Jerusalem Kiddushin

Mishnah

1 A wife may be acquired in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money, or by a document, or by intercourse. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭah or a peruṭah’s value. How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic assarius. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law is acquired by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death.

Halakhah

“A wife may be acquired in three ways,” etc. The Mishnah means: either by money, or by document, or by intercourse. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated as follows: Not only by all three together, but even by any one of them.

By money: how do we know? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money. By marital relations: how do we know? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse. I might think, only by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money: how do we know? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Consider: even if he acquired her only by intercourse, the one coming after him is executed by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband? As we have stated there: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled.”

So we learned intercourse without money. Money without intercourse: how do we know? “She shall go free, without money.”Exodus 21:11 “If he acquires another one.”Exodus 21:10 Since one was by money, so the other is by money.

By a document? “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.”Deuteronomy 24:1 It links her being with her leaving. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

Rabbi Abin said that Ḥizqiah stated: “After he acquires,” which means that she is acquired by money. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since the Hebrew slave girl, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by money, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, should be acquired by money? This is proved by the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money but is acquired by intercourse. So you should not be surprised if this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, might not be acquired by money. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.

“And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money, can be acquired by intercourse, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by money, should be acquired by intercourse? The Hebrew slave girl proves otherwise, since she cannot be acquired by intercourse but is acquired by money. So you should not be surprised that this one, who may be acquired by money, might not be acquired by intercourse. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money; “and has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse.

By a document. Since money, which does not release, permits entry, would it not be logical that a document, which releases, should permit entry? No. If you speak about money which eliminates dedication through redemption, what can you say about a document which does not eliminate dedication through redemption? The argument de minore ad majus is broken and you have to return to Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.”Deuteronomy 24:1 It links her being with her leaving. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

Rabbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.”Leviticus 25:46 She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

So far for Israel. For the Gentiles? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It is written “you shall die because of the woman whom you took, since she is having marital relations with a husband.”Genesis 20:3 They are guilty for those having marital relations; they are not guilty for the betrothed. The words of Rabbi Eleazar imply, only if he intended to acquire her; the words of Samuel imply, even if he had no intention of acquiring her; since Rabbi Jonah said in the name of Samuel: “A prostitute stands in a window. Two men sleep with her. The first one is not killed, the second one is killed because of him.” But did the first one intend to acquire her?

“A man.” Why does the verse say, “any man”Leviticus 18:5? To include that Gentiles who committed adultery or incest by Gentile rules should be judged by Gentile law, but if they committed adultery with a Jewish woman, one judges them by Jewish law. Rabbi Eleazar said, of all of them there is only the Jewish betrothed, for if he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty, with a betrothed Gentile woman he cannot be prosecuted. If he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty. How is he found to be guilty? By their rules or by Jewish rules? If you say by Jewish rules, by two witnesses, 23 judges, after warning, and by stoning. If you say by their rules, by one witness, one judge, without warning, and by the sword.

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi added one who strangles, as a separate offense. What is the reason? For “blood in a human.”

If you say, by Jewish rules, he is guilty if he converted. If you say, by their rules, he cannot be prosecuted if he converted, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, a descendant of Noah who blasphemed and then converted cannot be prosecuted since the law changed for him. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The descendants of Noah are warned about nakedness as Jews are; the verse says, “he shall cling to his wife,”Genesis 2:24 not to somebody else’s wife. “He shall cling to his wife,” not to a male, nor to an animal. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: A descendant of Noah who had perverse intercourse with his wife is killed. What is the reason? “He shall cling to his wife so they become one flesh,” at the place where they together create one flesh.

Rabbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching” a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rabbi Mana said, is it not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rabbi Judah ben Pazi and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rabbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rabbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.”Malachi 2:16 In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, lent His name only to Jewish divorce.

The words of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya implies that Gentiles have no divorce, as Rabbi Ḥiyya stated in this matter: A Gentile who divorced his wife, who herself then went and married another, when the latter divorced her and then both of them converted, I do not apply to them: “Her first husband who had divorced her cannot return to marry her.” It was stated in this matter: A case came before Rabbi and he approved.

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah, but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect: “Not only a document which is worth a peruṭah since a woman can have herself preliminarily married by anything which is worth a peruṭah. But even if he wrote it on an ostrakon or on papyrus and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rabbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rabbi who said, she is divorced. Rabbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rabbi Zeira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminarily married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminarily married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rabbi Yose asked, What does “for restrictions” mean? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rabbi Meir: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the written conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowledgment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say, “money” is a peruṭah, but here, they say that “money” is two obols. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by at least a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by at least a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.”Exodus 21:11 Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolus and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rabbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left, and at the end of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolus, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “If a person gives to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.”Exodus 22:6 If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”Leviticus 5:26? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From there, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rabbi Nathan says, “or vessels,” to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. Rabbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels.” But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels,” since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two obols’ worth.

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

In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wanted to take on himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The fool walks in darkness.’ The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That was before the disembodied voice came. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgress the words of the House of Hillel are deserving of death. It was stated: The disembodied voice came and said: Both of them are the words of God, but practice follows the House of Hillel. Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rabbi Bebai in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yavneh.

“How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: The as is 1/24 of a silver denar; the silver denar is 1/24 of a gold denar. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus is two as. A pondius is two semisses. An as is two quadrantes. A semis is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is 1/32 of the above.”

Rabbi Zeira said, in the days of Rabbi Simai and our teachers they made it 1/24 of an obolus, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, three dodrantes are an obolus, two besses are a dodrans, two semisses are a bes, two peruṭot a semis. It results in 1/24 of an obolus.”

Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana. Rabbi Ḥanina says, bronze remained in its place, silver increased or decreased in value. Rabbi Mana said, silver remained in its place, bronze increased or decreased in value. In Rabbi Ḥanina’s opinion, with one as six women can always contract a preliminary marriage. In Rabbi Mana’s opinion, sometimes six, sometimes eight.

Ḥilfai said: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rabbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. They said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “A tetradrachma is four denarii.” He said to them, we also have stated: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rabbi Meir said four as, one as per denar.” They said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to them, I also have stated it: “Fraud is four silver coins for twenty-four silver coins, a tetradrachma, one sixth of the selling price.” They said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “Two dupondii are an obolus.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He gives a tetradrachma and a dupondius per year.” They said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “Two as are a dupondius.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.” They said to him, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “Two semisses are an as, two quadrantes are a semis, two peruṭot are a quadrans.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

“She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce,” as it is written: “He shall write her a bill of divorce.”Deuteronomy 24:1 “Or the husband’s death,” as it is written: “Or if the latter husband dies.”Deuteronomy 24:3 So far, if the latter one dies, what about the death of the former? Since the latter’s death releases her, even though his death does not cause a complete release, it is only logical that the former’s death should release her since his death will cause a complete release. Rabbi Ḥuna said, the verse implies that death releases, as it is written: “If brothers live together and one of them dies childless, etc.”Deuteronomy 25:5 Therefore, if he had a child, death releases. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, if you would say that death does not release, how could we find a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥaliṣah for a common priest? Rabbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, explain it for a sister-in-law.

“Her levir shall come to her,” that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself,” that is “bespeaking.” I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and take her in levirate.” This directs the entire paragraph toward levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to his brothers.

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

Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as a wife for himself,” the same expression is used as for the preliminary marriage of a woman. Just as preliminary marriage acquires completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

Rabbi Isaac asked: Why do we not say: “either by her own ḥaliṣah or that of her co-wife?” He turned around and said: Did we state “by her own ḥaliṣah”? Not “by her own ḥaliṣah”! But here either by her own ḥaliṣah or that of her co-wife. But did we not state, “by intercourse”? Can you say, either by her own intercourse or the intercourse of her co-wife? The Mishnah speaks of one sister-in-law; the problem arises for two sisters-in-law.

Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: How can a ḥaruphah slave girl acquire her autonomy in such a way that she would be freed from flogging, and free the one who had intercourse with her from a reparation sacrifice? It is obvious that she cannot leave by a bill of divorce since Rabbi Ḥiyya said in Rabbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least. Rabbi Yose said in Rabbi Joḥanan’s name: Aquila the proselyte translated before Rabbi Akiva “and she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man,”Leviticus 19:20 by “one who was pounded before a man,” as you say, “she spread morsels on it.”2 Samuel 17:19 Rabbi Ḥiyya said in Rabbi Joḥanan’s name: So Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon explained it before the Sages. “And she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man,” by “one who was pounded before a man,” as you say, “in morsels by a pestle.”Proverbs 17:19

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six years? What is the problem? Following Rabbi Akiva? But Rabbi Akiva said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rabbi Ishmael, since Rabbi Ishmael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master gives him a wife.”Exodus 21:4 But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six years for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

Mishnah

2 A Hebrew slave is acquired by money or a document; he regains his autonomy by years, or the Jubilee, or reduction of the amount. The Hebrew slave girl in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty. The pierced slave is acquired by piercing; he regains his autonomy in the Jubilee or by the master’s death.

Halakhah

“A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister is sold to you,” it links the male Hebrew with the female. Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written: “She leaves gratis, without money due.”Exodus 21:11 From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman, and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rabbi Akiva who accepts combination of inferences. Following Rabbi Ishmael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rabbi Ishmael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה. Everywhere Rabbi Ishmael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rabbi Ishmael stated it in the name of the Sages. From where is it derived for Rabbi Ishmael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rabbi Mattaniah said, “sale, sale.” Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew.

“By money.” “The money of his sale price shall be;”Leviticus 25:50 he can be redeemed by money, not by produce nor by vessels. Everywhere you treat money’s worth like money, but here you do not treat money’s worth like money. Rabbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, because the verse repeated “money, of money.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, but if he wants to reduce, he can leave for the reduced amount even for produce, even for vessels. Rabbi Yudan, Rabbi Mattaniah’s father, said that this is only if he did not give them their money’s worth. But if he gave them their money’s worth, it is like money.

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

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

It is written: “Six years he shall work.”Exodus 21:2 How much does he work? I could think that he leaves at the end of six years. The verse says, “and in the seventh he shall leave.”Exodus 21:2 I could think that he leaves at the end of seven years. The verse says, “six years he shall work.” How is that? He works the entire six and leaves at the start of the seventh. “And in the seventh he shall leave.” The seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world. Do you say, the seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world? Since it says, “six years he shall work,” this spells out six years. How can I confirm “and in the seventh he shall leave?” The seventh from the sale and not the Seventh of the world. Say it is the opposite. Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Huna: It is written: “and in the seventh,” “and in the seventh.” Rabbi Ḥuna said, if you say, in the Seventh of the world, what would the Jubilee free? Rabbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, this follows him who said that the Jubilee does not become part of a Sabbatical period. But following him who said that the Jubilee becomes part of a Sabbatical period, sometimes it falls in the middle of a Sabbatical period. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even following him who said that the Jubilee becomes part of a Sabbatical period, we could deduce from here that the Sabbatical year frees the slaves and the Jubilee the pierced ones.

From where even if he fell ill? The verse says, “in the seventh year he shall leave into freedom gratis.”Exodus 21:2 I could think, even if he fled; the verse says, “six years he shall work.”Exodus 21:2 What did you see to include this and to exclude that? After the verse included, it excluded. I am including the one who remains in his power and am excluding the one who is not in his power. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said that Rav Hoshaiah asked: I understand that if he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up the time lost. If he fled and then fell ill? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, let us hear from the following: “If a woman rebels against her husband, one writes him a bill of rebellion on her ketubah.” And Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married one and one waiting for her levir. What case are we dealing with? If she rebelled against him while she was menstruating, the Torah instructed her to rebel. But we must hold that she rebelled when she was not menstruating and then started menstruating. Here she is unable to rebel, nevertheless you say, one writes. Here also, if he rebelled and then fell ill he has to make up. For he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would not have become sick. Rabbi Ḥinena said, that argument even works in the first case. If he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up, since he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would have recuperated sooner.

“He regains his autonomy by years.” Some Tannaim state: He may be sold for less than six years, but he cannot be sold for more than six. But some Tannaim state: He may not be sold for less than six years or beyond the seventh year. Rabbi Jeremiah said, the reason of that Tanna: Sometimes he is sold two or three years before the Jubilee; then the Jubilee arrives and frees him automatically.

“Or the Jubilee,” as it is written, “in the Jubilee he shall leave.”Leviticus 25:31 “Or reduction of the amount,” as it is written: “If there still are many years.”Leviticus 25:51-52 Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and if there are few there are not many? Rabbi Hila said, sometimes the years are worth more than the wages, sometimes the wages are worth more than the years. How do you explain the following? If he was sold for a mina each and improved so that now he is worth 200 each, how do we know that one computes for him only by a mina each? The verse says, “according to the years he shall compute his redemption.”Leviticus 25:52 We learned that one sold to a Gentile is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed. How do we know that one sold to an Israelite is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed? “Hireling, hireling” for an equal cut. Since the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to a Gentile, so too the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to an Israelite. Rabbi says, why does the verse say “he shall be redeemed, he shall be redeemed,” three times? To add all redemptions that they have to follow this order.

