What is a ‘resident proselyte’?¹ as distinguished from ger ẓedeḳ, ‘a righteous proselyte’. Whoever undertakes to abstain from idolatry, in the view of R. Meir; R. Judah said: Whoever undertakes not to eat flesh that has not been ritually slaughtered.² is defined as one who undertook to keep all the commandments except the prohibition against eating flesh not ritually slaughtered, and perhaps that should be the reading here.

footnotes: ¹ Heb. ger toshab ² According to ‘A.Z. 64b (Sonc. ed., p. 314) a ger toshab

His spittle, his seat, his couch and his urine are unclean; his bread,³ his oil and his wine are clean. The prohibitions thou shalt not do him wrong,⁴ thou shalt not oppress⁵ and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night⁶ apply to him.

footnotes: ³ So MS.K. and H; V ‘his dough’. ⁴ Lev. 19, 33. ⁵ Deut. 24, 14. ⁶ Lev. 19, 13.

We do not marry him [to a Jewess] or take to wife women from him.⁷. We do not lend to him or borrow from him on interest.

footnotes: ⁷ Those within the category of ger toshab

We do not settle him on the frontier⁸ or in an unhealthy district, but in a pleasant district in the centre of the Land of Israel,⁹ where he can find scope for his occupation, as it is stated, With thee he shall dwell in thy midst, in a place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, thou shalt not wrong him.¹⁰

footnotes: ⁸ [Where he would be exposed to attack, or by intercourse with foreign neighbours lapse into heathenism.] ⁹ The words ‘in the centre of the Land of Israel’ are superfluous and should perhaps be omitted. ¹⁰ Deut. 23, 17.

Every incestuous marriage which is forbidden to Israel under pain of death at the hands of a Beth Din is¹¹ forbidden to proselytes.

footnotes: ¹¹ So MS.K. V and H insert ‘not’. [The question is debated in Sanh. 57b-58a (Sonc. ed., p. 393).]

How is this? If he was married to the sister of his mother and her sister from the [same] mother, R. Meir says that he must dismiss her, but the Sages say that he may keep one of them.¹² it is adduced as an illustration of the statement that ‘a proselyte whose conception was not in holiness, but whose birth was in holiness (i.e. after his mother’s conversion) is forbidden to his mother’s relatives but not to his father’s’. In that case, however, we should certainly have to read here, ‘if he had married his father’s sister from the same father he may keep her, but if from the same mother, R. Meir says’, etc.

footnotes: ¹² This is the lit. rendering of V, which is hopelessly corrupt. MS.K. and H read: ‘How is this? If he was married to the sister of his father from the same father or the sister of his father from the same mother, R. Meir says that he must dismiss her, but the Sages say that he may keep her. [If he has married] two sisters from the same mother, R. Meir says that he must dismiss both, but the Sages say that he must dismiss one of them’. The instance here adduced has nothing to do with the statement which precedes. In Sanh. loc. cit.

An Israelite¹³ who has had intercourse with the daughter of a Gentile is to be tried according to the non-Jewish law, but a Gentile who has had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite is to be tried according to Jewish law.

footnotes: ¹³ This is an obvious mistake for ‘a Gentile’. [Cf. Sanh. 57b (Sonc. ed., p. 393) where it is explicitly stated.]

If a proselyte died leaving a son or daughter who became a convert with him, his property is ownerless¹⁴ and his slaves regain their freedom. If the slaves were minors¹⁵ they are acquired by ‘drawing’,¹⁶ because [the Sages] said that movable property is acquired by ‘drawing’ and immovable property by seizure.¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁴ [There is nothing in V corresponding to ‘is ownerless’ which is required by the context. MS.K. and H insert ‘is like the deer’, i.e. free, ownerless.] ¹⁵ [This is the reading suggested by N.Y.; V, MS.K. and H have ‘shrewd’. This version agrees with Ḳid. 23a (Sonc. ed., p. 110): ‘If a proselyte dies [without heirs] adult slaves acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them gains a title to them’.] ¹⁶ [‘Taking possession by drawing towards one’s self the object to be acquired’ (Jastrow).] ¹⁷ [This is the correct reading as against V’s ‘the Sages said that movable property is acquired by seizure’. Cf. Ḳid. I, 5 (Sonc. ed., p. 124). ‘Movable property’ is lit. ‘property which has no security’, i.e. on which a creditor cannot distrain if sold; ‘immovable property’, on the other hand, like real estate, can be mortgaged for the owner’s debts.]

R. Eliezer said: [Immovable property] is acquired only by seizure; but if someone was walking in the field [of a proselyte who died] and a man came up to him to whom he said, ‘The field is mine’, the field is his; but the Sages say that he does not acquire the property until he has taken possession of it.¹⁸

footnotes: ¹⁸ [By performing some act such as levelling, etc. Cf. B.B. 100a (Sonc. ed., p. 418, n. 7).]

If one man comes from the south and another from the north, each one acquires the part which he traverses. This is the view of R. Eliezer; but the Sages said: Neither acquires until he has taken possession.

[If a proselyte died] while liable for his wife’s kethubah and [the claim of] a creditor and she says, ‘This part of the property belongs to me and this part is due to me under my kethubah’, she is entitled [to the whole]. If she says, ‘This part is due to me under my kethubah and this part belongs to me’, she is entitled only to her kethubah.

Similarly, if a creditor says, ‘This part belongs to me and that part is for my debt’, he is entitled [to the whole]; but if he says, ‘This part is for my debt and that part belongs to me’, he is entitled only to his debt.

If he had slaves pasturing a flock¹⁹ and someone came and said, ‘These slaves and the flock are mine’, they are his; but if the slaves are shrewd they can say, ‘We are free men and the flock belongs to us’.²⁰

footnotes: ¹⁹ Following the text of MS.K. and H. ²⁰ By declaring themselves freemen they can inherit their master’s property.