., but practice said in anything on which plants grow³⁰⁶ 6:6.. The Torah said, “with an awl”, but practice said, even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation³⁰⁷: Rebbi Ismael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair³⁰⁸. 14:9, speaking of the ritual purification of the healed sufferer from skin disease. All the quotes are from this verse.,” inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail³⁰⁹. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only [hair growing] in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd³¹⁰ 14:4. (Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2 disagrees with the baraita here and the Mishnah and holds that the insistence on the shaving of all hair in both inclusions requires that any single one of the properties mentioned in the analysis of the detail, hair growing in bunches or visible, has to be shaved but nothing else. The Tanna of Sifra holds that practice follows interpretation closely.). “With an awl”, since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal³¹¹.Ismael Neziqin 2, Sifry Deut # 122, this is an argument of Rebbi, in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, of R. Yose ben Jehudah: Any metal implement which can be used for piercing is called “awl”. The most detailed analysis of the verse is in the Babli, 21b, (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) where the inclusion-exclusion methodology of R. Ismael is shown to lead to the admissibility of any metal piercing instrument and the addition-subtraction methodology of R. Aqiba to the inclusion of all mechanical and the exclusion of chemical means.. Rebbi Yose said, this is a large drill³¹² 122, Midrash Haggadol Deut. on Deut. 15:17: This is the large awl. The Yerushalmi text seems to be the original.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.³¹³. 21:6; cf. Deut. 15:17.” I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post”. Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright³¹⁴.Ismael Neziqin 2, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.: a shame to him and to his family³¹⁵.

footnotes: ³⁰³ Babli Soṭah ³⁰⁴ This is a wrong quote, referring to Num. 6:23, the text of the incantations required in the rite of the wife suspected of infidelity. But that text has to be written on a scroll; cf. Soṭah 2:4, Notes 143-144. Here, it should say סֵפֶר "book", referring to the divorce document mentioned in Deut. 24:1 which can be written on anything not connected to the ground; Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3. The quote is correct in the sources quoted in the preceding Note. ³⁰⁵ Lev ³⁰⁶ Mishnah Ḥulin ³⁰⁷ R. Ismael’s own hermeneutical rules. ³⁰⁸ Lev ³⁰⁹ By the seventh hermeneutical rule one has to try to find an intensional definition of the properties common to the examples given as detail; these then are the properties referred to by the inclusions. ³¹⁰ Shaving completely every exposed hair; Mishnah Nega‘im ³¹¹ In Babylonian sources, Babli 21b, Mekhilta dR ³¹² In Sifry Deut # ³¹³ Ex ³¹⁴ Babli 22b, Mekhilta dR ³¹⁵ They violated their obligation to support their relative when he could not fend for himself.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, why at the door? Because by the door they went from servitude to freedom³¹⁶. 12:7.. ³¹⁷.Ismael Neziqin 2. The students asked Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Why should the slave be pierced in his ear rather than in any of his other body parts? He said to them, the ear which heard at Mount Sinai: “You shall have no other powers besides Me,” and removed from himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven but accepted the yoke of flesh and blood; the ear which heard before Mount Sinai: “For the Children of Israel are My servants,” and went and acquired another master; therefore the ear should come and be pierced for he¹ did not follow what his ear heard.

footnotes: ³¹⁶ By the blood of the Passover sacrifice on the doorposts in Egypt, Ex ³¹⁷ Babli 22b; Mekhilta dR ¹ The slave.

“His ear³¹⁸. 21:6..” Since “his ear” mentioned there³¹⁹. 8:23,24) or the purification of the sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28). In both cases, it is spelled out that blood was given on the right ear’s cartilage. means the right ear, also here the right ear³²⁰.Ismael,Neziqin 2; Sifry Deut. #122.. “If the slave says saying³²¹. 21:5. The interpretation of the emphatic infinitive construction as additional condition is characteristic of R. Aqiba’s interpretation; it is rejected by R. Ismael who considers it a regular feature of biblical syntax.”, two sayings, one at the end of the sixth year and one at the start of the seventh year³²².Ismael,Mišpaṭim 2; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 162; Sifry Deut. #121.. One at the end of the sixth year, while he still is in his servitude and one at the start of the seventh year, “I will not go free.³²³” “I love my master, my wife, and my children.³²⁴. 21:5.” This teaches that he cannot be pierced unless he have a wife and children, unless he love his master and his master love him; unless the property be blessed because of him³²⁵.Ismael,Mišpaṭim2; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 162; Sifry Deut. #121; Midrash Tannaïm preserved in Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17. The last source is the only one which explicitly refers the mention of “the wife” to the Canaanite slave given to him by his master (cf. Rashi to Ex. 21:5), not to the Jewish wife and her children who also have to be sustained by his master (Ex. 21:3). as it is said: “For he feels well with you³²⁴. 21:5..”

footnotes: ³¹⁸ Ex ³¹⁹ This may refer either to the induction ceremony of the priests (Lev ³²⁰ Mekhilta dR ³²¹ Ex ³²² The slave has to give notice of his intention to remain in his servile state while he still is indentured and has to repeat it at the moment he should become free again. Babli 22a, Mekhilta dR ³²³ This is the statement required at the time of his planned release. ³²⁴ Ex ³²⁵ Mekhilta dR ³²⁴ Ex

“He regains his autonomy in the Jubilee,” as it is written: “He leaves in the Jubilee together with his children³²⁶. 25:54. The text is misquoted; it reads וְיָצָא בִּשְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל “he leaves in the Jubilee year.”.” “Or at the master’s death,” as it is written: “He shall be for you a perpetual slave,³²⁷. 15:17. In contrast to the slave indentured for six years, the “pierced slave” does not serve the son. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, end; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 164; Sifry Deut. #121.” all the days of his master’s lifetime.

footnotes: ³²⁶ Lev ³²⁷ Deut

MISHNAH: A Canaanite slave³²⁸. 9:25). is acquired by money, or contract, or possession³²⁹ 5:5, Note 100.. He gains his autonomy by money through a third party³³⁰ or a document by himself³³¹, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, by money also by himself³³² or a document through a third party³³³, if only the money comes from a third party.

footnotes: ³²⁸ Any Gentile slave is called “Canaanite” since Canaan was called “a slave of slaves to his fellow men” (Gen ³²⁹ A slave who becomes ownerless by the death of his intestate owner who dies without heirs can be acquired by anybody who makes him perform a slave’s duties for himself. Also, a person who claims to have bought a slave from another party will have his ownership confirmed by the court if he can show three years of uncontested ownership. Cf. Ketubot ³³⁰ R. Meïr holds that any property of the slave’s is his master’s. If the slave receives monies from other people on condition that they not be his master’s property, the condition is not operative. The slave cannot buy his freedom with his master’s money. ³³¹ By manumission, the slave (who had been circumcized as a Jew’s slave) becomes a full Jew. As such, he is permitted to marry a Jewish partner but is prohibited promiscuity. R. Meïr holds that people prefer promiscuity to the discipline of marriage; for him, manumission has detrimental aspects. Since nobody can legally act to another person’s detriment without that person’s authorization, a third party cannot accept a document of manumission without the slave’s authorization. ³³² If a slave receives money on condition that it not be his master’s, the condition is valid. The slave may use that money to buy his freedom. ³³³ They hold that the prohibition of promiscuity is a small price to pay for freedom and the possibility of marriage. Since a person can legally act to another person’s benefit without that person’s authorization, a third party can accept a document of manumission without the slave’s authorization.

HALAKHAH: “A Canaanite slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written³³⁴. 25:46, speaking of Gentile slaves. The same argument in the Babli, 22b, Bekhorot 13a; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(4).: “They shall be inherited by your children after you, to be possessed as inheritance” This brackets slaves with landed property. Since real estate can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession, so a Canaanite slave can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession.

footnotes: ³³⁴ Lev

³³⁵ From where that landed property is bought by money, or contract, or possession? “Fields will be bought by money, writing on a scroll and signing, and testifying of witnesses.³³⁶. 32:44. A prophetic text cannot really serve as legal source but it can demonstrate practice. Since the speaker in this verse is God, the practice is accepted by Heaven.” “And signing”, these are the witnesses on the contract. “And testifying of witnesses,” these are the witnesses to possession. Or maybe these are only the witnesses on the contract? These are already written: “Writing on a scroll and signing.”

footnotes: ³³⁵ Cf. Babli 26a.A parallel text for this and the following paragraphs is in Halakhah 5 (Note 479); variants are noted there. ³³⁶ Jer

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana³³⁷; Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money³³⁸.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said³³⁹ 50a. There, the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is ascribed to R. Ḥanina. In Gen.rabba58(9), the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is in the name of R. Yudan.: Any šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas¹²² 7:1. If somebody dedicates his field to the Temple, Scripture prescribes that he redeem it proportional to the numbers of years to the next Jubilee. The full rate, for the entire 49 yars of a Jubilee cycle, is 50 šeqel for a field on which a ḥomer (or kur, 30 se’ah) of barley can be sown (75’000 square cubits). Talmudic theory identifies the biblical šeqel with the Roman tetradrachma, which is slightly more than the standard šeqel documented from First Kingdom times, 11.4 g. Since in the vernacular the zūz, the Babylonian half-šeqel, was identified with the Roman denarius, the “sheqel” was identified as two denar. This gave rise to the theory that the biblical “holy šeqel”, which simply was “the king’s weight” and still the Tyrian šeqel in Roman times, was twice the profane šeqel. The rate to be paid for the standard field per year therefore was ⁵⁰/49 = 1 ¹/49 tetradrachma. The rate stated in the Mishnah is 1 ¹/48 tetradrachma. The small difference, 1/48 - 1/49 is qolbon (κόλλυβος, Latin collybus,collubus, “exchange of coins; rate of exchange”), the small coin paid as agio to the money-changer to convert the sum into actual coin. The Mishnah shows that a dupondius was 1/48 of a tetradrachma or half an obolus., in the Prophets pounds340, Greek λίτρα, of 96 denarii or 24 tetradrachmas., and in the Hagiographs centenarii³⁴¹, “consisting of a hundred”, in this case 100 librae. The same meaning, 100 lb., is found in Middle High German zëntenaere,zëntner.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron³⁴². 23:9., which were centenarii. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist³⁴³. 23:29; the extra fine the rapist of a virgin pays is “50 silver pieces”; cf. Ketubot 3:1, Note 1., for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”?

footnotes: ³³⁷ R. Mana I. ³³⁸ Anything less than the smallest coin is not money. ³³⁹ Babli Bekhorot ¹²² Mishnah ‘Arakhin ³⁴¹ A noun, meaning “100 pieces” formed in vulgar Latin from the classical adjective centenarius ³⁴² Paid by Abraham for the Makhpela cave, Gen ³⁴³ Deut

This does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, for Rebbi Eliezer said that walking acquires, as it was stated: ³⁴⁴ 100a. One assumes either that the field is ownerless or that the acquirer has a claim of possession that would give him squatter’s rights; cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100. In R. Eliezer’s opinion, the rules of acquisition of a Canaanite slave are not identical with those for real estate; he will reject deriving legal rules from a verse in the Prophets. If one walked across a field in length and breadth, he acquired up to the place he walked to, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say that he did not acquire up to the moment he acted in possession³⁴⁵. Everybody agrees that if somebody sells a path to another, when the latter went, he acquired. What is the reason? “Arise, walk in the Land in length and breadth, for I shall give it to you.³⁴⁶. 13:17.”

footnotes: ³⁴⁴ Babli Baba batra ³⁴⁵ He performed some agricultural work on the property. ³⁴⁶ Gen

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there³⁴⁷ 3:1. The Mishnah discusses how to establish title in the absence of a deed.: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave¹ are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot5:5, Note 100. As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law. A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”. A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.³⁴⁸? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift³⁴⁹ 128a, this is a matter in dispute; the ultimate authority Rav Naḥman agrees with the ruling of the Yerushalmi.; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate³⁵⁰ is a lien only on her husband’s real estate, the ketubah cannot be collected by the widow or divorcee by taking slave girls from the estate.. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. ³⁵¹ 9:3, Notes 111–112. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves³⁵² 12a.; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired³⁵³. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed³⁵⁴ will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.³⁵⁵ 6:5. Property claims about real estate and slaves, in contrast to movables, cannot be adjudicated by having the parties swear about ownership and responsibility.”