“If he is not redeemed by these.”Leviticus 25:54 Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude. Rabbi Akiva says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves. Rabbi Akiva interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these,” by these he completes before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,”Leviticus 25:26 his own hand. “Or he found for his redemption.”Leviticus 25:26 Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Following him, who said “for servitude,” he makes up before he leaves. But was it not stated: After he redeemed him it is as if he were sold to him, he enslaves him before he leaves. Rabbi Abba Mari said, there is no “enslaves him before he leaves,” only “he makes up before he leaves.” If his relatives want to redeem him from the first master’s, they redeem. If his relatives want to redeem him from the second master’s, they cannot redeem. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That follows him who said: “by these to freedom, by all others to servitude.”

Samuel bar Abba asked before Rabbi Yose: There it is written “he computes” and here it is written “he computes.” Here you compute months and years so he may leave, there you do not compute months and years so he may leave. He said to him, the difference is that the Torah compared him to the hireling. Since the latter computes months and years and leaves, so this one computes months and years and leaves.

“She leaves gratis,”Exodus 21:11 these are the days of adulthood; “without money,”Exodus 21:11 these are the indicators of adolescence. Could He not have mentioned only one of them? If only one of them were mentioned, would I not have said that if she leaves with indicators of adolescence, then certainly in the days of adulthood? But in that case I would have said that they are identical with the days of adulthood. Would this not be logical? She is emancipated from the power of the father and she is emancipated from the power of the master; since she is emancipated from the power of the father by some indicators of adulthood, she is emancipated from the power of the master by the same indicators. Therefore, it was necessary to say, “she leaves gratis,” these are the days of adulthood, “without money,” these are the indicators of adolescence. Or maybe the other way around? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna: “Without money.” At a place where there is money for the father, there is no money for the master.

“If he did not allot her, he must let her be redeemed.”Exodus 21:8 This teaches that he cannot allot her for himself unless there is time for her handiwork to be worth a peruṭah and that a peruṭah is left to be deducted, the words of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say, he allots any time until sundown. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, everybody agrees that for a Hebrew slave only if a peruṭah’s worth is left. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? There is no money left, there is no handiwork left? Rabbi Zeira said, he allots her by speech.

Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: How does he allot her? He tells her in front of two witnesses: “You are allotted to me.” In Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah’s opinion, he gives her money for the allotment at the end. In the rabbis’ opinion, the money for allotment was given at the first hour. What is the difference between them? Her earning power. For him who says, he gives her money for the allotment at the end, her earning power belongs to her husband. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, her earning power belongs to her father. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, her earning power belongs to her husband. It is as if he said: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that your earning power belongs to me.”

If he was married to her sister who died. For him who says, he gives money for the allotment at the end, she needs additional money. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she does not need additional money. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she needs additional money. Why? Everybody agrees that preliminary marriage is impossible in an incestuous relationship.

Is Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rabbi Abun said, it turns out that Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says in the name of Rabbi Meir, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah equates “allotment” and loan.

“If he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to his brother. He should be able to allot her to his brother by an argument de minore ad majus! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥaliṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥaliṣah and levirate? No. If you would accept the son since he will take the father’s place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to his brother.

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Rabbi Yose ben Judah learned from Ahaz, as it was stated: Ahaz produced a child at age nine, Haran at age six, and Caleb at age ten following him who identifies Caleb son of Hezron with Caleb son of Jephunneh.

If he sold her to one and gave her in preliminary marriage to another, the father played with the master, the words of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah; but the Sages say that the father did not play with the master. It is as if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me after 30 days,” since if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me after 30 days,” and another came and married her preliminarily within 30 days, is she not preliminarily married to the second man? “From now after 30 days.” Since if somebody said to a woman, “you are preliminarily married to me from now after 30 days,” and another came and married her preliminarily within the 30 days, is she not preliminarily married to both of them? From then when he wants. Everybody agrees that if he definitively married her off, the father played with the master.

“As a slave girl.”Exodus 21:7 Only as a slave girl: this teaches that he may sell her on condition that he does not have the right of allotment over her, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, he did not do anything, for he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, “and the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid.” But does Rabbi Meir not agree that “the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid”? He accepts it if it is impossible to keep the stipulation in the end, but here it is possible to keep the stipulation in the end. Do the rabbis not agree about a stipulation which it is possible to keep in the end? They agree to it in money matters, but this is a personal matter. But did we not state: A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she has no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations? One understands food and clothing. But are marital relations not a personal matter? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it for an underage girl. How can that Tanna explain “as a slave girl”? He may sell her as a widow to the High Priest, as a divorcee or one who received ḥaliṣah to a common priest. How can that Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it by a widow from preliminary marriage. But was it not stated: A person may sell his daughter into marriage and repeat, into servitude and repeat, into marriage after servitude, but not into servitude after marriage? Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are different Tannaim. He who states “a widow to the High Priest” agrees to servitude after marriage; he who does not state “a widow to the High Priest” does not agree to servitude after marriage. How does the latter Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the master was married to her sister.

Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Just as he cannot sell her into servitude after marriage, so not into servitude after servitude. What is Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai’s reason? “By his being unfaithful to her.” Once he can be unfaithful to her, he cannot be unfaithful to her a second time. How do the rabbis explain Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai’s reason? “She being in his garment;” from the moment that her master spread his garment on her, her father no longer has any power over her.

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: Should not the Hebrew slave girl leave by definitive marriage, by an argument de minore ad majus? Since indications of puberty which do not emancipate her from her father’s power, free her from her master’s power, is it not logical that definitive marriage, which emancipates her from her father’s power, should free her from her master’s power? He said to him, I have only the Mishnah: “The Hebrew slave girl in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty.” Bar Pedaiah said, the Hebrew slave girl leaves at the death of her master. What is the reason? “Also your slave girl you shall treat in the same way;” and it is written: “He shall be for you a permanent slave.”Deuteronomy 15:17 It links the Hebrew slave girl with the “pierced slave.” Since the “pierced slave” leaves at his master’s death, the Hebrew slave girl also leaves at her master’s death. It turns out that Bar Pedaiah parallels the following Tanna, as it was stated: The Hebrew slave serves the son but not the daughter; the Hebrew slave girl serves the daughter but not the son. Some Tannaim state: The Hebrew slave girl as well as the Hebrew slave serve neither the son nor the daughter. How does the Tanna confirm “your slave girl you also shall treat in the same way”? He explains it about the allowance, as it was stated: The following are given allowances: The one who leaves after six years or in the Jubilee, and the Hebrew slave girl who becomes autonomous by indicators of puberty. But one does not give allowances to one who leaves by the reduction of the amount or following the master’s death.

It is written: “His master shall bring him to the judges, or he shall bring him to the door.” How is that? The one who was sold by the court, “his master shall bring him to the judges.” The one who sold himself, “or he shall bring him to the door.” Rabbi Immi asked: It is obvious that the court writes the contract for him who was sold by the court. Who writes the contract for him who sells himself? It is written: “It shall not be hard in your eyes to send him away free from you; for twice the hire of a hireling he served you for six years.” The hired hand works during the day; he does not work in the night. The Hebrew slave works both day and night. It is written: “He shall not treat him harshly before your eyes,”Leviticus 25:53 and you say so? Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: His master marries him to a Canaanite slave; it turns out that he serves him day and night. Rabbi Abba bar Mamai asked before Rabbi Immi: Think of it, if he was buying a priest! He answered him: Would the case of an Israelite not also be permission of something prohibited following Rabbi Simeon? Rabbi Abba bar Mamai here changed his mind.

Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Abun preached: The earlobe was pierced so that a priest would not be disqualified. Rabbi Meir says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rabbi Meir says that a priest cannot have his ear pierced because he might develop a blemish and be disqualified from service. Could the hole in the cartilage not be smaller than a vetch seed? It might end up the size of a vetch seed. Then let it be the size of a vetch seed! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,”Leviticus 25:27 as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children. “By an awl.”Exodus 21:6 How do we know that this includes not only an awl but even a buckthorn, a thorn, or glass? The verse says, “he pierces.” This follows Rabbi Akiva.

Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation. The Torah said, “in a scroll,” but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust,”Leviticus 17:13 but practice said in anything on which plants grow. The Torah said, “with an awl,” but practice said, even a buckthorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation: Rabbi Ishmael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair,”Leviticus 14:9 inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only to hair growing in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd. “With an awl,” since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal. Rabbi Yose said, this is a large drill. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.”Exodus 21:6 I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post.” Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright: a shame to him and to his family.

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

“His ear.”Exodus 21:6 Since “his ear” mentioned there means the right ear, also here the right ear. “If the slave says saying,”Exodus 21:5 two sayings, one at the end of the sixth year and one at the start of the seventh year. One at the end of the sixth year, while he still is in his servitude and one at the start of the seventh year, “I will not go free.” “I love my master, my wife, and my children.”Exodus 21:5 This teaches that he cannot be pierced unless he has a wife and children, unless he loves his master and his master loves him; unless the property is blessed because of him as it is said: “For he feels well with you.”Exodus 21:5

“He regains his autonomy in the Jubilee,” as it is written: “He leaves in the Jubilee together with his children.”Leviticus 25:54 “Or at the master’s death,” as it is written: “He shall be for you a perpetual slave,”Deuteronomy 15:17 all the days of his master’s lifetime.

Mishnah

3 A Canaanite slave is acquired by money, or contract, or possession. He gains his autonomy by money through a third party or a document by himself, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, by money also by himself or a document through a third party, if only the money comes from a third party.

Halakhah

“A Canaanite slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “They shall be inherited by your children after you, to be possessed as inheritance.”Leviticus 25:46 This links slaves with landed property. Since real estate can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession, so a Canaanite slave can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession.

How do we know that landed property is bought by money, or contract, or possession? “Fields will be bought by money, writing on a scroll and signing, and testifying of witnesses.”Jeremiah 32:44 “And signing,” these are the witnesses on the contract. “And testifying of witnesses,” these are the witnesses to possession. Or maybe these are only the witnesses on the contract? These are already written: “Writing on a scroll and signing.”

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

This does not follow Rabbi Eliezer, for Rabbi Eliezer said that walking acquires, as it was stated: If one walked across a field in length and breadth, he acquired up to the place he walked to, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say that he did not acquire up to the moment he acted in possession. Everybody agrees that if somebody sells a path to another, when the latter went, he acquired. What is the reason? “Arise, walk in the Land in length and breadth, for I shall give it to you.”Genesis 13:17

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of real estate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rabbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rabbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate. Rabbi Mana asked Rabbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Immi. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rabbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rabbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possession of the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.”

“By money.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, from another person to his master, therefore not from his master to another person. Rabbi Zeira said, even from his master to another person. What brings this? From his master to himself. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: “Here you have money that your field shall be unencumbered.” He answered, it is unencumbered. “That it be ownerless”? He answered, it is not ownerless. What is the difference between the cases? Here he advantaged a thinking person, there he did not advantage any thinking person. Think of it, if he was deaf-mute? He said to him, “a man.” Think of it, if he was underage? He said to him, one usually grows up. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Zeira follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Even with a contract through others, not by himself. Does not his master deliver a document to others that his slave regains his freedom? Here also, his master gives money to others that his field becomes ownerless.

Rabbi Abun said, it follows Rabbi, since Rabbi said that a person can free half of his slave. But do the rabbis not hold that a person can free half of his slave? They admit it for a slave held in partnership. But there is a difference for a slave who entirely belongs to him, for it is as if he gave something from his right into his left hand. Does Rabbi hold that it is not as if he gave something from his right into his left hand? He admits it if he gave to him through a third party. Do the rabbis not hold that he may give to him through a third party? The rabbis hold that one who can acquire by himself can acquire through a third party; one who cannot acquire by himself cannot acquire through a third party. Rabbi says, even though he cannot acquire by himself, he can acquire through third parties.

If he picked up a find and said, for the purpose that I own it rather than my master. Does he and his master own it automatically or does he own it but not his master? Let us hear from the following: “If a person is by a vow prevented from benefiting his son-in-law but wants to give money to his daughter, he says to her: These coins are given to you as a gift on condition that your husband has no claim to them, except what you put into your mouth.” It was stated: “Neither do you.” Rabbi Zeira said, who stated “neither do you”? Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir makes the hand of a slave the hand of his master. For a gift we follow Rabbi Meir that the wife’s hand is her husband’s hand; for a find do we follow the rabbis? Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Mana, is there not a difference, for he is as if he acquired by somebody else’s opinion? He said to him, is it not a case a fortiori? Since in her case, when she would acquire by somebody else’s opinion, you say that what a wife acquired, her husband acquired: here where he acquires by his own opinion, a fortiori what the slave acquired his master must acquire.

Why did we not state: By important limbs that do not regenerate? Rabbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, because of the disagreement. Some Tannaim state that he needs a bill of manumission; some Tannaim state that he does not need a bill of manumission.

