MISHNAH: The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat. Someone injured in his testicles or with cut-off penis and his slaves may eat, his wives may not eat; but if he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat¹. 12:48) nor any impure (Lev. 22:3). If these persons belong to the priestly clan they are not excluded by their disability (assuming the the Cohen is legally uncircumcised, e. g., as a hemophiliac). But the rules of entitlement to heave follow only the rules of membership in the priestly clan. The person injured in his testicles is prevented from marrying inside the congregation; therefore, his intercourse disables his otherwise entitled sex partner from heave. The numerical inconsistency in the last sentence is in the Mishnah..

footnotes: ¹ No uncircumcised person may eat any sanctified food (Ex

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man² 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³ 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴ 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵ 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶ but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷ asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸ a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹ 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰ 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹ 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹². Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴ 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵. The mourner comes from second tithe⁴ 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

footnotes: ² Lev. ³ Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq ⁴ The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. ⁵ Lev. ⁶ In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior ⁷ A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. ⁸ It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be ⁹ Sifra Emor Pereq ¹⁰ Ex. ¹¹ Lev. ¹² An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other. ¹³ However, Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹⁴ While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. ¹⁵ The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.) ⁴ The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut.

Rebbi Abun asked: Should not heave be forbidden to the mourner by an inference de minore ad majus? Since tithe¹⁶)., which is permitted to outsiders, is forbidden to the mourner⁴ 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning., should not heave, which is forbidden to outsiders, be forbidden to the mourner? No. If you said it about tithe which needs an enclosure¹⁷, what can you say about heave which does not need an enclosure? Therefore, since each of them has an aspect missing in the other, they cannot teach an inference from one to the other.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Second tithe, which has to be eaten by the farmer’s family who are not priestly (cf. Tractate Ma‘aser Šeni ⁴ The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. ¹⁷ Inside the walls of Jerusalem or, earlier, of Siloh.

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone¹⁸ 12:46. The bone marrow of other sacrificial animals is not forbidden. Therefore, no argument de minore ad majus is possible from Passover to other sacrifices., neither from heave since that would be inference after inference¹⁹ Chapter 5, which has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. Even though the authorities quoted there are all Babylonian, the reference here shows that the basis of the arguments is a Yerushalmi tradition. It is stated in Babli, Zebaḥim 50a, that rules 2 and 3 in the scheme of R. Ismael cannot be used one after the other. Since the exclusion of the uncircumcised from heave was an application of rule 2 (Note 12), the result cannot be used as premiss for an argument of type 3. An attempt to formulate the rules in an extension of symbolic logic is in H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, 150–164.. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it²⁰.” Since “from it”²¹ 12:9 (once), 10 (twice). The Babli must reject this argument since it deduces laws of Passover from all three instances of the word. which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”²² 7:14. The verse is quoted in Mishnah Menaḥot 8:2. which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner?²³ 10:6 since, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons were commanded not to mourn. “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe²⁴ 26:14. states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover²⁵ must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

footnotes: ¹⁸ No bone may be broken of the Passover sacrifice; Ex. ¹⁹ In general, the rules of R. Ismael may be combined with one another; an exeption are the rules of sacrifices and sanctified matter. This is discussed in detail in the Babli, Zebaḥim ²⁰ An application of rule 2 (Note 12). ²¹ Ex. ²² Lev. ²³ There is no inference to be drawn from Lev. ²⁴ The Second Tithe, Deut. ²⁵ This word indicates an oversight by editor or copyist since (1) from the laws of Passover nothing can be inferred for other sacrifices and (2) the mourner (whose relative died outside of Jerusalem so that he could not defile himself) is admitted to the Passover sacrifice. It most probably should read “sacrifices” (Note 22).

Is it free²⁶? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated²⁷ 4a, Zebaḥim 62a; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(17).: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired²⁸ 22:10: “A Cohen’s sojourner or hireling shall not eat from sanctified food.” Who are sojourner and hireling? They cannot be Gentiles; these were excluded in the first part of v. 10. They cannot be slaves; these are included (when circumcised) in v. 11. They must be Hebrew “slaves”, i. e., indentured servants. The verse states that the money paid in acquiring a Hebrew slave is paid not to acquire his person but his working and earning power. Therefore, they are not able to partake of sanctified food. The Hebrew slave who is permanently acquired is the one who refuses to leave when his six years of indenture are passed; Ex. 21:5–6, Deut. 15:16–17. According to tradition, the institution of Hebrew slaves disappeared with the first commonwealth and could never be re-introduced. The argument here is purely one of biblical interpretation, not of actual law.. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias²⁹ said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,³⁰ 12:48.” it is as if free from one side³¹ is used for clarification about the Hebrew slave, Ex. 12:46 cannot speak about him since no circumcised Jew is excluded from the Passover sacrifices. Therefore, the verse is not used for other deductions and the application of rule 2 might be justified. The Yerushalmi does not clarify the difference between a straight גזרה שוה in which neither part is used for other implications (cf. Note 12), and a conditional one in which only one of the conditions is fulfilled, which may be rejected on logical grounds. This is made explicit in the Babli, 70b..

footnotes: ²⁶ This refers back to the argument (Notes 9–12) that the uncircumcised is barred from eating heave. It is claimed that the conditions for application of rule 2, גזרה שוה, are not fulfilled. ²⁷ Babli 70a, Qiddushin ²⁸ Lev. ²⁹ He is mentioned only here. ³⁰ Ex. ³¹ While the verse in Lev.

In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, for which reason were “sojourner or hireling” written for heave³²? Like what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, if somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them³³. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them, they [still] cannot eat heave even if circumcised³⁴ If the last step is missing, the conversion is void. A lawful conversion is necessary since upon manumission the slave becomes a full Jew.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds, he keeps them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise, he may sell them to a Gentile³⁵. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that somebody bought a village full of uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds. He came and asked the rabbis. They said to him, keep them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise one follows the local customs.

footnotes: ³² He derives the exclusion of the uncircumcised from another verse, cf. Note 8. For him there is no necessity to explain “sojourner and hireling” as (no longer applicable) Jewish slaves; he takes “sojourner and hireling” both with respect to heave as with respect to Passover as Gentiles who have not completed the process of conversion. ³³ That sentence seems to be incomplete. The following rules imply that nobody can be forced to be circumcised against his will. (This is the majority opinion in the Babli, 48a). A Jewish buyer will prefer to buy slaves only with their prior agreement to be circumcised. ³⁴ If the buyer is a Cohen, the slave can become part of his household only if he became Jewish by circumcision followed by immersion in a miqweh. ³⁵ But a converted slave cannot be sold to a Gentile under any circumstances. This rule and the following story also are in the Babli, 48b. The Babli also quotes R. Aqiba to the effect that one does not buy or keep a slave who did not give his prior agreement to be circumcised.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman also said: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was in Laodicea and met there Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch³⁶. He³⁷ wanted to leave early, when he³⁸ said to him wait for us tomorrow to immerse this woman convert. Rebbi Zera³⁹ asked Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Was that to honor the old man³⁷ or because one does not immerse a woman convert at night? He said to him, because one does not immerse a woman convert at night. A case came before Rebbi Yose whether one may immerse converts at night. They could not agree⁴⁰ 15:16)..

footnotes: ³⁶ The grandson of Rebbi. ³⁷ R. Joshua ben Levi. ³⁸ R. Jehudah Neśia. ³⁹ He might be R. Ze‘ira,name written in Babylonian style. ³⁷ R. Joshua ben Levi. ⁴⁰ In the Babli, 46b, the Galilean authorities are quoted without dissent that conversion needs a court of three judges and must be executed during daytime since “judgment” is written in this respect (Num.