footnotes: ³⁴⁷ Mishnah Baba batra ¹ His proof that arguments de minore ad majus ³⁴⁸ Babli 22b; Tosephta 1:5. Movables are acquired by actually taking them. Similarly, ownerless slaves are acquired by having them carry the new master's property. ³⁴⁹ This statement has no connection with the remainder of the text. If real estate is sold, the seller accepts responsibility to indemnify the buyer if the latter should lose the real estate because of foreclosure of a pre-existing lien, whether or not this is spelled out in the sale contract. For a gift of real estate, the donor accepts responsibility only if this is so stated in the deed. In the Babli, Baba batra ³⁵⁰ While slaves can be given in chattel mortgage, they are not subject to blanket liens which cover all the debtor’s real estate. In particular, at places where a woman’s ketubah ³⁵¹ Ketubot ³⁵² Like Ptolemaic and Roman laws, rabbinic civil law is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Paying for an acquisition conveys ownership but the transfer of property rights and liabilities requires an act of possession (cf. Halakhot 4,5). Taking possession by use (cf. Note 30) of a piece of real estate establishes possession of all real estate and movables included in one sale contract. Similarly, movables are taken into possession by moving one piece; this simultaneously gives possession of all items included in the sale. Since taking possession of slaves is by individual action only, in this respect they follow neither the rules of real estate nor those of movables. Taking possession of slaves does not induce possession of either real estate or movables covered by the same sales contract; Babli Baba qama ³⁵⁴ I. e., movables which have no title guarantee. ³⁵⁵ Mishnah 1:5; Šebuot

“By money.³⁵⁶” Rebbi Jeremiah said, from another person to his master, therefore not from his master to another person³⁵⁷ changes hands. But the master cannot give a peruṭah to a third person as a symbol of the slave’s manumission.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even from his master to another person. What brings this? From his master to himself³⁵⁸. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Here you have money that your field shall be unencumbered³⁵⁹.” He answered, it is unencumbered. “That it be ownerless³⁶⁰”? He answered, it is not ownerless³⁶¹. What is the difference between the cases? Here he advantaged a thinking person, there he did not advantage any thinking person. Think of it, if he³⁶² was deaf-mute³⁶³ 1:2 Note 134, Yebamot 14:1.? He said to him, “a man.³⁶⁴. 25:17, the word “man” is used to describe the agent in a real estate transaction. The deaf-mute is a man even if he is unable to act in law.” Think of it, if he³⁶² was underage? He said to him, one usually grows up³⁶⁵ 46b.). Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Even with a contract through others, not by himself³⁶⁶ 6:1, Note 10), a document delivered by the master to the slave is a document delivered by the master to himself and cannot have any validity. The bill of manumission must be delivered through the agency of a third person whose acceptance of the bill sets the slave free. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that “he receives simultaneously his hand and his freedom.” The Babli, 24a, reports a similar opinion of R. Simeon bar Eleazar in the name of R. Meïr regarding a wife’s ability to contract without her husband.. Does not his master deliver a document to others that his slave regain his freedom? Here also, his master gives money to others that his field become ownerless³⁶⁷.

footnotes: ³⁵⁶ Here starts the discussion of the manumission of a slave according to R. Meïr. ³⁵⁷ A third party gives money to the master to buy the slave’s freedom. This works even if the transaction is purely symbolic and only a peruṭah ³⁵⁸ The result of the transaction between master and third party is the freedom of the ostensibly uninvolved slave. ³⁵⁹ A third party can give money to a creditor to satisfy the mortgage on a field since even R. Meïr will agree that a person can legally act to another person’s benefit without that person’s authorization.Some commentators are emending “field” to “slave” in the entire paragraph. ³⁶⁰ A person gives money to the owner of a piece of real estate for the latter to renounce his ownership. It is clear that if the former owner renounces his ownership by explicit declaration, the land becomes ownerless. Here the money is given without the owner’s saying a word. ³⁶¹ The action is not valid in law. ³⁶² The beneficiary of a sane person’s action. ³⁶³ Who is unable to act in law; cf. Ketubot ³⁶⁴ In Lev ³⁶² The beneficiary of a sane person’s action. ³⁶⁵ Only a minority of children die before reaching puberty. (The Babli would reject this argument since it insists that R. Meïr requires rules also to be valid for a minority. For the rabbis who dispute R. Meïr’s position, a minor can acquire but not renounce ownership; Sukkah ³⁶⁶ He disagrees with the Mishnah. Since R. Meïr states that the hand of the slave is the hand of his master (see below and Ketubot ³⁶⁷ This justifies R. Ze‘ira’s earlier remark that a slave can be manumitted by his master’s giving a coin to a third party.

Rebbi Abun said, it³⁶⁸ follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave³⁶⁹ 23b, 41b; in Temurah 25b ascribed to R. Meïr. It is clear that “half of his slave” means “any part of his slave.” Why would anybody want to partially emancipate his slave? By Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:5, the master is then forced to emancipate the slave completely and the slave has to write an IOU for the part of him that was not manumitted. If the slave is not worth his upkeep, the slave has no interest in being freed but his master is interested in getting rid of him and even having the chance of collecting some money from the IOU. (In Roman law, partial emancipation is accepted by Ulpian I 18 but rejected by most other earlier authorities. The Mishnaic law also appears in Egyptian sources and is incorporated in Justinian’s Code; cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, p. 75.). But do the rabbis not hold that a person can free half of his slave? They admit it for a slave held in partnership³⁷⁰. But there is a difference for a slave who entirely belongs to him, for it is as if he gave something from his right into his left hand³⁷¹. Does Rebbi hold that it is not as if he gave something from his right into his left hand? He admits it if he gave to him through a third party. Do the rabbis not hold that he may give to him through a third party? The rabbis hold that one who can acquire by himself can acquire through a third party; one who cannot acquire by himself cannot acquire through a third party. Rebbi says, even though he cannot acquire by himself, he can acquire through third parties.

footnotes: ³⁶⁸ The statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar that R. Meïr requires the intervention of a third party in the manumission of a slave by document. ³⁶⁹ Babli Giṭṭin ³⁷⁰ Since the partial owner eliminates all of his ownership in the slave. ³⁷¹ Since for R. Meïr the slave’s hand is his master’s hand.

If he³⁷² 1:1.) picked up a find and said, for the purpose that I own it rather than my master. Does he and his master own it automatically³⁷³ 1:5 gives the master ownership of the finds of his Cannanite slave. The question is whether this is always the case automatically or whether it is only the default option, valid unless the slave stipulates that it be his own property before he picks up the object. The question has to be asked for the anonymous majority who hold that a third party may give something to a slave on condition that his master have no part in it. or does he own it but not his master? Let us hear from the following³⁷⁴11:5 (נ), Notes 69–70.: “If a person is by a vow prevented from benefitting his son-in-law but wants to give money to his daughter, he says to her: These coins are given to you as a gift on condition that your husband have no claim to them, except what you put into your mouth.” It was stated: “Neither do you³⁷⁵”. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, who stated “neither do you”? Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of a slave the hand of his master. For a gift [we follow] Rebbi Meïr that the wife’s hand is her husband’s hand³⁷⁶; for a find [do we follow] the rabbis? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁷⁷ said before Rebbi Mana, is there not a difference, for he is as if he acquired by somebody else’s opinion³⁷⁸? He said to him, is it not a case a fortiori? Since in her case, when she would acquire by somebody else’s opinion³⁷⁹, you say that what a wife acquired, her husband acquired: here where he acquires by his own opinion, a fortiori what the slave acquired his master must acquire.

footnotes: ³⁷² The slave picks up something that was lost in the public domain and, therefore, is ownerless. By the act of lifting, the finder acquires as property (Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ ³⁷³ Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ ³⁷⁴ Mishnah and Halakhah Nedarim ³⁷⁵ Everything remains the father’s property until the food is eaten. But for the rabbis, a wife can acquire independent from her husband; Babli 23b. ³⁷⁶ Since the Mishnah is formulated anonymously, it represents practice. ³⁷⁷ The name probably should be “Ezra”. ³⁷⁸ If the person who lost the article realizes his loss and gives up hope of recovery, he implicitly agrees to transfer his property rights to the finder. ³⁷⁹ A conscious transfer of property by the father.

Why did we not state: By important limbs that do not regenerate³⁸⁰. 21:26–27 prescribes that a slave who lost an eye or a permanent tooth by his master’s action must be given his freedom. “Tooth and eye” is generalized as “permanenent deficiency involving a visible essential limb.” (Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 9).? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, because of the disagreement. Some Tannaīm³⁸¹ 42b, R. Eliezer in Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin9; an anonymous Tanna in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, p. 177. For this Tanna, the freedom of the injured slave is “freedom by document”, covered by the Mishnah. The omission in the Mishnah is an implicit indication that practice requires a bill of manumission. state that he needs a bill of manumission; some Tannaīm state that he does not need a bill of manumission³⁸² 42b; cf. Giṭṭin 4:4, Note 100..

footnotes: ³⁸⁰ Ex ³⁸¹ R. Ismael in Babli Giṭṭin ³⁸² R. Meïr in Babli Giṭṭin

It is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another³⁸³, by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself³⁸⁴. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. If one said: Here [I am giving] you this money on condition that your master have no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it [but not]³⁸⁵. his master³⁸⁶. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following³⁸⁷ 8:4. The borrower of livestock is responsible if the animal is injured or dies while in his custody (Ex. 22:13). The responsibility of the borrower starts at the moment when he takes control of the animal. As long as the animal is driven by the owner’s slave, it is in the owner’s hand and the borrower is not responsible. But (as stated in the part of the Mishnah not quoted here) if the borrower said, send it to me through your slave and something happens on the way, the borrower is responsible.: ³⁸⁸ 4:4 (מ, Notes 91–97), Erubin 7, ע.“If somebody borrowed a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain if for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open [the gate] for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

footnotes: ³⁸³ Since gifts can be given without the recipient’s knowledge, the master A could accept B’s gift to C without asking C. Therefore, the slave can do the same in his master’s stead. ³⁸⁴ A direct gift from the master to his slave is “a gift from the master’s right to his left hand” (Note 371). ³⁸⁵ Word missing in ms., corrected in editio princeps ³⁸⁶ Quoted but in the end rejected in the Babli, 23b. The only gift which the Babli removes from the master is one given to the slave for the purpose of buying the latter’s freedom. Since the slave did not acquire the money, his master has no claim. ³⁸⁷ Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ ³⁸⁸ The text from here to the end of the paragraph is from Ma‘aśer Šeni

Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission³⁹¹ 23b. since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce³⁹² 2:6, Notes 129,130; Babli 23b. since a bill of divorce does not apply to him. If you say, is that not a baraita? “Your are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs³⁹³ is no support for the first statement of R. Joḥanan; Babli Giṭṭin 23b, Temurah 25a.. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan³⁹⁴: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission but he should not be able to accept a bill of his equal³⁹⁵. If you say, the preceding baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs.

footnotes: ³⁹¹ The bill of manumission of another owner’s slave, even following R. Meïr. Babli Giṭṭin ³⁹² Giṭṭin ³⁹³ As explained below, this rule follows Rebbi who permits partial manumission, but R. Joḥanan claims that his statement is accepted by everybody. Therefore, the baraita ³⁹⁴ He presents an alternate version of what R. Joḥanan said. ³⁹⁵ A slave cannot accept the bill of manumission of a fellow slave of the same master since his hand is his master’s hand. It is necessary to emphasize that the slave can validly receive only the bill of another master’s slave.