It is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another, by a third party to his master, but not from his master to himself. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. If one said: Here I am giving you this money on condition that your master has no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it but not his master. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed a cow and the lender sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rabbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rabbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain it for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open the gate for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rabbi Zeira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rabbi Meir holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rabbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rabbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rabbi Meir makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce since a bill of divorce does not apply to him. If you say, is that not a baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs. Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission but he should not be able to accept a bill of his equal. If you say, the preceding baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs.

“For my slave girl X I want a document that she should not be enslaved.” Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rabbi Joḥanan. He said, he has no power to enslave. What are her children? Slaves. What did he retain for her? Her earnings. Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yose both said, this follows Rabbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. If he wrote all his possessions jointly to two of his slaves, both are free and both have to free one another. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This follows Rabbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba: Does this not imply that one slave accepts from his master for another one? He answered, what do you think? Since they acquired the properties they went free? No, simultaneously slaves and properties went free.

“You are free but your child will be a slave,” her child is like her, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. Rabbi Eleazar said, so did Rabbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. According to Rabbi Joḥanan, it is understandable; there is a disagreement. What is the disagreement following Rabbi Eleazar? But it must be so: His words stand, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. What does “he did not do anything” mean? Rabbi Eleazar said, so did Rabbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. Following Rabbi, since Rabbi said that a person can free half of his slave.

Mishnah

4 Large animals by handing over and small by lifting, the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eleazar. But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.

Halakhah

“Large animals are taken possession of by handing over,” etc. Rabbi Huna said, the halter gives possession only for property of the proselyte. Rav Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abba: Rabbi Eleazar asked, if there were ten camels tied one to another and he handed him the halter of one of them. Did he take possession of all of them or only of the one of which he handed him the halter? Rav Ḥisda said: “Draw this animal to take possession of it, he took possession. To take possession of its offspring, he did not take possession. To take possession of it together with its offspring, he took possession.” If somebody said to another person, draw this animal close to take possession of its load, would he not take possession? Rabbi Yose said, that is, if the animal was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they considered it as if carrying a load.

Rabbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he had no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Yose: A Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew. If he fixed the price before he measured, the proceeds are permitted; if he measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal rate, even if he measured before he fixed the price, it should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

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

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If somebody sold a flock to another person, when the seller delivered the maškokît, the buyer took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a whistle. And some say, the bell-wether.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: If somebody sells a cistern, when he handed over its pail the buyer took possession. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody sells a house, when the buyer stored there, he took possession. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi asked, what if he handed over the key? Rabbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi, said: This is a disagreement between Rabbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there: “If somebody hands over the key to his house to an ʿam haʾareṣ, the house is pure since he handed to him only the guarding of the key.” It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon declares impure.”

“Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself; a slave girl and reserve her children for himself; an animal and reserve her fetus for himself.” Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses from that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that one-tenth of it is acquired by you.

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

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families.”Exodus 12:21 As Rav Judah sent to ask: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaim who switch the attributions. Rav Judah asked Rabbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days? He answered, he is as if dead and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. Rav Judah sent and asked Rabbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rabbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

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

Rav Judah sent asking from Rabbi Eleazar: If brothers split the estate and then one of them entered a levirate marriage? He answered, the property of the deceased is like common property. Ulla bar Ishmael said, it is found that in Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion there is no difference whether they split and then one of them entered a levirate marriage or one of them entered a levirate marriage and then they split, but all of them share in the property of the deceased. Why did he not say so? He answered what was asked of him. And why did he not ask? Because of what Rabbi Abinna said in the name of Rabbi Assi: If a first-born shared as a common son, it is prima facie evidence that he renounced his prerogative.

Rav Judah sent and asked Rabbi Eleazar: Brothers who split? He answered, they divide what they are wearing but not what their sons and daughters are wearing. Rabbi Immi said, if one makes an appraisal for his wife, this is counted for himself and becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. If one makes a necklace for his wife, this is not of the common estate to be distributed if it is to be used on weekdays. But if it is made to be used on holidays, it becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. Rabbi Mana said, holiday dresses are distributed. Sabbath dresses are problematic. It is obvious for Rabbi Abin that both holiday and Sabbath dresses become part of the common estate and are distributed. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Mana: What about spherules? He answered, you understand this since you own many spherules. He said to him, they become part of the common estate to be distributed.

Rav Judah sent and asked Rabbi Eleazar: May one foreclose slaves with real estate? He answered, one may foreclose slaves with real estate. Rabbi Eleazar instructed those from the House of Rabbi Yannai to foreclose slaves with real estate.

Rav Judah sent and asked Rabbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal. How do we know that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double,”Exodus 22:3 but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rabbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed,”Leviticus 5:23 as it was.

Mishnah

5 Guaranteed properties can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession. Not guaranteed properties can be acquired only by drawing close. Not guaranteed properties can be acquired together with guaranteed properties by money, or contract, or possession. Not guaranteed properties can force the owner of guaranteed properties to swear about them.

Halakhah

“Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.”Ruth 4:7 Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi, one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rabbi Judah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.

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

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

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

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

By document. Rabbi Jeremiah thought to say, by a contract without obligating money, but with a contract obligating money he did not acquire until he paid. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both said, he acquired even if he did not pay. A baraita supports Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose: “If he sold him ten fields together, when he took possession of one of them, he took possession of all of them. But if he only paid the amount for one or wrote the deed only for one of them he acquired only the one which was sold to him.” Does there exist a deed without money? If you say, we hold that he paid for all of them, did it not say: “the amount of one”? It must be one or the other.

“By money.” Rabbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose disagree. It follows that Rabbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied? He answered, “for your intention,”Leviticus 22:19 this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rabbi Abba said this; Samuel did not accept it. What does “he made it ride on two shining racing horses” mean? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand. Rabbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rabbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rabbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death. Who would notify the greatness? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rabbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors; the burden of proof is on the claimant.

How do we know that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rabbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written: “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Judah.”2 Chronicles 21:3 So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rabbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rabbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rabbi Ḥananiah said before Rabbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rabbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rabbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rabbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

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

Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If two fields were involved, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with the intent of taking possession of the one in Galilee, or the one in Galilee with the intent of taking possession of the one in Judea, he took possession. But in the case of property of a proselyte he did not acquire even the boundary strip between them. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North with the intent of also acquiring that in the South, or in the South with the intent of acquiring also that in the North, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he did not acquire unless he also intended to acquire the middle part. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda: If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his property, if one takes possession of the ground he is obligated for everything. If he took possession of standing grain, he is obligated for fallen stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah but freed from tithes. Does not the air separate between stalks? There, we have stated: “If he tore off anything connected to the ground, he took possession.” Samuel said, he took possession only of that leaf. But did we not state: “If it was connected to the ground and he tore off anything, he took possession”? Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it: Samuel will agree, for proselyte’s property.

Rabbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides. But soft hides are not taken into possession until lifted. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated. Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged.

From where did they learn rollover of oaths? From the suspected wife: Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir? Nevertheless one rolls over.

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rabbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rabbi Abba follows Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rabbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was the recipient’s part from the first moment. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: One has a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had died, the donkey’s owner has to bring proof that his donkey was alive at the moment he took the cow. For the burden of proof is on the claimant except for barter. And anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rabbi Zeira said, I do not agree. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Zeira: A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” Not the husband has to prove to regain the money given for preliminary marriage from the father. The students of Rabbi Jonah said, explain it if little money was involved. An example: Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Phineas, and Rabbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rabbi Yosef to learn from him. They said to him, the Mishnah supports Samuel: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove, to extract the ketubah from the husband’s possession? He answered them, does not Samuel agree that if the cow’s owner took possession of the donkey, he has to prove that it was defective before it came into his possession? And this one, when he took her in it is as if he drew close.

Rabbi Abba, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: If he sold a cow for money, then grabbed him and said, give me that money. He answered, for what do you need it? He said, to buy a donkey for himself. If the owner of the cow took possession of the donkey, the cow was not taken into possession. Was the donkey taken into possession? Rabbi Abba said, it was taken into possession. Rabbi Yose said, it was not taken into possession. Rabbi Abba thought that this was barter, but it was not barter. Rabbi Mana in the name of Rabbi Yose: Sometimes it is a new deal for one party and a new deal for the other party. How is that? He sold him a cow for money; he left the money standing with him. The next day, he found him standing there and said, what are you doing here? He said, I want to collect the money. He answered, for what do you want it? He said, to buy myself a donkey. He answered, there is a donkey before you. If either one of them drew, the other one did not enter into possession; each one has to take possession separately.

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

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

Mishnah

7 For any commandment a father has to fulfill toward his son, men are obligated but women are free. For any commandment the son has to fulfill toward his father, men and women are equally obligated. For any positive commandment activated by time, men are obligated but women are free. For any positive commandment not activated by time, men and women are equally obligated. For any prohibition, whether or not activated by time, men and women are equally obligated except for “do not destroy,” “do not shear,” and “do not become impure for the dead.”Leviticus 21:1 Leanings and weavings, presentations, taking of fistfuls, burnings and neck breakings, sprinklings and receptions apply to men but not to women except for the flour offerings of the suspected wife and the nezirah; those do weave.

Halakhah

“Any commandment the father has to fulfill toward his son,” etc. “To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rabbi Akiva says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.”Leviticus 12:3 “To redeem him,” as it is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.”Exodus 13:13 To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.”Deuteronomy 11:19 To teach him a trade, Rabbi Ishmael stated: “Choose life,”Deuteronomy 30:19 that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren.”Deuteronomy 4:9 When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rabbi Akiva says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants.”Deuteronomy 30:19 How is this? Is it a commandment or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rabbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to the father, but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. How do we know that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says, “a human you shall redeem,”Exodus 13:13 “you shall circumcise”Genesis 17:11 them, “you shall study them,” “you shall know”Deuteronomy 4:9 yourself, “that you shall live.”Deuteronomy 30:19

There, we have stated: “The father bestows on his son beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and years.” How do we know beauty? “May Your deeds appear on Your servants, and Your glory on their sons.”Psalms 90:16 Strength, “strong on earth will be his descendants.”Psalms 112:2 Riches, “I was young and became old, but never saw a just man abandoned and his descendants in need of bread.”Psalms 37:25 Wisdom, “you shall teach your sons to argue about them.”Deuteronomy 11:19 Years, “that your and your sons’ days be many.”Deuteronomy 11:21 And just as he inherits five qualities, so he owes him the following five things. He feeds him, he gives him to drink, he clothes him, he puts on his shoes, he leads him. That is what is written: “This should fall on Joab’s head: sufferer from flux and from skin disease, holding the distaff, falling by the sword, and senseless.”2 Samuel 3:29 Sufferer from flux, weak. From skin disease, abandoned. Holding the distaff, uneducated. Falling by the sword, short-lived. Without bread, poor. When Solomon came to kill Joab, he said to him: Your father gave me five sentences; accept them and I can be killed. He accepted them and all of them were fulfilled on the House of David. Sufferer from flux was Rehoboam: “King Rehoboam with difficulty climbed on his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;”1 Kings 12:18 some say, he suffered from flux; some say, he was weak. Suffering from skin disease was Uzziah: “King Uzziah suffered from skin disease until the day of his death.”2 Chronicles 26:21 Holding the distaff was Joash: “They punished Joash.”2 Chronicles 24:24 Rabbi Ishmael stated: This teaches that they gave him over to hardened hoodlums who had never known a woman and they raped him the way women are raped. That is what is written: “Israel’s pride will testify against it,”Hosea 5:5 Israel’s pride will be raped in its face. Falling by the sword, this is Josiah, as it is written: “The archers shot at King Josiah,”2 Chronicles 35:23 and Rabbi Joḥanan said, this teaches that they made his body like a sieve. Rabbi Ishmael stated: 300 arrows were shot at the Eternal’s anointed. Without bread, that is Jehoiachin: “And his meal, a permanent meal was given to him.”2 Kings 25:30

There, we have stated: “If they started, one does not interrupt.” What is the start of bathing? Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: When he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered and left the public bath. He said, so it was: Rabbi Eleazar bar Yose said, he had taken off his clothes. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us, “if they started, one does not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Mount Sinai. What is the reason? “You shall make them known to your sons and grandsons,”Deuteronomy 4:10 etc., “the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.” Like the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb. Rabbi Ḥizqiah bar Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise take either the very first or the very last source. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? “Only in image a man wanders.”Psalms 39:7 “Many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust?” That is Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said, we do take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. And Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah, that you quote in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said it in his name.

Commandments which the son is obligated to fulfill toward his father. What is fear? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him, covers him, and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in. From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya said, from the old man’s. Some want to say, from his own. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: From where do we know that even if his father tells him to throw the wallet into the sea that he should obey him? That is, if he has another one and if it helps to quiet his father’s spirit. Both men and women. Only the man has the power in his hand, but the woman does not have the power in her own hand because others have disposition over her. If she is widowed or divorced, the power is in her own hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Jonathan were sitting together. There came a man and kissed Rabbi Jonathan’s foot. Rabbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him. He said to him, why did you not force him? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? One said, Rabbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all my traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father.