A slave may be a permanent sojourner⁴¹ 64b). In the Babli, 48b, this is the position taken by R. Ismael; R. Aqiba (48b) and R. Eliezer (71a) prohibit keeping uncircumcised slaves.. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect⁴² 13:18, that statues and other idolatrous objects are prohibited for any use by a Jew. Therefore, valuables of an idolatrous character may only be used by Jews (for example, melted down for their precious metal content) if they come into the hand of a Jew already profaned, i. e., if a non-Jew has treated them contemptuously, preferably damaging them. The Yerushalmi holds that the sojourner still has the power of a Gentile to render profane objects of idolatry even though he is a monotheist, and make them available for a Jew to use. The Babli, Avodah zarah 64b/65a, explains away all the reasons quoted in this paragraph and decides that only an idolator can effectively render idols profane.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects⁴³. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat⁴⁴ 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it⁴⁵ 14:21: “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it, or sell it to a stranger.” This seems to imply that cadaver meat must be donated to the sojourner or sold to the Gentile. Whether it may be sold to the sojourner or donated to the Gentile is a matter of controversy in the Babli (Pesaḥim 21b, Avodah zarah 20a) and Sifry Deut # 104. R. Hila wants to decide following the majority that a sale to the sojourner is permitted..” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah⁴⁴ 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry⁴⁶ 64b, this is the opinion of R. Meïr. The operative majority opinion there, that he has to accept all seven Noahide commandments, is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile⁴⁷. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden⁴⁸ idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress⁴⁹ 24:14: “Do not oppress the poor hireling, or the deprived, from your brothers or the stranger in your land, in your gates.” The stranger who has the right of permanent residence in your gates is the approved sojourner., do not cheat⁵⁰ 23:17: “With you he shall dwell in your midst, at the place which he will chose, where he feels well within one of your gates; do not cheat him.”, and he is exiled like an Israel⁵¹ 35:15: “For the children of Israel and the sojourner in their midst should these six cities be a refuge.”, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated⁵² 111b, Tosephta Baba meṣi‘a 10:4. In the latter source, it is explained that the prohibition of oppression includes the obligation to pay the day-laborer immediately.: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

footnotes: ⁴¹ A slave may refuse to be circumcised and stay in the Jewish household as a “sojourner”, a Gentile who has accepted the seven Noahide commandments (prohibition of idolatry, murder, adultery and incest with direct descendents; eating flesh torn from living beings, blasphemy; prohibition of robbery, duty to live under the rule of a civil law). As such he is under the protection of the often repeated commandment to treat the sojourner well and he can be tolerated in a Jewish household since his touch does not make wine prohibited (Babli Avodah zarah ⁴² This is not meant to be a generally valid statement; the idolator is not protected by the Covenant of the sojourner. What is meant is a rather technical detail. It is stated repeatedly in the Torah, e. g. Deut. ⁴³ This statement, that the status of sojourner is only temporary and should lead to full conversion is not found anywhere else. ⁴⁴ In the Babli, Avodah zarah ⁴⁵ Deut. ⁴⁴ In the Babli, Avodah zarah ⁴⁶ In the Babli Avodah zarah ⁴⁷ This is the same statement as the preceding one, only it emphasizes that the sojourner has not lost his power to render idols profane which was his as an idolator. ⁴⁸ The Noahide precepts are supposed to be valid for all mankind. ⁴⁹ Deut. ⁵⁰ Deut. ⁵¹ The exile of the homicide to one of the cities of refuge, Num. ⁵² More explicit in Babli Baba meṣi‘a

Rebbi Jehudah says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on a holiday. Just as a Jew bakes and cooks but is forbidden to work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath⁵³ 9a, this is the opinion of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Yose says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday⁵⁴. Just as a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday collects from the field but is forbidden agricultural work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rebbi Simeon says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the remaining days of the year⁵⁵. Just as a Jew on the remaining days of the year ploughs, sows, and harvests, so does the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rav Ada, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon⁵⁶ from manuscript: Rav Idi bar Naḥman in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava (cf. Berakhot, Chapter 1, Note 161.).

footnotes: ⁵³ In the Babli, Keritut ⁵⁴ In the Babli, this is the opinion of the anonymous majority. ⁵⁵ In the Babli, he explicitly includes the sojourner-slave working for himself; work for the Jewish owner is forbidden. ⁵⁶ In the Babli, quoted by Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money⁵⁷. 12:44: “Any slave who is a man bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice].” In the Babli (Yebamot 48a) the anonymous opinion here is the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. The Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the Yerushalmi; the Mekhilta dR. Ismael follows the Babli (Yebamot 71a) in referring the sentence “then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice]” to the owner who in that interpretation is barred from the sacrifice as long as not all his slaves are circumcised. (Cf. Note 41, the position of R. Aqiba)..” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man⁵⁸, you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man⁵⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles⁶⁰? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.⁶¹ 2:7 explains that in a city where Jews and Gentiles dwell together, a foundling has the status of the majority (according to R. Jehudah the majority of those who abandon their children; in Tosephta Makhshirin 1:8 he declares the foundling to be a Gentile or a slave if only one Gentile or female slave of childbearing age lives there.)” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition⁶² that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Ex ⁵⁸ The verse notes only the activity of the owner. ⁵⁹ A proselyte may only circumcise his minor sons with him. ⁶⁰ The word אורכניס. has a number of explanations in the dictionaries which do not fit since they denote persons of high social standing. It is difficult to see how a foundling can be a son of a “ruler” (Mussaphia) or a “chief leader” (Kohut), etc. According to the context, one may translate בן not as “son” but “endowed with a certain quality” and take אורכניס as a composite of Greek ὀρχίς “testicles”, such as ὀρχιπέδη “restraint of testicles, impotence” (E. G.). ⁶¹ Mishnah Makhshirin ⁶² A condition negotiated with the slave trader.

The one drawn [circumcised]⁶³, the one born circumcised⁶⁴, and the circumcised before he converted⁶⁴ may not eat heave⁶⁵. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Yannay ben Rebbi Ismael, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As a fine. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: They instituted a fence⁶⁶. What is the difference between them? If another person drew it⁶⁷, or that it regrew by itself. If you want to say, it is a fine, there is no place for a fine. If you say they instituted a fence, nevertheless they instituted a fence.

footnotes: ⁶³ A circumcised person who extended the skin of his penis that it should look like a prepuce and he should not be recognized as a Jew. ⁶⁴ His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. ⁶⁴ His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. ⁶⁵ In the first two cases, if the man is a Cohen. ⁶⁶ In the Babli, 72a, Rav Huna states that the drawn [circumcised] is forbidden heave only by rabbinic standards; everybody in the Yarushalmi will agree. ⁶⁷ Against the will of the person on whom the procedure is executed.

