MISHNAH: Ten marriage classes returned from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, Israel, desecrated priests¹, proselytes, freedmen, bastards², dedicated ones³, silenced ones⁴, foundlings. Priests, Levites, and Israel are permitted to marry one another. Levites, Israel, proselytes, freedmen, and desecrated priests are permitted to marry one another⁵. Proselytes, freedmen, bastards, silenced ones, and foundlings are permitted to marry one another.

footnotes: ¹ Descendants of the forbidden union of a priest and a divorcee or a prostitute. ² Descendants of an adulterous or incestuous union involving a deadly sin. ³ Gibeonites, cf. Notes 46 ff. ⁴ As explained in Mishnah 2, children with a known mother but unknown father. ⁵ The marriage class of the child being that of the father by Mishnah 3:14.

HALAKHAH: “Ten marriage classes returned from Babylonia,” etc. Priests, Levites, and Israel, as described⁶ 7:7.: “There came of the Children of Israel, and of the priests, the Levites, both the servants⁷ and the doorkeepers, and the Temple slaves, to Jerusalem in the seventh year of king Artaxerxes.⁸”

footnotes: ⁶ Ezra ⁷ This is clearly a copyist’s error; it must read “singers” as in the masoretic text. Even at the end of the Second Temple period, levitic singers and doorkeepers formed two clearly identified classes in the Temple service. All the distinctions in marriage classes here are clearly attributed to Ezra, not to the early returnees under Sheshbazzar and Zerubabel. ⁸ This quote seems to be missing in G.

“Desecrated priest.” Following⁹ 2:61–63. The verses prove that there were desecrated priests coming from Babylonia, as asserted in the Mishnah. “from the sons of Cohanim, the family Ḥavaya, the family Haqqoṣ . .¹⁰ . they tried to find their genealogical documents; but they were not found and they were freed from priesthood. And the tiršata¹¹. 7 that the title in Ezra 2 cannot apply to Nehemiah; it probably refers to Sheshbazzar. told them.” Why was he called hattiršata? Because they permitted him to drink of the wine¹² and Nehemiah, the natural assumption is that he had obtained a special dispensation from the religious authorities of the time. The interpretation reads the name הַתִּרְשָׁתָא (which never appears without initial ה) not as a noun with definite article but a composite הַתֵּר-שָׁתָא “permitted drinker.” The explanation is quoted by Rashi, 69b, s.v. התרשתא.. Hatiršata, “I was the king’s cup bearer.” “That they should not eat from what was dedicated as holy¹³, sacrifices” and the superlative adjective קָדָשִׁים “most holy”. Since the mss. of the Ben-Asher tradition uniformly write קֳדָשִׁים in the verse here, it is clear that the masoretic interpretation of the verse forbade all holy food to the desecrated priests, whether Temple sacrifices or “outside sancta”, i. e., heave and tithes. But the Yerushalmi, based on the Mishnaic distinction between קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים “most holy sacrifices”, destined exclusively for the altar and/or legitimate priests in the Temple precinct, קֳדָשִׁם קַלִּים “simple sacrifices” (well-being offerings) shared between altar, priests, and the donor’s family, and קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל “outside sancta”, here reads מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים “from most holy sacrifices.” This immediately raises the question why desecrated priests are not summarily excluded from all holy food (as they are in rabbinic practice). As far as the fragmentary text of G can be interpreted, this is exactly the question asked, which is missing in L and editio princeps: “[If they are genuine priests] they should eat Temple sancta; if they are not genuine priests [they should be excluded from all sancta.]” The Yerushalmi is quoted by Rashi as explanation of the Babli, 69b s. v. ואמר להם..” Therefore, from outside¹⁴.” holy food they might eat? Rebbi Yose said, great is the permanence of the status quo ante¹⁵ 3:4 Note 87, Ketubot5:5 Note 100, Yebamot 15:12 Notes 181. An echo of the discussion here is in the Babli, 69b. Since they were used to eat there¹⁶, they may also eat here. One understands there, as it is written: “Put up signposts for yourself.¹⁷. 31:20. The verse is read as exhortation to symbolically observe in the diaspora also those biblical precepts which are intrinsically bound to the Land (Threni rabbati 1:62).” What can one say here¹⁸? Following him who said, they accepted tithes voluntarily¹⁹ 6:1.. “Until a priest will be appointed for urim and tummim.” But were there any urim and tummim then, in the Second Temple²⁰ oracle was never part of the High Priest’s vestment in the Second Temple since its nature was unknown.? But [he is] like a person who says until the dead will be resurrected, until David’s son²¹ will come.

footnotes: ⁹ Ezra ¹⁰ Not mentioned here is the statement that their problem was rooted in the fact that their ancestors 500 years earlier had married the daughters of Barzilai the Gileadite; this is the subject of the following paragraph. The quote then shows that the category of “desecrated priest” is hereditary. ¹¹ The Persian title of the governor, “the one to be feared”. The title is applied to Nehemiah in 8:9; therefore, traditionally the appellation is interpreted as a kind of nickname of Nehemiah (as is explicit in G) and as such the Iranian word is read as an Aramaic pun. It is clear from Neh ¹² As cup-bearer to the Persian monarch, Nehemiah certainly had to taste the wine to make sure it was not poisoned. But drinking Gentile wine is forbidden in rabbinic Judaism. Since Nehemiah shows himself to be strictly orthodox in Ezra ¹³ It seems that the Yerushalmi is in disagreement with the vocalization by the Masoretes. In the Pentateuch, to which the verses clearly are referring, masoretic vocalization strictly differentiates between the noun קֳדָשִׁים “sancta ¹⁴ Maybe better: “Borderline sancta ¹⁵ Cf. Giṭṭin ¹⁶ In Babylonia, an impure country, where heaves and tithes were given to the priests as a remembrance of biblical rules, not a biblical obligation. ¹⁷ Jer ¹⁸ Since heave and heave of the tithe in the Land require genuine purity and genuine priests. ¹⁹ Cf. Halakhah 1:9, Ševi‘it ²⁰ The urim wetummim ²¹ The Messiah.

²², of this edition of the Yerushalmi. Did those daughters of Barzilai’s²³. 17:27 Barzilai the Gileadite is associated with Šobi ben Naḥaš from Rabbat Ammon in providing for David’s army in his flight from Absalom. Since Šobi is characterized as a Gentile, the implication here is that Barzilai also was a Gentile and this is used to explain why some 500 years later Barzilai’s descendants could not serve as priests. convert in the name of Heaven²⁴ or not²⁵ 24b; Seder Eliahu Rabba Chap. 29. in the name of Heaven? If you say that they converted in the name of Heaven should not [their descendants] eat most holy sacrifices? But if you say that they converted not in the name of Heaven, then [their descendants] should not eat even outside sancta. Even if you say that they converted in the name of Heaven, is a female proselyte not like a prostitute for the priesthood²⁶. 21:7 forbids only a whore, a desecrated woman, and a divorcee as marriage partners to the Cohen. Now the divorcee and the desecrated are Jewish born; they cannot be proselytes. The legal definition of a “whore” is a person who had sexual relations with a man whom she could not possibly marry. Since a Gentile is excluded from preliminary marriage, a Gentile woman who is presumed to have had sexual experience when very young, automatically qualifies as whore under this definition.? Explain it that they were not daughters but daughters of daughters²⁷. 2:7). Then their children were regular Israelites according to Mishnah 3:14 and could marry priests.. But if they were daughters of daughters, they are like Israel!²⁸ But following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, a proselyte who converted at less that three years and one day of age²⁹ Halakhah 1:5; Babli Yebamot 60b, Qiddušin 76b,78a.. She had no intent to immerse herself but [her mother] immersed her, if then later she immerses herself for the holiness of Israel, each of them then becomes a proselyte and a proselyte is like a prostitute for the priesthood³⁰ Halakhah 1:5. But they require a conscious act for a rabbinically valid conversion and this is impossible for a toddler. If later the adolescent girl immerses herself for the impurity of menstruation, this is a conscious act and counts fully as valid conversion (cf. Halakhah 3:14, Note 278.) But at that time, the girl is much older than three years and R. Simeon’s argument does not apply. It follows that the daughters of Barzilai, even if converted as toddlers, were rabbinically prohibited to priests. The priests who married them, presumably for their money and standing at court, therefore created a class of rabbinically desecrated priests who could be barred from Temple sancta (in the formulation of G) but not from outside sancta..