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulav, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the mother from the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rabbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rabbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rabbi Hila said: The reason of the rabbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rabbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rabbi Zeira said, this is in dispute. Rabbi Hila said, it is everybody’s opinion. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Zeira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rabbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,”Deuteronomy 17:3 and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation.”Deuteronomy 17:3 Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rabbi Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? “Every man a sheep for the family,”Exodus 12:3 if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rabbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? “Every man,” not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rabbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, so that it does not become an obligation.

“Except ‘do not destroy,’ ‘do not shear,’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead.’” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.”Deuteronomy 14:1 What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot.”Leviticus 21:5 One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot. And also from the following: “sons,”Deuteronomy 14:1 not daughters. Rabbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.”Deuteronomy 14:2 Both men and women. How does Rabbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order your wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaim who stated: Any size. There are Tannaim who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot,” and it says there, a bald spot. Since “bald spot”Leviticus 13:42 mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rabbi Yose bar Mamal: A priest’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the priests,”Leviticus 21:1 not to the priests’ daughters. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision, she may not leave. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

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

Mishnah

8 Any commandment which does not refer to the Land is obligatory both in the Land and outside the Land. But any commandment which does refer to the Land is obligatory only in the Land, except ʿorlah and kilaim. Rabbi Eliezer says, also new grain.

Halakhah

“Any commandment which does not refer to the Land,” etc. It is written: “These are the statutes and the rules of law which you will be required to follow in the Land.”Deuteronomy 12:1 In the Land you are required to follow them but not outside the Land. Still we say obligations depending on the Land only apply in the Land, but we might think that obligations not depending on the Land also should only apply in the Land. The verse says, “Be careful so that your heart is not led astray... and the Eternal’s anger is not inflamed against you, etc. Put these words on your hearts.”Deuteronomy 11:16-18 Even if you are exiled. “Put these words on your hearts and your persons.”Deuteronomy 11:18 You have to say, for example tefillin and the study of Torah. Just as tefillin and the study of Torah do not depend on the Land and apply both in the Land and outside the Land, so everything not depending on the Land applies both in the Land and outside the Land.

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

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

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

“Rabbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? “In all your dwelling places,”Leviticus 23:14 both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rabbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rabbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? “The first of your dough,”Numbers 15:20 not of Gentiles.

Mishnah

9 Everybody who keeps one commandment they treat well and prolong his life; he will inherit the Land. But everybody who does not keep one commandment they do not treat well, do not prolong his life, and he does not inherit the Land. Anybody who knows neither Scripture nor Mishnah nor a trade is not part of civilization, but about one who holds on to these three, the verse says: “The triple cord will not easily break.”Ecclesiastes 4:12

Halakhah

“Everybody who keeps one commandment they treat well,” etc. “Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandment,” and you say so? But we hold with one who is 50–50. If he keeps one commandment, they treat him well and prolong his life; he will inherit the Land. But if he commits one sin, they do not treat him well, do not prolong his life, and he does not inherit the Land. There, we have stated: “Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandment.” Rabbi Zeira said, one who had occasion to commit a possible sin and did not act. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one who chose one commandment which he never violated in his lifetime. What kind? Mar Uqban said, for example the honor of father and mother. Rabbi Mana said, “Happy are those on a straight path, who walk in the Eternal’s Torah,”Psalms 119:1 as if they did walk in the Eternal’s Torah. Rabbi Abun said, “Also they did no evil, in His path they went,”Psalms 119:3 as if they went in His path. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, what is written? “Happy the man who did not walk in the council of the wicked;”Psalms 1:1 since he did not walk in the council of the wicked it is as if he walked in the council of the just.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.”Ecclesiastes 10:1 Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rabbi Akiva preached: “So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws,” but “without law,” him who does not have a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found a ransom.”Job 33:23-24 Rabbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rabbi Joḥanan reported that Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand,” one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found a ransom.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found a ransom,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.”Exodus 34:7 Rabbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rabbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.”Psalms 62:13 And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rabbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

Rabbi Jeremiah said that Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked about: “Justice watches over the one ambling in simplicity but evil falsifies sin.”Proverbs 13:6 “Evil pursues the sinners but He well rewards the just.”Proverbs 13:21 “He watches over the feet of His pious, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness, etc.” “If He scoffs with the scoffers, but to the meek He gives kindness.”Proverbs 3:34 “Sages inherit honor, but shame lifts up fools.”Proverbs 3:35 Fencing makes a fence, and doors entry. And so it is, fencing makes a fence and a door entry. But Rabbi Jeremiah asked in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If somebody guards himself once, twice, and three times from a sin, from then on the Holy One, praise to Him, will guard him. What is the reason? “Look, God will do all this, twice or three times with a man.”

Rabbi Zeira said, but only if the person does not revert. What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split. Rabbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, praise to Him, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written “He forgets sin.”Exodus 34:7 And so David says: “You forgot Your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”Psalms 85:3

Mishnah

1 A man may contract a preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent, and a woman may be taken in preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent. A man may give away his adolescent daughter in preliminary marriage himself or through his agent. If a man says to a woman: Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit, be preliminarily married by that one, she is preliminarily married if one of them was worth a peruṭah, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. By this and by that one, she is preliminarily married if together they are worth a peruṭah, but if she was eating immediately what she received, she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.

Halakhah

“A man may contract a preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent,” etc. How do we know that a person’s agent may act in his stead? Rabbi Eleazar said: “The entirety of the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the evening.”Exodus 12:6 But do all of them slaughter? Does not one slaughter for the many? From here it follows that a person’s agent may act in his stead. And that would be the same as: “Everybody should take for himself a sheep for the family, a sheep to a house.”Exodus 12:3 Did everyone take? Did not one take for the many? From here it follows that a person’s agent may act in his stead. Rabbi Yose said, there is a difference, for a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge. If you wanted to say that a person may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge, you cannot say so, for Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar that a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge, but nobody may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge.

The House of Shammai say, an agent may not testify as a witness. But the House of Hillel say, an agent may testify as a witness. How is that? If he sent two, in the opinion of the House of Shammai there is an agent and two witnesses. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, all three can be agents and all three can be witnesses. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the matter is reasonable if the preliminary marriage was executed by document. But if he executed the preliminary marriage by money, he became an interested party in his testimony. Rabbi Yose said, since the Torah made him trustworthy, even if he executed the preliminary marriage by money, he did not become an interested party in his testimony. Rabbi Abba said, a case came before Rav, who admitted the agent as a witness. A person deposited his amphoras in another’s corral; the latter reneged. The case came before Rabbi Jeremiah, who admitted the agent as a witness and made him swear by the testimony of the porter.

Some baraita implies that the agent of a person acts in his stead, and some baraita implies that the agent of a person does not act in his stead. “If he definitively will substitute, if he himself will dissolve.”Numbers 30:14 We may hold that a person’s agent cannot act in his stead because Scripture excluded him. “He shall lean his hand,”Leviticus 1:4 not the hand of his son nor the hand of his slave nor the hand of his agent. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but in this case Scripture excluded him. “His master shall pierce his ear with an awl;”Exodus 21:6 “his master” but not the latter’s son, “his master” but not the latter’s agent. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but Scripture excluded him. Some Tannaim state: “He shall pierce,” to include the agent. This follows Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? “His master,” anybody acting on his master’s authority.

We have stated: “A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rabbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and to let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish she does have legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to an agent: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if the husband wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah said, “no two hands can acquire together.” Rabbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rabbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rabbi Assi: If an underage girl married herself off preliminarily with two pubic hairs, her father repudiates the marriage but not she herself. This follows neither Rabbi Joḥanan nor Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. If following Rabbi Joḥanan, there is no place for repudiation. If following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, the marriage is valid by biblical standards. It follows only Rabbi Joḥanan. Even though Rabbi Joḥanan says that everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself, he agrees in this case that the father repudiates on her behalf.

Rabbi Abba bar Cahana and Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement: there was such a case and the father came and removed her from the bridal chamber. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joshua: He had an indication that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi disagreed with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. But this does not disagree. Just as Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said there, she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings, so Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said here, she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana and Rabbi Jacob bar Idi came in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: If she was preliminarily married without agreement and was being definitively married without agreement: there was such a case and the father came and annulled her preliminary marriage.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rabbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israelite may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rabbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rabbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

Mishnah: “Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit,” etc. The Mishnah presents the case that she said, I cannot accept this one, try that one; I cannot accept this one, try that one. “By this and by that one and by that one.” Who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rabbi Judah. But for Rabbi Meir, either this or this or that one.

Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty days.’ Even if she spent it within the thirty days, she is preliminarily married; also Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rabbi Eleazar said, it follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says in the name of Rabbi Meir, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rabbi Meir. Just as Rabbi Meir said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rabbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a peruṭah? Some Tannaim state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaim state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rabbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rabbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rabbi Judah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

“Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma,” and she said, “throw it into the sea or the river,” she is not married. “Give it to a poor person,” she is married. In either case nothing came into her hand; in one case you say, she is married; in the other case you say, she is not married! Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: She wants to be married and be seen as benefiting the poor. Rabbi Phineas said, this can be interpreted either following Rabbi Zeira or Rabbi Ila.

As it was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviit of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rabbi Zeira said, the grocer becomes the agent of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rabbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself.

Here also, in the opinion of Rabbi Zeira the husband becomes the wife’s agent to benefit the poor. Rabbi Hila said, the poor person acquired it for the wife from her husband and afterwards acquired it for himself.

What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rabbi Zeira, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become an agent; according to Rabbi Hila, he does have to worry.

If the worker was deaf-mute. According to Rabbi Hila, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot acquire; according to Rabbi Zeira, he does have to worry.

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me,” then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rabbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

“ ‘Hold this tetradrachma for me’ and at the moment of delivery he said, ‘you are preliminarily married to me,’ she is preliminarily married. After delivery, if she agrees, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. ‘Here is the tetradrachma which I owe you,’ and at the moment of delivery he said, ‘you are preliminarily married to me,’ if she agrees, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. If after delivery he said, ‘you are preliminarily married to me,’ she is not preliminarily married even if both parties agree. What can he do? He should take the coin back, deliver it again and say, ‘you are preliminarily married to me.’ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this mina,’ if it turns out that a denar was missing, she is not preliminarily married. If one denar was bad, she is preliminarily married if he replaces it. If he was counting the coins into her hand, she can change her mind any time before he finishes.” Rabbi Eleazar said, she is preliminarily married by the first coin; the remainder is a condition. Rabbi Joḥanan said, only after he completes the count. It was said that Rabbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this.

A person gave a pledge to another; the other reneged on it. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Hila, and Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa all three say it was a deal about flax seed and he had given partial payment. The case came before Rabbi Joḥanan, who said: Either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rabbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole. Is a woman usually acquired split? Rabbi Ḥaggai and Rabbi Yudan both said, a sale usually may be split, the acquisition of a wife cannot be split.

Mishnah

2 “Be preliminarily married to me by this cup of wine,” but it turned out to be honey; “of honey” but it turned out to be wine; “by this silver denar,” but it turned out to be of gold, “gold denar” but it turned out to be of silver; “on condition that I am poor,” but he turned out to be rich; “rich” but he turned out to be poor; she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Simeon said, if he tricked her by understatement she is preliminarily married. “On condition that I am a priest,” and he turned out to be a Levite; “a Levite” and he turned out to be a priest; “a Gibeonite” and he turned out to be a bastard, “a bastard” and he turned out to be a Gibeonite; “a villager” and he turned out to be from a walled city; “from a walled city” and he turned out to be from a village; “on condition that my house is close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far, “far” and it turned out to be close; “on condition that I have a grown-up daughter or slave-girl” and it turned out that he had none, “on condition that I do not” and it turned out that he did have; “on condition that I have children” and it turned out that he had none, “on condition that I do not have children” and it turned out that he did have. In all these cases she is not preliminarily married even if she says, I had the intention to be preliminarily married to him regardless. The same holds if she misinformed him.

Halakhah

“Be preliminarily married to me by this cup of wine,” etc. If this cup and its contents together have the value of a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “Acquire it and its contents,” if its contents are worth a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married; she acquired only its contents.

“Rabbi Simeon said, if he tricked her by understatement she is preliminarily married.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Simeon agrees that she is not preliminarily married if he tricked her by misstating his personal status. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “ ‘On condition that I am a priest,’ and he turned out to be a Levite.”

One understands “Priest and he turns out to be a Levite.” “Levite and he turns out to be a priest”? She may say, I do not want one who is haughty toward me. One understands “from a walled city” and he turned out to be a villager; “from a village” and he turned out to be from a walled city? She may say, I want to be in a quiet place. “On condition that my house is close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far. One understands “close and it turned out to be far.” “Far and it turned out to be close”? She can say, I want to take a walk going and returning. “On condition that I have a daughter or slave-girl hairdresser” and it turned out that he had none, that one understands. “On condition that I have” and it turned out that he did not have? Think of it, if he had one at the end of the world! Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, the Mishnah reads: “A daughter to dress your hair, and a slave-girl to serve you.”

