MISHNAH: If a man declares his jealousy¹ 5. Since the ordeal involves a sacrifice and it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct, the wife has to be warned in due form not to associate with the man the husband suspects to be his wife’s paramour. His right to bring his wife to the Temple can be established only by the testimony of two witnesses of good standing. to his wife, Rebbi Eliezer says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink² by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony³. Rebbi Joshua says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of two [witnesses]⁴.

footnotes: ¹ If a man suspects his wife of infidelity, he may subject her to the ordeal described in Num. ² I. e., he takes her to the Temple precinct for the ordeal.It will be explained later that from the moment the husband establishes his right to submit his wife to the Temple ordeal, any intercourse with her is forbidden to him until she is cleansed by the ordeal. This means that without a Temple, the wife will be forbidden after the jealousy was declared and the husband has to divorce his wife and can never take her back. If he can establish the fact that she was alone with another man after being duly warned, the divorce would be the wife’s fault and no payments would be due at the time of the divorce. ³ In the interpretation of the Mishnah, R. Eliezer holds that once the wife was warned in due form, the fact that she had a tête-à-tête with the suspect does not need a formal proof; the husband can declare to the priest in the Temple that he saw the two together. ⁴ R. Joshua requires that both the warning to the wife and the fact of a subsequent tête-à-tête have to be established in a form acceptable to the priests’ court in the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written⁵ 5:14.: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner⁶ but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid⁷. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement⁸ 19a. Any procedure that is described as תּוֹרָה or חֻקָּה in the Torah must be executed to the letter or it is invalid; quoted also in Soṭah 2:3 (18a), Pesaḥim 7:2 (34b). It follows that for the Yerushalmi, any declaration of jealousy that is not executed in a spirit of gravity is invalid.: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

footnotes: ⁵ Num. ⁶ The witnesses to the declaration of jealousy must be able to testify that the wife could not possibly have had the impression that the husband was less than absolutely serious. ⁷ While he did not do what he was supposed to do, his dereliction would not invalidate his declaration. ⁸ Accepted also in the Babli, Menaḥot

The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory⁹; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel¹⁰ 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness¹¹. If he found her behavior ugly¹² 7:7 (fol. 31c), Babli Yebamot 24b/25a an example is given, that the husband comes home and sees a pedlar leave the house and his wife getting dressed. Our sources indicate that in such a case the husband may divorce his wife without paying, claiming the divorce is his wife’s fault. It is not mentioned that in the absence of witnesses to the presumed sex act, the House of Shammai prohibit the divorce. This may qualify the entire argument as homiletic., he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare¹³ 90a/b, this is a statement of R. Meïr, following the House of Hillel.? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses¹⁴.

footnotes: ⁹ If the husband has reason to suspect his wife, he has no choice but is obligated to declare his jealousy. In the Babli, 3a, the position of R. Eliezer is ascribed to R. Aqiba and that of R. Joshua to R. Ismael. Since R. Joshua is the greater authority than R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba is greater than R. Ismael, in practice the Babli takes the position opposite to the Yerushalmi. ¹⁰ Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹¹ Illegitimate nakedness: incest and adultery. ¹² “Ugly things” in a moral sense, from which one may presume that she was unfaithful but there is no proof. The Babli uses כעור in the same sense. In Ketubot ¹³ In the Babli, Giṭṭin ¹⁴ If there are independent witnesses to the indecent behavior (Note 12), the House of Shammai agree that the husband must divorce his wife; but in the case of a declaration of jealousy they might not permit a divorce except if the ordeal proves the wife guilty.

“And Rebbi Joshua [follows] the House of Hillel.” For the House of Hillel say, even if she burned his food¹⁰ 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. Therefore, he says it is optional. If he wants to declare his jealousy, he declares his jealousy; if he wants to divorce her, he divorces her¹⁵ 7:6 spells out that the husband can divorce his wife for cause (without payment) if he can prove indecent conduct. If he divorces her because she is a bad cook, he has to pay..

footnotes: ¹⁰ Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹⁵ Mishnah Ketubot

What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.¹. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous¹⁷. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses¹⁸ 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness¹⁹. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others²⁰. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..

footnotes: ¹ Deut. 24:1. ¹⁷ “Meeting in secret” with another man. ¹⁸ Deut. ¹⁹ Num ²⁰ In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num

It was stated²¹: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness¹⁶ 24:1.”; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses²². How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness²³. May a single witness let him take her to drink²⁴? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink²⁵, a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters²⁶. 35:30: “A single witness should not testify in a death penalty case” is interpreted to mean that in money matters a single witness in support of a claim of money obligates the defendant to swear (Sifry Num. 161; the argument here is hinted at in Sifry Deut. 188). not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink²⁷? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later²⁷, a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later²⁸ 16:5 ff.), this is an extra-judicial proceeding. In judicial proceedings, hearsay testimony is strictly excluded..

footnotes: ²¹ Babli 2b, Tosephta 1:1. ¹⁶ Deut. ²² Everywhere the Torah uses the expression כִּי מָצָא, כִּי יִמָּצֵא “if it happened” the implication is that the case must be heard before a duly constituted court. ²³ A “word (or case, matter) of nakedness” is not nakedness itself. ²⁴ This seems to refer to the first version (the Mishnah) of R. Eliezer’s position. The earlier argument (Note 20) showed that the husband is empowered to bring his wife to the Temple on his own testimony; one still needs an argument to permit a single witness to a secluded rendez-vous to allow the husband to bring his wife to the Temple. ²⁵ R. David Fraenckel points out that this sentence is ambiguous. It either can mean that a person’s own word in money matters can never bring onto him a biblical obligation to swear, for if he agrees that he owes money he pays and if he disputes the [entire] claim and the other party has neither witnesses nor documents, no oath is due. But it also may mean that a statement of a claimant can never obligate the defendant to swear. ²⁶ Num ²⁷ No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings. ²⁷ No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings. ²⁸ While a woman may rely on hearsay testimony about her husband’s death (Yebamot

What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua²⁹. 5:13: “There is no witness against her”, meaning that a single witness to her adultery will make the Temple ceremony superfluous and will make her lose the ketubah money otherwise due to her in a divorce, but will not be valid either to prove a declaration of jealousy or a secluded rendez-vous.? ““For he found in her a word of nakedness.¹⁶ 24:1.” “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “For he found”; “finding” has to be validated by witnesses²². (“But he can take her to drinkby the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness”.)³⁰ How does Rebbi Joshua explain “nakedness”? [A prohibition of] nakedness that came because of a word³¹.

footnotes: ²⁹ In the Babli, 2b, the argument attributed to R. Joshua refers to Num ¹⁶ Deut. ²² Everywhere the Torah uses the expression כִּי מָצָא, כִּי יִמָּצֵא “if it happened” the implication is that the case must be heard before a duly constituted court. ³⁰ The sentence in parentheses has been copied in error from the arguments of R. Eliezer. ³¹ Because of his word, the declaration of jealousy, she becomes forbidden to him even though there is no witness to her adultery.

They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself]³², brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah³³. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place³⁴ 4:12 that a woman, other than his mother or daughter, may not be alone with man to whom she is not married (unless the latter’s wife is close by). Why should the husband not be able to divorce her through her fault?? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah³⁵ money simply by stating that she misbehaved. This contradicts all rules of procedure in civil cases. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b.. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna³⁶ it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written³⁷. 13:7. The verse mentions maternal halfbrother, son, daughter, and wife, as persons who may be in a hidden place with him. In the Babli Qiddushin 80b, R. Joḥanan is quoted in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b and Avodah Zarah 36b in the name of R. Joḥanan’s teacher R. Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her³⁸., with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her³⁹.

footnotes: ³² The text (in parentheses) is an obvious error but it appears also in the Rome ms. The translation [in brackets] is a conjectured emendation.The problem is that according to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, the husband may state that he had declared his jealousy without the wife having a possibility of disproving his claim. He may then plant witnesses and trick her into being alone with another man in order to divorce her without payment. ³³ The marriage contract specifying the monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife and her children. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b. ³⁴ Being alone with another man is misbehaving. It is stated in Mishnah Qiddushin ³⁵ The Mishnah’s version of R. Eliezer’s position. In R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, at least the fact of the wife’s misbehavior must be established in court by two witnesses subject to cross-examination. But in the Mishnah’s version, two witnesses are needed only to certify the relatively minor fact of the declaration of jealousy but after that, the husband can deprive the wife of her ketubah ³⁶ R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. ³⁷ Deut ³⁸ This is not explicit in the verse but is inferred from the involved description of “your brother, your mother’s son”; it is spelled out in the Babli, loc. cit ³⁹ She is not mentioned in the verse.