footnotes: ²² Cf. the discussion in pp. 17–20 of Introduction to Talmudic Literature in the first volume, Berakhot ²³ There seems to be no indication in the Bible that Barzilai was not Jewish. But in 2S ²⁴ I. e., were honest converts to be counted as Jews. ²⁵ A conversion for the only purpose of being able to be married to a Jewish partner is considered to be invalid; the person so converted then remains Gentile. The Babli disagrees; a conversion is valid and irrevocable if it satisfies the minimal legal conditions imposed on the act: Yebamot ²⁶ Lev ²⁷ The daughters of Barzilai married not priests but courtiers of David’s court (1K ²⁸ Their descendants then would have been genuine priests able to serve in the Temple. ²⁹ This sentence is obviously incomplete; one must add “may marry into the priesthood”, cf. Bikkurim ³⁰ This explains the attitude of the rabbis who oppose R. Simeon. They agree that by biblical standards, the proselyte toddler could be married to a priest as explained by R. Simeon in Bikkurim

Any person who converts because of love, i. e., a man because of a woman or a woman because of a man, or proselytes of the king’s table³¹, or lion proselytes³². 17:25 ff.), or the proselytes of Mordechai and Esther³³. 8:17)., one does not accept. Rav said, they are proselytes³⁴; one does not reject them in the way one has to reject proselytes from the start³⁵47b) and sent away; he can be accepted only if he comes back. This is the translation of the text of L. The text is problematic since שֶׁמָּא “perhaps” is Babylonian Aramaic. According to G, one has to read: “They have to be approached a second time, to convert them for the name [of Heaven].” While the text of L represents rabbinic practice from the Middle Ages, the text of G has no echo in rabbinic literature. Therefore, the text of L has to be preferred.. But one accepts them; they need to be received in a friendly way; perhaps³⁶ they became proselytes for God²⁴.

footnotes: ³¹ People who convert in order to obtain a government post. ³² The ancestors of the Samaritans who converted because of fear of the lions (2K ³³ “And many of the people of the land became Jewish, for the fear of the Jews fell on them” (Esth ³⁴ This is rabbinic practice. ³⁵ A person who wants to become Jewish has to be told that he is better off not being a Jew (Babli Yebamot ³⁶ One continues to prove that in fact all categories of people enumerated in the Mishnah were among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity. ²⁴ I. e., were honest converts to be counted as Jews.

³⁶“Proselytes,” meaning “everyone who separated himself from the impurities of the peoples of the earth to join them.³⁷ 6:21. In the Babli, 70a, the verse is applied to both proselytes and freedmen.” Freedmen, as in “and all the Gibeonites, etc.³⁸ 2:58, Neh. 7:60; the freedmen are the “sons of Solomon’s servants” mentioned in that verse. In both cases, MT is without initial ו.” Bastards. Rebbi Simeon said, it is written³⁹ 2:60 = Neh. 7:61. The subject are people for whom it is questionable whether they should be able to contract Jewish marriages. The place names have not been identified. A similar homiletic interpretation of the same verse is in the Babli, 70a.: “And the following came up from Salt Hill, Ploughing Hill”. From Salt Hill, that is Babylon. Ploughing Hill refers to silenced ones and foundlings⁴⁰. 14:18. In Karaite theory, the forbidden ploughing on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21) is the sex act.. Kerub⁴¹ as “like youngsters”, represented as baby angels, כ is taken as prefix, not part of the root. means the bastards; the young are those who go after their eyes⁴² Mishnah 1:8.; Addon⁴³, for they were saying, there is no judgment and no Master. Rebbi Ḥizqiah changed the wording: These are those who went after their eyes and said, there is no judgment and no judge. And Immer⁴⁴. 107:11)., who rebelled against God by their evil deeds. Rebbi Abbun in the name of Rebbi Phineas: They publicized themselves like the seam of a garment⁴⁵ as acoustic echo of all these meanings.. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They would have been worthy of being turned into a salt hill, but Divine justice was silent for them. Ploughing Hill.

footnotes: ³⁶ One continues to prove that in fact all categories of people enumerated in the Mishnah were among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity. ³⁷ Ezra ³⁸ G shows that the reference is to Ezra ³⁹ Ezra ⁴⁰ “Ploughing” as metaphor for illicit sexual activity is hinted at in Jud ⁴¹ As in the interpretation of Cherubim ⁴² Cf. Soṭah ⁴³ Reading the place name אַדּוֹן as noun אָדוֹן. ⁴⁴ Accadic/Aramaic אמר “lamb”, homiletically identified with Hebrew המר (in Galilean pronounciation which identified א ה ח ע) “to rebel” (cf. Ps ⁴⁵ Identifying אמר “lamb” and Aramaic/Syriac אִמְרָה (חוּמְרָא) “knot, seam, flounce”, in addition to Hebrew אִמְרָה “maxim, saying”. The sermon uses Immer

⁴⁸ 6:9 (ן), an enlarged version in the Babli Yebamot 78b–79a and Num.rabba 8(4), and a shortened version in Midrash Samuel 28[5].[“The dedicated ones”]⁴⁹. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.⁵⁰. 9:27.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”⁵¹. 9:27, but the service in the Tabernacle is reserved for priests and Levites. The statement is interpreted to mean that their status will only be determined when the Eternal’s altar is given its permanent place.? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said⁵². 21:2.: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “⁵³. 21:1. there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins⁵⁴.Eliezer Chapter 17. The number is 4 in Ta‘anit 3:3 (66c 1. 29). the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “⁵⁵. 11:16–17. Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “⁵⁶. 3:2–3. While the prophet obviously speaks of Baal worship, all his imagery is that of sexual transgressions. Quoted in the name of R. Jehudah in Sifra Qedošim Pereq7(4). You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “⁵⁷. 35:33. Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “⁵⁸. 25:14. In the name of different Amoraim in the Babli, Ta‘anit8b, Midrash Prov. 25(14). Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “⁵³. 21:1. David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim.⁵⁹. 21:1 between “David asked before the Eternal,” and “The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” It is explained that he asked by applying the urim and tummim oracle. In the Babli and the sources dependent on it, R. Eleazar explains that “asking before the Eternal” means applying the urim and tummim oracle since in Num. 27:21 it says, “before Eleazar the priest he shall stand and ask the urim and tummim.” Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.⁶⁰. 2:3. The homily is slightly more explicit in the Babli, where it is credited to R. Simeon ben Laqish. It addresses a seeming inconsistency in 2S. 21:1 where God’s answer is that the famine is a punishment for two crimes, the first “about Saul” and the second “about the House of blood guilt because he killed the Gibeonites.” The verse of the prophet is read to mean that even at the moment a person is judged for his misdeeds his “works”, his good deeds, are mentioned in the Heavenly court. But here the sin “about Saul” was not Saul’s but David’s and the entire people’s since they let him be buried in Transjordan and did not bring him to his proper burial in his ancestral land until prodded by the absence of rain (2S. 21:14, where the coming of rain is described as a direct consequence of the proper burials given to Saul and Jonathan.)” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action⁶¹. “⁵³. 21:1. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “⁶². 21:6. May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, ⁶³. 21:4.“there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid⁶⁴; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”⁶⁵. 21:4, the Ketib is “for me” but the Qere “for us”. The homily explains both readings; both are correct.. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable⁶⁶ 1,17.. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy⁶⁷. 13:18..” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.⁶⁸. 20:20.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.⁶⁹. 7:12.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.⁵². 21:2.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.⁷⁰. 3:26, 11:21. The emphasis is on their dwelling separately.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.⁷¹. 48:19) “The city worker will cultivate it, from all the tribes of Israel.” (Interpretation) ‘He will cause him to be lost from all the tribes of Israel.’ Ezechiel, in his description of the future Israel, gives Jerusalem a strip of land from the Meditteranean to the Dead Sea, which will be cultivated by the Temple workers to provide food for the city. The verse is taken out of context and, in Galilean dialect, ע and א are identified, changing “cultivate” into “getting lost”. The city worker is the dedicated one.”