Mishnah

3 Somebody said to his agent: “Go and marry me preliminarily to woman X at place Y”; if he went and married him preliminarily at another place, she is not preliminarily married. “She is at place Y;” if he married him preliminarily at another place, she is preliminarily married.

Halakhah

“Somebody said to his agent: ‘Go and marry me preliminarily to woman X,’” etc. The Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Eleazar. But following Rabbi Eleazar she is preliminarily married unless the husband tells the agent: Do not preliminarily marry me to her except at place X and he went and executed the preliminary marriage at another place.

“She is preliminarily married,” Rabbi Eleazar agrees that he only indicates a place; the rabbis agree that he only indicates a place.

Mishnah

4 If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turns out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. For all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman.

Halakhah

“If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman,” etc. We have stated defects. Which vows? Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: If she vowed not to eat meat, or not to drink wine, or not to wear dyed garments. Rabbi Zeira said, the fine linen garments which come from Beth Shean have the status of dyed garments. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he said to her, “on condition that you have no obligation of vows on you.” But if he said to her, “on condition that you have no vow on you,” then even if she made a vow not to eat carob fruit it is a vow.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaim state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rabbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage.” Some Tannaim state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaim state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rabbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If he married her definitively without inquiry.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. But if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she can claim her ketubah. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she has no ketubah. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But she needs a bill of divorce from him even if he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Mana: In case he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage, what does Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish say? Let us hear from the following: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” This implies that if he proved his case, she can claim her ketubah. What do you see to say, if he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage! What case are we dealing with? Since afterwards it is stated: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” If he made it conditional, could he not also claim for visible ones? But did not the colleagues say before Rabbi Yose: Should we say that the following statement disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish? “Once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” This implies that if the husband proved his case, she has no claim to ketubah. But by the statement of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, she has a claim to ketubah. Rabbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: The Mishnah deals with the case that he definitively married her but did not sleep with her; Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish speaks about the case that he definitively married her and slept with her; I am saying that she was acceptable to him since he took her to bed.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rabbi Ḥamai bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” Is this not of the visible defects? Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it is large or small, whether it is on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it is on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rabbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar: its measure is half a ubiquitous gold piece. Rabbi Radifa, Rabbi Jonah: Rabbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. Rabbi Samuel the son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun came: Rabbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addition, for a man women’s breasts.

Mishnah

5 Somebody who preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah, or one woman with the value of half a peruṭah, is not preliminarily married even if afterwards he sent presents, since he sent them based on the earlier preliminary marriage. The same holds for an underage boy who contracted a preliminary marriage.

Halakhah

“If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rabbi Simeon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rabbi Mana asked before Rabbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Yudan in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If the buyer insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said there: You should know that Rabbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rabbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rabbi Zeira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

Mishnah

6 If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter or two sisters simultaneously, they are not preliminarily married. It happened to five women, among them two sisters, that a man collected a bag of figs from their own property in the Sabbatical year and said: All of you are preliminarily married to me by this bag, and one of them accepted for all of them. Then the Sages said, the sisters are not preliminarily married.

Halakhah

“If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.

Rabbi Eleazar said, sisters are not preliminarily married but in the case of purification sacrifices it atoned. How is that? If one slaughtered two purification offerings for one transgression, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten. If one slaughtered two reparation offerings for one damage, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If the first one was slaughtered not for its purpose but the second for its purpose, it did atone since the first, which was not for its purpose, becomes acceptable only through the purpose stated later. But if the first was slaughtered for its purpose but the second not for its purpose: if the first atoned for what may the second atone? For impurity which occurred between the first and the second. But for Passover sacrifices it did not atone since the Passover sacrifice is only for the meat to be eaten. This does not follow Rabbi Nathan since Rabbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s duty by sprinkling the blood without eating.

Mishnah

7 If somebody uses his portion either from most holy or simply holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage, she is not preliminarily married. From Second Tithe there is no preliminary marriage whether unintentionally or intentionally, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage, unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage. From Temple property, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage, unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, unintentionally he performed preliminary marriage, intentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage.

Halakhah

Rabbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. There, we have stated: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.”

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, Rabbi Meir learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rabbi Judah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi? “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.”Numbers 18:18 And what is the reason of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you,” even after slaughtering. How does Rabbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

There, we have stated: “Ḥallah of the ʿam haʾareṣ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demai.”

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rabbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rabbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rabbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rabbi Meir, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rabbi Judah, what he did is done. Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rabbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If a priest preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rabbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rabbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rabbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rabbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rabbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rabbi Meir, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rabbi Judah, what he did is done.

When Rabbi Meir expired, Rabbi Judah decided and said, Rabbi Meir’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rabbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rabbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rabbi Eleazar said, by its body, he meant by the expected goodwill from it. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Bevai in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

“With Second Tithe.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah. Rabbi Zeira said, in one case he did not intend, in one case she did not intend. Rabbi Jonah said, the sanctified he did not intend, Second Tithe she did not intend. Rabbi Abin said, the sanctified neither he nor she intended; Second Tithe he intended but she did not.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Pedaiah: Intentionally desecrated Temple property becomes profane without redemption. But did we not state: “In error,” that excludes intention? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is. Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The excluded well-being offerings become profane without redemption. But did we not state: “From the sancta,” not all sancta? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is.

There, we have stated: “An animal that is found as from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder in every direction.” The elder Rabbi Hoshaiah said, this was taught for their monetary value. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But in every case they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. This is difficult. Can a purification offering become an elevation offering? Rabbi Ḥanina said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Jacob bar Ḥama, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse. Rabbi Zeira said, as you say there, it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings.

Mishnah

8 If a man performs preliminary marriage using ʿorlah, or kilaim of a vineyard, or an ox sentenced to be stoned, or a calf whose neck was broken, or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease, the hair of a nazir, or the first-born of a she-ass, or meat cooked in milk, or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct, the woman is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

Halakhah

“If a man performs preliminary marriage using ʿorlah, or kilaim of a vineyard,” etc. The first-born of a she-ass, Rabbi Eleazar said, may be used to preliminarily marry a woman; Rabbi Joḥanan said, it may not be used to preliminarily marry a woman. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: The first-born of a she-ass may be used to preliminarily marry a woman by an argument de minore ad majus. Since you say that a firstling, whose prohibition cannot be lifted during its lifetime, can be used to preliminarily marry a woman, this one, whose prohibition can be lifted during its lifetime, how much more so? What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and redeemed it without the knowledge of its owner. Rabbi Eleazar said, it is not redeemed. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is redeemed. A baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar and disagrees with him. A baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar: If somebody steals the first-born of another person’s she-ass, he has to pay double restitution. The end disagrees with him: For even though he has no interest in it now he will later. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar: One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman. Rabbi Eleazar explained that, after breaking of the foal’s neck. For Rabbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that after its neck was broken it cannot be redeemed.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rabbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rabbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rabbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rabbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, how much more so after breaking of its neck? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Zeira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, so that you would not say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rabbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rabbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

“If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, he is married.” Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Because it is not its proceeds. Rabbi Ḥanina said, this means that one cannot marry preliminarily with the proceeds of robbery.

Mishnah

9 If a man performs preliminary marriage using heaves, or tithes, or gifts to priests, or money for purification, or the ashes of purification, she is married even if he is an Israelite.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina? “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.”Numbers 5:10 How does Rabbi Joḥanan explain this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: “A vow that no priests or Levites should have any advantage from me: they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These priests and Levites should not have any advantage from me; let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “One may say, here you have a tetradrachma and give this firstling to my daughter’s son, a priest.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two priests and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give it whole to my daughter’s son, a priest.

They asked before Rabbi Zeira: a priest to an Israelite, Rabbi forbids. What does Rabbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina, why is a priest to an Israelite forbidden, not because it looks bad? Also Rabbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israelite to an Israelite it is forbidden because it looks bad. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “priests and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said: ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’Leviticus 22:15 but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says: ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’Micah 3:11 The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written: ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be plowed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’Micah 3:12”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using heaves, or tithes, or gifts to priests, or water for purification, or the ashes of purification, she is married even if he is an Israelite.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a priest.

Mishnah

1 If somebody said to another: go and marry me preliminarily to woman X, and the agent went and married her preliminarily himself, she is preliminarily married. Also, if somebody said to a woman, you are preliminarily married to me after thirty days and another man married her preliminarily within these thirty days, she is preliminarily married to the second man; as a daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may eat heave. From today and after thirty days, and another man married her preliminarily within these thirty days, she is and is not preliminarily married. As a daughter of an Israelite married to a priest or daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she may not eat heave.

Halakhah

“If somebody says to another: go and marry me preliminarily to woman X,” etc. He looks out for himself and is rewarded since his acquisition is valid, but he behaved treacherously. The same holds for monetary transactions. If somebody says to another: go and buy for me goods X, and the agent went and bought the merchandise for himself, he looks out for himself and is rewarded since his acquisition is valid, but he behaved treacherously. Rabbi Zeira cursed those who saw another person trying to buy certain goods and outbid him. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Also about one who organizes a group against another, the rabbis quote: “A person who prevents a good thing coming to his neighbor abandons the fear of the Almighty.”Job 6:14

If the agent was not identified as such by the witnesses and he says, I married her preliminarily for myself, but she says, to the first, the second is like one who says to a woman: I married you preliminarily but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily. Also it is as if she said to the first, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily. If she says, I do not know, the presumption is in favor of the second. If the agent was identified as such by the witnesses and he says, I married her preliminarily for myself, but she says, to the first, the presumption is in favor of the first. If she said, I do not know, both of them give a bill of divorce or, if they so desire, one gives a bill of divorce and the other marries definitively.

Therefore, if the second died within thirty days or divorced her, the preliminary marriage of the first is activated after thirty days. If he died after thirty days without having divorced her, the preliminary marriage of the first is not activated. That is what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: With any condition which was fulfilled, even if later it becomes moot, she is preliminarily married. But with any condition which was not satisfied at the moment of preliminary marriage, even if later it became moot, she is not preliminarily married.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “This animal shall be an elevation sacrifice after thirty days.” If he sold it within the thirty days, it is sold; its dedication sanctifies. If he bought it back within the thirty days, the dedication as elevation sacrifice applies to it. After thirty days, the dedication as elevation sacrifice no longer applies. But an elevation sacrifice cannot be compared to a woman! Could an elevation sacrifice be compared to a woman? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it that the second man died but he had a brother. Since she is a candidate for levirate, the preliminary marriage of the first cannot be valid. Could an elevation sacrifice be compared to a woman? Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it that he dedicated an animal with a permanent defect. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeira: There you say, my promise to Heaven is like my delivery to a private person, and here, you say so? He answered him: there, immediately, but here if he says, after thirty days.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “This shall be an elevation sacrifice for thirty days,” it is an elevation sacrifice for thirty days; after thirty days it automatically becomes profane. What is its status regarding larceny? Rabbi Joḥanan said, the larceny is clear. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Hila both say, the larceny is in doubt. “You are preliminarily married to me for thirty days,” she is preliminarily married. What is the difference between dedication and woman? We find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption but we do not find that a woman could leave without a divorce document. Where do we find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption? Following Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon says, “they enter without paying.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it according to everybody regarding a bought field. “This is your bill of divorce for thirty days”: it is no bill of divorce. Rabbi Isaac ben Rabbi Eleazar said, when do you say that she is preliminarily married? If he effected the preliminary marriage by money. But if he effected the preliminary marriage by a document, since marriage documents were inferred from divorce documents and in the case of a divorce she is not divorced, so in the case of a preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “This animal shall be an elevation sacrifice after thirty days;” if he sold it during the thirty days, it is not sold; its dedication does not sanctify. For which purpose did he say: “after thirty”? To reserve for himself shearing and work. “Pick from this field that it should be acquired by you after thirty days;” if he sold it within thirty days it is not sold, if he dedicated it, it is not sanctified. Why did he say, after thirty days? To reserve usufruct for himself. “Here you have this tetradrachma that your field should be mine after thirty days,” if he sold it within thirty days it is not sold, if he dedicated it, it is not sanctified. What is the difference between this and a woman? But if he sold it, it is sold.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaim stated: The first owner is subject to “a day or two.”Exodus 21:20-21 But some Tannaim stated: The second owner is subject to “a day or two.” Some Tannaim stated: Neither the first nor the second owners are subject to “a day or two.” But some Tannaim stated: Both first and second owners are subject to “a day or two.” He who says, the first owner is subject to “a day or two,” “if he dies in his possession.”Exodus 21:20 He who says, the second owner is subject to “a day or two,” “for he is his money.”Exodus 21:21 He who says, both first and second owners are subject to “a day or two,” the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second owners are subject to “a day or two,” for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“As daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may eat heave.” Some Tannaim state: She may not eat heave. Rabbi Hila said, the one who says that she may eat heave refers to the case that the second man is a priest, but the one who says that she may not eat heave refers to the case that the second man is not a priest.