Witnesses of a declaration of jealousy who were found to be false⁴⁰ 19:19 where it is stated that the penalty inflicted on a false witness shall be the punishment he schemed to inflict on the accused. Tractate Makkot mainly deals with the case of false witnesses on whom the punishment intended for their victim cannot be inflicted; in that case they are whipped for committing a sin. Since males cannot be subject to declarations of jealousy, the false witnesses must be whipped. are whipped. About witnesses concerning her being in a secluded place who were found to be false, you say that they are whipped; why should they not pay⁴¹-money? It is not through their action that she loses her ketubah⁴². Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah⁴³ 2:10. He was Samuel’s most outstanding student., said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses⁴⁴ 2:10 without discussion, seems to be that one refrains from imposing the punishment of whipping only in cases in which the imposition of another punishment is straightforward.. And here it is so.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ The technical term “scheming witnesses” derives from Deut. ⁴¹ On their testimony, the wife loses her ketubah ⁴² Without testimony which confirms the declaration of jealousy, their testimony is worthless. Since the verse makes no provision for partial guilt, no monetary punishment can be imposed. ⁴³ Reading רַב יְהוּדָה of a parallel quote in Ketubot ⁴⁴ A possible explanation of this sentence, which appears here and in Ketubot

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning⁵¹ and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: ⁵² 5:4; quoted also in Halakhah Giṭṭin 7:4.“If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus⁵³ asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.⁵⁴” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing⁵⁵ heis the same man and she is the same woman morning and evening, his declaration is worthless.” It seems that this author is correct in reading this interpretation into R. Josef Caro’s lengthy discussion of this paragraph in Bet Joseph, Ṭur Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 30(7). The upshoot of the latter’s discussion is that since the declaration of jealousy in every case was made in front of only one witness, nobody is expected to take it seriously.. Or is it to be treated like the following: ⁵⁶ 2:4, Sanhedrin 3:10.“One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.⁵⁷ 5:5, Babli Sanhedrin 30a; Baba Batra 32a, 165a; Ketubot 26b, Giṭṭin 33b; Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:4; Sanhedrin 3:10, 4:1. The Babli seems to imply that practice follows R. Joshua ben Qorḥa and the Yerushalmi text also has to be interpreted in the same way. For R. Joshua ben Qorḥa the two single witnesses together can testify not to a single misdeed but to a pattern of misbehavior.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: ⁵⁸ 30b, essentially the same ruling. The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings⁵⁹ 30b, this refers to a firstling born in the herd of a Jew. The firstling must be given to a Cohen who, in the absence of a Temple, may slaughter and eat the firstling only after it has developed a permanent defect which disables it from ever being a sacrifice (Deut. 15:21–23). Since the Cohen has a monetary interest in seeing the firstling declared defective, the rabbis decreed that (a) causing a defect in a firstling is sinful and (b) the Cohen is disqualified from testifying that the defect was not induced by humans. The Cohen must find two other witnesses but they do not have to testify on the same thing. and witnesses of squatters’ rights⁶⁰. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs⁶¹ 4:7, Meïri Sanhedrin (ed. A. Sofer, Jerusalem 1971) p. 131].. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back⁶². If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back⁶³. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly⁶⁴? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign⁶⁵. 19:15): “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses the matter should be established.” It follows that a witness for half the matter has no standing in court.. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off⁶⁶. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid⁶⁷. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him⁶⁸ 30b), R. Abba holds that the Sages accepted R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion only for questions of real estate.. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed⁶⁹, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything⁷⁰ and Sanhedrin: “One [witness] said, I saw one hair on his back and another said, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony].” However, the problem with this reading is that this kind of testimony has already been rejected (Note 63). The argument of R. Mana II (a student of R. Yudan) must refer to the text given here.? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything⁷¹ 15:5, where concurrent inference from diverging statements is accepted.)? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

footnotes: ⁵¹ And the same witness saw the suspect man going to the same place. ⁵² Tosephta Giṭṭin ⁵³ A Tanna whose time cannot be determined with accuracy. He seems to belong to the later Tannaïm. ⁵⁴ In the Tosephta: “That is only one witness per incident.” It implies that also in the case of the straying wife there are no two witnesses for any incident. ⁵⁵ In the interpretation of S. Eisenstein, the statement should be read as: “even though ⁵⁶ From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is found also in the parallels Ketubot ⁵⁷ Tosephta Sanhedrin ⁵⁸ In the Babli, Sanhedrin ⁵⁹ Accoding to Rashi, Sanhedrin ⁶⁰ In a society in which title to real estate is not necessarily established by documents, title to a property can be proven in court by testimony of undisturbed possession during three years supported by a claim of lawful acquisition (as purchase, gift, or inheritance). ⁶¹ To testify that the person in question is an adult qualified to transact business. A person is an adult who (a) has reached the age of consent, 12 and 1 day for a female and 13 and 1 day for a male, and (b) shows signs of puberty in the form of two pubic hairs. While the court may have ways of verifying age, it needs testimony about the pubic hair. Growth of hair on any other part of the body is irrelevant. Therefore, in the following, the expression “hair on the back” or “hair on the belly” cannot mean that but must be read as “hair on the extreme right or left of the pelvic area” and “hair at the upper border of the pelvic area [Maimonides, Hilkhot Edut ⁶² This is valid testimony even if it is not simultaneous. ⁶³ Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult. ⁶⁴ The first witness testifies that the person is an adult. The second witness cannot testify that the person is an adult. In a criminal case, his testimony would be inadmissible. In the case before us, he only testifies that the person has more pubic hair than indicated in the first testimony; the question is whether the second witness, following R. Joshua ben Qorḥa, may be admitted to confirm the first testimony. It is obvious that for the rabbis opposing R. Joshua ben Qorḥa there is no testimony at all. ⁶⁵ The argument is accepted in both Talmudim. It says (Deut ⁶⁶ He testifies that all he saw was one hair, showing that the two hairs seen by the previous two witnesses were not permanent hair. ⁶⁷ Since Rebbi Abba had said earlier that the Sages agree with R. Joshua ben Qorḥa that partial testimony is accepted for signs of puberty, he must hold here that everybody agrees that two partial testimonies can be combined if each part is confirmed by two witnesses. ⁶⁸ He disagrees with R. Abba and holds that the Sages did not accept R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion in this case. In the Babli (Sanhedrin ⁶⁹ It is claimed that the document is a forgery. In that case, the signatures of the witnesses on the document must be verified by two witnesses (or by comparison with another document signed by the same witness and which had been certified as genuine by some court of law.) ⁷⁰ That argument seems to be incongruous here. It refers to the reading of the parallels in Ketubot ⁷¹ While every witness testifies that the person in possession today was undisturbed in his possession for three years, this is not the testimony required by the court. (This case cannot be compared with that of informal testimony referred to in Mishnah Yebamot

MISHNAH: How does he declare his jealousy? If he said to her in front of two [witnesses]: Do not speak with the man X, and she spoke with him, she still is permitted to her house⁷² and to eat heave⁷³. If she enters a hidden room together with him and remains there long enough for impurity⁷⁴ Chapter 4, Note 59., she is forbidden to her house⁷² and forbidden to eat heave; if he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate⁷⁵..

footnotes: ⁷² To sleep with her husband. ⁷³ If her husband is a Cohen, she is not desecrated. ⁷⁴ The minimal time needed to start intercourse, for the genitals to touch; cf. Yebamot ⁷² To sleep with her husband. ⁷⁵ If the husband dies childless before the situation is resolved, she cannot be permitted to the levir since she was forbidden to the husband. But since she was not divorced, she cannot be free to marry outside the family without the formality of ḥalîṣah

HALAKHAH: “How does he declare his jealousy,” etc. Does this mean only, until she talks with him? That would imply, if she went to a secluded place with him without talking, that going to a secluded place would count for nothing⁷⁸? It comes to tell you more: Even if she talked to him but was not with him in a secluded place, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave, since the Mishnah uses chaste language: Do not be alone with Mr. X⁷⁹ 5b, s. v. הא..

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Since only talking to Mr. X was forbidden to her. That conclusion seems to be ridiculous. ⁷⁹ From the start, the husband did not say “do not talk” but “do not be alone”. The Babli, 5b, holds that even if the husband says “talking”, it is interpreted as meaning “being alone in a hidden room”; cf. Tosafot

May he declare his jealousy with respect to two men together? Rebbi Yudan said, that is in dispute. He who says that he may declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son⁸⁰, [says] that he may declare his jealousy with respect to two men together. Rebbi Yose asked: May he declare his jealousy with respect to a hundred men⁸¹ 4:12, which states that a woman may be alone with two other men, the Yerushalmi notes: “That is, if they are decent men. But if they are amoral, she should not be alone even with a hundred simultaneously.” R. Yose denies that anybody may hold that a man cannot declare his jealousy simultaneously with regard to two men.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him: If he said to her, do not enter the synagogue, she enters⁸² 7:5, fol. 31b, line 46; Babli 72a)..

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Cf. Note 37. ⁸¹ On Mishnah Qiddushin ⁸² It depends on the circumstances. If the husband wants to prohibit any social interaction to his wife, she may force a divorce through his fault (Ketubot

“With him.⁸³” Rebbi Mana said, it only said “with him.” Therefore, not one after the other⁸⁴. Rebbi Abin said, even one after the other since anyhow it is obvious⁸⁵: On a road⁸⁶ during the night, in a ruin during daytime, in dark passageways during daytime.

footnotes: ⁸³ This refers to the Mishnah which states “If she enters a hidden room together with him”. ⁸⁴ If they are witnesses that she and her paramour entered at different times, the husband has no case. ⁸⁵ The Mishnah forbids her to her husband any time she was together with her paramour in any more or less hidden place; examples are given. ⁸⁶ Greek πλατεῖα “open place”.

⁸⁷ 6:17.“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure⁸⁸. 5:13,14,19,20, 27,28,29), the rules of ritual impurity and of moral impurity must be identical. The undisputed rule is that if a question arises in matters of ritual impurity it must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in a private domain but of purity in the public domain (cf. Babli, Soṭa 28a/b, Avodah Zarah 37b, Ḥulin 9b). The argument presented by the Tosephta is rejected by the Babli in Soṭa in the name of R. Aqiba; in Avodah Zarah and Ḥulin the rule is accepted as an old tradition devoid of scriptural basis. Cf. Tosafot Soṭa 28b, s. v. מכאן.? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain⁸⁹ Chapter 1).. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house⁹⁰.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband⁹¹ 33b, the formulation is: The seduction of a minor girl is rape. The rape victim is explicitly cleared from the guilt of adultery in Num. 5:13. The Medieval authorities make it difficult to understand the position of the Babli in this matter. According to R. Abraham ben David in his glosses to the Code of Maimonides (Issure Bi’a 3:2, Soṭa 2:4), the Babli accepts the opinion of the Yerushalmi. Maimonides holds that the underage girl is forbidden to her husband. As usual, he gives no reason for his decision. In the opinion of Don Vidal de Tolosa, approved by Joseph Caro, this is not because of the girl but because the husband forbade her on himself as stated in Ketubot 9a for any case in which the husband accuses his wife of infidelity. In the case of an underage girl, this refers only to a girl married off by her father, whose marriage in valid by biblical standards, cf. Yebamot 1, Note 118.. But did we not state:⁹² 3:6. “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure⁹³”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure!⁹⁴ ⁸⁷ 6:17.“Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure⁹⁵ 7:6).. If known impurity was permitted in public⁹⁶ 6b), whether for public sacrifices the rules of impurity are pushed aside or eliminated. Following the first opinion, the invasion of impurity has to be held to a minimum. This opinion is not found in the Yerushalmi. In the second opinion, the one expressed here, the rules of impurity are disregarded; it is as if impurity were purity. Under the influence of the Babli, the commentators unanimously emend “in purity” to “in impurity” and even J. Sussman here indicates a corruption. The emendation is totally unnecessary., so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

footnotes: ⁸⁷ An extended text in Tosephta Taharot ⁸⁸ This is a question about ritual impurity, not the moral impurity of the straying wife. But since adultery is called “impurity” in the paragraph of the straying wife (Num ⁸⁹ A place adequate for intercourse must by definition be private. As the preceding examples show, the definition of “private place” for all kinds of impurity are different from the rules of “private place” in civil matters and regarding the Sabbath (Shabbat ⁹⁰ In her intimate relations with her husband, she is considered an adulteress even though there remains a doubt whether she actually committed adultery in the hidden room. ⁹¹ In the Babli, Yebamot ⁹² Mishnah Taharot ⁹³ Even in a private domain. ⁹⁴ The argument of the Tosephta is rejected since the minor can tell what happened even if she legally has no will (or at least the seducer could in theory be asked.) ⁸⁷ An extended text in Tosephta Taharot ⁹⁵ If most of Israel are impure, the public service in the Temple is performed in impurity. The only private sacrifice which has the status of a public offering is the Passah lamb (Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁹⁶ This is a matter of dispute in the Babli (e. g. Yoma