“Circumcising he shall circumcise⁶⁸.” A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering⁶⁹. One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers⁷⁰. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions⁷¹ 27b.. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen⁷². 31:30, a speech of Laban; 40:15, Josef’s address to the cup-bearer. Both verses are without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are a literary device to express emphasis. The same argument in Babli, Avodah zarah 27a.”? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions⁷³. 4:26, the inference is from the plural form מולות. {Modern interpreters take the words of the Ismaelite Ṣippora to be Arabic, “poor circumcised one, may it be for opulence”.},” from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile⁷⁴. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours⁷⁵. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of Rav Huna. In the Babli, Avodah zarah 27a, it is attributed to Rebbi..

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Gen. 17:13. ⁶⁹ The follow-up to the act of circumcision in which the skin is cut and plied back to uncover the corona. ⁷⁰ Eventual fibers of the prepuce which have to be cleaned from the wound. The same argument in the Babli, 72a. ⁷¹ This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Shevuot ⁷² Gen ⁷³ Ex ⁷⁴ In Gen ⁷⁵ In Gen

It was stated⁷⁶ 27a, Tosephta Avodah zarah 3:13.: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he is circumcised in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find in the Torah that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!” “The drawn should not circumcise [again] lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn⁷⁷ ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn [circumcised]⁶³, the one born circumcised⁶⁴, and the circumcised before he converted.⁶⁴ Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised since that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.”⁷⁸ 1(7); also Tosephta Shabbat 15:9; Babli Shabbat 135a; Gen. rabba 46(9). Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student⁷⁹ in the Babli as stating that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree about the child born without prepuce.. There came a case before Rav, who said: Who is he who said that it is a compressed prepuce⁸⁰ 135a, he is quoted as deciding practice following R. Jehudah.? That means⁸¹, he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him⁸². Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him⁸³. A male child was born to Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in that condition⁸⁴ 135a. There, R. Ada bar Ahava accused himself of being punished for not following the ruling of his teacher Rav.. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him that he should die. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his testicles became injured and he fasted for him that he should die.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Babli Avodah zarah ⁷⁷ They might have been forcibly circumcised in the general conscription ordered by Bar Kokhba. ⁶³ A circumcised person who extended the skin of his penis that it should look like a prepuce and he should not be recognized as a Jew. ⁶⁴ His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. ⁶⁴ His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. ⁷⁸ Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq ⁷⁹ R. Simeon ben Eleazar, a student of R. Jehudah who is quoted in a baraita ⁸⁰ Also in the Babli, Shabbat ⁸¹ The statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, who asserts flatly that the baby apparently without prepuce has a compressed prepuce, not that possibly he has one. ⁸² As explained in the next paragraph, a child born on the Sabbath is circumcised on the following Sabbath (if he is healthy enough to be circumcised on the eighth day.) ⁸³ This is the uncontested anonymous decision of the Babli. ⁸⁴ Babli Shabbat

A certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but a doubtful one does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce⁸⁵. 12:3: “On the eighth day, one circumcises the prepuce of his flesh.” “The flesh” is the penis as boneless member; cf. Ez. 23:20. Since the commandment is unconditional, a baby boy born on the Sabbath has to be circumcised on the following Sabbath even though without the commandment it would be a desecration of the Sabbath and a capital crime. From here to the end of the Halakhah, most of the text is also found in Shabbat, Chapter 18. The text is from Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(5), also quoted in Babli Shabbat 134b. The details are only applications of the general principle stated at the start.”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the hermaphrodite does not push away the Sabbath even though Rebbi Jehudah said one pushes away the Sabbath for the hermaphrodite and is punished for him by divine extirpation⁸⁶. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born at dusk does not push away the Sabbath⁸⁷ Chapter 1, Notes 20 ff.. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born circumcised does not push away the Sabbath even though the House of Shammai say one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him⁸⁸.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Lev ⁸⁶ He considers the hermaphrodite as a certain male. Therefore, cohabitation of a male with the female aspect of an hermaphrodite nevertheless is homosexual behavior; cf. Notes 243 ff. ⁸⁷ When it is not clear whether the child was born on the Sabbath which starts at nightfall, which time is not well defined; cf. Berakhot ⁸⁸ This disproves the earlier statement that the child apparently born without prepuce has a compressed one.

There⁸⁹ 1:1. This refers to the duty of pilgrimage. *Ex.*23:17: “Three times a year all your male population should be seen before the Lord, the Eternal.”, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite⁹⁰.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.”⁹¹ 1:1, Babli Ḥagigah 2a, 4b; Sanhedrin 4b; Arakhin2b. Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include⁹². Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁹³. 17:14: “An uncircumcised male who refuses to circumcise the prepuce of his flesh …”. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male⁹⁴. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male⁹⁵ 136b/137a.. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Mishnah Ḥagigah ⁹⁰ The first three are not subject to commandments, the last two may not be males. ⁹¹ Tosephta Ḥagigah ⁹² For the pilgrimage he agrees that the person whose masculinity is questionable is excluded but for circumcision he includes him as male. ⁹³ Gen ⁹⁴ They disregard the existence of societies practicing female circumcision. ⁹⁵ The same argument in the Babli, Shabbat

There⁹⁶ 19:5., we have stated: “One does not circumcise a sick baby until he gets well.” Samuel said, even if he runs a fever for one hour one waits with him up to one month⁹⁷ 137a, he gives a minimum of 7 times 24 hours.. May one feed him with milk-substitute⁹⁸ from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward⁹⁹. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed¹⁰⁰ 12a. Therefore, the baby may not be fed heave products between nightfall of the eighth day and the time of circumcision on the next morning., that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. It was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Mishnah Shabbat ⁹⁷ In the Babli, 71a and Shabbat ⁹⁸ Some baby food made from heave grain. ⁹⁹ The Babli, 71a, asserts the opposite, that uncircumcised babies of Cohanim may not be fed heave products. ¹⁰⁰ A newborn animal is acceptable as sacrifice only after eight days. If a calf can be counted for tithing already in the night of the eighth day, that proves that one does not have to wait until it is daytime; Babli Zebaḥim

There¹⁰¹ 19:6: These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision: flesh that covers most of the corona. If he was fat, one has to fix it because of the bad appearance. If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise., we have stated: “These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision.” Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona¹⁰² 137b, this is a statement of Rebbi Avina in the name of (the Babylonian) RavJeremiah bar Abba. This is the correct version since R. Avina lived two generations before Rebbi Jeremiah (cf. Berakhot Chapter 6, Note 148).. Rebbi Yose ben Yose¹⁰³ said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection¹⁰⁴ 137b, this is a statement of Samuel, modifying a tannaitic statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Tosephta Shabbat 15:9).. “If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.¹⁰¹ 19:6: These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision: flesh that covers most of the corona. If he was fat, one has to fix it because of the bad appearance. If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation¹⁰⁵. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left in the day to correct it. But if there is time left in the day to correct, he corrects without hesitation.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Mishnah Shabbat ¹⁰² Making clear that “most” in the Mishnah refers to the vertical, not the horizontal. In the Babli, Shabbat ¹⁰³ Since he was a Galilean Amora of the last generation, his statement makes sense only if the preceding statement was Babylonian, i. e., that the Yerushalmi version also read “Rav Jeremiah bar Abba.” ¹⁰⁴ This refers to the fat baby mentioned in the Mishnah; if only the uncovered part of his corona is visible, nothing has to be done. In the Babli, Shabbat ¹⁰¹ Mishnah Shabbat ¹⁰⁵ The person who performs an invalid circumcision on the Sabbath.