“For my slave girl X I want a document that she should not be enslaved.³⁹⁶40a, disagrees and holds that the slave girl must be freed by the heirs. Only if the testator said that “she should be treated well”, she remains a slave but cannot be forced to do any work she dislikes.)” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said, he³⁹⁷ has no power to enslave. What are her children³⁹⁸.cit., agrees.? Slaves. What did he retain for her? Her earnings³⁹⁹. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yose both said, this follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. If he wrote all his possessions jointly to two of his slaves, both are free and both have to free one another⁴⁰⁰ 42a, which notes that if the properties were not given jointly but half to one and half to the other, they would remain slaves and get nothing since they could not free one another.. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Abba: Does this not imply that one slave accepts from his master for another one⁴⁰¹? He answered, what do you think? Since they acquired the properties they went free? No, simultaneously slaves and properties went free⁴⁰² can only be satisfactorily explained following the rabbis who oppose R. Meïr and hold that a slave can accept his own bill since by the bill he is able to act in law..

footnotes: ³⁹⁶ A man writes in his will that the girl who cared for him cannot be used for servile tasks by his heirs. The heirs have to support her but cannot require any work from her. (The Babli, Giṭṭin ³⁹⁷ The heir. ³⁹⁸ Born after her original master’s death. The Babli, loc ³⁹⁹ She pockets all she earns while being supported by the heir. ⁴⁰⁰ Babli Giṭṭin ⁴⁰¹ If the two slaves have to free one another, it seems to imply that by accepting the will each of them was instrumental in freeing half of the other. This would contradict the earlier statement that a slave cannot be part of the manumission of another slave of the same master. ⁴⁰² The argument proposed in the previous Note is impossible since a half-free slave is unable to act in law. As the Babli formulates it, “his bill of manumission and his hand are simultaneous.” The baraita

“You are free but your child⁴⁰³ will be a slave,” her child is like her⁴⁰⁴ 25b), R. Yose the Galilean disagrees with Rebbi and holds that a slave partially freed is totally freed. He also holds that the fetus is part of the mother; the opposing view, that a fetus has a life of its own, is only found in the Babli (loc.cit. Note 393)., the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah⁴⁰⁵, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, it is understandable; there is a disagreement. What is the disagreement following Rebbi Eleazar? But it must be so⁴⁰⁶.: His words stand, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁴⁰⁷. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. What means “he did not do anything”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves⁴⁰⁸. Following Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave⁴⁰⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁰³ The unborn child. ⁴⁰⁴ In this version (the only one quoted in the Babli, Temurah ⁴⁰⁵ He reputedly was one of the first collectors of the Tosephta, illustrating the Mishnah. ⁴⁰⁶ Corrected version of the baraita ⁴⁰⁷ As mentioned at the end of the paragraph, he follows Rebbi and admits freeing a slave limb by limb. ⁴⁰⁸ Following the Sages who admit partial manumission only in the case of a slave jointly owned by several persons, Note 370. ⁴⁰⁷ As mentioned at the end of the paragraph, he follows Rebbi and admits freeing a slave limb by limb.

MISHNAH: Large animals by handing over⁴⁰⁹ and small⁴¹⁰ by lifting, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eleazar. But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near⁴¹¹.

footnotes: ⁴⁰⁹ Actual possession of cattle or horses is obtained by the buyer grasping either the animal’s hair or any saddle, bridle, or belt tied to it. Talmudic civil law, in parallel to Ptolemaic law in Egypt, is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Ownership can be acquired by a monetary transaction but possession, including transfer of responsibility, requires a separate act. While acquisition, as a private act between consenting adults, is essentially unregulated, taking possession must follow specific rules. ⁴¹⁰ Sheep and goats. ⁴¹¹ By making the animal walk according to the buyer’s will, but also by lifting the animal.

HALAKHAH: “Large animals are taken possession of by handing over,” etc. Rebbi Huna said, the halter gives possession only for property of the proselyte⁴¹²‘ 8b, Rav Huna states: that “a halter from another person takes possession except in case of a find and property of a proselyte.” On basis of this quote, all commentators and editors delete אֶלָּא “only” in the present text. The deletion is unjustified; the texts in Yerushalmi and Babli are not comparable. In the Babli, the formulation makes it clear that the buyer either receives the animal’s halter from the seller or is instructed to take it. Since both a lost article and the estate of an intestate heirless person are ownerless, there is nobody who could hand over the halter or authorize its use. Therefore, only actual moving of the animal can be an act of simultaneous acquisition and taking in possession. While the text of the Babli is beyond doubt, confirmed by Rashi’s translation of מוסירה by chevêtre, it is quoted in Tosaphot Baba batra 75b, s. v. אחזה, as מְסִירָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, “handing over by another person”, which is correct in meaning if not in text. By contrast, neither handing over nor third person is mentioned in the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi asserts that in acquiring and taking possession of ownerless property, taking up the halter is enough, but not in course of formal taking possession of property acquired from a prior owner.. Rav Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Eleazar asked, if there were ten camels tied one to another and he handed him the halter of one of them. Did he take possession of all of them or only of the one of which he handed him [the halter]⁴¹³? Rav Ḥisda said: “Draw⁴¹⁴ this animal to take possession of it, he took possession. To take possession of its offspring, he did not take possession⁴¹⁵ 3:1, fol. 13d 1. 66, “he took possession.” The reading of Baba batra is incomprehensible.. To take possession of it together with its offspring, he took possession⁴¹⁶: “He did not take possession,” cf. Note 415..” If somebody said to another person, draw this animal close to take possession of its load, would he not take possession⁴¹⁷‘ 9b, disagrees.? Rebbi Yose said, that is, if the animal was not pregnant⁴¹⁸. But if it was pregnant, they considered it as if carrying a load⁴¹⁹ (Note 415), R. Nasa notes that a fetus is part of his mother’s body (Note 404)..

footnotes: ⁴¹² Who failed to start a Jewish family and whose property becomes ownerless at his death; cf. Note 30. In the Babli, Baba meṣia ⁴¹³ It is assumed that even if the first camel took a step under the influence of its new owner, the other nine did not move. ⁴¹⁴ The seller instructs the buyer to proceed to take possession of the animal he bought. ⁴¹⁵ Moving an animal which he did not buy does not give possession. In the parallel Baba batra ⁴¹⁶ In taking possession of a group of animals, it is enough to move one of them. This answers R. Eleazar’s question. In Baba batra ⁴¹⁷ If he also bought the animal, moving it moves the load and all is taken in possession. The Babli, Baba meṣia ⁴¹⁸ If the offspring are already born, they are independent animals which must be acquired by themselves. ⁴¹⁹ In Baba batra

⁴²⁰5:10 (ז). Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin⁴²¹ and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he had no other intention than that no other person should take it⁴²². Can he take possession at a minimal rate⁴²³5:5, Note 116.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Yose: A Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there⁴²⁴ 5:10.: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew⁴²⁵. 13:18).. If he fixed the price before he measured, the proceeds are permitted⁴²⁶; if he measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden⁴²⁷.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal rate⁴²⁸, even if he measured before he fixed the price, it should be as if he fixed the price before he measured⁴²⁹ 72a, rejects the argument since it may be that the seriousness of the prohibition of pagan worship might override rules of contracts. and the proceeds would be permitted.

footnotes: ⁴²⁰ A parallel is in ‘Avodah zarah ⁴²¹ When no price had been agreed upon. Therefore, handling of the wine skin by the prospective buyer cannot be taking possession. ⁴²² It was handled in preparation of a buy. ⁴²³ Is it possible to take possession now of a commodity whose price will be determined at a future rate, e. g., the lowest price at which the commodity will be traded in the market (the commodities exchange) during the next 30 days. This is a futures contract which cannot be enforced (cf. Ketubot ⁴²⁴ Mishnah ‘Avodah zarah ⁴²⁵ The Non-Jew is assumed to use his wine for libations, among other things. Since a libation makes the wine an instrument of pagan worship, it will be forbidden to a Jew and all proceeds received for it are forbidden (Deut ⁴²⁶ The Non-Jew owed the price to the Jew before he went and took possession of the wine. What the Jew sold was wine, not an article of pagan worship. ⁴²⁷ If the Non-Jew handled the wine before the price was fixed, the Jew sold an article of pagan worship. ⁴²⁸ Or any rate to be determined in the future. ⁴²⁹ Since he could have transferred possession to the Non-Jew before the latter handled the wine. The Babli, ‘Avodah zarah

Samuel said, if somebody take a small gold vessel and it be snatched, who is responsible for it⁴³⁰? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is at Tyre or a similar place, at Caesarea⁴³¹ or a similar place. But here, so far it usually would be recovered.

footnotes: ⁴³⁰ If the person handling the vessel was not the owner. ⁴³¹ Big cities where thieves easily find fences.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody sold a flock⁴³² to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a whistle. And some say, the bell-wether⁴³³ 3:1 (13d 1. 43), the bell-wether is called תַּייָשָׁא רַבָּא “the large ram”, and instead of “whistle” one has πανδοῦρα, Latin pandura, a three-stringed musical instrument, invented by Pan. [Also compare Latin pandus, -a,-um “bent, crooked, curved” as reference to shephard’s crook? (E. G.)] In the Babli, Baba qama 52a, only tambourine and bell-wether (“the ram at the head of the flock”) are offered as explanations of maškokît..

footnotes: ⁴³² Of sheep or goats. ⁴³³ It is difficult to explain the feminine form chosen for “bell-wether”. In the parallel Baba batra

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If somebody sell a cistern, when he handed over its pail [the buyer] took possession⁴³⁴ 51b, requires a declaration by the seller that the pail is handed over for possession.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sell a house, when [the buyer] stored there, he took possession. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, what if he handed over the key⁴³⁵ 51b/52a, handing over the key as sign of transfer of possession is undeniably a valid action.? Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, said: This is a disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there⁴³⁶ 7:1.: “If somebody hand over the key to his house to an ‘am ha’areṣ⁴³⁷, the house is pure since he handed to him only the guarding of the key.” It was stated⁴³⁸ 8:1. He implies, against the othet Tanna, that handing over the key implies permission to use the house.: “Rebbi Simeon declares impure.”

footnotes: ⁴³⁴ The Babli, Baba qama ⁴³⁵ In the Babli, Baba qama ⁴³⁶ Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁴³⁷ A person who does not keep the rules of ritual purity. If he did enter the house, any movables (food and vessels) he touches there would become impure. ⁴³⁸ Tosephta Ṭahorot

⁴³⁹6:3 (ד), Notes 79–83, which has an intelligible text.“Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person⁴⁴⁰. The text here reads: “The children of another person’s slave girl” which does not make sense., he did not do anything; the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself; a slave girl and reserve her children for himself; an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses from that dry land to acquire its airspace⁴⁴¹. The text here reads: “A tenth of its surface area”, which is inappropriate.. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that one tenth of it be acquired by you.

footnotes: ⁴³⁹ This paragraph is from Demay ⁴⁴⁰ Translation of the text in Demay ⁴⁴¹ Translation of the text in Demay

⁴⁴² 8:1, Notes 17–21. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

footnotes: ⁴⁴² Giṭṭin

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families⁴⁴³. 12:21..” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask⁴⁴⁴ 11b, the messenger was Ulla.: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions⁴⁴⁵. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days⁴⁴⁶. 13:13,34:20); this is specified in Num. 3:40,47 to apply to firstborn sons above the age of one month and the redemption money, 5 biblical šeqalim (Note 122), has to be given to a priest. A human who develops a defect which makes his long-term survival impossible is called “torn”, a term used in parallel with the talmudic interpretation of “torn” animals forbidden as food (Ex. 22:30).? He answered, he is as if dead⁴⁴⁷ 78a). In the Babli, Menaḥot 37a/b, the rule is derived from Num. 18:15 (cf. also Sifry Num. #118.) and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. ⁴⁴⁸ 3:4, Notes 103–104; the parallel in the Babli is Baba qama 11a. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

footnotes: ⁴⁴³ Ex ⁴⁴⁴ As the later text shows, probably one should read here: “To ask R. Eleazar.” According to the Babli, Baba qama ⁴⁴⁵ Obviously, Rav Jehudah was supposed to have studied the Mishnah. But he was not sure about the references to large and small domesticated animals and asked for the correct text from the Babylonian R. Eleazar in Galilee where the latter had access to the traditions of the school of Rebbi. ⁴⁴⁶ A firstborn son has to be redeemed (Ex ⁴⁴⁷ This parallels the rabbinic theory that a person who kills a “torn” human cannot be convicted of first-degree murder (Babli Sanhedrin ⁴⁴⁸ Niddah