There⁹⁷ 2:4. “Incest” always includes adultery., we have stated: “In all matters of incest, He made him who touches⁹⁸ Chapter 6, Note 11. equal to him who completes and one is guilty for each single intercourse⁹⁹ 19:20–22) who according to some opinions is partially manumitted (cf. Babli Keritut11a.). The Babli’s tradition eliminates the rules from practical importance by restricting them to a girl living with a Hebrew slave. Since the institution of Hebrew slaves was abolished with the Babylonian exile, never to be reinstituted, the frequent discussions of the rules are purely theoretical. However, in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5(1), at least one opinion describes the slave girl engaged to a free man in the expectation of her manumission. As a slave, the girl can not marry and therefore she is free to have guiltless sex with any man not a Jew (cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 347). Upon manumission, she becomes a free Jewish woman and able to contract a valid marriage with any Jew who is not a priest. She is permitted to live with a Hebrew slave (Ex. 21:4). Since her relationship with the slave is not a marriage, her affair with another man is not adultery. From the man’s side, the affair with the slave girl is the only sin which can be atoned for by a sacrifice if committed intentionally. A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent sins; the relation with the semi-free girl can be atoned for by a reparation sacrifice. (An intentional sin can only be cleansed by God’s mercy in response to repentance.) For inadvertent sins, a purification sacrifice is due for each single transgression; one reparation sacrifice covers the entire affair.. He was more stringent with the slave girl since in her case He treated the intentional as unintentional.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamai in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen,” until he ejaculates¹⁰⁰. 19:20: “If a man sleep with a woman by flow of semen …” The intercourse of a free man with the slave girl is not punishable unless there was an ejaculation.. Here is written “flow of semen”, and here is written “flow of semen.¹⁰¹ 5:13 reads: “A man slept with her with flow of semen.” Nevertheless, the wife becomes impure and forbidden to her husband already if her paramour’s penis touches her genitals. This seems to contradict our principle that equal expressions used in different circumstances must have equal meanings.” Here¹⁰², you say “flow of semen” until he ejaculates. And here¹⁰³, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for it is written¹⁰⁴ 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure.” From the moment she was hidden, the Torah calls her “impure”. But here¹⁰², “flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. For what reason is written¹⁰³ “flow of semen”? For measures¹⁰⁵, as it is stated¹⁰⁴ 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure”; what is counted as hiding¹⁰⁶? Time to become impure. What is the time for impurity? Time for intercourse. What is the time for intercourse? Time for ‘touching’⁹⁸ Chapter 6, Note 11..

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Mishnah Keritut ⁹⁸ The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot ⁹⁹ This refers to the rules concerning a slave girl (Lev. ¹⁰⁰ Lev ¹⁰¹ In the case of the straying wife, Num. ¹⁰² In the case of the slave girl. ¹⁰³ In the case of the straying wife. ¹⁰⁴ Num. ¹⁰² In the case of the slave girl. ¹⁰³ In the case of the straying wife. ¹⁰⁵ To measure how long the wife must be hidden together with her paramour to be impure and subject to the ordeal. In another connection this is quoted in the Babli, 2b. ¹⁰⁴ Num. ¹⁰⁶ Babli 4a. The Babli discusses why all these expressions have to be used. ⁹⁸ The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot

¹⁰⁷ exists in several versions: Babli 4a, Sifry Num. 7, Sifry Zuṭa 13, Tosephta 1:1, Tanḥuma and Tanḥuma Buber Naśo; Num. rabba 9(6).“How long is ‘touching’? Rebbi Eliezer says, [time needed] to walk around a date palm¹⁰⁸ R. Ismael.; Rebbi Joshua says, to mix a cup [of wine]¹⁰⁹ R. Eliezer.; Ben Azai says, to drink it¹¹⁰ R. Joshua. In the Tosefta: Ben Azai says, mixing a cup to drink it.; Rebbi Aqiba says, [time needed] rolling an egg¹¹¹: Ben Azai says, to fry an egg. The Tosephta, which ascribes the statement to R. Aqiba, also has: to fry an egg. The usual explanation of לגלגל is: To boil an egg softly so it can roll when taken out of its shell. A soft-boiled chicken egg is considered the egg which is most quickly prepared for human consumption [Rashi in Babli Šabbat 80b, cf. Yerushalmi 8:7 (fol. 11b line 70)]. Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa have an additional entry: R. Aqiba says, to sip one (soft-boiled) egg.; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, to sip three rolled eggs one after the other; Rebbi Eleazar ben Phineas¹¹² (SI 23)], Babli and Tosephta cannot be considered as two independent sources. This and the following entries are missing in Sifry. says, [time needed] for the weaver to bind a thread; Miniamin¹¹³: Polemon. Babli, Tosephta, and the Tanḥumas have another entry: Ḥanin ben Phineas says, that she may extract a splinter from her mouth (in Tanḥumas: Rebbi Ḥanin, Tanḥumas Buber: Ḥanan) says, that she can stretch out her hand and lift a loaf of bread from the basket. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint: ‘For a whoring woman up to a loaf of bread.’¹¹⁴. 6:26.” Rebbi Yose said, all these measurements [of time] are after she removes her underpants¹¹⁵ (s. v. סנר I) and Rashi (Šabbat 92b): “Small pants which she wears for decency”. {This meaning may be compared with Arabic سنوّر “armor”.} Maimonides (Commentary to Šabbat 10:4), following a Gaonic commentary (B. M. Levin Oṣar HaGeonim Šabbat, Oṣar HaPerušim p. 51): “sash”. It is reported in Megillah 4:1 (75a, line 30) that from the time of the return from Babylonia, Jewish women wore a sinār; according to Rashi’s tradition they wore gowns and under them pants from the hips to the knees; according to Maimonides they wore long pants and a sash covering their legs front and back down from the hips. Maimonides’s interpretation is the source of the acceptation in modern Hebrew: Apron. {Cf. Greek συνωρίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “pair of horses”, also “pair of anything (fetters, manacles)”, referring to a pair of sashes or pants? (E. G.)} R. Yose’s remark makes all the examples given meaningless for practical applications.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, each of them judged by his own experience¹¹⁶. But did Ben Azai ever marry¹¹⁷? Some want to say, he had an erection. But some want to say, he was married and gave it up¹¹⁸ 63a, that he was engaged to R. Aqiba’s daughter who wanted to marry him after he had become the time’s most outstanding scholar but that he died before he had attained that goal.. Some want to say, “the secret of the Eternal is for those who fear Him, to inform them about His covenant.¹¹⁹. 25:14.”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ This baraita ¹⁰⁸ In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: ¹⁰⁹ In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: ¹¹⁰ In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: ¹¹¹ In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa ¹¹² In Babli and Tosephta: R. Eleazar ben Jeremiah. This reading is suspect since this name is not reported anywhere else in talmudic literarture while R. Eleazar ben Phineas is quoted several times. Because of the dependence of the Tosephta on the Babli [cf. Epilogue in the author’s edition of Ma‘aser Šeni, Ḥallah, Orlah, Bikkurim ¹¹³ A student of R. Aqiba. In Babli, Tanḥuma, Tanḥuma Buber, Sifry Zuṭa ¹¹⁴ Prov ¹¹⁵ Meaning and etymology of the word סינר are in doubt. The translation follows Arukh ¹¹⁶ Babli 4b. ¹¹⁷ What does he know about sex? He is the example of a man studying 24 hours a day, not having time for anything else. ¹¹⁸ This contradicts the story in the Babli, Ketubot ¹¹⁹ Ps

It was stated¹²⁰(Naśo 14), in the name of R. Aqiba. A complementary version, that three times “if she was not impure” is mentioned to permit her to her husband, presumed paramour (after the husband’s death), and heave, is in Sifry Num. 19.: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph¹²¹. 5:14, 27, 29., one for the husband, one for the paramour¹²², and one for heave¹²³. 22:13). Since a married woman cannot marry another man without a divorce, an adulteress is automatically desecrated.. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house⁷² and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house¹²⁴ but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave¹²⁵! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir¹²⁶. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

footnotes: ¹²⁰ In the Babli, 28a, and in Sifry Zuṭa ¹²¹ According to Rashi, once each in Num ¹²² That she could not marry him even if divorced or widowed. ¹²³ If she is married to a Cohen or is the childless daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, who on becoming a widow would otherwise be permitted heave. Any woman who ever slept with a man whom she could not marry on the spot (even if raped) is desecrated and permanently barred from priestly status since she cannot “return to her father’s house as in her youth’ (Lev ⁷² To sleep with her husband. ¹²⁴ Since the Israel has no sacred status, his relation to his wife is not changed if she is raped. ¹²⁵ If A implies B it does not follow that B implies A. Therefore, the example given as objection is irrelevant. Since the wife cannot live with her husband until she is cleared from the accusation of adultery, she cannot eat heave until she is cleared. ¹²⁶ If the husband died childless after his wife was in a hidden place with another man and before she was cleared of the suspicion of adultery.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abin stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “‘If you deviated from under your husband.’¹²⁷ 5:20. The baraita is not quoted elsewhere. The other sources point out that the raped wife is expressly excluded by v. 13: “And she was not kidnapped” (Sifry Num. 7). This excludes rape.” How do you understand this? He said to him: Just as she is “under your husband” by her consent, so also in this case by her consent.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Num.