footnotes: ⁴⁸ To this and the following paragraph there exists an almost parallel text in Sanhedrin ⁴⁹ Reading of G; in L: “It was stated”. The following text deals with the identity of “the dedicated ones”, their exclusion from the Jewish marriage community, and proof that they were among the returnees from Babylon. ⁵⁰ Jos ⁵¹ This is also mentioned in Jos ⁵² 2S ⁵³ 2S ⁵⁴ In ן “three” and this also seems to be the reading underlying the Babli’s version and Pirqe R ⁵⁵ Deut ⁵⁶ Jer ⁵⁷ Num ⁵⁸ Prov ⁵³ 2S ⁵⁹ In MT, there is a lacuna in 2S ⁶⁰ Zeph ⁶¹ While the Babli certainly reads with the Masoretes פָּעָלוּ, it might be that the Yerushalmi reads פָּעֳלוֹ. ⁵³ 2S ⁶² 2S ⁶³ 2S ⁶⁴ In ן: They are afraid one in front of the other (to accept blood money). ⁶⁵ In 2S ⁶⁶ In addition to the sources mentioned in Note 48, the following is also in Midrash Psalms ⁶⁷ Deut ⁶⁸ Ex ⁶⁹ Deut ⁵² 2S ⁷⁰ Neh ⁷¹ This quote (as well as the version of G) is clearly corrupt; it telescopes a quote and its interpretation into one sentence. The correct text is in ן:וְהָעוֹבֵד הָעִיר יַעַבְדוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.יַאֲבִידוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.(Ez

It is written: “The King said, I shall give⁷³.” “The King took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah whom she had born to Saul, Admoni and Mephiboshet⁷⁴. 20:8. In the MT ארמני, not אדמוני. The verse ends: “And the five sons of Mikhal, Saul’s daughter, which she had borne to Adriel ben Barzilai from Meḥolah.” Adriel’s wife was Merab, Saul’s elder daughter (1S. 18:19).,” etc. “Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child until the day of her death,⁷⁵. 6:23. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 5:4, 55c 1. 22; Sanhedrin 2:4, 20b 1. 57) she died in childbirth. In the opinion of the Babli (Sanhedrin 21a) she earlier had a child in Hebron.” and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. “He gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal; all seven fell together.⁷⁶. 20:9.” Defective without י⁷⁷. That refers to Mephiboshet ben Jonathan ben Saul, who was great in the Torah and David intended to save him from their hand. David said, I let them pass by the altar and anyone received by the altar will be mine. He let each pass by the altar, prayed for him, and the altar moved and received him. This is what is written: “I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision about me⁷⁸. 57:3.!” For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. “⁷⁶. 20:9. They were killed on the first days of harvest;” it is written “the barley harvest.” “Riṣpah bat Ayah took a sack and laid it out on the rock.⁷⁹. 20:10.” What means: “On the rock”? Rebbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: “The rock, perfect is His action⁸⁰. 32:4, the verse which opens the traditional burial service called צִדּוּק הַדִּין “justification of the (Divine) judgment.” This is alluded to not only here (and in the sources mentioned in Note 48) but also in the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 18a..” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to desecration of the Name it is written: “Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight.⁸¹. 21:23.” But referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: “From the start of harvest until water was poured on them.⁷⁹. 20:10.” This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan⁸². 23:14. to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan⁸³ (Mishnah Ta‘anit1:4).. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked attached⁸⁴. 9:33. proselytes. They would say that even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven not so much more? There is no Power like your God and no people like your people. Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written⁸⁵. 2:16–17.: “Solomon counted all proselytes and appointed from them 70’000 carriers and 80’000 hewers of stone in the mountains.”

footnotes: ⁷³ Here ends the Genizah fragment. ⁷⁴ 2S ⁷⁵ 2S ⁷⁶ 2S ⁷⁷ In the MT, the word is written with an extra י, שבעתים,correctly spelled in G and ן. The correct text seems to that of G and ן: “One is missing”, referring to Mephiboshet ben Jonathan. ⁷⁸ Ps ⁷⁶ 2S ⁷⁹ 2S ⁸⁰ Deut ⁸¹ Deut ⁷⁹ 2S ⁸² The first day of the barley harvest, Lev ⁸³ The year is declared one of draught if the rains did not start by the 17th of Marḥeshwan ⁸⁴ The word was changed by the corrector. Probably one should read with אֲרוּרים ן “cursed”, Jos ⁸⁵ 2Chr

Rav Huna said that in the days of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they tried to include them⁸⁶. Rebbi Abbahu inverts the wording: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar they said, who could purify the altar’s part⁸⁷. 9:23,27 implies that Joshua made the Gibeonites Temple slaves, in addition to their being the people’s slaves by Jos. 9:21. Now the servitude to the people had certainly lapsed. The “dedicated ones” returned from Babylonia as free men and one had to assume that already in the time of the Judges they had regularly been manumitted in this respect. But nobody could manumit Temple slaves, and marriage with slaves was impossible. In this version, the exlusion of Gibeonites from the Jewish marriage pool is a legal necessity which cannot be changed.? That implies that Joshua excluded them. He excluded them only as disqualified for marriage. If you would say, disqualified (because of sins)⁸⁸ 3:1 (27a 1. 59), Notes 16–19, עבדות “slavery” instead of עבירות “sins”. then the rapist of a Gibeonite girl should not have to pay the fine, but we have stated⁸⁹ 3:1. The same Mishnah states that the statutory fine is not applicable to the rape of a virgin slave girl. If Gibeonites were excluded as Temple slaves, they should be classified with slaves in matters of the fine (and be excluded from marriage in all its forms.) Cf. Tosafot Yebamot 79a, s.v. ונתינים. It follows that R. Abbahu’s argument is rejected.: The rapist of a Gibeonite girl has to pay the fine.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he cursed them as a snake, as it is said: “But now you are cursed⁹⁰. 9:23..” And it is written: “The people of Israel said to the Ḥiwwite.⁹¹. 9:7.” But were they Ḥiwwites⁹². 20:2, they are described as Emorites.? They acted like the snake⁹³ which said, I know that the Holy One, praise to Him, did say “because on the day you eat from it, you will die a death⁹⁴. 2:17..” I shall go and trick them so that they eat and will be punished and I shall inherit the earth for myself. So these people acted; they said, we know that the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: “You shall certainly ban them, the Hittite, the Emorite, and the Perizite, as the Eternal, your God, has commanded you⁹⁵. 20:17.” And it is written: “You shall not conclude a covenant with them.⁹⁶. 7:2.” We shall go and trick them that they conclude a covenant with us. As you take it, if they kill us, they violate their oath. If they let us live, they violated the [divine] decision. In any case, they will be punished and we shall inherit the Land.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ To permit marriage with Gibeonites. ⁸⁷ R. Eleazar ben Azariah vetoed the admission of Gibeonites into the Jewish marriage pool by arguing that Jos ⁸⁸ It seems that one should read with the parallel in Ketubot ⁸⁹ Implied by Mishnah Ketubot ⁹⁰ Jos ⁹¹ Jos ⁹² In 2S ⁹³ In Amaraic חִוְיָא. The name of Eve, חַוָּה, instead of the Hebrew חַיָּה, hints at her relationship with the snake. ⁹⁴ Gen ⁹⁵ Misquoted from Deut ⁹⁶ Deut

⁹⁷ 1:6, Notes 229–242 (א). The full comparison of the texts of the next paragraph is given there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds and Palmyrenians. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. There, we have stated: “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore, the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ This paragraph and the next are from Yebamot

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the yzq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, of Rav and Samuel, one said up to the yzq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Moesia are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There they said, Moesia is dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’,gbby’,and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

⁹⁸ 8:3, Notes 193–212. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use [the principle of gezerah šawah for] “the tenth, the tenth.” It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden but the females permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meïr. As Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden but the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth onward.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ The following four paragraphs are from Yebamot

They asked Rebbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure, for he would not live. Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ḥanina? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to eliminate the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners. This parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. “Also He is wise and brings evil;” could one better understand “also He is wise and brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove, He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.”⁹⁹, the statement of R. Levi in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish is repeated here. ¹⁰⁰ Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. When Rebbi Ze‘ira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard”. He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ In Yebamot ¹⁰⁰ Cf. Chapter 3:14, Notes 242-247.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will only deal with the tribe of Levi. What is the reason? “The refiner will sit, the purifier of silver, and will refine them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, like a man who only drinks from a clean cup. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because we are not¹⁰¹: “we are”. According to the Babli, he was a Cohen, therefore also a Levite. Levites, should we lose? Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will deal with them charitably. What is the reason? “They will be for the Eternal presenters of an offering in charity.”