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper⁴⁴⁹. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second⁴⁵⁰ 9:5, Note 144. is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. ⁴⁵¹ 9:5, Notes 128–146 (variant readings given there). There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear⁴⁵² text, instead of נשבע “been made to swear” which does not fit here. from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

footnotes: ⁴⁴⁹ And something happens to the object to be kept, who is responsible? ⁴⁵⁰ This must read: “The first”, as shown by the last statement in the paragraph and shown in Ketubot ⁴⁵¹ From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ketubot ⁴⁵² Translation of נשמעינה in the Ketubot

Rav Jehudah sent asking from Rebbi Eleazar: If brothers split [the estate] and then one of them entered a levirate marriage⁴⁵³? He answered, the property of the deceased is like common property⁴⁵⁴. Ulla bar Ismael said, it is found that in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion there is no difference whether they split and then one of them entered a levirate marriage or one of them entered a levirate marriage and then they split, but all of them share⁴⁵⁵ in the property of the deceased. Why did he not say so? He answered what was asked of him. And why did he not ask? Because of what Rebbi Abinna said in the name of Rebbi Assi⁴⁵⁶ 126a; Yerushalmi Ketubot 4.13, Notes 257–258.: If a first-born shared as a common son, it is prima facie evidence that he renounced his prerogative⁴⁵⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁵³ The father died and then one of the brothers died childless. The brother who married the widow inherits the childless brother’s property. If the deceased brother was not married, it is clear that the father’s inheritance is distributed among the surviving brothers. The problem is whether the brother who marries the widow only gets the deceased brother’s property or also has a claim to the share the brother would have had if he had not died. ⁴⁵⁴ The estate of the deceased brother has no claim on the father’s inheritance. ⁴⁵⁵ Equally. ⁴⁵⁶ Babli Baba batra ⁴⁵⁷ The claim to a double portion. Similarly, if the brother who married the widow did not put forth his deceased brother’s claim at the moment of distribution, he is presumed to have waived his claimt.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Brothers who split⁴⁵⁸? He answered, they divide what they are wearing but not what their sons and daughters are wearing⁴⁵⁹ 11b agrees. It notes that if the oldest brother had been made to wear more distinguished clothing in order to represent the entire family before the authorities, the extra expenditure was made on behalf of the estate and cannot be debited to the brother.. Rebbi Immi said, if one makes an appraisal⁴⁶⁰ “buy, object of acquisition; price of object”. Following the first meaning of the Accadic word, one speaks of clothing which one of the brothers bought for his wife with his father’s money, as distinct from clothing made by home manufacture. In making an inventory of the estate, these clothes are debited to the brother. for his wife, this is counted for himself and becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. If one makes a necklace¹. for his wife, this is not of the common estate to be distributed if it is to be used on weekdays⁴⁶¹. But if it is made to be used on holidays, it becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. Rebbi Mana said, holiday dresses are distributed⁴⁶². Sabbath dresses are problematic. It is obvious for Rebbi Abin that both holiday and Sabbath dresses become part of the common estate and are distributed. Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁷⁷ asked before Rebbi Mana: What about spherules⁴⁶³, “spherules” of glass or metal beads, used for jewellery, also kind of precious stones.? He answered, you understand this since you own many spherules. He said to him, they become part of the common estate to be distributed.

footnotes: ⁴⁵⁸ Brothers who all were living and working together on the father’s estate. During their father’s lifetime, they had no independent income. Sometime after the father’s death they decided to split the estate. ⁴⁵⁹ Since all they have came from the father’s estate, even what they are wearing is part of the estate. However, their children’s clothing is property of the children and cannot be counted in the estate. The Babli Baba qama ⁴⁶⁰ It is difficult to understand what is meant. The word שום has two meanings, (1) appraisal (of real estate, of dowry, etc.), (2) mole (on the skin). Neither of the meanings is appropriate here. It seems that meaning (1) is derived from Accadic šāmum ¹ Latin catella ⁴⁶¹ Small jewellery objects become property of the women and are not to be counted. ⁴⁶² They are not distributed but are counted as part of the husband’s part in the estate. ³⁷⁷ The name probably should be “Ezra”. ⁴⁶³ Greek βῶλοι, Latin boloe

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: May one foreclose slaves with real estate? He answered, one may foreclose slaves with real estate⁴⁶⁴, derived from Ptolemaic Egyptian practice), not on a specific parcel, the question arises whether slaves can be treated as real estate since for them the rules of possession are derived from the rules of real estate. In the Babli, Baba batra128a, the Babylonian Rav Naḥman rules against the Yerushalmi rule, represented there by the Galilean Rebbi Abba. (The Galilean rule could not be based on Egyptian precedents since mortgages in Egypt had to be registered with the registrar of deeds, restricted to real estate.). Rebbi Eleazar instructed those from the House of Rebbi Yannai to foreclose slaves with real estate⁴⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁴⁶⁴ Since mortgages usually were written as liens on the entire real estate of the debtor (the Byzantine mortgage omnium bonorum ⁴⁶⁵ His ruling was in practice, not only theoretical.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief⁴⁶⁶. 21:35), is the thief or robber obligated to pay for the entire damage or may he return the damaged object and pay only the difference between the original value and the amount recoverable from sale of the damaged object?? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal⁴⁶⁷ 11a, Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar represents the opposite opinion. The opinion expressed here is accepted by the Babylonian authorities as judicial practice. The paragraph is discussed in Tosaphot Baba meṣia‘ 96b/97a, s. v. זיל.. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double⁴⁶⁸. 22:3, speaking of the thief of livestock.,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed⁴⁶⁹. 5:23.,” as it was.

footnotes: ⁴⁶⁶ The owner obtained a court order of restitution for anything taken unlawfully. If the thing was broken in the meantime or if it was livestock it died (cf. Ex ⁴⁶⁷ In the Babli, Baba qama ⁴⁶⁸ Ex ⁴⁶⁹ Lev

MISHNAH: Guaranteed properties⁴⁷⁰ can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession³²⁹ 5:5, Note 100.. Not guaranteed properties⁴⁷¹ can be acquired only by drawing close⁴⁷². Not guaranteed properties can be acquired together with guaranteed properties by money, or contract, or possession⁴⁷³. Not guaranteed properties can force [the owner of] guaranteed properties to swear about them⁴⁷⁴. 22:8, specifies that the oath is required for “ox, donkey, sheep, garment, or anything lost,” excluding real estate (Mishnah Šebuot 6:7). But if the dispute was about both movables and real estate, since one party has to swear about the movables, it can also be made to include a statement about the real estate..

footnotes: ⁴⁷⁰ Real estate which normally is sold with a title guarantee. ³²⁹ A slave who becomes ownerless by the death of his intestate owner who dies without heirs can be acquired by anybody who makes him perform a slave’s duties for himself. Also, a person who claims to have bought a slave from another party will have his ownership confirmed by the court if he can show three years of uncontested ownership. Cf. Ketubot ⁴⁷¹ Movables. ⁴⁷² For this Tanna, there is no transfer of possession of movables except by delivery. ⁴⁷³ Taking possession of a piece of real estate transfers possession of all things included in the sale. ⁴⁷⁴ Monetary claims which cannot be proven or disproved are settled by an oath taken by the defendent. The verse, Ex

HALAKHAH: “Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written⁴⁷⁵ 4:7.: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.” Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi⁴⁷⁶‘ 47a, the first opinion is attributed to Rav, the second to Levi. In the Babli, the transaction is not considered as archaic but as current practice, meaning that claims can be validly transferred following Rav when the transferrer moves some of the acquirer’s movable property., one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rebbi Jehudah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.

footnotes: ⁴⁷⁵ Ruth ⁴⁷⁶ In the Babli, Baba meṣia

Then they changed it to clipping. ⁴⁷⁸2:11 (כ), Notes 201–203. What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he brought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

footnotes: ⁴⁷⁸ This paragraph is from Ketubot

Then they changed it to acquisition by money, by document, or by possession. By money: ⁴⁷⁹“Fields will be bought by money,” that is money. “Writing on a scroll and signing”, these are the witnesses on the contract. “And testifying of witnesses,” these are the witnesses to possession. Or maybe these are only the witnesses to the contract? These are already written: “Writing on a scroll and signing.”

footnotes: ⁴⁷⁹ This and the following two paragraphs are from Halakhah 3 (ק), Notes 335–346.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: All šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas, in the Prophets pounds, and in the Hagiographs centenarii, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist, for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”.

This does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, for Rebbi Eliezer said that walking acquires. If one walked across a field in length and breadth, he acquired up to the place he walked, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say that he did not acquire up to the moment he acted in possession. Everybody agrees that if somebody sells a path to another, when the latter went, he acquired. What is the reason? “Arise, walk in the Land, etc.”

By document. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, by a contract without obligating money⁴⁸⁰, but with a contract obligating money he did not acquire until he paid. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, he acquired even if he did not pay⁴⁸¹‘iṭṭur I, p. 13a, Note 7.. A baraita supports Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: ⁴⁸²2:12. These texts do not refer to a sale document in the Greek style.“If he sold him ten fields together, when he took possession of one of them, he took possession of all of them. But if he only paid the amount for one or wrote the deed⁴⁸³ 4:6, Note 167. The Hellenistic ὠνή was a transfer of title; cf. Taubenschlag (Note 369), pp. 155, 206. It is asserted here that if the transfer was made conditional upon payment, the transfer of title was restricted to the amount paid. only for one of them he acquired only the one which was sold to him.” Does there exist a deed without money⁴⁸⁴? If you say, we hold that he paid for all of them, did it not say: “the amount of one”? It must be one or the other⁴⁸⁵ in the second sentence is an exclusive “or”; the second clause is independent of the first. It follows that if the contract was written for all properties, it transfers possession of all of them..

footnotes: ⁴⁸⁰ The deed of a gift transfers possession but a sales contract does not. The Babli, 26a, endorses this opinion in the name of Samuel. ⁴⁸¹ If the document mentions the transfer of possession; cf. Sefer Ha ⁴⁸² Babli 27a; Tosephta Baba batra ⁴⁸³ Greek ὠνή, cf. Giṭṭin ⁴⁸⁴ There does, in the transfer of real estate from living parents to children in the form of a fictitious sale; cf. Taubenschlag p. 155. This practice is discussed in the next paragraph. ⁴⁸⁵ The or

“By money.” Rebbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written⁴⁸⁶. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree⁴⁸⁷. It follows that Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied⁴⁸⁸? He answered, “for your intention⁴⁸⁹. 22:19. Babli Ḥulin 13a,” this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale⁴⁹⁰ 8:5.? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Abba⁴⁹¹ 152a. said this; Samuel did not accept it. What means “he made it ride on two shining racing horses”? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand⁴⁹². Rebbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift⁴⁹³; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything⁴⁹⁴ 4:2; cf Tosaphot Qiddušin26a s. v. ולמה), but a gift document is interpreted maximally. In this interpretation of Rav, confirmed by the Babli Baba batra 152a, the holder of the deed is doubly privileged. In the Babli, Samuel is quoted as being unable to decide whether the deed is judged as sale or gift. Since Samuel is quoted as disagreeing, he must hold with R. Abba that if a deed is intended, only the deed will transfer possession.. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rebbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rebbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession⁴⁹⁵. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death⁴⁹⁶ 135b).. Who would notify the greatness⁴⁹⁷? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rebbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors⁴⁹⁸; the burden of proof is on the claimant⁴⁹⁹ 5:1 (21b 1. 70), Babli Baba qama 27b,46b, Baba batra 92b..