¹²⁸ Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him⁶³. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ Text from Yebamot 10:1, Notes 49–67. ⁶³ Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult.

MISHNAH: The following are prohibited from eating heave¹⁴²: One who says, I am impure for you¹⁴³, and where witnesses proved that she is impure¹⁴⁴, and one who refuses to drink¹⁴⁵, and one whose husband refuses to let her drink¹⁴⁶. 5:15): “This husband has to bring his wife,” without him appearing before the court of the Temple there can be no ordeal and no rehabilitation., and one whose husband slept with her on the trip¹⁴⁷. 5:31 is read as meaning: If the husband is blameless, then this woman has to bear her sin. It follows that if the husband is not blameless [in sexual matters of any kind], the ordeal becomes inactive. Since the Soṭah is forbidden to her husband, if he sleeps with her before she is cleansed by the ordeal he is not blameless and the innocence of his wife can never be proven.. What does he have to do: He brings her to the court at his place and they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip. Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her.

footnotes: ¹⁴² A Cohen’s wife (or the Cohen’s daughter who is the childless widow of a Non-Cohen) who is desecrated by adultery; cf. also Note 123. ¹⁴³ I. e., she says that she slept with another man; there is no difference in this respect whether she committed adultery or was raped. ¹⁴⁴ Witnesses to the act of adultery. ¹⁴⁵ She maintains her innocence, even though two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place, but refuses to submit to the ordeal. She remains permanently forbidden to her husband and is permanently excluded from eating consecrated food. ¹⁴⁶ Two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place; therefore, she is disabled from eating heave. She can regain her priestly status only by being cleansed by the ordeal. Since it is written (Num ¹⁴⁷ Num

HALAKHAH: “The following are prohibited from eating heave,” etc. Our Mishnah does not follow the earlier Mishnah, as we have stated there¹⁴⁸ 11:12.: “Three [kinds of] women leave¹⁴⁹ and collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you¹⁵⁰, [or] Heaven is between you and me¹⁵¹, [or] I am separated from the Jews¹⁵². 30:14). He may annul his part, live with her, and let her be forbidden to all other Jews..” Rebbi Abin said, even if you say following the later Mishnah, does not the affair have likelihood¹⁵³. The woman is forbidden to eat heave only after she was warned before witnesses and nevertheless was in a secluded place according to the testimony of two witnesses. It is a credible inference, even if there is no proof, that she had relations with her paramour.?

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ Mishnah Nedarim ¹⁴⁹ The court would force the husband to divorce her. ¹⁵⁰ A woman married to a Cohen who says that she was raped. Then she is forbidden to him not because of any fault of hers; therefore, she collects the entire amount promised her. The later Mishnah, in a change of practice, requires that the woman prove her case; if she cannot do that, she remains permitted to her husband and permitted to eat heave (because the later authorities suspected that a woman might invent the story of the rape to force a divorce). This contradicts the Mishnah here which states that a woman claiming to have been raped is permanently desecrated. ¹⁵¹ She claims that he is impotent and unable to have satisfactory intercourse; the truth in these intimate matters is known only to Heaven. In the later practice, the rabbi has to negotiate a settlement between the parties. ¹⁵² She made a vow forbidding to herself any sexual relation with any Jew. In the later practice, this is considered a “vow of deprivation” which the husband may annul (Num ¹⁵³ The situation here cannot be compared to the one described in Nedarim

It was stated¹⁵⁴ 58a, Soṭa 24b.: “‘Except your husband,¹⁵⁵. 5:19.” which excludes that other semen preceded your husband’s¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Hila said, parallel what has been said, “except the morning elevation offering.¹⁵⁷. 28:23. While this verse is written at the end of the list of holiday sacrifices, it is obvious that the daily sacrifice precedes all others, Therefore, מִלְּבַד means really “after”. Similarly, מִבַּלְעֲדֵי אִישֵׁךְ should be translated: “after your husband”. (In Sifry Num. 13, Sifry Zuṭa 20, the verse is interpreted in two other, much different, ways.)” But did we not state: “Just as the water examines her, so the water examines him. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour”¹⁵⁸? Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother¹⁵⁹. Just as the water examines her for every intercourse in which she receives her husband after [she had slept with] her paramour, so it examines him¹⁶⁰ assumes that the ordeal is effective if the husband slept with his wife after she committed adultery. But the Mishnah excluded this case!? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: Here, if he knows, there, if he does not know¹⁶¹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ The same statement in Babli Yebamot ¹⁵⁵ Num ¹⁵⁶ If the affair with her paramour preceded her current marriage, the ordeal will be ineffective. ¹⁵⁷ Num ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah 5:1. ¹⁵⁹ This sentence is an intrusion from the preceding text, Note 128, induced by the similarly formulated Mishnah. ¹⁶⁰ This baraita ¹⁶¹ The ordeal is effective if she committed adultery before the husband even became aware of a possible affair. He is not free from sin only if he sleeps with his wife after officially charging her and receiving notice that she was alone with her paramour.

¹⁶² 2:10. Copied in Num. Rabba Naśo 9(38), a text of doubtful antiquity. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state¹⁶³: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three¹⁶⁴ 4:12 it is stated that a woman may be alone with two men, but not with a single man who is not her husband or close relative. The anecdotal fact told here is stated in the Babli, 7a, as a legal precept by R. Ḥiyya bar Yosef’s teacher Rav.. ¹⁶⁵, where they refer to Mishnah 2:10, that in a city conquered by an enemy army all women, in absence of testimony to the contrary, are considered raped and, therefore, all wives of Cohanim are prohibited to their husbands. It is reported that R. Zachariah ben Haqqaṣab, who was a priest, testified that his wife’s hand did not leave his own from the moment the Roman army entered Jerusalem until it left, but he was rebuked and told that nobody may testify in his own behalf. The baraita notes that he refused to divorce her.{Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest¹⁶⁶. 45:3.”.}

footnotes: ¹⁶² The same text in Ketubot ¹⁶³ In the Mishnah here, which requires only two chaperones. ¹⁶⁴ In Mishnah Qiddušin ¹⁶⁵ These sentences make no sense here; they are copied from Ketubot ¹⁶⁶ Jer

It was stated¹⁶⁷. 8, Num. Rabba 9(38); a more elaborate text in Babli 7a, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her by an argument de minore ad majus. Since he is believed about her when she is menstruating¹⁶⁸. 20:18). Nobody requires chaperones during the time the wife is forbidden to her husband., when he would be subject to extirpation because of her, but for this one¹⁶⁹ he is not subject to extirpation because of her, is it not logical that he should be believed about her? They said to him, no. If you mention the menstruating, she will be permitted after being forbidden, what can you say about this one who may not be permitted after being forbidden¹⁷⁰? And it says, “stolen waters are sweet”¹⁷¹. 9:17. She is more attractive forbidden than permitted.. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest”¹⁷⁸. 5:15., etc. They said to him, only with witnesses¹⁷⁹. 22:14)..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Sifry Num ¹⁶⁸ The menstruating woman is forbidden to her husband on penalty of extirpation (Lev ¹⁶⁹ A wife suspected of adultery (and even a proven adulteress) is forbidden to her husband but no penalties are specified. ¹⁷⁰ If she is found guilty, she will be permanently forbidden and he will be forced to divorce her. ¹⁷¹ Prov ¹⁷⁸ Num ¹⁷⁹ General statements in verses are never interpreted to override the general principles of administration of justice. Since relatives cannot testify for or against a person, the husband cannot testify for himself, just as he cannot testify against his bride whom he accuses of prenuptial adultery (Deut

MISHNAH: They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem¹⁸⁰(Num. 5:30) must be supervised by the supreme court, cf. Deut. 17:11. where they try to instill fear in her, as they try to instill fear in witnesses in capital cases¹⁸¹ 4:5., and say to her¹⁸²: My daughter, much does wine cause, much does joking cause, much does youth cause, much do bad neighbors cause. Do not cause the Great Name, which will be written in holiness, to be erased by water¹⁸³. 5:11–31 be written on a scroll and erased by holy water. While the exact text to be written is a matter of controversy among scholars living 2 generations after the destruction of the Temple, all agree that some verses containing the Divine Name must be written., and they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Galilean Amoraim in the Babli, 7b, try to give a reason to this statement: Every procedure characterized as Torah ¹⁸¹ Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁸² Tosephta 1:6. ¹⁸³ The Babli text: Do it for the Great Name, Which will be written in holiness, that It should not become erased by water.The verse requires that the curses contained in the paragraph Num

HALAKHAH: “They bring her to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem,” etc. ¹⁸⁴ 9(42). In Sifry Num. 12, this is a (minority) statement of R. Ismael. Just as they instill fear in her that she should change her mind, so they instill fear in her that she should not change her mind, and say to her: My daughter, if you are pure, if it is clear to you that you are pure, insist on what is clear to you, since this draught is only like solid poison which if given on healthy skin does no harm; only if it finds there a wound it starts to dissolve and penetrate.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Tosephta 1:6, Babli 7b; Num. rabba