It was stated¹⁰⁶ also quoted in Babli Shabbat 133b and determined there to disagree with R. Yose (the Tanna).: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there¹⁰⁷ 3:14. R. Yose holds that since the Torah requires one to take a palm branch on the first day of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:40), even taking it out on the Sabbath cannot be punishable. The same then holds for the knife for a circumcision which must be performed on the Sabbath and the unleavened bread which must be eaten during the first night of Passover even if that happens to be on a Sabbath. (The remainder of Passover, leavened matter is forbidden but consumption of unleavened bread is not commanded.): “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is free [from punishment] since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ A baraita ¹⁰⁷ Mishnah Sukkah

“If he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s and Rebbi Simeon’s¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion; there is a difference since he did not add an acquisition to disable¹⁰⁹. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the other disagreement, since they disagreed: A priestly woman waiting for her levir who became eligible to two priestly levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her but did not have occasion to bring her to the marriage chamber before he became injured in his testicles or his penis was damaged¹¹⁰, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since she is a candidate for disabling intercourse, she is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan said, when he will copulate¹¹¹. If one of them was qualified but the other disqualified, even Rebbi Joḥanan agrees¹¹². Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, if the qualified one “bespoke” her? He said to him, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹¹³.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ They say in Mishnah 6:3 that a priestly woman who is disqualified for marriage to a priest but nevertheless betrothed to a priest may continue to eat heave up to the time of the actual marriage. A similar discussion is in the Babli, 75a. ¹⁰⁹ The case is not comparable to that of a widow betrothed to a High Priest. In the latter case, the act of betrothal is an illegitimate act of acquisition which disqualifies the woman. But in the case here there was no transaction between the man and the woman which could change the latter’s status. ¹¹⁰ Her situation is bad. If she goes ahead with the now forbidden marriage, she is disqualified from priestly prebends. If she does not go ahead, she needs a (rabbinic) divorce and becomes disqualified. ¹¹¹ If she stays engaged permanently, neither married nor divorced, she can continue to eat heave indefinitely. ¹¹² Her first husband’s death confers on her the equal candidacy of both levirs. This is a disabling change of status. ¹¹³ But everybody will agree that marriage to the qualified levir will remove her temporary disability.

MISHNAH: Who is injured in his lower parts¹¹⁴? Everyone whose testicles are injured, even one of them. The one whose urethra¹¹⁵ is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s¹¹⁶ [breath] left of the corona. The ones injured in their testicles or with cut-off urethra are permitted [to marry] a convert or a manumitted woman; they are only forbidden to marry into the congregation¹¹⁷, as it was said¹¹⁸ 23:2.: “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ The Halakhah will investigate why דכא means the testicles. The Babli, 75b, and most moderns hold that the word means “crushed”, the object crushed being understood without being mentioned. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, the root of the word is דך “downtrodden”, the lowest organ of the body. ¹¹⁵ Really “discharge pipe”; this meaning is used in the Halakhah. ¹¹⁶ In the Babli: A hair’s breadth. ¹¹⁷ The definition of “congregation” is discussed in the Halakhah. ¹¹⁸ Deut.

HALAKHAH: “Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe¹¹⁹”, he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose¹²⁰! The verse says, “the lowly”. What comes between his heels. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile¹²¹ 23:3–9, the prohibition includes descendants. Only in v. 2 there is no mention of descendants. This is the only argument accepted in the Babli, 75b.. And not only if [a testicle] is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing¹²². It was stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody [born] with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch”¹²³ infertile is a ‘sun eunuch’”. The language in the Babli, 75a, seems to indicate that even a person who had one testicle removed with the second intact is not prohibited from marrying into the congregation.. Rebbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rebbi Immi said, certainly Rebbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side¹²⁴ 75a/b, s. v. שאין read וּבִלְבַד שְּׁלֵימִין “only if intact”. This is by far the better reading but it is not accepted in the halakhic tradition.. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for making the case clear.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ The original meaning of שפכה, translated in the Mishnah as “urethra”. ¹²⁰ Which also is a conduit for body discharges. ¹²¹ In all other marriage prohibitions in that group, Deut. ¹²² A slightly different text, including punctured and excluding dried-up testicles, is in Tosephta 10:3 and Babli 75a. ¹²³ A person infertile by natural causes is not forbidden to marry into the congregation. Rashba, in his commentary to the Babli 75a, has the version: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that a person [born] with only one testicle and ¹²⁴ Tosaphot Yebamot

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified¹²⁵. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action¹²⁶. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action¹²⁷, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios¹²⁸ said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ This is the only opinion reporte in the Babli, 75b. ¹²⁶ In the Tosephta. 10:3, this is the opinion of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa. ¹²⁷ There is no bastard without human incest or adultery. The same argument in the Babli, 75b. ¹²⁸ Elsewhere, he is called R. Aḥa bar Pappus.

“The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s [breath] left of the corona,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the upper side of the corona. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the lower side of the corona. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, of the lower side of the corona¹²⁹. There¹³⁰) holds that the Babli opposes the Yerushalmi. A drainpipe is cut at a right angle to the pipe., they said, if it has the shape of a drainpipe, he is qualified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it has the shape of a writing reed, he is qualified, of an inverted writing reed, he is disqualified¹³¹. If it is punctured, from the inside he is disqualified, from the outside he is qualified. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, “inside” [means] from the corona towards the body; “outside” [means] from the corona away from the body. If it is punctured, he is disqualified; if it became blocked, he is qualified. If [the urethra] is punctured, he is disqualified, because it pours out; if it became blocked, he is qualified because he can be fertile¹³². That is a disqualification which can revert to a qualification. The only difference between one injured in his lower parts and one whose testicles are injured are medical rules since an injured testicle may heal, an injured urethra does not heal. What can he do? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: He brings ants, lets them bite, and cuts them off¹³³.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ In the Babli, 75b, it is only required that a hair’s breadth of the corona be left along the greater part of the circumference of the penis. ¹³⁰ In Babylonia. In the Babli, 75b, there are different opinions in the matter. Maimonides interprets the Babli as being parallel to the Yerushalmi; R. Jacob ben Asher (Ṭur ¹³¹ A writing reed (and a quill) is cut to be short at the top and long at the bottom; that is acceptable. But if the penis is cut short at the bottom and long at the top, it might not be possible to deliver the semen into the vagina and the man is disqualified for marriage. ¹³² Babli 76a. ¹³³ Babli 76a. One clips off the bodies of the ants while they still hold the flesh together in their fangs.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this¹³⁴ only for an Israel with an injured testicle, but not a Cohen with an injured testicle. There, we have stated¹³⁵ 4:3.: “All those forbidden to marry into the congregation may marry one another; Rebbi Jehudah forbids.” ¹³⁶4:3. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as a matter of principle, an Israel with an injured testicle may marry a female bastard¹³⁷. Rebbi Yose said, it¹³⁵ 4:3. applies only to family blemishes, not to bodily defects. The strength of Rebbi Yose comes from the statement of Rebbi Ḥilqiah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this only for an Israel with an injured testicle, but not a Cohen, since, as you say there, if he is certainly a Cohen it is disabling if he married a convert¹³⁸; here also, he is certainly an Israel and forbidden to marry a female bastard.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ The statement in the Mishnah that people injured in their testicles may marry people forbidden to marry into the congregation. The injured Cohen remains a Cohen and may not marry at all; Babli 76a. ¹³⁵ Mishnah Qiddushin ¹³⁶ This and the following paragraphs form Halakhah Qiddushin ¹³⁷ Since both are excluded from marrying into the congregation. ¹³⁵ Mishnah Qiddushin ¹³⁸ According to R. Joshua ben Levi, if he marries a convert (who is assumed to have had illicit sex before she converted) he becomes disabled for heave. For the Babli, 76a, a Cohen injured in his testicles is disabled for heave and may marry a convert, siding with R. Jeremiah.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard¹³⁹ 4:3 (Note 135), R. Jehudah makes a sweeping statement that no two people disqualified from marrying into the congregation may marry one another. The rabbis also will agree that a Moabite or Ammonite cannot marry a Moabite or Ammonite woman, cf. Mishnah 3. R. Jehudah may hold that converts form a congregation of their own and therefore bastards are prohibited from marrying them but are permitted to marry bastards, or he may hold, as is asserted later in the Halakhah, that bastards should not marry any Jew and are prohibited from marrying other bastards.? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world¹⁴⁰ 3:13, R. Tarphon counsels the male bastard to live with a slave girl whose children will be slaves not legally connected with him. If he converts (and therefore frees) his biological children at birth they will be converts, free from the taint of bastardy. The female bastard may marry a convert; since this marriage is legal and untainted, the child will be a convert, not a bastard (Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12).. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah would think that disqualified converts form one of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation¹⁴¹. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation¹⁴². Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl for him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation¹⁴³ 3:12 states that in all marriages that are perfectly lawful the status of the child is determined by that of the father alone.. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on every side.¹⁴⁴ 76b, 78a; Soṭah 9a. A full text is in Tosephta Qiddushin 5:4. There, the text is up-to-date, following Mishnah Yadaim 4:5: “Rebbi Aqiba told him: Benjamin, you erred in the practice. Since Sanherib came and mixed all peoples {by mass deportations}, neither Ammonites and Moabites {permanently barred} nor Egyptians and Edomites {barred for two generations} are in their places … but everybody may marry one of any family on earth.” But in Tosephta Yadaim 4:18 it is stated that from all peoples only the restrictions on Egyptians are valid since Ezechiel (29:13) certified that the Egyptians returned to their land. In any case, it is clear that R. Aqiba asserts that an Egyptian woman may marry an Egyptian man.”