footnotes: ⁴⁸⁶ Since proving title is difficult without a written deed, the buyer has no intention of accepting title without the deed. Therefore, transfer of possession is possible only by delivery of the deed unless one explicitly stipulates otherwise. In the Babli, 26a, this is a statement of Rav (Rebbi Abba bar Ayvo). ⁴⁸⁷ Since they are the collectors of the material in the Yerushalmi, their opinion is accepted as practice; it is not mentioned in the Babli for whom Samuel is the deciding authority in civil law. ⁴⁸⁸ He was occupied in slaughtering profane animals when he also slaughtered an animal dedicated as sacrifice without realizing it. Is this valid slaughter? The scenario is really impossible since the slaughter of profane animals is forbidden in the holy precinct, as is the slaughter of sacrifices outside. A Temple slaughterer has to learn his trade outside the holy precinct. ⁴⁸⁹ Lev ⁴⁹⁰ Is a deed valid if it formulates a gift in the language of a fictitious sale? Starting here there is a shortened version, formulated differently, in Baba batra ⁴⁹¹ Since Rav was Rav Huna’s teacher, this reference must be to Rav, in whose name the expression is quoted in Babli Baba batra ⁴⁹² Since sale and gift follow different rules, a gift formulated as sale is invalid. ⁴⁹³ The seller is required to indemnify the buyer if the latter loses his land because of foreclosure of a mortgage owed by the seller. A gift is given without such guarantee. ⁴⁹⁴ A sale document is interpreted minimally: the seller of a parcel is not presumed to have sold a cistern or any other building on the parcel unless it be mentioned in the deed (Mishnah Baba batra ⁴⁹⁵ If the first time he stated that the person designated should be his heir, the latter will inherit if the dying person made it clear that the deed will only be written as proof of title, not as means of transfer of property. ⁴⁹⁶ If the document was a deed, not a will, intended to convey possession but not delivered during the donor’s lifetime, it cannot be delivered after death (Babli Baba batra ⁴⁹⁷ If the donor intended his orally conveyed gift to convey possession, how can the recipient prove his title? ⁴⁹⁸ In this case, the legal heirs. ⁴⁹⁹ Baba qama

⁵⁰⁰ 3:8, Notes 134–147 (פ). The second paragraph has no connection to the topics discussed here; this shows that the original place of the texts was in Peah. From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

footnotes: ⁵⁰⁰ This paragraph and the following are from Peah

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields were involved⁵⁰², one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with the intent of taking possession of the one in Galilee, or the one in Galilee with the intent of taking possession of the one in Judea, he took possession. But in [the case of] property of a proselyte⁵⁰³ he did not acquire even the boundary strip between them⁵⁰⁴. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below⁵⁰⁵ 2:1, Note 16. In the Babli, Baba batra 52b, the question is undecided, i. e., anybody laying claim to the strip would have to prove his claim by other means.? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North with the intent of also acquiring that in the South, or in the South with the intent of acquiring also that in the North, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle⁵⁰⁶, he did not acquire unless he also intended to acquire the middle part⁵⁰⁷ 3:1 (13d 1. 55). In the Babli, Baba batra55a, R. Joḥanan states that the boundary strip separates properties of the intestate proselyte. He also states Rav Ḥisda’s position even for commercial real estate transactions (Baba batra53a/b).. A baraita⁵⁰⁸ 2:10. disagrees with Rav Ḥisda: If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his property, if one takes possession of the ground he is obligated for everything⁵⁰⁹. If he took possession of standing grain, he is obligated for fallen stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah but freed from tithes. Does not the air separate between stalks⁵¹⁰? There, we have stated⁵¹¹ 5:9, speaking of a transaction involving a field of flax.: “If he tore off anything connected to the ground, he took possession.” Samuel said, he took possession only of that leaf. But did we not state: “If it was connected to the ground and he tore off anything, he took possession”? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eudaimon the emigrant⁵¹² confirmed it: Samuel will agree, for proselyte’s property⁵¹³ 87a, Rav Sheshet explains the problem away by postulating that the seller of the crop also sold a peruṭah’ s worth of ground and that the movable crop was taken as possession together with the fictitious real estate..

footnotes: ⁵⁰² In a real estate transaction; the seller expects the buyer to take possession of both fields; cf. Note 345. ⁵⁰³ Who dies intestate without Jewish heirs and whose property now is ownerless. The rules of taking possession of ownerless property are more strict than those of taking possession of what was bought since the agreement of the seller to the transfer of the property is missing. ⁵⁰⁴ If the proselyte owned two adjacent fields; the Jew took possession of both of them by doing some agricultural work on both but he did not walk the boundary strip with the intent of acquiring it; the strip is not automatically acquired with the fields since it is not subject to agricultural activities such as ploughing, weeding, or harvesting; cf. Note 353. ⁵⁰⁵ The question is not answered; cf. Peah ⁵⁰⁶ I. e., the boundary strip in between. ⁵⁰⁷ Also quoted in Baba batra ⁵⁰⁸ Tosephta Peah ⁵⁰⁹ Tithes and all obligatory gifts to the poor. ⁵¹⁰ Since single stalks can be picked up by the owner, not subject to the law of gleanings reserved for the poor, if the air separates the ownerless stalks the entire crop would be exempt from that law. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda who holds that any ground not taken in possession separates properties of the intestate proselyte. ⁵¹¹ Mishnah Baba batra ⁵¹² He emigrated from Galilee to Babylonia. ⁵¹³ A proselyte’s standing crop cannot be acquired by harvesting a single stalk, but only by taking the entire crop. Otherwise, it can be acquired only by taking possession of the land and paying taxes on it. In the Babli, Baba batra

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides⁵¹⁴. But soft hides are not taken into posession until lifted⁵¹⁵. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath⁵¹⁶ 9:19. A person committing two crimes simultaneously can be prosecuted only for the more serious crime even if this prosecution is impossible because of external circumstances (for example, if the rabbinic court has only civil but no criminal jurisdiction, or if the civil offense can be proven by the standards of civil procedure but the criminal act cannot be proven by the stricter standards of criminal law; cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 51–71, paralleled in Ketubot3:1, Note 30.) Since the thief incurred the liabilities for his theft the moment he took the pouch in his victim’s room but he violated the Sabbath prohibition only when he left and transported the pouch from a private to the public domain, the capital crime of violating the Sabbath is not connected with the theft. Paralleled in Babli Šabbat 91a, Ketubot31a, where some unconnected problems are raised about the Sabbath prohibition of moving between domains; Baba batra 86a, Sanhedrin72a; a different version in Baba qama3:4 (3c 1. 58ff.).. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously⁵¹⁷. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated⁵¹⁸. Rebbi Mattania said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged⁵¹⁹ 86a, in the name of Rav Ada bar Mattanah..

footnotes: ⁵¹⁴ Which are too heavy to be lifted. ⁵¹⁵ Movables which can be lifted are taken into possession only by being picked up and then moved; heavy movables can be taken into possession simply by being moved on the ground. ⁵¹⁶ Tosephta Baba qama ⁵¹⁷ Dragging a person’s pouch in that person’s domain does not transfer possession to the person dragging. ⁵¹⁸ If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal. ⁵¹⁹ And therefore acquired by dragging. In Baba batra

⁵²⁰ 2:5 (ס, Notes 166–174). In the Babli, the parallel is Qiddušin 27b. From where did they learn rollover of oaths? From the suspected wife: Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir? Nevertheless one rolls over.

footnotes: ⁵²⁰ This paragraph and the next are from Soṭah

Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for oath? Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

MISHNAH: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange⁵²¹. How is this? If an ox was exchanged for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Possession of Heaven is by money⁵²², possession of an individual by taking hold. A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual⁵²³.

footnotes: ⁵²¹ If property is acquired by payment in kind, only one of the parties has to execute an act of taking possession. The other party then automatically is in possession and also assumes liability. This is not simple barter but exchange of money’s worth against money’s worth. ⁵²² For the Temple, possession comes together with ownership by payment; it does not need a separate act on entering into possession. ⁵²³ Anything vowed to Heaven is as if delivered; the promise cannot be retracted.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated⁵²⁴‘ 4:1. Legal tender coin is not “movables” (Babli 28a/b); payment transfers ownership but not possession. The exchange of movables transfers both ownership and possession.: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps⁵²⁵. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there⁵²⁶ 1:7, Ḥulin 1:7, Bekhorot 9:3. Tradition held that firstlings are sanctified only if they belong to a single owner. The same is stated for animal tithe (Lev. 27:32); it is due only if the herd belongs to a single individual.: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio⁵²⁷ (cf. Note 353) per person, had to be given as a coin (Šeqalim 1:6, 46 1. 32; cf. all sources quoted in Tanḥuma Buber Ky Tiśśa 7, Note 46.) If payment was not made in the correct coin, an agio had to be paid to the Temple’s collectors. Only one agio was due per household, when the father paid the tax for himself and all adult males in his house. (Liddell and Scott compare the Greek word κόλλυβος to Hebrew חלף, “exchange, substitution”.) are free from animal tithe⁵²⁸, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio⁵²⁹.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment⁵³⁰ 52b, the opinion attributed here to R. Eleazar is ascribed to Rav Anan; R. Eleazar there requires that not all brothers receive the same number of animals.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers⁵³¹ 37b, Giṭṭin25a,48a, Baba qama 69b, Bekhorot52b,57a).. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

footnotes: ⁵²⁴ Mishnah Baba meṣia ⁵²⁵ A heap of grain at one place may be exchanged for a heap of grain at another place even if it is impossible to assign an exact price to either of them. ⁵²⁶ Mishnah Šeqalim ⁵²⁷ Cf. Note 122. The annual Temple tax, half a holy šeqel ⁵²⁸ If brothers are obligated to pay separate agios, they do not form a household. The flock they own as inheritance from their father therefore is held in partnership and is free from the duty of animal tithe. ⁵²⁹ If their father’s inheritance was not distributed, they still form their father’s family, pay the Temple tax together, and are obligated for animal tithe. ⁵³⁰ It turns out that it was his from the moment of the father’s death. Then the animals never had multiple owners. In the Babli, Bekhorot ⁵³¹ In all cases of liquidation of an inheritance with multiple heirs. This principle is accepted in the Babli in R. Joḥanan’s name (Beṣah

⁵³²‘ 4:1 (9c 1. 36), Babli Ketubot 67a/b. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One has a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow⁵³³. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had died, the donkey’s owner has to bring proof that his donkey was alive at the moment he took the cow. For the burden of proof is on the claimant⁴⁹⁹ 5:1 (21b 1. 70), Babli Baba qama 27b,46b, Baba batra 92b. except for barter⁵³⁴. And anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree⁵³⁵‘, he is reported to note that apparently he does not understand civil law.. Rebbi Abba said to Rebbi Ze‘ira: A Mishnah⁵³⁶ 7:9. The husband divorces his wife because of bodily defects without paying the ketubah. If the defects are discovered between preliminary and definitive marriages, the father (of the underage bride) has to prove that at the moment of preliminary marriage the girl was without blemish in order to collect the ketubah. After definitive marriage, the husband has to prove that she was defective even before the preliminary marriage in order to avoid paying the ketubah. disagrees with Samuel. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” Not the husband has to prove to regain the [money given] for preliminary marriage from the father⁵³⁷.cit., notes that it is not obvious that money given for preliminary marriage can be recovered, even if the marriage was entered into under false premises.. The students of Rebbi Jonah said, explain it if little money was involved⁵³⁸ money remains; the father is the claimant who has to bring proof.. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yosef⁵³⁹: R. Yose. to learn from him. They said to him, the Mishnah supports Samuel: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove, to extract the ketubah from the husband’s possession⁵⁴⁰ which became due at the moment of divorce, or the father who would have to collect the money.? He answered them, does not Samuel agree that if the cow’s owner took possession of the donkey, he has to prove that it was defective before it came into his possession⁵⁴¹? And this one, when he took her in it is as if he drew close⁵⁴².