¹⁸⁵ 9(19); a retelling in a different Aramaic dialect in Lev. rabba 9(9), a short version in Hebrew Deut. rabba5(14). Rebbi Zevadiah¹⁸⁶ 9(19): R. Zachariah. This is the correct name as attested to by all other quotes of his statements (cf. Peah 8, Note 151)., the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, reported the following happening. Rebbi Meïr used to preach in the synagogue of Ḥamata¹⁸⁷ every Friday evening. There was a woman who used to hear him. Once he extended his sermon. She went and wanted to come to her house but found the light had gone out. Her husband asked her, where have you been? She said to him, to hear the preacher’s voice. He said to her, so and so¹⁸⁸, that this woman will not enter here into her house unless she went and spat into the preacher’s face. Rebbi Meïr saw this in the holy spirit¹⁸⁹ 9(9), he was informed by the Prophet Elijah. and faked pain in his eyes. He said, any woman who knows charms for the eye should come and do the charm. Her neighbors said to her, this answers your needs. Go to your house, represent yourself as a sorceress and spit in his eye. She came to him; he asked her, do you know to make a charm for the eye? In her fear of him, she said no. He said to her, if you spit into it seven times, he will feel better. After she had spat, he said to her: Go, and tell your husband, you said to me once, but she spat seven times! His students said to him, so does one denigrate the Torah? If you had ordered about him¹⁹¹ 9(19) ומרעיין instead of ומרציין, “one makes his wife pleasing to him.” On the face of it, that might be the better text. However, the text here might be a slightly corrupt pun if one reads ומרציין for ומרצעיין, “one treats him with leather straps until he asks his wife for forgiveness” since ע had become silent in Galilean Aramaic., would we not have brought him, whipped him on the footstool, and make him agree¹⁹¹ 9(19) ומרעיין instead of ומרציין, “one makes his wife pleasing to him.” On the face of it, that might be the better text. However, the text here might be a slightly corrupt pun if one reads ומרציין for ומרצעיין, “one treats him with leather straps until he asks his wife for forgiveness” since ע had become silent in Galilean Aramaic. to make up with his wife? He said to them, the honor of Meïr should not be greater than that of his Maker. Since the verse says that the Holy Name, written in holiness, should be erased by the water in order to make peace between husband and wife, the honor of Meïr not so much more?

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ A copy of this text in Num. rabba ¹⁸⁶ In Num. rabba ¹⁸⁷ The hot springs of Tiberias. ¹⁸⁸ An oath formula, cf. 2S. 19:14. ¹⁸⁹ In Lev. rabba ¹⁹¹ In Num. rabba ¹⁹¹ In Num. rabba

“And they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear,” etc. ¹⁹² For example, what happened between Reuben and Bilhah¹⁹³. 35:22., or what happened between Jehudah and Tamar¹⁹⁴. 38:13–26.. ¹⁹⁵ 57(3), [Num. rabba 13(6)]; Babli Makkot 11b; Yerushalmi Megillah4:11 (fol. 75c).“If Sages tell,” these are Reuben and Jehudah, “they do not hide before their fathers.” What rewards did they take for this, “to them alone the Land was given; no stranger passes in their midst.” When Moses came to bless them, “Reuben may live and not die,¹⁹⁶. 36:6.” “and that for Jehudah¹⁹⁷. 36:7: “Listen, o Eternal, to Judah’s voice.””.

footnotes: ¹⁹² A more detailed homily in the Babli, 7b. ¹⁹³ Gen ¹⁹⁴ Gen ¹⁹⁵ Job 15:18–19. These verses are explained as referring to Reuben and Jehudah who confessed their sins, in Gen. rabba ¹⁹⁶ Deut ¹⁹⁷ Deut

Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥiyya explains three verses as praise. ¹⁹⁸ 13:1 (fol. 35b/c). A different version, in the name of other authors, in Babli 10b, Gen. rabba85(8). One of the Babli’s authors identifies the place as העינם (Jos. 15:34).“She sat at the entrance to the source.” Is that possible? Even the most depraved prostitute would not do that¹⁹⁹. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all eyes are looking²⁰⁰4, Note 234.. She said before Him: Master of the Universe, let me not leave this family empty-handed. Another explanation, “at the entrance to the eyes”, that she opened his eyes saying, I am unmarried and pure. “And Eli was very old,²⁰¹. 2:22–23. The same explanation in Babli Šabbat 55b; more in detail Midrash Samuel 7(4).” “they would make them lie” is written²⁰². 15:29) and also for a woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8).. That women would bring them their bird-sacrifices to be purified for their houses but since they were dragging their feet²⁰³, the Holy One, praise to Him, found them guilty as if they had slept with them. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, here, he needles²⁰⁴ 3, Note 96. them: ²⁰⁵. 2:29.“why do you disregard my slaughter-sacrifice and my flour-sacrifice?” If you say that they committed a serious crime, why should he absolve them from the serious crime and needle them for a minor one? ²⁰⁶. 8:3. Similar explanations in Babli Šabbat 56a.“But his sons did not follow in his ways and turned after lucre.” That they took tithe but remained judging²⁰⁷. Rebbi Berekhia: A camel-caravan came by, they put aside the needs of Israel and were going and attending to business affairs²⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ The parallel to the entire section is in Ketubot ¹⁹⁹ To try to sleep with a man not in a room. ²⁰⁰ Usually identified, cf. Berakhot ²⁰¹ 1S ²⁰² The masoretic text reads יִשְׁכְּבוּן [Eli’s sons] would lie [with the women assembled before the Tent]. A sacrifice of birds is required for a woman healed from prolonged flux to be permitted again to her husband (Lev ²⁰³ Unnecessarily preventing them from sleeping with their husbands. ²⁰⁴ Greek κεντρόω, cf. Berakhot ²⁰⁵ 1S ²⁰⁶ 1S ²⁰⁷ As Levites, Samuel’s sons were entitled to tithe. The Yerushalmi faults them for creating an appearance of conflict of interest; in the Babli, there is one opinion that they exacted tithes for themselves, when the farmer should have had full freedom to give the tithe to any Levite of his liking. ²⁰⁸ Greek πραγματεία “business, affairs, work”.

MISHNAH: If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves²⁰⁹.. If she said, I am pure, one brings her to the Eastern gate, the Nikanor gate, for there one lets the suspected wives drink²¹⁰, and one purifies the woman after childbirth, and the persons healed from skin disease²¹¹. A Cohen seizes her garment²¹², if it tears it tears, if it frays it frays, until he uncovers her breast²¹³, and he destroys her hairdo. Rebbi Jehudah says, if her breast was beautiful, he did not uncover it, if her hair was beautiful, he did not undo it²¹⁴ 65a)..

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ The court immediately has a bill of divorce executed for the husband and annuls her husband’s obligations towards her as specified in the ketubah ²¹⁰ It is mentioned repeatedly that the woman has to stand “before the Eternal”, i. e., at a place at which the entrance to the Temple can be seen. It follows from Mishnah 3:4 that the procedure is not executed within the gate but in the women’s courtyard close to the gate or at least in the sanctified inner part of the gate. ²¹¹ Both the woman after childbirth and the person healed from skin disease are forbidden to “enter the Sanctuary” before their sacrifices have ben offered. Therefore, all their transactions have to be executed in the profane part of the gate, in view of the Temple entrance. ²¹² According to Rashi and Maimonides, he seizes her neckline. ²¹³ The next Mishnah shows that this means “until the top of her breasts starts to be uncovered.” ²¹⁴ According to him, only those women can be uncovered who are too ugly to inspire any sexual ideas in men who are watching. In the Babli, 8a, Rava quotes a legal principle that a man aroused by one woman will not attack another woman even though he himself knew that this is untrue in reality (Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal²¹⁵. 5:18.”, that is the Nikanor gate²¹⁶. 17, the statement is “before the Eternal”, which means in the East.. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. ²¹⁷ 1, line 19.) It is written: “If a man sin against a man.²¹⁸. 2:25. As R. David Fraenckel has noted, it seems that this verse is out of place and should be replaced by 1K. 8:31–32 which is quoted in Tosephta 1:4, combined with Num. 5:27,28 as support that the ordeal of the suspected wife is to be held in the Temple: “If a man sin against his neighbor and causes a curse to be put on him … and You will hear in Heaven and will judge Your servants to declare the criminal guilty to turn his way on him [her belly will extend and her genitals shrink] and to clear the just to reward him for his just behavior [if the woman was not impure but pure, she will be declared innocent and be blessed with seed.]”” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ Num ²¹⁶ In ritual matters, the Nikanor gate is the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. In Sifry Num ²¹⁷ An explanation why an ordeal must be performed in the Temple, based on Tosephta 1:4 (S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah Soṭa ²¹⁸ 1S

Does one shame out of a doubt²¹⁹? Rebbi Simlai said²²⁰27:10, Lev. rabba 23:9, Num. rabba9(41)., anywhere one finds whoring, mass destruction²²¹ reads אנדרומוסיא. While here the meaning could be “human plague”, which could be *ἀνδρολοιμός (Levy), there is another series of sayings mentioning a king who makes war on a rebellious province and causes there אנדרולמוסיה; Jastrow proposes *ἀνδρολημψία “robbery of men”. {Cf. ἀνδροληψία “seizure of foreigners in reprisal for the murder of a citizen abroad” (Lex ap. D 23.82) (E. G.)}. In Gen. rabba32(14): “A parable of a king who ordered his דורלומוסיא in a province and saved his friend by jailing him.” (Following Fürst in Tanḥuma Buber, vol. 2, p. כא, Note 24, the word דורמוסיות, דורמוסיאות, found in other Midrashim, is not a shortened form of אנדרולומסיה.) comes to the world.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ If the woman was innocent, she would have been debased without cause. ²²⁰ In Midrashic sources, the text reads: “anywhere one finds whoring, mass destruction comes to the world and kills good and bad.” Gen. rabba ²²¹ The etymology of אנדרולמוסיה is not known. In Gen. rabba, Arukh

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames²²². But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand²²³. 5:18,16.”; did she ever sit²²⁴? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair²²⁵.

footnotes: ²²² V. 17 indicates that as a first step, the Cohen prepares the curse-draught. After that (v. 18) he uncovers the woman’s hair. But in the Mishnah, the preparation of the draught is late (2:2). The recitation of the curses can start only after the draught is prepared. ²²³ Num ²²⁴ It is forbidden to sit down in the Temple precinct (for everybody except kings of the Davidic line). ²²⁵ The text vv. 17–20 is explanatory, not prescriptive. The uncovering of the hair is a consequence of her coming to the Temple. For a coherent parallel (non-rabbinic) reading of the text, cf. the paper by H. C. Brichto, mentioned in the Introduction.