footnotes: ¹³⁹ In Mishnah Qiddushin ¹⁴⁰ In Mishnah Qiddushin ¹⁴¹ The text given is the corrector’s. The uncorrected text is inconsistent: שהוא קהל יי֨ אצלו which probably should be שהיא קהל יי֨ אצלו “for she belongs to the Eternal’s congregation [forbidden] to him,” cf. Mishnah 3. ¹⁴² For R. Jehudah only. ¹⁴³ In the Babli, 78a, Rabba bar bar Ḥana justifies Benjamin against R. Aqiba since Mishnah Qiddushin ¹⁴⁴ The text (without R. Aqiba’s remark) is in the Babli, Yebamot

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer¹⁴⁵ 4:3 he states that people who certainly are barred from marrying into the congregation may marry one another but that those of unclear status, foundlings and Samaritans, cannot marry. This and the next paragraphs are from Qiddushin 4:3.. The words of the Sages¹⁴⁶? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, it is written: “No bastard shall marry into the Eternal’s congregation”. He cannot marry into a congregation which is certain. He may marry if the membership in the congregation is questionable¹⁴⁷ 73a..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ In Mishnah Qiddushin ¹⁴⁶ Who permit people who are certainly excluded to marry those who are excluded only because of doubt. ¹⁴⁷ The same argument is in Babli Qiddushin

¹⁴⁸ There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month’s child of the first [brother] or a seven-month’s of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” ¹⁴⁹ It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ Mishnah 4:2. ¹⁴⁹ Halakhah 4:2, Notes 79–83.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah¹⁵⁰ 4:1. The paragraph is from there, Halakhah 4:1. does not follow Rebbi Jehudah¹⁵¹, since Rebbi Jehudah said that four congregations are called “congregation”, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the cogregation of converts. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah¹⁵² 23:2–9, the expression “the Eternal’s congregation” appears 6 times. Should there not be 6 congregations?, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles should not come”? That refers to bodily blemishes¹⁵³ 23:2. This is a personal exclusion, not a generic one. This verse is not counted. Cf. Note 135.. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them, the third generation shall come from them”? That is a positive commandment¹⁵⁴. 23:9. The prohibition of Egyptians and Edomites is only by inference. Since it is a positive commandment to let Egyptian converts of the third generation marry into the congregation, it follows that the first two may not. But as a positive commandment, an infraction of the rule is not prosecutable. R. Jehudah counts only mentionings of “the Eternal’s congregation” connected to explicit prohibitions of groups.. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come¹⁵⁵.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Qiddushin ¹⁵¹ The Mishnah states that converts may marry anybody, including bastards. ¹⁵² In verses Deut. ¹⁵³ Deut. ¹⁵⁴ Deut ¹⁵⁵ The rabbis agree that four times one finds the expression בקהל יי֨ לא יבא, but only three are left for symbolical inferences since at least one is needed for the fact of the prohibition.

Example. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia and Rebbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rebbi Joḥanan ran und whispered into Rebbi Hoshaia the elder’s ear: May a Cohen who is injured in his testicles marry the daughter of converts? He¹⁵⁶ asked him, what did he tell you? He answered, a question which a carpenter, son of carpenters¹⁵⁷, cannot resolve. He did not ask me about a convert, since she is like a whore for him¹⁵⁸. He did not ask about an Israelite daughter, for she will be desecrated¹⁵⁹. He asked only about the daughter of converts! Is the daughter of converts not an Israel¹⁶⁰ 4:6. If she was conceived after conversion, she is an Israel for everybody except R. Jehudah who excludes descendants of converts from the priesthood on basis of Ez. 44:22. Cf. Bikkurim, Chapter 1, Notes 96, 104.? You have to explain it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male convert has the status of a desecrated male¹⁶¹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ R. Jehudah Neśia. ¹⁵⁷ A Sage, son of Sages. ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah 6:5. ¹⁵⁹ Since he remains a Cohen, he desecrates any woman forbidden to him. ¹⁶⁰ Mishnah Qiddushin ¹⁶¹ Since R. Jehudah is not followed in practice, R. Joḥanan’s question is answered in the negative even by a minor capacity such as R. Jehudah Neśia.

If a Cohen had intercourse with a divorcee and had a daughter, and the daughter a daughter, what is her status? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, one said she is qualified, the other said she is disqualified. The one who said she is qualified objected to the one who said she is disqualified: The daughter of a desecrated male is desecrated for the priesthood. Is this one¹⁶² 4:6. An extended discussion of this case is in Halakhah Qiddushin 4:6. not from an Israel? Why do you declare her disqualified?

footnotes: ¹⁶² The Cohen’s granddaughter from an Israel son-in-law is explicitly qualified for the priesthood by Mishnah Qiddushin

¹⁶⁴ 1:6, explained there in Notes 101–106, and Qiddushin4:7. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ Parallel text in Bikkurim

MISHNAH: Ammonites and Moabites are eternally forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. Egyptians and Edomites are forbidden only for three generations, both males and females. Rebbi Simeon said, is it not an argument de minore ad majus? If He permitted the females immediately in a case where the males are eternally forbidden, should we not permit the females in a case where He forbade the males only for three generations? They said to him: If it is practice¹⁶⁵, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument. He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice. Bastards and Gibeonites are eternally forbidden, both males and females.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ What in the Babli usually is called “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai”, meaning accepted practice whose origin lies so far back that its originator can no longer be ascertained. The Mishnah speaks only of Jews.