“From today and after 30 days.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even preliminary marriages of a hundred men apply to her. Rabbi Eleazar said, it was necessary to state, even if the second preliminarily married her absolutely. Rabbi Isaac bar Tebele asked before Rabbi Eleazar: As you take it; what the first acquired, he acquired; the remainder the second finished. He answered, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? How is that? To any woman who is not acquired by one man only, even preliminary marriages of a hundred men apply.

A student asked before Rabbi Zeira: If he gave it to her in the morning on condition that he divorces her in the afternoon? A certain David was of the opinion that anything acquires; Rabbi Zeira said that after thirty days he acquires absolutely. But if the second one added absolute acquisition, I apply to her: “Her first husband who had sent her away cannot return to take her back.”Deuteronomy 24:4

If both were priests or brothers, both are forbidden. If there were three brothers; two of them contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then died. That is what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one deceased contracts levirate marriage but not the wife of two deceased men. If they were brothers, both contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then one of them died. Is she permitted to the second? As you take it, what he had acquired, he had acquired; the rest he inherits from his brother. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, she is forbidden to him. Rabbi Yose said, the reason of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi is that the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law who is not totally inside the family is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Rabbi Ḥanina said, Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said it correctly. Does she not become his because of his brother? To his brother she was forbidden; to him she should be permitted?

“A daughter of a priest married to an Israelite may not eat heave.” This is a necessary statement, even in case the second man is a priest.

Mishnah

2 If somebody says to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that I give you 200 zuz, she is preliminarily married and he is obligated to give. On condition that I give you within the next 30 days; if he gave her within 30 days she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married. On condition that I owe 200 zuz, she is preliminarily married if he has it. On condition that I show you 200 zuz, she is preliminarily married once he shows it to her; but if he showed it at his bank she is not preliminarily married.

Halakhah

“If somebody says to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz, she is divorced and has to pay.” If she did not manage to pay before he died, it was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she pays his father or his brother and is free from ḥaliṣah and levirate marriage. The same holds for preliminary marriage: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that I give you 200 zuz;” if he did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, his father or his brothers pay and she is subject to ḥaliṣah or levirate marriage.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rabbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rabbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. He said, sometime in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

If the appointed time has arrived and he says, I gave, but she says, I did not receive: Rabbi Abun said, since he tries to wrest the contract from the woman’s hand, the burden of proof is on him. Think of it, maybe there was no contract? Rabbi Yose said, since he tries to forbid her to anybody, he has to prove that they entered into the contract. A case came before Rabbi Abbahu; he said to him, go and deliver. He answered, Rabbi, I did not acquire a wife and you say to me, go and deliver! Rabbi Abbahu said, it never happened to me that one got the better of me except this one. He rephrased and said: If he changed his mind, he must deliver. If she changed her mind, she must deliver. Is that not his former judgment? He rephrased to give it the status of a court document.

The following is the way of contracting: One witness for the groom and one witness for the bride; these two together select a third in order to have two witnesses for each side. That is, if not both of them agree. But if both of them agree, both may invalidate the preliminary marriage. As, e.g., “if he said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed his story and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption.” If there was one witness for the groom, one witness for the bride, and the groom signed personally: Rabbi Abbahu said, it is a symphon, Rabbi Abba said, it is preliminary marriage, for I am saying that he did not really intend a symphon but thought that it would permit her sister to him.

Only if it is with his and her agreement. If it was symphon in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rabbi Ḥanina said, it is symphon, Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Zeira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rabbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rabbi Ḥaggai, when Rabbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rabbi Zeira said. In the first Adar, Rabbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rabbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rabbi Ḥaggai. Rabbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rabbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily,’ and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rabbi Borqai asked before Rabbi Mana: Is it the same with symphon? He answered, a symphon is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphon and preliminary marriage.

If he performed a preliminary marriage during the validity of the symphon, this is unconditional preliminary marriage. If he divorced, the students of Rabbi Jonah said, divorce touched her; Rabbi Jonah said, divorce did not touch her. When Rabbi Jonah died, his students acted following him. They said, since after 30 days she would leave without a bill of divorce, how can you say that divorce touched her? But divorce did not touch her. If he died during the time stipulated in the symphon, Rabbi Abbahu said, she is permitted to marry; Rabbi Abba said, she is not permitted to marry. Rabbi Mana asked the family of Rabbi Yose’s father: How did your master usually act? He said to him, when it was a long time, he said that she should go and marry immediately. If the time was short, he said, what is the harm if she waits? If he sent things during the validity of the symphon, Rabbi Mana said, it follows the rules of symphon; Rabbi Abba said, it follows the rules of preliminary marriage. The rabbis take note of Rabbi Mana’s opinion.

Mishnah

3 “On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married if he owns it. “On condition that I possess it at place X,” she is preliminarily married if he owns it at place X, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “On condition that I shall show you a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married and he has to show her, but if he showed it in the valley she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Meir says, any condition which is not formulated in the manner of the condition imposed on the tribes of Gad and Reuben is invalid, as it is said: “Moses said to them, if the tribes of Gad and Reuben cross over... but if they do not cross over with you armed, etc.”Numbers 32:29-30 Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said, that formulation was necessary for otherwise one would have understood that even in the Land of Canaan they should not inherit.

Halakhah

“On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” etc. Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel asked: If somebody said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take. Or maybe it is a difference since it is written: “To give to nine and a half tribes.”Numbers 34:13 It is as if he said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take from here or from there.

There, we have stated: “A person can impose a condition of his ʿeruv.” The Mishnah reads: “A person can impose a condition of his ʿeruvin.” Rabbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came,” “if they did not come”? Rabbi Meir! Which Rabbi Meir? The colleagues say, Rabbi Meir of Kiddushin. As it was stated: If somebody says to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Meir says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Yose said, it follows Rabbi Meir in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is in doubt, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say, he is a camel-donkey driver.” Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Meir said this only as a restriction. Rabbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ʿeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. Why not like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

Rabbi Judah bar Sisin, Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphon according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rabbi Meir but not also the rabbis? Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, everywhere Rabbi Meir holds that from “no” you infer “yes,” except here? Rabbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Mishnah

4 If a person contracts a preliminary marriage with a woman and then says, I was of the opinion that she was a priest’s daughter but she is a Levite, a Levite but she is a priest’s daughter, poor but she is rich, rich but she is poor, she is preliminarily married since she did not trick him.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Meir says, any condition,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, she is preliminarily married as if by witnesses. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: She is preliminarily married as a restriction.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Immi: Reuben owes to Simeon; he transferred the debt to Levi. Levi became poor; then Reuben owes nothing to Simeon. That is, if it was not done in bad faith, but if it was done in bad faith, he is obligated.

Similarly, the peddlers directed the village wax chandlers to a merchant. The merchant absconded. The case came before Rabbi Mana, who said, if it is a matter of pennies, they were negligent. If it is a matter of denars, it is the way of merchants to move around.

A person met another in the market place. He said to him, give me the linen which you hold for me. The other responded, give me the denar which you hold for me. The first said, give me the linen and deduct the denar. The case came before Rabbi Mana, who said to him, you admitted that you owe him a denar; he did not admit anything about the linen. Go and give him the denar! Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Immi will agree that this is not the law but that he obligated him so that the other would not deny his liability for the linen.

A person owed another one 100 denars on a document. He sent 50 with an agent and instructed him: If he does not surrender the document, do not give him anything. The case came before Rabbi Immi. He said, go and give it, for we know. Think of it, Rabbi Immi might die! One writes for him a proclamation of the court. If one accepts for another person, the rabbis here say, what he accepted, he accepted for the claimant.

Explanation: Rabbi Dositheos ben Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yose ben Kipper descended to collect there for the colleagues when they were slandered. They asked but were not given anything. Then they came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it. They said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith; they answered, we are unpaid trustees. They approached Rabbi Dositheos ben Rabbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it. They took Rabbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it from him. When they returned here, he went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him, why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court, their hats were a cubit wide, they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other. If somebody forgave a bond to another person: Rabbi Ḥananiah and Rabbi Mamal: one said it is forgiven; the other said it is not forgiven unless he handed over the bond.

Mishnah

5 If somebody says to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me after I convert, or after you are converted, after I am freed, or after you are freed, after your husband has died, or after your sister has died, or after your levir has given you ḥaliṣah, she is not preliminarily married. Similarly, if somebody says to another, if your wife has a daughter, she shall be preliminarily married to me, he did not say anything.

Halakhah

“If somebody says to a woman,” etc. They asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between this and one who says, “this shall be heave for this standing produce after it has been cut”? He said to them, there, it is in his power to cut; but here, it is not in his power to be freed. Rabbi Ephes asked, think of it, if she was his slave girl? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, “after you are freed,” she is made dependent on another person’s will.

The elder Rabbi Hoshaiah and Rabbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. They said, let us say something on the subject of preliminary marriage. If somebody says to his wife, here you have a peruṭah that you should be preliminarily married to me after I have divorced you, what is the rule? They laughed and got up. Rabbi Yose said, why did they laugh? Did not Rabbi Abba bar Mamal say, “after you are freed,” she is made dependent on another person’s will; and here “after you are divorced,” she is made dependent on another’s will. If you want to find a difficulty, ask the following: A person went to preliminarily marry a woman. Another person overtook him and said to her, you should know that the man who is coming to preliminarily marry you has a bad mind. In the future he will abandon you. But here you have this peruṭah that you should be preliminarily married to me after he has divorced you. What is the rule?

There, it was stated: “These orchard trees shall be qorban if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorban if it is not burned.” And it was burned. Were they sanctified retroactively? He committed larceny. If you say that it refers to the future, he did not commit larceny.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rabbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rabbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if another redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddushin of the first were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Rabbi Yannai said: More than 30 Elders voted: how do we know that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man,” that she cannot have any existence with an outsider. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir has performed ḥaliṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rabbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy, that I can answer those who insult me,” “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increases in knowledge.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rabbi Akiva since Rabbi Akiva said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law!

Samuel said, in our poverty, she needs a bill of divorce from him. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah said, “after your levir has given you ḥaliṣah”; but if he said, “after your levir has died,” she is preliminarily married. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “A one-day-old girl can be preliminarily married by money; a girl of three years and one day can be preliminarily married by intercourse.” Rabbi Mana said, the Mishnah implies this: “Similarly, if somebody says to another, if your wife has a daughter, she shall be preliminarily married to me, he did not say anything,” because she does not exist. Therefore, if she does exist, she is preliminarily married.

Mishnah

6 If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me on condition that I speak for you to the government, or work for you as a worker, she is preliminarily married if he did speak for her to the government or did work for her as a worker; otherwise she is not preliminarily married. On condition that my father agrees; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. If the father died, she is preliminarily married; if the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree.

Halakhah

“If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rabbi Immi asked: Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effect the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”

“On condition that my father agrees; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; if the father does not agree, she is not preliminarily married;” silently he does not agree. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” silently he agreed. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” silently he agreed. Rabbi Joḥanan asked Rabbi Yannai, can the Mishnah say so? He answered him, do you ask wretched Yannai to explain Kiddushin? Rabbi Yannai returned and explained the Mishnah: “On condition that my father agrees; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married,” he said on condition that the father expresses his opinion but he did not. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” as if he had given his opinion. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” as if he had given his opinion. Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Yasa: Can Rabbi Yannai explain the Mishnah as he wishes? He answered him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, Rabbi does not refrain from stating generality and detail simultaneously. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah states thus: “On condition that I have a bet kor of arable land,” a generality; “at place X,” a detail.

Mishnah

7 “I preliminarily married off my daughter but I do not know to whom I married her preliminarily,” and somebody comes and says, I married her preliminarily, he is believed. This one says, “I married her preliminarily,” and that one says, “I married her preliminarily,” both give a bill of divorce or, if they so wish, one gives a bill of divorce and the other marries her definitively.

Halakhah

“If one says, I preliminarily married off my daughter,” etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer anything for another case from this ruling. What does it mean, one does not infer anything for another case from this ruling? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In preliminary marriage, the same holds true. “I betrothd one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I married her preliminarily,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry that woman.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “This one says, I married her preliminarily, and that one says, I married her preliminarily. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if the father says, I did betrothe her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yasa, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I married her preliminarily, and that one says, I married her preliminarily, and one of them jumped the gun and married her definitively. But if he said, I married her preliminarily and then married her definitively, and another one comes and says, I married her preliminarily, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I married her preliminarily, he is not trusted in any way.

Mishnah

8 “I preliminarily married off my daughter, married her preliminarily and received her bill of divorce while she was underage,” and now she still is underage, he is believed. “I preliminarily married off my daughter, married her preliminarily and received her bill of divorce while she was underage,” and now she is an adult, he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” he is not believed whether she is underage or adult. If somebody said when dying, I have children, he is believed; I have brothers, he is not believed. If somebody preliminarily marries off his daughter without mentioning her name, the adult ones are not included.