²²⁶ 45a. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There²²⁷ 6:5, speaking about people executed by stoning. According to R. Jehudah, they are clothed in rectangular sheets of cloth., he says: “One covers a man in front and a woman front and back.²²⁸” And here, he says so? There, she goes to her death anyhow, but here, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her²²⁹. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There²³⁰ 6:5, Soṭa 3:9., they say: “A man is stoned naked but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? There, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” choose for him the easiest death²³¹ 6:6), his chances of being killed instantly are greater if his fall is not cushioned by clothing. In the Babli, this is not considered a complete answer; the question is whether shame or suffering is worse.. But here, ²³². 23:48.“all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

footnotes: ²²⁶ A parallel in Sanhedrin 6:8 (fol. 23c, line 17). Similar arguments in the Babli, 8a, Sanhedrin ²²⁷ Mishnah Sanhedrin ²²⁸ But the majority holds that a woman is stoned only fully clothed. Therefore, R. Jehudah seems unconcerned that men should get bad ideas in seeing her. ²²⁹ This is an explicit statement of R. Jehudah 1:7. ²³⁰ Mishnah Sanhedrin ²³¹ Since in rabbinic tradition a person is “stoned” by being pushed down from a high cliff (Mishnah Sanhedrin ²³² Ez

MISHNAH: If she was clothed in white, he²²³. 5:18,16. covers her in black. If she wore gold jewelry, chains²³⁴., nose rings and finger rings, he removes them from her in order to make her ugly. After that²³⁵ he brings an Egyption rope and binds it higher than her breasts. Anyone who wants to look may come and see, except for her male and female slaves because she feels superior to them. All women are permitted to see her²³⁶, as it was said: “²³². 23:48.”all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

footnotes: ²²³ Num ²³⁴ Semitic plural of Latin catella ²³⁵ Obviously not after he removed her rings but immediately after he tore her garment (Mishnah 5). ²³⁶ The Babli, 8b, changes that into an obligation of all women present in the Temple area to come and see. This is unknown to the Yerushalmi. ²³² Ez

HALAKHAH: “If she was clothed in white,” etc. Our Mishnah [assumes that] they are not fitting her. But if they are fitting her, it does not apply²³⁷.

footnotes: ²³⁷ If the woman looks better in black than in white clothes, one leaves her in her white ones. The Babli, 8b, in this case requires that she be given a bad looking garment.

“He brings an Egyptian rope.” And why an Egyptian rope? Rebbi Isaac said, because she behaved in an Egyptian way²³⁸. 18, starts out: “You should not act in the way of the Land of Egypt”. Therefore, all infractions of the rules of sexual purity are called “Egyptian ways” even though the prohibition of adultery belongs to the “natural law” obligatory for all of mankind, even though the latter is formulated as a positive commandment (Gen. 2:24): “Therefore, a man has to abandon his father and his mother (prohibition of incest in direct line) and cling to his wife (but not to another man’s wife nor to a male).”. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does the Egyptian rope prevent, does the Egyptian basket prevent²³⁹? Who pays for them? That one follows what Rebbi said, for Rebbi said²⁴⁰ 4:2. that the water supply²⁴¹, the city wall and its towers²⁴², and all public works in the city²⁴³. are paid with the excess of the Temple treasury²⁴⁴. The same holds here.

footnotes: ²³⁸ The chapter on the incest prohibitions, Lev ²³⁹ If her garment was not fastened by a rope or if her flour-offering was not presented in a basket woven from palm leaves, is the ceremony invalid? Since neither of these details is mentioned in the verse, it should be obvious that the answer is no. In the Babli, 8b, this is the explicit deduction, based on the Mishnah, ascribed to Rav Huna, two generations before R. Jeremiah. ²⁴⁰ Mishnah Šeqalim ²⁴¹ The open water canal which crosses the Temple yard from North to South. ²⁴² The part bordering on the Temple Mount. ²⁴³ On the Temple Mount and its surroundings; e. g., the public miqwaot ²⁴⁴ Any money left on the first of Nisan from the Temple Tax (half a sheqel) of the previous year could no longer be used for the service of the next year. Since it was sanctified public money, it could only be used for the needs of the Temple district other than sacrifices.

MISHNAH: By the measure a person measures one measures him. She adorned herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent²⁴¹ made her ugly. She bared herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent laid her bare. The genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly²⁴⁶. 5:21: “When the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly extend.” (In the event, v. 27, the order is reversed.) J. C. Brichto (loc. cit. Note 225) identifies the symptoms as pseudocyesis, spurious pregnancy., while the remainder of the body does not escape²⁴⁷.

footnotes: ²⁴¹ The open water canal which crosses the Temple yard from North to South. ²⁴⁶ Num ²⁴⁷ Rabbinic tradition (Mishnah 3:4/5) holds that the guilty woman dies from the draught. This is not in the Biblical text.

HALAKHAH: “By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. ²⁴⁸ 81(2), Num. rabba 9(23). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: By the measure a person measures one measures him²⁴⁹ 105b, Megillah 12b, Sanhedrin 90a, Sifry Num. 106 (cf. Halakhah 9), Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin) pp. 78,81,131; Gen. rabba 9(13), Ex. rabba 25(13) [shortened 9(9)]; Tanḥuma Noaḥ 13, Wa’era 14, Bešallaḥ 2,4, Tazria‘ 6; and very frequently in the Gaonic literature.. What is the reason? בְּסַאסְּאָה.²⁵⁰. 27:8., seah for seah. Not only a seah, from where a three-qab²⁵¹ is a Roman urna, 12.85 1. The seah contains 6 qab (κάβος); a terqab is half a seah (Gaonic Commentary to Mishnah Kelim 12:3; misinterpreted as תְּרֵיקָב “two qab” in Graetz, Geschichte der Judäer⁴ vol. 3, p. 443.), half a three-qab, half a qab, a quarter [qab], a toman²⁵² is 1/8 qab, identical to a Roman hemina, Greek ἡμίνα, ½sextarius., half a toman, or an ukla²⁵³, a Roman acetabulum, 6.6 cl. Qalir (Silluq Šabbat Šeqalim) calls it כלה and reports that it is slightly less than a hundredth of a seah.? The verse says, “for all that is in a seah, breaks the seah noisily²⁵⁴. 9:4.;” he added many seot here. Not only things that can be measured, from where that small coins add up to a large bill? The verse says, “one to one, to find the bill.²⁵⁵. 7:27. This is the end of the Tosephta and the parallel in the Babli.” It happens in the world that a person stumbles in a sin for which one would be punished by death by the hands of Heaven. His ox dies, his hen is lost, his flask breaks, and he hurts his finger, by that the bill is paid in full. Another explanation: One is filled into the next and the bill is established. And what is the fulfillment of the bill? Once²⁵⁶.

footnotes: ²⁴⁸ Tosephta 3:1, Babli 8b. Midrash Tehillim ²⁴⁹ The maxim “measure for measure” is found many times; e. g. Babli Šabbat ²⁵⁰ 1s ²⁵¹ A seah ²⁵² A toman ²⁵³ In the Babli עוכלא; a quarter toman ²⁵⁴ 1s ²⁵⁵ Eccl ²⁵⁶ This explanation is the opposite of the first, that many small sins add up to one huge bill presented to a man by the Heavenly court.

²⁵⁷ 90a/b; Tosephta 5:9, Num. rabba 9(8). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Just as there are opinions in eating and drinking, so opinions are [varied] among men. There is a man, if a fly falls into his cup, he takes it out, throws it away and drinks. That is like a normal man who sees his wife talking to her neighbors and relatives²⁵⁸. Or you have a man who if a fly flies over his cup, takes it, pours [the contents] out, and does not taste them. That is a bad human attitude because he thinks of divorcing her²⁵⁹. Or you have a man who, if a fly sits on his cup, takes it and leaves [the cup] untouched. That is Pappos ben Jehudah who locked his wife in. They said to him, did your forefathers behave like this²⁶⁰? Or you have a man who finds a dead fly in his cup, takes it, licks it, and drinks. That is the wicked one who sees that his wife is overbearing with her slaves and slave-girls²⁶¹, where he would be commanded to divorce her²⁶² 7:6., as it is said: “She left his house and went and married another man.” The verse called him other because he is not of the class of the first who expelled his wife because of a sexual transgression and the other one stumbled over her²⁶³. If Heaven gives him credit, he will divorce her; otherwise, at the end she will bury him as it is said, “or if the latter man dies.” That man deserves to die since he brought that woman into his house.

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ Parallels in Babli Giṭṭin ²⁵⁸ Males. (In one version of the Tosephta, קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ “female relatives” but S. Lieberman comments on it as קְרוֹבֶיהָ without remark.) It may be that this refers to the case where the wife talks overly long to her male neighbors. ²⁵⁹ Just as the fly did not touch the cup, the wife did nothing wrong; the husband simply looks for an excuse to divorce her without paying. ²⁶⁰ This Aramaic sentence is a commentary of the Talmud; it is not in the other sources. ²⁶¹ This argument (not found in the Babli, but found in Tosephta and Midrash) seems to contradict the statement of Mishnah 6 that every woman is supposed to feel superior to her slaves. The meaning here seems to be that she has no inhibitions to appear in undress before her slaves. ²⁶² The other sources have a long list of indecent behavior of the wife that should force the husband to divorce her; cf. Mishnah Ketubot ²⁶³ In the Babli, 6a, this interpretation is part of the legal argument that a woman formally accused by her husband cannot be married in levirate after the husband’s death.