HALAKHAH: “Ammonites and Moabites are forbidden,” etc. “Ammonite¹⁶⁶23:4.,” but not female Ammonite. “Moabite¹⁶⁶23:4.,” but not female Moabite. Similarly, “Edomite¹⁶⁷ 23:8.” but not female Edomite, “Egyptian¹⁶⁷ 23:8.” but not female Egyptian? It is written: “Because they did not receive you with bread and water¹⁶⁸ 23:5, the reason for the exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites, even if converted.,” should the women have received? “Who hired against you¹⁶⁹ 6:5, speaking of Bileam being hired to curse the Israelites. The argument is slightly extended in Sifry Deut. #249, 250.,” “who took counsel,” who usually hires? Males but not females. Who usually sits in counsel? Males but not females.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ Deut. ¹⁶⁶ Deut. ¹⁶⁷ Deut. ¹⁶⁷ Deut. ¹⁶⁸ Deut. ¹⁶⁹ Micah

It is written: “Shaḥaraim fathered children in the fields of Moab, after he had sent them, Ḥushim and Ba‘arah his wives¹⁷⁰ 8:8, speaking of the tribe of Benjamin. The verse probably means that he fathered children from a new Moabitic wife after he had divorced his two Benjaminite wives. The same text also in Ruth rabba 4:1..” “Shaḥaraim,” that is Boaz who was freed from sins. “He fathered children in the fields of Moab” because he married Ruth the Moabite. “After he had sent them,¹⁷¹” he was from the tribe of Judah, of whom it is written, “he sent Jehudah before him¹⁷² 46:28.”. “Ḥushim and Ba‘arah his wives,” can anybody father his wives? But it means that he was quick as a panther and explained the practice. “He fathered from New Moon his wife¹⁷³ 8:9. It might also mean: He fathered from his new wife.,” should it not have been: he fathered from Baarah, one of his wives¹⁷⁴ 8:11; no children of Ba‘arah are mentioned.? But through her, practice was newly defined: “Ammonite,” and but female Ammonite. “Moabite,” but not female Moabite.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ 1Chr. ¹⁷¹ The masoretic text reads מִן שִּׁלְחוֹ אוֹתָם “after he had divorced them”. ¹⁷² Gen. ¹⁷³ 1Chr. ¹⁷⁴ The children of Ḥushim are mentioned in 1Chr.

One verse¹⁷⁵ 17:25. says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ismaelite¹⁷⁶ 2:17. Both names refer to the same person, father of Amasa, nephew of David..” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ismaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah¹⁷⁷ and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth¹⁷⁸ 45:22.,” and converted. Then he gave him his daughter¹⁷⁹. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ismaelite? But he girded his loins like an Ismaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn¹⁸⁰: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab¹⁸¹ 1:22..” She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he¹⁸² 2:11, a speech of Boaz. The implication is that Boaz was instrumental in declaring Moabite women eligible for marriage before he became involved with Ruth since otherwise he would have had to recuse himself from decision making. In the parallel in the Babli, 77a, the decision is directly attributed to the prophet Samuel. told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ 2S. ¹⁷⁶ 1Chr. ¹⁷⁷ It seems that the author of this piece identifies Isay with his descendant Isaiah 500 years later. ¹⁷⁸ Is. ¹⁷⁹ It is very doubtful whether David’s sisters ever agreed to live under the authority of a husband. ¹⁸⁰ It is possible that instead of משנה one should read משׂדה, “I have only ‘from the field’”, referring to the preceding paragraph that שדה מוֹאב is a catchword for Ruth the Moabite. ¹⁸¹ Ruth ¹⁸² Ruth

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled¹⁸³. Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples¹⁸⁴ 21:14, speaking of the High Priest, “only a virgin from among his people he may take as a wife.” In the Babli, 77b, R. Zakkai is the source of this argument but he wrongly requires the (converted) parents to be from the same people.”. A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop¹⁸⁵. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations¹⁸⁶. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of [Rebbi] Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,¹⁸⁷ 25:45. In v. 44 it is stated that slaves may be bought (only) from the surrounding peoples, since Canaanites are not to be tolerated in the Land. It is then stated that a child fathered in the Land can be tolerated if his father was not a Canaanite; the argument is parallel to that of the baraita quoted earlier. The same statement is in the Babli, 78a.” not from those who dwell in your land.

footnotes: ¹⁸³ It seems that R. Zakkai only had heard the statement that the daughter of a male Ammonite convert was enabled to be married into the priesthood and concluded that the insistence on a male would imply the quite unreasonable implication that the daughter of a female Ammonite would be disabled. R. Joḥanan points out that the statement on the daughter of a male Ammonite convert is needed for itself if the mother is an Israelite woman. Since the marriage of the parents is forbidden, the mother becomes desecrated for the priesthood. It is noteworthy that the disability does not extend to the daughter.In the Babli, 77b, one version of the statement of R. Zakkai is explicit: The daughter of an Ammonite and an Israelite woman is disabled. This is rejected by R. Joḥanan. ¹⁸⁴ Lev. ¹⁸⁵ Babli 77a, a different reason ascribed to him. ¹⁸⁶ If an Ammonite and an Egyptian woman married as Gentiles, the children are Ammonites since in permitted marriages the child’s status is that of the father. But if they married when converted, the child inherits the disabilities of both parents. Therefore, the daughter, who does not inherit any disability from her father, has the status of a second generation Egyptian from her mother (in the opinion of the rabbis who reject R. Simeon’s argument.)The Babli, 78a, formulates this explicitly: Among Gentiles, the status of the father is determining. If they converted, the more disabled is determining. ¹⁸⁷ Lev.

Samuel bar Abba asked: Are generations counted for slaves? How is that? A converted¹⁸⁸ Ammonite slave who married a converted Egyptian slave. After three generations they converted¹⁸⁹. If you say that generations are counted for slaves, the males are permanently forbidden but the females are permitted after three generations¹⁹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ A slave circumcised as property of a Jew who will become a full Jew upon manumission. ¹⁸⁹ As it stands, this makes no sense. One may either emend the text to read “were manumitted” instead of “converted” or one may read the fact of manumission into the expression “converted into full Jews”. ¹⁹⁰ I. e., the females are permitted immediately upon manumission of the third generation.

“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female¹⁹¹. 18:17, incest with direct descendents is forbidden for three generations, equally for males and females. The Babli, 77b, has the same argument. There, the two questions of R. Abbahu are answered in the negative; incest prohibitions which concern capital crimes cannot be used as counter arguments in an argument de minore ad majus involving simple prohibitions (regarding Ammonites and Moabites) or prohibitions derived from a positive commandment (regarding Edomites and Egyptians) but they may be used in applications of rules 3 and 4 of R. Ismael (under conditions not recognized by the Yerushalmi.)? Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters¹⁹². 23:9: “Sons that will be born to them in the third generation shall come (masc.) for them into the Eternal’s congregation.” The entire sentence is in the masculine..