footnotes: ⁵³² Shortened versions of this paragraph are in Baba meṣia ⁵³³ Then automatically the donkey became the possession of its new owner. ⁴⁹⁹ Baba qama ⁵³⁴ In case one party had no opportunity to inspect the object given in barter before the transfer of possession. ⁵³⁵ For him, the burden of proof is always on the claimant, without exception. In Baba meṣia ⁵³⁶ Ketubot ⁵³⁷ The Babli, loc ⁵³⁸ Not worth the bother of a court battle. Then only the father’s claim on the husband for the ketubah ⁵³⁹ In Baba qama ⁵⁴⁰ The question is, who is considered the claimant? The husband, who wants to avoid paying the ketubah ⁵⁴¹ Since possession implies not only rights but also liabilities, the act of taking possession eliminates the liabilities of the previous owner. The owner of the cow should have inspected the donkey before moving the cow; afterwards he certainly is the claimant. ⁵⁴² In this respect, definitive marriage of a woman entails transfer of liabilities to the husband, parallel to the transfer of liabilities for livestock by taking possession.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav⁵⁴³‘a 47a, Rav Ada bar Ahava has a similar statement which however refers to true barter.: If he⁵⁴⁴ sold a cow for money, then grabbed him⁵⁴⁵ and said, give me that money. He⁵⁴⁵ answered, for what do you need it? He said, to buy a donkey for him[self]⁵⁴⁶. If the owner of the cow took possession of the donkey, the cow was not taken into possession⁵⁴⁷. Was the donkey taken into possession⁵⁴⁸? Rebbi Abba said, it was taken into possession. Rebbi Yose said, it was not taken into possession. Rebbi Abba thought that this was barter, but it was not barter. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sometimes it is a new deal for one party and a new deal for the other party. How is that? He⁵⁴⁴ sold him⁵⁴⁵ a cow for money; he left the money standing with him. The next day, he⁵⁴⁵ found him⁵⁴⁴ standing there and said, what are you doing here? He⁵⁴⁴ said, I want to collect the money. He⁵⁴⁵ answered, for what do you want it? He⁵⁴⁴ said, to buy myself a donkey. He⁵⁴⁵ answered, there is a donkey before you. If either one of them drew⁵⁴⁹, the other one did not enter into possession; each one has to take possession separately.

footnotes: ⁵⁴³ In the Babli, Baba meṣi ⁵⁴⁴ The seller of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁶ Obviously, something is missing in this sentence. The seller stated that he needed the money to buy a donkey, the buyer sold him a donkey for the money he owed him. Then sale of the cow and purchase of the donkey are two unrelated operations. ⁵⁴⁷ If the deal had be agreed upon but was not yet executed. ⁵⁴⁸ If the buyer of the cow took possession of it. ⁵⁴⁴ The seller of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁴ The seller of the cow. ⁵⁴⁴ The seller of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁴ The seller of the cow. ⁵⁴⁵ The buyer of the cow. ⁵⁴⁹ He drew the animal close to himself in order to take possession. Since there are two separate deals, it needs two separate actions to take possession.

The Mishnah: “Possession of Heaven is by money, possession of any individual by taking hold.” How? If the treasurer paid with Temple money for movables, they are in the Temple’s possession anywhere they are⁵⁵⁰1:9, Baba qama 4:3, ‘Arakhin 4:4., for it is written⁵⁵¹. 24:1.: “The Eternal’s are the earth and what fills it, dry land and its inhabitants.”

footnotes: ⁵⁵⁰ Without a separate act of taking possession. The seller cannot retract the sale. Babli 28b; Tosephta Qiddušin ⁵⁵¹ Ps

“A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.” How? If he bought a cow from the Temple for 200. If he did not have occasion to pay the 200 until the going rate was a mina, he has to pay 200. That means, a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual. A cow from the Temple for a mina. If he did not have occasion to pay the mina until the going rate was 200, he has to pay 200. That is what is written⁵⁵². 27:19: “He has to add a fifth of its estimated value, then it is delivered to him.” Therefore, if he adds, it is delivered to him; if he does not add, it is not delivered to him. ⁵⁵³“ ‘This steer as elevation offering, or this house as a qorbān,’ they are in the Temple’s possession wherever they are, for it is written: “The Eternal’s are the earth and what fills it,” etc. But among private persons one obtains possession only be taking hold.”

footnotes: ⁵⁵² Lev ⁵⁵³ Babli 28b, Tosephta 1:9.

MISHNAH: For any commandment a father has to fulfill towards his son, men are obligated but women are free. For any commandment the son has to fulfill towards his father, men and women are equally obligated. For any positive commandment activated by time⁵⁵⁴, men are obligated but women are free. For any positive commandment not activated by time⁵⁵⁵, men and women are equally obligated. For any prohibition, whether or not activated by time, men and women are equally obligated except for “do not destroy”, “do not shear,”⁵⁵⁶. 19:27, inappropriate for women. and “do not become impure for the dead.⁵⁵⁷. 21:1. In general, holiness prohibitions valid for priests do not apply to their daughters and only partially to their wives.” Leanings⁵⁵⁸. 1:4, 3:2,8, 13; 4:4,15,24,29,33). and weavings⁵⁵⁹. 8:27; 14:12,24; Num. 5:25; 6:19)., presentations⁵⁶⁰. 2:6; 6:7)., taking of fistfuls⁵⁶¹. 6:8., burnings⁵⁶² and neck breakings⁵⁶³. 1:15, 5:8., sprinklings⁵⁶⁴. 1:5,11; 3:2,8,13; 4:6,7,17,18, 25,30,34; 5:9. and receptions⁵⁶⁵ apply to men but not to women except for the flour offerings of the suspected wife and the nezirah; those do weave.

footnotes: ⁵⁵⁴ Which either depends on the time of day or the calendar date. This rule admits of quite a few exceptions. ⁵⁵⁵ E. g., the obligation to give charity and do charitable work. ⁵⁵⁶ Not to destroy one’s beard or shear the sideburns, Lev ⁵⁵⁷ Lev ⁵⁵⁸ The obligatory leaning on the head of the sacrifice (Lev ⁵⁵⁹ The prescribed motions for selected sacrifices of purification (Lev ⁵⁶⁰ Presentations to the altar, mainly of flour offerings (Lev ⁵⁶¹ The fistful burned on the altar of flour offerings; Lev ⁵⁶² Bringing meat, flour, or incense and putting it in the fire on the altar. ⁵⁶³ Of bird sacrifices; Lev ⁵⁶⁴ Of blood on the walls of the altar, Lev ⁵⁶⁵ Receiving the blood of slaughtered sacrifices in a sanctified vessel. All these actions are restricted to male Aharonides except for leanings and weavings, which are prescribed for the public.

HALAKHAH: “Any commandment the father has to fulfill towards his son,” etc. ⁵⁶⁶.Ismael,Pisḥa 18.“To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.⁵⁶⁷. 12:3. The masculine form of the verb implies that the father, who otherwise is not mentioned in the paragraph, is obligated to circumcise his son.” “To redeem him,” as is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.⁵⁶⁸. 13:13.” To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.⁵⁶⁹. 11:19. Cf. Berakhot 2:3. Note 110, where the verse is quoted to show that daughters do not have to be instructed in Torah (Babli 29b).” To teach him a trade, Rebbi Ismael stated: “Choose life⁵⁷⁰. 30:19.,” that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren⁵⁷¹. 4:9..” When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants⁵⁷⁰. 30:19..” How is this? Is it a commandment⁵⁷² or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rebbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to [the father], but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. From where that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says a human you shall redeem⁵⁶⁸. 13:13.”, “you shall circumcise” them⁵⁷³. 17:11., “you shall study them⁵⁷⁴. 4:9; reading וְלָמַדְתֶּם instead of וְלִמַּדְתֶּם.”, “you shall know⁵⁷¹. 4:9.” yourself, “that you shall live⁵⁷⁰. 30:19..”⁵⁷⁵

footnotes: ⁵⁶⁶ Babli 29a,30b; Tosephta 1:11; Mekhilta dR ⁵⁶⁷ Lev ⁵⁶⁸ Ex ⁵⁶⁹ Deut ⁵⁷⁰ Deut ⁵⁷¹ Deut ⁵⁷⁰ Deut ⁵⁷² A meritorious deed. ⁵⁶⁸ Ex ⁵⁷³ Gen ⁵⁷⁴ Deut ⁵⁷¹ Deut ⁵⁷⁰ Deut ⁵⁷⁵ The Babli, 29a–30a, in most cases quotes different verses to the same effects.

There, we have stated⁵⁷⁶ 2:9.: “The father bestows on his son beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and years.” From where beauty? “May Your deeds appear on Your servants, and Your glory on their sons.⁵⁷⁷. 90:16.” Strength, “strong on earth will be his descendants.⁵⁷⁸. 112:2.” Riches, “I was young and became old, but never saw a just man abandoned and his descendants in need of bread.⁵⁷⁹. 37:25.” Wisdom, “you shall teach your sons to argue about them.⁵⁶⁹. 11:19. Cf. Berakhot 2:3. Note 110, where the verse is quoted to show that daughters do not have to be instructed in Torah (Babli 29b).” Years, “that your and your sons’ days be many.⁵⁸⁰. 11:21.” And just as he inherits five qualities, so he owes him the following five things. He feeds him, he gives him to drink, he clothes him, he puts on his shoes, he leads him⁵⁸¹ 1:1, Note 119; Babli 31b.. That is what is written⁵⁸². 3:29.: “This should fall on Joab’s head: sufferer from flux and from skin disease, holding the distaff, falling by the sword, and senseless.⁵⁸³” Sufferer from flux, weak. From skin disease, abandoned⁵⁸⁴. 13:46.. Holding the distaff, uneducated. Falling by the sword, short lived. Without bread, poor. ⁵⁸⁵ 48b, and Num.rabba23(13). When Solomon came to kill Joab, he said to him: Your father gave me five sentences; accept them and I can be killed. He accepted them and all of them came to pass on the House of David. Sufferer from flux was Rehabeam: “King Rehabeam with difficulty climbed on his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;⁵⁸⁶. 12:18.” some say, he suffered from flux; some say, he was weak. Suffering from skin disease was Uziahu: “King Uziahu suffered from skin disease until the day of his death⁵⁸⁷. 26:21..” Holding the distaff was Joash: “They punished Joash⁵⁸⁸. 24:24..” Rebbi Ismael stated: ⁵⁸⁹.Ismael,Amaleq 1; Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ 25 This teaches that they gave him over to hardened hoodlums who had never known a woman and they raped him the way women are raped. That is what is written: “Israel’s pride will testify against it,⁵⁹⁰. 5:5, repunctuating עָנָה to עִנָּה.” Israel’s pride will be raped in its face. Falling by the sword, this is Josiah, as is written: “The archers shot at king Josia,⁵⁹¹. 35:23. In the text: הַיֹּרִים.” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, this teaches that they made his body like a sieve⁵⁹² 28b; Thr.rabbati on 1:18.. Rebbi Ismael stated: 300 arrows were shot at the Eternal’s anointed. Without bread, that is Jehoiachin: “And his meal, a permanent meal was given to him,⁵⁹³. 25:30. He never had any money of his own. A completely different interpretation of the verse in Midrash Shemuel 18(5)..”

footnotes: ⁵⁷⁶ Mishnah Idiut ⁵⁷⁷ Ps ⁵⁷⁸ Ps ⁵⁷⁹ Ps ⁵⁶⁹ Deut ⁵⁸⁰ Deut ⁵⁸¹ Peah ⁵⁸² 2S ⁵⁸³ This is a slip of the pen; later it is quoted in the language of the verse, “without bread”. ⁵⁸⁴ Cf. Lev ⁵⁸⁵ The Babylonian version is in the Babli, Sanhedrin ⁵⁸⁶ 1K ⁵⁸⁷ 2Chr ⁵⁸⁸ 2Chr ⁵⁸⁹ Mekhilta dR ⁵⁹⁰ Hos ⁵⁹¹ 2Chr ⁵⁹² Babli Mo‘ed qaṭan ⁵⁹³ 2K