Halakhah

“I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

The Mishnah reads: “If somebody said when dying, I have children, he is believed; I have brothers, he is not believed;” Rav said, since it is in his hand to divorce, he is to be believed. The word of Samuel agrees with this. A Persian when dying said to them: Give this man’s wife a bill of divorce. They asked him, why? Because of your wretched brother? After he died, the case came before Samuel who said, since it was in his hand to divorce, he is to be believed. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is not to be believed. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; they ganged up on him. Think of it, if he was a priest?

Rav Sheshet objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “You married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily; he is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” They said, so did it happen: Simeon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce and delivered it in front of one witness. The case came before Rabbi Joḥanan, who said, a single witness in marital matters is nothing. Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Assi in the name of Assi say: a single witness in marital matters is nothing? Rav said, one who performs a preliminary marriage in front of a single witness did not do anything. Samuel said, he who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped, but the preliminary marriage holds. Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel said three things: He who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped; one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is whipped; one who insults the court bailiff is whipped.

Mishnah

9 If somebody has two groups of daughters from two wives and he says, I preliminarily married off my older daughter, but he does not know whether the oldest of the older ones, or the oldest of the younger ones, or the youngest of the older ones who is older than the oldest of the younger ones, all are forbidden except the youngest of the younger ones, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, all are permitted except the oldest of the older ones. I preliminarily married off my younger daughter, but he does not know whether the youngest of the younger ones, or the youngest of the older ones, or the oldest of the younger ones who is younger than the youngest of the older ones, all are forbidden except the oldest of the older ones, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, all are permitted except the youngest of the younger ones.

Halakhah

“If somebody has two groups of daughters,” etc. Rav Ḥama said, two of two. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, for example I, who have two of two. The Mishnah speaks of him who has two groups of daughters from two wives, but if he has only one group and he said, the older, he married off only the oldest; if he said, the younger, he married off only the youngest.

There, we have stated: “ ‘Until before Passover’, Rabbi Meir says, until it comes, Rabbi Yose says, until it passed.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: The opinion of Rabbi Meir seems inverted; the opinion of Rabbi Yose seems to be inverted. The opinion of Rabbi Yose seems inverted: There, he says “until all the elder possibilities are exhausted, until all the younger possibilities are exhausted,” and here, he says so? He said to him: Since Ben Azai and Ben Zoma died, the perseverers disappeared; no perseverer was there until Jeremiah appeared. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, why does he needle him? Did not great mountains find this difficult, did not Rabbi Eleazar already ask before Rabbi Joḥanan, does not the opinion of Rabbi Meir seem to be inverted? He said to him, it is not inverted, the Mishnah is inverted, for in the House of Rabbi they stated: “ ‘Until before Passover’, Rabbi Meir says, until it passed, Rabbi Yose says, until it comes.” He said: We ask “until before,” and you say so? He said to him, this is a Nabatean expression, “much before Passover.” Rabbi Abin said, everybody agrees that he is permitted on Passover. Where do they disagree? The day before Passover. One of them says, until it passed, the other until it comes.

Mishnah

10 If somebody says to a woman, I married you preliminarily, but she says, you did not marry me preliminarily, he is forbidden her relatives but she is permitted his relatives. If she says, you married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily, she is forbidden his relatives but he is permitted her relatives. “I am preliminarily married to you,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to my daughter; he is forbidden the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives.

Halakhah

“If somebody says to a woman,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable that Rabbi Meir does not disagree in this case. Rabbi Mana said, the entire series implies that he disagrees. Since there, where they are all older and younger, you say that Rabbi Meir disagrees, so here, where all are old compared to young or young compared to old, he certainly disagrees.

Mishnah

11 “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” but she says, you are only preliminarily married to me; he is forbidden the relatives of the young woman, and the young woman is permitted his relatives; he is permitted the relatives of the old woman, and the old woman is forbidden his relatives.

Halakhah

“I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, one induces him to give a bill of divorce, and one forces him to pay a fine. Think of it, if he was a Fellow and knew that he would be obligated for a bill of divorce and a fine; if he went and married her sister, would one force the divorce of the certain because of the doubtful?

Mishnah

12 In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father. Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israelite woman married to a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite. And in any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part. Who is this? A widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥaliṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a Gibeonite or a bastard. In any case where a preliminary marriage with him is impossible but with others is possible, the child is a bastard. Who is this? This is one having sexual relations with any woman forbidden in the Torah because of incest or adultery. And in any case where a preliminary marriage is impossible with anybody, the child follows the mother. Who is this? The child of a slave girl or a Gentile woman.

Halakhah

“In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rabbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israelite woman married to a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite.” Rabbi Abin understood this from the second part: In any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rabbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥaliṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a bastard or a Gibeonite.” Could he not have objected to him: In the case of a disqualified priest married to the daughter of an Israelite there is no sinful marriage but the child follows the blemished part? In the case of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried, there is a sinful marriage but the child is unblemished since Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried is enabled for the priesthood. What is the reason? For she is an abomination, she is an abomination but her children are not an abomination.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified women against qualified men but not qualified women against disqualified men nor disqualified men against qualified women. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take,” which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

A proselyte came to Rabbi Yose and asked him, is it permitted to marry a bastard girl? He answered him, it is permitted. He continued and came to Rabbi Judah, who answered him, it is permitted but you should know that the children of such a man would be bastards before Heaven. He returned to Rabbi Yose and told him, since you knew that, why did you permit it to me at the start? He replied, I answered you what you asked me. Rabbi Yose said, the proselyte can be compared to cotton. If one wants to use it with wool it is permitted, with linen it is permitted.

One understands “the daughter of an Israelite to a bastard or a Gibeonite,” for it is written: “A bastard shall not come into the Eternal’s congregation.” Why does the verse say: “of his shall not come”? To disqualify. Rabbi Abbu said, what does mamzer mean? “A strange defect.” This disagrees with what Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, “God installs singles as heads of families,” even if there is a male bastard at one end of the world and a female bastard at the other, the Holy One, praise to Him, brings them and copulates them with one another. Rav Huna said, a bastard does not live more than thirty days. In the days of Rabbi Berekhiah, a Babylonian immigrated here; he was informed that this was a bastard. He said to him, support me. He told him, tomorrow you will stand up in the community and I shall look for an allowance for you. He came and sat during the sermon. When he finished the sermon, he said, our brothers, support this man for he is a bastard. After the congregation had left, he said to him, rabbi, I requested material support from you but you destroyed this man’s life. He answered, by your life, life I gave you for Rabbi Abba, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: A bastard lives only thirty days. When? If he is not publicly known. But when he is publicly known, he survives.

When Rabbi Zeira 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. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rabbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If he is not publicly known. Therefore, if he is publicly known, he lives.

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rabbi Simeon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rabbi Meir explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rabbi Simeon ben Judah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rabbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rabbi Yannai in the name of Rabbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, the child is a bastard. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rabbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rabbi Jonathan went with Rabbi Judah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rabbi Zeira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rabbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rabbi Bevai said before Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rabbi Zeira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, so that you do not injure them.

Even though Rabbi Simeon ben Judah said in the name of Rabbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable; they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rabbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female she would be blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if it was a female, she would be blemished for the priesthood.

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There, they state that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies even from a married woman. Rabbi Tanḥum bar Pappus sent and asked Rabbi Yose about two cases from Alexandria, one involving an unmarried woman, the other a married woman. About the married woman, he wrote him: “A bastard shall not come into the Eternal’s congregation.”Deuteronomy 23:1 About the unmarried woman he wrote, be inventive, for you are not forewarned about the holy daughters of Israel. He said to Rabbi Mana, take and sign; he signed. He said to Rabbi Berekhiah, take and sign, but he did not agree. After they ended the session Rabbi Mana was standing with Rabbi Berekhiah and asked him, why did you not sign? He answered, did not Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa say that there, they state that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies even from a married woman? He said, praised be the Merciful that I had not heard this doctrine, for if I had heard this doctrine I would not have signed and people would have said that the student disagrees with his teacher. Mar Uqban said, here, you say that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies from an unmarried woman, but about a married woman, nothing was said. The next morning he came and wanted to sign. He said to him, there is no space.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rabbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rabbi Gamliel ben Rabbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rabbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

“Who is this? The child of a slave girl or a Gentile.” There, we have stated: “Except what he has from a slave girl or a Gentile.”

A slave woman: “The woman and her children shall belong to her owner.” A Gentile woman. Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them, your daughter you shall not give to his son.” And it is written: “For he will divert your son from following Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son.

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rabbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come and be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant to send away all foreign women and those born to them, etc.” He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them,” etc. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.

Mishnah

13 Rabbi Tarfon says, bastards can cleanse themselves. How is this? If the bastard married a slave girl, the child is a slave. When he is manumitted, the son is a free person. Rabbi Eliezer said, he is a slave and a bastard.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Tarfon says, bastards can cleanse themselves,” etc. The Mishnah means: A bastard is permitted to marry a slave girl. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Simlai instructed in Antioch, Rabbi Simai instructed in Kefar Seforaia: Practice follows Rabbi Tarfon.

“It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: It can happen that a man and a woman give birth to five nations. How is this? A Gentile had a male and a female slave who had children: these are Gentiles. If one of them became Jewish, one is a proselyte and one a Gentile. If their master converted and converted them as slaves, any children are slaves.” Rabbi Zeira said, this implies that if a Gentile had intercourse with a slave girl, the child is a slave. “If he manumitted the slave girl and she had a son, the child is a bastard. If afterwards he manumitted the slave and he fathered a child, he is a freed slave.” “It can happen that a man sells his father to pay his mother’s ketubah. How is this? Somebody has a male and a female slave and they have a son. He manumitted the female slave, married her, and willed all his property to her son. That is one who sells his father to pay his mother’s ketubah.”

“Rabbi Meir says, bastards will not be purified in the future, since it is said: ‘The bastard will dwell in Ashdod’; one carried garbage to garbage and deviant to deviant. Rabbi Yose says, bastards will be purified in the future, since it is said: ‘I shall pour pure water on you and purify you.’Ezekiel 36:25 Rabbi Meir said to him, but it says only, ‘from all your impurities and all your abominations I shall purify you.’ Rabbi Yose said to him, if it had only said, ‘from all your impurities and all your abominations’ and then stopped, I would have agreed with you. But since it adds ‘I shall purify you,’ from bastardy.” Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rav Joseph, practice in the future will not follow Rabbi Yose.

Mishnah

1 Ten marriage classes returned from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, Israelites, desecrated priests, proselytes, freedmen, bastards, dedicated ones, silenced ones, foundlings. Priests, Levites, and Israelites are permitted to marry one another. Levites, Israelites, proselytes, freedmen, and desecrated priests are permitted to marry one another. Proselytes, freedmen, bastards, silenced ones, and foundlings are permitted to marry one another.

Halakhah

“Ten marriage classes returned from Babylonia,” etc. Priests, Levites, and Israelites, as described: “There came of the Children of Israel, and of the priests, the Levites, both the servants and the doorkeepers, and the Temple slaves, to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes.”Ezra 7:7

“Desecrated priest.” Following “from the sons of priests, the family of Habaiah, the family of Hakkoz... they tried to find their genealogical documents; but they were not found and they were freed from priesthood. And the Tirshatha told them.”Ezra 2:61-63 Why was he called hattirshatha? Because they permitted him to drink of the wine. Hattirshatha, “I was the king’s cup bearer.” “That they should not eat from what was dedicated as holy.” Therefore, from outside holy food they might eat? Rabbi Yose said, great is the permanence of the status quo ante. Since they were accustomed to eat there, they may also eat here. One understands there, as it is written: “Put up signposts for yourself.”Jeremiah 31:20 What can one say here? Following him who said, they accepted tithes voluntarily. “Until a priest is appointed for Urim and Thummim.” But were there any Urim and Thummim then, in the Second Temple? But he is like a person who says until the dead are resurrected, until David’s son comes.

Did those daughters of Barzilai’s convert in the name of Heaven or not in the name of Heaven? If you say that they converted in the name of Heaven should not their descendants eat most holy sacrifices? But if you say that they converted not in the name of Heaven, then their descendants should not eat even outside sancta. Even if you say that they converted in the name of Heaven, is a female proselyte not like a prostitute for the priesthood? Explain it that they were not daughters but daughters of daughters. But if they were daughters of daughters, they are like Israel! But following Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon said, a proselyte who converted at less than three years and one day of age. She had no intent to immerse herself but her mother immersed her, if then later she immerses herself for the holiness of Israel, each of them then becomes a proselyte and a proselyte is like a prostitute for the priesthood.

Any person who converts because of love, i.e., a man because of a woman or a woman because of a man, or proselytes of the king’s table, or lion proselytes, or the proselytes of Mordecai and Esther, one does not accept. Rav said, they are proselytes; one does not reject them in the way one has to reject proselytes from the start. But one accepts them; they need to be received in a friendly way; perhaps they became proselytes for God.