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ In Lev ¹⁹² Deut

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified¹⁹³ following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use the principle of gezerah šawah¹⁹⁴. 23:3 forbids the bastard even up to the tenth generation. Verse 4 forbids Ammonites and Moabites even up to the tenth generation, forever. The rule of gezerah šawah is invoked in Sifry Deut. #248, 249 to imply that the prohibition of the bastard also is forever.. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Here also the males are forbidden and the females permitted¹⁹⁵, with the automatic consequence that it can be applied only to males since in the case of Ammonites it applies only to males. Female bastards are forbidden only to the tenth generation as stated explicitly in the verse.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meїr. As Rebbi Meїr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi [Eleazar] ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth and further.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ As marriage partners for all Jews. ¹⁹⁴ The principle that identical expressions must have identical legal implications (R. Ismael’s rule #2). Deut ¹⁹⁵ R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon disagrees with his father and accepts the gezerah šawah

They asked Rebbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure¹⁹⁶. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason since he does not seem to follow Rebbi Ḥanina? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to finish off the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners¹⁹⁷. This parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,¹⁹⁸. 6:18; the purification sacrifice atones for inadvertent sins. In the Babli, Soṭah 32b, the statement is by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon bar Ioḥai.” in order not to publicize the sinners. What is the reason? “¹⁹⁹. 31:2. Also He is wise and brings evil;” should it not rather be “brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove,” why all this? “He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.” That parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days²⁰⁰. When Rebbi Ze‘ira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard”. He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives²⁰¹ 3:13, the argument is by Rebbi Uqba bar Aḥa. In the Babli, 78b, the entire argument is R. Ze‘ira’s, based on a statement of his teacher Rav Jehudah..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ The same statement is in the Babli, 78b. ¹⁹⁷ This describes the situation in the later Roman Empire where the plague had become endemic during the reign of the emperor Hadrian. ¹⁹⁸ Lev ¹⁹⁹ Is ²⁰⁰ A convenient legal fiction which allows every male to marry every female without investigating his or her background. The same statement in the Babli, 78b. ²⁰¹ In the parallel, Qiddushin

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will only deal with the tribe of Levi²⁰²3:13) and holds that in the days of the Messiah only from the tribe of Levy will they be eliminated by divine action. In the Babli, Qiddushin 70b, the same verse is used to declare that the tribe of Levi is cleansed of bastards first of all the tribes.. What is the reason? “²⁰³ The refiner will sit, the purifier of silver, and will refine them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, like a man who only drinks from a clean cup. Rav Hoshaia said, because we are Levites, should we lose? Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will deal with them charitably. What is the reason? “²⁰³ They will be for the Eternal presenters of an offering in charity.”

footnotes: ²⁰² He denies that all bastards automatically disappear (cf. Qiddushin ²⁰³ Mal. 3:3. ²⁰³ Mal. 3:3.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification²⁰⁴ has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family in Bet Ṣerifa in Transjordan who was forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who was forcibly integrated by Ben Ṣion.²⁰⁵ 8:7. It is not known who this Ben Ṣion was. The text states that one family was deemed unworthy of marrying into priesthood against the will of the rabbis and one was declared worthy also against the will of the rabbis. Cf. Babli Qiddushin 70a.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public²⁰⁶. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week²⁰⁷. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them²⁰⁸. Another formulation of the same statement in the Babli, Qiddushin 70a. and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer the priest had 5000 slaves²⁰⁹ 70a. Cf. Jer. 20:1., and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training²¹⁰ “recruit”, cf. Ma‘aser Šeni p. 214. The verse, Hos. 4:4, proves that priest were quarrelsome long before Jeremiah’s time and strong-armed behavior is ingrained in Cohanim even without any admixture of slaves. The same argument by R. Eleazar in the Bablim Qiddushin 69b.: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans²¹¹ disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of persecution. They said, the village of Moshhan²¹² is one of them.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Either a disqualification of bastardy or a disqualification for the priesthood. ²⁰⁵ Mishnah Idiut ²⁰⁶ This proves R. Joḥanan’s point that one may not investigate accepted families for disqualifications. ²⁰⁷ A sabbatical period of 7 years. ²⁰⁸ Reading אני for the ms. איני; following the editio princeps ²⁰⁹ 4000 in the Babli, Qiddushin ²¹⁰ In modern Hebrew טִירוֹנוּת, from Latin tiro ²¹¹ Who might be bastards in the rabbinic view; cf. Chapter 4, Note 82. ²¹² The village and the time of persecution are not identified.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I heard²¹³ that the castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife, and that the castrate does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife, and I cannot explain. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. A castrate by human action performs ḥalîṣah²¹⁴ and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife since he had been qualified; a congenital castrate²¹⁵ does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife since he never had been qualified. Rebbi Eliezer said, it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife since he might be healed, a castrate by human action does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife since he cannot be healed. Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about Ben Megisa in Jerusalem that he was a castrate by human action and they instructed that levirate be performed for his wife, to endorse the words of Rebbi Aqiba.

footnotes: ²¹³ An ancient tradition. ²¹⁴ He certainly cannot perform levirate since he is not qualified to marry in the congregation. But his widow might be married in levirate. ²¹⁵ Literal translation: “A sun Castrate”.

MISHNAH: The castrate does not perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate; similarly, the she-ram does not perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate²¹⁶. The castrate who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her²¹⁷; if he copulated with her he disabled her because it is incestuous²¹⁸. 25:6). Therefore, if one of the partners is certified sterile, the sister-in-law is under the incest prohibition of Lev. 18:16.. Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her they disabled her because it is incestuous.

footnotes: ²¹⁶ This Mishnah overrules the previous one even though usually the statement that a certain action had been executed determines practice. ²¹⁷ All he did was an empty gesture. ²¹⁸ Since levirate is permitted only if the couple can have children (Deut

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard,” etc. “That the castrate does not perform ḥalîṣah” etc. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram,” etc. What is a sun-castrate? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, anybody whom the sun did not see qualified even for one hour²¹⁹. If somebody stretched out his hand and castrated [the not yet born baby] in the womb, everybody agrees that [when born] he is prohibited from marrying into the congregation and he cannot perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate. One imposes upon him the restrictions of both castrate by human action and sun-castrate²²⁰ in this disagreement.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ The same argument in the Babli, 79b/80a. ²²⁰ Since he is both.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted. There, he says “it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife,” and you say so? Rebbi Iniah said, Rebbi Eliezer referred only to criminal responsibility²²¹. In the Mishnah there, the House of Hillel say that 20 year olds of both sexes who have not developed pubic hair should prove their age and then are declared as congenital castrate or she-ram and unable to perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate. The House of Shammai puts the age limit at 18 and R. Eliezer at 18 for the female and 20 for the male. From his silence about levirate one concludes that he agrees that the congenital castrate cannot perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate, in contradiction to his statement here in Mishnah 4. The answer, given in the Babli 80a by the Amora R. Eleazar, is that R. Eliezer only refers to the declaration of adulthood for the sun-castrate and the she-ram; for all other persons adulthood starts with the development of pubic hair..

footnotes: ²²¹ This paragraph is copied from the lost fifth chapter of Tractate Niddah

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: These are the words of Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Joshua. But the words of the Sages are that neither the castrate by human action nor the congenital castrate is able to perform ḥalîṣah nor does one perform ḥalîṣah for his wife²²². He cannot perform levirate, nor does one marry his wife in levirate. That is the Mishnah: “The castrate who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous.” The hermaphrodite who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous²²³. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her, they disabled her because it is incestuous.”

footnotes: ²²² The Babli, 80b, disagrees and holds that Mishnah 5 explains Mishnah 4 and refers only to the congenital castrate who parallels the she-ram, following R. Aqiba. ²²³ The Tosephta, 2:6 and 11:2, equates all rules of the hermaphrodite with those of the congenital castrate. It seems that this tradition (ascribed to Rebbis Yose and Simeon in the next Mishnah) considers the hermaphrodite as a congenitally infertile male.