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ In Yebamot

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family Bene Ṣerifa in Transjordan who were forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who were forcibly integrated by the people of Ṣion.¹⁰² 8:7.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer had 5000 slaves, and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of [persecution]¹⁰³. They said, עדן דמשאה¹⁰⁴ is one of them.

footnotes: ¹⁰² The text of ג “by Ben Ṣion” is confirmed by all sources of Mishnah Idiut ¹⁰³ The translation follows ג which alone makes sense. ¹⁰⁴ This place is unidentified, just as is the corresponding one in ג.

¹⁰⁵ 8:2, explained there in Notes 150–155. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said that four congregations are called “congregation”, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the congregation of converts. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles or with amputated urethra should not come into the Eternal’s congregation”? That refers to bodily blemishes. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them in the third generation may enter the Eternal’s congregation”? That is a positive commandment. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come.”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ This text is from Yebamot

MISHNAH: What is a silenced one? Anyone who knows his mother but not his father. But a foundling is one collected from the public domain who knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Shaul called the silenced one “investigated one”.

HALAKHAH: “What is a silenced one,” etc. What means “investigated one”? Investigate him¹⁰⁶ 1:8,9 to determine whether or not the child is to be treated as a bastard. In the interpretation of the Babli, 74a, Abba Shaul holds that the unmarried mother is to be believed if she states that the child is not the result of an incestuous relationship.!

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ One has to apply the rules detailed in Ketubot

The brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of [Rav]¹⁰⁷ 3:1, and in the Babli, 73b, against the reading here ר׳ meaning “Rebbi”.: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either his father or his mother can testify about him¹⁰⁸. Once he was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses¹⁰⁹ they were true and independent witnesses.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rav Ḥisda¹¹⁰ 3:1, the rule is attributed directly to Rav Ḥisda. This may support S. Lieberman’s contention that Tractate Neziqin was edited by the rabbis of Caesarea. In the Babli, 73b, Rava restricts this rule to years of famine or similar situations where the parents may be expected to be unable to care for their child.: That is, if the baby is not moving. But a baby which is moving needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs cannot be proven by possession¹¹¹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ This is the reading later in the Halakhah, in Baba batra ¹⁰⁸ As long as the baby was not taken up, it is not called a foundling and one of the parents is empowered to declare it his child and not a bastard. ¹⁰⁹ Once it is designated a foundling, it needs two witnesses to admit it to the Jewish marriage pool. If two people declare that they are its parents, they really disqualify themselves as witnesses since close relatives cannot testify. Nevertheless, they are admitted as if ¹¹⁰ In Baba batra ¹¹¹ If the ownership of an independently moving calf or lamb is in dispute, one cannot say that the person in whose herd it is at the moment is in possession and any other claimant has to bear the burden of proof since the animal could have wandered with the herd; the situations of both the person in possession and the claimant are equal and ownership has to be proven independently.

¹¹² Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately¹¹³ immediately; after some time they must be treated under the rules which require two independent witnesses.: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife: “The midwife took and wound a red string [around his hand] to indicate that this one was born first¹¹⁴. 38:28, quoted incompletely. In a multiple birth, the midwife has the authority to determine which child was born first, which may determine inheritance rights. The Babli empowers the midwife to testify who is whose child in case several women give birth in the same room..” A caravan, as Rebbi Abba, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once it was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there¹¹⁵ 9:4.: “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure¹¹⁶. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure¹¹⁶, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours¹¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹¹² The same statements are in the Babli, 73b. ¹¹³ They are trustworthy only ¹¹⁴ Gen ¹¹⁵ Mishnah Niddah ¹¹⁶ In the impurity of menstruation. ¹¹⁶ In the impurity of menstruation. ¹¹⁷ The Babli emphatically disagrees and requires that the checking be done immediately upon leaving the bed.

MISHNAH: Any who are forbidden to marry in the congregation are permitted to marry one another¹¹⁸ but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Eliezer says, certain with certain are permitted, certain with questionable, questionable with certain¹¹⁹, and questionable with questionable are forbidden. The following are questionable: the silenced one, the foundling, and the Samaritan¹²⁰.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Even a bastard who is certainly forbidden may marry a foundling whose status is only questionable, as already stated in Mishnah 1. ¹¹⁹ This clause was inserted only as a memory help; “certain with questionable” is the same as “questionable with certain”; it does not make any difference who is the male and who the female. ¹²⁰ Who are Jewish but do not follow the rabbinic rules of marriage and divorce. The child of a Samaritan divorcee from a second husband might be a bastard by rabbinic rules.

HALAKHAH: ¹²¹ 8:2, Notes 136–155 (ג). Rebbi Jeremiah said, as a matter of principle, an Israel with an injured testicle may marry a female bastard. Rebbi Yose said, it applies only to family disabilities, not to bodily defects. The strength of Rebbi Yose comes from the statement of Rebbi Ḥilqiah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this only for an Israel with an injured testicle, but not a Cohen, since, as you say there, if he is certainly a Cohen he is forbidden to marry a convert; here also, he is certainly an Israel and forbidden to marry a female bastard.

footnotes: ¹²¹ The entire Halakhah is from Yebamot

[In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard?]¹²⁴ Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah thought that this disqualified converts from any of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl and marries her to him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on either side.”

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Missing here, added from ג. Since the paragraph is the answer to the question asked in this sentence, it is clear that ג is the source and the text here the copy.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: “No bastard shall marry into the Eternal’s congregation”. He cannot marry into a congregation which is certain. He may marry if the membership in the congregation is questionable.

There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-months’ child of the first [brother] or a seven-months’ of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be [High]¹²⁵ Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Missing from the text here but necessary. If the male child is legitimate and his father a Cohen, he is a Cohen. The emphasis is on the fact that the child in theory could be High Priest.

MISHNAH: One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family¹²⁶ has to check four mothers who are eight: Her mother, and her maternal grandmother, her mother’s paternal grandmother and great-grandmother¹²⁷ a female to be checked, by m a male: f     f ׀     ׀ f  f  f ׀  ׀  ׀ f  m  f  m ׀  /  ׀  / f     m ׀   / bride The positions mentioned in the Yerushalmi Mishnah are underlined.. But for a levitic or Israel woman one adds another generation¹²⁸.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Since only in priestly families the women may become disqualified, the Cohen who wants to be sure that his descendants will be qualified to serve in the Temple is asked to verify that in generations back no divorcee or otherwise disqualified woman married into his fiancée’s family. ¹²⁷ The list is obviously incomplete; the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. add the paternal grandmother and the latter’s mother and mother-in-law. The list is quite uneven; looking at the bride’s family tree we denote by f ¹²⁸ Even though priestly disqualifications do not apply to these women.

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated¹²⁹ 1:9 (Notes 248–254); a slightly different version in the Tosephta 5:2, Babli Ketubot 14a.: “What is qualified dough¹³⁰1:9 Note 251. [For “mixture of dough” used as simile for lineage, perhaps also cf. Swiss-German expression vom Teig“from the dough”, meaning “from (the best) families”. (E.G.)]? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.¹³¹” Rav said, these¹³² are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries¹³³. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives¹³⁴ 1:9, dealing with a woman’s bodily defects.. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man¹³⁵.Qorban Ha‘eda reads: Rebbi saw an old man coming. Both interpretations are possible; in neither case is the text idiomatic Aramaic.; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he¹³⁶ was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife¹³⁷. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.¹³⁸. 5:28.” If she was not impure, she is pure¹³⁹. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife¹⁴⁰ 1:7, Note 260. He did not permit his wife to talk to any male except himself.. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this¹⁴¹ 1:7; Babli Giṭṭin 90a.? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you¹⁴²?

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Ketubot ¹³⁰ As dough is kneaded from different ingredients, so a dough woman is descended from both more and less qualified sources; cf. Ketubot ¹³¹ Until he finds the source of the trouble. ¹³² The interpretation of the position of the Sages. ¹³³ All women in a family from whom one married into the priesthood are qualified unless her personal disqualification be known. In the Babli, 76b, Rav’s statement is stronger: A presumption of legitimacy applies to all families (unless anything derogatory be known). ¹³⁴ Testimony by females is close to be hearsay evidence, but sufficient to qualify a marriage. The language of the statement is derived from Mishnah Ketubot ¹³⁵ Interpretation of Pene Moshe ¹³⁶ R. Ḥama. ¹³⁷ Rav had married a noble woman and relative who gave him a hard time. ¹³⁸ Num ¹³⁹ They reject the Mishnah and hold that anybody can marry any woman about whose family nothing derogatory is known. ¹⁴⁰ Cf. Soṭah ¹⁴¹ Jews do not lock up their wives in a harem; Soṭah ¹⁴² If there was a problem a few generations earlier, would you know? Note that the Cohen quotes the Mishnah in Hebrew, claiming the status of a learned person, but R. Joḥanan answers him in Aramaic, demoting him to the unlearned class since he followed the Mishnah.