Samuel²⁶⁴ said, one separates from the whoring woman but not from her house. This parallels what Rebbi Joḥanan said: ²⁶⁵ 12:8, quoted as tannaïtic text in the Babli, 27a.“If a married woman committed adultery, her children are her husband’s since most of the intercourse was with the husband.”

footnotes: ²⁶⁴ In the Babli, 27a, Samuel is reported saying that it is better to marry a woman of questionable character born of a woman of good character than to marry the daughter of a possible adulteress. The opinion attributed to Samuel here is that of R. Joḥanan in the Babli. ²⁶⁵ Tosephta Yebamot

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.”²⁶⁶. 5:22,27, the belly is mentioned before the genitals but in v. 21 the order is inverted. Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional²⁶⁷. 5:22,27 is a description of what will or did happen; v. 21 is a curse formula conditional upon the woman having sinned.. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer²⁶⁸. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance²⁶⁹ 4:1., [may we] not [expect] so much more!

footnotes: ²⁶⁶ In Num ²⁶⁷ Num ²⁶⁸ The infinitives in the sentence are gender neutral. The ordeal indirectly also affects the presumed adulterer, Mishnah 6:1. In the Babli, 27a, this is a conclusion of Rebbi. ²⁶⁹ Babli 11a; extensive discussion in Tosephta

MISHNAH: ²⁷⁰ Simson followed his eyes, therefore the Philistines pierced his eyes. Absalom beautified himself with his hair, therefore he was hung by his hair. Because he came to his father’s ten concubines, therefore ten lances²⁷¹ were put into him, as it was said²⁷². 18:15.: “Ten squires, Joab’s weapons carriers, surrounded him.” And because he stole three steals²⁷³. 31:20). Cf. also Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Masekhta deŠirah, Chap. 6., his father’s opinion, the court’s opinion, and Israel’s opinion, therefore three staves were stuck into him, as it was said²⁷⁴. 18:14.: “He took three staves in his hand and stuck them into Absalom’s heart.”

footnotes: ²⁷⁰ This Mishnah is somewhat extended in the Babli, very much enlarged in Tosephta 3:15–16. It is a direct continuation of the first sentence of the preceding Mishnah. ²⁷¹ Hebraized plural of Greek λόγχη “lance”. ²⁷² 2S ²⁷³ In Mishnah mss. of the Maimonides tradition: שֶׁגָּנַב שְׁלֹשָׁה לְבָבוֹת “he stole three minds”; “misleading” is called “stealing the heart” (Gen ²⁷⁴ 2S

HALAKHAH: “Simson followed his eyes,” etc. ²⁷⁵9(24)]; anonymous Babli 9b, Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 74. It was stated: Rebbi says, because he started going astray at Gaza, therefore his punishment was at Gaza. But is it not written: “Simson descended into Timna²⁷⁶. 14:1. Gaza is mentioned only v. 16:1.”? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, that was a formal marriage²⁷⁷.

footnotes: ²⁷⁵ Tosephta 3:15, [Num. rabba ²⁷⁶ Jud ²⁷⁷ Marriage is mentioned in Timna, a prostitute in Gaza. It is presumed that the girl from Timna was converted following the rules so that the marriage was not sinful.

²⁷⁸ 9(24), the Yerushalmi version. One verse says, “Simson descended into Timna”, and another verse says, “behold, you father-in-law ascends to Timna²⁷⁹. 38:13..” Rav said, there were two Timnot, one of Jehudah and one of Simson. Rebbi Simon said, there was only one Timna(ta). Why does it mention decent and ascent? But in the case of Jehudah, because it was in the name of Heaven, ascent is written. In the case of Simson, because it was not in the name of Heaven, descent is written. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari said, for example like Bet Ma‘on²⁸⁰ 9(24). to which one descends from Palatatha and ascends from Tiberias.

footnotes: ²⁷⁸ Babli 10a, with different names. Num. rabba ²⁷⁹ Gen ²⁸⁰ Reading of Num. rabba

²⁸¹ 9(24). It is written: “They came to the vineyards in direction of Timna.²⁸². 14:5.” Rav²⁸³ Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this teaches you that his father and mother were showing him the vineyards in direction of Timna sown in several kinds and saying to him: My son, just as their vineyards are sown with several kinds so their daughters are sown with several kinds²⁸⁴. 14:4.. “And his father and mother did not know that this was from the Eternal, that he was looking for a pretext from the Philistines.” Rebbi Eleazar said, In seven places it is written: “Do not contract marriage with them.²⁸⁵. 7:3. But the prohibition of Canaanite women is also in Ex. 34:16. Outside the Pentateuch, the prohibition is mentioned Mal. 2:11, Ezra 9:2,12,14; Neh. 10:31.” Rebbi Abun said, to prohibit seven peoples²⁸⁶. 15:20–21. Philistines are not mentioned in that list.. And here, it says so²⁸⁷., how can it be said that his first marriage was (Jud. 14:4) “from the Eternal”?? Rebbi Isaac said, “if he scoffs about the scoffers.²⁸⁸. 3:34. According to R. David Fraenckel, since at least Simson’s relations with the Gazean prostitute and Dalilah were illegitimate, he deserved punishment.”

footnotes: ²⁸¹ Num. rabba ²⁸² Jud ²⁸³ The title has to be “Rebbi”. ²⁸⁴ They are children of adultery. Jud ²⁸⁵ That verse is only in Deut ²⁸⁶ The seven Canaanite tribes enumerated in Gen ²⁸⁷ It is not obvious what the remark means. According to R. David Fraenckel, since Simson’s relations with Philistine women were not forbidden, why was he punished? According to R. Moses Margalit, since all non-Jewish women are forbidden in the interpretation of pentateuchal law in Mal., Ezra, Neh ²⁸⁸ Prov

It is written²⁸⁹. 13:25.: “The spirit of the Eternal started to ring in him in the encampment of Dan, between Ṣor‘a and Eshtaol.” Two Amoraïm. One said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his steps were as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. The other said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his hairs were tolling like a bell and their sound went as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. “The Eternal blessed him²⁹⁰. 13:24.”. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: That his sex life was that of anybody²⁹¹. “I shall revenge one revenge of my two eyes from the Philistines.²⁹². 16:28. The statement is also in Num. rabba 9(24).” Rebbi Aḥa said, he said before Him: Master of the Universe! Give me the reward of one of my eyes in this world and the reward of the other eye be prepared for me in the World to Come. One verse says²⁹³. 15:20, but, as already Tosaphot (Šabbat 55b, s. v. מעבירם) noted, all texts and versions have “twenty years”. David Qimḥi, following the reading of the parallel in Num. rabba 14(21), in his commentary to Jud. 16:31, reads “twenty years” in the text here and quotes R. Aḥa as explanation of the duplication of the notices in 15:20, 16:31. While our text here is confirmed by the Rome ms., “40 years”, Qimḥi’s reading as supported by Num. rabba (whose first part probably is Provençal) can be taken as testimony for the Provençal text.: “He judged Israel for forty years.” And another verse says²⁹⁴. 16:31.: “He had judged Israel for twenty years.” Rebbi Aḥa said, this teaches that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death as they were afraid of him during his lifetime.

footnotes: ²⁸⁹ Jud ²⁹⁰ Jud ²⁹¹ In the Babli, 10a, that his sex organ was of normal size even though otherwise he was a giant. ²⁹² Jud ²⁹³ This should be Jud ²⁹⁴ Jud

“Absalom beautified himself with his hair.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, it²⁹⁶ was like a large carob tree. Should I think like a javelin²⁹⁷? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It was made like this and like that.

footnotes: ²⁹⁶ The hair. ²⁹⁷ That he wore a pigtail.

²⁹⁸ Chapter 7, Notes 71–75. They are added here only because of the mention of a carob tree. Cf. also Babli Baba Batra 91b, Ketubot 112a. Rebbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my son’s belt and the belt of my father-in-law²⁹⁹: חֲמֹרִי “my donkey”. to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey.

footnotes: ²⁹⁸ The following paragraphs are from Peah ²⁹⁹ That is a bad corruption. In the text of Peah

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran. But today, we do not even get one for one.

³⁰⁰ 13, 27; Num. rabba 9(29); Tanḥuma Buber Ḥuqqat 8, Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 4; Babli Sanhedrin 49a. It is written³⁰¹. 14:25.: “No man in Israel was beautiful like Absalom, to be very much praised.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his foot sole to the top of his forehead³⁰²”. It is written³⁰³. 9:2.: “He had a son whose name was Saul, select and good, no one of the Children of Israel was better than he.” I could think, in everything. The verse says, “from his shoulder on he was higher than all the people.” But about Abner, what is written³⁰⁴. 3:38.? “You should know that a leader and great man fell today in Israel.” ³⁰⁵ 1:1, Notes 176–179. The question asked is, why did Providence let Abner lose his usual caution when dealing with Joab. The presumed argument between Saul and Abner is explained in detail in the commentary by R. Ḥananel (Kairuan, early 11th Cent.) to Sanhedrin 49a, quoted in Arukh (s. v. בור ז) as Yerushalmi text; but clearly it is a paraphrase. (Printed on the margin of the Wilna Babli). Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

footnotes: ³⁰⁰ Parallels in Midrash Samuel ³⁰¹ 2S ³⁰² But his hair was questionable. ³⁰³ 1S ³⁰⁴ 2S ³⁰⁵ To the end of the paragraph, this is from Peah

³⁰⁶ 9(29).“And because he stole three steals, his father’s opinion, the court’s opinion, and Israel’s opinion.” His father’s opinion, as it is written³⁰⁷. 15:7.: “It was after forty years.” David himself did not rule more than forty years, and here, it says so? But it is from the time that Israel demanded a king³⁰⁸ 14b; ascribed to R. Joshua. The source is Seder ‘Olam Chapter 14; cf. the extensive commentary in the author’s edition (Northvale NJ, 1998), p. 139.. “For your servant made a vow³⁰⁹. 15:8..” He said to him, what else do you want? He said to him, write me a tablet that two men should go with me. He said to him, tell me whom you want and I shall write. He said to him, write it to open and I shall take whom I want. He wrote it open. He went and added two people each until he had added 200 people. That is what is written³¹⁰.15:11., “with Absalom went 200 invited people from Jerusalem, going in their simplicity.” Invited, from David. Going in their simplicity, of Absalom. “They did not know anything,” of Aḥitophel’s counsel. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: They all were presiding judges. Then they saw the things. They went to change sides. They said: Master of all universes: Let us fall in David’s hand and do not let fall David in our hands! For if we fall in David’s hand, he will have mercy on us. But if, Heaven forbid, David would fall in our hands, we would not have mercy on him. That is what David said³¹¹. 55:19; cf. Midrash Tehillim55[4]., “He saved me in peace from my confidant, for the majority were with me!” “The court’s opinion”. “And Absalom said, who would make me the judge of the land.³¹². 15:4.” “So Absalom would act.³¹³. 15:6.” “And Israel’s opinion.” Absalom insinuated himself with the men of Israel.³¹³. 15:6.”