MISHNAH: A congenital castrate priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave²²⁴. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, an hermaphrodite²²⁵ priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave. Rebbi Jehudah says, a seemingly sexless²²⁶ who was cut open and found to be a male does not perform ḥalîṣah since he is like a castrate. The hermaphrodite marries but is not married²²⁷. Rebbi Eleazar says [a male] is guilty to be stoned for [homosexual intercourse] with an hermaphrodite as with a male.

footnotes: ²²⁴ He has a penis but no visible testicles. He is not injured in his testicles and, therefore, able to marry in the congregation. ²²⁵ Since he has a penis and testicles, he is a male and may marry. That he also has female breasts and a vagina is irrelevant. ²²⁶ He was born without apparent penis or vagina. If it turns out that he has a penis, covered by skin, that can be laid bare, he still is congenitally infertile. ²²⁷ A male marries, a female is married.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh²²⁸ 7:34. In the interpretation of the Babli, 81a, “breast and thigh” stands for all gifts to the Cohen which are biblical; “heave” is today’s heave which is only a rabbinical obligation. The following discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that this cannot be the Yerushalmi’s interpretation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh²²⁹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. ²³⁰ 17(5). R. Simeon ben Laqish intimates that there may be more (amoraic) arguments in the vein of the tannaitic statement to be quoted.“Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel²³¹ gives two possible explanations. (1) Before the sin of the Golden Calf, first-borns exercised the priestly functions. (2) In the obligatory sacrifices of Passover and animal tithes, the Cohen gets nothing. (In profane slaughter he should get some other parts, Deut. 18:3. During the stay in the desert, profane slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:3–4). Since this shows that there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of a sacrifice which requires a part to be given to the Cohen, the Cohen’s parts are in some sense robbed from the Israel and given to the Cohen.? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse²³²7:34. says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

footnotes: ²²⁸ The part of breast and right front thigh from a well-being offering which has to be given to the Cohen and is eaten by him and his family; Lev. ²²⁹ In the Babli, 81a, this position is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish, the opposite statement to R. Joḥanan. Since practice in general follows R. Joḥanan, the two Talmudim take opposite positions in practice. According to the Babli, the entire discussion is about the hermaphrodite Cohen, not the one born without testicles. It seems from the second paragraph following that the Yerushalmi also has to be read in this sense. ²³⁰ Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ²³¹ It is not clear what the argument is. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Sifra ²³² Lev.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said the argument is about the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen²³³: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron the priest²³⁴ and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

footnotes: ²³³ The problem is not that of a handicapped Cohen but arises anytime a perfectly normal Cohen marries outsides his clan. There is no mention of such a problem anywhere else in the Talmudim. ²³⁴ This is the correct quote.

Is there nobody who disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah? Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila, one marries his²³⁵ wife in levirate, that means that nobody disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah. If he betrothed, his betrothal is not problematic. If he was betrothed, his betrothal is problematic²³⁶. If he was copulated with, he becomes disabled from heave like a woman²³⁷. That is difficult. Rebbi Niḥa bar Rebbi Sava²³⁸, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even with his own kind in any case²³⁹. That is difficult, if he is a male, no male disables a male²⁴⁰ 21:7,14 that the intercourse of a Cohen with a woman forbidden to him in marriage desecrates the woman and her children but not the man [Sifra Emor Pereq (7)].. If she is a female, no female disables a female²⁴¹ 8:10, fol. 49c) a lesbian relationship disables from heave for the House of Shammai but not for the House of Hillel. In the opinion of the Babli, Yebamot 76a, lesbianism is undesirable but not sanctionable. [Rabbinic practice follows an obscure baraita(Sifra Emor Parasha 9(8)), the House of Shammai in the Yerushalmi, and Paul in Romans 1:26.]. The male aspect of one disables the female aspect of the other²³⁷. He enables his wives to eat but does not enable his slaves. He enables his wives to eat by his male aspect. But he does not enable his slaves because of his double aspect; his female aspect was desecrated²⁴².

footnotes: ²³⁵ The hermaphrodite’s. ²³⁶ Since she is forbidden to her male partner, she needs a divorce. ²³⁷ Like any woman having intercourse with a man she could not marry. ²³⁸ A student of Rebbis Jonah and Yose of the fourth generation. ²³⁹ Intercourse of two hermaphrodites disables both of them, whether homosexual or heterosexual. ²⁴⁰ It is inferred from Lev. ²⁴¹ In the tradition of the Yerushalmi (Giṭṭin ²³⁷ Like any woman having intercourse with a man she could not marry. ²⁴² His female aspect is desecrated and his slaves barred from heave only if he ever had a sexual relationship with either a male or another hermaphrodite.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity²⁴³. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place²⁴⁴. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse²⁴⁵ 18:22. As the Babli explains, on the face of it, the verse seems to support the first opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi, but a second look shows that the prohibition is to lie with a male, i. e., the male aspect of the hermaphrodite.: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me²⁴⁶. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public²⁴⁷, the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits²⁴⁸, he testifies²⁴⁹, his grain offering is burnt completely²⁵⁰ 6:16); the grain offering of the daughter of a Cohen is treated like the offering of an Israel and most of it is eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct., one says grace with him as with a male.

footnotes: ²⁴³ Here starts the discussion of the last sentence in this Mishnah, the assertion of R. Eleazar ben Shamua (in the Babli, R. Eliezer) that for the definition of homosexuality an hermaphrodite is a full male. The position of R. Joḥanan here is an explicit statement of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in Tosephta 10:2. ²⁴⁴ For him, heterosexual intercourse of a male with an hermaphrodite is still homosexuality. In the Babli, 83b, that is the opinion of Rav. ²⁴⁵ Lev. ²⁴⁶ Babli 84a; there, “the students of R. Eleazar ben Shamua ganged up on him like chickens in a chicken coop.” ²⁴⁷ The uncommon form לגלע instead of the common לגלות seems so be an Arabism, from جلع “to uncover indecently”. It seems that the teachings of R. Eleazar ben Shamua’s students were esoteric. ²⁴⁸ If there are 2 children, a hermaphrodite and a daughter, at the death of the father the daughter has a claim on the estate for a dowry but the only heir is the hermaphrodite.The Babli, 83b, which attributes the Mishnah to R. Eliezer, proves from parallel statements that the hermaphrodite is considered a full male only in respect to homosexuality. In all other respects, it is considered a case of doubt whether he is male or female. ²⁴⁹ He can testify formally in cases where a male witness is required (such as the validity of certain legal acts.) ²⁵⁰ The grain offering of a Cohen is burned completely (Lev.