⁵⁹⁴1, to Mishnah 2. There, we have stated: “If they started⁵⁹⁵, one does not interrupt.” What is the start of bathing? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi used to hear the lesson⁵⁹⁶ of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered⁵⁹⁷: He remembered that he had not heard the lesson from his grandson, returned and left. and left the public bath. ⁵⁹⁸: How was it? Rebbi Derose said, he was anointing himself. Rebbi Eleazar … He said, so it was: Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, he had taken off [his clothes]⁵⁹⁹, instead of the unintelligible מטי written here.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us, “if they started, one does not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Mount Sinai. What is the reason? “⁶⁰⁰. 4:10. You shall make them known to you sons and grandsons,” etc., ⁶⁰¹, probably correctly.“the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.” Like the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb. Rebbi Ḥizqiah bar⁶⁰²: R. Ḥizqiah, R. Jeremiah, R. Ḥiyya. This is the only correct text. Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise take either the very first or the very last [source]⁶⁰³ added: What is the reason? “The day when you stood,” Up to the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb. (Referring to the verse quoted earlier, Note 600. Since Moses was speaking to the second generation, not present at Sinai, it proves that a person can be present at Sinai by connecting with the teachings from Sinai.). Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? “Only in image a man wanders.⁶⁰⁴. 39:7.” “Many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust?” ⁶⁰⁵. The intelligible text is in Šabbat: “Many a man professes good will,” these are all other people, “but where will you find one you can trust?” That is R. Ze‘ira. That is Rebbi Ze‘ira, as Rebbi Ze‘ira said, we do take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. ⁶⁰⁶: “He said to him, R. Joḥanan said it in his name. R. Ze‘ira asked R. Abba bar Zavda: Did you know Rav (a chronological impossibility), that you are quoting in his name? He answered, Rav Ada bar Ahava said it in his name.” And Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah, that you quote in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said it in his name.

footnotes: ⁵⁹⁴ This origin of this text is in Šabbat ⁵⁹⁵ The Mishnah contains a list of things one should not do on Friday afternoon, but if one started one does not have to interrupt. One of these is going to the public bathhouse. ⁵⁹⁶ The portion of the Torah to be read on the Sabbath. ⁵⁹⁷ In Šabbat ⁵⁹⁸ In Šabbat ⁵⁹⁹ Fom Šabbat ⁶⁰⁰ Deut ⁶⁰¹ Missing in Šabbat ⁶⁰² In Šabbat ⁶⁰³ In Šabbat ⁶⁰⁴ Ps ⁶⁰⁵ This is a non sequitur ⁶⁰⁶ This text is unacceptable for reasons of chronology. The correct text is in Šabbat

Commandments which the son is obligated to fulfill towards his father. ⁶⁰⁷ 1:1, Notes 117–124. Leiden ms. text פ, Rome ms. R. This is a quote out of context, repeated in the following paragraphs which copy Peah 1:1, Notes 98–137. A few sentences from Peah which are missing in the text have been given in brackets. What is fear? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him, covers him, and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in. From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya said, from the old man’s. Some want to say, from his own. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: From where do we know that even if his father tells him to throw the wallet into the sea that he should obey him? That is, if he has another one and if it helps to quiet his father’s spirit. Both men and women. Only the man has the power in his hand, but the woman does not have the power in her own hand because others have disposition over her. If she is widowed or divorced, the power is in her own hand.

footnotes: ⁶⁰⁷ This is from Peah

[They asked Rebbi Eliezer,] how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost. They inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and agreed on 100 denars. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants more money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount last mentioned, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23), it is written: “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles.

Rebbi Tarphon’s mother went to promenade in her backyard on the Sabbath when her slipper broke. Rebbi Tarphon went and put his two hands under her feet and she walked on them until she got to her couch. Once the Sages came to visit him. She told them: Pray for my son Tarphon because he honors me too much. They asked her, what did he do for you? She told them what had happened. They said to her, even if he did this a million times, he did not yet reach even half of the honor that the Torah requires.

Rebbi Ismael’s mother came, spoke, and complained to our teachers about him. She said to them: Scold my son Ismael because he does not honor me! At that, the faces of our teachers became saffron colored. They said, is it possible that Rebbi Ismael does not honor his parents? They said to her, what did he do to you? She said, when he comes from the house of assembly, I want to wash his feet and drink from it, and he refuses. They said, since it is her wish it is her honor.

Rebbi Mana said: The millers are correct when they say that each and every person has in his chest that which is appropriate for him. Rebbi Tarphon’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately, Rebbi Ismael’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately. Rebbi Zeïra was sorry and said, if only I had father or mother that I could honor them and inherit paradise. When he heard these two instructions, he said: Praise to the All-Merciful that I have neither father nor mother. I could not have done as Rebbi Tarphon did and I could not accept what Rebbi Ismael accepted. Rebbi Abun said, I am free from honoring father and mother. They said, his father died when his mother was pregnant and she died in giving birth.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that anyone be degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that anyone be beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

⁶⁰⁸ What is fear? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in. From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya said.

footnotes: ⁶⁰⁸ This is a truncated repetition of the text at Note 607.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! ⁶⁰⁹ One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

footnotes: ⁶⁰⁹ From here on there exists a Genizah fragment of the text (G). It is fragmentary in this paragraph, continuous in the following.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov. 5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully everything which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all the things you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them life will come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away [the mother] from the nest. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for anything that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov. 30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Jonathan were sitting together. There came a man and kissed Rebbi Jonathan’s foot. Rebbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him¹1942, p. 105; Courts and their organization, Jerusalem 1924, p. 25–26) reads: “Go, arrest the congregation and humiliate him.” He sees here a reference to the practice known from Galilean and Medieval Ashkenazic sources (rejected by Babylonian Geonim) that a person whose grievances are not addressed by the court may publicly request the congregation to stop their prayers until his complaint is heard (in Ashkenazic practice before the Qaddiš which introduces the main prayer.). He said to him, why did you not force him? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? One said, Rebbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all my traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father.

footnotes: ¹ S. Assaf (Responsa Geonica

⁶¹⁰, this paragraph is from Berakhot 3:3, Notes 143–146. The ms. text there is noted ת, the Rome ms. R. The text in quotation marks is from Tosephta 1:10.“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit⁶¹¹ 33b, does not mention ẓiẓit, cf. Berakhot, Note 146; it is quoted Menaḥot 43a.. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

footnotes: ⁶¹⁰ Here begins the discussion of the second half of the Mishnah. Except for a sentence which has disappeared from the Leiden ms. and editio princeps ⁶¹¹ The Babli, Qiddušin

⁶¹² 8:1 (35d 1. 35 ff.), noted ם. Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary⁶¹³. 12:4 which designates the participants as “persons”, not “men” (Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Piṣha3, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 10; cf. Mishnah Pesaḥim 8:1,7, Tosephta Pesaḥim 8:10; Babli Pesaḥim 91a/b.) But it is to be noted that missing the sacrificial meal is a deadly sin only for men (Num. 9:13); only men are required (and permitted) to make up the missed sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar (Num. 9:13; Tosephta Piṣha 8:10). The statement means that an unaffiliated female, living neither in her father’s nor a husband’s house, is not obligated to seek a group with which to celebrate Passover. It would be considered most inappropriate if a single woman would join a group of men unrelated to her. But since she is included in the circle of celebrants of Passover by biblical law, if she alone or a group of similarly situated women want to organize their own Passover sacrifice and meal, they are authorized to do so. but one pushes the Sabbath away for it⁶¹⁴ 6:1). Since women are biblically empowered to celebrate Passover, the rule applies also to groups of women.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves⁶¹⁵. 12:44. The owner of uncircumcised slaves is prohibited from celebrating Passover. is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah⁶¹⁶, a commandment triggered by the calendar?? He said to him⁶¹⁷, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary⁶¹⁸ Tosephta 2:22, Babli 91b. The Passover sacrifice is forbidden after the first night. The Tanna who holds that women are obligated for the sacrifice will hold that they are obligated to eat maẓẓah; he who holds that their Passover celebration is voluntary (R. Simeon in the Tosephta) must hold that their eating maẓẓah is voluntary.. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it⁶¹⁹. 17:3.,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation⁶¹⁹. 17:3.’⁶²⁰.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah⁶²¹. 130, its contrapositive is a statement of R. Simeon.. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, ⁶²² it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition⁶²³.

footnotes: ⁶¹² The origin of this paragraph is Pesaḥim ⁶¹³ This sentence contradicts everything a student of the Babli would expect. Most commentators either emend the passage or explain it away. But since there are three witnesses to the text, emendation is not an acceptable option. In the Babli, 91b, R. Eleazar declares a woman to be obligated for Passover like men. However, this statement is obtained by an editorial re-interpretation of R. Eleazar’s statement.In the Babli and its related texts, it is taken for granted that women present in Jerusalem on Passover eve are obligated to take part in the Passover meal, based on Ex ⁶¹⁴ If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath, the public Passover sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath (Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁶¹⁵ Circumcised slaves are included in the group of Passover celebrants in Ex ⁶¹⁶ Are women and slaves obligated to eat maẓẓah ⁶¹⁷ R. Eleazar (the Amora) to R. Jacob bar Aḥa. ⁶¹⁸ Pesaḥim ⁶¹⁹ Deut ⁶¹⁹ Deut ⁶²⁰ Rules stated in the same verse must be of one and the same category. ⁶²¹ In the Babli, 91b, this is a statement of R. Eleazar, probably the Tanna. In Sifry Deut ⁶²² The other two sources add: It is more weighty since … That probably is the correct text. ⁶²³ And therefore follow the rules of prohibitions, obligatory for women; Note 620.

⁶²⁴ (ם) but also in Ḥallah 4:12, Notes 194–202 (ח) and refers to Mishnah Ḥallah 4:12 which states that a certain Joseph Hakohen was refused permission to celebrate the Second Passover with his wife and children. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

footnotes: ⁶²⁴ This paragraph is not only in Pesaḥim

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,⁵⁵⁶. 19:27, inappropriate for women.’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.⁶²⁶. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot⁶²⁷. 21:5, speahing of Cohanim: “They may not make a bald spot on their head; the sideburn of their beard they shall not shave.”.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot⁶²⁸. 96; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(3).. And also from the following: “sons⁶²⁶. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.⁶²⁹. 14:2. The expression “people” applies to both men and women, even hermaphrodites and the sexless.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons⁶³⁰ being the Father’s son, he implies that the rest of the people do not obey God’s will.. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot⁶³¹. 13:42,43. As with all skin diseases, the disease at a bald spot is diagnosed as such once it has reached the size of a peeled grain; Mishnah Nega‘im 4:5,6.. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal⁶³²: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land⁶³³. 21 do not apply to their wives and daughters, who cannot serve in the Sanctuary.. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim⁶³⁴. 21:1.,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision⁶³⁵(égratigner), “to slit”, forbidden in Deut. 14:1 to all of Israel., she may not leave⁶³⁶. 14:1, applicable also to women, is also the particulat prohibition of Lev. 21:5, one might think that all special rules of Lev. 21 apply to everybody. Then the special position of Cohanim in rules of impurity would be abolished.. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

footnotes: ⁵⁵⁶ Not to destroy one’s beard or shear the sideburns, Lev ⁶²⁶ Deut ⁶²⁷ Lev ⁶²⁸ What is missing here is an argument why rules promulgated for Cohanim are valid for all Israelites; cf. Sifry Deut ⁶²⁶ Deut ⁶²⁹ Deut ⁶³⁰ Babli 36a. In this interpretation, when Jesus insists on his ⁶³¹ Lev ⁶³² In the Genizah text, the rule is traced to R. Eleazar, in line with the other rules of this section. ⁶³³ Since the “Land of the Gentiles” is impure, a Cohen is not permitted to leave the Land of Israel except in extraordinary circumstances. But the special laws for Cohanim promulgated in Lev ⁶³⁴ Lev ⁶³⁵ It is difficult to know what this means; the word is missing in the Genizah text. Probably one should read גְּדִידָה “inflicting injury on oneself”, or in Rashi’s words esgratiner ⁶³⁶ Since the general prohibition of Deut