footnotes: ³⁰⁶ The text is copied in Num. rabba ³⁰⁷ 2S ³⁰⁸ Babli Temurah ³⁰⁹ 2S ³¹⁰ 2S ³¹¹ Ps ³¹² 2S ³¹³ 2S ³¹³ 2S

MISHNAH: ³¹⁴ בשלח פתיחתא. Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said³¹⁵. 2:4.: “His sister stood by from afar.” Therefore, all of Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said³¹⁶. 12:15.: “The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.”

footnotes: ³¹⁴ This Mishnah and the next are reproduced and extended in Tosephta Chap. 4, Mekhilta ³¹⁵ Ex ³¹⁶ Num

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, for good deeds. Miriam waited for Moses one hour as it is said³¹⁵. 2:4.: ‘His sister stood by from afar’ etc. Therefore, ³¹⁷ Israel stayed put for her for seven days in the prairie as it is said³¹⁶. 12:15.: ‘The people did not travel until Miriam was taken in.’ ” ³¹⁸ 1:26. A similar homily is in the Babli, 11a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire verse was said in the language of inspiration: “His sister stood by,” “I saw the Eternal standing on the altar.³¹⁹. 9:1.” “His sister,” “say to wisdom: you are my *sister.*³²⁰. 7:4.” “From far”, “from far away the Eternal appeared to me³²¹. 31:2..” “To know”, “for the earth will be full of the Eternal’s knowledge.³²². 11:9.” “What will be done with him”, “because the Eternal will not do anything unless He uncovered His counsel to His servants, the prophets.³²³. 3:7.”

footnotes: ³¹⁵ Ex ³¹⁷ This version corresponds to the Mishnah in the Babli. ³¹⁶ Num ³¹⁸ Ex. rabba ³¹⁹ Am ³²⁰ Prov ³²¹ Jer ³²² Is ³²³ Am

MISHNAH: Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he, as it is said: “Joseph ascended to bury his father.³²⁴. 50:7.” Who would be greater than Joseph? Only Moses could occupy himself with him. Moses had the merit to take Joseph’s bones and no one in Israel was greater than he, as it is said: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him.³²⁵. 13:19.” Who would be greater than Moses? Only the Holy One, Praise to Him, could occupy himself with him, as it is said: “He buried him in the valley³²⁶. 34:6. Another tradition, Sifry Num. 32, in the name of R. Ismael counts this verse as one of the three instances where אוֹתוֹ does not mean “him” but “himself”..” Not only about Moses was this said but about all the just, as it is said: “Your righteousness will precede you, the glory of the Eternal will gather you in.³²⁷. 58:8.”

footnotes: ³²⁴ Gen ³²⁵ Ex ³²⁶ Deut ³²⁷ Is

HALAKHAH: “Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he,” etc. ³²⁸ 100(7). Rebbi Isaac said: The glory of the Lifegiver of the Worlds³²⁹ 2:9). Ashkenazic pronunciation follows the Biblical חֵי (Dan. 13:7). The Worlds are this world, the World to Come, and all other possible worlds He created. was with them. It is written: “They came to the threshing place of the brambles.³³⁰. 50:10.” ³³¹ Since when does the bramble-bush have a threshing place? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said, we checked in all of Scripture and did not find a place called “brambles”. What are “brambles”? These are the Canaanites who should have been threshed like brambles. By which merit were they saved? By the merit of: “The inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning at the threshing place of the brambles.³³². 50:11.” What act of kindness did they do for him? Rebbi Eleazar said, they unbelted³³³. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they undid the knots on their shoulders³³⁴. The rabbis said, they stood up³³⁵. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they pointed with their fingers and said, “a heavy mourning is that for Egypt”. ³³⁶ Now these who did no act of kindness with their hands or feet; look what the Holy One, praise to Him, did reward them with; Israel who are used to do acts of kindness with their hands or feet for their great and their little ones, [they deserve] so much more!

footnotes: ³²⁸ Gen. rabba ³²⁹ The Sephardic pronunciation חַי follows Maimonides (Hilkhot Yesode Hatorah ³³⁰ Gen ³³¹ The same question, in the framework of a different sermon, in the Babli, 13a. ³³² Gen ³³³ As a sign of mourning, to stay in their houses. ³³⁴ Also a sign of mourning, not to appear in their togas. ³³⁵ They translate “the inhabitants of the land” as: “those sitting on the earth”. ³³⁶ The entire paragraph is a sermon in honor of the local burial society.

³³⁷Rebbi Abbahu said, these seventy days between letters and letters³⁷⁸. 3:12) and Mordokhai”s letters of Sivan 23 (Esth. 8:9). If the months are alternatingly of 29 and 30 days, there are exactly 70 days between the dates. correspond to the seventy days in which the Egyptians performed kindness with our father Jacob³⁷⁹. 50:3..

footnotes: ³³⁷ Line 1 in the editio princeps. This sermon is an appendix to the preceding one; also found in Gen. Rabba 100. ³⁷⁸ Between Haman’s letters on Nisan 13 (Esth ³⁷⁹ Gen

It is written³⁸⁰. 1:17–18.: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he³⁸¹. 18:35), long ago was a teacher of archery. “He” refers to David.? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers³⁸² 25a, R. Joḥanan identifies the book Yashar with Genesis, R. Eleazar with Deuteronomy. In the Babli, the book of Yashar is not a book of wars. “Fifth” is the standard rabbinic name for any one of the five books of the Pentateuch.. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable³⁸³. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? ³⁸⁴ 1:1, fol. 38b.“The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died³⁸⁵. 10:6..” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.³⁸⁶. 33:38.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.³⁸⁷. 33:40. The same interpretation is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a. Cf. also Num. rabba 19(11), Tanḥuma Buber Ḥuqqat 42, Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18; Threni rabbati 1(64); Tosephta 11:1; Sifry Num. 82.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them³⁸⁸. 10:33).. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them³⁸⁹. 26, 8 families are missing compared to the enumeration of grandsons of Jacob in Gen. 46: 5 from Benjamin and 1 each from Simeon, Gad, and Asher.. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.³⁹⁰. 26:23, an isolated verse seemingly without connection to what comes before and after. This is interpreted to mean that David took care to re-establish these families after they had been decimated. The only levitic family missing in the list of Num. 26 is Šim‘î.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom³⁹¹. 72:2.”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

footnotes: ³⁸⁰ 2S ³⁸¹ Instead of מי היה, the Rome ms. reads נהיה; probably a corruption. The problem is that (1) the mention of Jehudah in a dirge about the slain of Benjamin is somewhat out of place, and (2) that David, who had a magic bow (Ps ³⁸² In the Babli, Avodah Zarah ³⁸³ Since it records the victory of Abraham over the kings of the East. ³⁸⁴ From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Yoma ³⁸⁵ Deut ³⁸⁶ Num ³⁸⁷ Num ³⁸⁸ Since Aaron was responsible for the Ark which was the pathfinder (Num ³⁸⁹ In the catalog of families in Num ³⁹⁰ 1Chr ³⁹¹ Ps

“With him³²⁵. 13:19.”. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You do it for yourself³⁹², that God would do for him what he did for Joseph.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: A parable of a king who was marrying off his son. There came a prefect³⁹³ to carry the litter³⁹⁴, and they did not admit him. The king said, let him; tomorrow he will marry off his daughter and I can honor him the way he honored me. As it is written³⁹⁵. 46:4.: “I shall descend with you to Egypt and I shall bring you up, also ascending.” Why does the verse say, “also ascending”? I shall bring you up and the other tribes also I shall bring up. That teaches that every tribe brought the bones of their ancestor with them³⁹⁶ 94(6)..

footnotes: ³²⁵ Ex ³⁹² Moses brought Joseph’s coffin for himself ³⁹³ Greek ἔπαρχος. ³⁹⁴ In which the bride was carried to the wedding ceremony; the organizers thought that being a litter carrier was beneath the dignity of the prefect. ³⁹⁵ Gen ³⁹⁶ A slightly different interpretation in Gen. rabba

³⁹⁷. 106. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If it had not been written, it would have been impossible to say: This teaches us that when Moses died, he was lying on the wings of the Shekhina³⁹⁸. 355,357, Midrash Tannaïm p. 224; Abot dR. Nathan (Schechter) A 12, B 25; Bet ha-Midrasch (Jellinek) vol. 1 p. 115, vol. 6 p. 71. about four miles, from the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben to the inheritance of the tribe of Gad, since he died in the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben and was buried in the inheritance of the tribe of Gad. From where that he died in the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben? Because it was said, “the tribe of Reuben built Ḥešbon, Elaleh, Qiryatayim, and Nebo.³⁹⁹. 32:38.” And it is written⁴⁰⁰. 32:49.: “Ascend this ‘Abarim mountain, the Mountain of Nebo, and die on the Mountain up which you will climb.” And from where that he was buried in the inheritance of the tribe of Gad? For it was said⁴⁰¹. 33:20–21.: “To Gad he said, praised be He Who enlarges Gad, etc. For there the part of the lawgiver is hidden.” The Holy One, praise to Him, added: “He came at the head of the people.” The angels of the service said, “he executed the justice of the Eternal”, and Israel were saying, “and His laws with Israel.⁴⁰²” All together were saying: “⁴⁰³. 57:2. A fitting end of a sermon of consolation of mourners. May he come in peace, may they rest on their couches, he goes in His pleasure.”

footnotes: ³⁹⁷ Tosephta 4:8; Babli 13b, Sifry Num ³⁹⁸ The Divine presence on Earth. Parallels about the burial of Moses, cf. Sifry Deut ³⁹⁹ Num ⁴⁰⁰ Deut ⁴⁰¹ Deut ⁴⁰² Since one cannot assume that Moses praised himself. ⁴⁰³ Is