“But for Levites or Israel one adds another generation¹⁴³.” Does it not turn out that one is more stringent for an Israel than for a Cohen? ¹⁴⁴ 1:5, end. He seems to think that in Herodian times and later the priests had a tendency to develop into a separate caste. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, in both cases¹⁴⁵ the Sages demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ This quote is different from the Mishnah which speaks of a Cohen marrying a non-priestly wife whereas here one refers to a non-priest marrying a priestly wife. The Tosephta, 5:4, straddles the issue, mentioning לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים “a Levite (f. singular) and Israels (m. plural)”. ¹⁴⁴ In a different situation R. Yose ben R. Abun gives the same explanation in Ketubot ¹⁴⁵ Both the cases mentioned in the Mishnah and the one mentioned in the quote.

MISHNAH: One does not investigate from the altar¹⁴⁶ and before, or from the podium¹⁴⁷ and before¹⁴⁸. From every family whose ancestors were known as public officials and welfare administrators one marries into the priesthood; no investigation is necessary. Rebbi Yose says, also anybody signing as witness in the ancient archive¹⁴⁹ of Sepphoris. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, also anyone who ever was registered in the king’s army¹⁵⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ The daughters of priests accepted for service in the Temple are automatically qualified to be married by priests. ¹⁴⁷ The same holds for daughters of Levitic men accepted as singers in the Temple. One has to assume that the same holds for Levites serving in other functions in the Temple. ¹⁴⁸ The Babylonian Mishnah adds: “Nor from the Synhedrion and before.” This addition is unnecessary since it is implied by the next sentence. ¹⁴⁹ Greek ἀρχεῖον. It seems that only select families were admitted to be notaries to certify deeds in Sepphoris. ¹⁵⁰ Greek στρατία.

HALAKHAH: “One does not investigate from the altar and before,” etc. It is written¹⁵¹. 17:15.: “You certainly shall put a king over you.” This refers not only to a king; from where to add public officials, administrators of welfare, clerks of the court, and those who whip with a lash¹⁵²; from where? The verse says, “from amidst your brothers you shall appoint a king over you¹⁵¹. 17:15.,” anybody whom you appoint over you shall only be from the select among your brethren¹⁵³. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Their distinguished lineage in the army in war.¹⁵⁴. 7:40. This refers to the statement of R. Ḥanina ben Antigonos and a hypothetical army of the Messiah. In the Babli, 76b, “the king’s army” is interpreted as David’s army as described in 1Chr.” The merit of their lineage supports them in war. So far from tradition¹⁵⁵; from the words of the Torah? “No bastard shall come into the Eternal’s congregation¹⁵⁶. 23:3..” “No person injured in his testicles shall come¹⁵⁷. 23:2. The spelling supports the Yemenite tradition., etc.” What is written afterwards? “When you encamp against your enemies, etc.¹⁵⁸. 23:10, directly after the end of the rules of exclusion from endogamous marriage. It is explicit in the Babli (Yebamot 4a) that the order of verses in Deut. is important for the correct interpretation. The implication is that only persons of impeccable lineage should be admitted to the Eternal’s army.”

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Deut ¹⁵² Employees of the criminal court. ¹⁵¹ Deut ¹⁵³ He can be called your brother only if he belongs to your marriage group. Therefore, anybody whose daughter cannot be married by anybody, including priests, is excluded from public office. In the Babli, 76b, it is inferred from this argument that only children of a Jewish mother can be appointed to public office. ¹⁵⁴ 1Chr ¹⁵⁵ Prophets and Hagiographs, which do not have standing as sources of the law. ¹⁵⁶ Deut ¹⁵⁷ Deut ¹⁵⁸ Deut

MISHNAH: The daughter of a male desecrated priest¹ is always disqualified for the priesthood. The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood¹⁵⁹. The daughter of adesecrated priest who married an Israel woman is disqualified for the priesthood. Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest¹⁶⁰. 44:22 which instructs priests to marry only “virgins from the seed of Israel and widows of priests.”. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the daughter of an Israel who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood and the daughter of a proselyte who married an Israel woman is qualified for the priesthood, but the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is disqualified for the priesthood¹⁶¹, both proselytes and freedmen, even for ten generations, unless the mother be from Israel. Rebbi Yose says, even the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood¹⁶².

footnotes: ¹ Descendants of the forbidden union of a priest and a divorcee or a prostitute. ¹⁵⁹ Desecrated priests and their descendants can marry Israel or Levite partners without sin. According to Mishnah 3:14, the children have the status of the male, qualified Israel for an Israel father and desecrated priest for a desecrated father. ¹⁶⁰ This statement has no basis in the Torah; it accepts as law Ez ¹⁶¹ Even if she was conceived after both partners became Jewish. He accepts as “seed of Israel” the child of either a male or a female Israel. ¹⁶² If they married after conversion, as Jews, their children are “the seed of Israel”.

HALAKHAH: “The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever¹⁶³. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted¹⁶⁴. 21:1 it is stated that a Cohen may not defile himself by impurity “in his clans”. A female member of a priestly family is under no such constraint. It is claimed that in v. 4, in which a Cohen is warned not to enter a marriage which would desecrate him, the expression “in his clans” similarly frees female members of a priestly family from the disability of desecration.. What is the difference between them¹⁶⁵? A Cohen who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden¹⁶⁶. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted¹⁶⁷. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one¹⁶⁸., women having had sexual relations with men whom they could not have married (such as women raped by Gentiles.) He will agree that the daughter of such a woman, whom he calls חֲלָלָה מְבָנָה “broomstick desecrated”, born as a regular Jew and married to an Israel, is qualified for the priesthood. (Explanation of Qorban ha‘edah.) Since חֲלָלָה מְבָנָה does not make much sense, one might read חֲלָלָה מִבִּיאָה “desecrated by intercourse.”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.¹⁶⁹. 44:22 prohibits the daughter of a proselyte from an Israel mother to the priesthood, how could he agree that the daughter of a desecrated woman from an Israel is qualified for the priesthood?” He explains that Rebbi Jehudah only comes to add¹⁷⁰. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ All descendants of a desecrated priest are desecrated, both male and female, for all generations. ¹⁶⁴ In Lev ¹⁶⁵ Rav and R. Joḥanan. ¹⁶⁶ In fact, all descendants in all degrees are desecrated. ¹⁶⁷ Following the Mishnah, if she married an Israel or a Levite. ¹⁶⁸ Rav will hold to his position that all descendants of a desecrated priest remain desecrated and the females forbidden to the priesthood. But he notes that there is a category of desecrated women who are not descendants of desecrated priests, viz ¹⁶⁹ Since R. Jehudah holds that Ez ¹⁷⁰ He does not disagree with the anonymous Tanna; he only comes to add rules about proselytes not mentioned by the anonymous Tanna.

¹⁷¹ 1:5 (ר), Notes 87–106. The Leiden ms. in Bikkurim only notes the first few words and then writes “one continues this in Qiddušin4:7.” The full text was added by someone who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer; that text must have come from another ms. since not all deviations from L can be explained by copyists’ errors. Example. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia and Rebbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rebbi Joḥanan ran und whispered into Rebbi Hoshaia’s ear: May a Cohen who is injured in his testicles marry the daughter ofconverts? He asked him, what did he tell you? He answered, a question which a carpenter, son of carpenters, cannot resolve. He did not ask me about a convert, since she is like a whore for him. He did not ask about an Israelite daughter, whom he will desecrate. He asked only about the daughter of converts! Is the daughter of converts not an Israel? You have to explain it following Rebbi Jehudah, who said, the daughter of a male convert has the status of the daughter of a desecrated male.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Yebamot 8:2 (ג), explained in Notes 156–164; partially from Bikkurim

¹⁷² (ג, Note 171). If a Cohen had intercourse with a divorcee and fathered a daughter, what is the status of the daughter’s daughter¹⁷³? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, one said she is qualified¹⁷⁴, the other said she is disqualified¹⁷⁵. The one who said that she is qualified asked the one who said that she is disqualified: Is the daughter of a male desecrated priest not disqualified¹⁷⁶? Is the broomstick desecrated one not disqualified¹⁷⁷ 6:5.? Why is she disqualified¹⁷⁸?

footnotes: ¹⁷² This paragraph is not a copy of the corresponding paragraph in Yebamot ¹⁷³ Assuming the mother was married to an Israel. ¹⁷⁴ Following R. Joḥanan. ¹⁷⁵ Following Rav. ¹⁷⁶ This is explicit in the Mishnah. ¹⁷⁷ Mishnah Yebamot ¹⁷⁸ Since she is qualified by Mishnah 3:14, she does not appear in any list of disqualified women. (Cf. Note 168.)

“Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the daughter of proselytes should not marry into the priesthood unless her mother be from Israel” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” How do the rabbis explain? You shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose. Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose, but Cohanim are used to follow Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughter of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rebbi Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to follow Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, Rebbi, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South had a bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed¹⁷⁹. Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed¹⁸⁰. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are believed¹⁸¹. 21:17..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Since a father is a relative of his wife’s child, he is unable to testify about him. ¹⁸⁰ Both parents agree. They cannot testify even before the child’s birth when the child does not yet have a personality in the legal sense that the formal rules of testimony would be applicable to him. ¹⁸¹ Even the father alone is able to declare his son illegitimate by the power invested in him by Deut

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated¹⁸² 8:8, dealing with rights of inheritance.: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him¹⁸³, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”¹⁸⁴? Maybe it¹⁸⁵ was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.¹⁸⁶. 21:17. Quoting a verse is obviously not quoting a baraita. Probably the baraita quoted in the Babli, 78b, Sifry Deut. 217 is meant: “ ‘For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one;’ he has to make him recognized by others; this implies that a person is believed if he says, this son of mine is the firstborn. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as a man is believed if he says, this son of mine is the firstborn, so he is believed if he says that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah, but the Sages say, he is not believed.”” If they¹⁸⁷ maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed¹⁸⁸ requires valid testimony by two independent witnesses to change that status; cf. Giṭṭin Chapter 3.. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed¹⁸⁹. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed¹⁹⁰ 2:5), he must be believed since his statement now is compatible with his earlier statements.. If he was standing next to the customs collectors¹⁹¹ and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed¹⁹². He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed¹⁹³. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans¹⁹⁴: The Nabateans. who use their sons as slaves.

footnotes: ¹⁸² Mishnah Baba batra ¹⁸³ Make him a legal heir. ¹⁸⁴ The Mishnah makes the statement of R. Joḥanan superfluous. ¹⁸⁵ The statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan. ¹⁸⁶ Deut ¹⁸⁷ The parents. ¹⁸⁸ Once a person has obtained public recognition as a son, the presumption of permanence of the status quo ante ¹⁸⁹ Since the dying person also could have given an unrelated person a part of his estate. ¹⁹⁰ If the father acknowledged that he had fathered the child with his slave girl and everybody assumed that he had manumitted the pregnant girl in order to be the legal father of the child but on his deathbed he acknowledged that he never manumitted the girl and, therefore, his child is not his child in Jewish law (Mishnah Yebamot ¹⁹¹ When he would have to pay customs duty for the importation of a slave but not for an accompanying son. ¹⁹² We believe him that he was cheating on the customs. ¹⁹³ Nobody pays custom duties which he is not obligated for. ¹⁹⁴ In Baba batra

It was stated¹⁹⁵: He is believed about the adult but is not believed about the young¹⁹⁶. Who is adult? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, any one who has a wife and children; Rebbi Abbahu, any one who has a wife¹⁹⁷. A baraita¹⁹⁸ 47b. disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: A proselyte who was circumcised but did not immerse himself¹⁹⁹ but has children; if he said, I was circumcised but did not immerse, he is believed and one immerses him even on the Sabbath because of parsimony²⁰⁰, the words of Rav²⁰¹. Jehudah. What does Rebbi Abbahu do with this²⁰² implies that one immerses him on the Sabbath only because he has children; does this not prove R. Ze‘ira’s point?? He explains it, because who cares²⁰³ is R. Jehudah for whom immersion is unnecessary, there is no problem of Sabbath desecration involved and he will agree that in order to satisfy even the followers of R. Yose, the proselyte should immerse himself at the first opportunity. This explanation is attributed to R. Jehudah himself in the Babli, loc.cit.?

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ According to the Tosephta, 5:5, the author of this statement is R. Jehudah. ¹⁹⁶ It is clear that this sentence is corrupt and one must read: He is believed about the young but is not believed about the adult. Even R. Jehudah will agree that the Torah gives the father only the right to recognize or to refuse to recognize his child; the moment other people are involved, the usual rules of judicial proof must apply. Since the father does not have the right to declare his grandchildren as bastards, he has lost the right to declare his child a bastard the moment the child has children. ¹⁹⁷ Since by declaring his son a bastard, the father would forbid the son to his daughter-in-law, he would infringe upon the rights of a third party and cannot be believed. ¹⁹⁸ Also quoted in the Babli, Yebamot ¹⁹⁹ He is Jewish for R. Jehudah but still Gentile for R. Yose. ²⁰⁰ To avoid problems with handling food when he or his family are present. Since for R. Yose, immersion of a circumcised proselyte changes him from Gentile to Jew, this could not be done on the Sabbath. One has to assume that the father admitted that he never was immersed only after he and his children already were known as Jews. Then he can no longer testify to disqualify his children from prospective Jewish marriages; he must be accepted as a Jew. ²⁰¹ This certainly must read “Rebbi” since the Babylonian Amora Rav Jehudah cannot be the author of a baraita ²⁰² Since the baraita ²⁰³ Since the author of the baraita

MISHNAH: If somebody empowered his agent to contract preliminary marriage for his daughter and then went himself and contracted for her, ifhe was first, his preliminary marriage is valid²⁰⁴, but if his agent was first, that preliminary marriage is valid²⁰⁵. If precedence cannot be established, both give a bill of divorce or, if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and one marries definitively. Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself, if she was first, her preliminary marriage is valid²⁰⁴, but if her agent’s was first, that preliminary marriage is valid²⁰⁵. If precedence cannot be established, both give a bill of divorce or, if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and one marries definitively.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Appointing an agent does not abolish the intrinsic right of a father to contract for his underage daughter’s marriage (to a different person). ²⁰⁵ If the father himself would marry his daughter successively to two different men, the second marriage would be nonexistent. The actions of father and agent can be considered as if all were actions of the father himself. ²⁰⁴ Appointing an agent does not abolish the intrinsic right of a father to contract for his underage daughter’s marriage (to a different person). ²⁰⁵ If the father himself would marry his daughter successively to two different men, the second marriage would be nonexistent. The actions of father and agent can be considered as if all were actions of the father himself.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. ²¹⁹ 4:1, see Notes 2–3 there for explanation. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Since the argument is repeated for Mishnah 9, it is clear that the Halakhah refers both to Mishnah 8 and Mishnah 9. The statement of R. Joḥanan is in Giṭṭin

MISHNAH: If somebody left for overseas together with his wife; he returns with his wife and her children and says, “the wife with whom I left for overseas is this one and those are her children,”²²⁰ he does not have to bring proof either about the wife²²¹ or the children. “She died and those are her children,” he has to bring proof about the children²²² but not about the wife.

footnotes: ²²⁰ A Cohen who wants to find matches for his children as members of the priestly clan. ²²¹ Even if nobody recognizes her anymore. ²²² That they are the children of his legal wife.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody left for overseas together with his wife,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They considered a man and his wife as two witnesses²²⁴ since it is general knowledge that a woman will not be silent about another woman’s children. Rebbi Abun referred this to the later statement: “I married a wife overseas, this is she and those are her children;” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They considered a man and his wife as two witnesses since it is general knowledge that a woman will not be silent about another woman’s children²²⁵.

footnotes: ²²⁴ In order to let a person marry a Jewish partner, the court will need to have either generally accepted knowledge that the person is Jewish and is not a bastard, or to require testimony to this effect. A man and his wife are really barred from testifying about their children but since a woman is not supposed to raise another woman’s children as her own, her assertion can be believed. ²²⁵ Therefore, once the foreign woman has been accepted as his legitimate wife, no proof is needed about the children. In the language of the Tosephta (5:8): “A woman is believed if she says: These are my children.”