“Proselytes,” meaning “everyone who separated himself from the impurities of the peoples of the earth to join them.”Ezra 6:21 Freedmen, as in “and all the Gibeonites, etc.” Bastards. Rabbi Simeon said, it is written: “And the following came up from Salt Hill, Plowing Hill.”Ezra 2:60 From Salt Hill, that is Babylon. Plowing Hill refers to silenced ones and foundlings. Kerub means the bastards; the young are those who go after their eyes; Addon, for they were saying, there is no judgment and no Master. Rabbi Ḥizqiah changed the wording: These are those who went after their eyes and said, there is no judgment and no judge. And Immer, who rebelled against God by their evil deeds. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Phineas: They publicized themselves like the seam of a garment. Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: They would have been worthy of being turned into a salt hill, but Divine justice was silent for them. Plowing Hill.

“The dedicated ones.” Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.”Joshua 9:27 One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.”2 Samuel 21:2 Why did he exclude them? Because “there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.”2 Samuel 21:1 David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. Where is this shown for the sin of foreign worship? “Beware, so that you are not seduced,”Deuteronomy 11:16-17 etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” Where is this shown for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.”Jeremiah 3:2-3 What is the punishment? “Rain showers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. Where is this shown for the murderers? “Because blood will distort the Land.”Numbers 35:33 Where is this shown for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.”Proverbs 25:14 David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the Urim and Thummim. That is what is written: “David asked before the Eternal”2 Samuel 21:1 by Urim and Thummim. Rabbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.”Zephaniah 2:3 What does “Whose Law is Work” mean? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.”2 Samuel 21:1 “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.”2 Samuel 21:6 He said to them, what use is it for you that they are killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.”2 Samuel 21:4 He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they are killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me.” At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. How do we know that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.”Deuteronomy 13:18 How do we know that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.”Exodus 20:20 This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. How do we know that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.”Deuteronomy 7:12 But these, nothing of this is found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.”2 Samuel 21:2 And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.”Nehemiah 3:26 Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

It is written: “The King said, I shall give.” “The King took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah whom she had borne to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth,”2 Samuel 21:8 etc. “Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child until the day of her death,”2 Samuel 6:23 and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. “He gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal; all seven fell together.”2 Samuel 21:9 Written defectively, without a yod. That refers to Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul, who was great in the Torah and David intended to save him from their hand. David said, I let them pass by the altar and anyone received by the altar will be mine. He let each pass by the altar, prayed for him, and the altar moved and received him. This is what is written: “I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision about me!”Psalms 57:3 For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. “They were killed on the first days of harvest;”2 Samuel 21:9 it is written “the barley harvest.” “Rizpah daughter of Aiah took a sack and laid it out on the rock.”2 Samuel 21:10 What does “on the rock” mean? Rabbi Hoshaiah said, she was reciting: “The rock, perfect is His action.”Deuteronomy 32:4 Rabbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to desecration of the Name it is written: “Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight.”Deuteronomy 21:23 But referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: “From the start of harvest until water was poured on them.”2 Samuel 21:10 This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marheshvan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked attached proselytes. They would say that even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven how much more so? There is no Power like your God and no people like your people. Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: “Solomon counted all proselytes and appointed from them 70,000 carriers and 80,000 hewers of stone in the mountains.”2 Chronicles 2:16-17

Rav Huna said that in the days of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah they tried to include them. Rabbi Abbahu inverts the wording: In the days of Rabbi Eleazar they said, who could purify the altar’s part? That implies that Joshua excluded them. He excluded them only as disqualified for marriage. If you would say, disqualified because of slavery, then the rapist of a Gibeonite girl should not have to pay the fine, but we have stated: “The rapist of a Gibeonite girl has to pay the fine.” Rabbi Eleazar said, he cursed them as a snake, as it is said: “But now you are cursed.”Joshua 9:23 And it is written: “The people of Israel said to the Hivite.”Joshua 9:7 But were they Hivites? They acted like the snake which said, I know that the Holy One, praise to Him, did say “because on the day you eat from it, you will die a death.”Genesis 2:17 I shall go and trick them so that they eat and will be punished and I shall inherit the earth for myself. So these people acted; they said, we know that the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: “You shall certainly ban them, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, as the Eternal, your God, has commanded you.” And it is written: “You shall not conclude a covenant with them.”Deuteronomy 7:2 We shall go and trick them that they conclude a covenant with us. As you take it, if they kill us, they violate their oath. If they let us live, they violated the divine decision. In any case, they will be punished and we shall inherit the Land.

Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds and Palmyrenes. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. There, we have stated: “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore, the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable.

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

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

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

Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will only deal with the tribe of Levi. What is the reason? “The refiner will sit, the purifier of silver, and will refine them,” etc. Rabbi Zeira said, like a man who only drinks from a clean cup. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, because we are not Levites, should we lose? Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Abbahu said, also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will deal with them charitably. What is the reason? “They will be for the Eternal presenters of an offering in charity.”

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

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“What is a silenced one,” etc. What does “investigated one” mean? Investigate him!

The brother of Rabbi Judah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That is, if the baby is not moving. But a baby which is moving needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. This parallels what Rabbi Yannai said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs cannot be proven by possession.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife: “The midwife took and wound a red string around his hand to indicate that this one was born first.”Genesis 38:28 A caravan, as Rabbi Abba, the brother of Rabbi Judah bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once it was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there: “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rabbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.

Mishnah

3 Any who are forbidden to marry in the congregation are permitted to marry one another but Rabbi Judah forbids. Rabbi Eliezer says, certain with certain are permitted, certain with questionable, questionable with certain, and questionable with questionable are forbidden. The following are questionable: the silenced one, the foundling, and the Samaritan.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jeremiah said, as a matter of principle, an Israelite with an injured testicle may marry a female bastard. Rabbi Yose said, it applies only to family disabilities, not to bodily defects. The strength of Rabbi Yose comes from the statement of Rabbi Ḥilqiah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this only for an Israelite with an injured testicle, but not a priest, since, as you say there, if he is certainly a priest he is forbidden to marry a convert; here also, he is certainly an Israelite and forbidden to marry a female bastard.

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

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

There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether the child is a nine-months’ child of the first brother or a seven-months’ of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rabbi 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 Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

Mishnah

4 One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family has to check four mothers who are eight: Her mother, and her maternal grandmother, her mother’s paternal grandmother and great-grandmother. But for a Levitic or Israelite woman one adds another generation.

Halakhah

“One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this is Rabbi Meir’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is no suspicion of descent from a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rabbi Meir says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rabbi Meir says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Josiah: He checks through his female relatives. To Rabbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rabbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.”Numbers 5:28 If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Judah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your ancestors act like this? A priest came to Rabbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers who are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

“But for Levites or Israelites one adds another generation.” Does it not turn out that one is more stringent for an Israelite than for a priest? Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, in both cases the Sages demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.

Mishnah

5 One does not investigate from the altar and before, or from the podium and before. From every family whose ancestors were known as public officials and welfare administrators one marries into the priesthood; no investigation is necessary. Rabbi Yose says, also anybody signing as witness in the ancient archive of Sepphoris. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, also anyone who ever was registered in the king’s army.

Halakhah

“One does not investigate from the altar and before,” etc. It is written: “You certainly shall put a king over you.”Deuteronomy 17:15 This refers not only to a king; how do we know to add public officials, administrators of welfare, clerks of the court, and those who whip with a lash? The verse says, “from amidst your brothers you shall appoint a king over you,”Deuteronomy 17:15 anybody whom you appoint over you shall only be from the select among your brothers. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: “Their distinguished lineage in the army in war.”1 Chronicles 7:40 The merit of their lineage supports them in war. So far from tradition; from the words of the Torah? “No bastard shall come into the Eternal’s congregation.”Deuteronomy 23:3 “No person injured in his testicles shall come, etc.”Deuteronomy 23:2 What is written afterwards? “When you encamp against your enemies, etc.”Deuteronomy 23:10

Mishnah

6 The daughter of a male desecrated priest is always disqualified for the priesthood. The daughter of an Israelite who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood. The daughter of a desecrated priest who married an Israelite woman is disqualified for the priesthood. Rabbi Judah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the daughter of an Israelite who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood and the daughter of a proselyte who married an Israelite woman is qualified for the priesthood, but the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is disqualified for the priesthood, both proselytes and freedmen, even for ten generations, unless the mother is from Israel. Rabbi Yose says, even the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood.

Halakhah

“The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted. What is the difference between them? A priest who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israelite who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “Rabbi Judah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.” He explains that Rabbi Judah only comes to add. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

Example. The elder Rabbi Hoshaiah and Rabbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rabbi Joḥanan ran and whispered into Rabbi Hoshaiah’s ear: May a priest who is injured in his testicles marry the daughter of converts? He asked him, what did he tell you? He answered, a question which a carpenter, son of carpenters, cannot resolve. He did not ask me about a convert, since she is like a whore for him. He did not ask about an Israelite daughter, whom he will desecrate. He asked only about the daughter of converts! Is the daughter of converts not an Israelite? You have to explain it following Rabbi Judah, who said, the daughter of a male convert has the status of the daughter of a desecrated male.

If a priest had intercourse with a divorcee and fathered a daughter, what is the status of the daughter’s daughter? Rabbi Ḥananiah and Rabbi Mana, one said she is qualified, the other said she is disqualified. The one who said that she is qualified asked the one who said that she is disqualified: Is the daughter of a male desecrated priest not disqualified? Is the broomstick desecrated one not disqualified? Why is she disqualified?

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

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

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

Mishnah

7 If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed. Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed. Rabbi Judah says, they are believed.

Halakhah

“If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rabbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah said, they can be believed; Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.”Deuteronomy 21:17 If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaim state on the first case that he is believed. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaim state, he is believed. Rabbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

It was stated: He is believed about the adult but is not believed about the young. Who is adult? Rabbi Zeira said, any one who has a wife and children; Rabbi Abbahu, any one who has a wife. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Abbahu: A proselyte who was circumcised but did not immerse himself but has children; if he said, I was circumcised but did not immerse, he is believed and one immerses him even on the Sabbath because of parsimony, the words of Rav Judah. What does Rabbi Abbahu do with this? He explains it, because who cares?

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“If somebody empowered his agent,” etc. It was stated: “If a man and a woman come from overseas; he says, she is my wife, and she says, he is my husband. One will not execute anybody because of her being a married woman. If they become generally known, one will execute because of her being a married woman.” How long does it take to be generally known? Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Up to thirty days. There, we have stated: “A toddler who is found near cake-dough with a piece of dough in his hand, Rabbi Meir declares pure but the Sages declare it impure, for toddlers will slap their hands on cake-dough.” Does one burn because of general knowledge? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, one does not execute because of general knowledge. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Everybody agrees that one executes because of general knowledge. Where do they disagree? About burning. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge but one does not burn because of general knowledge. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, since one executes because of general knowledge, one also burns because of general knowledge. And how do we know that one executes because of general knowledge? Rabbi Samuel, the son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is written: “He who hits his father or his mother shall be put to death.” But is it certain that this one is his father? Is it not only general knowledge that he is his father? But it says, one executes. So here also one executes.

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“One man should not be alone with two women,” etc. Rabbi Abun said, when has this been said? With decent men. But with profligates she should not be alone even with a hundred men. It was stated: A one-day-old child who died is for his father, his mother, and all his relatives like one fully grown. Not only if he died when one day old but even if he was alive when his head and most of his body were born. He is carried out at the bosom and buried by one woman and two men; Abba Shaul says even one man and two women. It is obvious that Rabbi Simeon will agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul does not need to agree with Rabbi Simeon since there is no sexual desire in the cemetery.

Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son, or your daughter incites you.”Deuteronomy 13:7 “Your mother in secret,” “your daughter in secret.” A man can be alone with his mother and live with her, with his daughter and live with her, with his sister and does not live with her, and sleep with them with their skins touching. Rabbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The daughter with her father up to the age of three years and one day; the son with his mother up to the age of nine years and one day. If they get older, each one sleeps in his own clothing. It was stated: If two people sleep in the same bed, each one covers himself with his own garment and recites the Shemaʿ; if his son or daughter were small it is permitted. There, they say: A man with his wife is permitted. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: A man with his wife is problematic.

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

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

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

Abba Gorion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul: Most donkey drivers are wicked, most camel drivers are in order, most sailors are pious, most bastards are intelligent, most slaves are beautiful, most children of reputed parents are bashful, most sons look like their mother’s brothers. The qualified physicians go to hell, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amalek. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles, smash the head of the best of snakes; the best qualified among women is a sorceress. Blessed is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.

Rabbi Meir says: A person can earn his livelihood from anywhere. Blessed is he who sees his parents in an esteemed trade; woe to him who sees his parents in a degrading trade.

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

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

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

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