⁶³⁷3:1 (ס), Notes 8–14.“The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It happens. If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

footnotes: ⁶³⁷ This refers to Mishnah 8, speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife. The text is from Soṭah

MISHNAH: Any commandment which does not refer to the Land is obligatory both in the Land and outside the Land. But any commandment which does refer to the Land is obligatory only in the Land, except ‘orlah⁶³⁸. 19:23), it has to be applied in a modified form outside the Land; cf. Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:9. and kilaim⁶³⁹ in agriculture outside the Land is rabbinic in character.. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain⁶⁴⁰ sacrifice, while referring to the Land, is written in the holiday catalogue of Lev. 23 which is presumed not to be bound to the Land. In Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:8, the obligation of ‘orlah outside the Land is tradition, not Holy Writ..

footnotes: ⁶³⁸ Even though the commandment is formulated with a reference to the Land (Lev ⁶³⁹ The prohibitions of cross-breeding of animals and wearing a mixture of wool and linen (a prerogative of the priests serving in the Sanctuary) do not refer to the Land. The prohibition of kilaim ⁶⁴⁰ The prohibition of grain of the new harvest before the ‘Omer

HALAKHAH: “Any commandment which does not refer to the Land,” etc.⁶⁴¹ 6:1 (Notes 4–20); readings given by שׁ. The Genizah text is again indicated by G. It is written (Deut. 12:1): “These are the statutes and the rules of law which you will be required to follow in the Land.” In the Land you are required to follow them but not outside the Land. Still we say obligations depending on the Land only apply in the Land, but we might think that obligations not depending on the Land also should only apply in the Land. The verse says (Deut. 11:16–18) “Be careful, lest your heart be seduced … and the Eternal’s rage be inflamed against you, etc. Put these words on your hearts,”. Even if you are exiled. (Deut. 11:18) “Put these words on your hearts and your persons.” You have to say, for example tefillin and the study of Torah. Just as tefillin and the study of Torah do not depend on the Land and apply both in the Land and outside the Land, so everything not depending on the Land applies both in the Land and outside the Land.

footnotes: ⁶⁴¹ This entire Halakhah except the last paragraph is from Ševi‘it

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were redeemed. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity … since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers there was no yoke of government, but you [are obligated] even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after fourteen years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated [immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, but you become obligated]⁶⁴² belongs to the text here also. The text here is an abbreviation of the original from Ševi‘it. for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

footnotes: ⁶⁴² The Genizah text shows that this argument from Ševi‘it

Rebbi Eleazar said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily. What is the reason? (Neh. 10:1) “In view of all this, we execute a contract and sign.” How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold (10:37): “The first-born of our cattle and flock”? Since they accepted upon themselves matters they were not obligated for, even matters they were obligated for the Omnipresent credited to them as if they were accepted voluntarily.

How does Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina explain “In view of all this, we execute a contract and sign”? Since they accepted [the obligations] with good grace, the verse credits it to them as if they had accepted it voluntarily. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “more than your forefathers?” He explains it for the future since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your forefathers inherited the land of seven peoples, but you will in the future inherit the land of ten peoples. The three others are (Gen. 15:19) “the Qenites, the Qenizites and the Qadmonites.” Rebbi Jehudah said, [these are] Arabia, Salmaia and Nabataea. Rebbi Simeon says, Asia, Spain, and Damascus. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, Asia, Cartagena, and Thrace. Rebbi says, Edom, Moab, and the best of Ammon. “More than your forefathers”: Your forefathers, even though they were redeemed, were later subjugated again. But you when you are redeemed will not be subjugated again. What is the reason? (Jer. 30:6) “Inquire and see whether a male gives birth.” Just as a male cannot give birth so you, after you are redeemed, will not be subjugated again.

⁶⁴³ 3:8 (62b, line 37) (ל); Notes 158–160.“Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Lev. 23:14) “In all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rebbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

footnotes: ⁶⁴³ This text is from ‘Orlah

MISHNAH: Everybody who keeps one commandment they⁶⁴⁴ treat well and prolong his life; he will inherit the Land⁶⁴⁵. But everybody who does not keep one commandment they do not treat well, do not prolong his life, and he does not inherit the Land. ⁶⁴⁶ Anybody who knows neither Scripture nor Mishnah nor a trade⁶⁴⁷ is not part of civilization, but about one who holds on to these three, the verse says⁶⁴⁸. 4:12. The person studying Scripture and tradition, and earning an honest living, will not easily sin. This formulation is that of the Tosephta, 1:17.: “The triple cord will not easily break.”

footnotes: ⁶⁴⁴ The Heavenly court. ⁶⁴⁵ This probably is the Future World, in Psalms called “the Lands of Life.” ⁶⁴⁶ Of this part of the Mishnah there exist versions widely differing in text but identical in meaning. ⁶⁴⁷ Which lets him earn an honest living. ⁶⁴⁸ Eccl

HALAKHAH: “Everybody who keeps one commandment they treat well,” etc. ⁶⁴⁹ 3:17.“Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandment,” and you say so⁶⁵⁰ contradicts the Mishnah here since there one is rewarded for not sinning while here one is only rewarded for doing good.? But we hold with one who is 50–50⁶⁵¹. If he keeps one commandment, they treat him well and prolong his life; he will inherit the Land. But if he commits one sin, they do not treat him well, do not prolong his life, and he does not inherit the Land. There⁶⁴⁹ 3:17., we have stated: “Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandement.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one who had occasion to commit a possible sin and did not act⁶⁵². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one who chose one commandment which he never violated in his lifetime. What kind? Mar Uqban said, for example the honor of father and mother⁶⁵³. Rebbi Mana said, “Happy are those on a straight path, who walk in the Eternal’s Torah⁶⁵⁴. 119:1. If they walk in the Eternal’s Torah, they certainly are on the right path. The verse can only mean that somebody choosing the right path, even if he is far from being perfect, is considered walking totally in the Eternal’s Torah. This gives a biblical source for the Mishnah.,” as if they did walk in the Eternal’s Torah. Rebbi Abun said, “Also they did no evil, in His path they went,” as if they went in His path⁶⁵⁵. 119:3. In order to be counted with those who walk in the Eternal’s way it is enough to refrain from evil; this explains the Mishnah in Makkot.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, what is written? “⁶⁵⁶. 1:1. The argument is better in the Genizah text: “It does not say, ‘Happy the man who walks in the council of the just,’ but …” Happy the man who did not walk in the council of the wicked;” since he did not walk in the council of the wicked it is as if he walked in the council of the just.

footnotes: ⁶⁴⁹ Mishnah Makkot ⁶⁵⁰ Mishnah Makkot ⁶⁵¹ In the Heavenly accounting, he collected as many merits as demerits. If he now collects one merit, he is one of the Just and takes his place in Paradise; if he sins once he is of the sinners and has lost his share in the Future Life. If he does not do anything, his fate remains suspended; cf. Babli 39b. ⁶⁴⁹ Mishnah Makkot ⁶⁵² He refrained from acting out of religious scruple when there was a possibility that the intended act was permitted because possibly it was forbidden. His inaction is a very meritorious act. ⁶⁵³ Which is extremely difficult to keep at all times; cf. Halakhah 7. ⁶⁵⁴ Ps ⁶⁵⁵ Ps ⁶⁵⁶ Ps

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.⁶⁵⁸. 10:1; the translation follows Ibn Ezra.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person⁶⁵⁹. 9:18; but the Babli does not make the difference between the Worlds that are the main thrust of this paragraph. by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “⁶⁶⁰.. 5:14. So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit⁶⁶¹ 111a.. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt⁶⁶² 33:23–24..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering⁶⁶³. 21:25).. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.⁶⁶⁴. 34:7, Micah 7:18. R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found guilty. But in Peah1:1, Sanhedrin 10:1, and the Babli, Roš Haššanah17a, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina is credited with the opinion attributed here to R. Abbahu, who is not mentioned in the other sources. Everybody seems to agree that in the Heavenly Court, no more than one transgression will be forgiven.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide⁶⁶⁵. ⁶⁶⁶ 17b. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.⁶⁶⁷. 62:13.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace⁶⁶⁸.

footnotes: ⁶⁵⁸ Eccl ⁶⁵⁹ Who has exactly as many merits as he has demerits. The Babylonian sources, Babli 40b, Tosephta 1:14, base a formally similar agument on Eccl ⁶⁶⁰ Is ⁶⁶¹ The image is always that the deeds of a person are weighed on scales in Heavenly court; the person is found innocent if the scale containing his merits tilts the balance in his favor. A different interpretation is in the Babli, Sanhedrin ⁶⁶² Job ⁶⁶³ R. Eliah Wilna points out that the Talmud reads פְּדָעֵהוּ as Aramaism, equivalent to Hebrew פְּצָעֵהוּ (cf. Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan to Ex ⁶⁶⁴ Ex ⁶⁶⁵ R. Abbahu holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found not guilty. ⁶⁶⁶ Babli Roš Haššanah ⁶⁶⁷ Ps ⁶⁶⁸ He also holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found not guilty.

Rebbi⁶⁶⁹ Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked about: “Justice watches over the one ambling in simplicity but evil falsifies sin⁶⁷⁰. 13:6. This and the following verses seem to imply that a person is just not by his own merit but only by God’s grace, whereas the wicked are destined to be wicked. This kind of predestination certainly contradicts the doctrine of personal responsibility which rabbinic interpretation finds in Deut. 11:26–28, 30:15–20..” “Evil pursues the sinners but He well rewards the just.”⁶⁷⁰. 13:21. “He watches over the feet of His pious, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness, etc.⁶⁷¹. 2:9. This and the following verses are not in the Genizah fragment. In Peah, the order of the verses is slightly different.” “If He scoffs with the scoffers, but to the meek He gives kindness.⁶⁷². 3:34.” “Sages inherit honor, but shame lifts the silly.⁶⁷³. 3:35.” Fencing makes a fence, and doors entry⁶⁷⁴. And so it is, fencing makes a fence and a door entry. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If somebody guards himself once, twice, and three times from a sin, from then on the Holy One, praise to Him, will guard him⁶⁷⁵ 86b, the Tanna R. Yose ben R. Jehudah is quoted as inferring that the same kind of sin is forgiven by the Heavenly Court a maximum of three times. Šabbat 104a, Yoma 38b, R. Simeon ben Laqish quotes Prov. 3:34 to the effect that Heaven will make it easy for the just to be just, for the wicked to be wicked.. What is the reason? “Lo, all this God will work, twice or three times with a man.”

footnotes: ⁶⁶⁹ For chronological reasons, this title from פן is the only correct one. ⁶⁷⁰ Prov ⁶⁷⁰ Prov ⁶⁷¹ 1S ⁶⁷² Prov ⁶⁷³ Prov ⁶⁷⁴ A popular adage to the effect that a good fence warns away potential trespassers but an open door invites thieves. If the just are fenced in from the start but the wicked left open to sin, there is no personal merit in good behavior. ⁶⁷⁵ If a person from personal initiative guards himself a few times from sinning in a particular way, then it becomes an automatic habit and in the future will not require additional will power. In the Babli, Yoma

Rebbi Zeïra said, but only if the person does not revert⁶⁷⁸. What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split. Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, praise to Him, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written⁶⁶⁴. 34:7, Micah 7:18. R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found guilty. But in Peah1:1, Sanhedrin 10:1, and the Babli, Roš Haššanah17a, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina is credited with the opinion attributed here to R. Abbahu, who is not mentioned in the other sources. Everybody seems to agree that in the Heavenly Court, no more than one transgression will be forgiven. “He forgets⁶⁷⁹ sin.” And so David says⁶⁸⁰. 85:3.: “You forgot Your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”

footnotes: ⁶⁷⁸ Here begins the discussion of the quote at the end of the Mishnah ⁶⁶⁴ Ex ⁶⁷⁹ Replacing נשׂא “to lift, carry” by נשׁה “to forget”. ⁶⁸⁰ Ps