MISHNAH: “I married a wife overseas, this is she and those are her children,” he has to bring proof about the wife²²³ but not about her children. “She died and those are her children,” he has bring proof both about the wife and about the children.

footnotes: ²²³ That she is of those whom he legally could marry.

HALAKHAH: ²⁰⁶, Halakhah 8 follows Halakhah 10. The theme of Halakhah 8 agrees better with Mishnah 10 than with Mishnah 8. “If somebody empowered his agent,” etc. It was stated: “If a man and a woman come from overseas; he says, she is my wife, and she says, he is my husband. One will not execute anybody because of her being a married woman²⁰⁷. If they become generally known²⁰⁸ evidence which is valid as long as it is not rebutted by legal proof to the contrary; cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100., one will execute because of her being a married woman.” How long does it take to be generally known? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to thirty days²⁰⁹ evidence is established, husband and wife are barred from testifying in the matter since they are presumed related to each other.. There²¹⁰ 3:8., we have stated: “A toddler who is found near cake-dough with a piece of dough in his hand²¹¹ and then watched every moment lest he touch anything which would make him impure. If the toddler took the cake dough by himself, the cake dough is impure. If it is known that he was handed the piece of dough by a pure adult, the rest of the cake dough remains pure., Rebbi Meïr declares pure²¹² but the Sages declare it impure, for toddlers will slap their hands on cake-dough²¹³ evidence unless proven to be otherwise..” Does one burn because of general knowledge²¹⁴? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not execute because of general knowledge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Everybody agrees that one executes because of general knowledge. Where do they disagree? About burning. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge but one does not burn because of general knowledge²¹⁵ 6:6, Note 138.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one executes because of general knowledge, one also burns because of general knowledge. And from where that one executes because of general knowledge? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written²¹⁶.. 21:15.: “He who hits his father or his mother shall be put to death.” But is it certain that this one is his father? Is it not only general knowledge that he is his father²¹⁷, Yerushalmi 1:7 Note 265, Babli 27a; Tosephta Yebamot 12:8.)? But it says, one executes. So here also²¹⁸ one executes.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ In the ms. but not in editio princeps ²⁰⁷ If somebody commits adultery with the woman, he cannot be prosecuted in the absence of proof (by witnesses or documents) that the woman actually is a wife, not a concubine. ²⁰⁸ Public knowledge creates prima facie ²⁰⁹ Once a couple has lived in town as husband and wife for thirty days, adultery by another man with the wife is a capital crime since it seems unlikely that she would be able to prove that she is not married. Once prima facie ²¹⁰ Mishnah Ṭahorot ²¹¹ The dough is supposed to be made in the purity of heave. The toddler is assumed to be impure unless he was immersed in a miqweh ²¹² R. Meïr is reluctant to accept that anything which happens most of the time happens all the time unless the contrary be known. Since some toddlers do not touch anything impure and some toddlers do not play with dough if they see it, it is not said that the cake dough has to be impure. ²¹³ The cake dough is impure by prima facie ²¹⁴ If the cake dough was made of heave material. ²¹⁵ Babli 80a; cf. also Demay ²¹⁶ Ex ²¹⁷ This is not really a proof since fatherhood is not only a matter of public knowledge but also of probability since “most intercourse of an adulteress is still with her husband” (Soṭah ²¹⁸ In the matter of the couple who married at another place and declare themselves husband and wife; Babli 80a.

“ “I married a wife overseas.” It was stated: If he brought proof about the older ones²²⁶, he still has to bring proof about the younger ones. Why? Rebbi Jonah said, I say that perhaps she was divorced in the meantime²²⁷.

footnotes: ²²⁶ If the wife had died. ²²⁷ They could be children of the same woman but the older ones would be priests, the younger ones desecrated as children of a divorcee married to a priest. The Babli, 79b, disagrees and holds that once the wife has been found acceptable for the priesthood, no proof about her children is needed. It refers “older” and “younger” to children from different mothers.

MISHNAH: One man should not be alone with two women²²⁸ but one woman may be alone with two men. Rebbi Simeon says, he may be alone with two women as long as his wife is with him; he can sleep with them in a hostelry²²⁹ because his wife will watch over him. A man can be alone with his mother or his daughter and sleep with them with their skins touching; once they grew up each one sleeps in his garment. And a bachelor shall not be a school teacher²³⁰; a woman shall not be a school teacher. Rebbi Eliezer says, also a man without a wife shall not be a school teacher.²³¹ Rebbi Jehudah says, a bachelor shall not be a shepherd and two bachelors shall not sleep under one cover, but the Sages permit²³². Anybody whose occupation is with women should never be alone with women. And a man should not teach his son a craft for women. Rebbi Meïr says that a man should try to teach his son a clean and easy trade and pray to Him to Whom riches and properties belong since there is no trade in which poverty and riches are not found, for neither poverty nor riches come from the trade. Rebbi Simeon²³³ ben Eleazar says, did you ever see a wild animal or a bird which had a trade? And they sustain themselves without pain. But they were created only to serve me and sustain themselves without pain, and I was created to serve my Maker, it should be logical that I should be able to sustain myself without pain; only I worsened my deeds and destroyed my sustenance. Abba Gorion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul²³⁴: A man should not teach his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a hairdresser, a sailor, a potter, a shepherd, or a grocer, since their occupations are those of robbers. Rebbi Jehudah says in the latter’s name: Most donkey drivers are wicked²³⁵, most camel drivers are in order²³⁶, most sailors are pious; the best of physicians goes to hell²³⁷, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amaleq²³⁸.

footnotes: ²²⁸ In a locked room. ²²⁹ Where everybody sleeps in the same room. ²³⁰ Because of the mothers of the schoolchildren. ²³¹ If he is married but his wife lives at another place, he is considered unmarried in this respect. ²³² They hold that Jews never engage in bestiality or homosexual acts. ²³³ This list is different in different Mishnah mss. It seems that both “hairdresser” and “potter” should be deleted and replaced by קָרָר or קָרָן “teamster”. But the text could also be a conflation of two different texts, one denigrating trades that have a reputation of dishonesty and one that serves women (Babli 82a) like jewelers, hairdressers, etc. For a better text cf. below, 66c 1. 26. ²³⁴ In the Babli: Abba Guria. ²³⁵ They are always hitting their animal. ²³⁶ Camels will walk by themselves a certain number of steps and have to be led gently. ²³⁷ He will be punished for every patient of his who dies because he did not give him the best of care. ²³⁸ He is a professional killer.

HALAKHAH: “One man should not be alone with two women,” etc. Rebbi Abun said, when has this been said²³⁹? With decent men. But with profligates she should not be alone even with a hundred men²⁴⁰. It was stated²⁴¹: A one day old child who died is for his father, his mother, and all his relatives like one fully grown²⁴². Not only if he died when one day old but even if he was alive when his head and most of his body were born²⁴³ 7:6).. He is carried out at the bosom²⁴⁴ and buried by one woman and two men; Abba Shaul says even one man and two women. It is obvious that Rebbi Simeon will agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul does not need to agree with Rebbi Simeon since there is no sexual desire in the cemetery²⁴⁵.v. כי) identifies as that of The Widow of Ephesus..

footnotes: ²³⁹ That a woman can be alone with two men. ²⁴⁰ In the Babli, 80b, this is a statement of Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav. ²⁴¹ A similar text is quoted in the Babli, 80b. ²⁴² They have to observe all the rules of the impurity of the dead and of mourning. ²⁴³ From the moment his life is independent and it is no longer permitted to destroy the fetus to save the mother’s life (Mishnah Ahilut ²⁴⁴ He does not need a bier and ten adults like a grown-up. Since he died before he had occasion to sin, his soul is pure and ready to enter Paradise without human intercession. ²⁴⁵ In all other situations, Abba Shaul agrees with the anonymous Tanna. In the Babli, Abba Shaul’s statement is rejected by reference to a story which R. Ḥananel (quoted by Tosaphot s

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai²⁴⁶ 1:1, Note 38. In the Babli 80b, R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b, Avodah zarah 36b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. The latter attribution probably is the correct one; in these two quotes also the verse correctly is called “a hint”, not a proof.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son, or your daughter incites you²⁴⁷. 13:7. As usual, the reference is to the part of the verse not quoted; in this case that the inciting happens “in secret”.”. “Your mother in secret,” “your daughter in secret.” A man can be alone with his mother and live with her²⁴⁸, with his daughter and live with her, with his sister and does not live with her, and sleep with them with their skins touching. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The daughter with her father up to the age of three years and one day²⁴⁹; the son with his mother up to the age of nine years and one day²⁵⁰ 10:6).. If they get older, each one sleeps in his own clothing. It was stated²⁵¹ 24a.: If two people sleep in the same bed, each one covers himself with his own garment and recites {the Šema‘}²⁵²; if his son or daughter were small it is permitted. There, they say: A man with his wife is permitted²⁵³ 24a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man with his wife is problematic²⁵⁴ while lying close to her only if she would not represent a sexual attraction to him. This is not a desirable situation..

footnotes: ²⁴⁶ So also in Soṭah ²⁴⁷ Deut ²⁴⁸ In a one-room apartment. ²⁴⁹ The day she becomes nubile. ²⁵⁰ Before that day, his sex act has no legal consequences (Mishnah Yebamot ²⁵¹ Similar statements are in Berakhot ²⁵² Which, as a holy text, it is forbidden to recite in the presence of nudity. ²⁵³ Even if both are naked under the same bedsheet, since “his wife is part of his body” (Babli Berakhot ²⁵⁴ Even if his wife is part of his body, he could recite the Šema‘

New paragraph. “And a bachelor shall not be a school teacher; a woman shall not be a school teacher, etc.” It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, also a man with a wife and children shall not be a school teacher if they are not with him at that place. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael acted accordingly in the case of a Mishnah teacher.

New paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, a bachelor shall not be a shepherd and two bachelors shall not sleep under one cover, but the Sages permit.” Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? What is the rabbi’s reason? Perish the thought! Jews are not suspected either with males or with animals. But did we not state: “A bachelor shall not be a school teacher”²⁵⁵? Because his mother or his sister will come with him²⁵⁶.

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ Suspecting the unmarried school teacher to be a pedophile with young males. ²⁵⁶ He is only suspected to be susceptible to the lure of heterosexual relations. The same argument is in the Babli, 82a, where also it is indicated that a female school teacher is not suspected of being attracted to her male students but to their fathers.

New paragraph. “A man should not teach his son a craft for women,” etc. It was stated: A man should not teach his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a sailor, a potter, a teamster, a shepherd, or a grocer, since their occupations are those of robbers²³³.

footnotes: ²³³ This list is different in different Mishnah mss. It seems that both “hairdresser” and “potter” should be deleted and replaced by קָרָר or קָרָן “teamster”. But the text could also be a conflation of two different texts, one denigrating trades that have a reputation of dishonesty and one that serves women (Babli 82a) like jewelers, hairdressers, etc. For a better text cf. below, 66c 1. 26.

New paragraph. Abba Orion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul²³⁴: Most donkey drivers are wicked²³⁵, most camel drivers are in order²³⁶, most sailors are pious, most bastards are intelligent, most slaves are beautiful, most children of reputed parents are bashful, most sons look like their mother’s brothers. The qualified physicians go to hell²³⁷, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amaleq²³⁸. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles²⁵⁷.Ismael,Bešallaḥ 1; Mekhilta dR.Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 51; Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ8, his proof is from Ex. 14:7, where Pharao mobilized 600 chariots and it is argued that the horses to draw the chariots must have belonged to “those who feared the word of the Eternal” (Ex. 9:20); but that verse refers only to domestic animals which at that time did not include horses used only by the military., smash the head of the best of snakes; the best qualified among women is a sorceress. Blessed is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.

footnotes: ²³⁴ In the Babli: Abba Guria. ²³⁵ They are always hitting their animal. ²³⁶ Camels will walk by themselves a certain number of steps and have to be led gently. ²³⁷ He will be punished for every patient of his who dies because he did not give him the best of care. ²³⁸ He is a professional killer. ²⁵⁷ He spent 14 years in a cave on the run from the Roman government. In Mekhilta dR

Rebbi Meïr says²⁵⁸: A person can earn his livelihood from anywhere. Blessed is he who sees his parents in an esteemed trade; woe to him who sees his parents in a degrading²⁵⁹ trade.

footnotes: ²⁵⁸ Cf. Tosephta 5:14. ²⁵⁹ In G: despised.

New paragraph. “Rebbi Meïr says that a man should try to teach his son a clean trade,” etc. What should a man do? A person should try and teach his son an unassuming trade and pray for mercy to Him to Whom riches belong since there is no trade in which poor and rich people are not found, for everything depends on a person’s merit. ²⁶⁰ Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Did you ever see a lion porter, a (lion) [deer]²⁶¹ maker of fig cakes, a fox grocer, a wolf selling pots? And they sustain themselves without pain. Why were they created? Only to serve me, and I was created to serve my Maker. Is it not an argument de minore ad maius? Since they were created to serve me and sustain themselves so without pain, should it not be logical that I, who was created to serve my Maker, should be able to sustain myself without pain? What caused me to have to sustain myself with pain? One has to say, my sins. Because I worsened my deeds and destroyed my sustenance.

footnotes: ²⁶⁰ Tosephta 5:15, Babli 82b. ²⁶¹ Reading of G and the parallel sources.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Nehorai says: I am leaving aside all trades in the world and teach my son only Torah²⁶² 2:2, 4:5., for a man eats from its rewards in this world and the capital remains for the future world. But with other trades it is not so, for if a person is afflicted with sickness, or old age, or a measure of suffering, and cannot continue in his trade, he dies, abandoned, from hunger. But the Torah is different, it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. What does it say about his youth? “Those who trust in the Eternal will renew strength, they rise on wings like an eagle, they run without effort, they walk without tiring.²⁶³. 40:31.” What does it say about his old age? “They still bear fruit in old age, fat and invigorated they will be.²⁶⁴. 92:15.” So it says about our father Abraham, peace on him: “Abraham was old, came into days, and the Eternal blessed Abraham with everything.²⁶⁵. 24:1.” We find that our father Abraham kept the entire Torah before it was given, as it is said: “As a reward because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My watch, My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.²⁶⁶. 26:5.”

footnotes: ²⁶² This really is frowned upon, Mishnah Avot ²⁶³ Is ²⁶⁴ Ps ²⁶⁵ Gen ²⁶⁶ Gen

HALAKHAH: ²⁶⁷ 17:1.“Rebbi Nehorai says: I am leaving aside all trades in the world and teach my son only Torah.” For all trades support a person only in his youth as long as he is in possession of his powers. But if a person is afflicted with sickness or a measure of suffering, and cannot continue working, he dies from hunger. But the Torah is different, it honors him and guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age²⁶⁸. What does it say about his youth? “Those who trust in the Eternal will renew strength, they rise on wings like an eagle, they run without effort, they walk without tiring.²⁶³. 40:31.” What does it say about his old age? “They still bear fruit in old age, fat and invigorated they will be.²⁶⁴. 92:15.” So you find about the patriarch Abraham who kept the Torah before it came into the world²⁶⁹ world”, not excluding the doctrine of pre-existence of the Torah in the abstract prior to Creation., as it is said: “As a reward because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My watch, My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.²⁶⁶. 26:5.” Also it made him great and blessed him in his youth and gave him a future and hope in his old age. What does it say about his youth? “Abraham was very wealthy with livestock, silver, and gold.” And about his old age, what does it say? “Abraham was old, came into days, and the Eternal blessed Abraham with everything.²⁶⁵. 24:1.”

footnotes: ²⁶⁷ Tosephta 5:16–17; a shortened version in the Babli, 82b, and Masekhet Sopherim ²⁶⁸ G has here an amplification that looks redundant. ²⁶³ Is ²⁶⁴ Ps ²⁶⁹ G lacks “into the world”. The text of L should be interpreted as “came into this ²⁶⁶ Gen ²⁶⁵ Gen

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav. It is forbidden to dwell in a city which has neither a medical man, nor a public bath, nor a court lashing and jailing²⁷⁰ 17b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also it is forbidden to dwell in a city which has no vegetable garden²⁷¹. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav: Every person will have to justify himself for everything his eye saw and which he did not eat²⁷² 1:1, Note 95.. Rebbi Eleazar took note of this statement and saved coins from which he ate every kind once a year.

footnotes: ²⁷⁰ A different version is in the Babli, Sanhedrin ²⁷¹ In the Babli, this is a Tannaïtic statement attributed to R. Aqiba. A diet without fruit and vegetables is unhealthy. ²⁷² Since asceticism is sinful; cf. Nedarim